what faith you
Posted on: September 6, 2007 - 7:57pm
Offline
what faith you
You can't prove there isn't a God. You believe it - I believe you are sincere - but that's your faith. You can't prove it.
I believe there is a God. I believe He designed, made the world and everything in it. I believe the sun, moon, stars, and penguins show great design - just to name a couple.
I think you guys have more faith than I do when it comes to believing preposterous stuff. My hat's off to your great faith - it's just illogical faith to me.
Man could not even make one acorn or one bee - this is evident to you guys. You can't explain magnetism or gravity - yet you think there was no designer? Great faith I say.
Conn in Brooklyn - Yes, accepted that he didnt know about your life. I guess thiests tend to assume that atheists are unhappy or abnormal. But lets not have a counter thought from the atheists regarding a person blocking or contributing to ID just because he believes in it. Theists children may be learning evolution as do most people. The curriculum is widespread.
DG - One thing you know, am surprised, but you still try. For certain philosophic aspects , theists are beyond reason , logic , scientific evidence . (There may be some who do lap it up, but still are spiritual). You must surely know this fact , so why do you keep trying. Your essays and evidence are no doubt extremely well researched . But how many theists read and get convinced.
Using logic , science and reason etc on such people will have no results, infact their belief only gets strengthened. (When you asked him to read the essays , later he asked you to read thru esoteric stuff) There is an entire humungous populace out there which limits use of science , reason and logic. They are practical about it in the sense that they agree to it when it suits them for normal living. But when it comes philosophic aspect , they trash the same. Because it doesnt offer solace , the inner peace. This is a vital divide out there. It cant be bridged.
I will tell you why. There are mainly two kinds of people. First type believes that everything can be proved , not only now, but also in future. These are the rationalists , because they live in the realm of the physical senses. What the eye can see, the nose can smell , the body can touch and further what the mind can think , judge , infer etc. So everything boils down to reason , evidence , logic . If a theist posts , he is beyond that. But the problem here is he is targetted and taunted. Please note it bounces of him. Why because his thinking has emerged out of the trapped realm of science and has transcended that. But when he sees the ferocity of reaction, he naturally concludes it is faith. Ok you may call it passion , take it , we give it you.
The second type strongly (theist / believer)gets the conviction that science has severe limitations. Why ? because he knows science cannot prove everything in life in future. The future and the rest of balance there is to learn is infinity which is the realm of god and the divine. When he gets this conviction , he is above the realm of science. Logic , evidence etc doesnt touch him. You try to explain things in great detail to him like DNA, Protein dynamics etc, but he is looking at a huge larger picture. His larger picture doesnt have an answer from science. He gets even more convinced of the ID theory then and there , he thinks if at the smallest level there is so much complexity , and science has only discovered so much , so ID becomes SID (Super Intelligent Designer)
In certain small details , we tend to miss the larger picture . Why did the Giraffe have such a long neck , what survival advantage does it have. Why do Zebras have alternate stripes, what could be the advantage, out may come the fitting postulate - it camouflages better), so why only the zebra, why not the thomson's gazelle. Why do Chinese etc have small eyes. Science says nothing can travel faster than the speed of light ? So he concludes that the divine must be travelling faster.
So to deconvert , you will have to try diff methods.More later
I am looking for Atheists to increase my belief in God
Yep, DG.
You'll have to try different methods to deconvert folk like Venk and Meph.
Logic, reason and science simplpy doesn't work on them.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
Why come to a website where people think rationally and expect them not to think rationally about your claims. Faith is a useless tool in obtaining truth, and I demonstrated that, in previous posts. Meth didn't even try to refute it. Do you care to try?
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
So the best thing this theist can say about ID is even some of its proponents may not be teaching it? Nice.
Now it's theist on theist presumptions. I've actually seen people gradually let go of their faith because it's just unsatisfying to deal with myths that so clearly originated in a more primitive understanding of the world, when we have a body of scientific understand that contradicts it. The bible is totally, hilariously wrong about the way the world works, and many theists -- most of whom were indoctrinated years before they even knew what the word meant -- haven't surrendered their minds and their senses enough to ignore reason.
[He repeats himself.]
You just need to stop making this ridiculous generalizations. There is a continuum of beliefs, so don't pull this reductionist bullshit.
[He blathers on for three paragraphs.]
Wow, fuck you in the neck, motherfucker. The East Asians you refer to don't have "small eyes," their eye-lids fold differently from caucasians, and cover their tear ducts.
[...]
Don't come out of nowhere and think you're going to "school" anybody on different methods of argument. There are already many different kinds represented here. All you've offered are useless generalizations and presumptions.
Quote - Why come to a website where people think rationally and expect them not to think rationally about your claims. Faith is a useless tool in obtaining truth, and I demonstrated that, in previous posts. Meth didn't even try to refute it. Do you care to try?
Magus - I am not expecting you to think "not rationally" at all. Nobody can force you or influence you to change your views unless you yourself realize that the views held by you are somewhere sometimes not getting validated. This much I know and I believe.
If it is a question of faith versus Science etc , you are completely sure about faith being a useless tool. But neither is science able to give the peace of mind to lot many people. Each person finds his peace ,his inner solace in some manner. To many people's instincts , science is not even able to provide a halfway answer. They then look inwards towards their soul and depths of conscious, lo and behold, out comes the reply. "The method employed starts with a wrong premise".
Why did religion originate ? Because of man's philosophical quest. Same with science also. Why should someone go to extreme lengths of research into evolution or for that matter anything else, to understand , to further understand , it is only to reach the final truth, which is inifinity.
Magilum - Sometimes irritation is sign of desperation. Abuse is definitely indicative of weakness of will and resolve. Maybe your "passion" is not skindeep, it pervades you, you reside in it. Sorry, but Mephi's statement is getting more and more truer, considering you.
I am looking for Atheists to increase my belief in God
It's your third attempt to conflate "passion" with unconditional belief (religious faith). If you don't address my points beyond ad hominems dressed in the grim cowardice of your passive aggression, that's pretty much a concession on your part that you can't refute them.
Oh, and so neither you nor Meph have reason to squirm out of addressing the actual point argued in this thread, I'll rephrase everything in genteel language suited to your delicate sensibilities.
Meph claims atheism requires faith. This is his only claim, and he repeats it instead of substantiating it. The definition of religious faith is a belief in something without logic or evidence. Applying Occam's Razor, where we favor fewer assumptions, we can regard that evidence as proof of what it suggests: nothing. Atheism results from honestly looking at the evidence validating religious claims: none. Religious faith is a positive claim against the silence of the evidence, and projecting onto that silence the fever dreams of scripture. It isn't just so in the meantime, it is so BY DEFINITION.
Venkatrajan chimes in to agree with Meph, attempting to support the "atheism requires faith" argument by massaging the word "passion" into meaning "faith," which it does not.
Yes some people find peace of mind in the misery of others it doesn't make them right. Truth isn't a poll, it is what it is without votes. Science is the best tool I have for obtaining truth, do you have one that you can prove is better than it? Prove the soul exists.
The question I asked to Meth:You cannot prove that god didn't tell Man/Woman X to kill everyone they see. They believe god told them yet, do so on faith. As a third party what is your response to this? They make a positive claim that god has instructed them. Prove them wrong.
If you think your claims of faith should hold any ground, please demonstrate your faith as being different than these people. Or do you think we should like them continue on a murderous rampage?
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
Religions retreat to arguments from faith whenever the evidence starts stacking against them and they need an impenetrable sanctuary. Most bible thumpers will contend that faith is more than belief. It is a spiritual thing. I think they just like it because they can treat it as an ambiguous concept, leaving them some room to sneak around or ignore arguments without having to explain why. All they have to say is "Faith!"
I like this explanation of faith:
Faith is nothing more than the deliberate suspension of disbelief. It's an act of will. It's not a state of grace; it's a state of choice. Because with no evidence to support your belief, you've got no reason to believe apart from your willingness to believe. Why is that worthy of any more respect than your willingness to poke yourself in the eye with a pencil?
I agree with that completely. All you have to do is add a little bit of "optimistic expectation", and the nail has been hit on the head.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
Archeopteryx, (and all that ask for a "sign"
Signs have been given by God at certain times, such as Moses' leprous hand (in/out=leprous/clean) and the rod made into the snake. It has been established that signs seem to have no relationship to faith or faithfulness (BTW).
You would have me treat God like a liar. This is what you do with a liar - he says something and you are doubtful. You require more evidence. You have people like Mag and DG that probably you swallow whistle and string and yet God who made you and your whistle says, "I Am" but you want to "have it your way, doo bee doo," and have a visible "sign" like a visible "calf", an "idol" - maybe a drive thru window or something.
Your (QUOTE) "I LIKE THIS" enters in too - it's a matter of what you like - Burger King - not you submitting to The Creator.
Mephibosheth (grace through faith - no sign required)
Meph, you are exerting preference, and preference alone, in rejecting other propositions which stand on the same evidentiary footing as your religion. The most obvious example would be the rejection of other religions, which is a given due to their common mutual exclusivity. I don't know what you accept or reject, but it's typical for a believer to regard most other faiths as false and self-evidently absurd. So when you say an atheist prefers to think rationally, so probably do you, except on certain points that you choose arbitrarily. If you did not, you would be powerless, save for the arbitrary exertion of preferences, against the myriad unsupported claims already conceived and those that will be in the future.
Magilum - Thanks for raising the level of discussion consciously. I have one request. I want to know if it has made a difference to your life . Dont answer now. Answer much later. But Magus has raised a phenomenal point, very fundamental to our existence, very casually though , and without deep thought.
Magus - You desire to see a rational, scientific proof for soul. I am sorry to say this , but your question points to a severe and extreme lack of commonsense observation , deep thinking and analysis.
At certain moments of our life , from where do we get the depths of our emotions projected outward or our most critical decisions made? It is due to the soul. Same also with certain phenomenal instincts.
Certain deepest emotional experiences cannot be attributed due to academics, basic education , training , environmental interaction(and definitely not to genes). It is the soul only. The mind which is the product of the brain is way below the soul. This soul pervades you (dont even think of any physical here) , It is the source of depth and intensity of emotions . Secondly it is also the source of very important answers /decisions of one's life , it has to be sought with intensity and answers come out.
Lets see some examples :
1. When a lady gives birth to a child first time and sees the infant for the first time, the feeling of tremendous joy is an experience from the soul. This cant be learnt in a science class, meaning ok students , when you give birth , you have to feel joy , complete joy.
2. Why do certain people (living the american dream maybe) suddenly decide and then dedicate the rest of their life to compassion to others, helping others, and engage in selfless service ? Did they inherit the genes , was it a mutation resulting into a new phenotype ? Was it indoctrination ? Or did they receive discourse in a science class ? Is it conceit and food for their ego that if they do this they will be elevated ? No No. There is a deeper element here than the mere brain/mind. They made a conscious decision. What is a conscious decision ? , It is going to your depths and asking the question to yourself (the Self or the soul) and there is an answerer and a decision giver, the soul.
Likewise our most critical decisions in life , most of the tremendous instincts that one may have had cannot be attributed to our mind. If It was your mind only , you would have the answer very quickly, because we use the mind every microsecond. No dear. During our normal lives , we do things fairly mechanically. When we meet a friend, our hands stretch out for a handshake, when the telephone rings , we pick up and say hello, very mechanically. But for extremely critical decisions of our life , we seek isolation , then turn inwards and ask the question. The mind asks the question to soul and you get the response (dont even again think physically how). You make that critical decision.
So please lets not vainly talk of proof of soul or in other words, your very self which is basic, fundamental to you , much more than the genes in you , your body and the mind. So dear to question the existence of your soul , is to verily question your own self.
Now there is another belief or assertion which needs to be talked about here. Somehow every discussion between a theist and an atheist eventually comes to the question , Prove that god or soul or spirit exists ? (It happened here also) . This is a statement of extreme conceit and ego on one side and also total lack of commonsense observation/analysis on the other. ( I dont mean to insult you by this, you are right what you think , but please contemplate all that I have said here and please vigorously negate my conclusions and postulates rationally, if you can ) . Science is something you learn as a method with basic theory and then you exploit for bettering lives. It has its utility. One doesnt inherit scientific thinking. It doesnt come with birth for every one. The vital question stated above , the premise itself is wrong . The wrong assumption here is that the debatants have to debate and finally they have to accept either the Soul only or only Science. These two have no conflict all. The supposed conflict is human created. The atheist thinks, by asking for a proof of soul , we can win , since the other cant show it. Science is a method/theory thought up by mankind. That is all. The discoveries of Science inflates the ego so much that we start questioning the very self of us , the soul in terms of lack of evidence. How foolish ? (God is being handled in next para).
Few Theists saw 9/11 and got so deeply disturbed. They decided all religions are the cause of all misery. They start attacking God including Christianity , Jesus , the bible , eventually the soul , spirit also. They are highly confused about what the Soul is , what is a god in terms of experience by a Theist.
So this leads us to Soul / God connection.
Very very important question. The soul is not proven to an outsider in any conventional physical sense as Science may desire. When a person (Theists) seeks deep bliss or inner peace, they try to go to the depths of the Soul for that. If suddenly they start imagining a torid sexual act or the possession of huge money , do they get any peace. No very often thinking about worldly stuff results in disgust only or limited joy. They are not satisfied. if they think about the God they know as God. What happens ? The image of Jesus or Krishna comes up. They get bliss, supreme bliss, inner joy . Clear to you ???. If not read on.
Please go back to Page 3 of this thread , something with Meth said, reproduced below
Quote - I believe in God because of my personal experience of God. The Bible resonates in my soul like whitewater in the Colorado. The scripture tastes like manna from heaven, sweeter than honey.
There is deep peace of conscience and residual joy in the Holy Spirit. I have known the other, and this is what everybody's looking for, but they don't know it.
This is not a theory with me, it's real.
Get the points dear , Do you get the connections. Meth feels god in his soul, which leads to deep contentment , deep bliss and joy. So deep, he doesnt need anything else to satisfy him. He didnt make the above up to argue with you. When he thinks about Jesus or the bible or when he goes to Church, he feels extreme joy and peace . (Please measure it by scanning his brain at that point, you will get real evidence there for you, measure the electrochemical movements, by Scientific methods).
Rational people are overlooking this simple fact. Why do so many people when they go to church , or think about Jesus , or read the bible with an intensity , why do they feel deep peace, inner joy, spiritual bliss. Did some of your parents make it up, were they trying to fake it to society, when they took you to church ?
Thus there is a very deep connection between yourself which is the soul and the complete happiness one may ever derive in a lifetime.
There are more things to be said about Soul/God , how religion comes into picture and then distortion of the religion, the conflicts between religion and Science. It involves some important parameters, more later on that.
I am looking for Atheists to increase my belief in God
Once again using the bible to prove the truth of the bible.
We would have you exercise a little skepticism. It's healthy. We're willing to do it about our own knowledge. We will change our understanding if we are given good reason to do so. There is no good reason to believe in God except for the fact that an ancient book full of troublesome and contradictory passages says we should.
If god wants me to believe in him, he will get off his ass and tell me. And if he does tell me, he will tell me in a way that is clear and unmistakable. He won't make a cloud take the shape of a cross. He won't make a beam of light shine onto a bible. He won't make Jesus' face appear in a bowl of Cheerios. And most importantly, he won't have some shmo on the street quote passages from an ancient and culturally obsolete (if not totally obsolete) text for which I have no reason to believe is reliable. If he wants me to believe in him, he will say, "Hi. I'm God. Believe me now?" And in that case, I would say "Certainly."
It's understandable that you would feel guilty about doubting God. Almost every deconvert I've met went through a point where they felt guilty for even letting the minutest inkling of a doubt pass through their minds. But making the decision that it's okay to doubt is the first step to freedom. Telling us that it's a sin to doubt is just a safety catch.
Skepticism is good.
Yeah, but it's for no other reason than that I generally always agree with them. There are times when I don't know what the hell DG is talking about, so at those times I can't say. But I know when I agree with someone. It's not that I "like" what they say, it's that I agree with it. If I didn't, I would say so. And I'm sure they would do likewise for me.
I'm not persuaded to believe that at this point.
Oooh. Brilliant equivocation. I love how you made physical evidence synonymous with idolatry and laziness. Rhetoric at its finest. =)
I "like" that explanation of faith because I enjoy his language. But I also happen to agree with it. My agreeing with it, however, has nothing to do with the fact that I also like it.
Let me paint a picture:
1) The waiter handed him a telephone.
2) The plate captain pitched him a raprod.
I "like" the second version. But my agreeing with the truth of its content has nothing to do with my liking it.
I understand why you raised a red flag here, though. I should have been more clear on that point.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
Blow me, condescending dullard. Even when it's phrased neutrally, you've completely dodged my question. That nicely sums up why I don't respect you or Meph. You speak in tautology, never substantiating anything, and expecting your subjective notions to have some special treatment as some other kind of "truth" that can, at its whim, contradict what centuries of science (or even the definition of words) tells us. You espouse that every opinion is as valid as the next because you're holding the losing hand. People like you have been shuffling backward, trying to hold on to whatever small pieces of earth science hasn't yet revealed in the sober light of day. Once you had the borders of your town, the sky, the sea; various mysteries in which your god of the gaps could hide. Now we've gone around the world, and under the sea, and into space, and you just scream louder and louder against the silence of your gods. With empty hands clasped together, you hunch secretively, trying to convince nonbelievers you've got something in them.
The burden is on you alone to demonstrate that the warm fuzzies you have for your gods are anything but natural -- deluded and sad, but totally biological in origin. The story of Phineas Gage pretty much refutes any kind of transcendent personality or dualistic model of consciousness. Unless you have some half-assed, equally made-up guesses about the brain being an antenna or some such ad hoc piffle.
The rest of your post is an appeal from emotion (or an argument from pleasure, as Nietzsche put it). Answer my question: substantiate your original claims about faith, or withdraw them.
The name is Magus, it is my actual name, I don't know why you keep adding an 'n' after the 'g'. I do have reason based on logic and rationality, empathy, social agreements, social benefits, the law, compassion for human life, and survival instincts (just to name a few). Most of these things are gained through life experiences. I don't believe in any absolute morality, but I do believe that certain moral traits led to a better survival, and that those traits would be passed to the next generation leading to a tradition of working moral traits. Moral are instructed and enforced by the society, their collective of idea's set about to improve and maintain the survival of the group/species. Survival is a basic and most obvious trait of any living creature, without survival instincts a species chances of succeeding is almost non-existent.
Anyone else here care to add anything to the list?
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
Emotions are felt because you have receptors in your body that respond to chemical signals from the brain. Whenever presented with external stimuli (or even simulations that you create with your own mind), you make a judgment about what you're being presented with, and your brain releases a series of chemicals that allow you to have a biological response. Some emotions are more complex, though, such as love, which demonstrates itself as both chemical and a drive (compare with other drives such as hunger and sexual urges). You feel emotions for purely biological reasons. Your emotions do not exist separate from your body/brain.
I realize that when you hear this, you might not like it because it does tend to evoke an image of emotions being created in test tubes and what not (how do you think we can control them with drugs?)
But our bodies vary so incredibly much, and our psychology is so incredibly complicated, and it depends so much on conditioning that each person is still just as emotionally complex as ever.
Conscience = Human empathy and understanding of your social environment. 100% natural, and 0% soul.
And the soul was due to James Brown.
They can't? Why can't they? Can you explain why it can only be the soul? I believe they can happen naturally. I will need to be convinced.
If the soul is not physical, then how does it affect physical reality?
Please back that up with some reasons as to why I should believe this claim.
I can make important decisions because evolution has allowed me to be born with an overly developed frontal lobe (compared with other animals).
I sought the soul with intensity once. Still haven't found any reason to believe I have one.
Maybe they could just feel joy at having created and brought a new life into the world? Maybe they could feel joy knowing that this was their child to love and watch grow? Maybe simple human empathy could allow them to feel attached to the child?
You don't teach people to be happy about childbirth, you're right, but you're setting up a strawman there. People who favor natural explanations aren't saying that classrooms tell you how to feel in certain situations. That's just ridiculous. If you don't understand the natural view, then don't try to argue against it until you know more.
Because we are social creatures and have empathy. I should start keeping track of how many times I say "empathy" in this post.
Haha, do you even know what "phenotype" means? That doesn't even make sense in that context.
For some people, yes.
Once again, no one is arguing that emotions and decision-making are taught in science class. Straw Man Grande.
For some people, yes.
"Conscious" implies use of the brain. Making decisions implies use of the frontal lobe, specifically. No soul required there.
All fixed.
But your redundancy can.
In fact, there are even some people who say that we use it non-stop. But those people are probably crazy.
And no one taught them how to do it in a science class? Who would have thought such things were possible without a discourse in a science class! Weird!
Redundant. Redundant. Redundant. Redundant. Redundant.
I don't question the existence of my own consciousness. I simply fail to accept the existence of a magical "essence" that will live on after my physical body has died.
Yes. It's very peculiar that theists and atheists would consistently argue about the proof of the existence of God. Who would have thought they'd keep getting stuck on that issue? The world is a funny place, my friend.
I haven't heard anything new or even persuasive so far. Thanks for giving it the effort though.
Sure it does. I'm sure there was a time, in your (or anyone else's) toddling years, when you saw an unfamiliar but very hot object and you thought, "I wonder what that is". You looked at it. You speculated. You approached. You touched. Obersvation told you that the object in question was hot and should not be touched.
As a child, you founded your very own "law of stove", which said that the object referred to as "stove" is very hot.
This is but one example. Adult science is much more sophisticated, sure, but even children can reason scientifically.
This debatant would like to choose science, please.
Science is a method of finding unbiased, thoroughly tested, and well-supported explanations about the world we live in. The fact that we gave a name to this method does not mean that it is superficial or only exists in our minds.
We also have "mathematics", which is a kind of science. Just because the term "mathematics" was thought up by mankind, and just because mankind found the rules of mathematics through his own study and inquiry, does not give us any reason to doubt the credibility of mathematical rules.
Likewise, we have no reason to doubt the credibility of the scientific method.
9/11 definitely was not a big help to religion, but there was plenty of atheism before that, I can assure you. Atheism doesn't exist because atheists are mad at god. We simply find his explanations of the universe to be absolute rubbish. He doesn't look too good himself.
I'm on the edge of my seat!
If the soul is not physical and cannot be physically observed, but you yourself are physical, then remind me... how is it that you're able to argue that souls exist? By this logic, you and the soul would not be able to interact at all. I'm trying very hard not to use the word "magic".
I don't know... I've had a few lustful thoughts that brought me plenty of joy... but I also have peace. And I don't believe in souls.
You are the product of the society in which you live. Simple.
Oh, okay. So you accept that emotions have a biological basis? Awesome.
But why does a feeling of peace prove that there is a soul or a god? Why isn't it just a feeling of peace? You're just using your own satisfaction with your beliefs to confirm your beliefs.
I think it's funny that you say "rational people" in such a way that it excludes you.
Why do children experience joy and bliss when they think about Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny? Or the Power Rangers? Or Super Mario? Nothing proven here.
Oh they definitely believe it, but just because a lot of people believe something doesn't mean that it's true. People used to believe that you lost a drop of blood with each sigh. Didn't make it true. They just didn't know any better.
And there is the conclusion of which I have not been convinced.
Sounds like fun. Ciao!
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
At certain moments in our life a lightning will flash and crackle. This is due to Zeus, because he makes lightning, and see there is lightning therefore Zeus exists. This is nonsense. What proof do you have that is any different than this claim?
That isn't proof of the soul, only of the human mind. So how exactly does depression medication work. Or mood altering drugs?
Now speaking for all women who have ever bred Venkatrajan. Just for a second think if the mother didn't experience some sort of joy or desire to keep that baby alive would we even be here today. This is a survival instinct of the species. If a mother sees her child for the first time and wanted to smash it with a rock, I would be impossible for the next generation to be.
There is no such thing as a selfless act or are you trying to tell me that you do things to help other people that make you feel no differently yourself. In fact some insects do this. http://www.physorg.com/news110131567.html
"Like honey bee workers, wasp workers give up their reproductive capabilities and focus entirely on nurturing their larval siblings" -from link
You are attributing these things to something that you have not yet proved. Zeus exists because lightening exists... Probably a fallacy for this...
I've done work with Artificial intelligence. I can make a program that gets data needs run(s) a algorithm to if it reaches a certain threshold it updates its threshold modifies it behavior and adapts based on the outcomes of its decision. This takes time. It must process that data. The human brain has a lot of data to process not to mention other process are alway going on. Zeus exist... lightning!
So basically your saying you don't have proof.
Like I said you giving attributes to this think you call a soul, but still have not proved it exists. Zeus...lightning... do you get the point?
Why is it foolish of me to ask for proof for something you've claimed?
I am not doubting that Meth had an experience, what I am doubting is the cause of said experience. Just like I doubt the murderer who says the exact same thing. He/she felt god, then he/she killed for god because god said to kill, do you take his word for it? Do you see his/her experience as real and an actual experience with god? Or maybe you think we should be looking for some other cause to the murderers rampage.
Like a phobia, but with the opposite effect.
Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.
Well, Magus and all -
I guess this thread has run its course, and as I have said ad naseum (to you anyway) I'm really happy in my faith in Jesus and God. It applies to everything in my life, growing, getting better and brighter.
I want to give you all opportunity to tell how it is that atheism makes you happy, fulfills, leads, gives you hope and joy - to snip that for you, why you want so passionately others to see and know what you see and know so they can care like you care, speak like you speak, and grow with you in their atheism and go with you where you are going and where that is.
There may be different facets of that joy but I would expect there is a common theme and thread among your fellowship, doctrine and celebration. But in order to be a true atheist it must also be personal. I mean one must also experience those personal and unique atheistic joys, special gifts, etc.
I want to give opportunity for YOUR testimony.
Mephibosheth (address: PALACE)
So, for the record, you failed to prove your point (that atheism somehow requires faith), and now you're begging the question for what amounts to an appeal to emotion. If atheism doesn't do x for you emotionally, then the alternative is true, or at least a comforting lie. But there's nothing to defend or hide behind: atheism isn't a belief system. It's silent on every topic but whether gods are believed in. The mistake most religious people make in attacking secular lifestyles is in assuming what they attribute to religion is actually from religion. Atheism isn't taking away as much as most religious people think; it's really just denying the parasitic presumptions of religious doctrine and calling a spade a spade.
That made no sense whatsoever. Now I'm supposed to draw comfort and joy from my lack of belief in certain things? Atheism is not equivalent to a religion; in rejecting religious myths, it generally follows that we don't have an equal load of bollocks to put in its place. We're human: we do human things, like everybody else, but we know better than to let the monastic class abscond with our virtues, to sell them back to us at the black market. Atheism is just the human experience without the playing card in the spokes.
It's not equivalent, so you're barking up the wrong tree.
Magilum
You reply to my last post reveals that you have again lowered the discussion. But I still wonder why you were "genteel" for once. I guess your conscience touched you for once.I will reply to what you , the other and what Magus state later. However referring Meth's and your latest post :
"For the record ____"
You seem to have appointed yourself as judge here. Meth has a valid question. You are evading his question and playing judge. Please answer the question as truthfully as you can.
How does and why does being an atheist fulfil you mentally and give you joy ? Why does trashing the Bible and Jesus release the right hormones for you ? Dont tell me you are on the site for unemotional reasons. If you argue against this, we will say this :
The posts you make reveal strong emotions , deep convictions, a lot of wounded ego as if someone touched your core. Again Meth's original stand is getting proved as the thread goes one. You are a truely faithful atheist. Bound to the atheist cause, willing to defend and attack viciously at the minimum questioning.
Our stand - Faith is very important to life , provided the cause and the object is right.
I am looking for Atheists to increase my belief in God
You are spewing drivel. The notion of "atheism" requiring faith has been refuted by me personally more times than I shall bother to count.
The angered emotion comes from meth's flat refusal to debate. I came to this site to debate, to test my arguments in battle. Thus far my disappointment cannot be expressed by mere words. THe anger comes from the general dishonesty of the theists I engage in, and their utter lack of respect for the process of debate.
By using the phrase "wounded ego" you are merely revealing your same inability to engage in proper debate, one with response and counterresponse and refutation and rebuttal and research, all of which have been provided by me and none by you. Hence, with this phrase, you are merely projectiong your own emotions onto the Other, the person with whom you wish to paint in your own negatives so you can delude yourself into thinking you have cast them off. The technique is the epitome of dishonesty but by now it is not too difficult to see through. This article has good information onb the matter:
Meth;s question is invalid. THe fact that he cannot see that is indicative that arguing with him is analogous to doing so with a rock. Atheism is not a doctrine, or a set of beliefs. It is a direct and negative reaction to theism. Atheism cannot exist without theism. It is defined only by theism. If theism did not exist, the idea of atheist would be a non sequitor. Meth seems unable to grasp the simplicity of this notion. We do not refer to someone as an anti-racist, because antiracism is mainstream. Likewise, the only reason the term atheism exists at all is because so many people hold these ridiculous beliefs.
Meth's question and his ridiculous accompanying statements merely indicate the fallacy of ad consequentiam, which is to say that he believes in the things he believes because it makes him feel good. This is relatively obvious, one does not have to be a pyschoanalyst to realize that one would only ask such ridiculous questions if one is projecting their own beliefs onto the Other, and hnece expects that they too have an ad consequetiam reason for believing in X. THis is fallacious, and I try to avoid believing in something for fallacious reasons (however, this per se would not necessarily make X false, as that would be ad logicam, however, it sure as hell would not make it true, as that would be ad ignoratium and ad consequentiam)
Atheism is a single statement: I do not believe in God. That's it. To derive any necessary beliefs following that is a non sequitor, which makes meth's ridiculous question a non sequitor. There are propositions which an atheist is very likely to hold, such as "naturalism is true", "evolution is true" etc.
Essentially, meth is asking for my life story. Any other question of his would be bunk since he would be making a false generalization fallacy. By using the terms "doctrine" and "faith" he is equivocating and making a fallacious argument for ignorance.
So I will say this: Atheism is not important to me because of the lack of belief in God. I regard "God" as a non-concept, an invalid and meaningless, broken, useless term. Indeed, Todangst and I took the time to formally prove using ontology and semantics that "God" is indeed an epistemilogically broken concept. I do not believe in God for the same reason I do not believe in {insert made up word here].
What are important to me are the positive principles I hold to as a result of the same mindset which allows me to realize God is an absurd concept. Those ontological and semantic arguments against God I wrote? I first developed them at age fifteen. I had been an atheist all my life, but I was more apathist. I did not care. GOd was a meaningless concept. It was only around 15-16 that I became aware of the frightening grip of religion, and hence did what any atheist-minded sixteen year old would do. In no uncertain terms, I told God to go fuck himself, and immersed myself in philosophy and science. By seventeen, I had gone through Hume, Kant, Nozick and Descartes. I versed myself in university level molecular biology, and by 18 I was versed in protein dynamics, Enzyme kinetics, intracellular vescicular traffic, gene translation and transcription, chemotaxis, biomolecular kinetics, neuromolecular physiology and electrochemistry. This came in handy when I took molecular biology and neurophysiology at university, for obvious reasons.
So, here I am now. I work at the cutting edge of vector-based gene therapy (I also spend time doing closely linked proteomics and developmental genomics). This is vastly easier for me since Human Embryonic Stem Cells are not banned here (Ha! Take that American fundy fuckers!).
You are confusing faith with passion. The passion is not for atheism. THe passion is for debating. Debating is important to me. So when I see someone like Meth who doesn't so much debate as vomit on the process of debate, I am inclined to get quite angry at the dishonesty which can be exuded by people whose notion of "debate" is frighteningly torqued).
So to answer your question, atheism per se is unimportant to me. Actually, the existence of the word atheism is more important to me than non-belief in God. I regard the question of God not existing as obvious. THe concept is ontologically invalid. The existence of the word atheism is important to me because by its presence in the vernacular it indicates that theism is mainstream belief, which is frightening because in our science-dominated world, theism is ridiculously archaic. Science, logic, debate, reason, philosophy. These are important to me. They are important to me because I have not deluded myself by means of ad consequentiam into this ridiculous fiction of religion, as you have (this is a very common psychological response, according to Todangst, the resident psychologist). Hence, indirectly, the lack of belief in God is important because my mind is not constrained by belief in magic, fairy tales or other such stories that ought have been nothing save amusement to us as children. And being that I have, by means of logical conclusion, rejected such beliefs as absurd, I am hence free to pursue science and philosophy (which are genuine fields of knowledge, unlike religion, which is epistemilogically invalid, since faith by definition QED is a rejection of epistemology which renders it entirely worthless (by definition)).
Again, I hope both of you realize that the underlying employment of language renders your argument inherently absurd. You are both refusing genuine debate and instead are projecting your own emotions on to the other. Very unsubtle. I have seen theists who do a much better job of projectionalism. You both suck at it. The article has some good tips for doing it. Next time, perhaps I will not notice it. By your emotionalist fallacies, you fail to realize that your question is invalid (since it commits the same emotional fallacy). You must steel yourself from this in debate. THis is not to say that you cannot express your emotions. I have. I have been quite angry with you during the debate. However, this is not due to wounded faith, as Vek is trying to postulate by means of an incredibly unsubtle projection onto the other, but rather because I am trying to have a proper debate, and you are trying to vomit on the process. You cannot return valid questions with invalid ones (my questions were not fallacious, yours were). Both of you need to cast off the ad consequentiam and use your brain, not your heart, to argue. (Of course, by heart I am merely making refernce to a metaphor which actually refers to the emotional centers in the Temporal lobe. However, neuroscientists in 1995 at UC managed to prove that emotion and reason are intertwined. However, this does not mean you have any case since your arguments are still fallacious, while mine are not. We have both been injecting emotions into our arguments, as per our neurophysiology, however, the only difference is that my arguments are still logically valid, whereas I have shown yours are not. Hence, you merely attempted a shift in the debate by means of a Red Herring fallacy and attempted to draw attention to your invalid ad consequentiam of a question, which equivocated (fallacy of equivocation). So, perhaps when Meth is ready to engage in real debate, not debate based on ad consequentiam, I will be happy to engage. When Vek stops his highly unsubtle projectionalism and realizes that he is also commiting the emotionalist error, I will, again, be happy to engage.
If not, it is back to shouting at the rock...
And now for the best part, the link which has thus far been posted 20 times. Vek's claim about faith was refuted here:
The Argument From Ignorance and its uses and abuses
Doesn't everyone take things on faith?
Vek's pathetic counter to this was his accusation of "faith in logic" and "faith in empericism".
However, these arguments commit the stolen concept fallacy, and merely beg the question...
If you trawl through this amusing mulch of a rather one-sided "debate", you will note that I have so desperately attempted to force you to engage in genuine discussion, to respond and counterrufute points, that I blasted you, swore at you, and threatened to ban you. What more can I do to force you to have genuine discussion, instead of going off on ridiculous tangents by which you adhere to the notion of responding to a question with another question, except that you slip up and hence the question you ask in avoidance is not a continuation of the line of inquiry which I attempted to put forth, but rather a fallacious, invalid non sequitor. THis attempt at dialectic will not work. I am not going to submit to the Socratic method. I will not assume any of your arguments as true for the sake of continuing an argument from that foundation. If there are ontological problems associated with your foundalistic structure of beliefs upon which you attempt to make arguments (better known as presupposition), then I will point out that these concepts you are using (such as God) are ontologically invalid. As I have. For you to respond to that by asking an emotionalist question about the effect of atheism is precisely the reason I get angry with you: Your debating skills and respect for the process of debate could unfavourably be compared to any inanimate object.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I always felt testimony was sort of an appeal to narcissism ... A chance to talk about one's self in a way that privileges those experiences over another persons - an authoritative narrative. I'd need some time to really think about how methodological and philosophical naturalism have improved my life ... You see, a subject as important as this requires a lot of contemplation. I can give you this, which is a little something I wrote about the Darwinism as a consciousness-raiser. Consider this while I work on my testimony:
Happy Darwin Day!
[for 12 Feb 2007]
One thing that we should all reflect on today is the power and beauty of Darwin's ideas ... but also, generally, the intellectual threshold that Darwin broke through. Like Lyell and his uniformitarianism (and to an extent, Newton), Darwin forced us (rightly I might add) to seek rational, testable, naturalistic explanations for the phenomona of the universe and to always ask hard questions ... and to seek answers that made us question every preconceived notion we had. Darwinism very much is the crane by which we understand the details of the earth's biodiversity, including our own species, and I am proud to call myself a Darwinist.
I want to also quote something not from Darwin or even a scientist, but from Eric Rothschild, the chief counsel for the plantiffs in the Dover, Penn. Intelligent Design creationism trial (Tammy Kitzmiller, et al. v. Dover Area School District, et al.), and while this quote applies to creationist Michael Behe's complete ignorance to breakthroughs in immunology (and his false notion that the immune system is an irreducibly complex system), it is a note on creationism in general and the superiority of the scientific method and curiosity over the 'ignorance and call it god' hypothesis:
"Thankfully, there are scientists who do search for answers to the question of the origin of the immune system ... It's our defense against debilitating and fatal diseases. The scientists who wrote these books and articles toil in obscurity, without royalties or speaking engagemtns. Their efforts help us combat and cure serious medical conditions. By contrast, Professor Behe and the entire intelligent design movement are doing nothing to advance scientific or medical knowledge and are telling future generations of scientists, don't bother."
Darwin forced all thinking people "to bother" and thank goodness for that.
I'm off myspace.com so you can only find me here: http://geoffreymgolia.blogspot.com
DG
Rules of debate
Firstly this is not a high school debate where there is a judge to adjudge on whether rules of debate are being followed or not. We are debating on an issue which has very serious and important implication for not only our lives, but the entire world's as well. If Atheism is not important to you, you will be not spending so much time keeping it alive, providing the Scientific evidence support to it.
Meth is not relating a one off experience. It is everytime . Further there are million others who have similar feelings. I come from a country which is very religious and where huge numbers of people are living very happily with their gods / temples, happiness is not the word, it is immense happiness, contentment. These are not only run down , poor people, we are also talking about very rich, techie types included, all kinds , just name it.
You are overlooking this evidence. If I ask you why are you overlooking this , I get accused of Ad Hominem and dialectic.
Well . Your belief of non existence of God is proven by you, so why drag the consequences of the undesirability of religion. Why do you consider the consequences of someone's belief in God / religion ? Sounds familiar of what you accuse me of violating a debate rule.
Have you analysed how much religion has done good ? (Again I might be accused of Dialectic ) Why , because such questions themselves are unimportant to you as compared to the rules of debate.
This amounts to extreme narrowmindedness or reducing this debating only for debate's sake.
Quite foolish. Do you think Meth asked the question because he wanted to debate for debate's sake. No Sirie.
Please understand this . We come here because we want to understand each other better , rather than indulging in minor ego victories by certain people who only know how best to debate. More like hot shot lawyers.
Alsothe discussion from your side seems to take irrelevant turns.
1. The overly focus on debate rules
2. Taunt and Insults . Leads me to believe that you simply dont believe in seeing the other's point of view, even though you dont agree
Is there a single acceptance of any aspect put forward by the Theists by any of the Atheists ?
So we have a house pyschologist who is totally into logic, epistemology , Why ? because you want to debate for debate's sake.
Please get into the minds of the people who come here as thesists , rather than trashing.
I would advise a separate subforum only for brainwashing sorry "deconversion".
I am looking for Atheists to increase my belief in God
This is indeed not a high school debate, it is far below even the accepted form of that sort of debate. I won't speak for the other posters, but I, at least, am enraged by the fact that this has continued on so far as it has with inane post after inane post from the likes of Venkatrajan and Mephibosheth. I have avoided posting in this thread for a good deal of time and finally I've had my fill of following it and watching the blunder of the OP and of his supporters. This is not a debate. I dare say it never has been. Mephibosheth started this thread with erroneous assumptions and never gave them up and in time adopted more erroneous assumptions and then other people joined in order to pursue those and other new erroneous assumptions to some end, to some fruition, that will necessarily never be realised. This stupidity, this exercise in futility, must be put to an end.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Statler and Waldorf - two of my favorite curmudgeons
That is immaterial. The fact of the matter is that you have both behaved in an appalling manner. I have presented my own research, arguments, and counterrefutations to nonsense which the both of you have spouted. You have given not a single response with substance. You have given me anecdotal personal feelings, emotional fallacies, and a lot of drivel. Your attempts to put forth actual a posteriori arguments were crushed (design etc.). Instead of responding, you turn on this ridiculous tangent.
I do not care. You will follow the rules, or get out. Thus far you have:
-Ignored counterrefutations
-Restated propositions despite preexisting counterrefutations multiple times
-Attempted to draw attention away from counterrefutaion by ignoring the previous proposition, which was crushed, and making new, and even more fallacious and irrelevant questions.
Also, the above by you is ad populum
One cannot provide evidence for a negative. Don't you know anything about basic epistemology?
Again, this is unacceptable. Why? One, it is anecdotal. Two, it is ad populum, three it is ad consequentiam. Contrast this to what I have done. I have provided formal discussions which do not contain blatant fallacies, as your does.
Again, meth is projecting his emotions onto the Other by means of assuming that because he believes something because he makes it feel good, everyone else must do the same. Do not insult me. I try not to believe things for no reason except the consequences of believing them. THat is highly fallacious. You will have to do better than that.
First of all, judging by your use of the word dialectic, you obviously have not the slightest idea what it means. How lazy are you such that you cannot even go to a dictionary. Second, if you present this evidence, I will simply respond that:
a) No truth value can be gleaned from anecdotal evidence which implies mutually exclusive belief. Only formal evidence is acceptable (everyone should know this)
b) It is not genuine evidence for anything since it begs the question
c) It doesn't establish anything except that people believe because it makes them feel good. I know. I studied neuroscience and neurocellular transduction. Do you know where that good feeling comes from? It comes from N-Dimethyltriptamine in the pineal gland.
This is a non sequitur
It was not a factor in my realiziation that God did not exist. You are making a bifurcation fallacy. I had drafted philosophical arguments against God by the time I was fifteen. Real arguments, not the idiotic trash by you and Meth.
Also, this sentence is missing its Object, so I have no idea what it means, it is incomplete.
Firstly, you clearly have no idea what the word dialetic means, so stop using it.
Second, this is simply another form of ad consequentiam, even if the "good" religion did was somehow enough to tip the balance from the bad, it is irrelevant. THis is the wrong discussion for that. I am interested only in truth value. You cannot use this as a justification of truth value, as that would be ad consequentiam fallacy. Once we have established that religion has no truth value (again, I took the time to prove this properly), then we can discuss the consequences of holding such irrational beliefs. I believe that given what we see in the world today, the answer is obvious: Religion is sociologically useless. THe opiate of the masses
No, I am debating because I wish to see if my arguments work. Neither of you are debating, you are drivelling. Neither of you know how to debate. You both flatly refuse. Your arguments are idiotic and fallacious yet you still refuse to engage in genuine debate. All you are interested in doing is whining.
Meth asked his question because he wishes to project his emotions onto the Other. It is impossible to get him to see how absurd his question is.
Meth asked his question because his beliefs make him feel good, that is why he believes them, and he is foolish enough to think that other people are just as wishful thinkers.
Evidently this is not the case otherwise you would engage in genuine discussion. THat would mean reading my research and counterrefuting it.
Oh please, if you cannot take the hit, get out.
Yeah, the rules are important. If you want to have a debate, follow the rules!
This question is irrelevant.
This sentence is syntactically meaningless
That is amusing. I would not call deconversion brainwashing since it usually does not involve ad consequentiam
Now, are you going to read my arguments, or continue making fallacious, prerefuted idiocy?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
That you were impressed by that just shows me how shallow and infantile your world view actually is. The challenge we face as thinking human beings is to confront, and pursue, truths that may not appeal to us, offered in ways we may find repellent. I'd rather learn from a temperamental thinker than some platitude-spewing "holy" person who blanches and shuts off at the slightest hint of unpleasantness. I'd rather have to lick my wounds and come back stronger than to be lulled into sleepwalk by mindless sycophants. Believe it or not, your lack of interest in pursuing a meaningful debate, and your and Meph's reliance on repetition and preaching is a hundred times more offensive to me than any insult or slur could ever hope to be. You are satisfied with incoherence, and that's just repugnant.
[...]
[Repetition of Meph's question.]
I don't care about either, but some people do, and their actions affect me.
I want to reduce the influence of religion on society, both on a personal level because it wrecks minds, and on a political/personal level because it's in the way or social, scientific, medical, and educational progress. It should gradually take its place among other myths, taught as history, but not practiced.
Buy a dictionary, bro. I could paint my face red and hurl molotov cocktails at the Church of Scientology, and still I could neither justify it within the definition of atheism, or call it an exercise of "faith." Your premise is false, your understanding of the language sucks. Passion of any degree does not equal unconditional belief. Your infantile tu quoque has failed for the nth time. There must be something implicitly unappealing about faith to you, if you have to try to drag us down to your level.
[...]
Dg,
As far as the answer to the question why you are so happy as an atheist and where it goes from here you remind me of some that have had the impression that Christianity ended and "arrived" at baptism. Of course that's not the case. From there we get to have constant communion and fellowship - "knowing Christ" which I am confident will eternally be exciting everyday, no end ever to new things, riches, depths, heights, - you can see even now eternity before you because you never get tired of knowing Jesus.
But, anyway, if a Christian did that - ended his journey at baptism - perceptive guys like you would say hypocrite, not applying Christ to the life. And you would be right in that - but, atheism (not trying to provoke here) ends at the statement, "DG says in his heart 'there is no God'."
You have nothing to grow in, get excited about, sing about (except one string, one note) - what a fellowship is that? Don't you want to find a new gig?
The fact that you have company should not turn the head of a free thinker. Their cheers and applause will be over for sure in 80 - 100 years. Peace at the expense of truth is not real peace.
Besides, it looks as far as your "aith" goes you can retire and look into the gospel on a part time basis.
Mephibosheth (we have several songs)
DG and Magilum
Good idea to finally close this thread as someone indicated. I am getting worried about you guys' health. Also you may have the last words . You are right in what you believe that you are not faithful just deeply passionate.
Why do you upset yourself so much ?. I neednt tell you the biological side effects of such negative emotions. After all , you have researched so much , know so much, you should be knowing that if you stress yourself so much everyday , what will be the body consequences.
Unless ofcourse you believe that you are an automaton who has negative emotions, that dont affect you in any manner. In other words are you just matter with some intellect ? . As good as a piece of rock with some thinking ability. What a pompous rock , I must say !!!
Infact this idea that what you believe what you truly are is getting strengthened in our minds, when you mentioned N-Dimethyltriptamine in the pineal gland. LOL, LOL, my guts have come out due to LOL. Boss- Dont take reductivism to such a level . You guys seem to reduce every aspect of our lives to proteins, genes, enzymes, DNA , nerves, synapses. Reductivism is a trap of Science. You guys have got inside this trap and screaming for enlightenment subsconsciously.
So if you believe that , why indulge in so much discussion. After all it is some glands and nerves inside over which you dont have a control at all.
I will tell what it is !. Infact your ego is controlling you so completely, you are unable to curb it and look at others. This ego is a product of your work. You keep mentioning your work in "cutting edge biology'. Man - Ego is your master, your driver and leading you nowhere. It will lead to unhappiness at the end of your life when you realize that maybe you were able to convert few guys, and the rest just treated this with disdain. You spent your life without enjoying the spirit within, without contemplating about the soul within.
A little secret and hint - Reduce the 'I' principle and crush the ego inside. Life will look like heaven , all being including theists will look like best buddies. You will have a universality of thinking.
1. Debate or exchange of ideas
2. Proof of God is a useless activity to a Theist
You have presumed wrongly that we have come to debate and win arguements. There is no question of debate , thus any debate rules. Secondly why the presumption that I dont understand God cant be 'proven'. So much is the presumption, that you throw a lot essays about proof of non existence of God. Guys big big mistaken presumption. Most theists dont bother about the proof. They dont look for proof, they are not interested in any proof. To them , the proof is as much totally irrelevant as much as happiness/bliss/contentment, a very low level of ego , humility in approach, universality of outlook , communion , respect for all around, are relevant what they get though their religion.
This is an exchange of ideas. I am able to understand you guys so completely. You may be right in your views and so are we, that is all. However I have learnt in the interaction , what an atheist says, how he is likely to behave when you refute him, what could be the level of aggression that could arise if you "debate". I also understood in what plane you guys exist.
One last request - Dont reply to this post in a fit of rage as mostly you guys have done. Rage and anger will lead nowhere. Leads to hatred, insults, taunts , aggression. This thread is absolute proof of that. All negatives to your being. O sorry I forgot, you were an automaton.
I am looking for Atheists to increase my belief in God
What difference does it make? It's not like it's gotten out of hand; you and Meph have been in a holding pattern. I'm somewhat sad that no matter what I threw at you, you remained stubbornly dishonest. Even when you're hostile, it's a passive-aggression in the form of feigned concern.
MAKE NOTE: HE ADMITS HE'S BEEN ARGUING FOR A DEMONSTRABLE FALSEHOOD. The passion is debatable, but the meaning of the word is not. This discussion was totally unnecessary, when all you had to do was Google the word. But what could I expect from a person of faith? You like to settle things in a state of ignorance.
Passive-aggressive, dishonest, cowardly reptile. You can't even show your hostility like a real person.
False dichotomy.
Non sequitur. Also, might want to do some research on punctuation.
Finally, you show your true hostility rather than channeling it into weird word redefinitions and feigned concern.
Quite the opposite. Life may ultimately be explainable, but it's still complex. Understanding the genome is outside the reach of most of us, whereas tossing everything into a cardboard box and writing "god" on it is not. Religion has nothing to do with wonder or comprehension or curiosity -- it's the death of understanding and knowledge; an exuberant resignation to ignorance. It's an empty word, devoid of real concepts, explaining nothing, meaning nothing: the ultimate cop-out.
Composition fallacy and straw-man.
You couldn't be bothered to look up one word over the past few days.
I doubt deludedgod associates with many people as stridently dishonest, passive-aggressive and ignorant as you and Meph. Since neither do I, my daily interactions don't involve repeatedly correcting people on the meanings of simple words.
Good old nihilism.
What?
Is that the royal "we?"
Not really. It was just you insisting, and us correcting.
Orwell would be proud.
Statistically, you've interacted with a tiny minority of people participating on this forum alone; which represents a minority of atheists in the world. Atheists represent all kinds of different views politically, socially, etc., so if you think you understand something about atheism, you're just deluding yourself.
I thought the same thing about you, Yoda. At least I'm being honest about my distaste for your attitude, unlike you with your condescending, holier-than-thou routine.
I shall begin with Vek:
Vek's objections are amusing albeit pathetic, and reveal a general disdain for the debating process. I see that we are not exactly in the Hallowed Halls of Oxford, or indeed, a drunken barfight quality debate.
At any rate...
1. The most amusing is surely Vek's first tactic. Notice his insulting tone. Of course, there is nothing wrong with insults. They are part of the process, especially when your opponent is most amusingly thick-headed. However, the insults must always be accompanied with arguments of substance, a rule, which, you will note, I have obeyed perfectly.
