In regards to atheism.

Discussion in 'Religion' started by garbonzo, Oct 15, 2015.

  1. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,355
    If so then I have overridden any such subconscious affirmation. You know, with actual conscious, thought out argument. Pity you don't listen to it but instead just talk to your strawman.
    I'm sure your strawman gave you just the right answers you needed in your years of discussion, because that's all you ever come up with. Besides, I'm fairly sure that while you've been posting much, you haven't actually been discussing.
    Classic evasion from you, Jan. Thanks.
    No, on what basis do you believe the Bible, or any other scripture is correct. I.e. what you stated you believed to be correct, that prompted me asking why you believe it to be correct.
    First, I haven't stated, nor implied, that no actual atheist claims God not to exist. Some do. They're often referred to as "strong" atheists.
    Secondly, just because people have similar thoughts does not mean they are a collective. You surely must know that, so why plummet to such depths just to try and score a point?
    You may hear them, but listen? No, I don't think so. The only one you generally listen to is Mr. Strawman.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    And you still can't help with the elitist patronising.
    Every thread involves you fundamentally misunderstanding agnosticism, Jan. You can claim to accept it all you want but your words show it to be mere lip service.
    Such as?
    So when you were asked "What physical effect do we need the hypothesis of god for?" and you answered "Your ability to understand", you didn't mean that the effect was somehow evidence?
    If the hypothesis of God is necessary to explain the physical effect of "our ability to understand", then the fact that we can understand is confirmation of that hypothesis. So stop lying, Jan. It really does you no favours.
    And this is relevant... how, exactly? I did not ask a leading question, but quite a straightforward one, but your evasion is again noted.
    So I'll ask it again: do you have any examples that do not beg the question?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    H-m-m-m-m- . . . . Jan . . . . . ever notice that the theists posting on this thread tend to use the term 'God' ( upper-case G) whereas the atheists tend to use the term 'god' (lower-case g)?
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    Theists view it as the name of the one god. Atheists talk about the concept of god as it relates to the many gods throughout history. That's why we don't capitalize it.
     
  8. gmilam Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,522
    I've always found that odd too, why do you do that? The character in the bible is named YHWH.
     
  9. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
  10. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    I've attempted to provide you reference links for discussions of quantum entanglement in biologic systems. Perhaps you are not interested in such. If you ARE, I recommend that you conduct your OWN searches of the topic.
     
  11. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,935
    I have been reading up on quantum tunneling in biological systems.
    It's fascinating.
     
  12. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    It's an interesting topic, but doesn't point to a god being involved on that level.


    God of the gaps (or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know yet" as an alternative that works better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
     
  13. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    I would say there will always be a gap for some theoretical god to try and squeeze into but I agree the gap is getting smaller

    But while the gap is getting smaller Thesist will try to keep it open by

    rejecting Science explanations

    Also I see problems with Science not knowing what Science does not know

    Or better put WHAT is out there we have no idea that IT even exist?

    We have to get SOME idea about

    IT before we try to explain IT

    Guess god can live in that unknown and unknowable gap

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,549
    So, can any of you explain it?
     
  15. karenmansker HSIRI Banned

    Messages:
    638
    Spidergoat: You appear to be heading off into your own la-la fallacy argument, not me. I approach things a bit more objectively. For example: IF there is a viable argument for God, and He does actually exist, I simply am asking what mechanisms and processes might He utilize to create and operate His Universe and, for example, why do the measured physical constants (Dave's reference on another thread) have the values that we observe. I am not afraid to consider such out-of-the-box conjectures, or even to attempt to answer my own questions that may be outside the Standard Model norm. Asking "What if", why" and "how" are very powerful tools in ascertaining and evaluating new concepts that may have value in the quest for heretofore unknown knowledge. Another important aspect in this regard is to (dare I say?) have faith and belief in one's hypotheses until they are either borne-out, or fail the test of the Scientific Method.
     
  16. Michael 345 New year. PRESENT is 72 years oldl Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,077
    Only just finished reading a number of articles on the subject

    My overall understanding of biological processes is to use energy for growth and reproduction

    HOW energy is converted relies on numerous processes of which tunneling now appears to be involved

    So the processes are more complex than at first thought

    Are there any other claims being made in the metaphysical arena?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    Because I have experienced it.

    Research it for yourself.

    I was asking him. Did you not see the question marks?

    I'm not lying.
    I asked him two questions.

    Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

    Jan.
     
  18. spidergoat pubic diorama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    54,036
    You are trying to explain a mystery in terms of another mystery. And it's not standard practice to have faith in an hypothesis until proven otherwise. There's nothing scientific about what you are doing.
     
  19. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,355
    Thus the second question I asked at the time (and that I am asking again here): What experiences have you had that have led you to conclude that?
    So you've actually given up all pretense of holding a civil discussion. Fair enough.
    Given that you claim I am "without God" and will dismiss all evidence as being such, how would you suggest I establish what you consider to be evidence found in the internet? Do you expect me to ask you about each and every possible thing that I might think you would consider evidence?
    Either be civil and actually discuss, or do everyone a favour and just stop posting.
    I saw the question marks. You were offering them up as examples, the question mark seeking his agreement. But whether you were asking him or not, you were putting forth the suggestion that our ability to understand was an effect for which the hypothesis of God was needed, and testable through us understanding. Question begging.
    That you are now lying and trying yet again to disassociate yourself from the implications of your responses just shows your continued disdain for everyone else, and your ongoing lack of respect for this website.
    So you can't answer the question and so try to evade by asking an utterly irrelevant leading question. If you think that the question "do you have any examples that do not beg the question?" is a similarly leading question, please explain how. If you say "yes", then you can provide the example. If you say "no" then we have established that the only examples you have are ones that beg the question. See, no leading whatsoever.
    So quit the evasion, Jan, and for once be honest in your participation.
    I'll ask again: do you have any examples that do not beg the question?
     
  20. Jan Ardena OM!!! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,968
    I've already explained this.

    In this thread it doesn't matter what regard as evidence for God, because that is not the topic.

    Right now you are irrational, and desperate. You need to establish yourself, and/or get me banned.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I expect you to be irrational, belligerent, and, desperate. You're proving me right.

    This thread is in regard to atheism.
    I'm not bothered about arguing for God's existence, in it. Because we all know that the default position for each and every atheist, anywhere, in any time, and any space, is that God does NOT exist.

    I asked him 2 questions. When you quoted one, you missed out the question mark, so it would seem that I made a claim. IOW you tried to fix it. Then you based your conclusion on the strawman you built.

    And you claim to be rational and logical.
    SHAME ON YOU!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    I asked two questions. They are there for the whole world to see.

    What's funny about this, is that nobody has answered them. If you had respect for this website we may well be discussing them right now, instead of trying to get me banned.

    You know what Sarkus?
    I think you need to calm yourself down.
    It has become impossible to communicate with you.

    I'll reply again: have you stopped beating your wife yet?

    Jan.
     
  21. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    If you read the New Testament, it says;

    Only an evil, adulterous generation would demand a miraculous sign, but the only sign I will give them is the sign of the prophet Jonah." Then Jesus left them and went away. Matthew 16-4.

    The sign of Jonah is connected to the story of Jonah and whale, where Jonah is swallowed by a whale. God is not a demonstration for the eyes, like a science experiment. The proof of God is hidden from the eyes; inside the whale. God is found through introspection, with the whale symbolizing the unconscious mind enveloping the ego; old self.

    People often find or return to God, during really hard times, where they hit rock bottom; reformed junky or alcoholic. They become enveloped in unconscious obsession, to where their ego is about to disappear; in the whale. Then they find their proof.

    John 3-5; Jesus answered, “Verily, verily I say unto thee, unless a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of God.

    Spirit is not the same as matter. Spirit is more analogous to information. Information can impact matter and can help organize it, while itself being ethereal in terms of substance. Water symbolizes thoughts, while spirit is creative thought. Jesus is speaking of a process, within the mind, where one is born again, and can enter the kingdom; prove God to themselves. It is not about a physical rebirth of the body. It is about a change of mind and attitude that is mediated, creatively and spontaneous, by something inside the psyche; creative spirit=information.

    Spirit or information is interesting because it can exist, well before it becomes manifest in physical reality. If I came up with a design for a new automobile, it exists in spirit or as information. It may take years to convert this information into a physical car, that everyone can see, touch and drive. Those who can only believe what they see, may not be aware that the idea behind the car, existed way before its physical reality.

    The same is true of the universe. It follows the laws of nature, even before the conditions are right for a given layer of physical laws to act. Before there was hydrogen in the universe, it was expected form, based on the forces of nature at a given set of future conditions. God creating the universe is about spirit; information, leading matter, in time.

    If Atheism wants proof of God, they need to look in the right place. If a scientists is looking for a new planet, he will not look under the ocean, and not finding it there, assume it does not exist. One needs to search in the right place, before drawing a conclusion. The bible tells you where to find God, since they are the one's who have sufficient personal proof to believe. God is information that is ahead in time, which is why you can't see it in real time as a physical thing. The belief in heaven and hell is information about the future, whether true to not.

    Looking for outward proof of God, is like trying to see hydrogen in the universe, at an early time, when it was too hot and pressure too high You will not find it, therefore to many it does not exist. But the spirit of hydrogen exists; based on physical laws, and will manifest in the future. A rebirth begins as information, from which there is a transformation of the mind into the new man.
     
  22. Sarkus Hippomonstrosesquippedalo phobe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,355
    I have seen you stating it, but have yet to see you explain it. Please can you highlight where? A post number will suffice.
    The topic is in regards to atheism. As explained, one can not separate atheism from the issue of evidence for God, and why some people see things as evidence and some do not. To establish such differences, it helps that those that see things as evidence put forth examples of what they consider to be evidence, and in examining why they think it is evidence and why the atheist does not one will start to comprehend atheism.
    So it is the topic, Jan. Indirectly, perhaps, but it is very much an issue. I'm sorry that you feel it isn't. If you don't want to address the issue then feel free not to post. But please don't try to derail the thread with your antics.
    [qupte]Right now you are irrational, and desperate. [/quote]I am quite rational, Jan, and my only desperation is in trying to get you to behave in a cordial manner conducive to actual discussion. At every turn you block off that possibility.
    I have no such desire, but if you do end up banned then be assured that it will be your own actions that bring it about, not mine.
    Grow up, Jan. You're simply being pathetic. If you claim there is evidence on the internet it is for you to provide examples when asked, not for others to have to find them. This is especially true when those you would require look for them have, in your view, no comprehension of what they are looking for.
    This is the position of your strawman, Jan. Try listening and actually discussing things with atheists in this thread rather than asserting your blinkered view of them from the get go.
    Good grief, Jan. Does it come to this, to you trying to excuse yourself by claiming a question mark was indicating anything more than a rhetorical question? Or that you weren't offering it as an example, possible or otherwise?
    But this is what you do, isn't it... you get called out for something you said, and instead of being civil and discussing it, clarifying your position, you simply obfuscate until the issue is lost in the detritus you throw up.
    Did or did you not offer up "ability to understand" as an example, possible or otherwise, even if couched as a question, of an effect that needed the hypothesis of God?
    As an example, and given your understanding of God as "cause of all" it clearly (as demonstrated) begged the question. Do you have any other possible examples you would like to now put forth that do not beg the question?
    I did. I said that your examples, even if they were couched as questions, begged the question that was asked of you. I also asked if you had any examples that did not beg the question. Do you?
    They were discussed, hence me asking if you have any examples that do not beg the question. And no, I am not trying to get you banned, although your concern for it does suggest that you feel you must be sailing quite close to the edge. Any such result will be of your own making, Jan.
    Oh, that really did make me smile.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    You have never really tried communicating, Jan, so how would you know? You simply repeat your strawman arguments over and over again.
    If you want to communicate, Jan, and actually hold a discussion, then drop your antics, listen to what is said rather than to your strawman, stop evading questions, stop obfuscating, take ownership for the implications of what you say, at least try to be consistent in your arguments, and above all stop treating every thread as a war between theists and atheists.
    So you're continuing with this evasion, and additionally you're not even going to explain why you think using such a leading question is relevant here? What point are you trying to make?
    I have explained why I think the question I asked is not a leading question, and why my question to you was entirely reasonable. You think the question a trick? I assure you it is not, I am merely asking if you have any examples that do not beg the question. Do you?
     
  23. birch Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,077
    God is real in the sense of how nature works to attain power by any means it can. All these philosophies, religions and concepts people form and talk about are merely abstract and not a representation of how the universe actually works and that would also tie into the concept of god/creation.

    The universe/god is the same concept in nuts/bolts except religion alludes to god as a entity. and the real truth is that morals are manmade which is a cornerstone of how society 'functions' (on the surface) but that's not the root of nature and that is why the most horrific actions are according to nature right and justified. why? because it can and it actually works/effective. so if god were actually a collective greater consciousness, it does not only approve of but a machinator of every vile corruption and base instinct/urges. It's when i finally took the blinders off and programming and dare realized to the pit/core of my being that god is the most evil power and responsible for it all figuratively and literally did it all make sense. and also, the pure/good that is developed is for a reason to be violated, consumed, fed on etc just as we raise animals for slaughter or keep feeding cows for their milk etc. it's all about usefulness or what can be exploited/benefited. all the grooming isn't because god/nature loves, it's to feed ultimately the dark/evil first and foremost. because anything that is the most innocent and pure is exactly what the darkest and vilest need to expunge. nature is built on sacrifice. even religion shows that in it's rituals and sacrifices of animals to gods. this concept relates to power dynamic in nature. i've seen this dynamic as a foundation for life and it can't be denied. someone was recently telling me about this three year old girl who was raped by her parents and she died and i said that she is fortunate to have died rather than lived. but what i also realize as the truth devoid of all the layers of illusions we contrive to deny the reality of nature is that it's brutal, nasty and absolutey has zero ethics. none. whatsoever. and according to nature, even that act/urge is correct based on how nature is built.

    so those who argue about the concept of a god vs facing reality. neither are better than the other or more helpful. the only advantage of atheism is so others can't brainwash us with religion or use it as a mask as in a wolf in sheep's clothing. on the same token, without religion, there is little basis for ethics at all except for punishment society sets in place but no inherent reason for anyone to stop themselves because nature works by any means such as deception, oppression, predation as well as defense.

    the truth is this universe is a form of hell and no matter how you try to rationalize or pick out that there are flowery and nice things too, it doesn't change the fact it's built on predation from the ground up (that is the key and the true character) and that will never change. the devil IS god. it's playing both sides to keep the system/nature going and that is what most sheep dont realize or it's too monstrous and sad to face because it does demand the sacrificial lamb to slaughter.
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2017

Share This Page