Discussion in 'Religion' started by Jan Ardena, Mar 22, 2019.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
No, your view of atheism really is irrelevant to anyone other than you.
This is the perspective of most people, at least those that have read what little you have to say.
I can quite clearly see the pregnancy, the birth, the physical pain that the mother is in.
I can even, if I was so inclined and the mother agreed, take brain readings, chemical readings, etc, before, during and after the process.
I can see the end result, and I can understand the mechanism involved.
So I can understand it from those perspectives.
I can (and have) even experience pain that I never want to experience again, so it is possible to know what excruciating pain feels like.
Sure, there are some (extreme) aspects that will forever remain the purview of the mother...
... yet with regard God there is...
... nothing on offer.
Nor is your "knowledge" of God.
You think you have knowledge because of what you believe.
You have interpreted experience based on what you believe, in a way to support your belief.
That is as far as you can go, no matter how ardent the belief.
It does look like wishing to believe, and you have yet to convince anyone to the contrary, no matter how much you claim that what you say is the truth.
If only you kept your belief to yourself, or acknowledged that it was merely belief.
But no, you claim that you have knowledge, that what you believe is true.
Only you can't distinguish between what is actually true and what you merely believe is true (do you even appreciate the difference?).
And your explanations and comments over the past X or so years really have done little to alter that.
Most laughable is how you think you know atheists better than they know themselves.
So you resort to your "well, you're an atheist so of course you'd think that way..." style of response.
You would have expected most people to exhibit some intellectual growth over X years... but I guess you are happy to be the exception to that rule, eh?
Atheism to me is the realization of the impossible logic of an infinity with a property of sentient intelligence. Where did sentient intelligence com from?
Is Sentient Intelligence a property of Infinity or did it emerge from spacetime?
Logically, first there was Nothing (pure potential), then there was Something (physical).
It's not really complicated.
Gods came later. They were born, products of intellectual speculation.
However, Mathematics which made the Gods believable were born much earlier, with the emergence of Something physical.
Not the other way around.......Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What set of beliefs do I have?
Not going to make sense, that one.
I absolutely agree with you that theists have sets of belief in the existence of abstract but Divine sentient intelligent Beings, those beliefs are expressed in Scripture.
Can you you enlighten me (as atheist), as to the my set of beliefs of the existence of an abstract but sentiently intelligent being, other than as expressed by pseudo-intelligent Mathematics?
That's just it. Atheists are incapable of believing or at least refuse to believe in the existence of an abstract but sentiently intelligent being or existence of the "non-physical" that cannot be measured by scientific instruments, just as theists are incapable of believing the abstract does not exist, hence enslaved by a set of beliefs. The same goes for mainstream scientists, or capitalists, or nationalists, etc. All bound by a set of beliefs that their ego makes it near impossible for most to relinquish.
What set of beliefs would you like to have?
So not a "set of beliefs" then?
Ego? It's a pity you don't have evidence... that's what changes minds.
YOU are the one that claimed that "theists and Atheists ... are both enslaved by a set of beliefs".
Please specify the (alleged) set of beliefs held by atheists.
(And I'd be interested as to which of the two you are).
Evidence?! Rolling On Floor Laughing Out Loud. You need evidence for the conscious human ego? Wow.
Ah, I see that you have comprehension problems.
The comment I made was "evidence... that's what changes minds."
I questioned your claim that ego is what prevents one changing ones mind.
They believe this physical reality is all there is. They believe that when you die you no longer exist. They believe that near-death experiences are nothing more than neurons firing off in the brain. They believe the Newtonian laws of physics apply to the entire Universe. I'm sure there are others. But what they believe or what anyone else believes isn't the point I'm trying to make. The point I'm trying to make is that it is normally very difficult for them to believe otherwise.
I believe in ALL things.
Ah, likewise. I didn't say the ego prevents one changing one's mind. I said the ego makes it near impossible. And yes, evidence can SOMETIMES change one's mind depending on how eager the ego is willing to let go. The scientific community is a most excellent example.
How about those atheists that believe in ghosts? (Etc. etc. In other words you're wrong with those examples).
Atheists can be as irrational as anyone else - with the sole exception of a belief in "god/s".
And yet you decided to make that false claim...
There is no "set of beliefs" that is common to all atheists.
FSM? Ghosts? Crystal power? That the Sun will rise tomorrow and that it won't? (I sincerely doubt your claim here - do you really have no critical faculty whatsoever?).
So when I question your claim that ego is what prevents one changing one's mind (regardless of whether it makes it impossible or only near impossible your claim is that it's ego that's doing the preventing) your best response is to simply repeat the claim? Well done.
It's quite fascinating how people underestimate how incredibly powerful the human ego is. The collective human ego is actually the most powerful force on the planet right now. It would literally make the Christian's version of the anti-christ paralyze in fear at the site of it if he actually did exist.
Well apparently it's powerful enough to prevent you supporting your claim with anything other than repetition.
And to let you ignore the rest of my post... (is that because your ego refuses to let you acknowledge that you were wrong?)
Yeah, I've read the textbook definition and they say the same thing. But that's not the common perception of it by most people that I've seen.
Yeah, I know.
Separate names with a comma.