[split] Another "atheism definition" thread split from "An atheist's critique..."
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-06-2016, 03:51 AM
RE: [split] Another "atheism definition" thread split from "An atheist's critique..."
(10-06-2016 02:55 AM)carusmm Wrote:  Yes, reality exists. But whose reality? - That is the question. You cannot flog off these people with logic. You must be prepared to get dirty.

Reality exists.

Let's keep it simple so you can stay with me. In the movie The Matrix, Neo learns that his reality is not what he thought it was. His life was a simulation, meant to keep him docile and unaware of his status as a living battery. His previous reality didn't stop existing, reality was simply larger than he was originally aware of; and could very well be larger still. People's perception of it's scope might be different, but it still exists. Those with larger awareness simply have access to a large scope of it, but the smaller scope doesn't cease to be. Those still stuck within the matrix simply have access to less of reality, but their awareness can be expanded; as is the case for anyone removed from the matrix. It's all one reality, even if some see less of it than others. But the greater reality can be demonstrated to those less aware, and they too can share in that knowledge; as indeed what happens when humanity is freed at the end of the trilogy.


Perspective doesn't alter reality, only your perception of it.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2016, 04:04 AM
RE: [split] Another "atheism definition" thread split from "An atheist's critique..."
(10-06-2016 03:51 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(10-06-2016 02:55 AM)carusmm Wrote:  Yes, reality exists. But whose reality? - That is the question. You cannot flog off these people with logic. You must be prepared to get dirty.

Reality exists.

Let's keep it simple so you can stay with me. In the movie The Matrix, Neo learns that his reality is not what he thought it was. His life was a simulation, meant to keep him docile and unaware of his status as a living battery. His previous reality didn't stop existing, reality was simply larger than he was originally aware of; and could very well be larger still. People's perception of it's scope might be different, but it still exists. Those with larger awareness simply have access to a large scope of it, but the smaller scope doesn't cease to be. Those still stuck within the matrix simply have access to less of reality, but their awareness can be expanded; as is the case for anyone removed from the matrix. It's all one reality, even if some see less of it than others. But the greater reality can be demonstrated to those less aware, and they too can share in that knowledge; as indeed what happens when humanity is freed at the end of the trilogy.


Perspective doesn't alter reality, only your perception of it.

"Plato is boring." Friedrich Nietzsche

In the cave,
my shadow is cast
deep.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2016, 04:34 AM
RE: [split] Another "atheism definition" thread split from "An atheist's critique..."
(10-06-2016 04:04 AM)carusmm Wrote:  "Plato is boring." Friedrich Nietzsche

In the cave,
my shadow is cast
deep.




[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2016, 04:50 AM
RE: [split] Another "atheism definition" thread split from "An atheist's critique..."
Quote:First of all, no one can prove a negative.

So. You never took Logic 101.

(09-06-2016 10:11 PM)aserwin Wrote:  That is incorrect. Of course you can prove a negative. The problem is, it requires you first intend to prove the positive... and the absence of that positive, with all other possibilities considered, the negative remains.

No. And that's basically your problem with atheism. The "positive" does not "remain". It's simply dismissed from consideration. (Which is what atheism is.)

Quote:So, for Atheists, the problem would be actually looking for evidence of a designer...which very few are willing to do (and, I think it is important to note that the few that have generally end up theists - Lewis, Flew to name a couple)...

No. That's just a bad incoherent habit.

Quote:That is a pretty interesting (albeit circular) perspective. Have you read Krauss' A Universe From Nothing? You should! (kind of like religious bullshit, but sold in the science section)

It's not circular, and you have not demonstrated how it is. Just asserted it.

Quote:The important thing to note here is that everything we know exists (even time) didn't exist at one time.

Common ignorant street level mistake. We don't know that AT ALL. Roger Penrose (Cycles of Time) has proposed an infinte cycle of bangs and rebangs. the Big Bang Theory does not posit that all things BEGAN at the Big Bang, only that a 'bang" happened. What caused it, and the conditions (if any *before* it) are not addressed.

Quote:The Big Bang theory says that space-time itself didn't exist for a couple of plank times after the big bang

Bullshit. You made that up. You can find no scientific reference for it.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
10-06-2016, 04:59 AM
RE: [split] Another "atheism definition" thread split from "An atheist's critique..."
(10-06-2016 04:50 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
Quote:First of all, no one can prove a negative.

So. You never took Logic 101.

(09-06-2016 10:11 PM)aserwin Wrote:  That is incorrect. Of course you can prove a negative. The problem is, it requires you first intend to prove the positive... and the absence of that positive, with all other possibilities considered, the negative remains.

No. And that's basically your problem with atheism. The "positive" does not "remain". It's simply dismissed from consideration. (Which is what atheism is.)

Quote:So, for Atheists, the problem would be actually looking for evidence of a designer...which very few are willing to do (and, I think it is important to note that the few that have generally end up theists - Lewis, Flew to name a couple)...

No. That's just a bad incoherent habit.

Quote:That is a pretty interesting (albeit circular) perspective. Have you read Krauss' A Universe From Nothing? You should! (kind of like religious bullshit, but sold in the science section)

It's not circular, and you have not demonstrated how it is. Just asserted it.

Quote:The important thing to note here is that everything we know exists (even time) didn't exist at one time.

Common ignorant street level mistake. We don't know that AT ALL. Roger Penrose (Cycles of Time) has proposed an infinte cycle of bangs and rebangs. the Big Bang Theory does not posit that all things BEGAN at the Big Bang, only that a 'bang" happened. What caused it, and the conditions (if any *before* it) are not addressed.

Quote:The Big Bang theory says that space-time itself didn't exist for a couple of plank times after the big bang

Bullshit. You made that up. You can find no scientific reference for it.

Infinite regress is no explanation of God or anything else for that matter. The time before time can never be known.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2016, 05:06 AM
RE: [split] Another "atheism definition" thread split from "An atheist's critique..."
(10-06-2016 01:08 AM)aserwin Wrote:  
Quote:Without further qualification or demonstration, I simply do not know; and I'm okay with that.

That is fair... but I am not satisfied with that. I want to know.




Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2016, 05:30 AM
RE: [split] Another "atheism definition" thread split from "An atheist's critique..."
(10-06-2016 04:59 AM)carusmm Wrote:  
(10-06-2016 04:50 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So. You never took Logic 101.


No. And that's basically your problem with atheism. The "positive" does not "remain". It's simply dismissed from consideration. (Which is what atheism is.)


No. That's just a bad incoherent habit.


It's not circular, and you have not demonstrated how it is. Just asserted it.


Common ignorant street level mistake. We don't know that AT ALL. Roger Penrose (Cycles of Time) has proposed an infinte cycle of bangs and rebangs. the Big Bang Theory does not posit that all things BEGAN at the Big Bang, only that a 'bang" happened. What caused it, and the conditions (if any *before* it) are not addressed.


Bullshit. You made that up. You can find no scientific reference for it.

Infinite regress is no explanation of God or anything else for that matter. The time before time can never be known.

The POINT is not addressed by that reply. I never stated what you implied.
The POINT is, the conditions are unknown. Nothing can be said about the subject AT ALL, until science learns more. Your assertion that something "began" at the Big Bang is WRONG. That's not part of the theory. You have NO EVIDENCE for your claim. At a singularity, the laws of science break down. You can say nothing about the conditions which caused the Big bang.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
10-06-2016, 05:53 AM
RE: [split] Another "atheism definition" thread split from "An atheist's critique..."
(10-06-2016 05:30 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(10-06-2016 04:59 AM)carusmm Wrote:  Infinite regress is no explanation of God or anything else for that matter. The time before time can never be known.

The POINT is not addressed by that reply. I never stated what you implied.
The POINT is, the conditions are unknown. Nothing can be said about the subject AT ALL, until science learns more. Your assertion that something "began" at the Big Bang is WRONG. That's not part of the theory. You have NO EVIDENCE for your claim. At a singularity, the laws of science break down. You can say nothing about the conditions which caused the Big bang.

I believe that we are at cross purposes, Bucky Ball, and should untangle by saying the matter is much more important to a theist than both of us.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2016, 05:56 AM
RE: [split] Another "atheism definition" thread split from "An atheist's critique..."
(10-06-2016 05:53 AM)carusmm Wrote:  
(10-06-2016 05:30 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  The POINT is not addressed by that reply. I never stated what you implied.
The POINT is, the conditions are unknown. Nothing can be said about the subject AT ALL, until science learns more. Your assertion that something "began" at the Big Bang is WRONG. That's not part of the theory. You have NO EVIDENCE for your claim. At a singularity, the laws of science break down. You can say nothing about the conditions which caused the Big bang.

I believe that we are at cross purposes, Bucky Ball, and should untangle by saying the matter is much more important to a theist than both of us.

I have no "purpose" to cross. Your bullshit remains bullshit.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
10-06-2016, 06:00 AM
RE: [split] Another "atheism definition" thread split from "An atheist's critique..."
(10-06-2016 05:56 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(10-06-2016 05:53 AM)carusmm Wrote:  I believe that we are at cross purposes, Bucky Ball, and should untangle by saying the matter is much more important to a theist than both of us.

I have no "purpose" to cross. Your bullshit remains bullshit.

So be it. I have nothing to lose either way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: