I thought you Atheists might be bored
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-04-2012, 07:26 AM
RE: I thought you Atheists might be bored
(30-04-2012 05:55 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(30-04-2012 01:57 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  We must never imagine killing people is a solution to anything.

What's to imagine? Sick of hearing about my Gwynnies? Kill me, and that's that. How is that not a solution? It is not immoral to kill, it is unethical. People get their heads full of PC fluff-n-stuff, start censoring their own thoughts, start to not have thoughts. Tongue


(29-04-2012 07:52 PM)gdemoss Wrote:  Either God exists or he does not.

You're a prophet of the extant god whereas I'm a prophet of the non-extant god. Tongue

There's a thing that continues to bug me about many theists. On one hand, they wanna preach a gospel of an omnigod; but then they wanna say idiotic crap like "first cause" or "either/or." Why is that? Because these theists are talking about themselves, not god. God can do both or neither, but a theist actually worships his own righteousness and seeks to inflict said righteousness upon others.
Re
"What's to imagine? Sick of hearing about my Gwynnies? Kill me, and that's that. How is that not a solution? It is not immoral to kill, it is unethical. People get their heads full of PC fluff-n-stuff, start censoring their own thoughts, start to not have thoughts."


You lost me. Ethics are moral principles, no?

And I don't trust my uncensored thoughts. Do you trust yours?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2012, 08:08 AM
RE: I thought you Atheists might be bored
Degrade the value of human life? I told you I find all life equally important, and I have a serious revulsion to a group o humans whose main tactic is to carpet bomb. The sheer amount of loss involved is staggering. Only in human society does death make such bad impact and only in "advanced" ones. Most tribes get that there is an amount of people that fits with the rest of thing and death is a good way to thin it out so that others won't die.

I fully understand your views on the matter and I'm not really here to argue. I gave you my opinion of how these sorts of things matter. I know full well that most everyone disagrees with how I see things, and that's perfectly fine. I gave you human examples because most here understand those better.

It would be kind of awkward if this made you think I was stupid, as is being slightly suggested. There are people with all sorts of divergent thoughts that are demonstrably intelligent. So no reverse halo effects, you guys should be better than that.

I'm not a non believer, I believe in the possibility of anything. I just don't let the actuality of something be determined by a 3rd party.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2012, 11:15 AM
RE: I thought you Atheists might be bored
Mark, dontchu know how to use the editor? Tongue

I consider ethics to be a statement of collective moralities, a development of civilization and compromise. Morality in turn is individual. Chemical intelligence. And all my thoughts are uncensored; I say wtf I want unless it is completely unethical. What I mean by that is certain topics seem to only provoke emotional outburst. Which of course was discovered by voicing those thoughts rather than censoring my own brain. That kinda thing leads to theism. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes houseofcantor's post
30-04-2012, 03:05 PM
RE: I thought you Atheists might be bored
May I ask what is this thread about? Huh

[Image: boston-terrier-gets-scared.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2012, 03:11 PM
RE: I thought you Atheists might be bored
(30-04-2012 03:05 PM)tazmin98 Wrote:  May I ask what is this thread about? Huh
It's about nine pages too long. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like houseofcantor's post
30-04-2012, 03:43 PM
RE: I thought you Atheists might be bored
(30-04-2012 08:08 AM)Lilith Pride Wrote:  Degrade the value of human life? I told you I find all life equally important, and I have a serious revulsion to a group o humans whose main tactic is to carpet bomb. The sheer amount of loss involved is staggering. Only in human society does death make such bad impact and only in "advanced" ones. Most tribes get that there is an amount of people that fits with the rest of thing and death is a good way to thin it out so that others won't die.

I fully understand your views on the matter and I'm not really here to argue. I gave you my opinion of how these sorts of things matter. I know full well that most everyone disagrees with how I see things, and that's perfectly fine. I gave you human examples because most here understand those better.

It would be kind of awkward if this made you think I was stupid, as is being slightly suggested. There are people with all sorts of divergent thoughts that are demonstrably intelligent. So no reverse halo effects, you guys should be better than that.
No no no...I'm not suggesting you are stupid. Just discussing the issues, BTW, I agree with 98% of what you write.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2012, 07:31 PM
RE: I thought you Atheists might be bored
(29-04-2012 08:46 PM)Dom Wrote:  Oh, I'll be the first to say that humans are limited in their perception and hence their knowledge. We can only recognize what we can perceive with our senses or reason with our brain.

So, as I usually say it, we really don't know shit.

But that doesn't mean that we have to have some god filling in all our gaps of knowledge. Do some research on what people used to think about lightning, and believed so fervently that using a lightning rod was blasphemy.

That is a perfect example of using god to fill in the gaps of knowledge.

We've come a long way since then, and the churches grudgingly and slowly accept some of the things that have become known to us.

But the nature of belief is that it is resistant to change, otherwise it would not be belief.
Dom, the whole God of the gaps thing eludes me as it just seems to prey upon the ignorance of foolish people. The God of the gaps thing assumes that if you can explain something that God is unnecessary. Which is insane. Just because 'I think' I know how something works doesn't preclude that I know absolutely everything about it as we have seen in history past where we have discovered new things about the very things we thought we already understood. This kind of reasoning is illogical. In the end it is quite possible that if we ever truly got down to the glue that holds everything together, we would have found God. But that is unfathomable to any 'Critical thinker'. Today we know about subatomic particles. What will we know tomorrow that will change what we think today? Is there an honest end to knowledge?

It has always been God and his design for creation that man has been studying and figuring out the nuts and bolts of. To say that God isn't necessary because we think we know something is pretty perplexing. The necessity of God isn't dependent upon our ability to explain things. You can't explain away God. You can, however, deceive yourself into believing you don't need God to exist by truly believing you understand how things work without the necessity of God by ruling out the spiritual realm because you have yet to learn how to detect it.

Gary
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2012, 07:36 PM
RE: I thought you Atheists might be bored
(30-04-2012 07:31 PM)gdemoss Wrote:  
(29-04-2012 08:46 PM)Dom Wrote:  Oh, I'll be the first to say that humans are limited in their perception and hence their knowledge. We can only recognize what we can perceive with our senses or reason with our brain.

So, as I usually say it, we really don't know shit.

But that doesn't mean that we have to have some god filling in all our gaps of knowledge. Do some research on what people used to think about lightning, and believed so fervently that using a lightning rod was blasphemy.

That is a perfect example of using god to fill in the gaps of knowledge.

We've come a long way since then, and the churches grudgingly and slowly accept some of the things that have become known to us.

But the nature of belief is that it is resistant to change, otherwise it would not be belief.
Dom, the whole God of the gaps thing eludes me as it just seems to prey upon the ignorance of foolish people. The God of the gaps thing assumes that if you can explain something that God is unnecessary. Which is insane. Just because 'I think' I know how something works doesn't preclude that I know absolutely everything about it as we have seen in history past where we have discovered new things about the very things we thought we already understood. This kind of reasoning is illogical. In the end it is quite possible that if we ever truly got down to the glue that holds everything together, we would have found God. But that is unfathomable to any 'Critical thinker'. Today we know about subatomic particles. What will we know tomorrow that will change what we think today? Is there an honest end to knowledge?

It has always been God and his design for creation that man has been studying and figuring out the nuts and bolts of. To say that God isn't necessary because we think we know something is pretty perplexing. The necessity of God isn't dependent upon our ability to explain things. You can't explain away God. You can, however, deceive yourself into believing you don't need God to exist by truly believing you understand how things work without the necessity of God by ruling out the spiritual realm because you have yet to learn how to detect it.

Gary
Proof? The Universe is not dependent on your fairy tale of choice, It is what it is.


There was a time when god was in the mountains, until we could climb the mountains.
Then it was the clouds, until we could fly and see that he wasn't in there. Now we are observing the universe, and he seemingly isn't there either.
You know what I call an immaterial, invisible, timeless, improbable being that has to be attributed things (such as "he's outside of reality" or "he's beyond understanding")? in order to gain context?
Nonexistent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2012, 07:46 PM (This post was last modified: 30-04-2012 07:48 PM by gdemoss.)
RE: I thought you Atheists might be bored
(29-04-2012 09:54 PM)robotworld Wrote:  Well, if the entire world followed what Jesus taught, I suppose the world will be a better place

I have a question, what if the whole world adhered to the teachings of Buddha? In my opinion, it will too make the world a better place. Or other moral philosophers, why not them? Why Jesus? Or better, follow ALL of them.

Excellent point. My answer: God led me to Jesus and not Buddha or the other philosophers.

Quote:If everyone is to be in peace with each other, and we do good for the sake of doing good, the world will be a better place indeed. However, Jesus is not the first and only person who brought up this concept. There are many others, some later than Jesus, some earlier than him. All of them promote the same thing...

I don't think this is true. Nobody in history has ever promoted Jesus morality. Show me one who taught just as he taught about things.

Quote:LIVE TOGETHER IN HARMONY AND STOP BICKERING OVER THE MOST TRIVIAL THINGS.

This is not what Jesus taught.

Quote:Also...
Quote:Either God exists or he does not. Either spiritual realm exists or it does not. I watched a video on the burden of proof in another thread and absolutely loved it. The absolute truth is if God exists then the burden of proof is on him and not us to prove his existence. I came to the conclusion that if there was a God then it would be his responsibility to lead me and not mine to figure out how to be led properly. My experience, which is easily discredited by carnal logical thinkers who give no credence to the spiritual realm, brought me to the understanding that God does exist and is in fact the God of the bible. Critical thinkers have come up with all kinds of interesting and logical ways to give reasonable doubt to everything that I experience but such reasonable doubt is always rooted in the logic which concedes that there is no God and therefore we must have a material answer for everything. Of course you can do that! It is absolutely irrefutable logic that is based solely in the material aspect of observable understanding. It's like turning on the radio in my car and knowing it works and being able to take it apart to its smallest parts and define the physical way every part comes together as a whole to bring life to the sounds I hear. I can do that. But if there is in fact an unobservant immaterial aspect that allows radio waves to travel or electricity to be, it gets discounted since we cannot observe it. Just because children can't see the puppet master doesn't mean the puppet master isn't there. There understanding is only lacking. The same with magicians. The understanding is lacking. Atheism is merely that which refuses to accept that which cannot be observed. I get that.
God is immaterial? Well, even immaterial phenomena can be detected through other medium. We cannot see infra-red with our eyes, but we can see them through infra-red cameras. Electricity? Through multimeters we can find the current and voltage. Gravity? The influence of black holes on its surrounding space.

In my opinion, maybe you should rephrase it this way...
"If God exists, he would have had exerted some influence on our planet. It is up to us to find this influence to prove his existence"

If you can find how God has influenced us through physical evidence, then your case holds strong. Otherwise, it is perceived by others to be a weak structure supported only by faith. God is a comforting hypothesis, but is there any evidence to back up this hypothesis?

Amitabha, my friend. Thank you for sharing with us your views Smile
[/quote]

This dies because it relies upon physical evidence of the spiritual realm. As I stated in other parts of this or other threads, when the spiritual realm engages the physical realm science only looks and interprets the physical evidence and then attributes the cause to something else physical without giving credence to the possibility that it was a spiritual cause. But this line of reasoning is considered idiotic in the critical thinking world. I only give it weight due to my experience in studying the claims of the bible about the spiritual realm and the lack of any failure on the part of the bible to explain to me what I need to know about it and how it interacts with the physical.

Gary




(30-04-2012 07:36 PM)angry-santa Wrote:  
(30-04-2012 07:31 PM)gdemoss Wrote:  Dom, the whole God of the gaps thing eludes me as it just seems to prey upon the ignorance of foolish people. The God of the gaps thing assumes that if you can explain something that God is unnecessary. Which is insane. Just because 'I think' I know how something works doesn't preclude that I know absolutely everything about it as we have seen in history past where we have discovered new things about the very things we thought we already understood. This kind of reasoning is illogical. In the end it is quite possible that if we ever truly got down to the glue that holds everything together, we would have found God. But that is unfathomable to any 'Critical thinker'. Today we know about subatomic particles. What will we know tomorrow that will change what we think today? Is there an honest end to knowledge?

It has always been God and his design for creation that man has been studying and figuring out the nuts and bolts of. To say that God isn't necessary because we think we know something is pretty perplexing. The necessity of God isn't dependent upon our ability to explain things. You can't explain away God. You can, however, deceive yourself into believing you don't need God to exist by truly believing you understand how things work without the necessity of God by ruling out the spiritual realm because you have yet to learn how to detect it.

Gary
Proof? The Universe is not dependent on your fairy tale of choice, It is what it is.


There was a time when god was in the mountains, until we could climb the mountains.
Then it was the clouds, until we could fly and see that he wasn't in there. Now we are observing the universe, and he seemingly isn't there either.
You know what I call an immaterial, invisible, timeless, improbable being that has to be attributed things (such as "he's outside of reality" or "he's beyond understanding")? in order to gain context?
Nonexistent.
It really is silly that you base your knowledge on the ignorance of men who came before you.

Gary
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2012, 08:11 PM (This post was last modified: 30-04-2012 08:15 PM by angry-santa.)
RE: I thought you Atheists might be bored
(30-04-2012 07:46 PM)gdemoss Wrote:  
(29-04-2012 09:54 PM)robotworld Wrote:  Well, if the entire world followed what Jesus taught, I suppose the world will be a better place

I have a question, what if the whole world adhered to the teachings of Buddha? In my opinion, it will too make the world a better place. Or other moral philosophers, why not them? Why Jesus? Or better, follow ALL of them.

Excellent point. My answer: God led me to Jesus and not Buddha or the other philosophers.

Quote:If everyone is to be in peace with each other, and we do good for the sake of doing good, the world will be a better place indeed. However, Jesus is not the first and only person who brought up this concept. There are many others, some later than Jesus, some earlier than him. All of them promote the same thing...

I don't think this is true. Nobody in history has ever promoted Jesus morality. Show me one who taught just as he taught about things.

Quote:LIVE TOGETHER IN HARMONY AND STOP BICKERING OVER THE MOST TRIVIAL THINGS.

This is not what Jesus taught.

Quote:Also...
God is immaterial? Well, even immaterial phenomena can be detected through other medium. We cannot see infra-red with our eyes, but we can see them through infra-red cameras. Electricity? Through multimeters we can find the current and voltage. Gravity? The influence of black holes on its surrounding space.

In my opinion, maybe you should rephrase it this way...
"If God exists, he would have had exerted some influence on our planet. It is up to us to find this influence to prove his existence"

If you can find how God has influenced us through physical evidence, then your case holds strong. Otherwise, it is perceived by others to be a weak structure supported only by faith. God is a comforting hypothesis, but is there any evidence to back up this hypothesis?

Amitabha, my friend. Thank you for sharing with us your views Smile

This dies because it relies upon physical evidence of the spiritual realm. As I stated in other parts of this or other threads, when the spiritual realm engages the physical realm science only looks and interprets the physical evidence and then attributes the cause to something else physical without giving credence to the possibility that it was a spiritual cause. But this line of reasoning is considered idiotic in the critical thinking world. I only give it weight due to my experience in studying the claims of the bible about the spiritual realm and the lack of any failure on the part of the bible to explain to me what I need to know about it and how it interacts with the physical.

Gary




(30-04-2012 07:36 PM)angry-santa Wrote:  Proof? The Universe is not dependent on your fairy tale of choice, It is what it is.


There was a time when god was in the mountains, until we could climb the mountains.
Then it was the clouds, until we could fly and see that he wasn't in there. Now we are observing the universe, and he seemingly isn't there either.
You know what I call an immaterial, invisible, timeless, improbable being that has to be attributed things (such as "he's outside of reality" or "he's beyond understanding")? in order to gain context?
Nonexistent.

Quote:It really is silly that you base your knowledge on the ignorance of men who came before you.

Gary



Laughat Laughat Laughat Laughat Laughat

Ignorance, From someone who is telling me to base my perceptions of reality on the wafer thin premise of an invisible man?

That is a laugh riot

My knowledge just like yours comes from the collective efforts of multiple generations learning things and then recording and teaching those things to the next generation to make life simpler, I got my knowledge from Books,Teachers,And School I can see why these things frighten you but it is what it is.

Ignorance of men hat came before me, why not just cut to the chase already and say "Sceince and maffs caynts disprove mur god so hes real"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes angry-santa's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: