Atheists are not superior...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-07-2015, 05:26 PM
RE: Atheists are not superior...
It's not bad enough that theists come here to tell us that we are wrong about not believing in a god...now we have atheists (cough, cough) telling us we are atheisting wrong. Facepalm

See here they are the bruises some were self-inflicted and some showed up along the way. - JF

We're all mad here. The Cheshire Cat
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 6 users Like Anjele's post
11-07-2015, 05:32 PM
RE: Atheists are not superior...
(11-07-2015 05:10 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  Wiki is your source? Rolleyes Here let me help you, show you how its done...for example, lets discuss how the christian triune concept was established....

A paper I wrote on this....notice I don't use wiki, or "I think blah blah blah"...


The development of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity-----

Don't worry about wiki. It's a simple postulation with a reliable reference.

As far as the trinity is concerned, I am surprised that you didn't go further back to Pythagoras or the Zoroaster. The development of number and geometry mixes with the concepts of good and evil, male and female etc. Christianity stole everything it has from the Greeks and everything before it.

That is it's true origin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2015, 05:33 PM
RE: Atheists are not superior...
(11-07-2015 05:26 PM)Anjele Wrote:  It's not bad enough that theists come here to tell us that we are wrong about not believing in a god...now we have atheists (cough, cough) telling us we are atheisting wrong. Facepalm

The is only ONE way to atheist ... his way, damnit.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Bucky Ball's post
11-07-2015, 05:37 PM
RE: Atheists are not superior...
(11-07-2015 05:18 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  
(11-07-2015 04:44 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Bullshit.

How many atheists did you poll to cook up this crap ?
Oh. None ?
Atheism is nothing other than a lack of belief in the gods.
Nothing else.

You're wrong about light. Color is emitted from atoms (photons) in discrete energy levels which impart color. That is VERY specific.
Do try to get some science education some day.

Things "outside" of nature is farfetched. Name 10 people who believe in light beyond the visible spectrum before science discovered it ? The fact is your point is irrelevant. They didn't predict that non-visible light was "supernatural" or "outside of nature" only that we couldn't detect it yet.
Thanks for the ''fallacy of the false analogy"

If we need idiots to tell us what to do and what not to do, we'll be sure and ask.
Meanwhile :
Go fuck yourself
.

You are very hostile. It's sad. I suggest you should try to show people a little courtesy in future.

I have been an atheist all my life - and it is exactly this sort of response that give us a bad name.

And it's your kind of presumptuous patronizing superior attitude that giveS (not give ... THIS is singular, thus the verb is singular) people in general who think they need to go around giving advice to people they don't know a bad name.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
11-07-2015, 05:38 PM
RE: Atheists are not superior...
(11-07-2015 05:23 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(11-07-2015 05:18 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  You are very hostile. It's sad. I suggest you should try to show people a little courtesy in future.

I have been an atheist all my life - and it is exactly this sort of response that give us a bad name.

Nope.

You got all the respect that you deserve.
Are you are SO stupid you think it courteous to judge people you know nothing about and give advice that was asked for, then on top of that give even MORE advice about "courtesy" ? You presumptuously made a series of false assumptions (ie you LIED) about people you never even met. No one here EVER ONCE said they were "superior", you moron.
You presumptuously decided you patronizingly needed to give us advice that had not been asked for. THAT is FAR more hostile and disrespectful than what I said. I respect myself the members of this forum FAR FAR more than "superior" morons who think we need unsolicited advice.

YOU are the one that is disrespectful.

Fool.

No no - I go by my first reaction anyways. You are hostile, and you totally misunderstand my post. Never mind - I don't really give a shit what somebody like you thinks really.

Go bother somebody who will give you what you so desperately are failing to provoke from me Big Grin

Ha ha.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2015, 05:40 PM (This post was last modified: 11-07-2015 05:45 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Atheists are not superior...
(11-07-2015 05:38 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  
(11-07-2015 05:23 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Nope.

You got all the respect that you deserve.
Are you are SO stupid you think it courteous to judge people you know nothing about and give advice that was asked for, then on top of that give even MORE advice about "courtesy" ? You presumptuously made a series of false assumptions (ie you LIED) about people you never even met. No one here EVER ONCE said they were "superior", you moron.
You presumptuously decided you patronizingly needed to give us advice that had not been asked for. THAT is FAR more hostile and disrespectful than what I said. I respect myself the members of this forum FAR FAR more than "superior" morons who think we need unsolicited advice.

YOU are the one that is disrespectful.

Fool.

No no - I go by my first reaction anyways. You are hostile, and you totally misunderstand my post. Never mind - I don't really give a shit what somebody like you thinks really.

Go bother somebody who will give you what you so desperately are failing to provoke from me Big Grin

Ha ha.

"anyways" ... Weeping
Your English is as bad as your science.

Quote:"So we use our imagination, and science tests imaginary theories and designs instruments to define more and more of the universe. The things we have not yet discovered are still outside our range of what we have already defined as nature. Even if we have evidence of similar things, we cannot know the supernatural in the material sense, as the very act of discovery reveals it as plain old nature. Schroedingers cat is neither dead nor alive in its box. This is a supernatural state"

It is NOT a "supernatural" state. No Physicist says that, and you can find NO text or article that says that. are you like 12 ? I see you have NO understanding of physics, ... either light or quantum states.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-07-2015, 05:52 PM
RE: Atheists are not superior...
Knowledge is superior to unsupported belief.
Measurement superior to guessing.
Rational thought superior to irrational thought.
Useful scientific predictions based on evidence is superior to prophecy
Medicine superior to prayer
Engineering achievements that build sky scrapers superior to mud huts.


The stable nature of nature allows us to discover laws of physics

So seriously, I don't know what the fuck you are talking about.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like Rahn127's post
11-07-2015, 05:52 PM
RE: Atheists are not superior...
(11-07-2015 03:49 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  It seems that most Athiests are trying to define the world in very exact terms. The idea is that Atheism is superior to Theism because it relies on specific evidence with science as it’s backbone. Exactness does not appear in nature though, so in some sense this strive for exactness is unatural. What I'm talking about is the idea that only logic can define pure and perfect objects such as numbers or points and co-ordinates. We imagine things such as perfectly rounded objects with clean boundaries in empty spaces, whereas nature is much more messy and is made of hard to define particles in various groupings with energy and forces moving in waves. Nature does nothing that is ever stable or can be exactly defined at any given point, as it is under constant change (the uncertainty principle)
A good example of trying to define exactness in the natural world is color. There is no boundary between colors in the light spectrum, just an infinite number of shades of color where blue changes into green and into yellow etc.. The frequency of light also extends beyond our vision and logically too beyond our instruments. We could find infinite terms to describe infinite shades of light, but we see a loosely defined band of 7 stripes or shades of color and we measure a number of invisible frequency bands on either side of our visible spectrum. (eg. infrared, ultraviolet, gamma, xrays and microwaves).
Another example of the loose definition in nature might be under an imaginary super powerful electron microscope where the boundary between the particles that makeup your hand and the air in front of it becomes vague. The closer you look, the more the boundary between you and the air disappears - or the more air there is in you. You are also loosing bits of yourself at an alarming rate into the air, and at the same time you are also dependent on the air to breath. So at what point do you precisely cease being you and become part of the air around you - or vice versa?
When we put an object boundary around anything, we define it only in loose visual terms from some point of consciousness, in reality everything is part of the same universe of particles and forces - which is the most simple general idea of reality that we can ever create. At the same time the universe is the most complex object we know of, in that it contains all other objects inside it. We have no idea if it is infinite or finite – inward or outward.

The idea that there is something outside of nature or supernatural is not so far fetched even though Atheists claim to be resistant to believe it eg. light continues beyond the range of the eye. We can’t see it, yet we are happy about it because we have evidence of it through machines that can measure it. Evidence hasn’t always been available though, and yet some people still believed it possible – were they stupid?. If you are seeking to define evidence of light outside the visible spectrum using the human eye alone, then you will not find it. How could you ever possibly define something that is outside the range of the tool that you use to identify it with? The intelligent mind would not expect evidence of any kind using the human tool - it would be happy enough with the pure theory and belief that it was there. This is the essence of the human belief system - to imagine beyond our senses. The same applies to the supernatural imagination that lies outside of the measurable spectrum.

So we use our imagination, and science tests imaginary theories and designs instruments to define more and more of the universe. The things we have not yet discovered are still outside our range of what we have already defined as nature. Even if we have evidence of similar things, we cannot know the supernatural in the material sense, as the very act of discovery reveals it as plain old nature. Schroedingers cat is neither dead nor alive in its box. This is a supernatural state - it is not natural because nature always defines state. Therefore we have to look inside the box to reveal nature - but the supernatural state exists within us until we do.

OK so what's my point?. My point is that Atheists and Theists are really using the same methods and there is no fundamental difference in how our human minds work. One side is no more superior than the other. We all have a clear idea of the supernatural state and what we might imagine to find beyond nature, and we all use information and belief systems to support it. The difference is that to the theist - the cat's state can be certain whilst being supernatural at the same time though belief.
To defend theism I would suggest that it is hampered by conservative traditions that inhibit it's development in the modern world. To it's advantage and at it’s center it has spirituality. which is a very personal human device that measures mood and feeling in a similarly imperfect way to the eye that measures the spectrum of light. There may be invisible supernatural dimensions to spirituality, but they are highly subjective and undetectable by the hardware. It is pointless for Atheists to expect to find exterior evidence of spirituality, when it is in itself an internal and personal meter.

I am an Atheist, the reason being that I don’t personally believe in any of the intelligent deity solutions to the cosmos or in the organized religion idea. I see so much shit spread by Atheists who think that they are superior to religious people, simply because they imagine that they don't blindly believe in the supernatural – yet science does it and they do it everyday!. You cannot take the high ground, exactly because we all are inclined to believe in something – with or without evidence of it in the natural world. We are all to some extent religious too - in the sense that we have intuition and we use it to support and organize our beliefs.

So please stop giving theistic religious people a hard time for just supporting the idea of belief and for using their intuition – it discredits Atheism and it's really just human nature at work. Sure the Bible is always going to be full of crap – even more so as time goes by. Tradition is a tribal inheritance and there will always be stupid outdated theories passed down to both intellectuals and to ordinary people alike. I always try to point these out and I'm devoted to it.
BUT - religion and theism are not really based on stupidity in themselves. Truth, wonder and mystery are the driving forces of human development, and spirituality (the persuit of internal happiness) does not pose a problem with an Atheistic philosophy. I think we should remember that and resist taking the high ground as Atheists.

Xeb.

Wow... How can you write so much say nothing at all. I don't think you have a clue what science is, I don't think you have a clue what atheism is either.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like xieulong's post
11-07-2015, 06:17 PM
RE: Atheists are not superior...
(11-07-2015 05:52 PM)xieulong Wrote:  
(11-07-2015 03:49 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  It seems that most Athiests are trying to define the world in very exact terms. The idea is that Atheism is superior to Theism because it relies on specific evidence with science as it’s backbone. Exactness does not appear in nature though, so in some sense this strive for exactness is unatural. What I'm talking about is the idea that only logic can define pure and perfect objects such as numbers or points and co-ordinates. We imagine things such as perfectly rounded objects with clean boundaries in empty spaces, whereas nature is much more messy and is made of hard to define particles in various groupings with energy and forces moving in waves. Nature does nothing that is ever stable or can be exactly defined at any given point, as it is under constant change (the uncertainty principle)
A good example of trying to define exactness in the natural world is color. There is no boundary between colors in the light spectrum, just an infinite number of shades of color where blue changes into green and into yellow etc.. The frequency of light also extends beyond our vision and logically too beyond our instruments. We could find infinite terms to describe infinite shades of light, but we see a loosely defined band of 7 stripes or shades of color and we measure a number of invisible frequency bands on either side of our visible spectrum. (eg. infrared, ultraviolet, gamma, xrays and microwaves).
Another example of the loose definition in nature might be under an imaginary super powerful electron microscope where the boundary between the particles that makeup your hand and the air in front of it becomes vague. The closer you look, the more the boundary between you and the air disappears - or the more air there is in you. You are also loosing bits of yourself at an alarming rate into the air, and at the same time you are also dependent on the air to breath. So at what point do you precisely cease being you and become part of the air around you - or vice versa?
When we put an object boundary around anything, we define it only in loose visual terms from some point of consciousness, in reality everything is part of the same universe of particles and forces - which is the most simple general idea of reality that we can ever create. At the same time the universe is the most complex object we know of, in that it contains all other objects inside it. We have no idea if it is infinite or finite – inward or outward.

The idea that there is something outside of nature or supernatural is not so far fetched even though Atheists claim to be resistant to believe it eg. light continues beyond the range of the eye. We can’t see it, yet we are happy about it because we have evidence of it through machines that can measure it. Evidence hasn’t always been available though, and yet some people still believed it possible – were they stupid?. If you are seeking to define evidence of light outside the visible spectrum using the human eye alone, then you will not find it. How could you ever possibly define something that is outside the range of the tool that you use to identify it with? The intelligent mind would not expect evidence of any kind using the human tool - it would be happy enough with the pure theory and belief that it was there. This is the essence of the human belief system - to imagine beyond our senses. The same applies to the supernatural imagination that lies outside of the measurable spectrum.

So we use our imagination, and science tests imaginary theories and designs instruments to define more and more of the universe. The things we have not yet discovered are still outside our range of what we have already defined as nature. Even if we have evidence of similar things, we cannot know the supernatural in the material sense, as the very act of discovery reveals it as plain old nature. Schroedingers cat is neither dead nor alive in its box. This is a supernatural state - it is not natural because nature always defines state. Therefore we have to look inside the box to reveal nature - but the supernatural state exists within us until we do.

OK so what's my point?. My point is that Atheists and Theists are really using the same methods and there is no fundamental difference in how our human minds work. One side is no more superior than the other. We all have a clear idea of the supernatural state and what we might imagine to find beyond nature, and we all use information and belief systems to support it. The difference is that to the theist - the cat's state can be certain whilst being supernatural at the same time though belief.
To defend theism I would suggest that it is hampered by conservative traditions that inhibit it's development in the modern world. To it's advantage and at it’s center it has spirituality. which is a very personal human device that measures mood and feeling in a similarly imperfect way to the eye that measures the spectrum of light. There may be invisible supernatural dimensions to spirituality, but they are highly subjective and undetectable by the hardware. It is pointless for Atheists to expect to find exterior evidence of spirituality, when it is in itself an internal and personal meter.

I am an Atheist, the reason being that I don’t personally believe in any of the intelligent deity solutions to the cosmos or in the organized religion idea. I see so much shit spread by Atheists who think that they are superior to religious people, simply because they imagine that they don't blindly believe in the supernatural – yet science does it and they do it everyday!. You cannot take the high ground, exactly because we all are inclined to believe in something – with or without evidence of it in the natural world. We are all to some extent religious too - in the sense that we have intuition and we use it to support and organize our beliefs.

So please stop giving theistic religious people a hard time for just supporting the idea of belief and for using their intuition – it discredits Atheism and it's really just human nature at work. Sure the Bible is always going to be full of crap – even more so as time goes by. Tradition is a tribal inheritance and there will always be stupid outdated theories passed down to both intellectuals and to ordinary people alike. I always try to point these out and I'm devoted to it.
BUT - religion and theism are not really based on stupidity in themselves. Truth, wonder and mystery are the driving forces of human development, and spirituality (the persuit of internal happiness) does not pose a problem with an Atheistic philosophy. I think we should remember that and resist taking the high ground as Atheists.

Xeb.

Wow... How can you write so much say nothing at all. I don't think you have a clue what science is, I don't think you have a clue what atheism is either.

No atheist writes about things in a ''supernatural state". He/she is just a liar.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
11-07-2015, 06:23 PM
RE: Atheists are not superior...
(11-07-2015 04:30 PM)xeberdee Wrote:  As an scientist, I have to have confidence in my theory or my idea. Faith is not a dirty word.

Confident enough to bother to test it. But you better leave that shit at the door when you go test it. Faith is a dirty word. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." - Hebrews 11:1 (KJV) That shit's gonna invalidate your results.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: