A Stomach Strong Enough for Atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 4 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-12-2012, 04:48 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.
I've always taken it to mean that human beings are the only ones looking for a purpose. A purpose other than mere existence.

"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, 04:50 AM (This post was last modified: 19-12-2012 04:59 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: A Stomach Strong Enough for Atheism
(19-12-2012 04:37 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(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

Well it does indicate, that if there was a "purpose to the universe", what that is, certainly it would not be about or, is not us.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
19-12-2012, 05:20 AM
RE: A Stomach Strong Enough for Atheism
(19-12-2012 04:42 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "but the
Theory still stands stronger than that of the Leprechaun" NO IT DOESN"T

Essentially, it does. The idea of something intelligent and powerful causing the Universe into existence is more believable than a Leprechaun who makes shoes and has a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.
I am aware that if I don't believe in God, he becomes as non-existent as the Leprechaun.
But if He does not exist, then the Theory of God just becomes as false as the World Ice Theory.
Leprechauns are not a theory. They are mythical and obviously false given they hold not real purpose.


(19-12-2012 04:42 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  " since it could
possibly be the explanation of the universe whereas Leprechauns cannot." WHY NOT?

Leprechauns have their own definition.
The idea of God is established as well only, you're focusing more on the religious aspect of it.

I'm focusing more on the concept of an intelligence that can create something like a Universe.
The idea is the definition. The definition of Leprechauns is not sufficient enough to fit the category of something capable of creating a Universe.

I just thought of something (this is random and a bit off topic).
hypothetically, imagine trillions of years from now, and Humans still existing. Imagine hypothetically humans having the technology at that time to create more Universes.
That would essentially put humans into the category of God, accurately fitting our definition. We are intelligent beings, creating a Universe...
*ahem* ok, weird thought, I know lol


(19-12-2012 04:42 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  " 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 god created the universe was pretended to be true!

It's a Theory, maybe a difficult-to-prove Theory, but it is still a Theory since something to negate the need for anything supernatural is yet to be fully discovered.
I'm not sure if that would be right to drop the Theory in that case, but still, if something were to show up in studies that showed it was the reason for the Universe and God is not that reason, then the scale would have been tipped at that point for me I would say. <---Huge run on sentence? lol




(19-12-2012 04:42 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "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.." REALLY! Why is it any more "serious" than our little green friend creating the universe?

That's easy; God, by definition, is capable of creating a universe whereas Leprechauns, by definition, are not.


(19-12-2012 04:42 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "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.

So far I've just been using definitions to discuss the difference between God and Leprechauns because that seems to be the issue here.
Whether God is as imaginary as the Leprechaun is not soley based on the Leprechaun itself actually being imaginary to begin with.
God being imaginary is based on whether God actually exists or not.
If God does not exist, He is imaginary when I continue believing in him. (I also become delusional at that point).
If God does exist, then obviously He is not imaginary, just hard to fathom being that he is nothing like a natural being.



(19-12-2012 04:42 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  "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, ok?

Yes, Circumstantial evidence takes much more effort to actually validate something.
However, just because Circumstantial evidence is not like Physical evidence, it does not follow that Circumstantial evidence is not evidence.

“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, 05:39 AM
RE: A Stomach Strong Enough for Atheism
(19-12-2012 04:47 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Got a non-human god in your pocket you're not telling us about?

Well, I'm not sure on the actual purpose of the universe and what God intended for it. I don't really read the Bible all that much.
I honestly don't have much of a real relationship with what is called the "Christian God".
I do dabble in the Philosophical Theory of God, or Idea of God as a creator of the universe, but lately I haven't focused much on the actual characteristics of this being.

So, right now I'll say that it honestly (If I just look right now at the Universe at large) looks like this Universe holds no transcendant purpose whatsoever. It just is, because it happens to be.

Vera Wrote:I've always taken it to mean that human beings are the only ones looking for a purpose. A purpose other than mere existence.

We do tend to search out purpose and meaning naturally as humans for some reason. Sometimes that causes us to create artificial purpose.
Of course, God could be just yet another artificially created purpose. I don't know yet.

But that's definitely correct, humans must be the only ones searching for purpose because I think we're the only ones capable of even comprehending the concept of 'purpose'.

I still think that guy is trying to use the vastness of space and the time from it's beginning in order to show that the Universe is most likely purposeless. It seems that way in the clip anyway.


Buck Ball Wrote:Well it does indicate, that if there was a "purpose to the universe", what that is, certainly it would not be about or, is not us.

Just a long period of time before humans conception doesn't seem like a good enough indication of Humans purposelessness. It seems like Humans, so far, are the most superior and intelligent beings in the known Universe. Until we discover something else that is superior to us, then it seems we are quite great, and continue to become greater.
Perhaps time is just what it takes to get to the point of intelligent conception.

That's sort of how I see it..

“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, 05:46 AM
RE: A Stomach Strong Enough for Atheism
(19-12-2012 05:39 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Of course, God could be just yet another artificially created purpose. I don't know yet.

Yes, yes you know. But accepting it and admitting it to oneself is not easy.

Quote:But that's definitely correct, humans must be the only ones searching for purpose because I think we're the only ones capable of even comprehending the concept of 'purpose'.

In such a vast universe, 'must' is way too strong a word

Quote:I still think that guy is trying to use the vastness of space and the time from it's beginning in order to show that the Universe is most likely purposeless. It seems that way in the clip anyway.

Just a long period of time before humans conception doesn't seem like a good enough indication of Humans purposelessness. It seems like Humans, so far, are the most superior and intelligent beings in the known Universe. Until we discover something else that is superior to us, then it seems we are quite great, and continue to become greater.
We are not too bad for the tiny, incomprehensibly insignificant and transient specks of dust that we are. Still doesn't mean we matter to the universe more that an ant.

We are plagued by our self-awareness and the search for a meaning that's not there and knowledge that is so much beyond us, we cannot even grasp how much it is beyond us.

"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, 06:04 AM
RE: A Stomach Strong Enough for Atheism
(19-12-2012 05:46 AM)Vera Wrote:  
(19-12-2012 05:39 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  Of course, God could be just yet another artificially created purpose. I don't know yet.

Yes, yes you know. But accepting it and admitting it to oneself is not easy.

In Science, we are not ashamed to say that we do not know something completely.
I am the same way with the concept or Theory of God.
I may have serious doubts about His existence, but I still have enough to hold on to the Theory as something to be considered.

Saying "Yes, yes you know(That God is yet another artificially created purpose)" would be like me telling you "Yes, yes you know that God does exist, yet you refuse to admit it."
I'm not going there because I don't believe that about humans.
I believe that every brain requires it's own process of elimination before it can make decisions on what it understands or believes. It's not that every brain subconciously knows that God does not exist, but just rebels against the idea.

(19-12-2012 05:46 AM)Vera Wrote:  
Quote:But that's definitely correct, humans must be the only ones searching for purpose because I think we're the only ones capable of even comprehending the concept of 'purpose'.

In such a vast universe, 'must' is way too strong a word

Well, we could definitly start a debate here Wink

Do you have a Theory of other existing intelligent beings in the Universe?
Do you have evidence of their existence?
Is it Physical evidence or Circumstantial?

So far, if a person were to believe in other intelligent beings somewhere else in the Universe, they would have to rely on Circumstantial evidence rather than physical since we don't have anything physical to go by (Not as far as full-fledged intelligent beings).
So essentially, it goes into a similar category to a Theory of Intelligent Design. Until further knowledge has been discovered, we rely on circumstantial evidence.

I personally do think it's very possible that there are intelligent beings somewhere else in the Universe.


(19-12-2012 05:46 AM)Vera Wrote:  
Quote:I still think that guy is trying to use the vastness of space and the time from it's beginning in order to show that the Universe is most likely purposeless. It seems that way in the clip anyway.

Just a long period of time before humans conception doesn't seem like a good enough indication of Humans purposelessness. It seems like Humans, so far, are the most superior and intelligent beings in the known Universe. Until we discover something else that is superior to us, then it seems we are quite great, and continue to become greater.
We are not too bad for the tiny, incomprehensibly insignificant and transient specks of dust that we are. Still doesn't mean we matter to the universe more that an ant.