Now, Vek's amusing point is that he is "concerned for our health". This is a very typical theist argument. They deliberately antagonize their opponents (for example, by utterly refusing to consider the opponent's refutations, as this thread as an example). When their opponents rightfully get angered by the dishonesty of their opponents, they accuse us of being angry! Furthermore, they often use this opportunity to make a Fallacy of Extrapolation and label all atheists with that. Todangst, the resident pyschologist, has suggested this reflects underlying despair at their general inability to debate, and hence the projection of their emotions onto the Other, in lieu of the fact that their arguments were destroyed, they attempt to shift the focus away from their tattered arguments to an emotionalist fallacy. This is very typical. However, I am suprised. Most theists are generally better at doing this than you were.
For a review of the underlying physcological imperatives which cause this behaivour:
Theist Argument Checklist
Psychological Defenses - Projection Identification
If you want to engage in genuine, honest discussion then I will be happy to. What you are doing now could only be described as an insult to the process, which is why I am so angry. Please do not deliberately spend such time making me angry and then accusing me of being angry as if this were a response to my arguments.
Please do not try this again. It is dishonest, and I will see through it. Please return to the original discussion. Please respond to my research. Please respond to my points about Meth's question being invalid.
This is another reason for me being angry. You only respond to either a tiny fraction of my post or ignore it entirely, instead attempt to make emotionalist fallacies as a diversion from the fact that I pointed out that your arguments contain no substance. If you wish to hurl insults, it must be accompanied by arguments of substance. If you do not want to play by the rules, then leave. It is no loss...
So, this is the reason I was angry. If we examine this debate.
Meph made the following claims in his original posts:
"Atheism requires faith"
"The argument from creation proves God"
"Design proves God"
I refuted the first one. Meph ignored it, so I told him to acknowledge it. Meph read it and claimed he could not understand it, hence offering no counterrefutation. I thought that was the end of that until he continued to state that atheism requires faith despite the fact that I had refuted it and he admitted having no response. I threatened him with a block if he did not start playing by the rules.
Then we turned to design. I refuted it. However, the arguments I put forth require tertiary education in molecular biology, so Meph again pointed out he could not understand them. However, he still claimed Design was valid. So I drafted a much simpler piece on basic evolutionary biology which crushed the Argument From Design.
I followed this up with arguments I had drafted about supernatural being ontologically meaningless, a posteriori arguments for God being invalid, and the notion of God commiting an ontological category error.
He ignored this. His arguments in tatters, Meph decided to turn to emotionalism, as a way of drawing attention away from the fact that his a posteriori arguments were destroyed. From what I could discern from the posts made by both of you, you believe because of the following:
-It makes me feel good
-Lots of other people do it
-It sounds nice
-Anecdotal evidence
Which is ad consequentiam, ad populum, ad consequentiam, and anecdotal fallacy, respectively.
Contrast this to what I have written: Non-fallacious, universally-applicable proofs. Not anecdotals. Universally applicable concepts which underlie all human epistemology. My arguments are therefore valid, yours are not.
I have actually been begging you to respond, almost to the point of forcing you. You cannot possibly accuse me of attempting to shirk discussion. This is the height of hypocrisy.
You can see why this would make me angry. THese tactics are not those of any honest man. These are the tactics employed by a dishonest ignoramus who refuses to engage in proper debate and discussion.
Remember, this thread was originally intended to be debate if you can call it that.
So, being that, I think you have no right to call me angry whatsoever since the pair of you have deliberately antagonized me by responding to arguments I made which took years of research and education, which add up to a quarter million words, with simplistic three-line ad nauseams which were refuted several hundred years before your birth. I suggest, then, that you stop calling me angry because you are just revealing how far over your head you are in here...
At any rate, it is merely a tactic of drawing attention from the fact that neither of you has presented an argument that I have not already refuted. Perhaps we can return to genuine discussion?
Regarding Vek's ridiculous postulations regarding reductionism and his accompanying statements, it is quite clear he has never studied the Western Naturalist tradition, and his fallacies show poor understanding of materialism and reductionism. I highly reccomend the following two articles to him:
Fallacies Commonly Employed Against Materialism Refuted
A Materialist Account for Abstractions - or - How Theists Misplace the Universe.
Regarding Vek's statements about the soul, his arguments were terrible and fallacious. I highly reccomend the following article to him:
"Vitalism"/"Immaterialism" and Christian "dualism" have long since been debunked. Response?
Regarding your (Vek's) statements about the supernatural, Todangst and I took the time to formally prove that God and supernatural are ontologically invalid:
'Supernatural' (and 'immaterial'
are broken concepts
"God" is an incoherent term
A Clarification Regarding My Position Relative to theological noncognitivism
On the Problem of Interaction and the Concluding Piece of the Series: The Absurdity of an Immaterial Mind
Regarding your statements about the ego, the same responses to your argument about me being angry apply. There is no substance to this insult. An insult can only be accompanied by an argument. I have ego? So what? Debates are all about ego. Get used to it. I have every right to claim such given that I am the ONLY person here to have presented arguments, reserach and articles with substance, nearly all written by myself!
Regarding his statements linking my job to my ego, he clearly has no idea about me, my work, why I do it, or indeed, anything at all. If an ego reason was invloved in my career choice, I would have become a neurosurgeon and made 700,000 US dollars per year. But I felt that my studies would be put to better use for helping people in medical research. I signed up because I wanted to help people. My job is about finding solutions and cures to diseases of which you truly have no idea the magnitude of suffering: Lesch-Nyhans, Tay-Sachs, Huntington's, Prader-Willi, . My work in genomics ranges from helping people whose lungs are destroying themselves, people whose cross-signal brain wiring causes cannibalism, people whose mind's are destroying themselves due to aggregate proteins, as well as helping in the push for development of organ cloning in developmental biology. Given this, I think I have the right to say I work on the cutting edge, don't you?
So kindly Shut Up regarding people whose motives you simply have no idea, you simplistic twit.
Now, onto Meph:
Regarding Meph's statement, he is making a bifurcation fallacy which reflects his poor understanding of epistemology. I hold the atheist position because I am convinced of its truth value after studying philosophy and science. Judging by your post, you hold your position because it makes you feel good. THhe bifurcation fallacy occurs because you assume that someone's belief in God must depend on the happiness associated. I am happy for other reasons. I am happy because I have an excellent, intellectually stimulating job in which I am helping other people. I am
THe fallacy occurs because you assume that if someone does not believe in God, there is no other reason for which they might be happy. I do not believe in God. Any derivation of happiness or lack thereof from this belief is a non sequitor. It is like my belief that that I live in Hong Kong. This is a statement of fact. Does it affect my happiness to believe that I live in Hong Kong? No. I just live in Hong Kong. End of story. Just like I believe, for philosophical reasons, not emotive ones, that God does not exist, end of story. I am happy for all the real reasons that someone might be happy. My job, my family, my life etc. Why do you insist that someone's philosophical position relative to an incoherent word must relate to their happiness? Does my position on Philosophy of Mind relative to functionalism and epiphenominalism relate to my happiness? No. Why would it. I regard the question of God existing as a quaint intellectual exercise. Why should it affect my happiness anymore than my belief that grass is green affect my happiness? Why can you not understand this?
Lastly, given that I have presented my research on the matter, until such is counterrefuted, please do not assert that I only believe in "my heart" which attempts to bring our two belief systems onto the same level when they are clearly not (your belief stems from emotive reasons and are irrational while mine are rational and derived from thinking about validity, not consequence). I have already shown this. Also, please do not insult me by substituting my name for "the fool" in the well known Bible verse so oft-quoted by the more arrogant theists (Psalm 14:1). Also, please do not respond to a single sentence of this post when I always do everyone the courtesy of giving a line-by-line full length response to everything they say, or simply link to published answers on the matter which I took the time to draft myself.
This article also has good information on your epistemic rights to believe in the validity of a concept:
What are Epistemic Rights? A Basic Primer in Critical Thinking
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
This is amazing. You can't even correctly read something so simple as someone calling you out for the dishonest, purposely ignorant poster that you are. I never suggested that this thread be put to and end. I vehemently believe that you and Mephibosheth should quite your approach and attempt to learn something. What I called for is for the inanity, stupidity and futility to come to an end. Others (deludedgod, magilum) are extremely patient and persistent and are trying their best to explain in completely comprehensible ways what is problematic about the way you are holding yourselves in this thread and the falsity of what you believe about atheists and atheism among a great deal else. Your continued insistence to (apparently) ignore anything posted or else to respond inanely is at best willful stupidity. It is in this way: that you attempt to learn something and discard your ignorance for what is simply true and has been espoused more times on here than I care to count -that you may 'end' this thread.
I believe deludedgod has pointed out the likely psychological reasons for your actions. I am inclined to agree with such analysis. The exercise in futility is on your part. The patient people here may continue on, perhaps in vain, to persuade you to some intelligence, but the only way that will happen is when you decide to listen to some reason. No one here suggests that you give up your god belief or your religion, only that you give up the untrue things you believe about the nature of other people and their beliefs. You continuously spout inane rubbish and have, after some 232 posts, failed to update your knowledge with what is simply true. Again, if you wish this to end you should acquire some new information.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
Thomathy Quote -I vehemently believe that you and Mephibosheth should quite your approach and attempt to learn something.
Your vehement beliefs can be kept inside your mind, my dear. Are you trying to preach ? Sounds like faith to me !!!!
Thomathy Quote - Others (deludedgod, magilum) are extremely patient and persistent
LOL . Magilum also uses scum language. The language of the lumpen. DG is better, however extremely condescending. He is stuck up that since his teens, he cracked the great secret and then got deep into the human body to research. He has two motives clearly. One can understand if he had just said trying to find cures for diseases (because the motive and cause is a positive emotion) , but his basic motive stems from religion's grip as he says in one of his posts.Nothing wrong per se. But one cant base ones whole life keeping a negative emotion as an excuse or reason.
In simpler words, "We have religion, which is cause of all that is bad , therefore I will use the rest of my life and all my resources to blast it , find all possible ways to remove it, refute it , attack people who argue for it," . Sounds fundamentalist to me , Meth's original post keeps coming back everywhere. There is no reasoned balancing in this motives at all, he has got tipped over to a side .
DG Quote The fact of the matter is that you have both behaved in an appalling manner
Stop playing judge please.
DG Quote No, I am debating because I wish to see if my arguments work. Neither of you are debating, you are drivelling. Neither of you know how to debate. You both flatly refuse. Your arguments are idiotic and fallacious yet you still refuse to engage in genuine debate. All you are interested in doing is whining.
Please take a reality check. You will have to work very hard to find someone who can debate you as per your debate rules, so that your ego can rise up little bit more. Basically your life seems dedicated only to that 'I' "principle which you have. Boss how egotistic and demeaning can you get. You are literaly begging us to debate you . Why ? So that your ego can rise higher with a pyrrhic victory that it has crushed yet another. Man can we have better and positive emotions/ reasons for your motives.
Thomathy Quote believe deludedgod has pointed out the likely psychological reasons for your actions. I am inclined to agree with such analysis
Suggest both of you start a clinic and I will enrol as a lifelong patient. You can have all the fun and your lives purposes wil be fulfilled.
Thomathy Quote No one here suggests that you give up your god belief or your religion
Entirely wrong Sir, There are posts innumerable here , where you are all trying to deconvert. Suggest, measure your words before typing.
DG Quote Lastly, given that I have presented my research on the matter, until such is counterrefuted, please do not assert that I only believe in "my heart" which attempts to bring our two belief systems onto the same level when they are clearly not (your belief stems from emotive reasons and are irrational while mine are rational and derived from thinking about validity, not consequence).
It is totally proven that with your disenchantment with the "grip religion has over the world", which you realized in the teens, that the basic motive to go ahead in the course of life wasnt reason at all. It is backed by a strong negative emotion. Thus dear Sir, All reasons or when a person says I have rationally examined this and I rationally decide this, is incorrect. There is no such thing as reason. What appeals to you emotionally, you convert that to reason and express it .
Magilum converts what appeals to him emotionally into lumpen language. DG converts what appears to him from a strong negative emotional reaction towards religion and God, into so call reason and then proceed. You say you look only at validity and not at consequence. I assume you do that for yourself. So please dont make others read the essays . This amounts to an ego trip, that is all.
Ego is the root cause of all downfall. Atheism stems from an extremely elevated Ego. The belief that there is no one greater than me (Thus total faith, that is all). This adds a negative emotion quickly to the personality . So a lot of these guys trash God, Jesus, Bible and what have you in lumpen language , a few others do this a bit more subtly and back it up with lot of research.
Since many of you believe in materialism. So Ok , Guys we are just matter with some intellect, that is all. I am matter talking to you and you are matter talking to me. That is all. Thus one type of matter wants to engage into debate with another matter. LOL.
Reason, logic , and therefore Science etc are only eventual subproducts of the core of our personality which is made up of only pure consciousness . However very early in life , we discover the biggest negative aspect ie the ego and then it takes over. "I do this, I have done this, You are this and that , I did this in my teens, You are pathetic in debating " , so and so forth ". These ego statements are logically false, all of them. " I have this ____". Who am I ? Why did I come here in this earth ? Why I do want to engage in debate ? The I is taken for granted. But who is this I ?
You thus allow the ego to totally dominate your life and the actions that you take. But our core which is just our self awareness or self consciousness , is ignored in this process. True happiness doesnt lie in inflating the ego by trashing others in a debate , it lies in only one thing, being with your Self consciousness at all times.
I am looking for Atheists to increase my belief in God
I started to draft a reply, until I realized it'd be the dozenth time I've repeated myself for someone totally immune to new ideas.
This exchange amuses me to such extent that I shall continue, for whatever hitherto unexplained reason.
a) Regarding his statements regarding my ego, Vek is demonstrating he did not do me the courtesy of reading my last post (for which I thank him- not), seeing that I already refuted it. At any rate, he is committing a formal ad hominid- he is attacking the man not the argument. This projectionalist tactic is typical of theists whose arguments have been crushed. They can no longer debate and hence attempt to undermine the process itself.
If you cannot survive a formal debate, then leave the room and lick your wounds in a corner. But please, do not make red herring fallacies by attempting to project your emotions onto everyone else by diverting attention away from arguments of substance (such as my own) with fallacies.
b) Regarding Vek's statement about materialism, he is revealing a crude and highly egregious understanding of an intellectual and philosophical tradition he has clearly never studied. He is indicating that he did not read my previous post, since I put forth six articles in refutation of him.
c) Regarding Vek's statement about his (ironic) accusation of negative emotionalist reasons for my atheism, he is again engaging in ad hominid (he is attacking the man, not the argument). He is also misinterpreting my previous post hence indicating he has some sort of reading comprehension problem. I never claimed I turned to atheism because I realized that religion was evil. That would be ad consequentiam, and I try to avoid fallacious belief. Rather, I said I began to be active against religion when I realized how evil it was. And as an indirect result of that, I began versing myself in philosophy and science, from which I was able to bolster my preexisting position of God not existing. The way you misconstrued my post on the matter indicates some sort of borderline illiteracy, hence you have no right to critize magilum for his prose.
Vek has not put forth an argument of substance. He has attempted to undermine the debating process itself, he has acted in a matter not conduicive to discussion on the topic, and he generally refuses to follow the structure by which such discussions normally take place. "Does God exist" is a philosophical question, so steel yourself for a philosophical debate! The answers "it makes me feel good" or "a lot of others believe" are not acceptable. I have put forth arguments and refuted yours. So as things stand, I have taken the most proactive stance in this discussion. If you wish to defend your beliefs in a rational manner, I am desperately encouraging you to do so.
I have already explained the formal reasons for my atheism. If you read what I have put forth here:
Deluded God
it explains why I consider the concept of "God" inherently absurd. It took me approximately 100,000 words to do it, but no one ever said it was a simple exercise, as you are attempting to with your fallacious nonsense.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
DG,
You are a high level shepherd on this site but as far as shepherding you are in the truck honking rather than with the sheep leading.
I am trying to imagine a retreat with the flock of the followers here, sitting around the campfire, owls hooting, fire going, stars in expanse and DG is delivering the lesson: "There Is No God and There are No Mysteries - I Can Explain it All".
Followed by the one note one lyric song, "there is no God" then There is no Design - a lesson again by DG or Magum while Hambydammit and JCGadfly feed the fire.
All are very careful to march in lock step and not get off course lest shepherd DG have to apply physics of kinetic release on their head.
Do all sleep well.
MEPHIBOSHETH (I'm over Jordan following The Shepherd who died for me and lives and leads and loves - oh, BTW, HE MADE THE STARS ALSO)
Holy shit. Is it impossible for you to keep your woo-woo bullshit out of anything you say?
What is this nonsense about shepherding? Do you actually think people give a shit about what you, or anyone else say or think? Are you really that deluded to think that a free-thinker won't be a free-thinker?
Since you're trying to imagine shit, imagine this:
A world where you think freely and for yourself and, instead of trying to put things into shitty metaphors that try to reference common Christian woo woo, you rationalize your thoughts and the things around you to come to a conclusion that isn't absolutely absurd and self destructive.
Do try hard now.
I think you are projecting here. It is the atheists who tend to think they can't explain it all, at least not yet (whether we can or not is a different story), the typical theist says "i can explain everything, god did it" so please stop with you pyschological defense mechanisms.
You also are projecting about the sheep thing, It is obviously you who is the sheep, you then are projecting that sheep like mentality onto us,because you think everyone must be sheep because you are one. Also, if hammbydamnt,DG,Magum, JCGadfly agree on things its because they feel the argues presented by the others are logical and sound thus , if one is intellectually honest, one must accept the argument.
Now will you stop with the AdHoms and fucking make a god damn argument, that hasn't been utterly ripped to shreds already?
Yes, could you please speak like a normal human being. We are not at an Edgar Allen Poe Convention. We do not speak in heptameric quadruplet or iambic pentameter, and likewise we do not speak in unusually poor metaphor nor in incoherent language.
Regarding your most amusing albeit pathetic statement, I can explain it all, I believe no such thing. Indeed, I have pointed out on numerous occasions that to hold such a position is foolish. However, to hold the existence of God as a stand-in for hitherto unexplained is much more foolish. I believe you may have encountered the fallacy associated since I have mentioned it..once, twice...try twenty five times. The ad ignoratium fallacy. I have shown that God is a non-solution to mysteries and problems of the universe. There are countless numbers of problems I cannot solve and do not know of. How did life begin? How does consciousness work? etc. However, what I can prove is that God is not the solution to any of these problems (this is called. quite appropriately, the deus ex machina fallacy, or the appeal to magic fallacy). You also made a fallacy of non sequitur by linking "there is no God" with "there is no mystery". This is fallacious. While the latter is false, the former is accurate. To link the two is fallacious however. As I explained, this would commit an ad ignoratium fallacy. God is a non-solution to the problems expressed, as this would, again, be an ad ignoratium fallacy. Actually, I would go so far as to say that the invocation of the God entity actually attempts to clear up unknowns by means of asserting a deus ex machina. We don't know? Very well. Goddidit. Problem solved. Of course, this is fallacious on three counts, as I have proven. Also, you are committing a bifuraction fallacy and the ad ignoratium which lie in the following:
P1: There is no God
P2: A lack of God means that I must be able to explain all processes without the invocation of God, otherwise, God exists
C: Therefore, either God exists, or mystery does not
C is invalidated by the fact that P2 is false. P2 commits an ad ignoratium
Also, if you are going to refer to me by my title, please do it properly.
Please stop speaking in very, very, very poor verse. You could give William McGonnagall a run for his money. Can you not construct prose like a normal person? Or, rather, do you have this pathological need to speak with ridiculous analogy to avoid making genuine points? Can you not for one single post construe an argument of substance? Can you not keep the drivel out of everything you say? Is it really that difficult to speak with coherency? Do you always write like this?
You have not responded to my arguments and instead are reducing this to a highly amusing albeit highly pathetic attempt to pretend to appear to crafting a post. In reality, thus far nothing you have said contains anything. I suggest you start playing by the rules. Are you going to respond to my arguments and refutations of you...
Or are you going to continue this miscarriage of verse?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
It's not preaching.It's calling someone an idiot. How does the word "faith" apply here? Saying "I believe" does not necessarily entail religious belief. It also has a colloquial meaning along the lines of "I am persuaded that..."
Thanks for demonstrating your continued hastiness to apply the word "faith" where it cannot be applied.
So you're trying to say that we should have reservations about the validity of their arguments because they use "scum language" and act like jerks sometimes? Emotion has nothing to do with validity. Also, if they act like jerks, it's only because they're sick of saying the same thing over and over and not being understood, even when they spell things out. Especially when it's not because you genuinely don't understand, but moreso because you refuse to understand.
No one is necessarily trying to get rid of religion altogether, although we wouldn't be opposed to that. We're just fighting it because it gives itself privileges it doesn't deserve and is condescending toward atheists (and yet accuses atheists of being condescending when we question them).
I don't need a "reasoned balance" about Santa Claus. I can see very clearly that, although Santa might very well exist, it is highly highly highly improbable that he does not. I probably should have used more highlys.
Don't confuse our rejection of religions with our motives for being here. Do we believe in a god? No. Does that mean we went religion to go away completely? Not necessarily, but it would be all the same to us.
You're just trying to apply the word "fundamentalist" so that you can say the we're just as irrational as you are.
Haha, so all opinions and critiques of the opposing view are automatically being written off as "judgmental" all of a sudden?
Truly a strategy that Napoleon would have envied.
The debate rules we use here weren't invented by us. They are the rules accepted in all academia.
Because we know you can't back up your claims, and we want you to realize that before you make them. But you don't do this. And that is frustrating.
It is pretty fun crushing theists in debates. Primarily because it's so easy most of the time. But don't assume that that is our motivation for debating. It's very fun, yeah, but we've got better reasons than that. If you want to know, ask. =)
So... are you trying to say that DG treats psychology like a religion? Can you stop thinking religiously for two damn seconds? Not everything in life requires faith and emotional fulfillment. I don't fry an egg to fill an emotional whole or because I have faith that it will be delicious. I don't sit on a toilet for the peace of mind it gives me or because I have faith that I will feel better afterward. I just do it. It's life. Stop trying to use religion on everything.
We would love it if you gave it up, that much is true. But if you don't give it up, we won't care. Will we think it's a bad idea for you to persist in your belief? Of course! But simply by being here, you have shown us that you wish to debate. Naturally, we want you to understand our side just like you want us to understand yours. Whether you actually do makes no difference to us at all. We just would really like it if you did. Because you should. Because, really, religion is retarded.
Are you suggesting that his motivation in life is atheism? Again, quit trying to analyze everything religiously. Also, atheism isn't characterized by negative emotion. We are very happy people. We did not convert to atheism because we were made at God or any other such nonsense. It just MAKES SENSE.
Haha, this is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Seriously, I don't want to be a jerk or anything because I'm sure you've said plenty of other things that were intelligent, but that was seriously really dumb and you should never say it again.
There is not such thing as reason? WHAT?!
1+1=2.
Are you suggesting that there is no such thing as reason that lets us understand that the answer is 2? There is only an emotional desire to have 2 be the answer? And maybe some people would emotionally desire the answer to be 7 and that would be okay?
Please don't say this anymore.
You're analyzying their language and not their arguments. Read a little closer. It helps.
Don't like his essays? I'm sure someone could link you to some other good ones. But to clarify, it's not so much an ego trip as it is that he has compiled some arguments into essays so that he never has to type them all out again, thus saving time. When you assume things, it makes an ass out of you and me.
Don't make an ass out of me.
Assumption. And wrong. And stupid. Stop saying this.
Again trying to assume that we have faith, which has been shown to be wrong countless times. Go ahead, keep saying it. All we're going to do is keep refuting it, but keep adding more words like "stupid" and "retarded" and "bull crap" to our arguments. The more you refuse to understand a simple concept, the more frustrated we'll get.
The research is the important part. Try looking at that sometime.
Well... sort of yeah. The problem here is that you're oversimplifying it to make it sound stupid so that it's easier for you to laugh at.
"So a car is just a pile of metal that can somehow move? WTF? LOL"
"So a computer is just a bunch of matter that can communicate with a bunch of other matter, through matter, across long distances? WTF? LOL."
It's more complex than that, and you know it. You're just simplifying. Knock that off.
Oh, wait. Knock that off, please.
Wouldn't want you to think I was just an emotional atheist.
Wrong. 1+1=2 has nothing to do with emotions or consciousness. It's just a fact of nature. It is an observed reality. I'm going to go ahead and add this to the list of things you should probably never say again. Especially not to a genuine scientist or philospher.
I think, thefore I am. That I.
You are again assuming that atheism (read: rationality) requires some kind of faith or emotional fulfillment. It doesn't.
1+1=2 requires no emotion or faith. It just is.
This is why we accuse you of not debating properly. It's because you can't. Even simple concepts such as 1+1=2 not requiring faith or emotion probably escape you. It is very difficult to have a genuine debate with such a person.
Continue to believe in your God if you want. We don't care. But as long as you continue to post on these boards, paid for by atheists, we will continue to tell you why you are wrong and irrational. If you're done arguing, then just go away. We will remain unconvinced.
Do you honestly think that you, a lone theist, will succeed where thousands of theists who came before, probably more academically certified, have failed?
Give it a shot, but it probably won't work.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
What is this? World of Warcraft?
We're not a religion. We don't need leaders. We're just people.
1) Take a poetry class.
2) Use your words. Speak English, not metaphor.
3) No one here recognizes BG as their "leader", and BG doesn't recognize himself as a "leader". We don't need them. We're not a religion.
4) This is exactly the type of post I would expect from someone who can't think without using religion to think for him.
5) That post didn't argue anything. What was the point?
6) Take a poetry class.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
Hey Mephibosheth,
I'm really new here and have been reading through this (and other) threads where you've been actively posting. My question to you is off topic, but it will help me understand your posts. You may have answered this somewhere in the thousands of posts already (which, admittedly, I have not read or have come across). I find your username very intriguing - Mephibosheth (means exterminator of idols): Son of Jonathan, Grandson of Saul (2 Sam. 4:4), thrown to the ground, maimed, and unable to walk.
Are you, or are you closely related to anyone with disabilities? There is a ministry in Colorado Springs that has an outreach to the disabled (cerebral palsy) by the same name. Certainly, there are more disabilities than that.
Just curious - I apologize for disrupting the thread. I like to know a little about people and it's hard to do just jumping into the thread mid-stream.
Crocoduck - A missing transitional link that theists have been hoping does not exist...
Croc,
Meph may have something different on this but based on his posts he may just hold to the common christian thought that he is worthless without his Christ and took that name because the original character considered himself worthless until David adopted him into the royal family.
"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin
I'd like to point out the absurdity in this particular part. I shall do so using "lumpen language", as you seem to be able to recognize that (unlike the concepts of rationality, logic, discourse, debate, punctuation, projection and the fallacy of arguing from emotion, all of which you seem to be totally unaware of).
You're a somewhat evolved primate, living on a blue/green dot orbiting a pretty mediocre star in the outskirts of a pretty half-assed galaxy. There are millions of other planets in that galaxy, and this galaxy is just one of many billions of galaxies. You live at the mercy at the universe at all scales, just waiting to be wiped out by a supernova, tsunami or epidemic. That's about as insignificant as it can get. But you can't handle this. So you imagine that you have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe. That he loves you and cares what you do. The creator of the universe cares about you!! He sent his son to die for you. You're made in his image, the most special and loved of his creations, destined to rule over all of Earth by the power of the almighty. When you die, you will go and live with him for all eternity.
You accuse atheists of inflated ego?! You're the one so pathetic you have to invent a god who cares for you. Claiming to have a personal relationship with the creator of the universe should be used as the definition of inflated ego. The sheer arrogance in claiming such a thing is mindboggling. Then you have the audacity to accuse us of the very thing that characterizes your own claim? How utterly dishonest and arrogant can you get?
jcgadfly,
We have a winner on part A. I am worthless without my Christ. Thanks for your honest assessment of that. My goal would be all Christ esteem and rid of self esteem.
As for the other caller, never heard of the Meph group. I chose as a metaphor for being crippled by sin, restored by grace, allowed to eat at the King's table.
My peace is built on what Jesus allowed - the Perfect Lamb sacrificed on the tree. If He had just come and announced forgiveness we would have eventually questioned, "where is justice" but on the Cross we see God didn't treat sin lightly - yet He paid the price Himself. We connect to this with faith in Jesus, the only door to God.
Jesus took the sins of all that accept Him and annihilated them. He no longer has them (at the throne of God) nor do I. I can honestly say, "I have sinned" and just as honestly "I am forgiven" - based on the sacrifice I see there of the Perfect Lamb of God. There is no flaw in the sacrifice. He's perfect.
Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin, so the price will either be paid by Jesus if you accept it or if not then by you.
And I see God's love and mercy in Christ crucified. He wants us that bad.
We have some time to sort that out. If we pass this up because we are tricked or want the favor of man or want to be in contempt of God's court the regret of that will be a worm that will never die in eternity.
Because the biggest problem of life is solved in Christ I can live this moment without regret of past or fear of future. Since spiritual pain is worse than any other on earth, what is there to fear from man when I have real peace with God?
This peace is not the result of my own system of righteousness or a feeling or the chirping agreement of others, it is real peace with God settled in God's court. I pled totally guilty and was totally forgiven.
For more information on this see the inspired essay of Paul: Romans 1 - 2
Mephibosheth (peace in this world or the next)
Snore.
I declare the prospect of opening this proselytizer's mind officially pointless.
And I perhaps do so seven pages too late.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
KSMB's post
My My , Isnt this one very indignant and accusatory !. Meth - What do you have to reply to this ? .
"_____ Pathetic___, arrogant___, dishonest____" . Guess you KSMB, could have used more adjectives. You can probably refer to certain fellow club postors in this thread , your language could be further deeply enriched.
And sorry, you have absolutely no ego at all. Your indignance is just due to your completely rational assessment of my persona. Since it is rational, you are well within rights to use the choicest to characterize a Theist.
Just because we dont agree with your views and refuse to submit to the Science , Logic, evidence which you present etc , you then get indignant . Fine but you can keep it to you. However no, you want to start accusations.
So I suggest , you lack a universal human approach , since you seem unable to accept a Theist as a person.
If you have the guts and the spirit, my dear. Say the following 3 times daily in the morning
" I am an atheist and completely rational, but I love all Theists as much as I love any atheist".
If you cant , sorry , I can only characterize you as a complete Egotist, who cannot see another having opposite views.
I am looking for Atheists to increase my belief in God
Don't start criticizing people's language when you don't always communicate so clearly yourself.
And since you were the one who was insulting first, he had every right to be insulting back.
What, you think you just get to insult someone and then they shrug and say "okay, whatever"? Not how it usually works out.
Uh... okay.
Haha, this is an awesome quote.
You accused him of having an ego, so don't accuse him of "starting" accusations.
He never said you weren't a person. He said you were a pathetic, arrogant, and dishonest person. It's different.
If I tell a black man he's dishonest, it doesn't mean I'm racist or think all black men are dishonest.
If I tell a woman she's pathetic, it doesn't mean I'm sexist or that I think all women are pathetic.
It is possible to be critical of a single person in a group or even a portion of a group without being critical of an entire group.
You already did that, which is why he got pissed.
Cheers!
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.