Atheism and universal loneliness

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by wynn, May 30, 2012.

  1. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    I like Thomas Paine:

    But the resurrection of a dead person from the grave, and his ascension through the air, is a thing very different as to the evidence it admits of, to the invisible conception of a child in the womb. The resurrection and ascension, supposing them to have taken place, admitted of public and ocular demonstration, like that of the ascension of a balloon, or the sun at noon-day, to all Jerusalem at least. A thing which everybody is required to believe, requires that the proof and evidence of it should be equal to all, and universal; and as the public visibility of this last related act was the only evidence that could give sanction to the former part, the whole of it falls to the ground, because that evidence never was given. Instead of this, a small number of persons, not more than eight or nine, are introduced as proxies for the whole world, to say they saw it, and all the rest of the world are called upon to believe it. But it appears that Thomas did not believe the resurrection, and, as they say, would not believe without having ocular and manual demonstration himself. So neither will I, and the reason is equally as good for me, and for every other person, as for Thomas.​
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,112
    Why is it?

    jan.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,112
    seagypsy,




    Don't you have any kind of intuition?
    Seeing isn't the only way to percieve something.
    From my experience sight is usually only the doorway to perception.



    That kind of belief is only good untill you become bored, and seek more gratification.

    In the NT, no matter what Jesus did in violating the known laws of nature, his deciples still didn't have faith. Judas Escariot still sold him out. Whether or not you believe these narratives, the point is still the same, we can only observe that which we are conditioned to observe. The rest is a mystery which can be unlocked through discapline, and willingness to participate.


    For modern atheists, purpose is a material substance as is everything, including God. So if it cannot be shown, it either does not exist, or is irrelevant.

    I have to wonder...

    What is your idea of theism?
    I don't recognise any of the situations you mentioned of being theistic thought, or philosophical position.
    Could you elaborate?


    jan.
     
  8. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    This sums up your entire outlook.
    You accept, as unwavering faith that Jesus did violate the laws of nature.

    This demonstrates that as long as it is aligned with what you wish to believe- you will believe.
    Evidence does not matter to you.

    So the rest of your post becomes pretty much a bunch of hocus pocus.
     
  9. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,112

    Then you haven't understood the point I'm making.

    jaln.
     
  10. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    :roflmao:
     
  11. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Perhaps. But perhaps I did... I also find that point rather baseless as it is supported only by assumptions on your part.
     
  12. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,112
    If you did understand the point, then acknowledge that you have by addressing them.

    And nothing you've posted is based on your assumptions?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    jan.
     
  13. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Atheism is a lack primarily, of heavy assumptions.
    To accept something extraordinary without evidence is definitely an assumption.

    To accept a lack of evidence as a probable cause to not hold faith in something is a very minimal assumption.

    To accept evidence that strongly supports a conclusion is a very minimal assumption.

    To accept archaic stories, beliefs and dogma with no evidence and unquestioningly is definitely an assumption.

    I did acknowledge your post and I addressed what is relevant.
    You did address your post to another member, and I will allow that member to address what was directed at her.
     
  14. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,112
    Neverfly,


    Modern athiesm is based on assumptions.
    Every thing you've posted here is based on assumptions, including the cartoons.
    Where in the post did I accept the analogy I gave about Jesus?
    And did I not state that belief was optional?

    To constantly equate every aspect of humanity to liquids, gases, rocks, and chemical, while not actually living ones life like that, is not only a lie, but one serious mind-f--k.


    True, but we're talking about things which do not, or cannot be understood by modern science for what it actually is. This is why we have philosophy and religion.




    You went off on an unecessary tangent.

    Well, now you know where I'm coming from.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    jan.
     
  15. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,129
    In what way should I be living my life differently? How does one live their life like "liquids, gases, rocks and chemicals"? (WTF does that even mean?) :shrug:
     
  16. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    I was getting ready to say--


    --no, not that. I was getting ready to say this is why we have behavioral science.
     
  17. Neverfly Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,576
    Elucidate.

    One cartoon. It was good.
    Everything other than that? Again- clarify what you think is an assumption.
    Do you deny accepting the faith, Jan Ardena? No round about answers needed; it's a "yes" or "no."
    I'm not too likely to bother listening to anything other than one of those words.
    You've been duly informed.

    Living ones like... what?
    I can list out, in proper quantities, what liquids, gasses, rocks and chemicals are in an average human body. Are you denying that we are physical things that have physical processes. Jan Ardena?
    There's another thread on here where a man on drugs was altered so badly, he ate another mans face.
    While naked.
    The physical drug altered his physical brain into a very different state than his norm. What "spirit" could have prevented that alteration?

    Nonsense.
    The claim, "Cannot be understood by scientific method" is a roundabout way of saying, "there's no evidence to support nor any reason to believe that this idea has any merit whatsoever."

    We have philosophy and religion because ancient men didn't know science and Made Stuff Up.
    And it seems, modern man has continued the tradition.
     
  18. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Damn straight it was!
    Too bad they shot him. Even a knucklehead should be able to recognize insanity. All they had to do was pull him off, cuff him.
    I like to say they invented God/gods to explain phenomena for which they had no science.
    Yeah and that's an understatement. Now they have big glitzy arenas and rock stars egging them on. It's like there's been a new species evolve, a hybrid between the somber traditions of the orthodox churches and pop culture. The quiet country folk of old times might not have had too much use for science, but for modern city-folk it's actually practical - like understanding why you shouldn't pop open a radiator cap on a hot engine - stuff like like. I think Jan is expressing a frustration that religious people feel about the way science has mushroomed in popularity while religion has waned. She may be responding to this in the way folks have misunderstood Nietzsche or even the hoopla surrounding the Beatles. It may seem threatening.
     
  19. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    In an Ideal world yes..
    unfortunately this is not an ideal world,
    sometimes all we have to make decisions is assumptions.
    and consider that the majority(my assessment based on personal experience) of ppl make their decisions based only on how they feel at any given moment,
    ( i think i lost my point..got distracted..)

    now this statement relies of what one would consider evidence..
    alot of ppl do rely on unsubstantiated stories as evidence for their beliefs.
    (this is not just limited to theists)
    whether this is right or wrong is dependent on how they use that belief, and who is judging it right/wrong.
     
  20. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    i think she is trying to say that a person does not have guarantee's in their life that if they do X then the result will always be Y, with science 1+1 ALWAYS = 2

    I think this is where/why atheist tend to invoke science, they are looking for the consistency that science offers,with us humans there is no consistency,
    cause and effect are not always consistent when it comes to human decisions/actions,
     
  21. Jan Ardena Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,112
    Neverfly,

    You assume there is no evidence for God
    You assume you would recognise evidence for God

    You assume your brand of atheism lacks assumptions
    You assume there is no evidence for belief in God
    You assume theists accept God without any evidence
    You assume every aspect of humanity is composed of matter
    You assume that having faith in Jesus is a simple case of yea or ney
    You assume that my analogy sums up my entire outlook.
    You assume that that belief is based on wishes, or wishful thinking
    You assume my post is hocus pocus

    Uncecessary and irelevant side track.
    You should address the points, not make silly assumptions.


    You don't listen anyway, so it makes no difference to me.
    If you want discuss the points in question, I'm cool with that.

    jan.
     
  22. spidergoat Turd Reich Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,813
    I do assume that there is no reliable evidence for God. It's also not my responsibility to define what that evidence could be.
     
  23. NMSquirrel OCD ADHD THC IMO UR12 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,478
    hehe..you know what they say about 'Ass-u-me'....


    not for others,certainly..

    but for yourself, yes you are responsible for how you value evidence.
     

Share This Page