The official RRS defeats Way of the Master thread
Offline This is it. This is the official thread that Kelly and Sapient will try to interact with as many visitors as they can. If you are new here, welcome aboard. If viewing this from the homepage you can click the title of the thread, create an account, and post your comments. Kelly and Sapient will not have time to address all the email and would like to keep all of their exchanges public for the benefit of the readers who are curious. Soon we will have a downloadable document available right from this post that will expose as many arguments as we can expose from the ABC Nightline Face Off with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. Here are the highlights of the face off from our eyes...
Did we make mistakes in the full debate? Yes. We stumbled on a few words, made an inaccurate point or two, and made a weak point at a moment or two. Ironically our worst points still seemed to be too much for them. So while we welcome criticism, especially constructive, please keep in mind that we feel we have a good handle on what we did wrong. We'll grow, learn, and get better. What we're really hoping for in this thread is for the actual content and discussion about gods existence to be brought into question. Challenge us to continue, and we will continue to respond to your claims. If you are a theist, please feel free to post your scientific evidence for God, leaving out the miserable arguments that Ray Comfort has already been beaten on of course. If you are having trouble finding the video on ABCs website, you can find most/all of the videos here. DIGG it.
A thread on our message board that has links to the entire unedited debate.
Other threads of interest:
Nightline Editing Bias - The Supporting Data
Gregfl starts a thread about Bashirs big blunder and the Nightline portrayal.
Some of the Christian mail coming in [YOU RESPOND] about the debate.
Pertaining to Jesus Mythicism A thorough examination of the evidence for Jesus by Rook Hawkins
A Silence That Screams - (No contemporary historical accounts for "jesus) by Todangst
Video from Rook outlining the basics of Jesus Mythicism
UPDATE Sapient spoke with ABC and voiced concerns leveled by many atheists in the community that the editing job for the Nightline piece gave Ray and Kirk a free pass. The most commonly voiced criticism of ABC was that it managed to show the debate as somewhat even and that there was no clear victor. This discussion was accepted only under the understanding that Ray and Kirk would prove God exists without invoking faith or the Bible. Anyone that understood the format saw that Ray and Kirk failed at their premise as soon as the proof of God became the Ten Commandments. ABC was made aware that commentary like "It was difficult to know if either side could claim victory" gave the impression that they were pandering to their largely Christian audience. While Sapient understood that this may be a wise business move, it was noted that it wasn't an accurate representation of the discussion. The Rational Response Squad brought it's "B" game and still destroyed every claim Kirk and Ray threw at them. In more positive news, we were made aware that the ABC unedited video of the debate was viewed over 160,000 times in the first 12 hours. Hopefully a few people have found the strength to overcome their god delusion.
AND THE PWNAGE CONTINUES:
THE FULL DEBATE!
EXPOSE OF POST DEBATE CHATTER AND BEHIND THE SCENES INFORMATION
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
- Printer-friendly version
- Login to post comments
I'm just curious thiest, but: why do you capitalize so many of your words? Is it just a writing style? No big deal really, again just curious.
You're not quite getting the context. Read that paragraph you're responding to, and 'possibility 1' as well:
"I happen to collect and send [pokemon] into battle [with each other (as should be understood without mention)]." Yea, I would send flimsy cards, or thoughts, into battle. The cards just sit there. By the way, brackets, '[]', are a correction after the quote. And I'm being sarcastic about cards and thoughts. Read on.
Near the middle of possibility 3), I say, "I'm in my back yard, yelling at thin air..."
What do you think I mean when I say "pokemon exist" all this time? I'm yelling at cartoons, or cards, or thoughts? No, I'm yelling at actual creatures collectively called pokemon.
I was being silly, to make a point. I was essentially saying,
I have a pet creature in my house right now. I can pick it up, and if you came over, you could too. It breathes. It says, "pika-, pika, pikachooooooo!!" alot, whose soundwaves can be measured. It streaks out lightning. It has fur. It is yellow. I would have to assume it metabolizes to live: it kills other lifeforms to eat. The disapearrance of these said lifeforms can be scientifically measured, as can the weight and dimensions of my pet pokemon, pikachu.
Need I go on to explain what I meant? How specific do I have to be to communicate to you I was being silly about pokemon existing? Did you really think, in my last 3 or so posts, that when I was being silly, I was saying only the cards and cartoon drawings and their perceptions in the minds of humans, exist?
I am being silly: I am saying you can touch a pokemon just in the same way you can touch other animals. You can feel it's warmth. etc... How many paragraphs do I need to type to illustrate you this possibility of mine? Do you get it now?
Or am I wrong to assume that I was being clear, when I wasn't? Anyone?
I can say with a high degree of confidence that I never said anyone here were experts on any god(s). If I did, then I concede: not too many here, besides maybe Rook, are experts on any.
Therefore they know absolutetly nothing about Santa Clause.
Therefore to listen to the people of this site about Santa would be the equivalent of asking a professional clown to do my brain surgery.
Good analogy, huh?
Most on here probably aren't experts on all those fairy tales regarding Santa, and his reindeer, and the origin and history of the fairy tell, etc. But all can still say, with impunity, Santa does not exist. See the relation between being an expert on something, and having a good standing on whether or not it exists?
Again, please understand in what sense I mean Santa existing; really, should I have to make myself clear on what I mean when something exists each and every time?
If/whenever I say something exists, I can't imagine not saying, in essence, the thing in itself can be measured. OK?
Brain surgery has been confirmed time and again to be real and effective. By research, peer review, consumer confidence, repeatability and competition from many different medical institutes all over the world all wanting money, etc..., it is beyond reasonable doubt that brain surgery is real.
Most on here probably aren't experts on brain surgery, its effects, the tools used, when it was first performed, the different regions of the brain etc. But all can still say, with impunity, brain surgery does exist. See the relation between being an expert on something, and having a good standing on whether or not it exists?
There is no relation, and thus no point in you bringing up 'expertise'.
If, by "pokemon exist" you mean, only in the minds of people and based on real things, sure. I also can't say much more about any god(s).
Oh, is that what you've been trying to tell me all along? That gods and pokemon are all made up? Well shit, I'm sorry, I guess I took everything you said out of context. I misunderstood you all this time.
"Weinberg is surely right that, if the word God is not to become completely useless, it should be used in the way people have generally understood it: to denote a supernatural creator that is 'appropriate for us to worship'" [The God Delusion, Dawkins, p. 13]. OK, I realize I'm not writing a paper here, but hopefully I cited that correctly.
I think that will suffice for between you and me. However, I can't quite see how that jives with Greek mythology - were all Greek gods creators? - but for me personally, take that part out.
Followers of a faith typically, AFAIK, don't confuse their god(s) with any others of a different religion. Oh snaps, I did it again! Whoops, I took you out of context. I forgot - you, too, think your god is made up. Just like the made-up superman is a bad ass mofo.
Ok, So Cultural Evolution, Syncretism, Memetics, and Ancient Naivite are Evidence "Against" Mickey Mouse?
How can you Have Evidence "Against" Something that Does not Exist?
The entity known as Mickey Mouse, as *percieved* to be an entity in the imaginagation of Walt Disney and the minds of children, does not exist. Mickey Mouse only "exists" on paper, and in thoughts. Whenever I generically say, without any added details, something exists, the latter form of 'existence' is NOT what I have in mind. Only the former (geesh, this is getting tiring). This should be understood, and as far as I know of, has ALWAYS been understood, to be what is meant when someone says, "[something] does/does not exist".
Not the origin, but the spread of the meme Mickey Mouse, can be explained by cultural evolution.
The fact that Hamas is using Mickey Mouse for their propoganda, is attributed to syncretism (telecommunications).
Anyone believing that Mickey Mouse is real (I'm no longer specifying what that means to you, as you should damn well know by now) - and maybe even gone so far and claimed this Mickey Mouse as an explanation for uninvestigated events, as has been the case with all the gods - is naive.
I could be wrong, but as far as I know, the three points about Mickey above can all be placed under the umbrella of memetics.
Without details, the spread of the meme Mickey Mouse is epidemic and not based on standards of inquiry. I could be wrong about my line of reasoning, but I would say that, that is enough to list something as likely to not be real, and the stories regarding said object, not be true.
So, again, I say yes: the people you mentioned would be good sources of info regarding the meme of any god(s). No specific details, I say again, but just general basic facts: epidemic, with no standards of inquiry by those perpetuating the epidemic. No expertise in god(s) necessary, though expertise of said epidemic might do wonders.
For the very reason I put quotation marks ( " ) around the word 'against' in my use of it above. What better wording than 'against' would you suppose for Mickey Mouse (I beg of you... don't confuse!) not existing? I may be the one confused on this point, but I can't tell if 'against' is a good word for this usage. Perhaps would be better is, "for not believing in the existence of"? :
How can you have evidence "for not believing in the existence of" something that (most likely) does not exist?
I suppose the very evidence for one to purport said noun to not likely exist in the first place....? (or at least not bother)
All I'm trying to do here, is to avoid semantic confusion. Maybe I'm doing a shitty job on this one.
I suppose in the same way biologists have evidence "against" lamarkian evolution (which, AFAWK, doesn't exist on this planet).
The same way physicists have evidence "against" the ether not existing.
These hypotheses have all been falsified, just as the god hypothesis. Maybe that was 'the' better wording of it? Falsified?
I don't get your syntax of using the word 'former' twice. At any rate, what you have typed here sounds more akin to someone making up powers for superman, or making up pokemon, instead of inquiring over investigatable phenomenon. Unless you're admitting it's fiction and made up, sounds more like a waste of time. Oh, wait, I forgot - that's what you've been trying to tell me all this time, wasn't it thiest? That theos is all made up and fiction? Shit, there I go again, taking others' words out of context!
Jesus.
Titty.
Fucking.
Christ.
Intimacy doesn't always have to do with sex, look it up. PLEASE tell me you were just throwing out a random example?! PLEASE.
Besides, I don't think they're parallel anyways. 13 year-olds exist; pokemon do not.
Whatever you want to call it, it is still the propogation of a meme whose origin was based in ignorance and naivite. Shit far in the morning, I keep forgetting and taking your words out of context - that's what you were saying anyways! That god is a meme made up out of ignorance and naivite! I am sorry thiest!
Seriously: any given person is intimate with family, friends, loved ones, etc... The faithful claim to be intimate with their god(s). How is the latter any different from a hypothetical person thinking they've spent actual time with actual pokemon? - my original question, by the way.
Or are you going to continue playing semantics over words such as existence and intimacy, taking me out of context? Ok, so maybe I deserve it for being nit-picky with your use of the word logic? Is that what this is, revenge? I was only trying to be educational on that one, and I have already apologized for it for in the event I was out of line...
If it is revenge, it seems rather disproportionate. I'll hold you higher above that... I'll assume it isn't revenge (I felt I at least have to ask, it's ok if in affirmative). But honestly, why must I make myself clear so often? It seems this post is so long simply because of me having to explain myself so much. It shouldn't be that difficult, really.
I snipped the rest of your post because you go on to address arguments against Ray Comfort. His "God" is a personal and supernatural deity, but I don't know what yours is. There are a number of different ideas commonly equivocated under the term, so I think it should be clear what you're arguing for. There's a difference between the falsifiable claims of a flood story or the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs, as Comfort advocates, and something like pantheism.
I thought that I was clear as to what I am arguing for in my posts. My relative and knowingly unproveable concept of God, is not what is on the table as it is superflous to my points which were exhaustively elaborated on in my two previous posts for this thread (mainly the second post which was a response to Veils of Maya).
If you actually have a question about my argument, I would be glad to entertain the request regarding my statements. As far as my God is concerned, I can offer no detailed descriptiveness, and even if I could, I would feel remiss by doing so. It is my perspective that the path of spirituality is a completely unique and relative path for all individuals, and I would hate to impart/imply any kind of definition which no one else but I could possibly understand. Nor would I want to influence anyone elses personal understanding, or the reason based choice to not believe in God.
Challenge your perspectives with the truth.
Accidental duplicate.
So, not the god, just the gap.
Yea......No. We seem to be engaging in a red herring. I never argued for God or a gap. I argue that the claim of compartmentalization being an issue regarding a belief in a God is false. My point is that if you do believe in a God, it should be boundaried from that which is evidenciary. In addition, If you don't believe in God or a gap or what have you, that is great as well. The point is that a claim that a reason to not believe in God because there is no evidence is a fallacy based on a categorical error, and a claim that a reason to not believe in God because you will be involved with logical boundary setting (as if this is a bad thing) is also a fallacy. I thought I mentioned this. Anyway, I fail to see the relevance of these two points with an argument for or against the belief in God or gap or whatever.
Challenge your perspectives with the truth.
Thanks for not getting defensive.
Like I said, there are versions of "god" that make evidentiary claims. Your choice to insulate your god-concept from objectiveness diverges from the mainstream interventionist "god." Not only do you not have evidence, you excuse yourself from providing evidence (or even an explanation), and you do so arbitrarily.
It's absurd to assume that your perception can encompass every possible facet of what you've trying to perceive.
While you can create the concept of God from the universe as an abstract idea, you're simply pointing to a facet of the universes and claiming it's God. Yet, you claim your perception is the only true perception, which would mean it would need to be all encompassing. Moral, material, intent, etc. It's a paradox.
Yes My God Is All Encompassing. Through the Understanding of The Oneness of God and All Things You Can Look At The Universe in This Same Oneness.
My God is Not an Abstract Idea, My God is Truth, Like Gravity or Reletivity.
But what do you know about this conversation? Not very much. As such, the idea of this conversation has a limited value. You can't use it to tell what I look like. Or where I live. Or use it to predict what will happen to either of us tomorrow.
Emm, I was Using it To Say That My God is An Absolute Reality In The Same Way This Conversation is Absolutely Real.
If Theos is as real as this conversation, and conversations are abstract ideas that have limited value, then Theos is not an absolute truth and does not have value in all contexts.
Conversations Are Happening In Reality, Thats All I Was Pointing Out. This Conversation Is Happening and it is Absolutely Real, As Theos Is Absolutely Real. How Does All That Is Not Have Context In Everything? Theos is The Oneness of All Things, Theos is Also The Originator and Sustainer of All Things.
I know my concepts are merely one way of looking at things. It's all about convenence. You haven't seemed to grasp this concept yet.
So Concepts Have No Link To Reality?
Sure...........
So The Concept That You Are using To Understand This Concept of Convenience Is Nothing But Convenience?
What Are You On About?
How Do You "Know" Anything Then Maya?
Concepts Are Not Convenience My Brother, They Either Are or They Are Not.
From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.
I'm just curious thiest, but: why do you capitalize so many of your words? Is it just a writing style? No big deal really, again just curious.
Becasue I Like It.
You're not quite getting the context. Read that paragraph you're responding to, and 'possibility 1' as well:Well What Context of Existance Are We Talking About?
Their Are Humans in Pokemon, There Are Cats In Pokemon, There Are Regular Animals Among The Pokemon, Some Pokemon Do Not Exist As Real Creatures of The Universe, Some Do, So We Will Have To Decide on The Context of Existance Before Delving into The Existance of Anything.
Such As You Spoke of This "Meme" Which is a Fictional Thing, Made up in The Mind of a Man, Is The "Meme" Real? Do They Exist In The Real Universe? No They Do Not.
So Might as Well Put the Meme Up Their With The Pikachu.
"I happen to collect and send [pokemon] into battle [with each other (as should be understood without mention)]." Yea, I would send flimsy cards, or thoughts, into battle. The cards just sit there. By the way, brackets, '[]', are a correction after the quote. And I'm being sarcastic about cards and thoughts. Read on.
Near the middle of possibility 3), I say, "I'm in my back yard, yelling at thin air..."
What do you think I mean when I say "pokemon exist" all this time? I'm yelling at cartoons, or cards, or thoughts? No, I'm yelling at actual creatures collectively called pokemon.
I was being silly, to make a point. I was essentially saying,
I have a pet creature in my house right now. I can pick it up, and if you came over, you could too. It breathes. It says, "pika-, pika, pikachooooooo!!" alot, whose soundwaves can be measured. It streaks out lightning. It has fur. It is yellow. I would have to assume it metabolizes to live: it kills other lifeforms to eat. The disapearrance of these said lifeforms can be scientifically measured, as can the weight and dimensions of my pet pokemon, pikachu.
Need I go on to explain what I meant? How specific do I have to be to communicate to you I was being silly about pokemon existing? Did you really think, in my last 3 or so posts, that when I was being silly, I was saying only the cards and cartoon drawings and their perceptions in the minds of humans, exist?
I am being silly: I am saying you can touch a pokemon just in the same way you can touch other animals. You can feel it's warmth. etc... How many paragraphs do I need to type to illustrate you this possibility of mine? Do you get it now?
Or am I wrong to assume that I was being clear, when I wasn't? Anyone?
You Should Have Been Clear When You Referred to The Meme Then, That it is indeed a Fictional Idea, Next Time Make Sure You Do That, Ok?
Or Will I Need To Type Many Paragraphs Making Sure That You Understand That The Meme is Indeed An Idea in The Mind of Man, Just Like The Pokemon?
I can say with a high degree of confidence that I never said anyone here were experts on any god(s). If I did, then I concede: not too many here, besides maybe Rook, are experts on any.
Wait, So Rook Claims to Be The Expert on That Which Does Not Even Exist?
So He Is An Expert on That Which Is Not?
How Does One Become an Expert on Something That Does Not Exist?
I Would Think To be an Expert it Would Have to be on Something That At Least Exists, Less, Where Does The Knowledge Or Expertise come From?
Therefore they know absolutetly nothing about Santa Clause.
I Know Alot about Santa Claus, He is a Story Generated About a Man, Who Existed.
I Will Let You Know More About Santa Claus So That YOu Also Can Become Aquainted With Knowlegde of Santa ans Stop Telling Old Wives Tales About Him to Your Children.
"Saint Nicholas of Myra is the primary inspiration for the Christian figure of Santa Claus. He was a 4th century Christian Bishop of Myra in Lycia, a province of the Byzantine Anatolia, now in Turkey. Nicholas was famous for his generous gifts to the poor, in particular presenting the three impoverished daughters of a pious Christian with dowries so that they would not have to become prostitutes. He was very religious from an early age and devoted his life entirely to Christianity."
Good Ol Santa, a True Christian.
Therefore to listen to the people of this site about Santa would be the equivalent of asking a professional clown to do my brain surgery.
If They Donteven Know That Santa is Based On a Real Human Being Then Indeed what You Say is True.
Most on here probably aren't experts on all those fairy tales regarding Santa, and his reindeer, and the origin and history of the fairy tell, etc. But all can still say, with impunity, Santa does not exist. See the relation between being an expert on something, and having a good standing on whether or not it exists?
Again, please understand in what sense I mean Santa existing; really, should I have to make myself clear on what I mean when something exists each and every time?
Ummm Santa is St. Nicholas, He Did Exist. So I Would Say You Are All Very Slow if You Said With Impunity That Santa Did Not Exist, Maybe The Very Distorted Conception of Santa that You Have Does Not Exist, But That is Not Santas Fault, It Is Because You Do Not Seek The Truth of Santa.
If, by "pokemon exist" you mean, only in the minds of people and based on real things, sure. I also can't say much more about any god(s).
Oh, is that what you've been trying to tell me all along? That gods and pokemon are all made up? Well shit, I'm sorry, I guess I took everything you said out of context. I misunderstood you all this time.
Emmm No, Theos is Real Like Me and You, Like Gravity and Reletivity Like I Said, Your Very Uninformed Conceptions of God Are Not Real Like The Pokemo.
Oh and Also Your "Meme" Is Not Real, Very Unlike Theos and Gravity, Which Are Reality, But the Meme is as Real as a Pokemon, As I Have Stated.
"Weinberg is surely right that, if the word God is not to become completely useless, it should be used in the way people have generally understood it: to denote a supernatural creator that is 'appropriate for us to worship'" [The God Delusion, Dawkins, p. 13]. OK, I realize I'm not writing a paper here, but hopefully I cited that correctly.
I Ask You For Something Out of Your Mind, and You Quote Someone Elses Thoughts?
Do You Even Have a Mind of Your Own?
I think that will suffice for between you and me. However, I can't quite see how that jives with Greek mythology - were all Greek gods creators? - but for me personally, take that part out.
Greek Gods Are Names of Attributes of Men and God.
They Are Inscriptions of The Mind.
Followers of a faith typically, AFAIK, don't confuse their god(s) with any others of a different religion. Oh snaps, I did it again! Whoops, I took you out of context. I forgot - you, too, think your god is made up. Just like the made-up superman is a bad ass mofo.
What do You mean a Faith? Their is Only One Kind of Faith.
I Didnt Confuse God With Any Gods, There Are No Other Gods To Confuse God With, There Is Only One God.
My God is Not "Made up" Thats Rediculous, God Is Perceived, He Is Not Created.
Since You Choose To Write So Much and Not Keep Your Ideas Well Contained in Less Words I Will Have to Type To You Later.
Good Speaking With You Freind.
Peace For Now.
From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.
No problem
I guess you just wanted to switch topics so you could argue with my god-concept. Not too offensive. 
I am not protecting my god-concept from anything. Your inability to validly ascribe objective analysis about something that is completely subjective by definition and category has left you with nothing more than an arbitrary accusation of an attempt to hide from objective analysis, nice try. You are correct, however, about my concept's diversion from the mainstream, I am glad that you noticed. Of course, you are not suggesting any proof of invalidity due to this (that would be an argument of consensus fallacy). It's hard to differentiate, however, when you mix your insinuations with your observations, which one you are doing.
Correct me if I am wrong here, this is an issue for you because you hold to the absolute belief that one should not believe in something without evidence. If this is the case how did you come to know of this absolute truth? I claim that provisional truth (however you come by it, via evidence, reason or otherwise..) can not prove anything regarding absolute truth, categorical error. In addition, I am not excusing myself from providing evidence. I am simply holding to my evidence based belief that consensus and authoritative spiritualization, or loosely religion usually deprives people of their own rational abilities and their unique individual spiritual path. I have no desire to contribute to that and whats-more, it is not necessary for me to do so to back up these claims. Red-herring argument if I have ever seen one.
Your claim of arbitration is an arbitrary argument in and of itself. What evidence or reasoning do you have that my reasons for not providing an explanation and evidence of my God are invalid. Just because the facts of my claims do not support your argument does not mean that I have to ignore them and side with your claims.
Speaking of your claims, what are they?
Please, if you are not going to provide any reason or evidence for your contrary position your only acting as an arbitrary contrarian to which I am done responding to.
It is one thing to share ideas openly in a quest for knowledge. It is quite another thing to request a claim from someone for the sole purpose of obtaining an opportunity to debunk a claim and devalue a perspective, especially when one is only offering up arbitrary contrasting perspectives and logical fallacies to do so.
I take offense to the latter (and have taken offense to it since you started your covert conceptual diatribe) as anyone would. I have never done this to you and see no reason for your behavior towards me thus far.
Later dude, unless you wish to approach this in a more forthcoming (that is citing the evidence of my alleged invalid claims and the proof thereof, as well as your concept of god or the lack thereof), and objective manner.Challenge your perspectives with the truth.
Yea, you'll see near the end my tad frustration. Really, it seems it's so long because I repeat myself on *something* (can you guess what that is?). Now, all you probably have to do is read and acknowledge - in the sense of, "yes I see and understand that", not "yes I agree with", though if you end up not doing the latter I'm liable to drown myself in ontological (?) philosophy and hose you down in it
- read and acknowledge what is repeated, and otherwise skim over it and not respond to it but once. That is my suggestion, anyway.
I already have a response to your first half or so response (on my desktop, in MS word). But I think I'm more gentler already, and it seems to rather be more concise and more to the point and has big spaces between what I think are adaquately different sections, but I have already emphasised that *something* in my post again, without all the repeats.
Take your time, I know what I typed is long. Hopefully, what I have next won't be so. Don't feel rushed. I felt it would be unfair to post it now, until you finished reading and responding to my post in your second part, so as to not push you off track or any of the like.
Peace.
I was being sarcastic.
We seem to be in a conceptual stalemate. I have no claims. That's why I'm an atheist. You made an argument for the subjectiveness of subjectivity (or something), but stopped short of a specific claim. The word "God," though: I take issue with it.
Ok, So Cultural Evolution, Syncretism, Memetics, and Ancient Naivite are Evidence "Against" Mickey Mouse?
How can you Have Evidence "Against" Something that Does not Exist?
But Those Are Not Evidence Against Mickey Mouse Remember, You Said They Were Evidence Against God.
Which Is It?
The entity known as Mickey Mouse, as *percieved* to be an entity in the imaginagation of Walt Disney and the minds of children, does not exist. Mickey Mouse only "exists" on paper, and in thoughts. Whenever I generically say, without any added details, something exists, the latter form of 'existence' is NOT what I have in mind. Only the former (geesh, this is getting tiring). This should be understood, and as far as I know of, has ALWAYS been understood, to be what is meant when someone says, "[something] does/does not exist".
Is Their Only One Mode of Existance?
Not the origin, but the spread of the meme Mickey Mouse, can be explained by cultural evolution.
The fact that Hamas is using Mickey Mouse for their propoganda, is attributed to syncretism (telecommunications).
Anyone believing that Mickey Mouse is real (I'm no longer specifying what that means to you, as you should damn well know by now) - and maybe even gone so far and claimed this Mickey Mouse as an explanation for uninvestigated events, as has been the case with all the gods - is naive.
I could be wrong, but as far as I know, the three points about Mickey above can all be placed under the umbrella of memetics.
Yes Of Course Memetics! Gotta Collect Them All!
Without details, the spread of the meme Mickey Mouse is epidemic and not based on standards of inquiry. I could be wrong about my line of reasoning, but I would say that, that is enough to list something as likely to not be real, and the stories regarding said object, not be true.
Dude I Will Trade You One Mickey Mouse Meme For The Pikachu Meme, Thats a Fair Deal Is it Not?
So, again, I say yes: the people you mentioned would be good sources of info regarding the meme of any god(s). No specific details, I say again, but just general basic facts: epidemic, with no standards of inquiry by those perpetuating the epidemic. No expertise in god(s) necessary, though expertise of said epidemic might do wonders.
Damn You Have The Coveted God Meme, Holy Crap What is Its Special Abilities!
Can You Combine The God Meme With The Mickey Mouse Meme And Make a Mockey Mouse God!!!!
The World Would Explode!
For the very reason I put quotation marks ( " ) around the word 'against' in my use of it above. What better wording than 'against' would you suppose for Mickey Mouse (I beg of you... don't confuse!) not existing? I may be the one confused on this point, but I can't tell if 'against' is a good word for this usage. Perhaps would be better is, "for not believing in the existence of"? :
Whats The Differance?
How can you have evidence "for not believing in the existence of" something that (most likely) does not exist?
I suppose the very evidence for one to purport said noun to not likely exist in the first place....? (or at least not bother)
All I'm trying to do here, is to avoid semantic confusion. Maybe I'm doing a shitty job on this one.
So What Your Saying Is That Athiests Have No Reason For their Assertions?
Bingo.
I suppose in the same way biologists have evidence "against" lamarkian evolution (which, AFAWK, doesn't exist on this planet).
The same way physicists have evidence "against" the ether not existing.
These hypotheses have all been falsified, just as the god hypothesis. Maybe that was 'the' better wording of it? Falsified?
Since When Was The Former, Former, Orderer, And Sustainer of The Universe a Hypothesis?
If it Was a Hypothesis We Would Not Exist.
Without a Former, Former, Orderer, And Sustainer of This Universe, The Universe Would Not Exist.
My God Is This Former, Former, Orderer, And Sustainer.
My Favorite Physicist Likes the Ether. Have a Read Freind.
http://www.tu-harburg.de/rzt/rzt/it/Ether.html
Drink In The Ether of Theought Freind.
I Drink In The Theought Each Day, It Is Delicious.
I don't get your syntax of using the word 'former' twice. At any rate, what you have typed here sounds more akin to someone making up powers for superman, or making up pokemon, instead of inquiring over investigatable phenomenon. Unless you're admitting it's fiction and made up, sounds more like a waste of time. Oh, wait, I forgot - that's what you've been trying to tell me all this time, wasn't it thiest? That theos is all made up and fiction? Shit, there I go again, taking others' words out of context!So Wait? Their is No Formation of The Universe?
Their is No Order In The Universe?
There Is No Beggining Of The Universe?
The Universe Has a Beggining; My God Is What is Before That, MY God is The "Former" of The Universe.
The Universe has Formation; My God Formed It, My God is The "Former"
The Universe Is Ordered; My God is The "Orderer"
All Three of Those "Super Powers" As You Call Them Are Realities, Would You Deny This?
My God Did All of Those Things, If You Deny My God, Then You Deny The Existance of A Beggining, Formed, And Ordered Universe.
Oh and My God Also Sustains The Universe.
As The Universe is Sustained, My God Exists.
Jesus.
Titty.
Fucking.
Christ.
Intimacy doesn't always have to do with sex, look it up. PLEASE tell me you were just throwing out a random example?! PLEASE.
Besides, I don't think they're parallel anyways. 13 year-olds exist; pokemon do not.
Emmm Apparently You Missed What I Was Trying To Show You, To a Young Child the Pokemon Do Exist(As is The Case With You and Your "Meme's"
, As They Have Not Formed The Proper Nueral Pathways To Think Otherwise, Yeah And The "Intamacy" BEtween The Pervert and The Cop Was Not Sex, It was Intamacy, The Formation of Old Perverts Brains Makes Them Think They Want To Intimate With Young Children, The example was Just To Show That The Pervert was Not In a Delusion, But a Misperception.
He Was Percieving Correctly But From a Bad Vantage Point, Much Like You.
Whatever you want to call it, it is still the propogation of a meme whose origin was based in ignorance and naivite. Shit far in the morning, I keep forgetting and taking your words out of context - that's what you were saying anyways! That god is a meme made up out of ignorance and naivite! I am sorry thiest!
Damn Dude, This Coming From a Guy Who Collects Meme Cards?
Lets See You Got The Mickey Mouse, The God, And The Superman Meme?
"Gotta Have Em All" is Your Motto I Guess.
P.S. I Hate To Break It to You, This Might Hurt Your Intelligence.
Meme's Do Not Really Exist.
Seriously: any given person is intimate with family, friends, loved ones, etc... The faithful claim to be intimate with their god(s). How is the latter any different from a hypothetical person thinking they've spent actual time with actual pokemon? - my original question, by the way.
I am Very Intimate With My God, My Being Directly Originates From My God's Being, We Are Connected, Quite Intimate We are.
Or are you going to continue playing semantics over words such as existence and intimacy, taking me out of context? Ok, so maybe I deserve it for being nit-picky with your use of the word logic? Is that what this is, revenge? I was only trying to be educational on that one, and I have already apologized for it for in the event I was out of line...
If it is revenge, it seems rather disproportionate. I'll hold you higher above that... I'll assume it isn't revenge (I felt I at least have to ask, it's ok if in affirmative). But honestly, why must I make myself clear so often? It seems this post is so long simply because of me having to explain myself so much. It shouldn't be that difficult, really.
Do Not Worry, You Are Clear as Crystal.
I Do Not Practice Revenge, it is a Fruitless Endevour.
I Do Practice Having a Jolly Good Time Conversting With My Brethren, Let us Continue To Enjoy The Discussion, Less what is The Purpose?
I Would Like to Hear In Your Own Words, What Logic Is?
From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.
Much Obliged My Much Loved Brother.
From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.
How is that?
So...you claim to be one who does not hold a belief in a god, still a claim. Am I to assume from your statement that you simply choose not to believe in God(s) without any reasoning or evidenciary support, as opposed to some atheists.
I made an argument against Kelly's claim that having appropriate conceptual/cognitive boundaries (compartmentalizing) is irrational. My claim was the converse of Kelly's claim, that should have been evident.
What is your issue with the word "God"?
Challenge your perspectives with the truth.
If you're referring to compartmentalizing as to the process of creating concepts to abstract parts of reality so we can do our jobs, drive cars, etc. then I think we're on the same page.
However, I see compartmentalizing as elevating some concepts, such as God, to absolute truths that have value in all contexts, while leaving other concepts as limited truths that have limited value.
I'm referring to our inability to experience anything that represents everything. We have many of paths for gaining knowledge, but non of them appear to have the ability to encapsulates the universes in it's entirety. As such, we slice and dice the universe into parts that we can deal with. The particular points in which we choose to divide the universe into parts has a significant effect on how we perceive those parts, how we perceive them in relation to other parts, what importance we give them, etc. This is a process we can observe and has been documented in studies. Sometimes these points are imposed on us due to our physical limitations. Other times, we choose points based on what's convenient or provide the most utility. The point is, these concepts are not "reality" they are distorted reflections of facets of reality. As such, they are limited in value.
The existence of infra-red light is quite different than the existence God. God, by most definitions, implies an single, all encompassing, moral and material view of the universe. Infra-red light is simply a particular range in the spectrum of light. Do you think infra-red light was supernatural until we were able to detect it?
Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I was pointing out that many theists have defined God in a way that he effectively unlimited. Nor does anything he does have to make any sense. As such, he is essentially undetectable.
I do not claim to have proof that God does not exist, I simply do not believe the theist claim that God exists since I have no predictable way of discerning nature from that which is claimed to be God or his actions.
For example, you may have interpreted this conversation as being hostel toward you. Until I say I'm not hostel toward you (which I'm not) you have no real way of knowing. We know, though studies, that we do this sort of thing all the time.
http://www.lifehack.org/articles/lifestyle/your-brain-is-not-your-friend.html
Based on this sort of knowledge, we can say that this conversation has a limited value. Trying to extract information from a conversation that really isn't there is trying to make this conversation valuable outside it's usable context. In other words, it's easy to try and take this conversation and make something out of it that it's not.
I'm quite aware that value is arbitrary. The material composition of a 20 dollar bill isn't worth $20. It's an arbitrary designation created by our goverment. Yet, we say it has value when presented is specific situations.
Please see my most recent posts to theist1 for clarifications on this point.
Again, I'm not saying boundaries are bad.
But If I were to believe that God exists, I'd have to assume that one concept is an absolute truth, while others are not. I hold all concepts to the same standard of being convenient, utilitarian ways of looking at the world.
Yes, you could say I operate on an absolute idea that everything we comprehend is a concept and not an absolute truth. However, I'd say we have plenty of practical experience and studies that correlate with this idea.
Sounds like we're on the same page regarding the end result, but differ on how we get there.
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.
What evidence do you think I need? Theists have given me precisely the amount of evidence needed to support my view.
Was Kelly saying compartmentalization is irrational in principle, or only where it allows a person to hold two contradictory beliefs simultaneously?
You've demonstrated my issue with the word "God." Because so many people use it and it's so vague, most people are too jaded by it to question its legitimacy. The question, "Do you believe in God?," is often special pleading for the popular deity of the culture, whether it's Yahweh, Brahma or Allah. But the word, and phrase, can even be used in service of whatever thing it is you believe in, that you refused to describe. We're supposed to presume it's a meaningful word without any qualification, and it just isn't. I haven't ever seen qualification that made it seem coherent.
I'm confused. Is not gravity and relativity only facets of the universe? We've created the boundaries of gravity and relativity so we can point to them as parts of the universe. So your God is simply a facet of the universe as they are?
While I'll agree that our conversation points to an aspect of reality, we've created the concept of a conversation to make sense of reality in a particular context - an exchange between two or more things. For example, you could say my browser is having a conversation with this server. Two people dancing could be considered a conversation in body language. It's abstract and is used as a utility. Do you think of your God as a utility for understanding the universe?
Reality is happening in reality. We identify parts that we're interested in and decide what these parts mean to us. We "create" the boundaries out of utility, physical limitations and convenience.
Concepts are based on parts of reality. You can think of them as reflected light that is distorted by the act of observation and consciousness. We create what we perceive as reality based on a multitude of factors. It's a process we can observe and have studied. The placebo effect is one example.
Right. This concept is limited in value. It doesn't claim to dictate morality. I can't use it to fix my car. It's only useful in revealing the process in which I create concepts from reality.
To quote one of your favorite philosophers, "The wise man knows he knows nothing."
We must make concepts out of the universe to understand it, but the points in which we choose to do so is based on convenience, utility and physical limitations.
You're claiming that God is the same as everything else we perceive, yet he is not the same as everything else we perceive. Either he is or he isn't.
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.
Section 0:
I have to apologize: this is quite longer than I had anticipated (my first approximation was based on part 1 response). And it would have been longer, but I took a few things out. Another way I achieved this, is I took your posts, and thus my new responses, out of chronological order (I hope it isn’t too much trouble?), and “killed two birds with one stone”. Instead of big spaces, I simply have ‘sections’, each of which is composed of a common theme. However, don’t forget that the themes tie together, so I would suggest reading all of it before posting to parts of it. If you do write as you read, I further suggest doing so in Notepad or MS word, tie together, then copy and paste. So, all-in-all, hopefully I have made it as eligible as possible, unlike my last lengthy post, despite the length. Also, whenever I say akin to, “this seems distracting from our discussion” in a given section, I can only suggest that we skip over them; I included them, though, in defense of what I said.
Section 1:
For example, a child may say, “Santa exists”. There is no other way around understanding in what context said child meant. There should be no,
** (I’ll refer to this quote as, **)
As there should similarly be no,
Yes Santa exists, have you not heard the old wives tale? He [Santa] is based on a real life man and idea [what he did] that exists in the real universe.
, to a person trying to teach a child about Santa not existing.
Yes, Saint Nicholas of Myra existed, but I think it is sloppy wording to say Santa exists (just like it’s sloppy wording when you said,** “yes pokemon exist”), that’s all I’m saying. Just say, “Santa (or pokemon - x) doesn’t exist”, “Santa/x is based on a real person/animals x, but Santa himself/x is not real”, without saying in so many words, “the idea/meme of Santa/x is real, though!”, which is the impression I’m getting from your 2nd post** I quoted directly above. It’s excess baggage to say that extra stuff. It’s already understood, even by children who likely won’t immediately reflect on the “meta-language”, or the memetics, on the issue.
Hopefully, this further elaborates to you why I have always meant ‘existence’ in the way I always have, and felt it should have always been understood by anyone on the planet in such discourse.
Section 2:
Actually, I can’t (nor should I really: see next sentence) speak for Rook. But I’ll go ahead and give this one more go, in the hope to correct myself: Rook is actually an expert on the perpetuated meme of Jesus, not of any real (or unreal) man by the name of Jesus.
But otherwise, this is more distracting from our discussion than productive.
Section 3:
Granted what I’m about to say, remember my paragraph (1st quote section 3) you responded to extends to a similar message about brain surgery; it’s all together.
Whenever a child may say, “Santa exists”, they never refer to the historical figure, but instead to a magical fat man in a red suit. Even knowing the history, I can’t imagine meaning any different as well when I say Santa does not exist. Again, I am saying what I did above, about Santa, in the context of my very first response atop this new post of mine. Santa does not exist, in the sense of existence a child thinks Santa does exist (compare to your**, “yes pokemon exist”). Which, AFAIK, has always been the understood context in discourse when using the word ‘existence’ throughout the conversations of the human race at all time, unless otherwise specified.
(Slow, are we? I think the term is ‘ignorant’, though I happen to be slow sometimes
.) And further note I can’t speak for everyone, even though I thank you for that history lesson the point is that even if none of us did know that much in detail, but knew Santa was made up based on a real man at the very least, that should still suffice for my point to be valid.
Furthermore, I made a point I still don’t see you acknowledging either way (if you think I was wrong or right), which is why I ask you read further about the brain surgery:
2nd quote:
Now you’re getting’ it! I think the sarcasm I put in my first post, and my lengthy one, is rubbing off on you! Lol,
While I admire and love your sarcasm – I did indeed have a good chuckle – I was hoping you’d at least add some responses. To shorten, I only suggest you respond to the following, which is just a summary of all I said above: The whole point of what I typed (as you partially quoted in this section), was to explain to you where any expertise, as you brought up, would go if any were needed. No one needs to be an expert on Santa Clause, brain surgery, or any deities. The only knowledge one needs to know if said entities/phenomenon is real or not, is at the very least, regarding the spread of memes of said entities. Is it epidemic? And if so, in what way? Under what constraints?
Section 4:
To your first response: whoa, I did say something of my mind! “For me, take that part out”. Go back, and read that quote for yourself, you should see it.
Secondly, what’s genuinely wrong with simply agreeing with someone, whether or not I made it up independently and happened to agree?
But really, how else does one learn definitions (you asked for)? Do you expect me to be some linguistic expert, to be part of a panel of English language experts at Oxford University in Britain, deciding what goes into dictionaries? I can only go with what I’m given, when it comes to definitions. But a distraction.
To your second response: so, what you’re saying, is like Aphrodite as the goddess of love, for example? To be honest, you lost me here, I don’t know what else you meant by ‘attributes of men and god’ (as love, again an example, being an attribute of say, men). Again, distracting perhaps, so no biggy?
Since you were so adamant to get creativity out of me I didn’t think was appropriate, as was the case you asked me my definition of god, I will make an attempt:
The methods employed to prove or demonstrate a conclusion.
But again, definitions are best determined by society, or even better yet, experts within communities. They’re not set in stone, but other sources would be better than me. However, I see this, too, as a distraction from our main discussion.
Section 5:
Couldn’t you have at least guessed I meant “religion” when I said “faith”, and then ask “did you mean religion?”? But at any rate, this is more a distraction than:
OK then, so I’ll just ask: what else did you mean when you typed,
,? “All gods” seem to include Vishnu, Allah, Thor, Zeus, etc… That’s why I mentioned confusion. I’m not saying you’re confused, but I just wanted to point out that I am having trouble swallowing/understanding what you were saying.
By the way, how do you know Greeks didn’t genuinely perceive their gods? Or Hindus don’t their god(s?)? (Is it poly or mono or some weird in-between for Hindus?)
More on this later, in and after your response in part 2:
Section 6:
I’m saying they’re evidence against both existing (this is why I often type precisely what you do, but replace the appropriate nouns, pronouns, etc…, in the hope to get you to see my point about the parallels). I view Mickey and any gods equally as made up. Sure, there are specific differences. Mickey was explicitly made up for entertainment; any of the gods, there is very little handle on how/why they were made up so long ago, but possibly because of ancient peoples’ lack in an ability to scientifically investigate, being easy to personify natural phenomenon and imagine intention/agency when there is none, etc… All of which are attributed to naiveté.
Section 7:
Yes, of course there is; but that’s not the impression I get from your quote, **. The quotation marks indicate not to take that literally this time. At worst, I simply worded things poorly. Again, unless otherwise specified like here – such as quotation marks being such specification – I mean ‘existence’ as I’ve insisted. I’m talking about the meme, and no actual entity (Mickey) anybody would respond to by saying something like, “Umm… is this Roger Rabbit brought to life or something? Or am I dreaming? Or what!?” (notice I underlined, to refer to the script of the movie, not the character).
At any rate, I will concede I was not clear. Let me be clear.
There are different nouns here. There’s the entity, then there’s the idea/meme representing said entity.
If I say pokemon do (not) exist, how could you confuse the cards, drawings, or thoughts that represent the pokemon, with the pokemon themselves**?
Did I ever say,
“cards with pictures of pokemon…”, or
“drawings of pokemon…”, or
“the picture in my mind’s eye of a pokemon…”
“… exist”?
Or did I simply say “pokemon exist”?
Which did I say? And which, given the context of my sarcasm in my very first post, and my elaboration in my second and since, do you honestly believe I always meant to begin with? Compare your answer with what you quipped on page 47 of the thread**:
Obviously, we both should be able to agree by now that you were only talking about the ideas/memes that represent the pokemon, while I was talking about the entities pokemon in and of theirselves. Which begs the observation that we could have avoided potentially tens of posts if only you knew what I meant.
Section 7:
The difference between, “against that which does not exist”, and “not to believe in that which does not exist” you ask? The first sounds like a glaring contradiction I guess, while the second does not. But I agree, there is no difference. It’s only in connotation, I suppose. Notice again I simply took what you said about God, and replaced nouns and other words. You can see now, I am under the impression that both Mickey and all deities were made up (whether I’m wrong or right). I typed what I did to make a point about what I see as a parallelism.
Let me simply put our two posts together:
Ok, So Cultural Evolution, Syncretism, Memetics, and Ancient Naivite are Evidence "Against" Mickey Mouse or God (or Zeus, or demons in plagues, etc…)?
How can you Have Evidence "Against" Something that Does not Exist?
Remember, I’m continuing with my dichotomy between the meme, and the entity the meme represents. So, when I say, “Mickey does not exist”, it should be obvious I am making an obvious and honest statement.
Even if he’s right, for now the (competitive, mind you!) verdict suggests it most likely does not exist. The ether was made up to explain the constant speed of light cropping out of Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism, when a variable speed would otherwise be expected. As soon as Einstein made the constancy of light an assumption in developing his relativistic theories (or, more exactly, as soon as his theories have been experimentally verified enough to be accepted), the ether was no longer needed. Even if I read it, even if I’m impressed by it, I would have to have serious doubts about it to be honest with myself. But change my mind I would given accumulated (and again, competed-for) evidence!
My point still stands: as of now, we do have evidence “against” the ether (and Lamarckian evolution). We have evidence against something that does not (or likely not) exist, wording you seemed to have trouble accepting (with regard to god) and something I’ve already explained above.
OK, tell me something that likely does not exist. From what I said above, it could still be worded as, “we have evidence “against” said object existing”, only being a probabilistic statement of course.
Section 8:
I didn’t say that; hell, I even admitted I was doing a shitty job at my wording this time.
If I made any statement about any atheists and their assertions, it would be that atheists have a reason for making no assertion, other than probabilistic assertions.
The only assertion I’m making here, is that what we conceive of as any gods, they specifically are all made up. And most likely so, because again, for the reasons I’d recommend the people you suggested many posts back: lack of evidence, memetics, ancient naïveté, etc… But never mind, yet another distraction from discourse.
Section 9:
Good question. I don’t think any one has an answer to that question, or ever will. It’s hard to say, but the best might be something that an evolutionary psychologist might suggest. Say, many ideas from different tribes that, as the tribes coalesced into greater societies, the memes and ideas started to thread together into memeplexes – thus, we have modern Judaism, for instance. This might just be an example of syncretism, or at least some variation thereof, since there were gods being talked about all the time long before any single “big package” god was on the scene.
Since when was it known to be a hypothesis? Since the Enlightenment, I’m certain.
The big bang is a hypothesis! Even if there is a god who created the universe, making such a statement still amounts to stating a hypothesis. All I’m saying, is there is evidence to suggest that the said hypothesis is false. That evidence includes the epidemic spread of the memes of religions and their deities – that is, the nature of the spread of the meme.
But again, I was only trying to avoid semantic confusion back to the original post.
Section 10:
I would deny to what/who/where you’re attributing them to. It is simpler to attribute those powers to the universe itself. But again, I think this is more distracting from our main discussion.
Section 11:
Glad to be wrong (on intimacy), but this is another one of those, “whatever you want to call it”s, below.
More good chuckles. But if I’m collecting any memes at all, they would be my understanding that other memes represent entities that are 1)thought to exist or 2)known not to, but both simply don’t. And it seems you missed the point, or at least chose not to respond to it, that deals specifically with our discussion:
“Break” it to me? “Hurt” my intelligence? Everything I’ve typed thus far has been rather simple. Santa does not exist, precisely in the same way a child would say Santa does exist: the magical fat man in a red suit, not the historical figure. Pokemon do not exist**. Long, but simple. And you needn’t worry about hurting my intelligence – we are arguing after all! And, I’m open to new ideas.
If by, “memes do not really exist”, you are referring to memetics not quite having achieved scientific status, then what you say may be correct but premature at best. If you’re curious, read Wikipedia’s article on it; again, they’re not the best but it’s a good start as to why memetics is having trouble.
However, memes are just units of culture/communicative ideas. They could be mere thoughts, drawings/words, or the transmission of such entities. This may be hard to quantitate (one of the troubles), but I ask: do thoughts not exist? A thought is nothing more than electrochemical activity in the brain (or, if you insist, something regarding souls). Do people not communicate with one another? Then, memes get passed on. It’s that simple.
Section 12:
And when I get married, I can only say my love (to my wife) directly originates from Aphrodite (or Cupid, take your pick), we are connected, quite intimate we are.
And when I get wet with water, my wetness directly originates from my Poseidon’s being, we are connected, quite intimate we are.
And when I get angry, my being angry directly originates from my Ares’ being, we are connected, quite intimate we are.
And when I get presents, my good fortune directly originates from my Santa’s being, we are connected, quite intimate we are.
And when I’m sick, my sickness directly originates from demons’ being, we are connected, quite intimate we are as unfortunate as that may be.
You know I don’t believe they exist. All I ask of you is: knock down the parallel.
Section 13:
You said, long ago,
, I said,
So, maybe a better example all this time would have been, say, Santa Clause, but the pokemon example fit so rhythmically in taking your words and repeating them, but only filling in the appropriate replacements.
Essentially, how is believing in Santa (or pokemon, or Zeus, or Mickey Mouse…), any different from believing in theos? Or, replace ‘believing’ with ‘knowing’/’being intimate with’. Still, how is it any different?
How do you know Theos, or any of the gods, weren’t made up? Doesn’t it seem likely, even if it happened to be wrong, that all gods and religions were made up by naïve people in ancient times, where it was easier to personify causes to events when it fit so well with their psychological experience with each other? And doesn’t it seem so convenient how these religions and their messages spread so swiftly, again in naïve times? Just look at how the pokemon meme spread: not because of inquiry, but by some enticement and allurement to the masses; again, how is it any different with any deities (except for the entertainment vs. explanation, as obvious as this particular difference is)?
*Whew*, chew that slowly. Peace.
I'm confused. Is not gravity and relativity only facets of the universe? We've created the boundaries of gravity and relativity so we can point to them as parts of the universe. So your God is simply a facet of the universe as they are?
My God Is The Facet From Which Those Facets Come Into Being. I am Giving You The Closest In Origination To My God, As To Describe To You a Certain People Or Culture I Would Show You What Laws They Have Created, To Show You My God I Will Show You The Laws He Has Created And The Work of His Hands, The Universe.
While I'll agree that our conversation points to an aspect of reality, we've created the concept of a conversation to make sense of reality in a particular context - an exchange between two or more things. For example, you could say my browser is having a conversation with this server. Two people dancing could be considered a conversation in body language. It's abstract and is used as a utility. Do you think of your God as a utility for understanding the universe?
This is The Communications Between two Sentient Beings, I Do Not Know What You Are On About, The Reality of This Situation Is That Two Sentient Beings Are Communicating What They See In Reality, Me and You.
No, the Browser is Not Having a Conversation With the Server, The Origin of The Conversation IS From Within My Being and Your Being, Much Like The Origin of The Universe and Its Physical Laws Is In My God.
Reality is happening in reality. We identify parts that we're interested in and decide what these parts mean to us. We "create" the boundaries out of utility, physical limitations and convenience.
So You Create Your Own Logic Maya?
I am Sorry To Hear That, Mine is Based In What is Real.
The Universe Has Its Own Logical Boundaries, We Do Not Need To "Create" Them, They Have Already Been Formed and Are Evident In The Glorious Musical and Mathematical Function That is This Universe, Formed By The Almighty Theos.
Concepts are based on parts of reality. You can think of them as reflected light that is distorted by the act of observation and consciousness. We create what we perceive as reality based on a multitude of factors. It's a process we can observe and have studied. The placebo effect is one example.
Emmm So What is Mathematics?
We All Just Agree That Math Works?
Nope, They Are Logical Real Concepts That Exist Within The Boundaries of Our Formed Universe.
Look To The Logic of Mathematics and You Will Peer Into The Logic That My God Chose For This Universe.
Quite Awesome is His Formulation of Logic He Made For Us, Quite Holy and Sacred.
Right. This concept is limited in value. It doesn't claim to dictate morality. I can't use it to fix my car. It's only useful in revealing the process in which I create concepts from reality.
I Agree With You, Your Concepts Have Limited Value, As They Are Just Stuff You "created" In your Own Mind.
My Concepts Are Graphted Into my Neural Pathways By Observing The Logic of The Universe, Both The Visible Such as My Body and Mountains and The Invisible Such as My Being and Mathematics.
I am Sorry To Hear That Your Logic Is Imaginary.
To quote one of your favorite philosophers, "The wise man knows he knows nothing."
Why Do I Not Just Quote Myself?
"The Wise Man Knows What He Does Not Know and Also Knows What He Knows."
Thats Better.
We must make concepts out of the universe to understand it, but the points in which we choose to do so is based on convenience, utility and physical limitations.
No, You Must, I Understand it By The Power Given To me By The Formations Created by The Almighty Theos.
My Being is Not Under Physical Limitations, Only The Body, For it is The Law of God.
You're claiming that God is the same as everything else we perceive, yet he is not the same as everything else we perceive. Either he is or he isn't.
God is Both The Oneness of All Things and The Oneness of God Alone.
From Nothing God Brought Something Into Being.
From Infinity God Brought Finity Into Being.
From Oneness God Brought The Many Into Being.
Isnt God Beutiful?
From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.
As You Decided to Write Your Graduate Thesis To me Instead of a Response, I Will Respond To The One Thing That I Would Like To Talk to You About, The Meme.
However, memes are just units of culture/communicative ideas. They could be mere thoughts, drawings/words, or the transmission of such entities. This may be hard to quantitate (one of the troubles), but I ask: do thoughts not exist? A thought is nothing more than electrochemical activity in the brain (or, if you insist, something regarding souls). Do people not communicate with one another? Then, memes get passed on. It’s that simple.
So a Meme Is Just an Idea Now? Oh Ok, I See, So They Have To Get Passed Along To Exist?
Well, Seeing as God is not An Idea We Have Nothing To Argue About.
Think about It Like This, Does Math "Not Exist" If it Does Not Get Passed Along?
No.
Math Is Percieved And The Concepts Are Extracted From What We Call Reality.
Same Goes For My God.
And As For Santa Not Existing, I Do Not Care if The Conception of St. Nicholas Has Been Skewed By People, He Still Exists.
He Was a Real Being and Lived In The Physical Universe.
When People Alter Perceptions of Real Things That Exist, Then Dismiss The Altered Perception of The Real Thing Away, That is Wrong.
So do Not Do it To St. Nicholas or To My God.
Thank You.
Peace.
From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.
Yes, the more I think about it... the dumber I feel. Thanks for "handing me my ass" as to it's length; I guess I just got carried away at making myself 'heard'!
I was somewhat considering this myself, but perhaps in another thread. We'll continue it here, though, and if the mods decide to move it else where, so be it. More to come.
Of course any god, in and of him/her/itself, is not an idea. But, the idea of a god is a meme. That is what gets passed on - the meme, or idea, of god(s).
And I actually agree with you on math. Now, I hear a lot, people say, "Math was invented, not discovered". But I am confident that aliens on other planets would discover precisely much of the same math. If you read our history of math, you can get an appreciation of the "self-obviousness" of our axioms, and why they were so chosen. As an example from set theory: there exists an empty set. They are arbitrary, mind you. Which makes me concede that our axioms are not necessarily destined to be discovered by aliens independently; to be honest, I still struggle with this.
However, if whether or not math exists independent of human reality, there is something dependent on human reality that does get passed on. It is simply that which is learned. Symbols, techniques, understanding, etc... is very dependent on humans, and gets passed on.
That extraction isn't always accurate. Society extracted "magical fat man in red suit" from Saint Nicholas. I can not help what society extracts or teaches to children; all I know is, that in the drawings and minds of children, Santa Clause is some magical fat man in a red suit, not a historical figure. Regardless of where that perception came from, does the hypothetical entity, who happens to be magical, fat, and wears red, exist? No, of course not. The perception of said entity is a skewering (of something else), yes. But not the entity itself.
Many evolutionary psychologists will concede that all of the gods are equally skewed concepts. From a built-in mechanism in our brains to see intention where there may or may not be, we still sometimes percieve agency.
Of course I can't dismiss the perception of any gods. However, I also cannot dismiss the reality our ancestors attributed god(s) to. Where we disagree, then, is the nature of that reality, I suppose.
Hopefully, that was my last edit (I realized many blunders of mine).
But how do you know where God stops and the universe begins? On what basis can you make this distinction?
What we're doing could be interpreted as a multitude of things. We're typing on keyboards. Writing words. Creating sentences. Uploading data. We can take the reality of what's happening and split it up at various points into concepts, in which a "conversation", overlaps. We can switch between these concepts at will with the impression that we're doing distinct things that are different than each other. We're the ones making the distinction. Creating meaning from these actions.
Logic is yet another facet of the universe. It's not very valuable when it comes to emotions or love. We don't choose who we love using logic. Do you?
So God came up with the concepts of Rock Music and Pop Music? How about the distinction between Abstract and Realism in the art field?
Can you even create art on a computer? If I sit down and create visuals using a mouse and keyboard, am I creating Art? Because, in reality, things are happening that are completely different than that of a traditional artist. Did God decide what is art and what is not?
Did the Almighty Theos decide where we should divide the electromagnetic spectrum into Gamma rays, X-rays, Ultraviolet, visible light and infrared light? We based these divisions based in part on how usefull these ranges are to us. How they effect things we're interested in. Had our eyes evolved to detect a wider range of the spectrum, the band we've defined as Visible light would have been larger. Yet, the electromagnetic spectrum would not have changed. It would still be exactly the same. We've defined the concept of visible light based on what we can perceive without assistance because having that definition is convenient for us.
We agree upon what part of the universe is defined as mathematics. We decide what is included mathematics and what it is not. We place an importance on mathematics based on what it does for us. Why? Because it's practical and beneficial for us to do so. These are actions we've taken that make something more out of mathematics that it was before we identified and observed it.
Think of a photographer taking a photograph. He must choose what will and what will not be in the frame. Two photographers can shoot a picture from the exact same location, yet the impact of their individual photos can be completely different. One could show a car accident with paramedics on the scene trying to resuscitate an injured driver. Another could show a calm, blue sky with fluffy clouds. If you mistake either of these pictures for reality, then you're missing something.
And now we reach the crux of the issue. You think God can answer every question, moral, material, etc. You think you're idea of God is all encompassing. I'm simply saying that your God is a concept that you've created based on your interpretation of parts of the universe.
You aim your camera at part of your experience and observations, press the shutter and claim you've taken the picture of all pictures. No other photograph is correct. It encompasses everything that exists, because your concept of God encompasses everything that exists.
I think this God of yours is just "stuff" you've created in your own mind.
But wait, the quote goes on...
"The wise man knows he knows nothing; the fool thinks he knows."
Oh, that's right. You have a magical camera that let's you take photographs which encompass the limitless power and perfect being of God. Your photo is the only right view of everything.
How do you know what your magical camera shows you is correct?
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.
First, Do you mean by value, application or validity? If you do then you might consider not using the term value in your statements as neither application nor validity are not synonyms of the word value. If you meant importance, that is superfluous information. Second, regarding holding a concept as an absolute truth while holding other concepts as contingent, or necessary truths, this is done all the time. A prime example is the law of conservation of energy which is currently held to be valid for all physical systems in the universe. In contrast, Newton's 1st law of motion is not valid for systems where speeds near or at the speed of light are involved. However, originally, it was held that all the laws of motion were held as absolutes. This change occurred due to the introduction of repeatable, empirical evidence which showed otherwise. This shows the acceptance of the provisionality of claims regarding a particular scientific concept as being absolute. So, when the concept is based on the realization that we don't know anything 100% sure regarding absolute truths, there is no issue. This perspective takes into account the imperfection of human a priori concepts due to the imperfections inherent in our senses and physiology. It is the invalid assumption that we can be 100% certain of an absolute truth which causes the issue, not the fact that a concept is being held as an absolute in contrast to other concepts. My concept of God is provisionally absolute not certainly absolute.
Infra-red light was supernatural (look up definition of supernatural) until we were able to perceive it, not until we were able to detect it. The characteristic difference between what one considers God to be and what we now consider Infra-red to be, are completely superfluous to the fact that at some point (and for sometime) in history we were unable to perceive (cognitively or physically) the existence of Infra-red light. This fact does not have any bearing on whether or not the Infra-red light did exist. The lack of proof for existence is not proof of the lack of existence. That is an invalid argument.
I do not disagree with that, but again, this fact is superfluous to whether or not God(s) exists.
That is great, so you have chosen not to believe that God(s) exists because there is no predictable discernible characteristics between nature and what is claimed to be God or his actions. I have no claims that I can prove God does exist.
You missed my point. We say a $20 dollar bill is worth 20 single dollars because that is how it is defined so there is a point of reference to understand the value. You have not disseminated what your definition or criteria of value is with respect to your usage of the word in your claims, and furthermore it really is superfluous when considering the validity of a point or claim unless the claim involved the value of something. None of my claims involve the value of anything so I am quite perplexed as to why you keep including that term in your responses. If, by value, you mean validity, then I understand your points but the two are not synonyms as mentioned above.
So you hold an absolute concept about not holding concepts as absolute. C'mon dude this is contradictory and you know it. The reasons behind your contradiction are superfluous to the fact that this is a contradiction. I claim this reasoning to be invalid an unable to support the concept that there is anything wrong with holding a concept to be a provisionally absolute truth while holding other concepts as provisionally contingent or provisionally necessary truths.
The bottom line is: if one wants to believe in something that has validity, or is reasonable by such standards, then there is no problem. The personal and social problems start when you take this belief and ascribe, without evidence, commonalities to it and then go further to try and enforce this belief on others via proselytizing or via force, be it legal or otherwise. Another problem is considering someone else's claims to be true without a process of self-validation. Religion and Unnecessary appeals to authority are the most common ways people practice being cognitively irresponsible. By doing this you give up your power and your sanity to those you blindly entrust in.
We are on the same page, don't let cognitive dissonance cloud your awareness.
Challenge your perspectives with the truth.
I don't think that you need any evidence to not believe in God(s). I just was wondering what category you consider yourself falling into, those who simply choose not to believe a God exists, those who do not believe God exists because of lack of evidentiary proof and those who not only do not believe that God exists, but believe that God does not exist based on proof.
It seemed to me that she was speaking with respect to believing in something without evidence (the case of a belief in God) while simultaneously holding the belief that evidence is necessary for belief in all other things. As I explained in great detail in my response to Veils of Maya this is simply an invalid argument based on the evidence. In addition, holding two seemingly contradictory beliefs (they are not contradictory at all, as I elaborated on in my most recent response to Veils of Maya) simultaneously happens all the time. It's called an exception to the rule. Eg. We consider murder to be illegal, while legal at the same time but only in the case of self-defense. Completely rational boundary.
Have you ever considered the vagueness to be a function of the relativity of the concept. As far as I am concerned the concept of God can only be truly valid for the individual, not the groups. Once it becomes a function of group conceptualization, the connection between the self and the unique relative knowledge of God, developed as an expression of the unique self conceptualization of this absolute truth, starts to dissipate. Eventually, one is left with a blank empty sarcophagus of what was once a vibrant vessel of self expression. A very sad case indeed, not to appeal to emotions but rather an observance of a deep personal loss of the self. No wonder there are so many cults, they are practically a necessity for mental survival from the vacuum left behind after living a lie for so long.
It is for these reasons among others that I say Religion is abhorrent and claim that we could, and would be a lot better off without it. From my observations it has only served to justify a lack of responsible decision making. Basically, causing a willed slavery of consciousness.
That's my take on it.
Challenge your perspectives with the truth.
On the subjective level, I have no sense that there's the presence of a deity. This isn't coming from a strict science wonk: I've practiced meditation, remote viewing, skrying, telekinesis, and other fringy and pseudo-scientific things (the results of all were inconclusive if you were wondering). I've also had good things happen to me, and traumatic things. In spite of all this, I never felt even basic resonance with any concept of a god.
I've never been presented with evidence of any kind for most popular "gods," and for me, most apologetics work strongly against the religions they're defending. If the best they can come up with to support their outrageous claims is a negative definition, or a TAG, their case is a poor one indeed. It's poor for lack of evidence, and poorer for what they do argue. I can't rule out a concept as vague as "god," but I find the idea improbable as defined by most religions, and frankly not very interesting.
(I've snipped out a couple paragraphs about compartmentalization because they reference things I haven't read yet. I'll respond after I read them.)
The relativity of the concept? I'm going to diverge for a second before I move on to your next comment. There is a ubiquity in the presence of religion in the world. Based on my own experiences, there are enough people in each culture to create these myths and rituals around them, but it isn't necessarily so that everyone will independently have a sense of the concept. If they matched in some conclusive way, that'd be one thing. But I think their differences suggest an inclination to create religions; as we're inclined to develop languages and moral codes and agriculture. I'm not saying you think so, but this doesn't suggest anything about the validity of the concept itself. Now, you speak of the concept to the individual. I find it incredibly hard to imagine, given the ubiquity of religion, that we can determine what segment of the population would have developed a concept, or even an interest, in such a concept independently. Even if a person learns another language, for instance, they may still first think in the mother tongue. The idea of having an individual "god," to me, seems like trying to develop one's own language, and forget the mother tongue. I think it's much more likely that the concept is introduced through the culture, and then individualized adjustments are made to the concept (which again says nothing about its validity).
I agree that subjectivity has value to the individual; that the personal experience shouldn't be one of constant deference to society and authority (which ideally we help to define); it just isn't objective proof, which I don't think you were claiming it was. I agree with you about religion, and I think it's is a poison to social discourse. I just don't know how anyone can confidently proclaim their god concept independent of it.
Since You Broke it Up Into Sections I Will Respond To Each Section As I Go Through What You Have Written, As Time and I Allow. You are Very Much Heard.
Section 1:
thiest wrote:For example, a child may say, “Santa exists”. There is no other way around understanding in what context said child meant. There should be no,
Yes Indeed Yo Are Correct, IN Much The Same Way When You Say That God Does Not Exist, I Understand that What You Mean By God, Does Not Exist, As You Lack Understanding of God, Much Like a Child Lacks Understanding of The Real Santa Claus, Who is St. Nicholas.
thiest wrote:** (I’ll refer to this quote as, **)
As there should similarly be no,
Yes Santa exists, have you not heard the old wives tale? He [Santa] is based on a real life man and idea [what he did] that exists in the real universe.
, to a person trying to teach a child about Santa not existing.
Yes, Saint Nicholas of Myra existed, but I think it is sloppy wording to say Santa exists (just like it’s sloppy wording when you said,** “yes pokemon exist”), that’s all I’m saying. Just say, “Santa (or pokemon - x) doesn’t exist”, “Santa/x is based on a real person/animals x, but Santa himself/x is not real”, without saying in so many words, “the idea/meme of Santa/x is real, though!”, which is the impression I’m getting from your 2nd post** I quoted directly above. It’s excess baggage to say that extra stuff. It’s already understood, even by children who likely won’t immediately reflect on the “meta-language”, or the memetics, on the issue.
Hopefully, this further elaborates to you why I have always meant ‘existence’ in the way I always have, and felt it should have always been understood by anyone on the planet in such discourse.
Indeed When You Say God Does Not Exist I Will Now Always Remember That You Do Not Even Know God, So You Obviously Do Not Know if He Exists Or Not.
So Are We Clear then That Indeed That Santa Claus Who is an Altered Perception of a Real Man, Did Indeed Exist?
So From Now On When I Say Santa Existed, You Should Understand That I am Speaking of St. Nicholas.
And When You Say God Does Not Exist, I Will Understand That Your Skeward Perception of God, Does Not Exist.
Sounds Good.
Section 2:
thiest wrote:Actually, I can’t (nor should I really: see next sentence) speak for Rook. But I’ll go ahead and give this one more go, in the hope to correct myself: Rook is actually an expert on the perpetuated meme of Jesus, not of any real (or unreal) man by the name of Jesus.
But otherwise, this is more distracting from our discussion than productive.
So Bascially He Has No Knowledge of God Whatsoever.
He is an Expert About The Idea of Something, He Has No Real Knowledge on The Subject of God.
Being an Expert about an Idea, Is not Having The Knowledge of That idea.
To Make it More Clear, I Could Be an Expert on The Idea Of The Teachings of Plato, Then I Could Not Apply Any of Those Teachings in My Actual Life, Thus I Would Not Have Real Knowledge of The Actual Teachings, But only On The Idea of Those Teachings.
Also It is Like, I Could Be An Expert on The Idea Of Triginometry (Know All The Vocabulary and The Terms) and Not Actually Be Able To Solve Trigonometry Problems.
Thats The Extent of Rooks Knowledge of God, He is Aquainted With The Idea of It, He Has No Real Knowledge.
Section 3:
thiest wrote:Whenever a child may say, “Santa exists”, they never refer to the historical figure, but instead to a magical fat man in a red suit. Even knowing the history, I can’t imagine meaning any different as well when I say Santa does not exist. Again, I am saying what I did above, about Santa, in the context of my very first response atop this new post of mine. Santa does not exist, in the sense of existence a child thinks Santa does exist (compare to your**, “yes pokemon exist”). Which, AFAIK, has always been the understood context in discourse when using the word ‘existence’ throughout the conversations of the human race at all time, unless otherwise specified.
Whenever You Say That God Does Not Exist, You Are Not Reffering to The Real God, But an Idea of God That You Have in Your Mind.
(Slow, are we? I think the term is ‘ignorant’, though I happen to be slow sometimes
.) And further note I can’t speak for everyone, even though I thank you for that history lesson the point is that even if none of us did know that much in detail, but knew Santa was made up based on a real man at the very least, that should still suffice for my point to be valid.
Well, Your The One Who Said That You Could State With Impunity That Santa Does Not Exist, Now We Know That Santa Does Indeed Exist.
So I Guess When You Make The Statement With Impunity "God Does Not Exist", It is Becasue Your Idea That You Dismiss As God, Does Not Exist, Yet God Does Exist.
So Have We Made Clear on The 2 Modes of Existance Now?
1. True Existance as In Reality. (Math, God, and St. Nicholas)
2. Existance of Forms Within Ideas. (Symbols in Math, Your Idea of God, and The Altered Perception of St. Nicholas.)
They Both Exist, But Only One of Them Is The Truth, Although Both Are Based In Reality.
I Will Get To Your Other Sections Later.
And I Will Respond To Maya in a Bit As Well.
Peace For Now.
From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.
Wow, thank you for responding, considering how long my ‘graduate thesis’ was! Not to mention you were, perhaps rightfully so, not originally willing to respond to it in the first place. Did you see my last response, about memes? Also, I goofed: there are two section 7’s; I was cutting and pasting whole sub-responses, trying to shorten it (yea, real good that did). So, if/when you do get that far, just take note, peace.
Hello Again Freind.
While I admire and love your sarcasm – I did indeed have a good chuckle – I was hoping you’d at least add some responses. To shorten, I only suggest you respond to the following, which is just a summary of all I said above: The whole point of what I typed (as you partially quoted in this section), was to explain to you where any expertise, as you brought up, would go if any were needed. No one needs to be an expert on Santa Clause, brain surgery, or any deities. The only knowledge one needs to know if said entities/phenomenon is real or not, is at the very least, regarding the spread of memes of said entities. Is it epidemic? And if so, in what way? Under what constraints?
I Do Not Understand What You Mean, The Spread Of Ideas Being An Epidemic?
The Divine Being Exists Weither There is An Idea About Him or Not. Ideas Are Seperate From Reality, You Can Not Learn That God Exists Through Ideas, It Is Being That Experiences Being, Through My State of Being I Experience The Divine Being, In Him I Move and Have My Life, This is The Knowledge of God, It is Con-Science, The Knowledge Gained From Experience Of Being In This Universe That Was Formed By Divine Being.
When One Abides In a Love For His Brothers and Sisters Born of This Universe And The Other Forms, No Matter What They Beleive, They Experience The Divine Being.
So I do Not Understand What This Means That You Say, That The Idea of God Which is Not God Is an Epidemic or Under Some Sort of Constraints.
Section 4:
thiest wrote:To your first response: whoa, I did say something of my mind! “For me, take that part out”. Go back, and read that quote for yourself, you should see it.
Secondly, what’s genuinely wrong with simply agreeing with someone, whether or not I made it up independently and happened to agree?
Becasue I Asked You For What Came Into Your Mind, Those Thoughts Came Into Richard Dawkins Mind, Not Yours, I Didnt Ask You For Someone Elses Thoughts You Agreed With, But What Came Into Your Mind When The Word "God" Is Heard In Your Ears Or Seen With Your Eyes.
But really, how else does one learn definitions (you asked for)? Do you expect me to be some linguistic expert, to be part of a panel of English language experts at Oxford University in Britain, deciding what goes into dictionaries? I can only go with what I’m given, when it comes to definitions. But a distraction.
We Can All Choose To Define Things How We Please, It Is Crossing These Barriers of Definition That Is The Key To Understanding.
To your second response: so, what you’re saying, is like Aphrodite as the goddess of love, for example? To be honest, you lost me here, I don’t know what else you meant by ‘attributes of men and god’ (as love, again an example, being an attribute of say, men). Again, distracting perhaps, so no biggy?
The Greek Gods For Example Describe Certain Natures of The Universe and Emotions, For Example Zues, The King of The Gods Is a Description of The Origin of Life and The Master of Life, Which is a Perception, Zeus is The Combination of Zena and Dia, Which When Put Together Mean "The God Through Whom All Creatures Always Have Life" And This Was Just Describing A Nature of The Former and Sustainer of This Universe, Who is My God. If You Read Plato's Cratylus You Will Get a Good Idea of What I am Speaking Of, If You Care To Seek.
thiest wrote:Since you were so adamant to get creativity out of me I didn’t think was appropriate, as was the case you asked me my definition of god, I will make an attempt:
The methods employed to prove or demonstrate a conclusion.
So You Say That Logic is a Method?
Explain To Me This Method of Logic, Logic Is a Singular Thing, So Their Should be a Singular Method, Or Do You Not Agree?
But again, definitions are best determined by society, or even better yet, experts within communities. They’re not set in stone, but other sources would be better than me. However, I see this, too, as a distraction from our main discussion.
Indeed The Experts Within the Communities Should Give Us The Best Definitions of Course, But Can We Say That There Would Be an Expert Who Would Be An Expert At Defining Things, And that Was His Expertise?
Please, What is Our Main Discussion, Will You Lay Our The Main Question So That I Can Better Know How To Answer You.
Is it, Does God Exist?
Because If it Is, We Will Have To Get an Expert At Defining God For Us Before we Can Even Begin, Correct?
From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.
I apologize, just want to make sure we're on the same page. Did you want me to answer your Q's right now, or wait until you finish responding?
Being applicable. Having relevance in a particular context.
If you're in Spain, but have a French dictionary, it would be an extremely poor resource when attempting to translate English into Spanish.
I use the word value, because many theists think the concept of God is authoritative and provides guidance in both material and moral contexts.
Neither of these laws would be valuable in the context of how you should treat others or choose a sexual partner. They are limited to particular aspects of the material world. By absolute, I mean a special dictionary that can translate any language (even those that haven't been dissevered yet), be used at as a reference for the entire physical universe and dictate morality because it created everything with a specific purpose. It's absolute in scope and always correct, even if some of the pages are missing or we can't understand what we read.
Using my special dictionary as a metaphor for God, are you saying that your not 100% sure of the contents of the dictionary or that your not 100% sure of the scope, authority and correctness of the dictionary?
Anything can exist, my issue is the presumption that any one of these anythings can have a have an absolute scope, authority and correctness.
People compartmentalize when they assume God has such a scope, while everything else does not.
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.
Yeah it would be good for you to respond to that last one and then we can realign the discussion, but also if their is a particular section that you wanted a response on, then I will answer whatever, but yeah answer that last part so we can decide the exact inquiry at hand.
Peace.
From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.
But how do you know where God stops and the universe begins? On what basis can you make this distinction?
Who says that The Universe Stops and God Begins? You can make no such Distinction, and neither would my philosophy, for in him we live and move and have our Being.
What we're doing could be interpreted as a multitude of things. We're typing on keyboards. Writing words. Creating sentences. Uploading data. We can take the reality of what's happening and split it up at various points into concepts, in which a "conversation", overlaps. We can switch between these concepts at will with the impression that we're doing distinct things that are different than each other. We're the ones making the distinction. Creating meaning from these actions.Dude, are you on acid? We are two people having a conversation through a medium, its not hard to understand whats going on.
Logic is yet another facet of the universe. It's not very valuable when it comes to emotions or love. We don't choose who we love using logic. Do you?
Yes I do choose who I love through Logic, Logic is Reason, I Do not Love without Reason.
Your saying you Love for no Reason?
Strange.
So God came up with the concepts of Rock Music and Pop Music? How about the distinction between Abstract and Realism in the art field?
All Things Flow from the Knowldge of God, Man Uses the Matrix of His Knowledge and Forms it into what he desires.
Can you even create art on a computer? If I sit down and create visuals using a mouse and keyboard, am I creating Art? Because, in reality, things are happening that are completely different than that of a traditional artist. Did God decide what is art and what is not?
Each being decides what Art is or Not. Art is in the Eye of the Beholder. What does it matter if it is not traditional art?
Did the Almighty Theos decide where we should divide the electromagnetic spectrum into Gamma rays, X-rays, Ultraviolet, visible light and infrared light? We based these divisions based in part on how usefull these ranges are to us. How they effect things we're interested in. Had our eyes evolved to detect a wider range of the spectrum, the band we've defined as Visible light would have been larger. Yet, the electromagnetic spectrum would not have changed. It would still be exactly the same. We've defined the concept of visible light based on what we can perceive without assistance because having that definition is convenient for us.
What are you talking about conveinience man, we see something and we give it a name, thats what we do, its not for convenience, it is becasue it is in our nature to do so.
Light is Light, Before we had the ability to see the other rays we had no name for them, when we eventually were made aware of them we named them.
And yes the Formless Former Theos Constructed the Light Beam and All other Things in This Universe.
We agree upon what part of the universe is defined as mathematics. We decide what is included mathematics and what it is not. We place an importance on mathematics based on what it does for us. Why? Because it's practical and beneficial for us to do so.
Math is extracted from the Logical Walls of The Universe, We do not decide what is in it, it is like reading a wall of reality and placing it into symbols.
Math is the Link between the Physical Universe and the Abstract Realm of the Formless Former.
These are actions we've taken that make something more out of mathematics that it was before we identified and observed it.
Before we(you) identified math(God) and observed it(God) we(you) had no idea of its(Gods) existance, therefore we(You) could not make more out of it(God) than what it(God) was, to us, before we identified it(God) and observed it(God), it(God) did not exist, so in no way could we have made more of it(God) than what it(God) was, for to us, it(God) was nothing.
Think of a photographer taking a photograph. He must choose what will and what will not be in the frame. Two photographers can shoot a picture from the exact same location, yet the impact of their individual photos can be completely different. One could show a car accident with paramedics on the scene trying to resuscitate an injured driver. Another could show a calm, blue sky with fluffy clouds. If you mistake either of these pictures for reality, then you're missing something.
Being is directly connected into the Fabric of the universe, I am not taking a picture of this place and observing it, I am a Peice of it, Woven in Fabric of Time, by The Hand of God The Almighty.
And now we reach the crux of the issue. You think God can answer every question, moral, material, etc. You think you're idea of God is all encompassing. I'm simply saying that your God is a concept that you've created based on your interpretation of parts of the universe.
And I am Simply Saying, Like I said before God is not an Idea, I do not have an Idea of God, I am Woven into Him and Am Experiencing the Being of the Formless Former, My Father, The Almighty Theos, with My Being.
You aim your camera at part of your experience and observations, press the shutter and claim you've taken the picture of all pictures. No other photograph is correct. It encompasses everything that exists, because your concept of God encompasses everything that exists.
The Nature of My Being and My God is to Permeate All that exists, All Being is Like a Flowing River of Knowledge, proceeding from the Living God and encapsulated into individuals like me and you.
I think this God of yours is just "stuff" you've created in your own mind.
You Think Wrong.
But wait, the quote goes on...
"The wise man knows he knows nothing; the fool thinks he knows."
Did you not just see my quote? Are you trying to say you Know nothing? Becasue if you say so, I will Agree.
Oh, that's right. You have a magical camera that let's you take photographs which encompass the limitless power and perfect being of God. Your photo is the only right view of everything.
No, God is only the Right of Everything, The Formless Former of All That Is, The Seperate One.
How do you know what your magical camera shows you is correct?
It is not a Magical Camera that I Have, But the Love and Logic and Reason in my Being.
Observing and Reasoning is Knowing.
Peace Maya.
From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.
If there is a 'him' and a 'we' then you've made a distinction.
Are you completely blind as to how our mind works? We do this all the time and most of us don't even realize it.
I'm not talking about love for your fellow man. Have you ever fallen in love? Did you logicaly pick the person you fell for? Every time I've fallen in love, it wasn't something I planed or logical decided on. Rational thought had little to do with it.
Sounds like a naked assertion to me.
I'm not talking about the act it self - we must divide the universes into parts to function. I'm saying the specific points in which we divided the electromagnetic spectrum was convenient for us.
And if we didn't have eyes, we'd have no need to identify a portion of the electromagnetic the spectrum into visible light. Because it wouldn't provide any advantage for us to do so. However, the electromagnetic spectrum would still exist.
You're simply saying that whatever was the cause of the universe, if it has a cause, is God. Sounds like another naked assertion to me.
We take parts of the universe and put them into boxes of our choosing. The specific parts we put in to specific boxes is what I'm referring to.
Yet another naked assertion.
The property of something being or not being part of mathematics is a property that we created. If we hand not identified things that are mathematics, we couldn't say things are not mathematics. The value we place on things being or not being mathmatics is the "more" we've made out of mathematics.
Sounds like a magical camera to me.
More descriptions of your magical camera.
Even more unsubstaciated claims of an unbounded, yet perfectly accurate view of the universe.
Guess we both agree to disagree.
The knowledge of how our minds work against us is based on repeatable and observalble facts. Knowing one's limitations is not knowing 'nothing.'
You're simply saying your camera isn't magical, but does things only a magical camera can do.
You didn't answer my question. How do you know what you think you know is correct?
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.
If there is a 'him' and a 'we' then you've made a distinction.
Sorry, Take out "Him", and Put God, Or Positive Principle, or Maybe Male Principle.
Are you completely blind as to how our mind works? We do this all the time and most of us don't even realize it.
Do what All the Time exactly?
I'm not talking about love for your fellow man. Have you ever fallen in love? Did you logicaly pick the person you fell for? Every time I've fallen in love, it wasn't something I planed or logical decided on. Rational thought had little to do with it.
Now are you talking about Love or Lust Maya, you know their is a differance Right?
The Love for My Fellow Man is the Same Love I have for My Fiance and even youi, The Human Race is Familiar to me, They are All my Family, I love them All.
One Love, One Lust.
Sounds like a naked assertion to me.
What exactly was the Naked Assertion, Be Specific.
I'm not talking about the act it self - we must divide the universes into parts to function. I'm saying the specific points in which we divided the electromagnetic spectrum was convenient for us.
The universe is divided into functionable parts not by man, but by God.
God divides them, we name them.
And if we didn't have eyes, we'd have no need to identify a portion of the electromagnetic the spectrum into visible light. Because it wouldn't provide any advantage for us to do so. However, the electromagnetic spectrum would still exist.
What universe are you talking about maya? Becasue I am talking about This one, where we Have Eyes. And dividing the Spectrum is not an advantage for us, it is an observation of reality.
You're simply saying that whatever was the cause of the universe, if it has a cause, is God. Sounds like another naked assertion to me.
Wrong, Watch any process that exists within this universe, My God is the One who Ordered it, The Process is Ordered, My God is The Orderer.
We take parts of the universe and put them into boxes of our choosing. The specific parts we put in to specific boxes is what I'm referring to.
False, We Observe Reality and It Fits into Boxes, It is Like Picking up Certain Shapes and Putting them into corrosponding Areas where they Fit.
It is like a Puzzle, each peice in its proper place, it is not what we choose, but we choose to put it into the right place where it belongs.
The property of something being or not being part of mathematics is a property that we created. If we hand not identified things that are mathematics, we couldn't say things are not mathematics. The value we place on things being or not being mathmatics is the "more" we've made out of mathematics.
False, Mathematics is based uon Axioms and Proofs, You can not just label Something True and that makes it True, Mathematics is Extracted from the Laws of the Universe, My God is The Legislator of those Laws.
Sounds like a magical camera to me.
Cameras and Eyes See Nothing on their Own, It Requires Thought, It is the Magic of Reasoning Beings and Beings Reasoning.
More descriptions of your magical camera.
More Like elevated Reasoning.
Even more unsubstaciated claims of an unbounded, yet perfectly accurate view of the universe.
Indeed, Reason is capable of greater things than these, and they are not unsubstantiated, they are contemplated.
Guess we both agree to disagree.
I only Agree that you are Wrong.
The knowledge of how our minds work against us is based on repeatable and observalble facts. Knowing one's limitations is not knowing 'nothing.'
Then why did you post the Quote, you said, The Wise man Knows he Knows Nothing, I Disagree, You posted it, not me.
I am in the universe and the universe is in me, Reasoning about its knowledge and being aware of its Former is hardly limited.
You're simply saying your camera isn't magical, but does things only a magical camera can do.
Apparantly to you, Observing Reality and Reasoning out the Truth of the Former and Sustainer of all that is, is magical, but it is not.
You didn't answer my question. How do you know what you think you know is correct?
When I Observe Reality I reason out What is True and This is How I Know.
If you are incapable of reason, then I am Sad for you, but it seems to be the case, the only things you probobly claimk to know are material, well reason is not material, and maybe you have not elevated your Con-Science enough to understand the abstract reason of the formless former.
It is a Gift From the Former who Formed Me.
From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.
This doesn't change anything.
You value order, meaning and purpose. Therefor you seek to create order, meaning and purpose by claiming parts of the universe is a sentient, personal entity, called God. While the universe does exist, there is nothing in nature that explicitly points to your God, let alone that he is sentient, personal and created us with some over arching purpose.
We switch between contexts. One second we're all human beings, the next we're distinctly Americans, Iranians and other nationalities. We can look a Book and see an entire novel, plot devices, paragraphs, words, characters and fonts. These things all appear to be separate, concrete things. Yet they are clearly dependent on each other a cannot exist on their own.
The issue here is assuming that one of these particular definitions is the only true perception which transcends material, moral, intent, etc. There can be no other.
Are you a polygamist? Do you want to start a family with more than one woman? If not, then you love your fiance differently than others.
That the thing you've deiced to call God has personal knowledge. Information and knowledge are different things.
While I would agree that parts of our universe can be grouped together due to similarities, you seem to be implying that your God intentionally divided the universe into specific parts explicitly for our use. This is where we differ.
The existence of something does not always warrant creating formal divisions. While we may create general categories for the shapes that snowflakes may take, the reality is that each one is unique, (at least, on a atomic level.) Yet we do not create specific name for each snowflake because it is not advantageous to us to do so.
However, of the vast numbers of stars that exist, we do give them unique names because we want to reference them again.
Both snowflakes and stars exist in reality.
Again, are we talking about cause or intent?
If my grandmother were to die, I may be grief stricken or feel a sense of relief. It would depend on many factors, such as if she was relatively well or if she was suffering from a painful, terminal illness. The death of my grandmother would be a true event, but which 'box' I would put it in part of a process we can observe. Many people are oblivious to this process.
The same can be said for God. The existence of the universe and your experience of consciousness has led you to put these parts in a box you label God.
Nowhere did I say mathematics was false or true. I'm referring to the effect of formally declaring something to be different from something else.
The existence of these laws in no way proves that what you're calling God exercised specific and deliberate intent in creating them.
I'd call it revelation, rather than contemplation.
So you disagree with the observation that we're disagreeing with each other?
Either one of your favorite philosophers truly knows nothing, or he's trying to make an important point here. I'll leave it to you to decide.
Revelation is a poor substitute for reason.
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.
This doesn't change anything.
You value order, meaning and purpose. Therefor you seek to create order, meaning and purpose by claiming parts of the universe is a sentient, personal entity, called God. While the universe does exist, there is nothing in nature that explicitly points to your God, let alone that he is sentient, personal and created us with some over arching purpose.
Maya, are you honestly saying that i created the Order of the Universe? Are you honestly denying that the Universe is an ordered mechanism? A mathematical Fomulation? A Function?
These are all evident truths of our universe, if you deny this I will come to the conclusion that you are helpless and actually do not have a mind.
All things point to my God, he is the Source of All that exists.
As things Exist and Also have a Source, Therefore My God Exists, it is a Fact.
We switch between contexts. One second we're all human beings, the next we're distinctly Americans, Iranians and other nationalities. We can look a Book and see an entire novel, plot devices, paragraphs, words, characters and fonts. These things all appear to be separate, concrete things. Yet they are clearly dependent on each other a cannot exist on their own.
The issue here is assuming that one of these particular definitions is the only true perception which transcends material, moral, intent, etc. There can be no other.
Wrong, My God is The Source of All Things, So all Things are In Relation to The One God of All That Is.
It is The Nature of The Primary Source, The One, The Eternal, We Emenated out of My God at The Beggining of Time, His Thought is impressed upon Matter, Mathematical Fomulations and Spiritual Essence.
Mathematically All Numbers are made up of one Number, The Number One, The Same Goes for My God, All Things Flow From Him, All Things Come From Him, We Are The Image of His Reason and Knowledge.
Are you a polygamist? Do you want to start a family with more than one woman? If not, then you love your fiance differently than others.
That answers my Question Perfectly That you do not understand the Differance between Love and Lust, You have no Knowledge of Love, No wonder you do can not understand the Fact that God Exists, you are like Creationist Christians who can not understand the Concept of Evolution.
That the thing you've deiced to call God has personal knowledge. Information and knowledge are different things.My God is The Source of All That Exists, Knowledge, Information and differant Things All Form From The Source of All That Exists, Therefore It is A Fact that My God Has These Things.
My God is All in All, Spirit is IN All Things Maya, Even You, Even Thought you Do Not Underatand it, But Keep contemplating and Reasoning within your Con-Science and in Your Mind, it will Come Brother.
While I would agree that parts of our universe can be grouped together due to similarities, you seem to be implying that your God intentionally divided the universe into specific parts explicitly for our use. This is where we differ.
My God is The Orderer of The Universe, All Order has its Source in My God, As you Can Clearly See The Universe is Ordered, and Divided into Parts, Stars, Trees, Mankind, Black Holes, Galaxies, All Formations are the Mathematical Functions of the Mind of My God.
The existence of something does not always warrant creating formal divisions. While we may create general categories for the shapes that snowflakes may take, the reality is that each one is unique, (at least, on a atomic level.) Yet we do not create specific name for each snowflake because it is not advantageous to us to do so.
However, of the vast numbers of stars that exist, we do give them unique names because we want to reference them again.
Both snowflakes and stars exist in reality.
We did not divied the snowflakes, God did, We did Not Divide the Stars, God did, IS that to hard for you to Understand? We Can Name Anything We Please, It is a Gift From God, it I want to NAme Snowflakes I Can, So Can You.
When a Snowflake Melts into the Ground Will it Still Have the Name?
I wonder what the Name of The Star That the Elements of your Body Came From, What was that stars name?
Stars, Snowflakes, Order, Formations, Math, and Love all Exist in Reality, Formulations of the Mind of The Living God.
Again, are we talking about cause or intent?
Whats the Differance Between Them?
If my grandmother were to die, I may be grief stricken or feel a sense of relief. It would depend on many factors, such as if she was relatively well or if she was suffering from a painful, terminal illness. The death of my grandmother would be a true event, but which 'box' I would put it in part of a process we can observe. Many people are oblivious to this process.
Wow, So basically your Saying you do not Follow Reason or Logic at all, But Just Choose a Box To Put Things into based upon Personal Choice?
The Mind of The Athiest becomes CLearer Every Day.
The same can be said for God. The existence of the universe and your experience of consciousness has led you to put these parts in a box you label God.
The Order, Forms, and Source of The Universe are not in "Boxes" in my Mind, They are in Reality.
Nowhere did I say mathematics was false or true. I'm referring to the effect of formally declaring something to be different from something else.
The existence of these laws in no way proves that what you're calling God exercised specific and deliberate intent in creating them
My Laws are the Mind of My God, How is it that I Need To Prove anything Beyond the Laws?
And as for proving the Laws, No need to do Such Things, For by Them we Exist, Only Through the Mind of MY God do you Exist or Anything Exist, Observe the Mind of My God, it is most Beutiful.
I'd call it revelation, rather than contemplation.
Then Obviously you have no idea what Contemplation is, Which I do not Doubt.
So you disagree with the observation that we're disagreeing with each other?
If you told me 1+1=3 Would we have a Disagreement, or would you be Wrong?
You are Wrong, There is nothing to Disagree about.
Either one of your favorite philosophers truly knows nothing, or he's trying to make an important point here. I'll leave it to you to decide.
He Knew Nothing, Just as He Admitted, He Merely allowed others to Give Birth To Truth, The Truth and Knowledge that I Am.
Revelation is a poor substitute for reason.
Athiesm Is a poor Substitute for Contemplation.
From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.
Well, yes part of our discussion was whether or not god existed. But what I started off with, was my disagreement that you know your theos - remember my very first response? I said something like, "I know the many pokemon, you do not. It is the way of the pokemon master." I suppose something further that came to my attention, was that I was wondering if you meant knowing personally, or just knowing about. Then, of course, the discussion branched out into memetics, which would help explain why such claims of knowledge and existence (yes, even my own claims about pokemon, Mickey, Apollo, etc...!) should appear like crap. We can discuss memetics and memetic epidemics further, of course I'd be happy just not here as I'm answering your Q's.
If you want to only answer one section of my "graduate thesis", I suppose it might be the one near the end, where I say something like, "you know I don't believe in them; all I ask of you: is to knock down the parallels." Or if you're still up to the task as time allows, answering more of my long post would be just fine as well. (EDIT? for moderators?)
I do not Know About Theos, I Exist Within Theos, and Theos Exists Within Me.
The Knowledge of Theos is Con-Scientific.
So Yes, It is Only Personally That I Know About Theos.
Theos is The One God of All That Exists.
When I Lose in Theos, I Gain in Theos.
For All Things are Transformations of Theos.
I Exalt Theos Above All Things, for Theos is In All Things, and All Things Come From Theos.
I guess I Will just respond to your long post later, I am off to Enjoy the Weekend that The All Powerful Theos Has Formed For Me.
Peace.
From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.
My ability to exist is made possible by the laws of the universe. This I do not deny. However, unless your God has some intentional plan, your claims are no different than naturalism.
You can say something is necessary, but you can't say anything more than it being a necessity without specific proof.
Unless your God is sentient or acts with intent, he cannot be used to define morality or impose judgement. Since we have no proof that he possess these properties, the thing's you've defined as God cannot be the primary source of everything.
So, let me see if I have this correct - the difference between your fiance and everyone else is simply a matter of lust? Just trying to make sure I'm clear here.
There are women I'm physically attracted to but certainly wouldn't want to start a family with. Chemistry is more than lust. It's something you share with someone and it's not logical. If fact, it sometimes flies in the face of logic.
The same can be said for the times I've tried to help people who clearly didn't want to be helped. Some have even turned around and taken advantage of that help. My actions didn't seem very logical to me.
You're making an assumption based on revelation.
If your God exists, then what was his source? And his sources source, etc?
If your God has no source, which created him with an intent, then how can he have intentional order and purpose as you claim we and the universe must? Where did his knowledge come from?
As human beings, we've evolved to see order and intent where there is none. We've found this to be true in many studies. While it's a trait that has been valuable to us in the past, We're no longer living on tundras in fear of being eaten by predators. Just because the grass moves, doesn't mean there's really something out there who's planning to eat us for dinner. Just because the sun rises and sets, doesn't mean there is a chariot pulling it though the sky.
We have become conscious beings that can step back and see this process. As much as we may want it to, just because we think we perceive intentionally imposed order in the universe, doesn't mean it really exists.
This in no way addressed my point. Do you claim that your God intentionally divided the universe for our use or with some greater plan in mind? Otherwise, you're simply going on and on about whatever was the cause of the universe. Of which I'd note, we which we really don't know for sure if the universe was created or if it always existed in some form or another. So we don't really know if what you're calling God really exists, let alone is sentient.
The difference seems pretty obvious to me. Are you saying you don't know the difference between something simply being the cause of an event and something intentionally causing an event?
If someone accidentally causes a chain reaction that results in the death of someone, should they be held just as responsible as the person who intentionally planned and caused the same outcome? Did they intend to cause harm?
I'm saying that the way we construct what we perceive as reality is highly influenced by our limited, subjective views. What we value, and thus pay more attention to, can lead us to false conclusions about reality.
Reality is just this very moment. Nothing more. When you try to make anything out of this moment, you've creating something that wasn't there before. The action of putting things into conceptual boxes changes our relation between them and us.
And the definition of an atheist is simply lack of a belief in God or Gods. Any positive beliefs I may have is not specifically dictated by atheism.
For example, one could be an Atheist, Zen Buddhist, since Zen does not posit the existence of Gods.
See above.
We exist by whatever process caused us to exist. This is indeed beautiful. However, your claim that we exist as part of some intentional master plan is where we disagree. What proof to do you have to back up your claims?
Theist, surely you know better. Disagreement has nothing to do with being right or wrong, it's a stance taken based on what one perceives as correct. If you can't see the difference, then you're rejecting the reality of the situation.
He spoke of our finite ability to observe reality. I find it ironic how you disregard your philosophers when they do not fit your agenda.
Again, atheism is lack of belief in God or Gods. It's not a proposed method of gaining knowledge. You're comparing oranges and apples.
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.
Any questions?
Look up "debating techniques".
Excellent job - both of you.
49 pages... and this guy's still rambling...
Maya, you've got far more patience than I could ever hope for.
Invisible friends are for children and psychopaths.
The first post was updated with a full length copy of the debate uploaded by a Youtube user. Also included is a video exposing Way of the Master for dishonest editing. And a video that shows the highlights from the RRS side.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Has another debate ever been discussed? Is that something you could see yourself doing again? or has the Way Of The Ray dishonesty turned you off?
Thunderf00t has debated him a couple of times. I found the older one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2FskTKrx40
There is one that is more recent, but don't see it.
Religion Kills !!!
Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.
http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/
I like the calmness of Thunderf00t. He's very rational.
I'm also surprised at Ray Comfort. If he wasn't such an ignorant fool he could be a neighbor or friend that I can actually tolerate.