A Stomach Strong Enough for Atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 4 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-12-2012, 03:39 AM
RE: A Stomach Strong Enough for Atheism
(19-12-2012 03:06 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Re
"I'm basically just saying that the process to my deconversion is a lengthy one. That's it, nothing much further than that."

It sounds awfully like you're admitting you'll become an atheist one day. You're hanging on to your belief but deep down know you'll one day let go. Why not let go now? You'll like it!

I'd be lying if I said it's not possible. The thing is, I only will believe in what I find reasonable given the knowledge I have.
Who knows what I'll believe the more knowledge I gain!
I admit that it's possible that I could cease my belief in God, but I will no do so for insufficient reasons.
I don't believe in God because I'm scared not to lol
I believe in God for the same reason I believe in Gravity - there is enough circumstantial evidence to support the theory.


(19-12-2012 03:06 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Re
"The reason for that is the degree of my perspective is much deeper than just surface.I don't believe in God because of silly reasons such as "My Parents raised me to believe in God", "I go to Church, and they teach me about God", "It only makes sense to believe in God", "Believing in God is the American thing to do". My reason is more based on philosophy, reason and the laws of logic, circumstantial evidence and so on. The evidences and arguments seem to tip the scale more in favor of an intelligent creator of the Universe than otherwise."

I disagree. Your reasoning is based mainly on wishful thinking. There is not one iota of tangible evidence for the existence of god. You are chasing your tail believing in something for which there is no evidence. No scale tipping would be necessary if you had evidence.

In a sense, you are right that no scale tipping would be necessary if I had evidence. The thing is, you're talking of physical evidence. That's why there's a scale to begin with, the evidence is not physical, it's circumstantial.
If I had physical evidence, I'd throw the scale away.

(19-12-2012 03:06 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Re
"The scale, from my perspective, does not tip towards things like unicorns, fairys or leprechauns because they have no relevance towards existence. They, by definition, are irrelevant. The Universe does not require them for it's existence.
Anyways, I'm just trying to say that it is a long process before the scale would tip the other way for me. That is all."

So....if you had been told since you were a baby that a leprechaun made the universe and was responsible for "existence," you would, by definition, believe in leprechauns. My friend...god is a leprechaun. He's a construct to fill in a gap. Think about it.

Leprechaun:
One of a race of elves in Irish folklore who can reveal hidden treasure to those who catch them.

God:
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.


If God does exist, He is not a Leprechaun even by definition.
A Leprechaun can be safely categorized as something that has no bearing on the existence of the Universe.
Leprechauns are mythical creatures created by people. The same may be true of God, but the Theory still stands stronger than that of the Leprechaun since it could possibly be the explanation of the universe whereas Leprechauns cannot. In history, people don't even pretend that Leprechauns had anything to do with the creation of the Universe because the idea isn't even originated for that reason.

Another thing I look at is that there is nothing said about Leprechauns, in their mythical nature, that shows a necessity or an ability to create a universe. The Theory of God, on the otherhand, holds a much more serious definition that gets closer to a being that is capable of such power.

"So....if you had been told since you were a baby that a leprechaun made the universe and was responsible for "existence," you would, by definition, believe in leprechauns. My friend...god is a leprechaun. He's a construct to fill in a gap. Think about it."

You can apply this to any Theory or idea that hasn't been fully established yet.
Say you lived 500 years ago and someone believed in the Higgs Particle. If they had been told since they were a baby that the Higgs Particle partially explains the Universe, then you would call the Higgs Particle a "Construct to fill in a gap".
Of course, it's different now since the Theory is comming to closure.
But the Circumstantial evidences, Philosophy and Laws of Logic involved in belief in God are not merely a "construct to fill in a gap" but more of an understanding of what I see.
I don't fill in gaps with whatever mythical things I fill is necessary.

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2012, 03:42 AM
RE: A Stomach Strong Enough for Atheism
(19-12-2012 02:34 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
houseofcantor Wrote:But then, what the fuck, like you respond to my complaint... so fuck you. Big Grin
Anyways, sorry for pissing you off..

Dodgy

See what I mean about the "nice?" And you forgot the emote; I ain't never serious, in case you missed that, there was an emote. Silly. And what's so abstract? What is it, to kill, but to deny existence? Is that not what happens where Egor ridicules all atheists, where you go, I can't be that, where Mark goes, but it'll be fun? In here, in the community of ideas, we want to preserve humanity, yet eradicate that which makes us human.

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2012, 03:50 AM
RE: A Stomach Strong Enough for Atheism
(19-12-2012 03:42 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(19-12-2012 02:34 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Anyways, sorry for pissing you off..

Dodgy

See what I mean about the "nice?" And you forgot the emote; I ain't never serious, in case you missed that, there was an emote. Silly. And what's so abstract? What is it, to kill, but to deny existence? Is that not what happens where Egor ridicules all atheists, where you go, I can't be that, where Mark goes, but it'll be fun? In here, in the community of ideas, we want to preserve humanity, yet eradicate that which makes us human.

lol,
Ok I see.
Well I cannot see emotes where I am now. The computers I'm using now only load a white screen with text. That's all I see on this site whereas on a different computer It'll load right and I'll see the TTA Theme, black screen with quote boxes, emotes and nice looking text fonts.

And stuff

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2012, 04:22 AM (This post was last modified: 19-12-2012 04:26 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: A Stomach Strong Enough for Atheism



Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein
Those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music - Friedrich Nietzsche
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
19-12-2012, 04:37 AM
RE: A Stomach Strong Enough for Atheism
(19-12-2012 04:22 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  


It seems like that whole clip was to say that the size of the Universe in comparison to earth and humans shows the purposelessness of the Universe itself. Or the timeline of the Universe's existence in comparison to when humans were actually here to ask the question (99.99999% of the Universe's existence, we were not here) is an indicator to it's purposelessness.
That way of thinking seems to be flawed, just as much as implying purpose for religious reasons.

99.99999% of the time, intelligent humans did not exist, so I am 99.99999% certain that the Universe has no purpose.
Something doesn't seem right here...
lol

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2012, 04:41 AM
RE: A Stomach Strong Enough for Atheism
(19-12-2012 04:37 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Something doesn't seem right here...
And that would be?

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vera's post
19-12-2012, 04:42 AM (This post was last modified: 19-12-2012 04:52 AM by Mark Fulton.)
RE: A Stomach Strong Enough for Atheism
(19-12-2012 03:39 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(19-12-2012 03:06 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Re
"I'm basically just saying that the process to my deconversion is a lengthy one. That's it, nothing much further than that."

It sounds awfully like you're admitting you'll become an atheist one day. You're hanging on to your belief but deep down know you'll one day let go. Why not let go now? You'll like it!

I'd be lying if I said it's not possible. The thing is, I only will believe in what I find reasonable given the knowledge I have.
Who knows what I'll believe the more knowledge I gain!
I admit that it's possible that I could cease my belief in God, but I will no do so for insufficient reasons.
I don't believe in God because I'm scared not to lol
I believe in God for the same reason I believe in Gravity - there is enough circumstantial evidence to support the theory.


(19-12-2012 03:06 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Re
"The reason for that is the degree of my perspective is much deeper than just surface.I don't believe in God because of silly reasons such as "My Parents raised me to believe in God", "I go to Church, and they teach me about God", "It only makes sense to believe in God", "Believing in God is the American thing to do". My reason is more based on philosophy, reason and the laws of logic, circumstantial evidence and so on. The evidences and arguments seem to tip the scale more in favor of an intelligent creator of the Universe than otherwise."

I disagree. Your reasoning is based mainly on wishful thinking. There is not one iota of tangible evidence for the existence of god. You are chasing your tail believing in something for which there is no evidence. No scale tipping would be necessary if you had evidence.

In a sense, you are right that no scale tipping would be necessary if I had evidence. The thing is, you're talking of physical evidence. That's why there's a scale to begin with, the evidence is not physical, it's circumstantial.
If I had physical evidence, I'd throw the scale away.

(19-12-2012 03:06 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Re
"The scale, from my perspective, does not tip towards things like unicorns, fairys or leprechauns because they have no relevance towards existence. They, by definition, are irrelevant. The Universe does not require them for it's existence.
Anyways, I'm just trying to say that it is a long process before the scale would tip the other way for me. That is all."

So....if you had been told since you were a baby that a leprechaun made the universe and was responsible for "existence," you would, by definition, believe in leprechauns. My friend...god is a leprechaun. He's a construct to fill in a gap. Think about it.

Leprechaun:
One of a race of elves in Irish folklore who can reveal hidden treasure to those who catch them.

God:
A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.


If God does exist, He is not a Leprechaun even by definition.
A Leprechaun can be safely categorized as something that has no bearing on the existence of the Universe.
Leprechauns are mythical creatures created by people. The same may be true of God, but the Theory still stands stronger than that of the Leprechaun since it could possibly be the explanation of the universe whereas Leprechauns cannot. In history, people don't even pretend that Leprechauns had anything to do with the creation of the Universe because the idea isn't even originated for that reason.

Another thing I look at is that there is nothing said about Leprechauns, in their mythical nature, that shows a necessity or an ability to create a universe. The Theory of God, on the otherhand, holds a much more serious definition that gets closer to a being that is capable of such power.

"So....if you had been told since you were a baby that a leprechaun made the universe and was responsible for "existence," you would, by definition, believe in leprechauns. My friend...god is a leprechaun. He's a construct to fill in a gap. Think about it."

You can apply this to any Theory or idea that hasn't been fully established yet.
Say you lived 500 years ago and someone believed in the Higgs Particle. If they had been told since they were a baby that the Higgs Particle partially explains the Universe, then you would call the Higgs Particle a "Construct to fill in a gap".
Of course, it's different now since the Theory is comming to closure.
But the Circumstantial evidences, Philosophy and Laws of Logic involved in belief in God are not merely a "construct to fill in a gap" but more of an understanding of what I see.
I don't fill in gaps with whatever mythical things I fill is necessary.
Re
"Leprechauns are mythical creatures created by people."

What the fuck do you think gods are?

" The same may be true of God, " Good boy!

"but the Theory still stands stronger than that of the Leprechaun" NO IT DOESN"T. Please explain yourself.

" since it could possibly be the explanation of the universe whereas Leprechauns cannot." WHY NOT? Why is an imaginary god more capable than an imaginary leprechaun?

" In history, people don't even pretend that Leprechauns had anything to do with the creation of the Universe because the idea isn't even originated for that reason." Whereas the idea that an imaginary god created the universe was pretended to be true. Does that make the imaginary god any more real than the imaginary leprechaun?


"Another thing I look at is that there is nothing said about Leprechauns, in their mythical nature, that shows a necessity or an ability to create a universe. The Theory of God, on the other hand, holds a much more serious definition.." True. But so what? What people say about their imaginary god doesn't change the nature of what is imaginary.

"that gets closer to a being that is capable of such power." So an imaginary god is more "capable" than an imaginary leprechaun? Please explain why.

If you object to the term "imaginary god" please explain why.

"You can apply this to any Theory or idea that hasn't been fully established yet." SO GLAD YOU UNDERSTAND MY POINT.


"But the Circumstantial evidences," AH HA! That's not the same thing as REAL evidence, now is it! I'm sure you're aware of that, so your circumstantial evidence needs to be rather convincing to be accepted, doesn't it. The onus is on you to provide convincing circumstantial evidence.


"Philosophy and Laws of Logic involved in belief in God are not merely a "construct to fill in a gap" but more
of an understanding of what I see." Ok. I disagree. So you better explain what you see then.


"I don't fill in gaps with whatever mythical things I fill is necessary." You have a worldwide audience to prove this to. Go ahead.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2012, 04:45 AM
RE: A Stomach Strong Enough for Atheism
Reminds me... these fucking theists, got a god that don't inspire a healthy case of lust, ain't got much of a god. You're posting some Tyson, I got some Gwynnies in the other tab, these are some kinda godly types, make ya wanna get up and do something. Thumbsup

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2012, 04:45 AM
RE: A Stomach Strong Enough for Atheism
(19-12-2012 04:41 AM)Vera Wrote:  
(19-12-2012 04:37 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Something doesn't seem right here...
And that would be?

Implying that human beings are required for the universe to have some sort of purpose.

Or using a span of time in a percentage to determine value or purpose.

Do you know what I mean?

“What you believe to be true will control you, whether it’s true or not.”

—Jeremy LaBorde
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-12-2012, 04:47 AM
RE: A Stomach Strong Enough for Atheism
(19-12-2012 04:45 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(19-12-2012 04:41 AM)Vera Wrote:  And that would be?

Implying that human beings are required for the universe to have some sort of purpose.

Or using a span of time in a percentage to determine value or purpose.

Do you know what I mean?
Got a non-human god in your pocket you're not telling us about? Dodgy

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: