So, tell me, is this place mainly strong atheism?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-09-2015, 04:09 PM
RE: So, tell me, is this place mainly strong atheism?
(21-09-2015 03:57 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  
(21-09-2015 02:10 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  You know, once you get done with the apprentice level parlor tricks like levitation, if you study real hard, you may be ready someday for the next level....are you ready dear friend? Here....embrace the next level....Breatharianism.

Inedia (Latin for "fasting") or breatharianism /brɛθˈɛəriənɪzəm/ is the belief that it is possible for a person to live without consuming food. Breatharians claim that food, and in some cases water, are not necessary for survival, and that humans can be sustained solely by prana, the vital life force in Hinduism.

yup, that is some next level shit right there, and may I say, I wholeheartedly endorse it...the more who convert, the better the world will be, we are over-populated it seems. here is some links for your quest to true awareness:

http://breatharian.com/breatharians.html

edit: I think I'm going to go soak up some toxins right now.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inedia

http://www.breatharian.com/wileybrooks.html

or clicky some educational videos since that seems to be your medium of choice...













May your journey be an enriching one

Big Grin

I did a little google search on the guy in your first video, named Wiley Brooks. Here's a bit of what someone wrote about him on a forum. This forum is called CureZone.

http://www.curezone.org/forums/am.asp?i=340502

"he booked a dining hall in a local hotel and charged people different amounts of money to teach them the "secrets of the ancients." how much people were charged depended on the person and how many secrets they wanted to know. the prices were anywhere from $5,000 to $30,000.

in the midst of all this Wiley was caught coming out of a local 7-11 with his arms full of hostess twinkies and other assorted garbage food. he explained that he used these items to draw out the toxins in his body and only someone with extensive breatharian experience could eat those things for that purpose. Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load


"he was caught other times eating food at various places by local residents. eventually, confronted with the evidence, Wiley admitted he ate food but only to "soak up toxins." in more recent interviews Wiley fully acknowledges that he eats "double cheeseburgers from dairy queen." this of course is only to detoxify."

This person goes on to say.

"no one to my knowledge ever became a breatharian or even recieved any more knowledge from wiley's $10,000 seminars than you could get reading at the local new age bookstore. he left town in dishonor. he is a local legend in the Santa Cruz area, ask anyone who has lived there for long, there are many many Wiley Brooks stories, none of them good."


TongueLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadBig Grin

Isn't it amazing what people will line up and pay money for? Shit, I can spin a good story, why don't I try this? Oh damn that is right, that damn conscience of mine Angry

"Belief is so often the death of reason" - Qyburn, Game of Thrones

"The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them." -Hans Conzelmann (1915-1989)
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes goodwithoutgod's post
21-09-2015, 05:02 PM
RE: So, tell me, is this place mainly strong atheism?
(21-09-2015 04:09 PM)goodwithoutgod Wrote:  
(21-09-2015 03:57 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  I did a little google search on the guy in your first video, named Wiley Brooks. Here's a bit of what someone wrote about him on a forum. This forum is called CureZone.

http://www.curezone.org/forums/am.asp?i=340502

"he booked a dining hall in a local hotel and charged people different amounts of money to teach them the "secrets of the ancients." how much people were charged depended on the person and how many secrets they wanted to know. the prices were anywhere from $5,000 to $30,000.

in the midst of all this Wiley was caught coming out of a local 7-11 with his arms full of hostess twinkies and other assorted garbage food. he explained that he used these items to draw out the toxins in his body and only someone with extensive breatharian experience could eat those things for that purpose. Laugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out load


"he was caught other times eating food at various places by local residents. eventually, confronted with the evidence, Wiley admitted he ate food but only to "soak up toxins." in more recent interviews Wiley fully acknowledges that he eats "double cheeseburgers from dairy queen." this of course is only to detoxify."

This person goes on to say.

"no one to my knowledge ever became a breatharian or even recieved any more knowledge from wiley's $10,000 seminars than you could get reading at the local new age bookstore. he left town in dishonor. he is a local legend in the Santa Cruz area, ask anyone who has lived there for long, there are many many Wiley Brooks stories, none of them good."


TongueLaugh out loadLaugh out loadLaugh out loadBig Grin

Isn't it amazing what people will line up and pay money for? Shit, I can spin a good story, why don't I try this? Oh damn that is right, that damn conscience of mine Angry


It's amazing, isn't it.

Consider

Welp, it time to "soak up some toxins". Gotta make dinner.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
21-09-2015, 05:44 PM (This post was last modified: 21-09-2015 05:49 PM by Reltzik.)
RE: So, tell me, is this place mainly strong atheism?
Sigh.

Okay. This flame war isn't really about the idea you're trying to present, Obie. It's about a fundamental disconnect at the level of epistemology. You have one method of epistemology and we have a different one. You're basically insisting that we either utilize or at least respect your epistemological method when we find it ludicrous. So rather than wasting a lot more forum pages arguing about your ideas of persistent consciousness, it's time to take a timeout from the general flame war and have a serious, mature discussion about epistemology. Once we've done that we can return to the idea itself and discuss it in light of the different epistemologies in play.

If you're not familiar with the term, epistemology refers to the methods by which we evaluate whether some idea we encounter is true or false. The literalist Christian view of "it's in the Bible so it's true" is an epistemology (though not necessarily a good one). The scientific method is an epistemology. Taking a poll of leading experts and going along with whatever they say is an epistemology. Believing it because your parents believed it is an epistemology. Whatever gets you to a decision (correct or incorrect or even non-committal) about whether some claim is true or false is an epistemology.

That said, there are good and bad epistemologies. Good epistemologies are ones that tend to endorse true statements and reject false statements. Bad epistemologies are ones that don't do this, or do it only erratically. With this in mind, we can establish some pretty self-evident guidelines for what makes a good epistemology:

(1) It should be conclusion-independent. That is to say, it shouldn't arbitrarily deem some conclusions true and others false ahead of time. If it does that, it's not truly your epistemology, because whatever it was that led you to arbitrarily decide some things were true or false ahead of time is part of your epistemology.

(2) The epistemological golden rule: If you would not buy into this method if used for a viewpoint you initially disagree with, it's not a good method. If you won't accept the existence of the Christian God because of "I say so, are you calling me a liar?", then you probably shouldn't demand that others accept your position because on those same grounds. Similarly, if you WOULD accept an epistemology in support of your own position, you should accept it in support of a position you oppose. Otherwise we'd have to ask why you accept it in one moment and refuse to accept it in another, and that will likely run afoul of conclusion-independence.

(3) Self-Correction: It should be capable not just of evaluating new ideas, but correcting errors that we already hold.

(4) It should in some logical way connect to the feature of reality we're trying to evaluate for truth. "I flip a coin to decide whether it's true" isn't a good epistemology unless we're trying to determine the truth of some claim about flipping coins.

(5) It should value internal-consistency, and not decide that two mutually exclusive propositions are both true.

(6) It should honor uncertainty. In cases of uncertainty, it should err on the side of saying "I don't know" or "there's no basis for drawing that conclusion" rather than outright evaluating a claim as true or false. That should be the default. This is because it's a lot easier to come back and modify this sort of uncertain position once we have more to base a conclusion on, than it is to go back and expunge a false belief (and all the other conclusions we wrongly based on it). Also, for every position we can propose, there's usually dozens of positions that contradict it, so any one picked at random is more likely false than true.

(7) It should focus on relevant features. We have no need to determine if Russel's Teapot is true or false in order to decide that redheads like me sunburn easy. It's not relevant to the question. Similarly, if some proposition doesn't impact our lives in any meaningful way, we are well justified in walking away from it and saying "it might be an interesting academic discussion, but I really don't give a fuck," because it's not relevant to anything we care about.

With all this in mind, let's go back and look at your contributions to this board so far.

Post 1: Aside from confusing skepticism with hard atheism (no big deal, these distinctions take outsiders a while to get used to), you also identify yourself as a "rationalist". This term is already in use as someone who subscribes to the epistemology of rationalism. From Wikipedia:

Quote:In epistemology, rationalism is the view that "regards reason as the chief source and test of knowledge" or "any view appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification". More formally, rationalism is defined as a methodology or a theory "in which the criterion of the truth is not sensory but intellectual and deductive". Rationalists believe reality has an intrinsically logical structure. Because of this, rationalists argue that certain truths exist and that the intellect can directly grasp these truths. That is to say, rationalists assert that certain rational principles exist in logic, mathematics, ethics, and metaphysics that are so fundamentally true that denying them causes one to fall into contradiction. Rationalists have such a high confidence in reason that empirical proof and physical evidence are unnecessary to ascertain truth – in other words, "there are significant ways in which our concepts and knowledge are gained independently of sense experience". Because of this belief, empiricism is one of rationalism's greatest rivals.

Rationalism is the same epistemology that caused Aristotle to declare that light things fall faster than heavier things because they were consciously and actively seeking their natural level and that the world was comprised of the four elements fire, air, water, and earth. Aristotle notoriously rejected sensory evidence because the senses were fallible... never really considering that reasoning ability was also fallible. Pure rationalism (as opposed to rationalism informed by and checked against empirical evidence) poor track record of allowing us to believe things that are false.

I do not know if this is what you meant when you identified as a "rationalist", but if so, it is not a point that serves to inspire confidence in your beliefs. However, you could easily have just been identifying as "someone who is rational". The term is too laden with multiple meanings to really communicate what you're trying to communicate with it.

You also put forward three or four big claims. One, the falsity of theistic religions, we have not taken issue with. Here are the other two or three, with the third perhaps not being a full claim:

(21-09-2015 07:12 AM)Obie Wrote:  I would submit that human consciousness survives the body, remains localized, continues evolving, and transits in and out of form continuously, as does everything else in this universe.

This is an interesting claim. Will we accept it on face value? No. We have neither direct personal experience with what you are claiming, nor have you yet presented good evidence for it. This is on par with the Christian claiming that we'll go to heaven or hell when we die. By the rules of good epistemology, if we reject the Christian's claims, we should reject yours, unless your claim comes with good reasons that the Christian's does not. If we should accept yours, we should accept the Christian's... and in so doing we'd end up believing two contradictory things. This is why we asked for evidence. We don't want to blindly believe everything presented to us, because that would involve us believing many false things and many mutually contradictory things. So... either we see evidence, or we put your afterlife ideas in the same bin as the Christian's. We're not going to arbitrarily begin by believing that you've got it right.

Also, the claim is... a bit hard to pin down precisely. "Into and out of form" seems to refer to some sort of reincarnation, but it's extremely vague. Same with "continues evolving". Precise definitions aid understanding, while vague ones are more useful for confusing, befuddling, and tricking. Thus vague statements inspire our skepticism to greater heights. Vagueness has a track record of being untrustworthy.

Notably this claim runs afoul of "why do I give a fuck?" If it's going to happen the way you say it will happen, we'll have all the evidence we need in the due course of time, and you've proposed no need to commit to that belief now, when we don't have that evidence.

(21-09-2015 07:12 AM)Obie Wrote:  My submission is that the phenomenal is the tip of the iceberg and that the metaphysical underpins all observable reality.

Again, vagueness. If I interpret this literally, a phenomenon is any sensed or observed event. Metaphysics is ill-defined (too many people have used it in too many ways over the years), but suggests some sort of underlying rules about how existence is defined and what determines what we count as reality. Taken in this literal sense, your claim seems true enough on a strictly, albeit a bit obvious and lacking in specifics. However I get the sense that you mean something considerably more specific in regards to "the metaphysical", and a more narrow classification of what counts as "phenomenal", and if so I can't even begin to figure out what you're saying without more precise definitions. Unless your definition of a phenomenon is greatly narrowed, I would question how you can know anything beyond the "phenomenal", because anything you have observed about metaphysics would, by the normal definition, be a phenomenon.

(21-09-2015 07:12 AM)Obie Wrote:  My background is in the quantum mechanics of consciousness as promulgated by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.

This last one seems to be an endorsement of his ... beliefs? philosophy? ... and if so represents the third contentious claim you advance.

A bit of Wikipedia work leads me to Transcendental Meditation. A quick skim shows me no ideas or practices that seem truly dangerous (like, say, having children handle venomous snakes), but a few claims about levels of consciousness that I'm not willing to accept on face value. I am particularly skeptical of "Vedic Science" because it is based on interpreting ancient religious texts, a process which (among its many other failings) has predicted the end of the world about three times per decade and never once gotten it right. As epistemologies go, interpreting ancient religious texts has a VERY bad track record. I'd be willing to make a more detailed examination of specific claims, but it seems like a foundation built on sand, and this is not the mark of someone whose claims I would accept on face value, any more than I would accept the Pope's claims at face value.

Quantum mechanics has seen serious misunderstanding and abuse. While the physics of it are demonstrably true, almost everything I've encountered about it with regard to consciousness has been mangled far beyond what the physicists have proven. I'd class it as something that needs evidence to believe it, and given the vast amounts of nonsense that has been justified by shouting "quantum mechanics!" I'm very much on my guard against bullshit whenever I see the phrase in this sort of context.