Perhaps our capacity to become even greater through time is what makes us great. Not sure, but it appears that we are rare and interesting so far.


(19-12-2012 05:46 AM)Vera Wrote:  We are plagued by our self-awareness and the search for a meaning that's not there and knowledge that is so much beyond us, we cannot even grasp how much it is beyond us.

Exactly, there is vast knowledge yet to be had. Knowing that God does not exist is far-fetched. The same with knowing He does exist.

“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, 06:15 AM
RE: A Stomach Strong Enough for Atheism
(19-12-2012 06:04 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I may have serious doubts about His existence, but I still have enough to hold on to the Theory as something to be considered.
Like what? Any evidence, that is demonstrable and retestable and not wishful thinking and metaphysical mumbo-jumbo?

Quote:It's not that every brain subconciously knows that God does not exist, but just rebels against the idea.

Why would my brain rebel against the idea of its own creator? Unless this creator wasn't that skillful after all. (And original sin is not an answer).

Quote:Perhaps our capacity to become even greater through time is what makes us great. Not sure, but it appears that we are rare and interesting so far.

What is so rare about us that sets us so far apart from the rest of the living beings on this planet? A bit of self-awareness is not nearly enough to justify how unbelievably inflated our egos are.

Quote:Exactly, there is vast knowledge yet to be had. Knowing that God does not exist is far-fetched. The same with knowing He does exist.
Is knowing that unicorns, leprechauns and elves do not exist also far-fetched?

"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
19-12-2012, 06:24 AM
RE: A Stomach Strong Enough for Atheism
(19-12-2012 06:04 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(19-12-2012 05:46 AM)Vera Wrote:  Yes, yes you know. But accepting it and admitting it to oneself is not easy.

In Science, we are not ashamed to say that we do not know something completely.
I am the same way with the concept or Theory of God.
I may have serious doubts about His existence, but I still have enough to hold on to the Theory as something to be considered.

Saying "Yes, yes you know(That God is yet another artificially created purpose)" would be like me telling you "Yes, yes you know that God does exist, yet you refuse to admit it."
I'm not going there because I don't believe that about humans.
I believe that every brain requires it's own process of elimination before it can make decisions on what it understands or believes. It's not that every brain subconciously knows that God does not exist, but just rebels against the idea.

(19-12-2012 05:46 AM)Vera Wrote:  In such a vast universe, 'must' is way too strong a word

Well, we could definitly start a debate here Wink

Do you have a Theory of other existing intelligent beings in the Universe?
Do you have evidence of their existence?
Is it Physical evidence or Circumstantial?

So far, if a person were to believe in other intelligent beings somewhere else in the Universe, they would have to rely on Circumstantial evidence rather than physical since we don't have anything physical to go by (Not as far as full-fledged intelligent beings).
So essentially, it goes into a similar category to a Theory of Intelligent Design. Until further knowledge has been discovered, we rely on circumstantial evidence.

I personally do think it's very possible that there are intelligent beings somewhere else in the Universe.


(19-12-2012 05:46 AM)Vera Wrote:  We are not too bad for the tiny, incomprehensibly insignificant and transient specks of dust that we are. Still doesn't mean we matter to the universe more that an ant.

Perhaps our capacity to become even greater through time is what makes us great. Not sure, but it appears that we are rare and interesting so far.


(19-12-2012 05:46 AM)Vera Wrote:  We are plagued by our self-awareness and the search for a meaning that's not there and knowledge that is so much beyond us, we cannot even grasp how much it is beyond us.

Exactly, there is vast knowledge yet to be had. Knowing that God does not exist is far-fetched. The same with knowing He does exist.
Without doubt the more to perplex matters, theologians have chosen to
say nothing about what their God is; they tell us what He is not. By
negations and abstractions they imagine themselves composing a real and
perfect being, while there can result from it but a being of human
reason. A spirit has no body; an infinite being is a being which is not
finite; a perfect being is a being which is not imperfect. Can any one
form any real notions of such a multitude of deficiencies or absence of
ideas? That which excludes all idea, can it be anything but nothingness?
To pretend that the divine attributes are beyond the understanding of
the human mind is to render God unfit for men. If we are assured that
God is infinite, we admit that there can be nothing in common between
Him and His creatures. To say that God is infinite, is to destroy Him
for men, or at least render Him useless to them.



God, we are told, created men intelligent, but He did not create them
omniscient: that is to say, capable of knowing all things. We conclude
that He was not able to endow him with intelligence sufficient to
understand the divine essence. In this case it is demonstrated that God
has neither the power nor the wish to be known by men. By what right
could this God become angry with beings whose own essence makes it
impossible to have any idea of the divine essence? God would evidently
be the most unjust and the most unaccountable of tyrants if He should
punish an atheist for not knowing that which his nature made it
impossible for him to know. - Jean Meslier



Can one honestly say that he is convinced of the existence of a being
whose nature is not known, who remains inaccessible to all our senses,
and of whose qualities we are constantly assured that they are
incomprehensible to us? In order to persuade me that a being exists, or
can exist, he must begin by telling me what this being is; in order to
make me believe the existence or the possibility of such a being, he
must tell me things about him which are not contradictory, and which do
not destroy one another; finally, in order to convince me fully of the
existence of this being, he must tell me things about him which I can
comprehend, and prove to me that it is impossible that the being to whom
he attributes these qualities does not exist. - Jean Meslier

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fstratzero's post
19-12-2012, 06:45 AM
RE: A Stomach Strong Enough for Atheism
(19-12-2012 04:37 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  
(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


Watch it again. You didn't understand it. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
19-12-2012, 07:18 AM
RE: A Stomach Strong Enough for Atheism
(19-12-2012 06:15 AM)Vera Wrote:  
(19-12-2012 06:04 AM)ideasonscribe Wrote:  I may have serious doubts about His existence, but I still have enough to hold on to the Theory as something to be considered.
Like what? Any evidence, that is demonstrable and retestable and not wishful thinking and metaphysical mumbo-jumbo?

Circumstantial in nature, yes. Physical, no.


(19-12-2012 06:15 AM)Vera Wrote:  
Quote:It's not that every brain subconciously knows that God does not exist, but just rebels against the idea.

Why would my brain rebel against the idea of its own creator? Unless this creator wasn't that skillful after all. (And original sin is not an answer).

Well, if God truly does exist, then surely our minds are purely still free to understand and believe whatever it learns. Being created to function without inherently believing in God from birth does not mean this creator is unskillful. Consequently, that also does not follow that He must not exist if we are able to not believe in Him.


(19-12-2012 06:15 AM)Vera Wrote:  
Quote:Perhaps our capacity to become even greater through time is what makes us great. Not sure, but it appears that we are rare and interesting so far.

What is so rare about us that sets us so far apart from the rest of the living beings on this planet? A bit of self-awareness is not nearly enough to justify how unbelievably inflated our egos are.

I believe our intelligence, as well as the rapid growth of our intelligence is what makes us so much different from everything else here.
Our ability to create massive cities, airplains based on aerodynamics, and iPads.
Our understanding of information, the concept of love and the ability to see into the vastness of the Universe.

I do think that humans far exceed other beings here on Earth. I am much more inclined to believe so than I am to believe that we're not much more advanced than a dog.


(19-12-2012 06:15 AM)Vera Wrote:  
Quote:Exactly, there is vast knowledge yet to be had. Knowing that God does not exist is far-fetched. The same with knowing He does exist.
Is knowing that unicorns, leprechauns and elves do not exist also far-fetched?

Not as far-fetched as others.
It's still just something we believe does not exist based on what we know about where it came from and logic.
You would possibly say the same about God.
Although, God holds more substance than the other ideas.
You may like to think it doesn't but it's pretty clear that it's a more widely held idea than the belief in Leprechauns - which still does nothing towards it's validity.
But the idea that God is a far-fetched idea does not take it out of or put it into existence.

“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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: