Tell your story.

For me, I had heard about god and wasn't sure about it. We were Jewish, and I didn't really find any reason to question it until I heard about Santa Claus. I discovered, much to my amazement, that some of my friends did believe in Santa. I would ask the mothers about it, they just said it was a cute thing and not to clue them in that it wasn't real. I think I was about 10. I realized that if people would believe in Santa while the people telling them knew it was a lie, then god must be in the same family of myth.

I never really believed in it. I don't know why. I've always had christian friends. I think it was somewhere between 10-13 that i found out that the whole thing was kinda unrealistic.

I attended St. Bernadine’s Catholic Grammar School for eight years, reaching the end of my mercilessly indoctrinated religious faith sometime in fifth grade after the baloney had really gotten too deep.

In first grade, which was partly in the Ascension Catholic school, I didn’t know quite what to make of the nun in her costume, calling her "Mother Monkey", but I did happen to glimpse a girl’s leg when she sat down much too quickly, but then I promptly forgot about sexual inclinations until 6th grade, when I fell in love with my nun, Sister Theophilia.

It was not that I was afraid to be impure for all these years; I just wasn’t ready, having been born in December. However, a deep yearning arose for Theophilia, but, alas, she and Father Kramer soon quit the Church and ran off together.

I was shocked, not even realizing that I'd had a chance with her. If I’d known, I would have surely walked her home from school or asked her out. Theo was replaced by a lay teacher, Mrs. MacShane, whom I’d had in 4th grade, a most fun teacher. Unfortunately, she now rewarded communion-goers with popsicles, and so she was reprimanded and eventually sent packing.

Playing a lot of baseball, I had forgotten about the female sex once again, for, in seventh grade, the boys were separated from the girls. Midway through, though, I reached puberty. So, then, it was that when a girl was rarely seen, we boys would go all the more wild. I made sure that I attended a public high school.

We used to sing the Lords Prayer in school assembly, and sometimes pray before food. I didn't know what was going on, and I always used to look around at everyone else pretending to pray. I never sung, just mouthed the words if the teacher looked. Seemed like no one took it seriously, and it just all seemed a bit of a waste of time.

My parents never mentioned anything about the subject. Before I left primary school I just thought it was some story that a couple of people told. It wasn't until I was in my mid teens when I realised just how many people world wide were religious.

It seems 99% of the people I meet in the UK are non-religious. If the subject ever crops up most people seem to think Christianity is daft and people laugh at anyone who takes it too seriously.

When I realized that I was God, I was like, "WTF? I'm the greatest being in the universe?"

I stopped believing there.

I can remember faking belief in God many times when growing up. I didn't want to appear different from all the other kids. Whenever I did get dragged into church and they passed hat, I thought to myself what a scam they had going. I thought about religion and God a lot, but I never could convince myself God was a reality. I listened to a lot of people and they didn't have much luck convincing me either. I finally had to admit to myself I was one of those dreaded atheist and their was nothing I could do about it. Then finally I joined a science forum and found out that the atheists are the good guys. :D:D:D

Eastern Philosophy?

"When/ how did you become an atheist?"

Some days more than others.

After reading stories of the Gods like Thor, Zeus and Odin when I was very young. They were comic book characters that were based on the mythological ones that were written about by those living in the past centuries. That lead me to give thought about the Christian God and came to a conclusion that this was a myth as well. Although there weren't direct connections there were many indirect ones. The main thing was that they were all made up by humans and none could be verified as "real" but only myths.

But those comic books were made by satan.

Isn't Atheism the default before minds get poisoned by a load of BS. Are we not all born atheists?

I am by no means an athiest.

I lost my faith in organized religion when I read about history.
Thought of it as absurd that we are gods creation and god is "testing us", LOL.

I didnt give it much thought untill I came here (Didnt really care if religion was right or not)

I believe in god because its more sensible for my intended purposes to believe than "reserve a frame of reference untill the evidence is emperical" is bullshit I have enough evidence to deduce a god having to exist. God looking down on us? LOL I doubt that. More like god looking as us.

Isn't Atheism the default before minds get poisoned by a load of BS. Are we not all born atheists?

No.
Unless you can remember your frame of thinking when you were a baby :)

Never had the belief.

My mom infrequently had us going to church (baptist), and any time we spent with her parents on the weekend involved going to their church (methodist). As a small kid I spent the time drawing on pads of paper in the pews. Later with my mom, we had the mandatory bible school as well. I learned what the "right" answers were...it wasn't too hard since they never explored anything that might make you think. Nothing ever swayed me into actually believing anything that was taught.

I guess that it never made sense to me, and as I got older and learned more about different religions, it still didn't. A universe without gods make more logical sense.

No.
Unless you can remember your frame of thinking when you were a baby :)

Not buying that. Atheism is a lack of a belief in God as well as the refusal to believe in god? So under the former context we are born atheists.

So when you were a baby you remember if you had faith?
Did you even have the capacity to subscribe to a belief or lack of??
So than................animals are athiests?

So when you were a baby you remember if you had faith?
Did you even have the capacity to subscribe to a belief or lack of??
So than................animals are athiests?

Atheism is a lack of belief in god. How can something believe in god (higher functional understanding) when it can't even talk? Remembering has nothing to do with it. No one is born with a belief in god, are you serious?

Eastern Philosophy?

Well, it's not exactly religion or philosophy, and eastern philosophies are generally atheist. And I happen to like them. For a while after I became doubtful at 10, I was just an agnostic. I didn't know any good arguments against god, but I never did believe. I would always omit the "under god" part of the pledge in school. Then I discovered Buddhism, Zen, and Taoism at my local library. Then I knew there was a viable alternative to western religions. I still wasn't aware of all the arguments against god until I started to read Dawkins, then I realized I was an atheist.

Well, it's not exactly religion or philosophy, and eastern philosophies are generally atheist. And I happen to like them. For a while after I became doubtful at 10, I was just an agnostic. I didn't know any good arguments against god, but I never did believe. I would always omit the "under god" part of the pledge in school. Then I discovered Buddhism, Zen, and Taoism at my local library. Then I knew there was a viable alternative to western religions. I still wasn't aware of all the arguments against god until I started to read Dawkins, then I realized I was an atheist.

Ah, I was just curious.

As a kid I went to church and Christian schools, but I never believed. I asked critical questions but never got any real answers so I decided to see the bible as a book of fairytales (quite literally).
So actually I never became an atheist I just 'resisted' becoming a theist.

That's what Hitchens says. We don't become atheists so much as realize that's what we are.

Atheism is a lack of belief in god. How can something believe in god (higher functional understanding) when it can't even talk? Remembering has nothing to do with it. No one is born with a belief in god, are you serious?

God is relative to understanding.
Baby is not athiest. :bugeye:
Athiesm is the rejection of belief not the "lack of belief"
In your definition, animals like dogs and cats are athiests?? Sorry we cant use this term in that context because we dont know if they have any belief to reject. Thus they are not athiests and any speculation on religious inquiry relating to it is meaningless. :confused:

When I realised that belief in god rested in nothing more but blind faith based on some stories and certain persons skills in interpreting those stories, it became illuminatingly apparent that faith, or self-deception, was the force that led one to 'believe'. It followed that with enough faith one could 'believe' in a rock or a lump of shit; one could create their own god whatever. That is when I escaped the clutches of my faith.

God is relative to understanding.
Baby is not athiest. :bugeye:
Athiesm is the rejection of belief not the "lack of belief"
In your definition, animals like dogs and cats are athiests?? Sorry we cant use this term in that context because we dont know if they have any belief to reject. Thus they are not athiests and any speculation on religious inquiry relating to it is meaningless. :confused:

You are just trying to pare down a broad term to one meaning that suits your desires. The context I framed, of a baby being born without faith and therefore being an atheist is not a position you can question.

"Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist."

What is the etymological root of A-theism? "Without god". Again, are you telling me babies are born with a belief in god? no, of course they aren't. It is perfectly legitimate to refer to a baby as an atheist for they have no belief in god. Stop being ridiculous. You can't argue with a use of a dictionary term that is widely accepted. Well one can, but one just exposes one's ignorance.

Upon arriving at St. Bernadine’s Catholic grammar school each day, I would always stop at Bill and Betty’s little store, which was just across the street, and buy two honey dipped donuts to eat in the classroom after mass; this was a privilege for those saintly students who had fasted and received Holy Communion. For me, as a 5th grade boy, it was the ultimate treat, considering that the staying-in-one-room school day provided little other diversion until lunchtime.

Oh, how delicious those donuts tasted to a growing boy who had starved since dinner the night before, fasting all night and then sitting through a seemingly never-ending mass during which special prayers were said for nearly everyone’s grandparents and sick relatives. But, it was well worth the wait, for breakfast never tasted better than it did for us, the famished holy of holies. Imagine, eating right there in school during class, without even having to sneak in the bites, such as one had to do with candy snacks later in the day during hunger attacks. And out there, cooling, on the window sill, in all its glory, was our free chocolate milk, there only for the deserving, the healthful drink that washed down the honeyed donut. All in all it was a morning feast truly fitting for us young Christian warriors.

God is relative to understanding.
Baby is not athiest. :bugeye:

So baby is theist?


Athiesm is the rejection of belief not the "lack of belief"

There are different definitions Joey. The most inclusive is lack of belief.


In your definition, animals like dogs and cats are athiests??

Excuse me, but how do you know they don't worship cat or dog deities?

To get milk, one needed only to have the foresight to sign up the day before, and, of course, to sit through a Latin mass, most of which time was spent either in looking over all the minute details of the person just ahead or in nudging someone’s shoe or lunch box along the floor until it had quite disappeared. Of course, to kill even more time, one could pretend to climb the wall buttresses barehanded and to maneuver among the ceiling arches, sliding down the lamp wires and such—until rudely bumped back into reality by the nun siting behind, the nun with eagle eyes that could detect the slightest lack of attention. Or one also could look and see which of the girls had forgotten their veils by the sorry napkin and handkerchief assortment draped upon their heads. Yes, a mass was a long and difficult time to suffer through, especially the endless periods of kneeling, but it was the tasty dreams of milk and honey donuts that carried me through, and now and then I’d catch a whiff from my donut bag of the breakfast, which everyone knew meant breaking-the-fast.

My next door neighbors were boy scouts, and the other neighbor was an eagle scout. I was interested in joining so I read the boy scout manual. I was into everything until I got to the section where they said a boy scout has to believe in a higher power. So, obviously I couldn't join as a matter of principle. I did buy the manual and learned the knots and stuff.

@ Spidergoat

Let me be very clear this is a great thread and I did get the idea for my thread Do Atheist Come Out of the Closet, because of this thread. It's my opinion that active management is needed to keep even a good thread going, so what have you been doing while all your customers have been knocking on my door?

One should not consider labeling themselves as an afterthought of "anti-theism". This feeling of corrected thought realized--preceded theism--and deserves a more original and dignified terminology.
"Deity belief" is really a(place appropriate new terminology here).

Religion was never discussed in my home. I never heard of it until I was in the second grade. A kid started telling me about this person named "God" who lives up in the sky, sees everything we do, and has tremendous powers to affect everyone's life. I thought it was a really great story, the kind that kids make up, and I was laughing with delight at his cleverness. I couldn't understand why that made him feel bad and he walked away.

When I got home I asked my mother why he had behaved that way. She sighed and sat down with me. She told me that some parents tell their children stories like that, but she and my father had not. I understood, "Like Santa Claus, right?" and she agreed that it was very much like that. They had already told me the truth about Santa Claus and I asked when his parents were going to tell him the truth about God. She sighed again, more deeply, and said that many parents never tell their children the truth about God, so when they grow up they still believe in the silly story. I said, "But I had already asked a lot of questions about Santa Claus because the story didn't make sense. How can reindeer fly with no wings? How can one man go to every house in Chicago in one night? We don't have a chimney so how does he get into our house? Even if you had never told me the truth I would have figured it out by now. After all, I'm seven years old, not a stupid little kid. This God story is even sillier than Santa Claus. How could a grownup be stupid enough to not know that it's just a story?"

This time her sigh was very long and very sad and she didn't quite know what to say. Finally she just said, "Well you know that some children your age still believe in Santa Claus because their lives are very sad and the Santa Claus story gives them something to be happy about? I really didn't want to have to tell you this so soon, but many grownups have very sad lives too, and the God story gives them something to be happy about."

"How could any grownup be that sad?" I asked. "You get to make all the rules, you get to stay up late every night watching television, you get to drive cars, you get to go into town all by yourself, you get to decide what kind of dog we're going to have, you don't have to eat anything you don't like, you get to go off and do these fun things you call 'jobs.' You don't even need Santa Claus. How can any grownup be so sad that he needs God?"

She had to think about that. Finally she said, "I guess some people like to be sad, because then they can talk to God and he makes them happy."

When I was about fifteen, one of my teachers watched me walk into the classroom and said, "Well here comes Fraggle Rocker, that old cynic." I had to look the word up in the dictionary. After thinking about it for a little while, I said, "I know exactly when I became a cynic."

I wrote about this experience once before on SciForums, maybe even twice. I'm sure the accounts don't match up in all the details. It was sixty years ago, after all.

Like all kids I had some serious complaints about my parents and had some difficulty finding my way in life. But they taught me three wonderful, important things for which I have always been grateful--things that I now realize were utterly amazing, in the 1940s and 50s:People are all the same, no matter what color their skin is. Violence is never the right way to settle a disagreement. There are no gods. It's all up to us.

I grew up in a fairly religious background. (My parents were/are liberal Methodists.) Everyone I knew went to church every Sunday. I remember asking difficult questions from as early as kindergarten age. Some of my friends would have been told to get down on their knees and pray that God doesn't send them to hell for such thoughts. Luckily my parents took a different approach and told me that it was something I would have to decide for myself. (Then my mom made sure I watched the movie Inherit The Wind... Thanks mom.)

I tried to reconcile religious faith with reality. In my mid 20's I went through several years of serious sincere bible study. By the time I was 30 I realized that it made even less sense to me than it did when I was in kindergarten.

I wouldn't give it much thought today if it wasn't for people trying to shove their mythology down the throat of the science classrooms. It's Inherit The Wind all over again.

I grew up in a Catholic family, and attended mass every Sunday and HDO. But was bored throughout the mass and saw the whole religious thing as a chore.
From there I grew the sense that if God did exist (as I accepted at the time) then, from what I understood (that most people were the same religion as their parents etc), it wasn't the religion that was important as much as having belief... afterall, how could he punish all non-Catholics... that was just... wrong.
So from there I accepted a personal God, but attended church whenever I had to, not to keep God happy but to keep the authorities happy (school / parents etc).
By this time I was about 12 or 13.

From there it was just a matter of applying the same rational thought to the question of God that I did for most other things... and from there I began to see God as merely filling gaps in knowledge.

At about 17 I think I hit the tipping point and became sufficiently agnostic that belief could no longer be sustained as the default position.
Yes, there are still unanswered questions... but "God did it" I find rather unhelpful in understanding.
And yes, religious teachings in the scriptures can be of benefit, and religion itself can benefit people (comfort, charity etc) as I have witnessed first hand, although I consider that this is more a statement of the person than of the religion.

So there ya have it.
The actual age at the various stages may not be accurate - it was a few years ago - but I know I hit university aged 19 as an agnostic atheist.

I must have just been born one because I never really belived in the first place.

I must have just been born one because I never really belived in the first place.

I don't think anyone is born an atheist... But, eventually we realize there are myths and fairytales and we get on with reality...

I believed in a God when I was a little boy...Then again, I believed in Santa for a bit too...Then I started kindergarten...:o

Alright, people are born without the awareness of things such as gods. So if that's not atheism, the lack of belief, what term is appropriate?

Quibble the terminology, but you can't argue that the fact isn't true. There's a reason that most people who grow up in a region of X religious domination tend to believe in that religion. Take a baby from India and have him grow up with a family in the US bible belt. He's not going to automatically be hindi, the odds are he'll follow his surrounding believers, particularly if he's not told anything else exists.

Alright, people are born without the awareness of things such as gods. So if that's not atheism, the lack of belief, what term is appropriate?

Quibble the terminology, but you can't argue that the fact isn't true. There's a reason that most people who grow up in a region of X religious domination tend to believe in that religion. Take a baby from India and have him grow up with a family in the US bible belt. He's not going to automatically be hindi, the odds are he'll follow his surrounding believers, particularly if he's not told anything else exists.

You got that right. If everybody were aloud to become adults, before being exposed to religion we'd all be atheist. Oh! Wait a minute if we didn't have any theist there couldn't be any atheist could there?

you got that right. If everybody were aloud to become adults, before being exposed to religion we'd all be atheist. Oh! Wait a minute if we didn't have any theist there couldn't be any atheist could there?

zomg atheism is doomed!!!

I was born an atheist, as we all were, and nothing ever swayed me otherwise.

People tried, a friend of the family tried selling me Christianity, but unfortunately she tried too hard, and tried selling me young Earth creation too. She couldn't answer why there were dinosaur fossils, or where they went, or whether they were on the Ark, and basically, hadn't asked herself the same questions a curious five year old wanted answering.

Two kids at school used to attend Sunday School, and on Mondays, we used to go around the class and tell everybody a synopsis of what we did at the weekend, and then write a small essay. They always told us what they had been told at Sunday School. It always sounded like bullshit to me. One gem I remember is them proudly telling us that the devil made the germs that made us ill.

And since, in adult life, no theist has ever managed to answer my questions adequately, or honestly. There's always doubt, hand waving, dodging, contradiction, and never a direct answer to the real questions.

Alright, people are born without the awareness of things such as gods. So if that's not atheism, the lack of belief, what term is appropriate?
.

That's "dictionary atheism" and there is a trend to try and get away from this. Modern atheism is a set of beliefs that respects rationality and science and rejects the supernatural as having no evidence in support of it.

That's "dictionary atheism" and there is a trend to try and get away from this. Modern atheism is a set of beliefs that respects rationality and science and rejects the supernatural as having no evidence in support of it.

"dictionary atheism" Would http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism qualify? Lot of stuff there, I didn't read it all, but I think I did notice a part about having no evidence in support of it.

Not sure I would class Wikipedia and dictionary as interchangeable, but it is worth a look see.

I never decided I was an atheist. I realized it. Much of that growth can be seen here in Sciforums.

I grew up in a religious family who taught a lot of hate and intolerance. I think I got my first taste of "separation" from who they were when I started to explore my sexuality. Despite those differences, I thought that I believed in most of the stuff they taught me (god, Jesus, Abraham, etc). I always had a craving for science and real answers (not stories or fairy tales). For most of my adulthood, I gravitated towards science based reading (despite a loathing for mathematics). Despite my religious carryover beliefs, I've always believed in evolution, the big bang and most widely accepted scientific theory. Somehow I always passively reconciled my belief in science with my belief in god as "God started it all, science explains everything from then on."

After reading "Return To Sodom & Gomorrah" by Charles Pellegrino, I realized that I didn't buy into any of the Abrahamic BS. It was at that time that I started becoming comfortable with my atheism.

A recent rant about religion that I wrote:

[Religious people like to quote physics--in particular the second law of thermodynamics--to refute evolution]. The second law of thermodynamics requires that a system must be CLOSED. [this annoying fact is constantly left out by the religious liars who are the first to dispense with pesky truths when they contradict their religious rhetoric] The Earth (more importantly-- its surface) is not a closed system at all. It receives a massive amount of energy from the Sun and residual nuclear energy from the core. One day soon (okay, in about 500 million years) the earth's core will stop spinning, and the atmosphere will begin to blow away. At that time, evolution (and life) will end. About about five billion years from now the Sun will begin to die and destroy the earth.

Quite by accident, [religious people have] stumbled on a fundamental truth about the cosmos: After about a half trillion years, the energy that fills in our universe will, indeed, run out. Entropy will inexorably continue, and all life--everywhere--will end. But for now, this little planet still receives all the energy needed for EVOLUTION from our local nuclear furnace (also called: THE SUN). The constant receipt of a wide range of energies constantly fuel the mechanisms of evolution. Entropy--for now--need not apply.

But there's a bigger issue here. . .

The rich bit of nonsense that [religious] people fail to provide us is this: Since they are "proof driven" (in that they constantly demand holographic footage, quantum dated by a Star Trek tricorder of Ambulocetus's feet sucking into her body on her way to becoming a whale) one is left to wonder if this same attitude is turned--full force--on their religious beliefs! Do they--for example--ask the same pressing questions and demand the same burden of proof of god's existence, burning bushes, ribs being morphed into women and whatnot? The obvious answer is: No. They do not. They are blinded by faith in that which cannot be proven--nay--even demonstrated by any science known to man. And that is where the deception begins.

Let's reverse this technique a bit and see where it takes us.

What proof is there that a deity created the universe? (This question should be reminiscent of those asked by creationists: "Where is the proof of evolution, transitory fossils? Why haven't we seen evolution in process?" Ring a bell?). Likewise, no one has ever SEEN a god create the universe, ergo it must never have happened. No person has ever seen a pillar of cloud, rivers turning to blood or a parting of seas, and since no scientific proof exists that people have been risen from the dead, water turned to wine or angels climbing down ladders from the heavens, surely these things must not have happened! After all, Christians demand scientific proof to believe in things like evolution, so surely they've demanded the same of their belief system!

Sadly, no.

Listed, side by side, the truth becomes obvious.

In one corner you have: A deity with long white beard, supposedly perfect (though, desperately needing little people to worship him) creating the world in 6 days, surly wives turning to salt, trumpets toppling walls of wicked cities, angels of death killing the first born of Egypt, trios of men standing in hot furnaces unharmed, snotty men getting gobbled by giant trout--remaining gastronomically bound for a few days--and returned to the earth unharmed, any number of people being raised from the dead, hair cutting draining one's super powers, global-genocidal floods, boats big enough to contain TWO OF EVERY SINGLE ANIMAL, EVERYWHERE, ON PLANET EARTH, people with life spans just under millennium, giant hands writing foreboding messages on walls of cities, messiahs strolling on water, chatty asses (not your butt: donkeys speaking Aramaic), parting of seas, stopping of rivers, plagues too numerous to name, magical golden arks that contain a place to sit when god gets tired feet, feeding of THOUSANDS with a pair of fish and five loaves of bread (the ultimate weight loss program), OH YEAH, and the stopping of the Sun so that god's chosen people could--once again--slaughter their enemies. Meanwhile, the earth is only a few thousand years old. [and that's the abridged version]

Keeping in mind that god slaughtering people is common place in the Bible. Floods, tent spikes through the noggin, cities burning to the ground and other warm-fuzzies are peppered throughout the bible. Meanwhile, at no point, do the followers of Christianity (nor Christ himself) deal with issues that we consider matter-of-fact ethics: wives as property, equal female rights, polygamy, slaughtering of cities, slavery, children as property of parents. The Christian world (barring polygamy) failed to come to grips with these issues until about a century ago. One would surely believe that a perfect god, his perfect son, Christ, and the many prophets of the Abrahamic faiths (of any variety: Islam, Judaism, Christianity and Baha'i; or those wacky "other guys" in Asia and Africa), could have just come out and said, "HEY PEOPLE! Listen Up!!! All societies must be ruled by the consent of the governed. There are no elite classes or castes, everybody is equal. And, LOOK, women and men are equal before God too, so you should emulate this fact on earth. Never treat females like property; treat them as equals before the law and in every aspect of society (they have hopes, dreams and wishes too, you know!). Your children aren't your property, so don't put them to work in factories where they can lose their fingers. Do not wage wars for expansion, live totally in peace with each other. Do not EVER colonize another land that's already occupied by other people nor should you ever wipe them out so that you can take their land. And for Vishnu's sake DO NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES own slaves or possess indentured servants. That's very, VERY bad and God just doesn't approve of it nor will you EVER get in to heaven if you treat another person like property." Seems pretty simple, yet we don't see any meaningful resolution to these fundamental ethical issues until about the last century and a half!!

In the other corner you have: A scientific theory, supported by the fossil evidence, a steady increase in the complexity of earth's life forms layered in the earth's strata. Rocks that have been accurately dated (via Uranium-Lead, Potassium-Argon, Rubidium-Strontium, Uranium-Thorium [to name a few] methods) that have all placed the earth's age in the billions of years. This is supported by sister sciences of plate tectonics, strata layering (as in: the accumulation of "stuff", layer upon layer on the earth) and astrophysics (dating the age of the universe via observing the motion and age of stars) and good ol' fashioned mathematics. It all says the same thing: The earth is OLD, and the universe is VERY old. Moreover, the theory of evolution along with plate tectonics have made eerily accurate predictions as to where fossil evidence will be found (Wadi Al Hitan, and the Canadian arctic, for example), though that need not be the validating point of the theory of evolution. It's true worth is in answering, accurately, how life on earth has developed over the eons without the need for tooth fairies, devils, gremlins, miracles, spells, ghosts, demonic possessions, mass exterminations or deity worship.

At no point is there any evidence of a creator, though there is evidence of an expanding universe that originated from an infinitely dense singularity billions of years ago. There is no evidence of a flood, though there is evidence of Iridium (delivered via a giant meteor) in precisely the same layer where dinosaurs started disappearing from the earth. There is no evidence of a garden of Eden, though there is evidence of billions of years of life, and about 300 million years of complex animals on the earth's surface who have gone through mass extinctions over time, but steadily developing over the years into what we have today. There is no evidence of pillars of fire or giant man-swallowing fish, though there is evidence that humans have been hunting and diversifying for the past two-hundred thousand years (see: mitochondrial DNA decoding; the Human Genome Project). There is no evidence of man being created in the image of a deity, but there is evidence of mankind spreading out from Africa many hundreds of thousands of years ago, who's genes--including odd and pointless genetic mutations, atavisms and vestigials--matching those of many similar apes on the same continent.

Supporting all this "nonsense", you have basically the collection of all the world's physicists, bio-chemists, paleontologists, geologists and other PhD level scientists--from diverse nations, universities, colleges and backgrounds, who are trained in weighing scientific evidence and understanding what a "fact" is--all buying into this silly thing called "EVOLUTION". On the other hand, the theory of evolution's main doubters are the same people that--for the better part of the past two millennia--burned witches on pyres, massacred unbelievers, tortured Jews in inquisitions, denied that the Earth revolved around the Sun, silenced (with the threat of death) great scientists, paid for crusades, currently oppress women in the Mideast, and--to add to all this--have the world's longest history of brain washing the masses and engaging in the most pointless and deadly wars.

When you consider the evidence and weigh facts--demanding proofs equally from either camp--at the end of the day, you're left wondering what ID brings to the table. The truth becomes obvious: Religion and I.D. is here simply to brain wash the masses into following religious elite while validating the insecurities of theists who simply do not understand--and have no capacity to understand--the science behind how the universe operates.

~String

"dictionary atheism" Would http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism qualify? Lot of stuff there, I didn't read it all, but I think I did notice a part about having no evidence in support of it.

Not sure I would class Wikipedia and dictionary as interchangeable, but it is worth a look see.

Try here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

I never decided I was an atheist. I realized it. Much of that growth can be seen here in Sciforums.

I grew up in a religious family who taught a lot of hate and intolerance. I think I got my first taste of "separation" from who they were when I started to explore my sexuality. Despite those differences, I thought that I believed in most of the stuff they taught me (god, Jesus, Abraham, etc). I always had a craving for science and real answers (not stories or fairy tales). For most of my adulthood, I gravitated towards science based reading (despite a loathing for mathematics). Despite my religious carryover beliefs, I've always believed in evolution, the big bang and most widely accepted scientific theory. Somehow I always passively reconciled my belief in science with my belief in god as "God started it all, science explains everything from then on."

After reading "Return To Sodom & Gomorrah" by Charles Pellegrino, I realized that I didn't buy into any of the Abrahamic BS. It was at that time that I started becoming comfortable with my atheism.

A recent rant about religion that I wrote:


~String

Damn! Next time I need a rant your hired. I couldn't have said that better myself.

Try here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Atheism

Yes, that first paragraph hit the spot.

I was a hardcore deeeeeep christian for 6 years and I started smoking weed and it made me develop some cognitive dissonance on the subject. I realized who was i to believe that my religion was right and everyone elses was wrong. Also i finally weighed all the probabilities.

I was 13 years old, I remember I started to ask question I still havent found an answer

I used to think the Bible stories were all true (Genesis, Adam & Eve, the great Flood, etc). Then from about the age of 6 I started reading about Dinosaurs, which led to reading about evolution. One day I suddenly realised the Bible stories I knew were just myths, much like my favourite Greek mythology, I didn't need to ask anyone about this I just followed the evidence and came to the natural conclusion. God was swiftly pushed out of the picture and since I never went to Church or Bible study classes it made very little difference to my friends and family what I believed or didn't believe. I was not pressured to think one way or another, it was just way I worked it out for myself.

I don't think anyone is born an atheist... But, eventually we realize there are myths and fairytales and we get on with reality... I believed in a God when I was a little boy...Then again, I believed in Santa for a bit too...Then I started kindergarten.Bullshit. I was born an atheist. You didn't read my post. I believed in Santa Claus for a couple of years because my parents told me about him. I never heard of God so I had no context in which I could have believed in him. My parents were atheists too. I'm a second-generation atheist on my father's side and a third-generation atheist on my mother's side.

Bullshit. I was born an atheist. You didn't read my post. I believed in Santa Claus for a couple of years because my parents told me about him. I never heard of God so I had no context in which I could have believed in him. My parents were atheists too. I'm a second-generation atheist on my father's side and a third-generation atheist on my mother's side.

Wow an atheist family. I always knew they existed, but never met anybody that actually was born and grew up in an atheist family before. I think my dad was an atheist, but he never talked about it one way or the other and my mom was only weakly religious. So religion was not stressed as I grew up, nor was atheism.

I did wonder about that, because once at the start of every school year we had to answer a bunch of questions, one of which is what religion are you. That question never failed to make me feel very uncomfortable. I didn't want to answer it, but it was a required answer, which elevated it's importance in my mind, and then all your school mates wanted to know what religion you were. So it was always a big deal once a year. And I never knew why they wanted to know. I always felt very intimidated by that question and all that it implied.

Did you ever have to answer that question in school and if so how did you feel about it?

Isn't Atheism the default before minds get poisoned by a load of BS.

Obviously it isn't.


Are we not all born atheists?

Not at all, unless atheism means unable to form sophisticated thoughts (for an infant). Kind of a technicality...

Obviously it isn't.
Why "obviously"?


Not at all, unless atheism means unable to form sophisticated thoughts (for an infant). Kind of a technicality...
Wrong.
Atheism is the lack of belief. Can you show that a baby is born believing in god? If so which god?

Wrong.
Atheism is the lack of belief. Can you show that a baby is born believing in god? If so which god?

An infant does not believe in anything. It's like asking "are babies born t.v. repairmen?"

An infant does not believe in anything.
Exactly.
Therefore they do not believe in god.
Therefore they are atheists.

Atheism is the lack of belief. Can you show that a baby is born believing in god? If so which god?

First if you don't have a concept of God, you can't be an atheist. Simply not believing in a God that you have no concept of does not qualify you as an atheist. But if you are born into a atheist family, the odds are very good your parents will teach you about society and a belief in God and why they don't believe in a God. The odds have to be close to 100% that you will become an atheist, so saying you were born an atheist is so close to the truth it's not worth arguing about.

First if you don't have a concept of God, you can't be an atheist.

Ah, yes you can. Atheism is the explicit lack of belief in a god. How you got there is not implied by the term. That's something else altogether.

~String

so saying you were born an atheist is so close to the truth it's not worth arguing about.

You cant make a determination like that with an infant though. You can but it would be rather meaningless. Some form of agnosticism can creep in around 2 years old and even without indoctrination.

You cant make a determination like that with an infant though.
You don't need to ake a "determination". :rolleyes:


Exactly.
Therefore they do not believe in god.
Therefore they are atheists.

You don't need to ake a "determination". :rolleyes:

I think that now it has been established that the term would not apply to an infant.

Ah, yes you can. Atheism is the explicit lack of belief in a god. How you got there is not implied by the term. That's something else altogether.

~String

I believe how you got there is implied by the term. If no one ever believed in God and no concept of God ever existed. The terms Theist and Atheist would not exist. Both those concepts are very dependent on each other. There is no such thing as an atheist without a theist. Nor would there be a requirement for any word to describe a lack of belief in a God.

So. . . it's safe to assume that atheists have no belief in alternate dimensions and realities that our senses and scientific instruments cannot penetrate, to which we are effectively "blind" to?

I think that now it has been established that the term would not apply to an infant.
Wrong. You have merely claimed this and, by your own "reasoning" (posts 52 & 53) it has been shown that it does indeed apply to infants.


I believe how you got there is implied by the term.
Nope.


If no one ever believed in God and no concept of God ever existed. The terms Theist and Atheist would not exist. Both those concepts are very dependent on each other. There is no such thing as an atheist without a theist. Nor would there be a requirement for any word to describe a lack of belief in a God.
Agreed.
If no one ever came up with the idea of god we would all, by definition, be atheists. But without the name.
This has been highlighted earlier in another thread (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=2729683&highlight=special#post2729683).

You cant make a determination like that with an infant though. You can but it would be rather meaningless. Some form of agnosticism can creep in around 2 years old and even without indoctrination.

That term can be used the same way people use “He/She was born a Christian” with the understanding that both parents believe one way or the other. It's one of those things that must be in context with the belief of the parents and it's clearly understood by all that hear it. So why are you making a big deal out of it?

I believe how you got there is implied by the term. If no one ever believed in God and no concept of God ever existed. The terms Theist and Atheist would not exist. Both those concepts are very dependent on each other. There is no such thing as an atheist without a theist. Nor would there be a requirement for any word to describe a lack of belief in a God.

You are outlining a major flaw in the discussion where many responding here go from Atheist to some form of established belief system. We may as well go down the road of Agnostic or Atheist and which one would is more optimistic? Which the pessimist?

We may as go down the road of Agnostic and Atheist and which one would is more optimistic? Which the pessimist?
Do try to learn what the terms "agnostic" and "atheist" mean before posting again.

That term can be used the same way people use “He/She was born a Christian” with the understanding that both parents believe one way or the other.

That is like you sneaking your finger to inch a ball closer to the pocket.

So. . . it's safe to assume that atheists have no belief in alternate dimensions and realities that our senses and scientific instruments cannot penetrate, to which we are effectively "blind" to?

I believe there are an unlimited number of possibilities, but if you try to pin me down to believing in something with no supporting evidence, well that's a losing battle. Also, what we are blind to today may not be so tomorrow. I'm willing to wait and find out as our instrumentation gets better.

So. . . it's safe to assume that atheists have no belief in alternate dimensions and realities that our senses and scientific instruments cannot penetrate, to which we are effectively "blind" to?
No, it's not "safe" to assume that at all.
Atheism is a stance with regard to belief in god(s). It says nothing whatsoever about belief in anything else.
There are plenty of atheists who will happily subscribe to a belief in UFOs, ghosts, crystal healing etc (without seeing the dichotomy), but the one does not follow from the other.

There are plenty of atheists who will happily subscribe to a belief in UFOs, ghosts, crystal healing etc (without seeing the dichotomy), but the one does not follow from the other.

More like the exception. Just not in the personality type. If they did believe in UFO's they may be classified as possessing theistic tendencies.

More like the exception.
That's just your claim.


If they did believe in UFO's they may be classified as possessing theistic tendencies.
And that's just your supposition.

More like the exception. Just not in the personality type. If they did believe in UFO's they may be classified as possessing theistic tendencies.

:D Theistic tendencies, what a concept! I once made an effort to become a Christian for the love of a woman I liked. It was like swimming upstream, very tiring. I couldn't believe and faking it all the time was very stressful. I don't recommend it.

However I could believe that a theist might have atheistic tendencies. Not to hard a concept when you know the theist's beliefs are based on BS.

So. . . it's safe to assume that atheists have no belief in alternate dimensions and realities that our senses and scientific instruments cannot penetrate, to which we are effectively "blind" to?

"alternate dimensions"? No. I don't. Not until it can be demonstrated by science.

~String

Okay so there are 2 outcomes.
There is a god or there isnt. Neither have any premise that we can infer from. An athiests position on this 50/50 'Belief' is "I dont know" ... some more bold athiests will supposite that we came about "naturally"(if that can be applied to something having no premise) so......

the supposition that god cant exist is BS??

How did you figure out the chances are 50/50?

How did you figure out the chances are 50/50?

in the middle\center...0 to 100 etc.

Easy: he's clueless.
@ 420Joey:
No, the supposition that god can't exist is NOT BS.
And no, an athiest's position on this belief is NOT "I dont know": it varies from a simple "I don't believe" to a hard "I actually believe you are wrong and that the available evidence indicates this".

Nor is it 50/ 50.

1. There is a god.
2. There isnt one.

How many choices are there? It's a 50/50% chance, think pascals wager except minus the bullshit heaven factor. Who cares anyways why do you inflame your ignorance with ad homen attacks on religious beliefs??? You are reserving your opinion arent you?

Dyw you have no evidence on the premise of origin, stop it.....

lol... ok... and it's in the middle why? Because there is two options?

You know what else has two options? Whether a six sided die rolls 6 or it doesn't.

1. There is a god.
2. There isnt one.
How many choices are there? It's a 50/50% chance
False.
You're assuming that the likelihood of each has equal grounding.
Is it 50/ 50 that I have an elephant in my bathroom?
Is it 50/ 50 that I'm exactly 34 years 11 months and 3 days old?

lol... ok... and it's in the middle why? Because there is two options?

You know what else has two options? Whether a six sided die rolls 6 or it doesn't.

Did you not ask the question?

Did you not ask the question?
Huh?
:confused:

False.
You're assuming that the likelihood of each has equal grounding.
Is it 50/ 50 that I have an elephant in my bathroom?
Is it 50/ 50 that I'm exactly 34 years 11 months and 3 days old?

Hyperbole much? I do assume they have equal grounding. We have a frame of reference to assume an elephant wouldent be in your bedroom. We have no frame of reference relating to whether god would exist or not

Hyperbole much?
No. Illustration.


I do assume they have equal grounding.
Why? (Apart from general ignorance, I mean).


We have a frame of reference to assume an elephant wouldent be in your bedroom.
Please stop misusing the terminology "frame of reference".


We have no frame of reference relating to whether god would exist or not
You mean other than the fact that after 2,000 years of claims there's still no evidence to indicate that he actually does?

I am not sure that a probability can be put on this issue. Too many unknowns. 50/50 is as good as any, but to claim it is so is ridiculous.

If some real evidence could be produced to support the belief in God then a probability could be more supported. Until then, why believe?

Hyperbole much? I do assume they have equal grounding.



We have a frame of reference to assume an elephant wouldent be in your bedroom.

But we can't know for sure if the door is closed.


We have no frame of reference relating to whether god would exist or not

Just like the elephant.
We have no logical reason to assume a god exists. It might... So might the elephant.

You mean other than the fact that after 2,000 years of claims there's still no evidence to indicate that he actually does?

Our problem as atheists is (though), is there any real evidence to indicate he actually doesn't exist given the nature of god is undetermined and changed according to the manipulations and policies of the lier purporting them?

Our problem as atheists is (though), is there any real evidence to indicate he actually doesn't exist given the nature of god is undetermined and changed according to the manipulations and policies of the lier purporting them?
I don't need any evidence to indicate he doesn't.
I simply don't believe in god, I don't claim that he doesn't exist.

I don't need any evidence to indicate he doesn't.
I simply don't believe in god, I don't claim that he doesn't exist.

The best scientific and logical standing right there. But the issue of god existing is the issue. And the probability of this. Analysis of the evidence for and against is relevant here?

You discuss issues relating to evidence he does, but do not look at evidence to support he doesn't? Is this completely rounded?

No. Illustration.


Why? (Apart from general ignorance, I mean).


Please stop misusing the terminology "frame of reference".


You mean other than the fact that after 2,000 years of claims there's still no evidence to indicate that he actually does?


You say "stop" misusing the frame of reference which implies more than one occurance??

Can you help me out by explaining how I am using the term incorrectly?? I would like your expertise on the subject. Thanks.

The best scientific and logical standing right there. But the issue of god existing is the issue. And the probability of this. Analysis of the evidence for and against is relevant here?

You discuss issues relating to evidence he does, but do not look at evidence to support he doesn't? Is this completely rounded?

There is no evidence for and a lot of evidence against the classic religions. Joey made up his own story that takes scientific advances into consideration. So he builds his belief on what we already know to be true. That's why he thinks that his belief is somehow more likely to be true than the classic stories about God(s).

The best scientific and logical standing right there. But the issue of god existing is the issue. And the probability of this. Analysis of the evidence for and against is relevant here?
Right.
Evidence for: none (despite 2,000 years of claims and concerted effort to prove he does).
Evidence against: none specifically, but many things once attributed to god have been shown to be entirely natural. I.e. his "duties" (and the necessity for him to exist - and consequently the likelihood of him existing*) reduce all the time.

* This is not to say that he couldn't exist, but that he seems to become less and less relevant. He may exist but have nothing whatsover to do, with anything. Which, I suggest, in addition to his general undetectability puts him in the category of "so what?" if he does exist. We can't prove it, can't point to any consequence of his existence... He may as well NOT exist (whether he does or not) for all the impact he has.

There is no evidence for and a lot of evidence against the classic religions. Joey made up his own story that takes scientific advances into consideration. So he builds his belief on what we already know to be true. That's why he thinks that his belief is somehow more likely to be true than the classic stories about God(s).

And it is a stance that is unable to be questioned no doubt. But it doesn't make it true, and he shouldn't pedal it as irrefutable. Beliefs are just assumptions without evidence.

but to claim it is so is ridiculous.


Why is that?

You say "stop" misusing the frame of reference which implies more than one occurance??
Let's see... apart from your use of it in other threads/ posts you DID use it twice in the one post to which I replied.


Can you help me out by explaining how I am using the term incorrectly?? I would like your expertise on the subject. Thanks.
frame of reference.
(Assuming you weren't trying to use it in the physics sense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference)).

You're using the term very loosely (but then again, you're not that rigorous in your choice of wording generally).

So the last 2000 years dwy we havent proven evolution to exist but we believe its true based on historical evidence.

Thus I'm inclined to believe in god because we exist. It's sufficient in evidence to me abiogenesis is no more sound than believing in god.

Your definition of god includes the supposition that god is a he and that he had complex intelligence? This is what you base your opinion on. I believe that god had to be the premise for consciousness it just wouldent make any sense to me otherwise its more sound to believe in one complexity versus infinite amounts unless we put in consideration that infinite amounts origin from the same source like physical with contigent matter.

Oh nevermind dwy's position " I dont know so im going to attack you for your claim because it makes me feel like I know something, that your full of shit" is a stupid position, pointless and stupid.

Right.
Evidence for: none (despite 2,000 years of claims and concerted effort to prove he does).
Evidence against: none specifically, but many things once attributed to god have been shown to be entirely natural. I.e. his "duties" (and the necessity for him to exist - and consequently the likelihood of him existing*) reduce all the time.

* This is not to say that he couldn't exist, but that he seems to become less and less relevant. He may exist but have nothing whatsover to do, with anything. Which, I suggest, in addition to his general undetectability puts him in the category of "so what?" if he does exist. We can't prove it, can't point to any consequence of his existence... He may as well NOT exist (whether he does or not) for all the impact he has.

So true. Evidence against is tricky though because a cobbled together new theory could be outside of any review and avoid finding of evidence to prove god doesn't exist by simply moving the theory down to the infrascopic and beyond.

We will never be able to prove he doesn't exist because boundaries of theories can always be moved.

Why is that?

Like I said, too many unknowns to generate an accurate probability.

Let's see... apart from your use of it in other threads/ posts you DID use it twice in the one post to which I replied.


frame of reference.
(Assuming you weren't trying to use it in the physics sense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_of_reference)).

You're using the term very loosely (but then again, you're not that rigorous in your choice of wording generally).


I was hoping to learn something from you for once. Let's see..

Definition of frame: A frame is a structural system that supports other components of a physical construction.

Definition of reference: A references can take on many forms, including: a thought, a sensory perception that is audible (onomatopoeia), visual (text), olfactory, or tactile, emotional state, relationship with other[2], spacetime coordinate, symbolic or alpha-numeric, a physical object or an energy projection; but, other concrete and abstract contexts exist as methods of defining references within the scope of the various fields that require an origin, point of departure, or an original form. This includes methods that intentionally hide the reference from some observers, as in cryptography.

Wow I think my statements were used properly in context. Care to try again? Ah I see you put "loosely based"

so I'm not wrong? I want to see specific examples dwy. Please show me how im misusing the term or retract your allegation.

So the last 2000 years dwy we havent proven evolution to exist but we believe its true based on historical evidence.
Except that we have proven evolution exists. Oh wait! Are you claiming there's historical evidence for god? Go ahead...


Thus I'm inclined to believe in god because we exist. It's sufficient in evidence to me abiogenesis is no more sound than believing in god.
In other words you're not actually interested in a genuine answer.


Your definition of god includes the supposition that god is a he and that he had complex intelligence?
One more time: no. I'm using the generally understood term.


I believe that god had to be the premise for consciousness
Which means what? God is just nature taking its course?


Oh nevermind dwy's position " I dont know so im going to attack you for your claim because it makes me feel like I know something, that your full of shit" is a stupid position, pointless and stupid.
Still misreading. I don't have a position: I'm questioning claims that others make.

So the last 2000 years dwy we havent proven evolution to exist but we believe its true based on historical evidence.

Thus I'm inclined to believe in god because we exist. It's sufficient in evidence to me abiogenesis is no more sound than believing in god.

Your definition of god includes the supposition that god is a he and that he had complex intelligence? This is what you base your opinion on. I believe that god had to be the premise for consciousness it just wouldent make any sense to me otherwise its more sound to believe in one complexity versus infinite amounts unless we put in consideration that infinite amounts origin from the same source like physical with contigent matter.

Oh nevermind dwy's position " I dont know so im going to attack you for your claim because it makes me feel like I know something, that your full of shit" is a stupid position, pointless and stupid.

One flaw in your BS. Evolution HAS been proven to be a system of change. If you want to meet 'Mr Evolution' you will be sadly diasappointed lol.

I was hoping to learn something from you for once. Let's see..

Definition of frame: A frame is a structural system that supports other components of a physical construction.
And we aren't talking about a physical construction: we're talking about concepts.

Like I said, too many unknowns to generate an accurate probability.

50-50 is not generating a probability...that is why it is 50-50..LOL/

It is NOT 50-50.
And what makes you think that 50-50 isn't a probability?

So the last 2000 years dwy we havent proven evolution to exist but we believe its true based on historical evidence.

Thus I'm inclined to believe in god because we exist. It's sufficient in evidence to me abiogenesis is no more sound than believing in god.

I hope you're not a scientist if this is all the evidence you need.


Your definition of god includes the supposition that god is a he and that he had complex intelligence? This is what you base your opinion on. I believe that god had to be the premise for consciousness it just wouldent make any sense to me otherwise its more sound to believe in one complexity versus infinite amounts unless we put in consideration that infinite amounts origin from the same source like physical with contigent matter.

It's perfectly fine to have beliefs but you must understand you have no logical reason to assume that the chances are 50/50 of a god existing.


Oh nevermind dwy's position " I dont know so im going to attack you for your claim because it makes me feel like I know something, that your full of shit" is a stupid position, pointless and stupid.

Stupid: no
Ignorant: yes

But at least it doesn't claim to be otherwise.


"Religion and science have a common ancestor - ignorance"

A.C. Grayling

I was hoping to learn something from you for once. Let's see..

Definition of frame: A frame is a structural system that supports other components of a physical construction.

Definition of reference: A references can take on many forms, including: a thought, a sensory perception that is audible (onomatopoeia), visual (text), olfactory, or tactile, emotional state, relationship with other[2], spacetime coordinate, symbolic or alpha-numeric, a physical object or an energy projection; but, other concrete and abstract contexts exist as methods of defining references within the scope of the various fields that require an origin, point of departure, or an original form. This includes methods that intentionally hide the reference from some observers, as in cryptography.

Wow I think my statements were used properly in context. Care to try again? Ah I see you put "loosely based"

so I'm not wrong? I want to see specific examples dwy. Please show me how im misusing the term or retract your allegation.

I am not abreast of the implications of D's allegation but the term you are using is more than the sum of the derivative components. It is a phrase that does have applicable meaning. If you wish to use the term you should abide by established usage, or if not use a different phrase?

Except that we have proven evolution exists. Oh wait! Are you claiming there's historical evidence for god? Go ahead...

Sufficient evidence for me - we exist. We have recently found evidence for evolution so right before it if I made your claim (the same type of hyperbole) it would be more sound? Cuz we havent found evidence yet?? Circular logic. Abiogenesis isnt neccessarily emperically proven if you know what I mean.


In other words you're not actually interested in a genuine answer.

My idea of god may be different than your preconceptions.


One more time: no. I'm using the generally understood term.
generally understood that god is a he?? What are you talking about.
[quote]
Which means what? God is just nature taking its course?

Nature has a course?? Proof to me that god exists. No I dont believe god has to be originally intelligent I believe one complex source of consciousness evolved(god) and that were all apart of it.


Still misreading. I don't have a position: I'm questioning claims that others make.
:shrug: For what?? A religion is a "belief" you demand evidence. Your reaching for apples in a mango tree.

50-50 is not generating a probability...that is why it is 50-50..LOL/

He was generating the probability from insufficient evidence. 50/50 IS the probability he was proffering.

I am not abreast of the implications of D's allegation but the term you are using is more than the sum of the derivative components. It is a phrase that does have applicable meaning. If you wish to use the term you should abide by established usage, or if not use a different phrase?


We have a frame of reference to assume that there is not an elephant in dwys room.

We have a structural system of physical and abstract understandings to conclude that there is most likely not an elephant in dwy (a regular citizen somewhere in britain or somewhere) room. Not to say its impossible. If he lived in africa and trained elephants than that would be the frame of reference I would infer from to conclude if the statement is false or not. Are you saying his statement is not a hyperbole? That im using the terms incorrectly? How, please explain?? I want to learn. Go ahead. The term im using is more than the sum of derivative components?? How?? What are you talking about. Be clear.

I believe one complex source of consciousness evolved(god) and that were all apart of it.



Tell us more of your theory/belief. Sounds interesting.

And now you're misusing hyperbole... (again).
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hyperbole

We have a frame of reference to assume that there is not an elephant in dwys room.

We have a structural system of physical and abstract understandings to conclude that there is most likely not an elephant in dwy (a regular citizen somewhere in britain or somewhere) room. Not to say its impossible. If he lived in africa and trained elephants than that would be the frame of reference I would infer from to conclude if the statement is false or not. Are you saying his statement is not a hyperbole? That im using the terms incorrectly? How, please explain?? I want to learn. Go ahead. The term im using is more than the sum of derivative components?? How?? What are you talking about. Be clear.

I am not saying anything. This issue is between you and D. I was just pointing out facts. I do not analyse your original use, or make comment on that.

The answers you want need to come from D because he made the accusation.

He was generating the probability from insufficient evidence. 50/50 IS the probability he was proffering.


There is insufficient evidence in both options.

God exists or god does not exist is a 50/50 probability unless you can demonstrate something intelligent coming from nothing, if you believe that monkeys throwing random machine parts in the wall will one day make a car. I believe we came from something intelligent (consciousness, awareness)(same source) that was evolved prior, hence god.

And now you're misusing hyperbole... (again).
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hyperbole


No your example was an exaggeration used for emphasis or effect.
LOL.

So I didnt misuse frame of reference than? Goody.

I believe we came from something intelligent (consciousness, awareness)(same source) that was evolved prior, hence god.
And where did that "something intelligent" come from?
You're a subscriber to turtles all the way down?

No your example was an exaggeration used for emphasis or effect.
How was it an exaggeration?


So I didnt misuse frame of reference than? Goody.
Yes you did.
We have just as much "frame of reference" for the elephant in my bedroom as we we have for the existence of god.
Either you were misusing the term or making false claims.

One flaw in your BS. Evolution HAS been proven to be a system of change. If you want to meet 'Mr Evolution' you will be sadly diasappointed lol.

Obviously that went over your head. I said if I were to say the statement "It cant exist we havent found evidence in the last 1900 years" before lets say darwins time, would it have the same soundness as dwys statement that we havent found evidence of god in the last 2000 years. We lack the capacities maybe well find the "evidence" we seek in the future, like evolution. Im not spewing "BS" or saying god doesent exist. Learn to read.

There is insufficient evidence in both options.

God exists or god does not exist is a 50/50 probability unless you can demonstrate something intelligent coming from nothing, if you believe that monkeys throwing random machine parts in the wall will one day make a car. I believe we came from something intelligent (consciousness, awareness)(same source) that was evolved prior, hence god.

I do not see, and no one has ever seen 'nothing'. The universe is composed of stuff. Stuff that complexifies because of its base state. You are claiming the base state was designed? D claims the base state evolved? Both are equally hard to prove but that doesn't make a defineable proability. Insufficient evidence.

And where did that "something intelligent" come from?
You're a subscriber to turtles all the way down?

Where did we come from? I have no reason to believe god didnt come prior us. Reality would be more complication under that supposition. I'll simplify it and say that god exists and that is why consciousness exists in a meaningful way.

Obviously that went over your head. I said if I were to say the statement "It cant exist we havent found evidence in the last 1900 years" before lets say darwins time, would it have the same soundness as dwys statement that we havent found evidence of god in the last 2000 years.
That would be incorrect.
The reason that we "didn't have evidence" for evolution (we in fact did - in fact we're making use of that evidence) is that no-one thought to look. This is not the case with god. As I pointed out.

How was it an exaggeration?
Because you dont have an elephant? duh.



Yes you did.
We have just as much "frame of reference" for the elephant in my bedroom as we we have for the existence of god.
Either you were misusing the term or making false claims.

Incorrect. Frame of reference I can draw conclusions from. There is no frame of reference to god or god not existing. There is a frame of reference we can use to logically conclude that there is most likely not an elephant in your room (for all the obvious reasons)

Obviously that went over your head. I said if I were to say the statement "It cant exist we havent found evidence in the last 1900 years" before lets say darwins time, would it have the same soundness as dwys statement that we havent found evidence of god in the last 2000 years. We lack the capacities maybe well find the "evidence" we seek in the future, like evolution. Im not spewing "BS" or saying god doesent exist. Learn to read.

More fudging BS. I responded to:

Joey:
So the last 2000 years dwy we havent proven evolution to exist but we believe its true based on historical evidence.

I said:

One flaw in your BS. Evolution HAS been proven to be a system of change.

Trying to fudge the thread with more BS doesn't help your cause.

Because you dont have an elephant? duh.
Which is nothing to do with the point.
The premise (which you're assuming is incorrect) is to illustrate the probabilities involved.


Incorrect. Frame of reference I can draw conclusions from. There is no frame of reference to god or god not existing. There is a frame of reference we can use to logically conclude that there is most likely not an elephant in your room (for all the obvious reasons)
This would be wrong. Claims and attributes of god have been put forward. Granted the "frame of reference" for god is not of the same quality as that for an elephant (e.g. lack of evidence etc) but nevertheless it exists. It's what churches are founded upon. :rolleyes:

That would be incorrect.
The reason that we "didn't have evidence" for evolution (we in fact did - in fact we're making use of that evidence) is that no-one thought to look. This is not the case with god. As I pointed out.

So were looking for something "un-natural" in our natural world. OK.

I just said my definition of god is consciousness, a "divine" source of intelligence that creates the illusion of "me" and in general perception. In this notion, I have looked 4 and have concluded that god exists based on the "laws" of science and the self evident truth that we exist.

Which is nothing to do with the point.
Right which makes it a hyperbole.



This would be wrong. Claims and attributes of god have been put forward. Granted the "frame of reference" for god is not of the same quality as that for an elephant (e.g. lack of evidence etc) but nevertheless it exists. It's what churches are founded upon. :rolleyes:
[/quote]

I take this as you saying that I didnt misuse the word and that you misunderstood the context. Case closed.

Right which makes it a hyperbole.
Still wrong.


I take this as you saying that I didnt misuse the word and that you misunderstood the context. Case closed.
Oops, wrong again. As shown.

So were looking for something "un-natural" in our natural world. OK.

I just said my definition of god is consciousness, a "divine" source of intelligence that creates the illusion of "me" and in general perception. In this notion, I have looked 4 and have concluded that god exists based on the "laws" of science and the self evident truth that we exist.

Evidence to support this is?

I just said my definition of god is consciousness, a "divine" source of intelligence that creates the illusion of "me" and in general perception. In this notion, I have looked 4 and have concluded that god exists based on the "laws" of science and the self evident truth that we exist.
Which "laws of science" would they be?
Where did god come from?

Hey D, I think he's got to give us a bit more than this. I for one want to hear his theory don't you?

More fudging BS. I responded to:

Joey:

I said:


Trying to fudge the thread with more BS doesn't help your cause.

I did not say I dont believe in evolution. It co-exists with my theory of physical reality the way I understand it.

I dont believe in anything physical. I believe reality is digitally-based and god is the "emulator". I believe "everything" is a result of "our" physical senses, enviormental triggering of data exchange and god (the infinite range of possibility) which creates experience in a meaningful way or if you want to think of it as the universe experiencing itself in infinite arrays of focal perspectives to cover "every possibility" you can think of it that way.

I think after all the physical matter has expanded to every possibility this contigent matter created intervals of time (due to its onward expansion) contained in arrays of universes as "units" of a measurement with no coordinates.

Due to the expansion or motion the eventual consequence would be an "overlapping of layers" after a certain point creating consciousness to experience or "create" reality so it could instantaneously 'collapse the vaccum' or create based on this evolution of matter or god.

I believe evolution is a consequence of time and contigent matter in constant motion (following certain laws created to ensure the survival of experience) and this is a deliberate action of "god" to "experience" in a more meaningful way the emulation. It's like an emulator playing roms versus a simulation of nothing or everything. The universe does not have to be as uniform as it appears and its not, its just the illusion. I think that every type of reality exists and that we will "experience" every one. In increments of time to provide temporary meaning to physical reality which would be negated if we truly understood anything.

Again im not exclusive to any belief and I dont ascertain this as the truth. Its my best guess or "belief" versus stating I dont know. Its a given we dont know.

I believe because I think our thoughts are powerful + pascals wager it makes me think the moment I die my ultimate will is going to transfer me to a favorable experience :)

I did not say I dont believe in evolution. It co-exists with my theory of physical reality the way I understand it.

I dont believe in anything physical. I believe reality is digitally-based and god is the "emulator". I believe "everything" is a result of "our" physical senses, enviormental triggering of data exchange and god (the infinite range of possibility) which creates experience in a meaningful way or if you want to think of it as the universe experiencing itself in infinite arrays of focal perspectives to cover "every possibility" you can think of it that way.

I think after all the physical matter has expanded to every possibility this contigent matter created intervals of time (due to its onward expansion) contained in arrays of universes as "units" of a measurement with no coordinates.

Due to the expansion or motion the eventual consequence would be an "overlapping of layers" after a certain point creating consciousness to experience or "create" reality so it could instantaneously 'collapse the vaccum' or create based on this evolution of matter or god.

I believe evolution is a consequence of time and contigent matter in constant motion (following certain laws created to ensure the survival of experience) and this is a deliberate action of "god" to "experience" in a more meaningful way the emulation. It's like an emulator playing roms versus a simulation of nothing or everything. The universe does not have to be as uniform as it appears and its not, its just the illusion. I think that every type of reality exists and that we will "experience" every one. In increments of time to provide temporary meaning to physical reality which would be negated if we truly understood anything.

Again im not exclusive to any belief and I dont ascertain this as the truth. Its my best guess or "belief" versus stating I dont know. Its a given we dont know.

I believe because I think our thoughts are powerful + pascals wager it makes me think the moment I die my ultimate will is going to transfer me to a favorable experience :)

You said we haven't proven god to exist. I said we have. Can you refute that? You are not required to 'believe' in evolution. You are required to acccept it as fact.

Thanks for the breakdown of your belief/theory. I will peruse it tomorrow as it is late now.

I do accept it as fact sir.

Simply put I just believe in god as experience. It is more simple than to believe that one came from a fluke or matter than to all of us. Consciousness in a sterile universe is not needed. So if we simplify this in a meaninful way - we can come to understand that if we do not have a frame of reference - we cannot move foward meaningfully. I believe there is a god as the frame of reference for consciousness. I can't understand the purpose behind having consciousness in a sterile universe except than I conclude that the universe itself is alive through consciousness and that there has to be more. I just believe the mind is so powerful that one day we will manafacture reality like we do with dreams. I take this all as hints that physical reality is an illusion based on some quantum bonding of experience and focal points intertwined with the same type of contigent matter.

Quantum physics essentially states that everything is deprived from thoughts. From god? By god I mean - the first sense of matter that organized itself evolving to an extent on a cosmological scale and consciousness is some consequence of this evolution.


Is religion and god different? What is your definition of god? Don't worry you are most likely god, maybe everything is thats why we dont feel bad eating eachother Maybe we all just know life and death is more or less a game that doesent matter. I suspect that if we all were independant of reality that consciousness wouldent have been this organized, uniform andfollowinglaws. Actually let me ask you this,

If consciousness and physical reality (and the laws that it conforms to) is exclusive than consider what happens when we dream. Surely we are still conscious and we manafacture a reality within our own by a simple mental process alone. It doesent adhere to the laws in this physical reality. Than we wake up. Does that make any scientific sense when you really think about it??

How about those who lucid dream and control there enviorments in dreams, etc.?

I'll be eager to hear that response as to why it exists in the first place. Can evolution explain a complex level of consciousness to this extent? I suspect we are all one. That one is god. Universe, me, you, a blade of grass, and that perverted thought you have when you see a certain somebody, I think it's all god.


If reality was any different (If we knew god existed, if physical requirements were not in place for consciousness, all the usual arguments against) would life be meaningful in the way it is now??

Could you even imagine yourself as lets say a butterfly? Or a monkey? Do you think it would be as meaningful? I think it would to an extent. If you have no frame of reference surely death is something to be wanted. I mean, you fall asleep right??? Why wake up when you don't have to? Sounds sweet to me. I just dont think this is the case. I think we will resurface as this consciousness is all in the same fabric and we don't know what we will resurface as!We cant experience "death"inevolution just sleepwhichis deprived from the construct. Hopefully we will be animated. This is what god is about. It's about will + experience which isnt neccessitated by evolution

Isnt it perfectly balanced, can you think of how you would be otherwise?? If things were even a little different, suppose everybody always got what they want, wouldent it defeat the purpose of want and render the associated feelings null untill pain and happiness was synomonus?

Quantum physics essentially states that everything is deprived from thoughts.
Do you mean "derived"?
In which case: no it doesn't.


Surely we are still conscious and we manafacture a reality within our own by a simple mental process alone.
No we aren't and no we don't.

sorry scratch my last post. let me repost here as I made a booboo :S

You said we haven't proven evolution to exist. I said we have. Can you refute that? You are not required to 'believe' in evolution. You are required to acccept it as fact.

Thanks for the breakdown of your belief/theory. I will peruse it tomorrow as it is late now.

I didnt say we havent proven evolution to exist I said before the time of darwin. It was cuz dwy said that we havent found evidence of god yet in short I'm saying evolution is real but took awhile to find out.

Quantum physics proves experience is thought!
Experience or consciousness is matter evolving to the capacity of singularity where we can manafacture our own reality so when the vaccum collapses we wont even realize it becuase matter has evolved to another form (besides physical gas water, etc.) consciousness? Maybe ;0

I didnt say we havent proven evolution to exist I said before the time of darwin. It was cuz dwy said that we havent found evidence of god yet in short I'm saying evolution is real but took awhile to find out.

Quantum physics proves experience is thought!
Experience or consciousness is matter evolving to the capacity of singularity where we can manafacture our own reality so when the vaccum collapses we wont even realize it becuase matter has evolved to another form (besides physical gas water, etc.) consciousness? Maybe ;0

I will take it as a slip of the tongue then, or an assumption of context overlap that wasn't made clear (I won't be going back to nitpick the line further), no worries. I can see your views now.

I think QP is very incomplete, and I personally do not buy a lot of the interpretations of QP. It is still a field of many unknowns.

Let me take a look at your ideas tomorrow and I will come back to you on them.

Quantum physics proves experience is thought!
Experience is thought?
Quantum physics says this?
Links please.

Experience is thought?
Quantum physics says this?
Links please.

I think he is referring to the fact observing SEEMS to alter the behaviour of particles.

Yeah, that's why I asked for links. I suspect he's looked at one "explanation" of quantum physics and taken it absolute truth.

Yeah, that's why I asked for links. I suspect he's looked at one "explanation" of quantum physics and taken it absolute truth.

Yep, yep. QP is still full of unknowns. To fix it down when it hasn't really been understood enough yet for alternative interpretations to be blown out the water, is a bit assumptive.

Okay.
*Gasps for air*

Observation collapses wave function, this hopefully we all can agree, this is how "things" appear physical.

Anwser these questions:

Could things as they appear be probabilities of inumerable alternative states, why not? The particle we observe is just one form of many it could have appeared in. (Principle of uncertainty or whatever)

Science basically says that considering another form is immaterial as we can never observe the alternative forms. OK, does this mean its the only "physical" possibility or the only one our senses can communicate in a data "dialouge" with.

This line of thinking is how science rationalizes the physical universe as an absolute one despite Quantum Mecanics implication there is no absolte. I say non existent because without observation, there is no way to know what exists in what form subject to what or who is experiencing and possibly based on biological senses in some web of entanglement.

We cannot detect what we do not observe. Entanglement assures us of this. This applies to energy, space, and time as well as matter, including the matter of our physical form. Since onsevation collapses wave function in the instant we observe, how do we always appear the same way to ourselves and others? I try to reconcile this by thinking increments of time contained in universe (motion that willeventually expire,extinguishitself from energy/entropy)

You can see, hear, touch, smell, and taste things in this reality. This is absolute reality then, correct? How is this even possible however when all the experience you have of physical reality only ever becomes experience when your "brain" gives it recognition and definition? What you are so conditioned to accepting as objective experiense can actually only ever be subjective experience. Since your sensory observations are really just subjective ones, how can you know for certain anything physical even exists? Because of uniformity. This has to include the physical identity you have of yourself, which includes the brain. Yes, we do know we have experience of our identity and physical reality. I am just saying we don't have it the way we think. If we can only make things appear physical in the instant of observation then when we are not observing we cannot be sure these things exist physically. Both Quantum Mechasnics and Physiology confirm this. How then do we observe ourselves? How can we create the collapse of wave function that causes our identity to become physical in that instant of observation? I am suggesting we cant, and therefore require an Observer to "collapse our wave function". What collapses gods wave function???

Its reconciled by the emergance of physical reality other elements in this little theory (the reason why consciousness is divided by an array for focal points for instance) is used to collapse the wave functions of oneself (God) to conform to the laws consciousness was based on in this web of entanglement as one possible state reality canbe based on.

Observation collapses wave function in the instant of observation to appear as matter in a specific state. QED clearly shows that that state of matter is in a perpetual, yet instantaneous cycle of materializing as matter and anti matter then converting back to energy, then materializing as matter-anti matter, and converting back to energy, etc. with the interaction of a photon at each conversion. The problem is that both the obsewravation and what is observed as matter "occur" instataneously.

Maybe im stupid or too into video games but QP just indicates to me that there is a huge source code like a OP system and that anything is possible (the programs) reality just seems digitally basedand andgod has to be theemulator I think

Observation collapses wave function, this hopefully we all can agree, this is how "things" appear physical.
No.
Do try to read up on things.
Herr Schrödinger's cat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger%27s_cat) for one, and the various other possible explanations. Start here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse).


The particle we observe is just one form of many it could have appeared in. (Principle of uncertainty or whatever)
And you appear to be ignorant of the uncertainty principle, too.


We cannot detect what we do not observe. Entanglement assures us of this.
And entanglement.


If we can only make things appear physical in the instant of observation then when we are not observing we cannot be sure these things exist physically. Both Quantum Mechasnics and Physiology confirm this.
Neither "confirm" this.


How then do we observe ourselves? How can we create the collapse of wave function that causes our identity to become physical in that instant of observation? I am suggesting we cant, and therefore require an Observer to "collapse our wave function".
Then why does this hypothetical observer not collapse all wave functions, leaving none for us to collapse?

The same song and dance eh Dwy............
im leaving this alone bro there my beliefs which I dont even plan on elaborating on further although I may be able 2 because it contradicts the very nature of evidence we would require to ascribe to it in any rate so Ill just take it as a big waste of time and hopefully prevent this thread from gettingderailed to no return

in anyrate arguing about any belief regarding the premise of origin without any belief to contrast it to reminds me of the following picture.

http://img115.imageshack.us/img115/9697/retarded.jpg

Who cares your not proving anything you know except that we dont know? So ....................... yeah.

The same song and dance eh Dwy............
im leaving this alone bro there my beliefs
Except that you've made claims about "what science says", and still not provided links.
Well done. :rolleyes:

Do you have faith that time and space are the only reality, is that how it is? Or can you realize there is a slim possibility, however slight, that experiential and anecdotal evidence exists that these may in fact be illusions perceived by sensory organs existing in the third dimension only? Until you realize time and space are illusions of sight, sound, etc. and of the third dimensional physically oriented mind, you won't be ready to contemplate other scenarios for the existence of the cosmos. Till then, you will remain prisoners of the scientific dictatorship.

Do you have faith that time and space are the only reality?
Faith?
Why should I have faith in what I experience?


Or do you realize there is a slim possibility, however slight, that experiential and anecdotal evidence exists that these may in fact be illusions perceived by sensory organs existing in the third dimension only?
Experiential evidence? You mean claims and anecdote?
"In the third dimension only"? Dunno about you but my sense organs exist in (at least) four dimensions...

Faith?
Why should I have faith in what I experience?

Exactly. No difference between an atheist and a theist. You put your faith in your senses, a theist puts their faith in their reasoning. So? You just don't trust your powers of reasoning very well. You need hard evidence from yours (or other people's) measurements. Reasoning won't due.


Experiential evidence? You mean claims and anecdote?
"In the third dimension only"? Dunno about you but my sense organs exist in (at least) four dimensions...
Four? The x axis, the y axis, and time? What other axis do you perceive in? I'm curious?

Exactly. No difference between an atheist and a theist. You put your faith in your senses, a theist puts their faith in their reasoning. So? You just don't trust your powers of reasoning very well. You need hard evidence from yours (or other people's) measurements. Reasoning won't due.

Four? The x axis, the y axis, and time? What other axis do you perceive in? I'm curious?



height, length, width´and time would be my guess

Exactly. No difference between an atheist and a theist. You put your faith in your senses, a theist puts their faith in their reasoning. So? You just don't trust your powers of reasoning very well. You need hard evidence from yours (or other people's) measurements. Reasoning won't due.

That's just all types of wrong. But speaking for myself, I like both evidence and reasoning.

Never became an Atheist, Agnostic is close enough. Father took me out of church when I was young...we just never went back. He said I could read the book for myself if I wanted to become a Christian. I got involved in science and eventually decided all religions I encountered were a load of shit and so rejected them.

My stance is always, if there isn't a God then who cares...
If there is a God then direct him to me so that I might punch him in his face. If he had a face...If he didn't I'd ask him to take some sort of physical manifestation of himself so that I could then proceed to break his face...

Exactly. No difference between an atheist and a theist. You put your faith in your senses, a theist puts their faith in their reasoning. So? You just don't trust your powers of reasoning very well. You need hard evidence from yours (or other people's) measurements. Reasoning won't due.
Wrong.
I trust my reason almost implicity (and many others trust it too).
Theists, on the other hand, appear to use faith instead of reason.


Four? The x axis, the y axis, and time? What other axis do you perceive in? I'm curious?
Length, breadth, height (the 3 spacial dimensions) and time.

That's just all types of wrong. But speaking for myself, I like both evidence and reasoning.
If you use reasoning, then you necessarily have to reason that your evidence is only as good as your sensory input is.


Wrong.
Length, breadth, height (the 3 spacial dimensions) and time.
The x and y axis' of space are considered just two dimensions, time the third, that is why it is said we inhabit the third dimension. But this is semantics, I don't wish to quibble over sophomoric terms.

The x and y axis' of space are considered just two dimensions
Correct.
X is one. Y is another. Z is the third. That would make time the fourth. This is standard physics, standard geometry... hell, even standard engineering.


that is why it is said we inhabit the third dimension.
No, we don't "inhabit the third" we exist in all of these dimensions at the same time.

Correct.
X is one. Y is another. Z is the third. That would make time the fourth. This is standard physics, standard geometry... hell, even standard engineering.


No, we don't "inhabit the third" we exist in all of these dimensions at the same time.

I always assume people don't know the basics of any of the sciences. Just today actually a guy yelled at me cause he thought plants didn't have DNA...he was literally like..."all life on earth has DNA? What about plants moron?..."

I was speechless..

Just today actually a guy yelled at me cause he thought plants didn't have DNA...he was literally like..."all life on earth has DNA? What about plants moron?..."


Oh Gawd, somebody emigrated from Texas again!:rolleyes:

They should build education camps at the state border before they let us out...Notice I didn't say "RE-education"....;)

Exactly. No difference between an atheist and a theist. You put your faith in your senses, a theist puts their faith in their reasoning. So? You just don't trust your powers of reasoning very well. You need hard evidence from yours (or other people's) measurements. Reasoning won't due.



Senses are not about faith. But about proven fact. If you are denying the reality of the world this is close to insane delusion. There is no reasoning in belief in god, only blind faith.

Never became an Atheist, Agnostic is close enough. Father took me out of church when I was young...we just never went back. He said I could read the book for myself if I wanted to become a Christian. I got involved in science and eventually decided all religions I encountered were a load of shit and so rejected them.

My stance is always, if there isn't a God then who cares...
If there is a God then direct him to me so that I might punch him in his face. If he had a face...If he didn't I'd ask him to take some sort of physical manifestation of himself so that I could then proceed to break his face...

Why so angry. things happenas they do. Why attribute blame for the world when it is our decisions that mould it. If you want to punch anyone punch yourself, or me :)

If you use reasoning, then you necessarily have to reason that your evidence is only as good as your sensory input is.

Solipsistic conjecture with no founding in reality.



The x and y axis' of space are considered just two dimensions, time the third, that is why it is said we inhabit the third dimension. But this is semantics, I don't wish to quibble over sophomoric terms.

X Y and Z actually. How do you plot a position in space without three measurements? I think you are confusing positioning on the earth. But even on the earth we still use height as well as lat and long.

If there is a God then direct him to me so that I might punch him in his face. If he had a face...If he didn't I'd ask him to take some sort of physical manifestation of himself so that I could then proceed to break his face...

hmm...yeah i dont understand this either.:confused:

Wow an atheist family. I always knew they existed, but never met anybody that actually was born and grew up in an atheist family before. I think my dad was an atheist, but he never talked about it one way or the other and my mom was only weakly religious. So religion was not stressed as I grew up, nor was atheism.We certainly never talked about atheism either. I was unaware of the entire religion/atheism issue. The only people in my family who went to church were my paternal grandparents. They talked about "church" as though it were a social club, but never about the religious aspect. Given that my grandfather was from an assimilated Jewish family and "converted" to the Episcopal church simply because that's the one his wife belonged to, I doubt that either of them had very strong feelings about it. No one else who came to our house ever mentioned church or religion.
I did wonder about that, because once at the start of every school year we had to answer a bunch of questions, one of which is what religion are you. That question never failed to make me feel very uncomfortable. I didn't want to answer it, but it was a required answer, which elevated it's importance in my mind, and then all your school mates wanted to know what religion you were. So it was always a big deal once a year. And I never knew why they wanted to know. I always felt very intimidated by that question and all that it implied. Did you ever have to answer that question in school and if so how did you feel about it?In the 1950s nobody ever asked. They just assumed that everybody was Christian. We learned Christmas carols in the first grade, my first formal exposure to music, and I absolutely loved them. I had no idea what those words all meant, "savior," "manger," "little Lord Jesus," and I didn't care.
Atheism is the lack of belief. Can you show that a baby is born believing in god? If so which god?Jung's studies of archetypes suggest that belief in the supernatural may be an instinct. This would explain why it is so difficult to overturn. When you're born believing something, it feels more true than anything beliefs you acquire later through reasoning and learning. As to why that particular instinct survived (belief in an invisible, illogical supernatural universe whose creatures and other forces whimsically and often angrily perturb the behavior of the natural universe), since instincts tend to be survival advantages, like running away from a large animal with both eyes in front of its face or else you won't live to reproduce, that's a tough question. Our species has passed through two genetic bottlenecks so perhaps it's simply a random mutation survived by chance. However, at the cusp of the Neolithic Revolution it may have been a species-survival advantage, since if two rival tribes discovered that they had the same beliefs it may have made them more inclined to try living together instead of hating each other. Unfortunately the basic archetypes of religion have been weighed down with accretions that vary from one population to another, so today it reinforces the rivalry and hatred rather than damping it.
Our problem as atheists is (though), is there any real evidence to indicate he actually doesn't exist given the nature of god is undetermined and changed according to the manipulations and policies of the lier purporting them?Fortunately the rules of science and scholarship remind us that we are not required to prove a negative. The burden of proof is always on the one who makes the assertion, not the one who demands evidence to support it. Otherwise we would dissipate all of our resources disproving every crackpot theory that's ever been hatched, and research and scholarship would grind to a halt. The Rule of Laplace codifies it even further: Extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before we are obliged to treat them with respect. Laymen can be excused for not understanding this, but there is no excuse for people who call themselves scholars demanding that we disprove the existence of an invisible, illogical supernatural universe.
The best scientific and logical standing right there. But the issue of god existing is the issue. And the probability of this. Analysis of the evidence for and against is relevant here?A reminder: Evidence against is not required. An assertion remains false until it has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt (the closest science comes to absolute truth).
You discuss issues relating to evidence he does, but do not look at evidence to support he doesn't? Is this completely rounded?You need to review your Science 101A textbook.
So the last 2000 years dwy we havent proven evolution to exist but we believe its true based on historical evidence.No. We have proven evolution to be true beyond a reasonable doubt based on consistent, overwhelming evidence. We have volumes of evidence from two completely different, unrelated branches of science: paleontology and genetics. That proof is so solid that even the Pope and the leaders of all the mainstream religions accept evolution.
Thus I'm inclined to believe in god because we exist.This is a place of science and scholarship, so it's not enough to state an assertion. You have to explain it. Please explain what evidence suggests that our existence in the natural universe is proof of a supernatural universe?
It's sufficient in evidence to me abiogenesis is no more sound than believing in god.You're not much of a scholar, and a compete failure as a scientist, if you don't understand that evolution and abiogenesis are two separate issues. Evolution speaks only to the development of lifeforms from each other. It says nothing about how the first one came into existence.
Oh nevermind dwy's position " I dont know so im going to attack you for your claim because it makes me feel like I know something, that your full of shit" is a stupid position, pointless and stupid.For the record, so far you have provided abundant evidence to support the assertion that you are, at the very least, not very well educated, if not downright stupid. You don't understand science at all, which is pretty much a prerequisite for being respected on SciForums.
It's what churches are founded upon.Churches are founded upon the fallacy of argument from authority. "My daddy told me and his daddy told him so it must be true." The fact that this trail of so-called evidence leads us logically back to someone in the Stone Age seems to escape the religionists--since, by definition, they are not logical.
So were looking for something "un-natural" in our natural world.Well put, for a change. Since science as we know it arose around five hundred years ago, we have been established its fundamental premise, that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted logically from empirical observation of its present and past behavior. Since science is recursive, this premise has been tested and peer-reviewed for centuries, and no evidence has ever been found that challenges it, much less refutes it.
I just said my definition of god is consciousness, a "divine" source of intelligence that creates the illusion of "me" and in general perception. In this notion, I have looked 4 and have concluded that god exists based on the "laws" of science and the self evident truth that we exist.You still have not explained why the existence of creatures with consciousness--which includes (at least) all mammals and birds--is evidence for a supernatural creator. In other words, you are still babbling incoherently.
I did not say I dont believe in evolution. It co-exists with my theory of physical reality the way I understand it. I dont believe in anything physical. I believe reality is digitally-based and god is the "emulator". I believe "everything" is a result of "our" physical senses, enviormental triggering of data exchange and god (the infinite range of possibility) which creates experience in a meaningful way or if you want to think of it as the universe experiencing itself in infinite arrays of focal perspectives to cover "every possibility" you can think of it that way. I think after all the physical matter has expanded to every possibility this contigent matter created intervals of time (due to its onward expansion) contained in arrays of universes as "units" of a measurement with no coordinates. Due to the expansion or motion the eventual consequence would be an "overlapping of layers" after a certain point creating consciousness to experience or "create" reality so it could instantaneously 'collapse the vaccum' or create based on this evolution of matter or god. I believe evolution is a consequence of time and contigent matter in constant motion (following certain laws created to ensure the survival of experience) and this is a deliberate action of "god" to "experience" in a more meaningful way the emulation. It's like an emulator playing roms versus a simulation of nothing or everything. The universe does not have to be as uniform as it appears and its not, its just the illusion. I think that every type of reality exists and that we will "experience" every one. In increments of time to provide temporary meaning to physical reality which would be negated if we truly understood anything.That's an interesting science fiction story. But it is not science and it is not scholarship. You have no evidence for this assertion so the only place you can get away with it is right here on the Religion subforum where we loosen the rules.
The same song and dance eh Dwy............
im leaving this alone bro there my beliefs which I dont even plan on elaborating on further although I may be able 2 because it contradicts the very nature of evidence we would require to ascribe to it in any rate so Ill just take it as a big waste of time and hopefully prevent this thread from getting derailed to no return.Too late for that. You've already succeeded in derailing it. We're no longer discussing why and how people came to be atheists, but instead we're trying to teach you some semblance of rationality so you can get along here.
Exactly. No difference between an atheist and a theist. You put your faith in your senses, a theist puts their faith in their reasoning.Reasoning??? What utter bullshit! The faith of the scientist is a reasoned faith. The faith of the religionist is an unreasoned faith. My wife has stood by me for thirty-three years, so I reasonably assume that she will continue to do so. The faith of the religionists is based on instinct, stories passed down from the elders, and the overwhelming desire to have a Big Daddy In The Sky who will make everything turn out all right.
So? You just don't trust your powers of reasoning very well. You need hard evidence from yours (or other people's) measurements. Reasoning won't due.Hmm. Someone else who got an F in Science 101A. Reasoning and empirical evidence are the cornerstones of the scientific method. Although peer review also plays an important role and that's where the religionists fall face down in the mud. None of their assertions stand up to the most cursory examination.
I always assume people don't know the basics of any of the sciences. Just today actually a guy yelled at me cause he thought plants didn't have DNA...he was literally like..."all life on earth has DNA? What about plants moron?..." I was speechless..Amusing. Plants and animals share about 50% of their DNA. I'm sure this Redneck doesn't even know that besides plants and animals there are four more kingdoms: fungi, algae, bacteria and archaea. And they all have DNA. :)

Originally Posted by universaldistress
Our problem as atheists is (though), is there any real evidence to indicate he actually doesn't exist given the nature of god is undetermined and changed according to the manipulations and policies of the lier purporting them?


Fraggle Rocker: Fortunately the rules of science and scholarship remind us that we are not required to prove a negative. The burden of proof is always on the one who makes the assertion, not the one who demands evidence to support it. Otherwise we would dissipate all of our resources disproving every crackpot theory that's ever been hatched, and research and scholarship would grind to a halt. The Rule of Laplace codifies it even further: Extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before we are obliged to treat them with respect. Laymen can be excused for not understanding this, but there is no excuse for people who call themselves scholars demanding that we disprove the existence of an invisible, illogical supernatural universe.

Sure, I am with you there.


Originally Posted by universaldistress
The best scientific and logical standing right there. But the issue of god existing is the issue. And the probability of this. Analysis of the evidence for and against is relevant here?


FR: A reminder: Evidence against is not required. An assertion remains false until it has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt (the closest science comes to absolute truth).

Evidence against may not be require per se but science must be prepared to analyse the evidence offered if it has possible substance (generally doesn't take a lot of effort or resources to question blind faith with no evidence as yet?). Evidence would theoretically be used to build an argument for or against. The fact there is no evidence to support God, and no real evidence that can deny existence of god within a cleverly cooked up fictional framework is the problem.

The conclusion is always that both of these sides never get satisfaction.



UD: You discuss issues relating to evidence he does, but do not look at evidence to support he doesn't? Is this completely rounded?


FR: You need to review your Science 101A textbook.

How so? To place bias on the review of evidence to the point it isn't looked at isn't science. Before it is cast away out of hand it must be subject to unbiased analysis. The fact the theists have nothing tangible is by the by? The fact it is easy to blow out the water is more relevant than ignoring it?

Fortunately the rules of science and scholarship remind us that we are not required to prove a negative.

Prove a negative? Science has no place regarding the premise of origin.


The burden of proof is always on the one who makes the assertion, not the one who demands evidence to support it. Otherwise we would dissipate all of our resources disproving every crackpot theory that's ever been hatched, and research and scholarship would grind to a halt. The Rule of Laplace codifies it even further: Extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before we are obliged to treat them with respect.

Who is making the extraordinary claim? I'm inclined to believe that god exists because the very fabric of consciousness exists in this sterile physical universe that does not require this exchange of data with our senses, the enviorment and various triggers, which produces instantaneous non-scientific realities. Isnt it more sound to believe the thread of consciousness is god (1) which is a consequence of the evolution of matter?? Are we to believe that evolution only takes place in physical organisms? Or is it more sound to believe that physical organisms are a consequence of matter evolving so the universe can "create everything" and collapse its vaccum instantaneously??


Laymen can be excused for not understanding this, but there is no excuse for people who call themselves scholars demanding that we disprove the existence of an invisible, illogical supernatural universe.A reminder: Evidence against is not required. An assertion remains false until it has been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt (the closest science comes to absolute truth).

I dont care if my assertion "remains false" whats your problem your in a religion topic. I love this. "illogical supernatural universe" because of the label "god". What is so logical about the universe? Please explain and enlighten. Your position is a convinient one relating to whether god can exist or not. My definition of god isnt a conventional one but in summary I believe me and you are one in the same. You rationalize the anthro principle based on sheer probability I assume?? Can this probability not be lended to the concept of god as consciousness? What is so scientific about the scientific premise for reality? You seem like a scientifical person, I anticipate your response.



You need to review your Science 101A textbook.No. We have proven evolution to be true beyond a reasonable doubt based on consistent, overwhelming evidence. We have volumes of evidence from two completely different, unrelated branches of science: paleontology and genetics. That proof is so solid that even the Pope and the leaders of all the mainstream religions accept evolution.

Seriously Fraggle your like the master in linguistics and you are wayy off base here. I have explained in several posts that I do not doubt evolution in any sense. You are clearly not reading responses, just skimming and putting your input which is fine but weve went over this exact point a few times. My point about that was that it took over 1900 years for us to figure out (dwy was saying its been over 2000 years and we still havent found evidence for god) my point was that we could find it in the future. Again. I believe evolution is real.


This is a place of science and scholarship


I must have missed the scientific theories in the religion subfora, my apologies.


so it's not enough to state an assertion. You have to explain it. Please explain what evidence suggests that our existence in the natural universe is proof of a supernatural universe?

The fact that we have a universe we deem natural? What exactly is natural to you and how is this different from my definition of god? Furthmore why do you continue asking why and demanding evidence in something not natural to begin with? I'm speculating about how we came to be. Your leading this thread to regress. I havent ascertained anything as the truth.


You're not much of a scholar, and a compete failure as a scientist,
Your not much of a linguistic lad if you cant read in context.... Please explain to me specifically how Im not much of a scholar, please...



if you don't understand that evolution and abiogenesis are two separate issues. Evolution speaks only to the development of lifeforms from each other. It says nothing about how the first one came into existence.For the record, so far you have provided abundant evidence to support the assertion that you are, at the very least, not very well educated, if not downright stupid. You don't understand science at all, which is pretty much a prerequisite for being respected on SciForums.

Are you even reading what I put down!! Did I say evolution and abiogenesis were the same thing?? I know evolution doesent explain the premise of origin. What is the matter with you! You are sounding downright stupid Fraggle your wayy too off base. I never said evolution is not real and I never said that abiogenesis and evolution are one of the same. Are you sure your the linguistics guy to go to?



l.Well put, for a change. Since science as we know it arose around five hundred years ago, we have been established its fundamental premise, that the natural universe is a closed system whose behavior can be predicted logically from empirical observation of its present and past behavior.

But were not talking about a closed system. I was talking about the matter systems are based on.


Since science is recursive, this premise has been tested and peer-reviewed for centuries, and no evidence has ever been found that challenges it, much less refutes it.You still have not explained why the existence of creatures with consciousness--which includes (at least) all mammals and birds--is evidence for a supernatural creator. In other words, you are still babbling incoherently.

I am babbling incoheerently? Can you outline how I'm doing so?? Please. Because I didnt explain the birds?? I did I explained that god is consciousness and there is no reason for me to believe I wont resurface instaneously in the consciousness of an existing bird.


That's an interesting science fiction story. But it is not science and it is not scholarship.

What do you believe in? I cant wait to hear this scientific and scholarly religion.


You have no evidence for this assertion so the only place you can get away with it is right here on the Religion subforum where we loosen the rules.

So you want to turn "belief" into fact? What do you believe? You have nothing to contrast my "belief" with I suspect. I dont give a fuck about the rules fraggle I really dont.


Too late for that. You've already succeeded in derailing it. We're no longer discussing why and how people came to be atheists, but instead we're trying to teach you some semblance of rationality so you can get along here.

I derailed it?
Nah people baited and trolled me into it. You just stimulated it after dying. Your not "teaching" anyone anything. What is so rational about the premise of origin. I want to hear what you think.


Reasoning??? What utter bullshit!

I agree with you trying to reason relating to the question being asked is hard to do, eh ;)


The faith of the scientist is a reasoned faith. The faith of the religionist is an unreasoned faith.

What is the scientests reasonable faith extend to when it has to do with the premise of reality and origin?


My wife has stood by me for thirty-three years, so I reasonably assume that she will continue to do so.

Someone give that woman a cigar.


The faith of the religionists is based on instinct, stories passed down from the elders, and the overwhelming desire to have a Big Daddy In The Sky who will make everything turn out all right.

Seems like you have some predisposed bias. Why is god interchangable with western organized religion systems? Hmm.


Someone else who got an F in Science 101A. Reasoning and empirical evidence are the cornerstones of the scientific method. Although peer review also plays an important role and that's where the religionists fall face down in the mud.

Religionists versus saying we dont know yet and were on stand by for evidence of god?? Your standards for proof are to narrow-minded. I want to hear a rational explanation of how we exist and what our reality is based on!


None of their assertions stand up to the most cursory examination.Amusing. Plants and animals share about 50% of their DNA. I'm sure this Redneck doesn't even know that besides plants and animals there are four more kingdoms: fungi, algae, bacteria and archaea. And they all have DNA. :)

DNA is a cornerstone to my little theory. Matter is definitely evolving in more ways than we can imagine. You think, no. It's fine. I am curious to find out about your scientifical theory on origin. I cant wait for this..

Besides I believe in science not religion. Im not exclusively limiting my belief system to science because were talking about a concept thats not a closed system. Science can only be done in closed systems.

Religion has too many boundaries, contradictions and the concept itself bleeds with absurdity since this religious reality would render existance to be meaningless in the most respects especially in the sense that it is all some "test".

I'll even go further and explain to you why science isnt applicable relating to the question at hand.

Through science we understand what appears as solid is not. (Exchange of "data" from senses, enviorment and various triggers)

That the universe at some point was "contained" and somehow expanded or continues to expand.

That something "physical" even if it appears "still" is essentially energy in constant motion.

These three points among many more lead me to believe that I cant approach the question of what is the premise of origin without considering one thing.

This could just be a *possible perspective* based on our senses and the data available. This could all just be an "illusion".

Infact its most likely an illusion because quantum physics does not seem to conform to the "natural" laws of science though it can be said it makes the composition for these constructs to exist in the first place.

There is a "universal" science that applies to the natural and the "un-natural" I would suspect its (acceleration, constant motion) the intergration of the physical and consciousness is some consequence of this constant motion evolving itself to be more efficient. Under this pretense I believe there is a god but not many would define the construct of evolving matter as such.

I just cant see how a monkey could throw a bunch of auto parts against a wall and eventually make a car.

Correct.
X is one. Y is another. Z is the third. That would make time the fourth. This is standard physics, standard geometry... hell, even standard engineering.

My bad. I had a migraine and wasn't thinking straight that day. Basic high school edumacation. :eek: bah ahah hah ahah

Besides I believe in science not religion. Im not exclusively limiting my belief system to science because were talking about a concept thats not a closed system. Science can only be done in closed systems.

Religion has too many boundaries, contradictions and the concept itself bleeds with absurdity since this religious reality would render existance to be meaningless in the most respects especially in the sense that it is all some "test".

I'll even go further and explain to you why science isnt applicable relating to the question at hand.

Through science we understand what appears as solid is not. (Exchange of "data" from senses, enviorment and various triggers)

That the universe at some point was "contained" and somehow expanded or continues to expand.

That something "physical" even if it appears "still" is essentially energy in constant motion.

These three points among many more lead me to believe that I cant approach the question of what is the premise of origin without considering one thing.

This could just be a *possible perspective* based on our senses and the data available. This could all just be an "illusion".

Infact its most likely an illusion because quantum physics does not seem to conform to the "natural" laws of science though it can be said it makes the composition for these constructs to exist in the first place.

There is a "universal" science that applies to the natural and the "un-natural" I would suspect its (acceleration, constant motion) the intergration of the physical and consciousness is some consequence of this constant motion evolving itself to be more efficient. Under this pretense I believe there is a god but not many would define the construct of evolving matter as such.

I just cant see how a monkey could throw a bunch of auto parts against a wall and eventually make a car.

Where is you EVIDENCE to support the idea that existence could be an illusion?

We could be living in a computer simulation. It's possible. In fact, it's more likely than not. Consider that in the future, if we can simulate a universe, there could be many more copies existing than the actual universe.

I did not say I dont believe in evolution. It co-exists with my theory of physical reality the way I understand it.

I dont believe in anything physical. I believe reality is digitally-based and god is the "emulator". I believe "everything" is a result of "our" physical senses, enviormental triggering of data exchange and god (the infinite range of possibility) which creates experience in a meaningful way or if you want to think of it as the universe experiencing itself in infinite arrays of focal perspectives to cover "every possibility" you can think of it that way.

Are you trying to say the theory that the universe computes is evidence for a belief in god? I could go along in principal that the universe computes. But to attribute wholesale or individualistic intelligence is untenable as it is a, without evidence, b, unproven.


I think after all the physical matter has expanded to every possibility this contigent matter created intervals of time (due to its onward expansion) contained in arrays of universes as "units" of a measurement with no coordinates.

Ok to theorise, but we can't prove it. To discuss this as philosophical possibility has intellectual benefit. But to wholeheartedly BELIEVE your theory, and refuse to present it as a possibility is a tad hopeful. Hopeful that we are going to a, buy it, b, not blow your stance out of the water.

I have a theory too. But I do not pedal it as fact.


Due to the expansion or motion the eventual consequence would be an "overlapping of layers" after a certain point creating consciousness to experience or "create" reality so it could instantaneously 'collapse the vaccum' or create based on this evolution of matter or god.

No evidence to support this. Is this a fanciful theory or fact?


I believe evolution is a consequence of time and contigent matter in constant motion (following certain laws created to ensure the survival of experience) and this is a deliberate action of "god" to "experience" in a more meaningful way the emulation. It's like an emulator playing roms versus a simulation of nothing or everything. The universe does not have to be as uniform as it appears and its not, its just the illusion. I think that every type of reality exists and that we will "experience" every one. In increments of time to provide temporary meaning to physical reality which would be negated if we truly understood anything.

You are not a god, and are restricted to the observable. 'Think' is to strong a word. 'Think that maybe' is more the appropriate phrase?


Again im not exclusive to any belief and I dont ascertain this as the truth. Its my best guess or "belief" versus stating I dont know. Its a given we dont know.

Ok, so now you are saying you do not believe your belief. Sounds very mixed up. You would get a much better response here, from members like myself and Sciwriter if you worded your whole theory in a more possible-maybe-type way.


I believe because I think our thoughts are powerful + pascals wager it makes me think the moment I die my ultimate will is going to transfer me to a favorable experience :)

You have got to get a handle on reality, and waht it means for your stance within, and the way to present it externally. Then you would be able to have a more meaningful conversation here.

We could be living in a computer simulation. It's possible. In fact, it's more likely than not. Consider that in the future, if we can simulate a universe, there could be many more copies existing than the actual universe.

Yeah, sure, could be. But it needs to presented as a maybe and not as a belief, or even a fact.

For a claim to be made it needs support of evidence of substance. Cobbling together something and presenting it too strongly will result in no assessment of its potential, and instead a knee jerk 'shut the hell up'.

There is no emperical evidence supporting that reality is an illusion since it would negate the point of the assertion.

Relativity has to decieve us in order to exist.
Our reality can verywell be a mere illusion. Physical properties are soley determined by subjective thought from our senses and the material we interpet to be physical due to its properties and our interactions with this property that has evolved to current extents.

Your eyes have the power to absorb an immense amount of sights. Relative distances, colors, speeds, and weight can all be instantaneously determined just with the eyes alone. They absorb all of this matter and send it to the dense matter right behind them and this creates a still image. The process of absorption, brain taking a picture is what creates the illusion of existence.

The eyes take in the information, the brain has to create a picture. The brain is too dense to process motion in the micro levels and it has to process one frame at a time. Our bodies are able to move faster than this process that’s why when you watch a kinetic dancer his motion seems blurred. He is moving so fast that your brain cannot keep up and stores a series of images that are hybrids of two frames hence the blur. If a high-speed camera sensitive to true properties was present, since it stores frames at a rate faster than our brains, it would be able to capture the true watery motion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hGhjFGKdTEM Watch this bee.

We have to use a sensitive high speed camera to capture this motion. The true speed of true interactions cannot be said. We think we’re moving along at a certain pace due to relativity when we’re actually not going anywhere. It takes a a lot of energy to create our seemingly fluid motion just as it takes a lot of energy to create the seemingly fluid motion you see above
Air or space is the baddest substance out there. Remember the faster our high-speed camera or artificial eye moves, the slower the motion. In actuality, the truer the motion. If we had a camera that could capture an infinite number of frames we would never see the actual motion. The bee would seem to sit in one place our entire lifetime. Now what if we lived in this state for an eternity? Our perception of the world around us would jive with the images captured by or infinite-frame capturing camera. We would see every last movement the bee made if we sat there forever. Even if the film was a two-second jaunt atop a flower if shot a camera that recorded in an infinite frame rate would play it back for infinity. Matter of fact it would still be recording it as you watched it. Don’t even try to wrap your head around that. We literally cannot, that is why we have this relativity thing going so we don’t have to. If it wasn’t for relativity we would just sit in one place forever or explode in a millisecond.

The faster our camera captures images the slower they appear to move. In its frame could be a humming bird, a snail and jet. If the speed of the camera is fast enough, when you watch the film back all three of these objects will not seem to move at all. They just stay still for eternity. If the camera moves ridiculously slow, say one frame every one billion years you would get to see how evolution really works. You would see the true nature of our LIVING celestial bodies. Imagine viewing our solar system at this speed.

Consciousness and interpretation have to exist for the universe to appear the way it does.

But is the way we percieve something make it an absolute? Is the universe truly the way it is? Or one possible interpretation due to our senses??

Could an ant ever truly understand the world?? Is a good analogy if well ever truly understand reality. Its not meant to be understood. It would negate free will and render everything to be meaningless.

“

Reasoning??? What utter bullshit! The faith of the scientist is a reasoned faith. The faith of the religionist is an unreasoned faith. My wife has stood by me for thirty-three years, so I reasonably assume that she will continue to do so. The faith of the religionists is based on instinct, stories passed down from the elders, and the overwhelming desire to have a Big Daddy In The Sky who will make everything turn out all right.


Hmm. Someone else who got an F in Science 101A. Reasoning and empirical evidence are the cornerstones of the scientific method. Although peer review also plays an important role and that's where the religionists fall face down in the mud. None of their assertions stand up to the most cursory examination.
I think you took what I said to the extreme. I agreed with you on your post almost in it's entirety. All I was meaning to point out was that the scientist that has faith, that is humble, is aware of the limits of human perception is different than the arrogant atheist that is self assured of his supposed infallibility. The scientist that isn't, has not belief beyond what can be perceived by his senses and beyond that what can be measured, reproduced, calculated, and predicted. This was not meant to be an attack on all scientists or all empiricists. I was just pointing out the differences in the willingness to employ reasoning in the lack of empirical evidence. For when we speak on matters of faith, do we not have to leave behind matters of evidence and science?

The blind man who believes there is only one earth and one star, the sun, because that is all he can feel upon his skin, is the atheist. The blind man that has faith that there may be many more because he has an open mind and can imagine a universe with more though he cannot see more, has no way of perceiving any others, but only has faith that it may be possible, is the theist.


"The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science. Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear is a dead man. To know that what is impenetrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties - this knowledge, this feeling ... that is the core of the true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself among profoundly religious men."
-- Albert Einstein

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGK84Poeynk

Are you trying to say the theory that the universe computes is evidence for a belief in god? I could go along in principal that the universe computes. But to attribute wholesale or individualistic intelligence is untenable as it is a, without evidence, b, unproven.


It is inevitable (intelligence) if you believe in evolution.
If you believe the anthropotic principle explained by sheer probability you must also consider god in the equation. The universe computes ??? Is there a better description of god.... I think not. Perhaps I'll steal that. :)



Ok to theorise, but we can't prove it. To discuss this as philosophical possibility has intellectual benefit. But to wholeheartedly BELIEVE your theory, and refuse to present it as a possibility is a tad hopeful. Hopeful that we are going to a, buy it, b, not blow your stance out of the water.

I whoreheartedly believe in god, not the theory itself. Its mere speculation to elevate ourselves from "I dont know so your stupid if you ascertain something as the truth" Lets elevate or stay away from the religious subfora if your not interested in progressing the ideas.


I have a theory too. But I do not pedal it as fact.

So does science. Illustrate how I pedaled it as fact if every possible moment I could I included that nobody knows, its mere speculation and that it is simply a belief in god that I hold as true.



No evidence to support this. Is this a fanciful theory or fact?


Fanciful theory that is more sound than one you can conjure up, perhaps....



You are not a god, and are restricted to the observable. 'Think' is to strong a word. 'Think that maybe' is more the appropriate phrase?


Nope we are all god. Omnipotent is oxymoron basically. Doing anything would negate meaning I suspect experience transcended from contigent matter were based on and god is the source of origin, in my interpretation.



Ok, so now you are saying you do not believe your belief. Sounds very mixed up. You would get a much better response here, from members like myself and Sciwriter if you worded your whole theory in a more possible-maybe-type way.

Screw Sciwriter. He is even more off base than athiests who dont have an opinion. We essentially have the same beliefs and are arguing about labels. God had to be. Nothing can explain the dynamics of survival, will and consciousness especially in a vaccum state.



You have got to get a handle on reality, and waht it means for your stance within, and the way to present it externally. Then you would be able to have a more meaningful conversation here.

I suspect you have a handle on reality? Care to enlighten us?

I do accept it as fact sir.

Simply put I just believe in god as experience. It is more simple than to believe that one came from a fluke or matter than to all of us. Consciousness in a sterile universe is not needed. So if we simplify this in a meaninful way - we can come to understand that if we do not have a frame of reference - we cannot move foward meaningfully. I believe there is a god as the frame of reference for consciousness. I can't understand the purpose behind having consciousness in a sterile universe except than I conclude that the universe itself is alive through consciousness and that there has to be more. I just believe the mind is so powerful that one day we will manafacture reality like we do with dreams. I take this all as hints that physical reality is an illusion based on some quantum bonding of experience and focal points intertwined with the same type of contigent matter.

Without evidence to support a creative intelligence's means of control (transfer of data between matter to maintain a scheme) it is going to be hard to move your theory away from theory to believable fact.



Quantum physics essentially states that everything is deprived from thoughts. From god? By god I mean - the first sense of matter that organized itself evolving to an extent on a cosmological scale and consciousness is some consequence of this evolution.

This is based on the idea that an observer affects a change in quantum states. There are other interpretations of the evidence as D highlighted yesterday.



Is religion and god different? What is your definition of god? Don't worry you are most likely god, maybe everything is thats why we dont feel bad eating each other Maybe we all just know life and death is more or less a game that doesent matter. I suspect that if we all were independant of reality that consciousness wouldent have been this organized, uniform andfollowinglaws. Actually let me ask you this,

You can't present this without a smile on your face. A god could be everything, but i for one do not want to eat my neighbour lol. I have learned that this is wrong. Where is free thought in all this? And where is the straight jacket? I wouldn't want you as my neighbour LOL.




If consciousness and physical reality (and the laws that it conforms to) is exclusive than consider what happens when we dream. Surely we are still conscious and we manafacture a reality within our own by a simple mental process alone. It doesent adhere to the laws in this physical reality. Than we wake up. Does that make any scientific sense when you really think about it??

The mind constructs dream imagery in absence of the strong sensory input of the day. The mind uses this time to process and store (change the nature of the storing) of the days input. To say dreams are evidence to anything outside the laws of physical reality is just uneducated.


How about those who lucid dream and control there enviorments in dreams, etc.?

How about that.


I'll be eager to hear that response as to why it exists in the first place. Can evolution explain a complex level of consciousness to this extent? I suspect we are all one. That one is god. Universe, me, you, a blade of grass, and that perverted thought you have when you see a certain somebody, I think it's all god.

Evolution isn't the study of consciousness.

But you can't prove it is all god, so no one here is listening to you.



If reality was any different (If we knew god existed, if physical requirements were not in place for consciousness, all the usual arguments against) would life be meaningful in the way it is now??

I am unable to pin down a coherent point to this questing. If I ignore the incoherence of the extra in brackets, then I can answer that if reality was different then chances are anything meaningful within said altered reality would be composed of aspects different to this reality. Does this answer your question??? (where is Dwayne?)


Could you even imagine yourself as lets say a butterfly? Or a monkey? Do you think it would be as meaningful? I think it would to an extent. If you have no frame of reference surely death is something to be wanted. I mean, you fall asleep right??? Why wake up when you don't have to? Sounds sweet to me. I just dont think this is the case. I think we will resurface as this consciousness is all in the same fabric and we don't know what we will resurface as!We cant experience "death"inevolution just sleepwhichis deprived from the construct. Hopefully we will be animated. This is what god is about. It's about will + experience which isnt neccessitated by evolution

Again you are hoping, and believing without evidence. You have cobbled together BITS of science and BITS of religion to make one incoherent whole.

I am still not getting a formed picture of your theory so i must assume there isn't one, and you are just 'stream of consciousness' waffling.


Isnt it perfectly balanced, can you think of how you would be otherwise?? If things were even a little different, suppose everybody always got what they want, wouldent it defeat the purpose of want and render the associated feelings null untill pain and happiness was synomonus?

Is reality the ultimate state? No way of knowing. Maybe something more complex and efficient exists out there in infinity. Just don't base your psychology on incomplete evidence. One must always maintain and project a healthy scepticism.

It is inevitable (intelligence) if you believe in evolution.
If you believe the anthropotic principle explained by sheer probability you must also consider god in the equation. The universe computes ??? Is there a better description of god.... I think not. Perhaps I'll steal that. :)



I whoreheartedly believe in god, not the theory itself. Its mere speculation to elevate ourselves from "I dont know so your stupid if you ascertain something as the truth" Lets elevate or stay away from the religious subfora if your not interested in progressing the ideas.

So does science. Illustrate how I pedaled it as fact if every possible moment I could I included that nobody knows, its mere speculation and that it is simply a belief in god that I hold as true.



Fanciful theory that is more sound than one you can conjure up, perhaps....



Nope we are all god. Omnipotent is oxymoron basically. Doing anything would negate meaning I suspect experience transcended from contigent matter were based on and god is the source of origin, in my interpretation.



Screw Sciwriter. He is even more off base than athiests who dont have an opinion. We essentially have the same beliefs and are arguing about labels. God had to be. Nothing can explain the dynamics of survival, will and consciousness especially in a vaccum state.



I suspect you have a handle on reality? Care to enlighten us?

I am not here to enlighten anyone with a possibility.

You HAVE pedalled this theory as fact with the wording you have used. They fact you rescind this now is great.

But to then say you wholeheartedly believe in god shoots you down once more.

My theory is much more comprehensive than this mixup of science and fringe philosophy used to fudge the science, coupled with borrowed theist teaching.

Without evidence to support a creative intelligence's means of control (transfer of data between matter to maintain a scheme) it is going to be hard to move your theory away from theory to believable fact.

Beliefs have to be based on facts? It cant be reduced to logical reasoning infered from contemporary understandings and truths?

Furthermore, what is your belief relating to the premise of reality?? Is it the convinient position "I dont know so shut the fuck up for thinking you know something even though your not ascertaining what you know as truth" ?



This is based on the idea that an observer affects a change in quantum states. There are other interpretations of the evidence as D highlighted yesterday.


Who cares does it make his alternative interpretation anymore valid than mine? Who is to say? A particle is not sufficient in observation it has to be a conscious system.



The mind constructs dream imagery in absence of the strong sensory input of the day. The mind uses this time to process and store (change the nature of the storing) of the days input. To say dreams are evidence to anything outside the laws of physical reality is just uneducated.


See myabove post about the strong sensory input and how brains interp. it


How about that.




Evolution isn't the study of consciousness.

How do you know? How are you sure?


But you can't prove it is all god, so no one here is listening to you.

You are. I dont care.



I am unable to pin down a coherent point to this questing. If I ignore the incoherence of the extra in brackets, then I can answer that if reality was different then chances are anything meaningful within said altered reality would be composed of aspects different to this reality. Does this answer your question??? (where is Dwayne?)

Incoherence? Speaking of which. Your reply doesent make much sense.




Again you are hoping, and believing without evidence. You have cobbled together BITS of science and BITS of religion to make one incoherent whole.

Which is better than nothing? Or a irrational reservation because of labels and association?


I am still not getting a formed picture of your theory so i must assume there isn't one, and you are just 'stream of consciousness' waffling.


Sure. Can you explain how a vaccumn state creates said "streams of consciousness" or furthmore can you explain how come our brain (you and I) arent conscious of an event untill after it takes place?


Is reality the ultimate state? No way of knowing. Maybe something more complex and efficient exists out there in infinity. Just don't base your psychology on incomplete evidence. One must always maintain and project a healthy scepticism.
I do maintain healthy scepticism. I dont ascribe to any belief exclusively. Say something that makes more sense and you got me.

I am not here to enlighten anyone with a possibility.

Obviously not just obstructions eh?


You HAVE pedalled this theory as fact with the wording you have used. They fact you rescind this now is great.


Cite an instance or retract this statement. I dont rescind anything.


But to then say you wholeheartedly believe in god shoots you down once more.

Do you have a belief ? My concept of god is irrefutable in my eyes. Sadly you disagree. If you dont have a better theory that negates god as unnecessary than I would rather not hear from you.



My theory is much more comprehensive than this mixup of science and fringe philosophy used to fudge the science, coupled with borrowed theist teaching.

PLEASE ENLIGHTEN US

Why so angry. things happenas they do. Why attribute blame for the world when it is our decisions that mould it. If you want to punch anyone punch yourself, or me :)

An all powerful and all knowing God that doesn't intervene is just as guilty as one that does (and still causes mass anguish and destruction). If there was an all powerful being I hold him responsible for not aiding in "molding" this hellhole we call the Earth. If there was a God, HE created this world, HE designed us as individual beings, and therefore he's responsible for all suffering. The freewill thing is BS.

He's equivalent to father neglecting his duties as such, and stands by while his children get tortured and slaughter. But oh he's loving and caring. There's no possible argument you could give me that absolves him.

JuNie this will absolve him/her--IT DOES NOT EXIST!

Beliefs have to be based on facts? It cant be reduced to logical reasoning infered from contemporary understandings and truths?

If you wish sciforums members to take you seriously you have to base your belief on proven facts.


Furthermore, what is your belief relating to the premise of reality?? Is it the convinient position "I dont know so shut the fuck up for thinking you know something even though your not ascertaining what you know as truth" ?

You offer no proof. And you are still mixing up. Do you believe your belief, yes or no???




Who cares does it make his alternative interpretation anymore valid than mine? Who is to say? A particle is not sufficient in observation it has to be a conscious system.

You can't use an unproven interpretation to base a theory on, not if you pedal it as fact, or believe in it. How can we take you seriously when you say you believe your theory?


You are. I dont care. I am not listening to your theory because it isn't fully formed. I am listening to your words but they make no sense. This in effect is not sinking in. So in that sense I am not listening.



Incoherence? Speaking of which. Your reply doesent make much sense. how could it when it is replying to the nonsensical?




Which is better than nothing? Or a irrational reservation because of labels and association?
So you are saying you believe your theory. this is not science.



Sure. Can you explain how a vaccumn state creates said "streams of consciousness" or furthmore can you explain how come our brain (you and I) arent conscious of an event untill after it takes place?

Explain the relevance then I will tackle this. It is only relevant to your belief. Science is about uncovering facts.


I do maintain healthy scepticism. I dont ascribe to any belief exclusively. Say something that makes more sense and you got me.

Again you are saying you do believe. Then you are saying you don't. Mixed up. Very.

An all powerful and all knowing God that doesn't intervene is just as guilty as one that does (and still causes mass anguish and destruction). If there was an all powerful being I hold him responsible for not aiding in "molding" this hellhole we call the Earth. If there was a God, HE created this world, HE designed us as individual beings, and therefore he's responsible for all suffering. The freewill thing is BS.

He's equivalent to father neglecting his duties as such, and stands by while his children get tortured and slaughter. But oh he's loving and caring. There's no possible argument you could give me that absolves him.

A lot of anger here. You should look to make your life rewarding.

Cite an instance or retract this statement. I dont rescind anything.



I believe reality is digitally-based and god is the "emulator". I believe "everything" is a result of "our" physical senses, enviormental triggering of data exchange and god (the infinite range of possibility) which creates experience in a meaningful way or if you want to think of it as the universe experiencing itself in infinite arrays of focal perspectives to cover "every possibility" you can think of it that way.

This is pedalling your belief as a fact. For you to say you believe in this unproven BS, you must be asserting this is a fact.

I have had enough of this BS. Seems all you have is BS.

There are stalwart theists on this forum who present better than you.

Later.

:m:
An all powerful and all knowing God that doesn't intervene is just as guilty as one that does (and still causes mass anguish and destruction). If there was an all powerful being I hold him responsible for not aiding in "molding" this hellhole we call the Earth. If there was a God, HE created this world, HE designed us as individual beings, and therefore he's responsible for all suffering. The freewill thing is BS.

What would intervention look like? Regrowth perhaps for some would be sufficient in terms of a reaction? For me the implications of what is neccesitated for life could be considered a reaction. We basically live off death. If you want god to manifest as an entity and help save the world I would rather be asleep or "not conscious" because that would negate "free will" and the world would eventually blend the values of good and bad untill they were obsolete happy fat california cows singing and all. Like a dream being an emulator instead of whats being emulated which would kindof suck ass afterawhile if we were to lets say dictate what will happen in the dream completely as a system. What if this was one out of infinite reality systems based on interactions that will always evolve relating to contigent matter and its expansion with its mirroring of layers forming different properties. Like life and death really being nothing but entropy/energy and relativity in a purely biological experience eventually we go back to the vaccum state and collapse again...which is instaneous not eternity and resurface.


He's equivalent to father neglecting his duties as such, and stands by while his children get tortured and slaughter. But oh he's loving and caring. There's no possible argument you could give me that absolves him.

Would you rather keep your children ignorantly blissful? Or give them the true low down in lieu of certain consequences that will result from doing so...

A lot of anger here. You should look to make your life rewarding.

Even a foolish child can grow up when he knows what Pain is.

:m:

What would intervention look like? Regrowth perhaps for some would be sufficient in terms of a reaction? For me the implications of what is neccesitated for life could be considered a reaction. We basically live off death. If you want god to manifest as an entity and help save the world I would rather be asleep or "not conscious" because that would negate "free will" and the world would eventually blend the values of good and bad untill they were obsolete happy fat california cows singing and all. Like a dream being an emulator instead of whats being emulated which would kindof suck ass afterawhile if we were to lets say dictate what will happen in the dream completely as a system. What if this was one out of infinite reality systems based on interactions that will always evolve relating to contigent matter and its expansion with its mirroring of layers forming different properties. Like life and death really being nothing but entropy/energy and relativity in a purely biological experience eventually we go back to the vaccum state and collapse again...which is instaneous not eternity and resurface.


Would you rather keep your children ignorantly blissful? Or give them the true low down in lieu of certain consequences that will result from doing so...

I'm only speaking about the Gods of the various known religions around the world and how they describe him.

What you're saying is irrelevant. I see a lot of what if's and theoretical questions. I only care about what's real or what is perceived as real. A child can only understand that he shouldn't put his hand on a hot stove until after he has burned himself or someone teaches him it's not wise to do so.

I'm only speaking about the Gods of the various known religions around the world and how they describe him.

He is described as the worst role model ever.

Let's please limit discussing in this thread to the subject of the origin of your atheism.

Even a foolish child can grow up when he knows what Pain is.

Don't lecture me on pain. You have no comprehension of the pain I have endured.

But holding onto bitterness is not healthy.

So, after hearing all too many of the suppositions about God's realm through 5th grade, I turned to literature and science and found a whole 'nother world of information in lieu of groundless fabrication and its further structuring of myth upon myth. Myth-takes and their conflicts with reality were left behind.

Let's please limit discussing in this thread to the subject of the origin of your atheism.

Good call.

I did read the Bible, as I was Catholic [until 5th grade], and so I am referring to some of my 4th Grade notes: God, not really being everywhere, moves about from place to place, walks around in the Garden of Eden, comes down from Heaven to see the Tower of Babel, the city of Sodom, and so on… So, God is neither everywhere nor knows everything, since he must come over to investigate things. As in… God asks Adam where he had hidden himself and asks Cain where his brother is. Nor is God invisible, as he can be ‘seen’ above, but has eyes, ears, hand, arms, fingers, and such; however, some who see him are ended by “No one can see me and live”. Moses was OK since he only saw the back of God. Abraham, Jacob, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and others also saw God. Actually, nowhere in the Bible does it say that God knows everything. I learned all these facts at St. Bernadine Catholic grammar school, in Forest Park, Illinois, which is next to the atomic fireball factory that burned down once… but that’s another story.

After my conversion to normalcy in 5th grade, but before falling in love with my nun in 6th grade [Another story], I looked even deeper into the beauty and the strangeness of the Bible since I was bored in school, and noted that: Many Bible stories were recorded in writing for the first time [they were oral before] long after the historical events described, thus creating a further history altered by hindsight, it being shaped by the intervening events. For example, the destruction of Solomon’s Temple is foretold in the books of prophecy written long after the event, foretelling what had already happened…

Same for the New Testament, but only a few generations or so afterward… I also found some notes from Molly McGuire, but that is another story. (By the way, we raided the dumpsters of the atomic fireball factory and filled the empty desks with fireballs.)

Unfortunately, my 6th grade nun ran off with our priest. I didn’t even know that little old me might have had a chance with her… I was afraid to ask to walk her home and all that. She was really quite beautiful, even mostly covered up.

:m:

What would intervention look like? Regrowth perhaps for some would be sufficient in terms of a reaction? For me the implications of what is neccesitated for life could be considered a reaction. We basically live off death. If you want god to manifest as an entity and help save the world I would rather be asleep or "not conscious" because that would negate "free will" and the world would eventually blend the values of good and bad untill they were obsolete happy fat california cows singing and all. Like a dream being an emulator instead of whats being emulated which would kindof suck ass afterawhile if we were to lets say dictate what will happen in the dream completely as a system. What if this was one out of infinite reality systems based on interactions that will always evolve relating to contigent matter and its expansion with its mirroring of layers forming different properties. Like life and death really being nothing but entropy/energy and relativity in a purely biological experience eventually we go back to the vaccum state and collapse again...which is instaneous not eternity and resurface.


Would you rather keep your children ignorantly blissful? Or give them the true low down in lieu of certain consequences that will result from doing so...

then this theory has no point and it's just life living off life like how there is constant slaughter or killing to live. if you think that's a good creation, then that's your sick mind. i prefer to absolve the idea of a psychotic creator by thinking it doesn't exist since none of this really makes sense. it just seems to be an outcome of cause and effect, rather than a creation.

and i don't know why you reject religious ideas of god since it matches your take pretty well. perhaps you think your ideas will be taken more seriously if you say you aren't religious.

then this theory has no point and it's just life living off life like how there is constant slaughter or killing to live. if you think that's a good creation, then that's your sick mind. i prefer to absolve the idea of a psychotic creator by thinking it doesn't exist since none of this really makes sense. it just seems to be an outcome of cause and effect, rather than a creation.

This is pretty much incoherent post regarding what?? I never said there is a "good" creation. If you prefer to absolve the idea of a psychotic creator it is fine because I have as well. I suspect you are not understanding what im posting. It's okay but cause and effect in the premise of origin means what?



and i don't know why you reject religious ideas of god since it matches your take pretty well. perhaps you think your ideas will be taken more seriously if you say you aren't religious.

I am religious I believe in god just dont believe in organized religion systems.....

Not buying that. Atheism is a lack of a belief in God as well as the refusal to believe in god? So under the former context we are born atheists.


First prove that plants, rocks, flowers, animals are all atheists and you can't say that just because they don't pray like people they're atheists.

Don't lecture me on pain. You have no comprehension of the pain I have endured.

But holding onto bitterness is not healthy.

You misunderstand. I don't have any bitterness about any pain I've endured. But, that said, what kind of an imbecile would I be if I allowed another being to continue harming other individuals if I could do something about it?

Happiness for myself isn't the point. It is the suffering of others that bothers me. My life is not important in the scope of things.

You misunderstand. I don't have any bitterness about any pain I've endured.

You sound ver bitter...and then some.


Happiness for myself isn't the point. It is the suffering of others that bothers me.

yeah, sure.:rolleyes:

Universaldistress said:
holding onto bitterness is not healthy.

When I tried to let go of my bitterness I became even unhappier.
I shall stick with being a bitter bitchstard.

That "You have to forgive for your own sake!" crap? Meh, I'm happier and more functional hating certain deserving people.:D

First prove that plants, rocks, flowers, animals are all atheists and you can't say that just because they don't pray like people they're atheists.

:runaway:

1st prize for most boneheaded post in this thread.

First prove that plants, rocks, flowers, animals are all atheists and you can't say that just because they don't pray like people they're atheists.

Exactly.

If we posit that living beings are not embodied souls, but that instead we are all our bodies, merely biomechanical systems
- then we must also posit that there is no essential difference between humans, animals and plants (and perhaps even rocks)
- and thus we must also posit that the term "atheist" applies to them as well - or to nobody.

Exactly.

If we posit that living beings are not embodied souls, but that instead we are all our bodies, merely biomechanical systems
- then we must also posit that there is no essential difference between humans, animals and plants (and perhaps even rocks)
- and thus we must also posit that the term "atheist" applies to them as well - or to nobody.

Yes, we humans are as organic as anything else in nature, not that plants can decide the views that we are able to.

Yes, we humans are as organic as anything else in nature, not that plants can decide the views that we are able to.

Why not, if there is no essential difference between humans, animals and plants?

HUH!?!
Saying one is an atheist is saying one disbelieves in an abstract concept.

It takes a rather complex neurology to think about abstract concepts.

We may be the only species that has such, although whales, dolphins, and elephants might.

Saying one decides not to believe means you have the capacity to believe and the ability to choose not to...

Rocks and plants don't seem to have something that allows complex thought.

I'm not getting the logic here.

Why not, if there is no essential difference between humans, animals and plants?

Only a matter of degree as higher thought, but as organic there is no essential difference.

You misunderstand. I don't have any bitterness about any pain I've endured. But, that said, what kind of an imbecile would I be if I allowed another being to continue harming other individuals if I could do something about it?

Happiness for myself isn't the point. It is the suffering of others that bothers me. My life is not important in the scope of things.

Why attribute that pain to a god who doesn't exist as yet, and who may not be directly responsible? The fact god could be giving us free will isn't an issue to hang the poor deity?

Look.
This is a scientific forum or atleast its what Ive been told.

First consider what "pain" is:

Pain is "an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage."[1]


Than consider that we as biological systems with a seperate "stream" of consciousness need this sensory experience for biological systems to make any sense at all. There is a delicate equillabrium associated with emotion, adrenaline, etc. that requires pain as a reference point.

So lets look past pain.

All the matter (material of energy exchange) is only what we can infer from our senses and the data it corresponds to. We are not seeing the matter in any "ultimate" state and there certainly is plenty more not getting picked up by our senses or interpretated in any meaningful way. Pain is apart of this delicate sensory, conscious, biological framework. It is needed. What really is pain if we had a quantum xray. Nothing. We only assign it such meaning because of the limitations in our perspective we can deem it evil or not god like.

Lets look past this and assume we are god.

Does pain matter? Does death matter?
Are we certain that we wont experience the "worst" and the "best" and just acknowledge it was an experience?

Or are we going to hold grudges because god "made us sad" or 'hurt us" when "god" could be me, you, the universe, expansion, the laws, everything contigent matter is based on constantly evolving from the collapse of the vaccum state?? Are you so sure your entitled to exist and feel pain?? When you look at the universe its so sterile.... and earth is so "fertile"......

Egocentric nature decieves us into thinking there really is a "ME" when your brain could be damaged and you forgot that "you" even existed. So we can assume were nothing but a biological perspective fostering the essense of consciousness in a digitally-based reality coming from an analog framework through acceleration so that even our very own eyes have to create "still frames" for us to make sense of reality in the meaningful way society does.

I became an athiest or agnostic or thiest when I realized organized religion had to be wrong and that athiests were circulating either thiestic theories themselves or were reserving there belief for more evidence which is obviously an obstruction when it comes to progressing or philosophizing ideas on the premise of origin or reality or "god".

The concept of Atheism is a bit oxymoronic.

If something does not exist you cannot put a label on it. Its like naming the nine holes of Copanga. This is not to say "Atheism" is wrong or right as i am in the center here.

If i produce a lemon, roll it out on the table and ask "what is this?" the answer "it is a lemon". If i remove the lemon and ask "what is this?" The answer would be "what?"

The idea of it exists. It's the idea we are against.

The idea of it exists. It's the idea we are against.

Think about what you are saying: You give a name to an idea that something does not exist?

Sort of. It is an idea in itself.

Sort of. It is an idea in itself.

Sorry drumbeat, it is not an idea.

Think about what you are saying: You give a name to an idea that something does not exist?

I'm not sure if we invented it, but yeah. Why not?

Like Big Foot?

Is there a name for Big Foot deniers?

Is there a name for Big Foot deniers?

Nope.

Because it's just assumed that it's bullshit, which is the same way religions should be considered.

Because it's just assumed that it's bullshit, which is the same way religions should be considered.

You are making the point for me. So why the name "Atheist" then?

Now if we look at the word "Asexual" it has merit becauase the one side we can prove DOES exist.

You are making the point for me. So why the name "Atheist" then?
Because its supposed to describe a large part of a persons belief in one simple word.

Some people still fail to understand it though. :rolleyes:

:runaway:

1st prize for most boneheaded post in this thread.

I second the notion D

I third the notion!
Babies are athiests!

I believe fraggle allready provided an alternative or atleast show how this could be wrong.

In the most broadest sense of the word you can say babies are athiests. Than again that would be applied to animals than? Molecules? Your manipulating the literary meaning in context and you would be using the word inapproriately in any meaningful conversation. Athiesm is rejection of belief. It would be more intelligent if you said that babies were agnostic - because they just dont claim to know untill more information is available than and than only is when they can make the decision of whether there going to be agnostic, religious or an athiest...

I third the notion!
Babies are athiests!

I believe fraggle allready provided an alternative or atleast show how this could be wrong.

In the most broadest sense of the word you can say babies are athiests. Than again that would be applied to animals than? Molecules? Your manipulating the literary meaning in context and you would be using the word inapproriately in any meaningful conversation. Athiesm is rejection of belief. It would be more intelligent if you said that babies were agnostic - because they just dont claim to know untill more information is available than and than only is when they can make the decision of whether there going to be agnostic, religious or an athiest...

Correct me if I am wrong but doesn't Agnosticism, according to the recognised terminology, fall under the umbrella of Atheism?

Atheism is a broad term. But you could say one factor is the object must be capable of developing a belief in god within its lifetime. Therefore animals and plants etc. given they are incapable of ever finding god because they have no hope of grasping the concept cannot be atheist. A baby however has the tools to develop a belief in god within its own lifetime and therefore falls under the umbrella of Atheism.

At the end of the day its only terminology. And alternative views are possible. If one person asserts that a baby is atheist then no one can question that. It is perfectly reasonable to create that context. If someone wishes to assert a different context then that is their right. But should they question a legimate context based on their personal opinion? Of course, Game on! But that never destroys the context that has been forged. Anyone can willingly participate within that context or not.

But to argue about terminology (because we can when a word has multiple stresses, meanings) instead of a meaningful issue is a bit degrading to the minds who frequent this forum?

Additional: It seems all humans do sometimes is argue over terminology. I suppose it keeps things interesting within a debate, even though it feels like it is slowing real progress sometimes.

Additional: It seems all humans do sometimes is argue over terminology. I suppose it keeps things interesting within a debate, even though it feels like it is slowing real progress sometimes.
Tedious, imo.
It detracts from the debate when people misunderstand a word.

Oh Gawd, somebody emigrated from Texas again!:rolleyes:

They should build education camps at the state border before they let us out...Notice I didn't say "RE-education"....;)

Would have been nice before they let Bush out.

The idea of it exists. It's the idea we are against.

Talk about tilting at windmills!!!!!

:p

Only a matter of degree as higher thought, but as organic there is no essential difference.

How can humans have "higher thought" than animals or plants - since we're all just biomechanical systems?

How can elephants be stronger than humans?

And indeed, how can a human make a gun and bullets and shoot the elephant, and then take the time to cut its head of and mount it on a giant redwood plinth? Or, indeed, want to in the first place?

Because its supposed to describe a large part of a persons belief in one simple word.

Some people still fail to understand it though. :rolleyes:

It isnt that simple. An Atheist believes something does not exist, what if he\she were convinced something does not exist?

Basically it is like acknowledging that there may be some possibility because if there were no possibility then why apply a name to something that does not\never did exist? You cant make one, you cant say "one day one will exist".

In other words not convinced. If that is true and it must be because you do not give names to things that you know do not and have never have existed then why is there a name for it? Why call yourself\describe yourself\name yourself after something when your position is it does not exist?

How about this: I am a lamp. But wait humans are not lamps, why call yourself a lamp?

It isnt that simple. An Atheist believes something does not exist, what if he\she were convinced something does not exist?

Basically it is like acknowledging that there may be some possibility because if there were no possibility then why apply a name to something that does not\never did exist? You cant make one, you cant say "one day one will exist".

In other words not convinced. If that is true and it must be because you do not give names to things that you know do not and have never have existed then why is there a name for it? Why call yourself\describe yourself\name yourself after something when your position is it does not exist?

How about this: I am a lamp. But wait humans are not lamps, why call yourself a lamp?

Brilliant post John.

Let me try and answer some of your questions.
The reason there is a word for atheist is because there is something called theists in the world. If there hadn't been theists in the world, no word would have been necessary to describe someone who doesn't believe in a god. It has nothing to do with whether you're convinced or not.

I don't really understand your lamp question. Could you explain it?

You cursed me out the other day.

An Atheist believes something does not exist
Only some of them.


In other words not convinced. If that is true and it must be because you do not give names to things that you know do not and have never have existed then why is there a name for it? Why call yourself\describe yourself\name yourself after something when your position is it does not exist?
:rolleyes:
How about: because a large proportion of people claim that it does exist.

You cursed me out the other day.

That was another thread. Let's not discuss it here.

You cursed me out the other day.

Lol.

What is the alternative to god as a concept?

Joey why are you posting in a thread about how you became an atheist, when you're not an atheist?

Why do you have a picture of Jesus riding a dinasaur if your not a theist?
Alternatively are you saying that "Athiesm" is a religion? Why else would it be in the religious subfora, eh?

You answer my question first.

If you want to criticise my avatar, do it in "free thoughts" or in a PM.
If you want to discuss whether atheism is a religion, I suggest you make a thread about it. You're derailing this thread with your posts. That's all I'm saying.

Why do you have a picture of Jesus riding a dinasaur if your not a theist?
Why do you have a modification of my avatar if you're not me?


Alternatively are you saying that "Athiesm" is a religion?
I doubt it, since it isn't.

Maybe an analogy for theism and atheism is like a child who is rebellion against their parents. If the parents say X, the child will say that Y must be true. If theism says marriage is between man and women, atheism says it has to be Y; add gay marriage. A true individual, not a rebellion idenity, with make a new ritual for the new partner arrangement.

The rebellious child lacks he own identity, apart from the parents, and therefore needs to detach himself and differentiate by first being contrary. Eventually, the child finds themselves and begins to develop objectivity. Then there is truth in many places.

To paraphrase Mark Twain; When I (atheism) was young, my dad (theism) was such an idiot, I could not stand be around him. Now, it is many years later, I am amazed how much my dad has learned. Once atheism grows up, it will see things clearer as it stops being irrational in its attempt to find is own identity.

For example, the basic familty unit is the most efficient set up, requiring the least government suppliment. The rebellious atheist will need to be contrary to common sense, simply because his dumb dad said it first. Once he grows into an individual, then it can be objective.

I'm just rebelling against bullshit.

You are making the point for me. So why the name "Atheist" then?

Because the phenomenon of religion exists. It's slightly more important than bigfoot in it's effect on society, so there is a term for it.

Maybe an analogy for ....
I wonder if there's a particular reason why theists have to come up with inane (and incorrect and derogatory) analogies for the simple concept of not believing something they do.

Because they're used to being spoon-fed?

"It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."

"If there is a God, he is a malign thug."

Mark Twain

How can humans have "higher thought" than animals or plants - since we're all just biomechanical systems?

Some of the nature systems have reached higher electro-bio-chemical-mechanical forms capable of wider sensing and higher thought considerations. A plant or a snail may but sense sun, moisture, light, dark, insects, warm, cold, ph…

There are such hierarchies in man-made forms, too, such as in a car versus a bike.

Theists may be unsettled as just being a part of organic nature, as they are never so humble but desire special status, even to the point of being God-made and having reward.

I'm just rebelling against bullshit.


wellwisher: Maybe an analogy for theism and atheism is like a child who is rebellion against their parents. If the parents say X, the child will say that Y must be true. If theism says marriage is between man and women, atheism says it has to be Y; add gay marriage. A true individual, not a rebellion idenity, with make a new ritual for the new partner arrangement.

The rebellious child lacks he own identity, apart from the parents, and therefore needs to detach himself and differentiate by first being contrary. Eventually, the child finds themselves and begins to develop objectivity. Then there is truth in many places.

To paraphrase Mark Twain; When I (atheism) was young, my dad (theism) was such an idiot, I could not stand be around him. Now, it is many years later, I am amazed how much my dad has learned. Once atheism grows up, it will see things clearer as it stops being irrational in its attempt to find is own identity.

For example, the basic familty unit is the most efficient set up, requiring the least government suppliment. The rebellious atheist will need to be contrary to common sense, simply because his dumb dad said it first. Once he grows into an individual, then it can be objective.

Rebelling against old people who can't adapt anymore is called development.

Making a ton of money through success and deciding not to marry is a personal choice. The family unit, specifically the working family unit is just a mode that has been squeezed into a way of life that is essential for the triers at the bottom to buy a house etc. by governments and big business (fucking up the system).

Fuck tradition. One finds one's own way through need.

PS I am with you spidergoat.

I wonder if there's a particular reason why theists have to come up with inane (and incorrect and derogatory) analogies for the simple concept of not believing something they do.

Because they're used to being spoon-fed?

Partly, but mostly I think it is the emotional investment that the individual theist has put into their idea of a creator. Living life w/o a creator in it after believing in that creator for so many years would be too painful a process emotionally to discard. Especially if the theist was raised that way and his/her peers believe the same way, not believing is hardly ever an option for this kind of theist.

But it is an option, however, and I am proof of that!

I'm not against tradition, even religious tradition is sometimes founded for real cultural needs. Perhaps the prohibitions on eating some foods in some religions have a sound scientific cause. But you don't need a god to have a family.

Some of the nature systems have reached higher electro-bio-chemical-mechanical forms capable of wider sensing and higher thought considerations. A plant or a snail may but sense sun, moisture, light, dark, insects, warm, cold, ph…

There are such hierarchies in man-made forms, too, such as in a car versus a bike.

Theists may be unsettled as just being a part of organic nature, as they are never so humble but desire special status, even to the point of being God-made and having reward.
Higher? Like, further from sea level?
And further, 'higher' sounds a lot like special status, in fact, that nuance pervades the use of higher in almost all religions (and everyday speech). How have you, as an atheist, escaped this desire for special status, when you consider your thoughts higher? Or do you notice that this is a trait you share with theists. Of course many indigenous groups would disagree with your estimate of the relative heights of human and animal thought.

Anyway as someone who believes science is the only correct methodology, you should know that a giraffe's thoughts are literally higher and utterly effective in their niche. Nor can they, it seems, present a threat to the entire natural world, despite their height.

Funny guy. You should write comedy.
Also I do believe that there are in fact giraffes smarter than some humans after reading your post.

I'm not against tradition, even religious tradition is sometimes founded for real cultural needs. Perhaps the prohibitions on eating some foods in some religions have a sound scientific cause. But you don't need a god to have a family.

Point is traditions are take it or leave it. Not 'you must obey to go to heaven' or some such other BS. Find one's own way, there is no perfect state of being, Personal choice is paramount (bar removing someones elses).

Funny guy. You should write comedy.
Also I do believe that there are in fact giraffes smarter than some humans after reading your post.

Tickled me too for sure.

How have you, as an atheist, escaped this desire for special status, when you consider your thoughts higher?

I don't employ desire for special status because I understand how human mammals came to be, nor are my own capabilities being talked about as higher than others, but that all human mammals have more capability for thinking than plants and rocks and snails and other animals.

Do you think we were created with a special status?

Only some of them.


:rolleyes:
How about: because a large proportion of people claim that it does exist.

So why would that matter? One person makes a car. He calls this car Tarcar. Now another comes along and names nothing Barcar.

People say: "but wait a secon, you dont have any car yet you named it?...you cant name a car the does not exist.

Well yeah...

So why would that matter? One person makes a car. He calls this car Tarcar. Now another comes along and names nothing Barcar.
People say: "but wait a secon, you dont have any car yet you named it?...you cant name a car the does not exist.
Well yeah...
What is your point?
There are, and have been for a long time, claims that god exists.
Atheism is stance that simply says "I don't believe that claim".
How hard is this to understand?