Moving on, you received a few responses, most of which involved a bit of snark and banter that outsiders probably find offensive but which is part of how we joke around with each other and sharpen each others' knives. The actual responses reflected the dominant skeptical epistemology here -- generally not accepting your claims, and desiring evidence and good reasons be presented. Your Post #8 didn't really expand on any of your claims (once your link was removed -- the forum rules frown on that sort of thing -- and I didn't get a good look at it). You tried to equate hard atheism with disavowing the possibility of consciousness continuing past death, which was flatly false but is also the sort of technical terminology issue that not everyone gets right away. For the record, I don't outright disavow the possibility, but I'm not going to consider it true without good evidence, and I'm not particularly interested in reading a lot of prosaic prose on the subject that DOESN'T contain good evidence. If you've got a good reason for believing it, put it front and center, and if not, we're going to think you a silly person for believing it WITHOUT good reason.

Again, this is based on what seems like a disconnect in epistemologies. We're looking for evidence, which we will subject to critical examination and verification, and if it survives that it's good evidence. If you have it, put it forward. If not, we're not going to take you seriously.

In post 18, possibly provoked by the banter, you start to get snippy.

(21-09-2015 07:53 AM)Obie Wrote:  So I'm getting the feeling that atheist websites are the same. They all share the same presumptions that if it cannot be located and observed then it can't exist?

Is that rational?

Doesn't it beg several questions such as the limits of our powers to know and to dissect? Of our type of consciousness and its inherent limits? Of the maxim that just because we have yet to discover something that it cannot yet exist?

Don't get me wrong. Snippy's okay. We like snippy. Snarky would be better, but snippy's cool. (Clippy can die in a fire.)

The problem is that you grossly misrepresented us. That's a no-no. OH but that's a no-no, you know. We did not presume that things that cannot be located and observed cannot exist... we expressed initial doubt and asked for evidence that it did. We did state that our type of consciousness had inherent limits. (I don't think we said anything either way on the subject.) You implied that we think that just because we have yet to discover something it cannot exist, when anyone with the slightest knowledge of the history of science knows that to be false.

This is called a straw man. We do not like people who make straw men of us. Oh no, that won't fly here. You did NOT just pull the street preacher antic of "YOU ARE DENYING THE TRUTH IN UNRIGHTEOUSNESS!" on a bunch of atheists without giving us the slightest reason not to be skeptical. That does not lead to a happy-happy place. Let's see. Are we ready to respond to this? Tar, check. Feathers, check. Scornful mockery, check.

TO BE CLEAR. That we have not blindly accepted your claims absent evidence, does not mean we have flatly presumed them wrong. If you want us to believe them, the ball is in your court to provide something that might persuade us. The opportunity, initiative, and responsibility are yours. Maybe we'll be persuaded, or maybe we'll volley back with why what you provided is not persuasive, but it's your serve.

And if you don't really care if we believe them... well this is a pretty long thread for something you don't care about.

You also linked a pdf that's 60 freaking pages long. I've had textbooks shorter than that. Would it kill you to summarize? *SIGH* Okay, skimming abstract, looks like it's combining the real science of quantum mechanics and speculation about a unified field theory with some new weird stuff about a unified consciousness field? Okay, I'll skip over the first half of this novella containing established science (at least, according to the table of contents) and look at that part. (And the pdf page numbers don't match up with the ToC page numbers. Grr.)

....

Okay, I've been reading for a while. So far, it's conjectured some link between a particular state of consciousness and unified field theory and cited studies for physiological and sociological benefits of meditation. It's suggested that the benefits to society ("Super-Radiance") are the product of some sort of action at a distance, while ignoring that the meditation is being performed by members of that society that could quite plausibly have had the same impact through more mundane means as actors within that same society. If we grant only that meditation can have the effect of rendering a person more mindful and peaceful in their everyday lives, it would follow that a significant enough portion of society engaging in meditation will have an effect on society at large, both through direct measure of that portion plus the affect of their interactions with others. The subsequent equivalence drawn with a field in physics is based entirely on the notion that the mechanism of this "super-radiance" is to have a sort of mood- or state-altering affect on the general population at a distance. By ignoring more mundane explanations, the paper is essentially just assuming that its field theory holds rather than actually proving it. Much effort is given to establishing the measurable benefits, and very little to arguing for the unusual path of causation, which is both irritating and reminiscent of some of the slimier tactics of Christian apologetics. (They just try to slide it in there when we're not paying attention.) The claim hasn't been DISproved, but it hasn't been proven either. If you can summarize or outline this argument, I'll read it, but I've now given 30 minutes of my life to a pretty dense text that hasn't actually said much of anything persuasive and, more to the point, has not left me with the impression that I will learn anything of value if I continue reading. I'm disinclined to give it more of my time.

In post 20 you complain about pushback, which is exactly what you should expect from skeptics. In particular you should be aware that the pushback is part of the epistemological process. But -- and here's a major misstep -- you attribute that skepticism to immaturity rather than you not having explained why the fuck we should believe any of this. Mischaracterization of our position, assigning blame to others when it should be born by yourself, and talking down to those who you are not above. THIS IS NOT AN EFFECTIVE STRATEGY FOR GETTING PEOPLE TO LISTEN TO YOUR IDEAS AND CONSIDER THEM CONSCIENTIOUSLY.

In your next post, you lose track of the ENTER key on your keyboard. At least your capslock didn't get jammed.

(21-09-2015 08:55 AM)Obie Wrote:  There are plenty of cursory clues that human consciousness transitions forward, but I appreciate the prevailing attitude/mindset and it isn't worth it to attempt this climb. I've done it way too many times. I of course understand where people come from as it represents an accepted norm which forms a defensible edifice of sorts which garners viability over time and becomes ever less impregnable. As a former TM Sidha I experienced and witnessed the quantum nature of consciousness, especially in the performance of the levitation sutra in large groups. All that exists is unified and supported by the same thread, or sap, as it were, of consciousness. All that is observable is differentiated expressions of the same thing, just as the many parts of a tree are expressions supported by the sap of the tree - the ubiquitous, unseen, super fluid connector between the unified field and the phenomenal - call it liquid natural law, if you wish. All form rises and falls back into the sea of consciousness that belies all that exists. All that exists is therefore connected sympathetically and vibrationally as it all floats upon the same sea of consciousness. The human mind has the innate capability to harness and to focus consciousness intelligently and intentionally to produce and to create. The only question becomes, does this ability and process end when we die. Or is death but a transition. It is understood that this universe is a closed system, that nothing is created nor destroyed, but merely changes form - including, or course, all matter and energy. In short, everything continues. I find it a bit incredible that the notion that there are transcendent aspects to our being human that cannot also continue.

Here we have.... lots of gibberish and very little evidence. The only thing approaching an argument is that things in a universe are not created or destroyed but continue. This is certainly true of energy, including the energy that makes up matter, but the patterns it takes, those DO have a beginning and an end, and there's no guarantee that THOSE endure. Imagine a house made up of indestructible timbers. A tornado comes along and destroys the house. The timbers are still intact, scattered across the countryside, but the house that they formed are gone. Maybe those timbers get used as pieces in many new houses, but the old house is still gone. Just because the fundamental building blocks stick around, doesn't mean that what they build does. Why should we believe that consciousness is more like the timbers than the house? Without flat-out presuming this to be false or true, where is the evidence for it?

In post 40, you start adopting a persecuted tone (complaining that you're being marginalized) and ascribe the cause of hostility to prejudice. You also dive into the deep-end of unproven claims about evolving consciousness, throwing in undefined terms like "life-stream", which can only increase confusion and frustration. You still do not offer proof, and instead rail against our not accepting your position on your simple say-so as base presumption, rather than a simple precaution against not buying into every line we are fed.

We are now at the end of page 4. I won't continue to dissect all of your failures beyond this point, because I don't think I'll be able to even keep up with how fast the thread is growing. But the pattern should be clear. First, you have seriously misapprehended the nature of the criticism against you and your position. Second, you have not provided anything that would be convincing to someone with a reasonable level of skepticism. Third, you have been swiftly and sharply critical of that rational policy of skepticism -- not automatic dismissal, but skepticism -- and responded with some severe insults rather than the evidence we requested. And fourth, your actions here suggest that you're not nearly as evolved as you think you are.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Reltzik's post
21-09-2015, 06:17 PM
So, tell me, is this place mainly strong atheism?
Didn't read the 7 pgs. What's the difference between strong and weak atheism? You mean gnostic vs agnostic?

I'm an agnostic atheist. 6 on the Dawkins scale. I think being gnostic is ridiculous, whether it's an atheist or theist.

"If you cannot explain it simply, you don't understand it enough" -Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes smileXsmileXsmile's post
21-09-2015, 06:35 PM
RE: So, tell me, is this place mainly strong atheism?
(21-09-2015 07:12 AM)Obie Wrote:  Are there any weak atheists here?

I don't claim any title or category.

Hello Obie, and welcome to the forum. I am a strong atheist who rates as a 7 on the Dawkins Scale, if you've ever heard of that.

Quote: I would submit that human consciousness survives the body, remains localized, continues evolving, and transits in and out of form continuously, as does everything else in this universe.

Firstly, this appears to assert that consciousness is an individual entity. Can you provide actual scientific evidence to support this position? It's okay if you cannot, and intellectually honest to admit that it has no actual evidence.

If your position is merely one of belief, then I may advise you to stand upon that position and not attempt to justify it as anything more than what you have accepted to be true.

Quote:I prefer to call myself a rationalist.

You will find wide disagreement with many here on that description of yourself, however to harbour beliefs does not make you irrational in my opinion.

Quote:The last website I joined, last year, would have none of it, and I ended up getting kicked off the site when I suggested a guy avoid my threads. I lasted a week. I found, all in all, that some atheists can be as provincial and pedantic as the stock religious types.

You are absolutely correct, and we have such types of atheists here as well. My advice to you is to remain calm, as many here may attempt to goad you into an elevated emotional state with unduly harsh criticism of your personage, and may resort to the fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule in an effort to garner the accolades of those who are like minded.

Quote:My submission is that the phenomenal is the tip of the iceberg and that the metaphysical underpins all observable reality. Certain people thought I was foolish.

Before you can make a positive claim regarding that, it will be necessary for you to either demonstrate that the metaphysical can have possible existence, or concur once again that it is your position of belief.

Recognizing the difference between what we believe to be true and what can be proven to be true is paramount in achieving credibility in circles such as this atheistic environment.

Quote:My background is in the quantum mechanics of consciousness as promulgated by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi.

Then you are following a philosophy that is subjective, which means people can either believe it or disbelief it. Please understand that it is my opinion that if such a philosophy cannot provide some kind of evidence for support, then it can only ever honestly be qualified only as a position of belief.

Quote:Finally, all theistic religions are tragically false. There is no knowable form of any type of god. If there were, it would be known and accepted as the same thing on a wholesale level. Such a thing doesn't exist. If there were a god, it would not be a function of belief. It would be a common reality. There would be no need for any religions.

This is rational, and I agree.

Quote:Further, to know that a god exists requires foreknowledge of what that god is - that we can identify it when we come in contact with it. Foreknowledge is an impossibility. Ergo: even if there were a god, we could not know it.

But it is my position that we can also know that there is no god at all. That is another angle we can discuss.

Once again, welcome to TTA.

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2015, 07:00 PM
RE: So, tell me, is this place mainly strong atheism?
Fun thread.

[Image: tumblr_n3gnl5XrIr1tw9gyko1_500.gif]

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Full Circle's post
21-09-2015, 07:13 PM
RE: So, tell me, is this place mainly strong atheism?
(21-09-2015 07:34 AM)Obie Wrote:  
(21-09-2015 07:28 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  Quote: "I would submit that human consciousness survives the body, remains localized, continues evolving, and transits in and out of form continuously, as does everything else in this universe.

I prefer to call myself a rationalist."

It's interesting you put these two contradictory statements in this order.

.....

Rational means accepting what is knowable, testable, observable.

Any existence past death is none of these.

I'm glad you find it interesting.

I don't expect you to catch up over night or soon, for that matter.

So what percent of this site is hard atheism? The kind of mindset that disavows the possibility for the continuation of consciousness?

Evidence is required. Got any? Consider

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
21-09-2015, 07:30 PM
RE: So, tell me, is this place mainly strong atheism?
What Obie meant to ask was, "What percentage of people on this site require evidence before they accept a claim ?"

How many people are rational and use critical thinking ?

Its important to know your crowd before they rip your silly ideas to pieces.

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
21-09-2015, 07:36 PM
RE: So, tell me, is this place mainly strong atheism?
I think Obie went back to his planet.Chase

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-09-2015, 07:36 PM
RE: So, tell me, is this place mainly strong atheism?
Obie, do you have the ability to discern if you are unconscious or dead ?

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: