My Argument For God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-01-2015, 06:54 PM
RE: My Argument For God
(14-01-2015 06:52 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(14-01-2015 06:39 PM)pablo Wrote:  Laugh out load Aww, that's cute, now turn off the computer and go brush your teeth, it's almost bedtime little fella.

"Eternity" implies space-time. As far as we know, it's a property only of this universe. All you're doing is whacking off about THIS UNIVERSE. A real god has to be coherent apart from it. Your definition is utterly incoherent.

I specified this by saying that this finite cosmos, is a product of a larger much more ancient, infinite domain... Is this domain where 'God' resides?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2015, 07:05 PM
RE: My Argument For God
(14-01-2015 06:45 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  So where was the conflict with what I'm saying?? That is precisely what I've been alluding to.

Don't think I've indicated any conflict with what you're saying. ... But I could. I mean if you're into that shit and whatnot.

(14-01-2015 06:45 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  The reason why we don't realize we do this is because of our limited cognitive capacities.

Again. What you mean we, kemosabe? Worry about your own cognitive abilities and shit and don't presume to know mine.

"He walked into the shreds of flame. But they did not bite into his flesh, they caressed him and engulfed him without heat or combustion. With relief, with humiliation, with terror, he understood that he too was a mere appearance, dreamt by another."

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
14-01-2015, 07:15 PM
RE: My Argument For God
(14-01-2015 07:05 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(14-01-2015 06:45 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  So where was the conflict with what I'm saying?? That is precisely what I've been alluding to.

Don't think I've indicated any conflict with what you're saying. ... But I could. I mean if you're into that shit and whatnot.

(14-01-2015 06:45 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  The reason why we don't realize we do this is because of our limited cognitive capacities.

Again. What you mean we, kemosabe? Worry about your own cognitive abilities and shit and don't presume to know mine.

"He walked into the shreds of flame. But they did not bite into his flesh, they caressed him and engulfed him without heat or combustion. With relief, with humiliation, with terror, he understood that he too was a mere appearance, dreamt by another."

Wow, so we sorta agree on something?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2015, 07:22 PM (This post was last modified: 14-01-2015 07:25 PM by Peebothuhul.)
RE: My Argument For God
Okay... catch up after having to do stuff...


Still no reply to my innital effort and such, even after a polite request. (Though I understand the thread is moving/filling fast)

(14-01-2015 05:03 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Atheists have identified a certain thing, God,....

Again, no they have not. The theists keep defining god and the non/atheist looks around and simply says the theist definitions do not make sense in light of the reality around us. Is simple.

(14-01-2015 05:03 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  and run like hell in the opposite direction. God is the center piece of atheism. Most atheist whether they admit it or not still have a nagging feeling deep down that God might be real. If you say this is not true, you are a liar.

I have been polite, empathic towards your stated trauma and you have the gall to call myself (By inclusion) a liar?

Beware lest your standing in people's view drops even further.

(14-01-2015 05:09 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Ok, so let me get this straight, atheism has no beliefs,

Yes, that is correct.

(14-01-2015 05:09 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  but they tend to believe in science,

Facepalm

Do you not see how the word functions differently in those two comments/sentences? Are you possibly being less than honest with your understanding of the English language?

(14-01-2015 05:03 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  One thing they most certainly don't believe is real is their 'self' yet their 'self' seems to be quite concerned and bothered by what theists believe, but if you tell them this they say they aren't, but they really are. It's a maze of confusing definitions and beliefs and in the end it's all gibberish

I'm sorry. I truly am having trouble working out that sentence. Perhaps a longer version with a different approach for better communication/explanation?

(14-01-2015 05:03 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Well, it was nice chatting with you blokes, unfortunately I am left completely empty handed and with absolutely no evidence refuting the existence of God. And some substantial evidence in favor of him, unfortunately you can't seem to grasp what I have presented.

First. if you're going to use people's vernacular at least put some effort into doing so.

Secondly, and again, that is not how it works. The theist has the comments and the ideas and the stuff.... not the atheist/non-theist.

(14-01-2015 05:03 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  No brain scientists have any fucking idea what consciousness is.

Blink

Okay... you being a physicist... who works in the pharmaceutical industry (I think that's right? Was a long time since first post) .... Consider

Might have problems how other scientist do what it is that they do.....

(14-01-2015 05:03 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  There is no definition. These are new working definitions within the formal definitions of quantum theory. So if you ask who is backing up my argument? I'd say the founders of quantum theory.

That's just an appeal to authority.

(14-01-2015 05:03 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Also when I ask where my error was and all you say is "no it is wrong?" This is not proof I am wrong, this is your gut saying " he's wrong" with no evidence whatsoever.

People have (Including myself in the post you evidently have not read, even when politely asked) have provided proof about where you are wrong. You then saying people have not is.... odd....

(14-01-2015 05:03 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Give me irrefutable evidence as to why I am wrong.

No... people have done that. In many ways, shapes and forms. Even with citations which we've asked of you in return and not gotten.
So far, to the best of my knowledge. all you've given is 'God is because of teh feels' and... pretty much nothing more.

(14-01-2015 05:03 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  I also find it funny how I presenting the formal definitions of Wave Function collapse and it was completely in line with what I'm saying. And yet nobody replied...

Because (And remember, I'm not the physicist here) your definition could have been 100% spot on correct. The way[p/i] in which you used said definition could have been 100% [i]wrong.

(14-01-2015 05:03 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  It's very relevant. It implies that ALL matter is in a super positioned state throughout space-time and consciousness determines the outcome. The entire universe is just a construct of consciousness. All of it?? YES. This universe is a mere dream of an infinite being. It's duration of existence when compared to eternity is ZERO.

No.. seriously? Please stop saying that you can push clouds with your mind. It... it's just not a good thing to be doing.

(14-01-2015 05:03 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  So where was the conflict with what I'm saying?? That is precisely what I've been alluding to. The reason why we don't realize we do this is because of our limited cognitive capacities.

Blink

Okay... reading that gave me a "DAFAQ?" moment.........


*shakes head*

I am having grave doubts that "Mmhm1234" is the original creator of the opening post. Still... I am in fading hope that I may be wrong.

Much cheers to all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Peebothuhul's post
14-01-2015, 07:24 PM (This post was last modified: 14-01-2015 07:30 PM by mmhm1234.)
RE: My Argument For God
(14-01-2015 07:22 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Okay... catch up after having to do stufff...


Still no reply to my innital effort and such, even after a polite request. (Though I understand the thread is moving/filling fast)

(14-01-2015 05:03 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Atheists have identified a certain thing, God,....

Again, no they have not. The theists keep defining god and the non/atheist looks around and simply says the theist definitions do not make sense in light of the reality around us. Is simple.

(14-01-2015 05:03 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  and run like hell in the opposite direction. God is the center piece of atheism. Most atheist whether they admit it or not still have a nagging feeling deep down that God might be real. If you say this is not true, you are a liar.

I have been polite, empathic towards your stated trauma and you have the gall to call myself (By inclusion) a liar?

Beware lest your standing in people's view drops even further.

(14-01-2015 05:09 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Ok, so let me get this straight, atheism has no beliefs,

Yes, that is correct.

(14-01-2015 05:09 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  but they tend to believe in science,

Facepalm

Do you not see how the word functions differently in those two comments/sentences? Are you possibly being less than honest with your understanding of the English language?

(14-01-2015 05:03 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  One thing they most certainly don't believe is real is their 'self' yet their 'self' seems to be quite concerned and bothered by what theists believe, but if you tell them this they say they aren't, but they really are. It's a maze of confusing definitions and beliefs and in the end it's all gibberish

I'm sorry. I truly am having trouble working out that sentence. Perhaps a longer version with a different approach for better communication/explanation?

(14-01-2015 05:03 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Well, it was nice chatting with you blokes, unfortunately I am left completely empty handed and with absolutely no evidence refuting the existence of God. And some substantial evidence in favor of him, unfortunately you can't seem to grasp what I have presented.

First. if you're going to use people's vernacular at least put some effort into doing so.

Secondly, and again, that is not how it works. The theist has the comments and the ideas and the stuff.... not the atheist/non-theist.

(14-01-2015 05:03 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  No brain scientists have any fucking idea what consciousness is.

Blink

Okay... you being a physicist... who works in the pharmaceutical industry (I think that's right? Was a long time since first post) .... Consider

Might have problems how other scientist do what it is that they do.....

(14-01-2015 05:03 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  There is no definition. These are new working definitions within the formal definitions of quantum theory. So if you ask who is backing up my argument? I'd say the founders of quantum theory.

That's just an appeal to authority.

(14-01-2015 05:03 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Also when I ask where my error was and all you say is "no it is wrong?" This is not proof I am wrong, this is your gut saying " he's wrong" with no evidence whatsoever.

People have (Including myself in the post you evidently have not read, even when politely asked) have provided proof about where you are wrong. You then saying people have not is.... odd....

(14-01-2015 05:03 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Give me irrefutable evidence as to why I am wrong.

No... people have done that. In many ways, shapes and forms. Even with citations which we've asked of you. So far, to the best of my knowledge all you've given is 'God is because of teh feels" and... pretty much nothing more.

(14-01-2015 05:03 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  I also find it funny how I presenting the formal definitions of Wave Function collapse and it was completely in line with what I'm saying. And yet nobody replied...

Because (And remember, I'm not the physisict here) your definiton could have been 100% spot on correct. The way[p/i] in which you used said definition could have been 100% [i]wrong.

(14-01-2015 05:03 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  It's very relevant. It implies that ALL matter is in a super positioned state throughout space-time and consciousness determines the outcome. The entire universe is just a construct of consciousness. All of it?? YES. This universe is a mere dream of an infinite being. It's duration of existence when compared to eternity is ZERO.

No.. seriously? Please stop saying that you can push clouds with your mind. It... it's just not a good thing to be doing.

(14-01-2015 05:03 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  So where was the conflict with what I'm saying?? That is precisely what I've been alluding to. The reason why we don't realize we do this is because of our limited cognitive capacities.

Blink

Okay... reading that gave me a "DAFAQ?" moment.........


*shakes head*

I am having grave doubts that "Mmhm1234" is the original creator of the opening post. Still... I am in fading hope that I may be wrong.

Much cheers to all.

Why do you doubt I created it?? What specific do you want me to clear up for you? I'm sorry if I've offended you, I have nothing against atheists. But it's necessary to test my theories against harsh criticism, and you guys have certainly not let me down. Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2015, 07:25 PM
RE: My Argument For God
(14-01-2015 07:15 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  
(14-01-2015 07:05 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Don't think I've indicated any conflict with what you're saying. ... But I could. I mean if you're into that shit and whatnot.


Again. What you mean we, kemosabe? Worry about your own cognitive abilities and shit and don't presume to know mine.

"He walked into the shreds of flame. But they did not bite into his flesh, they caressed him and engulfed him without heat or combustion. With relief, with humiliation, with terror, he understood that he too was a mere appearance, dreamt by another."

Wow, so we sorta agree on something?

Have we disagreed on something in the past and I just don't recall? ... If we have I'm certain you were wrong. Tongue

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
14-01-2015, 07:26 PM
RE: My Argument For God
(14-01-2015 07:24 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  
(14-01-2015 07:22 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Okay... catch up after having to do stufff...


Still no reply to my innital effort and such, even after a polite request. (Though I understand the thread is moving/filling fast)


Again, no they have not. The theists keep defining god and the non/atheist looks around and simply says the theist definitions do not make sense in light of the reality around us. Is simple.


I have been polite, empathic towards your stated trauma and you have the gall to call myself (By inclusion) a liar?

Beware lest your standing in people's view drops even further.


Yes, that is correct.


Facepalm

Do you not see how the word functions differently in those two comments/sentences? Are you possibly being less than honest with your understanding of the English language?


I'm sorry. I truly am having trouble working out that sentence. Perhaps a longer version with a different approach for better communication/explanation?


First. if you're going to use people's vernacular at least put some effort into doing so.

Secondly, and again, that is not how it works. The theist has the comments and the ideas and the stuff.... not the atheist/non-theist.


Blink

Okay... you being a physicist... who works in the pharmaceutical industry (I think that's right? Was a long time since first post) .... Consider

Might have problems how other scientist do what it is that they do.....


That's just an appeal to authority.


People have (Including myself in the post you evidently have not read, even when politely asked) have provided proof about where you are wrong. You then saying people have not is.... odd....


No... people have done that. In many ways, shapes and forms. Even with citations which we've asked of you. So far, to the best of my knowledge all you've given is 'God is because of teh feels" and... pretty much nothing more.


Because (And remember, I'm not the physisict here) your definiton could have been 100% spot on correct. The way[p/i] in which you used said definition could have been 100% [i]wrong.


No.. seriously? Please stop saying that you can push clouds with your mind. It... it's just not a good thing to be doing.


Blink

Okay... reading that gave me a "DAFAQ?" moment.........


*shakes head*

I am having grave doubts that "Mmhm1234" is the original creator of the opening post. Still... I am in fading hope that I may be wrong.

Much cheers to all.

Why do you doubt I created it?? What specific do you want me to clear up for you bud?

Our consciousness experiences personal happiness.
The human nervous system unfolds into quantum success.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2015, 07:27 PM
RE: My Argument For God
Tackling consciousness without any Neuroscience under your belt and only a semester of intro to physics isn't going to get you very far.

You use the term observer incorrectly and reference entanglement, both are beginning subjects that you read about in your first semester of college physics.

You speak of collapsing a wave function and I'm not seeing anything from you that shows that you even understand this subject.

I personally don't know why we are conscious. I would be perfectly ok with all of my reactions based off of past experiences, instinct, etc, but for some reason, my conscious reactions have helped keep me alive, as it did my forefathers.

Being conscious is an advantage over reacting with only instincts.

I've often wondered how much of the brain could you chisel away until you were no longer conscious ?

But the thing is, we already know how to chemically induce unconsciousness. We can put people into comas.

Even when we are seemingly unconscious of this world, we still can be influenced by sensations our senses pick up when we dream. If there is a siren outside, we can hear that and our dreams can be effected by it.

So much of what you've said is assertion without any data to back it up.

You haven't presented any data for me to refute, nor any experiments so that I can attempt to duplicate your results.

Until then, enjoy the forum.

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
[+] 2 users Like Rahn127's post
14-01-2015, 07:31 PM
RE: My Argument For God
(14-01-2015 07:27 PM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Tackling consciousness without any Neuroscience under your belt and only a semester of intro to physics isn't going to get you very far.

You use the term observer incorrectly and reference entanglement, both are beginning subjects that you read about in your first semester of college physics.

You speak of collapsing a wave function and I'm not seeing anything from you that shows that you even understand this subject.

I personally don't know why we are conscious. I would be perfectly ok with all of my reactions based off of past experiences, instinct, etc, but for some reason, my conscious reactions have helped keep me alive, as it did my forefathers.

Being conscious is an advantage over reacting with only instincts.

I've often wondered how much of the brain could you chisel away until you were no longer conscious ?

But the thing is, we already know how to chemically induce unconsciousness. We can put people into comas.

Even when we are seemingly unconscious of this world, we still can be influenced by sensations our senses pick up when we dream. If there is a siren outside, we can hear that and our dreams can be effected by it.

So much of what you've said is assertion without any data to back it up.

You haven't presented any data for me to refute, nor any experiments so that I can attempt to duplicate your results.

Until then, enjoy the forum.

Thanks. Uhm so you don't think animals are conscious? Regarding comas, my view is that these things, sleep, anesthesia, etc, are mere perception, there is no discontinuation of consciousness, that is how it is perceived.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-01-2015, 07:33 PM
RE: My Argument For God
(14-01-2015 12:57 PM)Ace Wrote:  so far all I'm seeing is a mishmash of every argument theists have used so far with nothing new at all

Really? He didn't touch on the cosmological argument, or the argument from morality. This is an ontological argument with a quantum mechanical veneer and a dash of presuppositionalism.

(14-01-2015 01:01 PM)H4ym4n Wrote:  Can you get god to explane it to me please, or jesus or even ghost?

No offense, it's just that you are a sinner and are not to be trusted.

Wait, when did he ever mention the concept of sin, much less universal sin or talk about Jesus or the Holy Ghost? You're just stereotyping without even reading what he said. I can tell. The OP's facepalm in response to this was completely justified.

Seriously, people, we need to be better than this. The game can't just be see how fast we can drive the theists away with flames, stereotyping, and other forms of hostility. (Bucky, I'm looking at you here as well.)

(14-01-2015 01:15 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Heres a little math regarding limits at infinity that might clear up why I'm saying consciousness must be infinite. SO, any number 'n' divided by infinity equals zero.
and infinity divided by any number equals infinity.

If you don't exist for infinity you don't even exist…not even know. But if you are real, if you existence, then you exist for infinity.

As seemingly bizarre as the description is, the argument involves basic mathematical axiom regarding limits at infinity, the certainty of ones own existence, the fact the observable universe is finite, and nothing more.

When applied to the seeming paradoxes in physics the paradoxes don't exist. Resolving all paradoxes in one definition with three symbols is a symptom of a definition that is correct:

N/infinity=0
infinity/N=infinity

When this definition of consciousness is applied to on 'self', and the nature of one's origin, fate, and state of being, that paradox is also dismissed. We reside in an infinite domain, and we observe events (perception only) we selectively regard as progressing in a linear fashion in a non-infinite domain. The seemingly asymmetric forward progression of linear time is an artifact of the selection, not an inherent property of space-time.

Okay, small compulsory math-ocd-guy nitpick. Not every N/infinity=0. 0/infinity = no fucking clue.

Now for the serious response: this argument is a complete non-sequitur. You went from math-with-infinity, which is real (er, extended-real) to consciousness-is-infinite, which is not-even-true. You laid no roadwork between them. NONE. That's like saying, "bluebottle flies exists, therefore pigs fly". Other than the single word in common, the two have nothing to do with each other, and you provide no logical connection between them.

(14-01-2015 01:41 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  
(14-01-2015 01:37 PM)pablo Wrote:  You're right, I am ignorant of quantum physics, as many people are, that's why you use it to argue such a simple question. To decieve.
When you can't prove existence, you try to redefine it to fit your conclusions.
It's sneaky, and dishonest and you know it.
We are not here to refute you, you have the burden of proof and have failed.

I haven't deceived anyone. What would you like me to further explain and id be happy to. I didn't use QP to deceive you because you are ignorant, I used it because any argument that is not based on irrefutable scientific facts is simply an ideological argument and can be dismissed.

.... the lack of self-awareness is appalling.

Okay, lemme ask you this very simple question. Was your jump from "there is a basis for the consciousness outside the universe" to "God" based on irrefutable scientific fact? Because IIRC, you were done talking quantum mechanics by that point.

(14-01-2015 01:43 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  what is there to prove or disprove in that comment? I never even mentioned Jesus or ghosts or any of that stuff in my argument. Im not basing my argument off of spooky religious beliefs

ORIGINAL POST:

(14-01-2015 12:19 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Here are some quotes from different religions that back up what I am saying.

HINDUISM
“My dear brothers! Remember that you are not this perishable body of flesh and bones. You are the immortal, all pervading, Sat-Chit-Ananda Atman. Thou art Atman. Thou art living truth. Thou art Brahman. Thou art absolute consciousness.” -Sri Swami Sivananda

“The soul never takes birth and never dies at any time nor does it come into being again when the body is created. The soul is birthless, eternal, imperishable and timeless and is never terminated when the body is terminated.” -the Bhagavad Gita

ISLAM
“Allah is all in all. Allah sees you, and is with you, wherever you are, whatever you do.” -Quran

CHRISTIANITY
“And the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it.”-
Ecclesiastes 12:7

“Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?”-John 10:34

It seems that these quotes are alluding to the fact that you, your soul or consciousness, whatever you want to call it, is actually of the most high, God, especially Hinduism alludes to this fact. Brahman in Hindusism is essentially God or the supreme infinite from which all things originated. Atman in Hinduism means ‘inner-self’ or ‘soul’. Hinduisms goal is to realize that one’s true self (Atman) is identical with the transcendent self Brahman: If atman is brahman in a pot (the body), then one need merely break the pot to fully realize the primordial unity of the individual soul with the plentitude of being that was the absolute.

FacepalmFacepalmFacepalmFacepalm There aren't enough facepalm emotes on the internets.

Again, even if I were to buy into the entirety of your quantum mechanical arguments (and I don't), it got you to spiritualism or supernaturalism. NO FURTHER. Not to a god, and certainly not to a theistic god. If anything, you seem to be arguing for panentheism or pantheism at that point. The ONLY "evidence" you whipped out for a theistic god was religion... exactly what you just here said you weren't basing your arguments on.

(14-01-2015 01:57 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  
(14-01-2015 01:52 PM)pablo Wrote:  How does physics prove a non-physical entity?
At best you have a flawed hypothesis.

Im using physics not to prove god, but to prove consciousness #1 is the thing that really exists…#2 is infinite and eternal. If it is infinite then so are you, and you have eternity to fill in the details and answer your questions about if god is or is not real. Perhaps you will find the answer upon death, or you won't and you will cease to exist for infinity.

I'll give you #1. I agree with it, subject perhaps to some haggling over the meaning of the word "exists". (You seem to have more exotic ideas about the word means than I do.) #2, you gave no coherent support to at all, and the meaning of "infinite" in this context is extremely vague. I'd also be much more comfortable if an argument in which you have to prove #1 first, because without it #2 is meaningless, did not use claim #2 AS EVIDENCE several points throughout it. If you've proven #2 already, then you must have proven #1 already, and you're done. If you haven't, then using it as evidence is circular reasoning.

(14-01-2015 03:49 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  
(14-01-2015 03:23 PM)gofish! Wrote:  He's a cunt.

Anger, always a sign your fragile belief system is being threatened, or that you don't even have a understanding of the science that your beliefs hang on..but wait i thought atheists have no beliefs…so does this mean you don't even believe in science?

Anger is also a response to trying to play chess with someone -- here, an analogy with logical arguments conforming to certain rules -- only to have them knock over the pieces, crap on the board, and strut around like they won.

Just because A leads to C, doesn't mean C implies A, not if B also leads to C.

(14-01-2015 04:13 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  
(14-01-2015 03:51 PM)Fodder_From_The_Truth Wrote:  You keep accusing others here of not being educated enough to counter your arguments, but you don't even know what an atheist is...

...therefore, you might be a cunt.

Atheism in many schools of thought, is defined as a religion, although most people don't understand how this can be since it typically denies the existence of God. However, belief in God is not a requirement to be defined as a religion. There are also forms of atheism, which attempt alternate explanations for God, such as collective consciousness, and so on. The Supreme court recognizes Atheism as a religion and protects it as such.

In simple terms, absolute denial of the existence of God without proof is a belief system, a RELIGION. The counter argument 'you have failed to prove God's existence' is insufficient, a mere shifting of the burden of proof as a result of failing to produce such proof among yourselves. If you deny the existence of God without definitive proof, you are engaged in a belief system, by definition a religion, because Gods existence is the focus of your belief system, and that is a formal definition, LOOK IT UP.

I'm not particularly interested in Bill O'Reily's school of thought, and question his qualifications to teach such a school.

The Supreme court actually recognizes atheism as enjoying the same protections as a religion, which is not the same thing as it being a religion. ... also, the Supreme Court thinks corporations are people, and a bunch of other nutty stuff. In the end, though, anything coming out of the Court is a legal declaration or definition, rather than an actual truth. Indiana once tried to pass a law making the value of the irrational constant pi equal to 3.2. That couldn't have changed pi even if they had passed the law, and the Supreme Court couldn't change atheism even if IT tried.

You are confusing atheism with strong, gnostic atheism. Atheists as a larger group are simply absent a belief in the existence of a god. Strong, gnostic atheism would be the best fit for your description of "absolute denial of God".

In any case, you said to look it up? Okay! CHALLENGE ACCEPTED! From Wikipedia:

Quote:Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Gimme a moment. I'm going to find a bib and some salt for all that crow you're about to eat. Also, my respect for your "I know what I'm talking about and you don't when it comes to quantum mechanics, go look it up" attitude just dropped even lower. I didn't think that was possible.

You know what? Let's make a deal. You stop lying to us about what we believe... specifically, stop claiming that all atheists believe what only a rather narrow subset of atheists (strong, gnostic atheists) believe. It's not winning you any points and it's definitely not fooling us. In exchange, I shall refrain from claiming that because you are a vaguely-defined general theist, that you therefore belong to a narrow subset of theists.... oh, let's say the KKK. Really, it's exactly what you're doing to us, just turned around and aimed your direction. You don't do it to me, and I won't do it to you. Sound like a fair deal?

(14-01-2015 04:29 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  
(14-01-2015 04:24 PM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  Hello again. Please return and at least skim the huge post/reply I made to you?

Please?


That's great.... And in a great many other areas of thought it is NOT defined as a religion, so there's that.


And Buddhism is also an 'Atheistic' religion. Again, however, pointing to religions which are 'atheistic' still does not make the position of being an atheist a religion. Hope you can grok the difference?


That's nice. But there's a world outside your country. Perhaps you should look them up? Wink


Except, and here's the thing, many atheists are NOT doing that. They are NOT denying the existence of god. They are (As I've posted) calmly waiting for the evidence of any such.


What? No! You're now trying to 'create' an atheist that fits your definitions and not the whole possibility of the many varied shades of atheism.


Again, no. One can be an 'Agnostic atheist'. There's a whole slew of various shades.

To most atheists, the notion of gods simply doesn't count. It's not a matter of 'actively disbelieving'.

As for 'Denying the existence of something'. If there are definite, certified claims made about a specific something then these can and are tested against what is known of reality. if they don't match up with reality then, guess what? They are dismissed.

Much cheers to all.

Atheism:Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.

ok, so theism is certainly as valid if not more so than atheism. If atheists cannot produce any irrefutable evidence against God, then they are certainly engaged in a mere fragile belief system.

Oh, hey, you found that wikipedia article all on your own.

How is "irrefutable evidence against God" in any way a prerequisite for "the absence of belief that any deity exists"? Do I automatically believe a deity exists if I don't have irrefutable proof that one doesn't? How does this make any sense?

Atheism, in its inclusive, absence-of-belief form is ACTUALLY a fragile position because solid evidence of a deity (which you haven't actually offered) WILL shatter it. That's the nature of a null hypothesis. It resists poor evidence, but once solid evidence comes along it's gone forever. You can challenge it a thousand times, and you only need to get it right ONCE.

But you do need to get it right once. If you wish to persuade us, the burden of proof is yours.

(14-01-2015 04:32 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  
(14-01-2015 04:30 PM)pablo Wrote:  Just more dishonesty combined with staw-man.
I do admit you have no idea what you're talking about, you don't know the the difference between atheism and anti-theism.

You have to admit though, we've had quite the intriguing conversation here haven't we

Actually, it's distressingly similar to many of the theists who came through here, right down to the bad arguments, the arrogant assertion of authority, the insults, the misrepresentation of our opinions, and the insistence that it's our job to prove something to you when it is you who are attempting to persuade us.

(14-01-2015 04:54 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Ultimately is there any point in arguing with me??NOOO!!! None. We are dust in the wind, there is absolutely no point to anything anywhere because it all ends in oblivion. To make the argument 'but it matters now' is BS. No it does not. As many atheists have said, our consciousness is an illusion or a self monitoring system, you are essentially a robot. So with that in mind rape and murder are ok, because, since you will cease to exist your actions mean nothing. Rape is as noble as helping the homeless. We are an accident, you are an accident, heck if you were here in the same room and I held the same beliefs as you why would I not just kill you?? There are no reasons why a shouldn't. There is no morality it is a survival of the fittest and with that view in mind I should just approach life with a psychopathic mindset.

So as I said in the beginning, you believing or disbelieving in certain things at this moment doesn't matter, there is no point to anything anywhere.


What I have just stated is the heart of atheism, what a pitiable lot you all are.

You know, I thought I was going over the top on that KKK comment. I really did.

But I wasn't. I really wasn't. I thought I was, but then you started rolling around in the turdpile and proved I wasn't.

We do not regard rape and murder as okay, and we do find meaning in our existence. You are attempting to lie to us about what we do and don't believe, and that's an extremely, fundamentally stupid thing for you to do, BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY KNOW BETTER. Who the hell are you trying to convince? All you are doing is proving to us that you are prone to believing patently false things.

(14-01-2015 05:03 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Atheists have identified a certain thing, God, and run like hell in the opposite direction. God is the center piece of atheism. Most atheist whether they admit it or not still have a nagging feeling deep down that God might be real. If you say this is not true, you are a liar.

Actually I poked around everywhere that people said this god thing was and discovered either nothing there (though hey, maybe it's invisible!) or fricking mirages. I don't so much have a nagging feeling that this god thing might be true, as an itchy need to actually get a clear claim and a clear methodology for settling the question for good and moving on. And I'm pretty much unmoved when a liar calls me a liar. And to anyone out there who DOES have nagging feelings that something is true, THAT ISN'T PROOF, and no real scientist would say that it was. Next?

(14-01-2015 05:09 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Ok, so let me get this straight, atheism has no beliefs, but they tend to believe in science, one thing they most certainly don't believe is real is their 'self' yet their 'self' seems to be quite concerned and bothered by what theists believe, but if you tell them this they say they aren't, but they really are. It's a maze of confusing definitions and beliefs and in the end it's all gibberish

Atheism has no beliefs, though some atheists have some unrelated beliefs... much like being Virgo does not automatically mean that a particular book is your favorite, but you can have favorite books and still be a Virgo. Atheists tend to believe in science much in the same way that MOST people in MOST developed nations believe in science: it has shown itself to be a practical boon for improving our standard of living and our understanding of the universe, has great predictive power, and is generally opposed by positions with none of those virtues. Most atheists do believe that their "selves" exist and I remain confused about why you would assert otherwise. I, at least, am bothered by what theists believe because, in this country at least, theists have higher-than-average numbers of guns, distressing control of the government, and both desire and (so they think) god-given-mandate to use both in ways that are a detriment to us all. I am not, however, bothered by claims they make in the sense that what they are claiming is particularly plausible or threatening. My main cause for concern is how they act on their faith, not the content of their faith.

(14-01-2015 06:22 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  I also find it funny how I presenting the formal definitions of Wave Function collapse and it was completely in line with what I'm saying. And yet nobody replied...

Because the point of contention is not quantum mechanics, it's your weird interpretation of the consequences of quantum mechanics. You're asserting A implies B, and we're screaming, "no it doesn't!" and you're responding "what are you talking about, see? A is true!" That's not where you're wrong, that's why we're not refuting it.

(14-01-2015 06:28 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  
(14-01-2015 06:23 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  No shit, Sherlock. Same could be said of almost all of the holy scriptures of any religion (except maybe Veridicanism). Not like you're dropping a new and novel metaphysical shit turd.

"Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble." - Joseph Campbell

Settle down there girly man

Shocking

Shocking

......

ShockingShockingShockingShockingShockingShockingShockingShocking

OKAYI'mdonehereI'lljustclearoutforeverbeforemymindispermanentlybrokenascollatera​ldamagebuhbyenow!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Reltzik's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: