The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
The New Atheist Crusaders and their quest for the Unholy Grail

Hey all.  It's been a while since I've been on. I appologise, I've been busy. 

The title of this forum is the title of a book I just finished reading.  It's a catchy title, so I figured it'd be a good way to grab someone's attention on here.  The book is written by Becky Garrison. 

If her name doesn't sound familiar, that's fine, it shouldn't.  So why am I wasting your time telling you about this book?  Well, I'm glad you asked.  This is a book written by a True Christian.  HUH?  For all of you who have discussed with me in the past, you understand what I'm talking about and for those of you who haven't you can research my blogs.  Caposkia is my name. 

Anyway, It's written from the viewpoint of how a true Christian feels about of course the atheists in the world today, but more importantly for you, how she feels about Christians in the world. 

This is for all of you arguing with me about how Christians have to be black and white.  How you have to follow a religion and there's nothing outside of religion etc.  She touches on all of this.  I truly think you'll enjoy reading this book and I would like to hear from those of you who have read it if anyone.  If not, I"ll wait till someone finishes it.  It's not a very long book.

When I first came onto this site, I wanted to discuss directly with those who were involved in the infamous television debate that RRS was involved in about the existence of God with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron.  They didn't have time and the other non-believers I came across were too opinionated to involve themselves in a conversation that made any progress.  Instead I got into other debates which for the most part were a lot of fun, but I digress. 

Becky mentions this debate as well in her book at the end.  This is for all of you on here I've talked to who would not believe me or had other personal issues with the fact that my opinion didn't flow with their idea of a Christian.  I will breifly say that I hold her viewpoint when she says that if she was at that debate, she would have "crawled out of that church in shame. "

Simply put, we both agree that both sides put forth deplorable excuses for their side and did not defend their side succesfully.  I know I know, many of you will disagree and say that RRS did disprove the existance of God in that debate, but enough with the opinions, I'm saying the other side did just as good of a job proving God.  This debate is a poor excuse to not follow Christ and this book talks about those types of Christians.

This book should clarify many misunderstandings of how True Christians are and I hope bring light to a new understanding of our following. 

It is written differently than most books, but is an informational peice and uses a lot of researched information.  It does focus on the "New Atheists" and is not a book preaching to the masses.  As said, it is from the point of  view of a True Christian.

enjoy, let me know your thoughts.  I would also request, please be respectful in your responses.  I'm here to have mature discussions with people. 


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Caposkia, I

TGBaker wrote:

Caposkia,

 I attempted to have a meaningful theological discussion of theist and atheist with Mr. metaphysics who had to bow out because of time constraints. If you are interested in having a fireside type discussion on the topic of is there a god etc.;  I would be interested in continuing my attempt to have a dialogue with a sincere theist.  I attempted such in the various posts but there are many posting and it is hard to keep up with it or an impression that questions are not directly answered.  It seems you are through with your previous debate.  I have some time before i get a bone marrow transplant I think.

I would be very interested.  

Just so you know during the discussion, I never avoid or ignore a question and if you feel I did, call me on it.  My avoidance would not have been intentional and it's likely that I got sidetracked.  I want our discussion to avoid as much claims against each other and more on the details of the topic at hand.  

if anything, always take care of you.  I know people in your situation and I know how difficult it can be.  I hope you're doing well considering.  

 


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Caposkia,

 I attempted to have a meaningful theological discussion of theist and atheist with Mr. metaphysics who had to bow out because of time constraints. If you are interested in having a fireside type discussion on the topic of is there a god etc.;  I would be interested in continuing my attempt to have a dialogue with a sincere theist.  I attempted such in the various posts but there are many posting and it is hard to keep up with it or an impression that questions are not directly answered.  It seems you are through with your previous debate.  I have some time before i get a bone marrow transplant I think.

I would be very interested.  

Just so you know during the discussion, I never avoid or ignore a question and if you feel I did, call me on it.  My avoidance would not have been intentional and it's likely that I got sidetracked.  I want our discussion to avoid as much claims against each other and more on the details of the topic at hand.  

if anything, always take care of you.  I know people in your situation and I know how difficult it can be.  I hope you're doing well considering.  

No I understand. That is why I've considered a discussion route.  I will create thread on Atheist v. Theist called Caposkia and TGBaker discussion.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:caposkia

Good luck TJ, I hope you can crack his thick skull. Cap is I am sure a nice guy, but his delusion really has a firm grip on him. I still have hope for him though. I think there are some real doubts in his head that keep him here that he is unaware of or ignoring.

I've done my best to keep repeating the glaring elephant in the room he is ignoring. Maybe you can give him that extra push he needs to face reality.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Good luck TJ,

Brian37 wrote:

Good luck TJ, I hope you can crack his thick skull. Cap is I am sure a nice guy, but his delusion really has a firm grip on him. I still have hope for him though. I think there are some real doubts in his head that keep him here that he is unaware of or ignoring.

I've done my best to keep repeating the glaring elephant in the room he is ignoring. Maybe you can give him that extra push he needs to face reality.

 

Thanks Brian. I just want a chance to talk one on one so we can follow the topics without too much distraction. I wanted such with Mr. Metaphysics to get to the weakness of his premise in his Ontological Argument.  But he backed out. I will try to paint the elephant day glow green, BBQ it and see how it really tastes.  I'm ready to grill.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Good luck TJ,

Brian37 wrote:

Good luck TJ, I hope you can crack his thick skull. Cap is I am sure a nice guy, but his delusion really has a firm grip on him. I still have hope for him though. I think there are some real doubts in his head that keep him here that he is unaware of or ignoring.

I've done my best to keep repeating the glaring elephant in the room he is ignoring. Maybe you can give him that extra push he needs to face reality.

 

no one told Brian that his 'glaring elephant' in the room is a pocket sized figurine.... made of straw.

c'mon, if it's so obvious, then stop with the excuses and show me.  Seriously.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Good luck TJ, I hope you can crack his thick skull. Cap is I am sure a nice guy, but his delusion really has a firm grip on him. I still have hope for him though. I think there are some real doubts in his head that keep him here that he is unaware of or ignoring.

I've done my best to keep repeating the glaring elephant in the room he is ignoring. Maybe you can give him that extra push he needs to face reality.

 

no one told Brian that his 'glaring elephant' in the room is a pocket sized figurine.... made of straw.

c'mon, if it's so obvious, then stop with the excuses and show me.  Seriously.

I set up a discussion post for us in Atheists vs Theists. I hope to pull an elephant out of my hat though there is not much room for him. How do you eat a whole elephant. You can. But only a little at a time.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I set up a

TGBaker wrote:

I set up a discussion post for us in Atheists vs Theists. I hope to pull an elephant out of my hat though there is not much room for him. How do you eat a whole elephant. You can. But only a little at a time.

 

yea, that statement was more for Brian who has been taking the ignorant theist approach with me in hopes that I would just accept his belief out of redundancy and not reasoning.  I'm looking forward to our discussions


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I set up a discussion post for us in Atheists vs Theists. I hope to pull an elephant out of my hat though there is not much room for him. How do you eat a whole elephant. You can. But only a little at a time.

 

yea, that statement was more for Brian who has been taking the ignorant theist approach with me in hopes that I would just accept his belief out of redundancy and not reasoning.  I'm looking forward to our discussions

Ignorance is claiming an invisible friend without a lick of evidence for such. I will keep repeating that because it frustrates you to have that mirror in your face.

NO ONE, not you, not any human by any label in human history, since the first deity was invented, has had, nor will ever have any lick of evidence for their non-material entities.

You start with a naked assertion, based on popular myth, written in by a scientifically uneducated society, and you are damned right I am going to keep pointing that out.

Don't get upset with me because you cant prove the existence of your magical sky daddy.

Mimic our arguments all you want, you still have NOTHING.

You, "My invisible friend is real"

Me, "So you claim, so has every other deity believer in human history by every label, so what".

You have as much evidence for your pet god as there is for Thor or pink unicorns.

You merely like the idea of having a super hero. You merely don't want to face that that is really all there is to ANY deity belief.

If anyone had any evidence, other than a history of tradition or myth, for any alleged being claimed in human history, science would have confirmed it by now.

What humans have proven, like you here now, are that they are capable of believing bullshit because the idea sounds really appealing to them.

Your claims are not special, your pet god fiction you falsely believe to be fact, is not special.

WHEN, and I won't hold my breath waiting,.......when you can pony up with universal independently falsifiable evidence like you can for DNA, for your pet god, then you will have something. I will give you the Nobel Prize myself in front of the United Nations. You know you are wasting your time, otherwise you'd be in a lab, instead of making excuses here for why you delude yourself into believing in non-material magical invisible super brains.

If I didn't have hope for you I wouldn't be wasting my time repeating myself. You don't want to see that the person you are really fighting is yourself, not us.

I KNOW you think your god is real, but what is really going on is that you want this god to be real so badly you look for reasons to justify it, that is not evidence, that is apology. That is what Muslims do and Jews do and Hindus do. They look for excuses to believe, not testable evidence.

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Ignorance is

Brian37 wrote:

Ignorance is claiming an invisible friend without a lick of evidence for such. I will keep repeating that because it frustrates you to have that mirror in your face.

that's basically what you're doing... I think you're repeating because you don't have a lick of reasoning and it frustrates you.

Brian37 wrote:

NO ONE, not you, not any human by any label in human history, since the first deity was invented, has had, nor will ever have any lick of evidence for their non-material entities.

At least not the evidences you're looking for...e .g. God DNA and Godsperm.... which never in history was ever claimed to have existed and would not logicaly exist physically like you would like it to.

Brian37 wrote:

You start with a naked assertion, based on popular myth, written in by a scientifically uneducated society, and you are damned right I am going to keep pointing that out.

that's great, but what's your excuse for those scientifically educated people who claim to have discovered God through their studies?  Wait, they're still uneducated right?

Brian37 wrote:

Don't get upset with me because you cant prove the existence of your magical sky daddy.

i'm not upset at all.  I just think it's funny that you're using the same excuses and approach as the "scientifically uneducated society" and yet think you're smarter than them

Brian37 wrote:

Mimic our arguments all you want, you still have NOTHING.

NOTHING!  that you want to discuss anyway.

Brian37 wrote:

You, "My invisible friend is real"

Me, "So you claim, so has every other deity believer in human history by every label, so what".

and that has been your argument from day 1

Brian37 wrote:

You have as much evidence for your pet god as there is for Thor or pink unicorns.

yea... OH... except for the millions of eye witness accounts of God through the years... Oh and Jesus who is known to have existed historically... though i guess you could argue whether he was just a radical or actually God's son.  Not to mention personal accounts of the work at hand and the statistical reasoning... and Qantum Physics...and archeology... the complexity of the physical makeup of living beings... should I go on?

Wait... this is all apparently over your head.. you're not able to discuss these topics... too complicated for a discussion you know you're right in huh.

Brian37 wrote:

You merely like the idea of having a super hero. You merely don't want to face that that is really all there is to ANY deity belief.

Right, just like Sapient, the creator only "likes the idea" that god does not exist.  and he just "doesn't want to face that God is reality" right?  or could it be that we both are looking for the same thing for different sides?  I've said it many times to you... maybe bringing his name in might click with you because I am asking of you the same thing he's asking... reasoning really, not so much the evidence, just reasoning behind your conclusion

Brian37 wrote:

If anyone had any evidence, other than a history of tradition or myth, for any alleged being claimed in human history, science would have confirmed it by now.

not necessarily.  Evidences for many theories aren't confirmed... that's why they're theories.  Science confirms only what we can tangebly test and retest using physical and observable means.  The problem with testing God is what would the constant be?  It'd be like testing my ability to answer 100 math problems... if I choose to refuse the test, can you confirm my abilities?

Brian37 wrote:

What humans have proven, like you here now, are that they are capable of believing bullshit because the idea sounds really appealing to them.

you have been a great example of that

Brian37 wrote:

Your claims are not special, your pet god fiction you falsely believe to be fact, is not special.

Same with yours... now we agree that we are both average people.  I feel better now

Brian37 wrote:

WHEN, and I won't hold my breath waiting,.......when you can pony up with universal independently falsifiable evidence like you can for DNA, for your pet god, then you will have something. I will give you the Nobel Prize myself in front of the United Nations. You know you are wasting your time, otherwise you'd be in a lab, instead of making excuses here for why you delude yourself into believing in non-material magical invisible super brains.

WHEN, and I won't hold my breath waiting.... when you can pony up with reasoning and rational conclusions with reference to study for your conclusions for your claim that God does not exist then you will have something.   I will then concede to the fact that I was wrong and will spread the word to all those who are still believers in my realm.  If your conclusions are indeed reasonable and rational, this will spread like wildfire.  

Brian37 wrote:

If I didn't have hope for you I wouldn't be wasting my time repeating myself. You don't want to see that the person you are really fighting is yourself, not us.

I'm not fighting.  I'm just trying to make you see that your "repetitive approach" is the same approach religious sects like the Jehovah's Witnesses and Catholics among others use to brainwash their followers.  Why should I consider you any different than them?  So far all you've proven to me is that you want me to buy into your ideals just as any other sect would.

Brian37 wrote:

I KNOW you think your god is real, but what is really going on is that you want this god to be real so badly you look for reasons to justify it, that is not evidence, that is apology. That is what Muslims do and Jews do and Hindus do. They look for excuses to believe, not testable evidence.

and yet it's evidences I looked for in order to believe in the first place... so how is it possible that I believe now if when I was looking for evidences there was none?  

 

 

 

 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

You have as much evidence for your pet god as there is for Thor or pink unicorns.

yea... OH... except for the millions of eye witness accounts of God through the years...

I just saw Thor. Does that count as evidence ?

(Pretty good movie. The guy who plays Loki nails it. And I totally didn't mind a black Heimdall )


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Cap, I think you and Brian

Cap, I think you and Brian are hung up on the God DNA thing.

Let's start smaller - you claim that a being that is outside nature (that you and others call God) interacts with the natural world. Things that affect the natural world leave some sort of trace in that world. The being you call God seems to be an exception to this because there is no evidence of any interaction you claim he has made.

I'm asking why (Brian is also - he's just a little more direct). Up to this point, the only answer you've come up with is "You just don't understand metaphysics".

Non sequiturs are responses to question. they're not answers.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
This is the real problem

This is the real problem that goes back to Decartes and his dualism.   How can one interact with another.  As a medium you would need a third substance and for those two more ad infinitum.  That is why monism is the norm. If you posit a monism then you perhaps can work with a property dualism where a property of one substance interacts with that of another within the monism. This really moves away from dualism to pantheism or panentheism.  Typically Being is equated with potentiality or the source that set the boundary condition of existence which is simply the actualization of the Being as potentiality. Secondly to personify this Being. It is equated with Consciousness and nothingness. The eguating of Being and Nothingness allows for it to be boundless or limitless. The positing it as absolute consciousness allows it to actualize existence by self reference or Logos.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Cap, I think

jcgadfly wrote:

Cap, I think you and Brian are hung up on the God DNA thing.

Let's start smaller - you claim that a being that is outside nature (that you and others call God) interacts with the natural world. Things that affect the natural world leave some sort of trace in that world. The being you call God seems to be an exception to this because there is no evidence of any interaction you claim he has made.

I'm asking why (Brian is also - he's just a little more direct). Up to this point, the only answer you've come up with is "You just don't understand metaphysics".

Non sequiturs are responses to question. they're not answers.

I'm not "hung up" on anything. DNA is provable testable and falsifiable. I didn't invent DNA so there is nothing for me to be "hung up" on.

CAP is the one "hung up" on a pet deity, just like an other human in history claiming their pet deity. He doesn't want to face that humans invent gods and he is merely one human in a history of humans that like having fictional super heros who falsely believe them to be real.

I am persistent, yes. "Hung up"? No. I am the one telling Cap that the earth is a glob, he is the one still insisting that it is flat.

I only hope for his sake he wakes up before he wastes his entire life on a superstition.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Ignorance is claiming an invisible friend without a lick of evidence for such. I will keep repeating that because it frustrates you to have that mirror in your face.

that's basically what you're doing... I think you're repeating because you don't have a lick of reasoning and it frustrates you.

Brian37 wrote:

NO ONE, not you, not any human by any label in human history, since the first deity was invented, has had, nor will ever have any lick of evidence for their non-material entities.

At least not the evidences you're looking for...e .g. God DNA and Godsperm.... which never in history was ever claimed to have existed and would not logicaly exist physically like you would like it to.

Brian37 wrote:

You start with a naked assertion, based on popular myth, written in by a scientifically uneducated society, and you are damned right I am going to keep pointing that out.

that's great, but what's your excuse for those scientifically educated people who claim to have discovered God through their studies?  Wait, they're still uneducated right?

Brian37 wrote:

Don't get upset with me because you cant prove the existence of your magical sky daddy.

i'm not upset at all.  I just think it's funny that you're using the same excuses and approach as the "scientifically uneducated society" and yet think you're smarter than them

Brian37 wrote:

Mimic our arguments all you want, you still have NOTHING.

NOTHING!  that you want to discuss anyway.

Brian37 wrote:

You, "My invisible friend is real"

Me, "So you claim, so has every other deity believer in human history by every label, so what".

and that has been your argument from day 1

Brian37 wrote:

You have as much evidence for your pet god as there is for Thor or pink unicorns.

yea... OH... except for the millions of eye witness accounts of God through the years... Oh and Jesus who is known to have existed historically... though i guess you could argue whether he was just a radical or actually God's son.  Not to mention personal accounts of the work at hand and the statistical reasoning... and Qantum Physics...and archeology... the complexity of the physical makeup of living beings... should I go on?

Wait... this is all apparently over your head.. you're not able to discuss these topics... too complicated for a discussion you know you're right in huh.

Brian37 wrote:

You merely like the idea of having a super hero. You merely don't want to face that that is really all there is to ANY deity belief.

Right, just like Sapient, the creator only "likes the idea" that god does not exist.  and he just "doesn't want to face that God is reality" right?  or could it be that we both are looking for the same thing for different sides?  I've said it many times to you... maybe bringing his name in might click with you because I am asking of you the same thing he's asking... reasoning really, not so much the evidence, just reasoning behind your conclusion

Brian37 wrote:

If anyone had any evidence, other than a history of tradition or myth, for any alleged being claimed in human history, science would have confirmed it by now.

not necessarily.  Evidences for many theories aren't confirmed... that's why they're theories.  Science confirms only what we can tangebly test and retest using physical and observable means.  The problem with testing God is what would the constant be?  It'd be like testing my ability to answer 100 math problems... if I choose to refuse the test, can you confirm my abilities?

Brian37 wrote:

What humans have proven, like you here now, are that they are capable of believing bullshit because the idea sounds really appealing to them.

you have been a great example of that

Brian37 wrote:

Your claims are not special, your pet god fiction you falsely believe to be fact, is not special.

Same with yours... now we agree that we are both average people.  I feel better now

Brian37 wrote:

WHEN, and I won't hold my breath waiting,.......when you can pony up with universal independently falsifiable evidence like you can for DNA, for your pet god, then you will have something. I will give you the Nobel Prize myself in front of the United Nations. You know you are wasting your time, otherwise you'd be in a lab, instead of making excuses here for why you delude yourself into believing in non-material magical invisible super brains.

WHEN, and I won't hold my breath waiting.... when you can pony up with reasoning and rational conclusions with reference to study for your conclusions for your claim that God does not exist then you will have something.   I will then concede to the fact that I was wrong and will spread the word to all those who are still believers in my realm.  If your conclusions are indeed reasonable and rational, this will spread like wildfire.  

Brian37 wrote:

If I didn't have hope for you I wouldn't be wasting my time repeating myself. You don't want to see that the person you are really fighting is yourself, not us.

I'm not fighting.  I'm just trying to make you see that your "repetitive approach" is the same approach religious sects like the Jehovah's Witnesses and Catholics among others use to brainwash their followers.  Why should I consider you any different than them?  So far all you've proven to me is that you want me to buy into your ideals just as any other sect would.

Brian37 wrote:

I KNOW you think your god is real, but what is really going on is that you want this god to be real so badly you look for reasons to justify it, that is not evidence, that is apology. That is what Muslims do and Jews do and Hindus do. They look for excuses to believe, not testable evidence.

and yet it's evidences I looked for in order to believe in the first place... so how is it possible that I believe now if when I was looking for evidences there was none?  

 

 

 

 

No I am repeating myself just like radiation therapy for cancer, once wont do it. You have a cancer in your head in the form of a really bad naked assertion based on a real self inflicted emotional appeal that you ignore. I am repeating myself to cure you of your delusion.

There is no such thing as a thought arising from a non material process. God/s/deities/super heros/spirits/entities....ect ect ect....every single one in human history, including your pet naked assertion are merely your own wishful thinking which you cling to because of real chemical reactions in your brain that give you a false sense of "being real". You have fallen for an insidious placebo.

It is all in your head and once you realize that you will be cured from your delusion. I may never cure you, but I am damned sure going to try. I DO think it is working because you keep responding, and that says to me that YOU are banging your head against the wall. That is the beginning of the road to recovery. Once you realize you are fighting yourself and not us, that is the next step.

There is no debate here. There is merely you selling old dead ideas and deluding yourself into believing they have any credibility in reality. You could be claiming Thor or pink unicorns and it would be the same cancer by a different name.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Joker
atheist
Joker's picture
Posts: 180
Joined: 2010-07-23
User is offlineOffline
Cap, if you're going to

Cap, if you're going to assume that eyewitness accounts are perfectly reliable, then what about the other religions of the world. The Hindu faith is far older than the myths that make up the Abrahamic religions, and I imagine that they have just as many if not more accounts of seeing their deities or the servants thereof. Or to make this a non-theistic thing, what about alien abductions or some of the stuff in cryptozoology? I mean there are a lot of people who claim to have been abducted by aliens or think that they saw some kind of alien spacecraft, and not just the stereotypical drunken redneck either, there are professional pilots and others who have said they saw UFOs. Now, sure, they might just have seen military aircraft that they couldn't identify and some stuff might just be their imaginations amplifying something but many of the accounts seem consistent.

I'm not trying to make an argument for alien abductions, just trying to point out that eyewitness accounts can be wrong, and in the days before we had mass communication essentially we have to deal with the problem of the telephone game where a story can get garbled, twisted, amplified and end up drastically different than what it originated as. Let's assume that each person who claimed to see a miraculous sign was entirely honest and truly believed what they were saying and weren't lying to curry favor, gain power, or anything like that. Equally we will assume that none of these eyewitnesses were manipulated or created out of whole cloth by scribes or 'messengers' claiming to be relaying a story. Even if I give them all of that there are still ways that they could be wrong, some of them might be schizophrenic or otherwise delusional, some of them might have been hallucinating due to starvation or heat exhaustion, or high on some substance that they thought would aid them in communing with a higher power. There are also people who believe that they've seen ghosts, taken rides on Haleys comet, or had past lives.

There are also problems where eyewitness accounts don't match up with what history tells us, the plagues of Egypt for example. Now, if we say for the sake of argument that there is no eyewitness testimony opposing what your books say, and the eyewitness testimony seems to be fairly consistent with other events and what archeology shows and such for the past, then it becomes far more compelling and far more probable.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:I just saw

Anonymouse wrote:

I just saw Thor. Does that count as evidence ?

(Pretty good movie. The guy who plays Loki nails it. And I totally didn't mind a black Heimdall )

Be it that we have knowledge of the validity of movies, naw.  but I intend to investigate your Thor sighting myself soon.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Anonymouse

caposkia wrote:

Anonymouse wrote:

I just saw Thor. Does that count as evidence ?

(Pretty good movie. The guy who plays Loki nails it. And I totally didn't mind a black Heimdall )

Be it that we have knowledge of the validity of movies, naw.  but I intend to investigate your Thor sighting myself soon.

We also have knowledge of the validity of books of fiction. You need to show proof that the Bible is somehow different.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Cap, I think

jcgadfly wrote:

Cap, I think you and Brian are hung up on the God DNA thing.

I don't care about the God DNA thing.  I just use that to harass Brian.  just mutual jeering

jcgadfly wrote:

Let's start smaller - you claim that a being that is outside nature (that you and others call God) interacts with the natural world. Things that affect the natural world leave some sort of trace in that world. The being you call God seems to be an exception to this because there is no evidence of any interaction you claim he has made.

signalless communication in other words huh... First of all, your scenario is only confirmed by effects from other physical things and has not studied the idea of an effect from a non-physical thing.  If there was an unknown source of a result, assumptions would automatically point to a physical source.   Also, science has proven the concept of signalless communication which could suggest an interaction without a trace.  

jcgadfly wrote:

I'm asking why (Brian is also - he's just a little more direct). Up to this point, the only answer you've come up with is "You just don't understand metaphysics".

Non sequiturs are responses to question. they're not answers.

I never said you don't understand anything... can you quote me there?  It's possible after many attempts to have a conversation with Brian about how his approach to metaphysics is not logical that i told him he doesn't get it... simply due to logic on his part and nothing more.  that is not my defense, but an observed conclusion.  I claim that metaphysics does not apply to the physical and Brian keeps resorting to physical proof of the metaphysical.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:We also have

jcgadfly wrote:

We also have knowledge of the validity of books of fiction. You need to show proof that the Bible is somehow different.

in comparison to categories of books, the Bible is claiming to be non-fiction unlike books of fiction that claim to be... well... fiction.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:This is the

TGBaker wrote:

This is the real problem that goes back to Decartes and his dualism.   How can one interact with another.  As a medium you would need a third substance and for those two more ad infinitum.  That is why monism is the norm. If you posit a monism then you perhaps can work with a property dualism where a property of one substance interacts with that of another within the monism. This really moves away from dualism to pantheism or panentheism.  Typically Being is equated with potentiality or the source that set the boundary condition of existence which is simply the actualization of the Being as potentiality. Secondly to personify this Being. It is equated with Consciousness and nothingness. The eguating of Being and Nothingness allows for it to be boundless or limitless. The positing it as absolute consciousness allows it to actualize existence by self reference or Logos.

Well said my friend.  

I would only add in my perspective that limits are experiential and limitless is perspective based.  it is possible that this boundless being isn't boundless by literal standards, but as far as our existence and knowledge is concerned, He is.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

We also have knowledge of the validity of books of fiction. You need to show proof that the Bible is somehow different.

in comparison to categories of books, the Bible is claiming to be non-fiction unlike books of fiction that claim to be... well... fiction.

A claim of non fiction is defeated upon reading the thing...

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I'm not "hung

Brian37 wrote:

I'm not "hung up" on anything. DNA is provable testable and falsifiable. I didn't invent DNA so there is nothing for me to be "hung up" on.

It's not logical metaphysically speaking though, which nullifies your case... and yet you are "hung" on it.

jcgadfly wrote:

CAP is the one "hung up" on a pet deity

His name is Ralph

jcgadfly wrote:

just like an other human in history claiming their pet deity.

Ralph... his name is Ralph

jcgadfly wrote:

He doesn't want to face that humans invent gods and he is merely one human in a history of humans that like having fictional super heros who falsely believe them to be real.

That must be it.  it's the only way you can justify your case.  

jcgadfly wrote:

I am persistent, yes. "Hung up"? No. I am the one telling Cap that the earth is a glob, he is the one still insisting that it is flat.

I guess it could be round... I mean there is a hill at the end of the road... but it eventually stops... and if I keep going, i don't end up back at the beginning of the road.  

(case of nearsightedness... Brian's preferred perspective)

jcgadfly wrote:

I only hope for his sake he wakes up before he wastes his entire life on a superstition.

 

ya gotta start discussing with me and presenting rational reasoning.  taking the redundant 'religious nut' approach isn't going to work on me.  Though... are you teling me it'd work on you?!  wow... and I was going about this all wrong...

God is real.... God is real.... God is real... God is real........... do you believe yet?  I think I'm getting to ya.  God is real... God is real.... I think he's almost there!  just a few more baseless redundancies and Brian will be a believer!


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:No I am

Brian37 wrote:

No I am repeating myself just like radiation therapy for cancer, once wont do it. You have a cancer in your head in the form of a really bad naked assertion based on a real self inflicted emotional appeal that you ignore. I am repeating myself to cure you of your delusion.

There is no such thing as a thought arising from a non material process. God/s/deities/super heros/spirits/entities....ect ect ect....every single one in human history, including your pet naked assertion are merely your own wishful thinking which you cling to because of real chemical reactions in your brain that give you a false sense of "being real". You have fallen for an insidious placebo.

It is all in your head and once you realize that you will be cured from your delusion. I may never cure you, but I am damned sure going to try. I DO think it is working because you keep responding, and that says to me that YOU are banging your head against the wall. That is the beginning of the road to recovery. Once you realize you are fighting yourself and not us, that is the next step.

There is no debate here. There is merely you selling old dead ideas and deluding yourself into believing they have any credibility in reality. You could be claiming Thor or pink unicorns and it would be the same cancer by a different name.

Brian... Brian Brian Brian... Do you get that your approach is very catholic.  Say 10 Our Fathers and 30 Hail Mary's and your sins are forgiven.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Joker wrote:Cap, if you're

Joker wrote:

Cap, if you're going to assume that eyewitness accounts are perfectly reliable, then what about the other religions of the world. The Hindu faith is far older than the myths that make up the Abrahamic religions, and I imagine that they have just as many if not more accounts of seeing their deities or the servants thereof. Or to make this a non-theistic thing, what about alien abductions or some of the stuff in cryptozoology? I mean there are a lot of people who claim to have been abducted by aliens or think that they saw some kind of alien spacecraft, and not just the stereotypical drunken redneck either, there are professional pilots and others who have said they saw UFOs. Now, sure, they might just have seen military aircraft that they couldn't identify and some stuff might just be their imaginations amplifying something but many of the accounts seem consistent.

I'm not trying to make an argument for alien abductions, just trying to point out that eyewitness accounts can be wrong, and in the days before we had mass communication essentially we have to deal with the problem of the telephone game where a story can get garbled, twisted, amplified and end up drastically different than what it originated as. Let's assume that each person who claimed to see a miraculous sign was entirely honest and truly believed what they were saying and weren't lying to curry favor, gain power, or anything like that. Equally we will assume that none of these eyewitnesses were manipulated or created out of whole cloth by scribes or 'messengers' claiming to be relaying a story. Even if I give them all of that there are still ways that they could be wrong, some of them might be schizophrenic or otherwise delusional, some of them might have been hallucinating due to starvation or heat exhaustion, or high on some substance that they thought would aid them in communing with a higher power. There are also people who believe that they've seen ghosts, taken rides on Haleys comet, or had past lives.

There are also problems where eyewitness accounts don't match up with what history tells us, the plagues of Egypt for example. Now, if we say for the sake of argument that there is no eyewitness testimony opposing what your books say, and the eyewitness testimony seems to be fairly consistent with other events and what archeology shows and such for the past, then it becomes far more compelling and far more probable.

Christians don't believe that other "deities" don't exist.  ti's likely they were a person or other metaphysical being trying to rule a people.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Joker wrote:Cap, if you're

oops, double post.


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

This is the real problem that goes back to Decartes and his dualism.   How can one interact with another.  As a medium you would need a third substance and for those two more ad infinitum.  That is why monism is the norm. If you posit a monism then you perhaps can work with a property dualism where a property of one substance interacts with that of another within the monism. This really moves away from dualism to pantheism or panentheism.  Typically Being is equated with potentiality or the source that set the boundary condition of existence which is simply the actualization of the Being as potentiality. Secondly to personify this Being. It is equated with Consciousness and nothingness. The eguating of Being and Nothingness allows for it to be boundless or limitless. The positing it as absolute consciousness allows it to actualize existence by self reference or Logos.

Well said my friend.  

I would only add in my perspective that limits are experiential and limitless is perspective based.  it is possible that this boundless being isn't boundless by literal standards, but as far as our existence and knowledge is concerned, He is.

Another way to put it is that the Logos as a singularity is the boundary condition or objectification of the boundless such that the boundless has location but remains boundless. The boundless is Being. Being is potentiality while existence is actualization of the potentiality and therefore actuality. Being is real and actuality exists.  Being carries as an epistemic " I am all there is is/Apart from me(the boundless) there is Nothing) The singularity has no internality and is non-durative so ceases as it began as an individuation. It is the dialectic of epistemic Apart from Being is Nothing. The singularity would be the big bang, an inifinite point of singularity that in relation to the boundless potentiality of Being inflates instantly into existence.  The self reference of the boundless or Being as the singularity is a dialectic  I am all there is/ apart from me there is nothing becomes something as Logos. All things are created through it. The objectification as singularity is such that its internality is actually the boundless external state since a singularity is itself vacuous. The relationship of the one( singularity) to the boundless is two and then an infinite regression as the logos expands as creation into the boundless.  So the boundless would only be bounded by its self reference which is Logos and the subsequent creation. The Being is Nothing qs potentiality and becomes something as logos. But that is only one theory.

 

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Brian37

caposkia wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I'm not "hung up" on anything. DNA is provable testable and falsifiable. I didn't invent DNA so there is nothing for me to be "hung up" on.

It's not logical metaphysically speaking though, which nullifies your case... and yet you are "hung" on it.

jcgadfly wrote:

CAP is the one "hung up" on a pet deity

His name is Ralph

jcgadfly wrote:

just like an other human in history claiming their pet deity.

Ralph... his name is Ralph

jcgadfly wrote:

He doesn't want to face that humans invent gods and he is merely one human in a history of humans that like having fictional super heros who falsely believe them to be real.

That must be it.  it's the only way you can justify your case.  

jcgadfly wrote:

I am persistent, yes. "Hung up"? No. I am the one telling Cap that the earth is a glob, he is the one still insisting that it is flat.

I guess it could be round... I mean there is a hill at the end of the road... but it eventually stops... and if I keep going, i don't end up back at the beginning of the road.  

(case of nearsightedness... Brian's preferred perspective)

jcgadfly wrote:

I only hope for his sake he wakes up before he wastes his entire life on a superstition.

 

ya gotta start discussing with me and presenting rational reasoning.  taking the redundant 'religious nut' approach isn't going to work on me.  Though... are you teling me it'd work on you?!  wow... and I was going about this all wrong...

God is real.... God is real.... God is real... God is real........... do you believe yet?  I think I'm getting to ya.  God is real... God is real.... I think he's almost there!  just a few more baseless redundancies and Brian will be a believer!

Is there a particular reason why you gave Brian's posts to me? I don't want to take credit for his making you squeal.

As for "metaphysically speaking" - that's the point isn't it? You have a metaphysical being that you claim is acting on the physical world. Somehow, he doesn't seem to be leaving any traces of this interaction. Your only "explanation" for this is that if we don't agree with you it's because we don't understand metaphysics.

I also wouldn't object to reading your definition of metaphysics as it doesn't seem to square with the conventional one.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Joker

caposkia wrote:

Joker wrote:

Cap, if you're going to assume that eyewitness accounts are perfectly reliable, then what about the other religions of the world. The Hindu faith is far older than the myths that make up the Abrahamic religions, and I imagine that they have just as many if not more accounts of seeing their deities or the servants thereof. Or to make this a non-theistic thing, what about alien abductions or some of the stuff in cryptozoology? I mean there are a lot of people who claim to have been abducted by aliens or think that they saw some kind of alien spacecraft, and not just the stereotypical drunken redneck either, there are professional pilots and others who have said they saw UFOs. Now, sure, they might just have seen military aircraft that they couldn't identify and some stuff might just be their imaginations amplifying something but many of the accounts seem consistent.

I'm not trying to make an argument for alien abductions, just trying to point out that eyewitness accounts can be wrong, and in the days before we had mass communication essentially we have to deal with the problem of the telephone game where a story can get garbled, twisted, amplified and end up drastically different than what it originated as. Let's assume that each person who claimed to see a miraculous sign was entirely honest and truly believed what they were saying and weren't lying to curry favor, gain power, or anything like that. Equally we will assume that none of these eyewitnesses were manipulated or created out of whole cloth by scribes or 'messengers' claiming to be relaying a story. Even if I give them all of that there are still ways that they could be wrong, some of them might be schizophrenic or otherwise delusional, some of them might have been hallucinating due to starvation or heat exhaustion, or high on some substance that they thought would aid them in communing with a higher power. There are also people who believe that they've seen ghosts, taken rides on Haleys comet, or had past lives.

There are also problems where eyewitness accounts don't match up with what history tells us, the plagues of Egypt for example. Now, if we say for the sake of argument that there is no eyewitness testimony opposing what your books say, and the eyewitness testimony seems to be fairly consistent with other events and what archeology shows and such for the past, then it becomes far more compelling and far more probable.

Christians don't believe that other "deities" don't exist.  ti's likely they were a person or other metaphysical being trying to rule a people.

Do you accept the existence of these other metaphysical beings as unquestioningly as you accept Yahweh? Or do you require evidence of their existence first?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Be it that we

caposkia wrote:
Be it that we have knowledge of the validity of movies, naw.

So movie-jesus was a lie too ? None of that stuff ever happened ? Man, what a gyp.

caposkia wrote:
but I intend to investigate your Thor sighting myself soon.

Let us know if you got converted.


 


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:[ ti's likely

caposkia wrote:

[ ti's likely they were a person or other metaphysical being trying to rule a people.

...

"other metaphysical being" ?

There's more than one of those things ?

 

Do they breed ?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:caposkia

Anonymouse wrote:

caposkia wrote:

[ ti's likely they were a person or other metaphysical being trying to rule a people.

...

"other metaphysical being" ?

There's more than one of those things ?

 

Do they breed ?

That's the beauty of talking with so many "metaphysicians".

Normal Person: "Superman is real!"

Metaphysician: "No he's not"

NP: "Yes he is. He's just metaphysical"

M: "Oh, OK then."

Cap, before you get into "comparing comic book characters to Biblical ones isn't a valid comparison" - the WSD (willful suspension of disbelief required to read both is very nearly the same. Comics characters don't command you to worship them or have tax exempt churches built in their names on the backs of people who really can't afford it.

Though the Church of Batman might be pretty badass.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Joker
atheist
Joker's picture
Posts: 180
Joined: 2010-07-23
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:Joker

caposkia wrote:

Joker wrote:

Cap, if you're going to assume that eyewitness accounts are perfectly reliable, then what about the other religions of the world. The Hindu faith is far older than the myths that make up the Abrahamic religions, and I imagine that they have just as many if not more accounts of seeing their deities or the servants thereof. Or to make this a non-theistic thing, what about alien abductions or some of the stuff in cryptozoology? I mean there are a lot of people who claim to have been abducted by aliens or think that they saw some kind of alien spacecraft, and not just the stereotypical drunken redneck either, there are professional pilots and others who have said they saw UFOs. Now, sure, they might just have seen military aircraft that they couldn't identify and some stuff might just be their imaginations amplifying something but many of the accounts seem consistent.

I'm not trying to make an argument for alien abductions, just trying to point out that eyewitness accounts can be wrong, and in the days before we had mass communication essentially we have to deal with the problem of the telephone game where a story can get garbled, twisted, amplified and end up drastically different than what it originated as. Let's assume that each person who claimed to see a miraculous sign was entirely honest and truly believed what they were saying and weren't lying to curry favor, gain power, or anything like that. Equally we will assume that none of these eyewitnesses were manipulated or created out of whole cloth by scribes or 'messengers' claiming to be relaying a story. Even if I give them all of that there are still ways that they could be wrong, some of them might be schizophrenic or otherwise delusional, some of them might have been hallucinating due to starvation or heat exhaustion, or high on some substance that they thought would aid them in communing with a higher power. There are also people who believe that they've seen ghosts, taken rides on Haleys comet, or had past lives.

There are also problems where eyewitness accounts don't match up with what history tells us, the plagues of Egypt for example. Now, if we say for the sake of argument that there is no eyewitness testimony opposing what your books say, and the eyewitness testimony seems to be fairly consistent with other events and what archeology shows and such for the past, then it becomes far more compelling and far more probable.

Christians don't believe that other "deities" don't exist.  ti's likely they were a person or other metaphysical being trying to rule a people.

 

You missed my point, you don't believe in the claims mentioned, or at least don't think they're accurate as they claim to have the true path but you think you do. Why are you so sure that they're wrong and you're right?

Assuming then, Cap, that your deity isn't just the result of the telephone game played with myths about some person or 'metaphysical being' how do you differentiate? I mean I doubt you think that any of those faiths are correct, so are you henothiest? If you're not familiar with the term it means that there are many deities or deific beings but that either they have spheres and areas of influence or that there is some hierarchy among these beings. If so, then what proof do you have? I mean I have no more proof for your deity than I do of say those in the Hindu pantheon or the Norse pantheon, so what do you have to prove yours is better than theres let alone correct and/or accurate.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Is there a

jcgadfly wrote:

Is there a particular reason why you gave Brian's posts to me? I don't want to take credit for his making you squeal.

no, I goofed.  I failed to recopy his name before replying.  Sorry about that

jcgadfly wrote:

As for "metaphysically speaking" - that's the point isn't it? You have a metaphysical being that you claim is acting on the physical world. Somehow, he doesn't seem to be leaving any traces of this interaction. Your only "explanation" for this is that if we don't agree with you it's because we don't understand metaphysics.

you keep saying that... where did I officially say you all don't understand metaphysics?  We could go into the aspect of signalless communication.  There's an actual study done on it.  As far as Gods effects.. you would see results, that's how it's known to have happened, but as far as traces of God... even if there was, what exactly would you be looking for?  Moose droppings don't count.

jcgadfly wrote:

I also wouldn't object to reading your definition of metaphysics as it doesn't seem to square with the conventional one.

no it's the same one.  Where are you getting this?


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Another way to

TGBaker wrote:

Another way to put it is that the Logos as a singularity is the boundary condition or objectification of the boundless such that the boundless has location but remains boundless. The boundless is Being. Being is potentiality while existence is actualization of the potentiality and therefore actuality. Being is real and actuality exists.  Being carries as an epistemic " I am all there is is/Apart from me(the boundless) there is Nothing) The singularity has no internality and is non-durative so ceases as it began as an individuation. It is the dialectic of epistemic Apart from Being is Nothing. The singularity would be the big bang, an inifinite point of singularity that in relation to the boundless potentiality of Being inflates instantly into existence.  The self reference of the boundless or Being as the singularity is a dialectic  I am all there is/ apart from me there is nothing becomes something as Logos. All things are created through it. The objectification as singularity is such that its internality is actually the boundless external state since a singularity is itself vacuous. The relationship of the one( singularity) to the boundless is two and then an infinite regression as the logos expands as creation into the boundless.  So the boundless would only be bounded by its self reference which is Logos and the subsequent creation. The Being is Nothing qs potentiality and becomes something as logos. But that is only one theory.

I love this guy!  

Now the big question that keeps being asked of me and so maybe you can help me explain how it's possible.  How do we study that under a microscope?  Brian among others seem to think it's possible to do.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Do you accept

jcgadfly wrote:

Do you accept the existence of these other metaphysical beings as unquestioningly as you accept Yahweh? Or do you require evidence of their existence first?

The problem with answering your question is that I required evidence of Yahweh's existence first as well.   So... considering that i "require evidence of" Yahweh's Existence, I "require evidence of their existence" as well.  


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Anonymouse wrote:"other

Anonymouse wrote:

"other metaphysical being" ?

There's more than one of those things ?

 

Do they breed ?

I'm not claiming to know the inner workings of the metaphysical existence, but there are others.  Bible details that.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Joker wrote:You missed my

Joker wrote:

You missed my point, you don't believe in the claims mentioned, or at least don't think they're accurate as they claim to have the true path but you think you do. Why are you so sure that they're wrong and you're right?

I'm guessing it's the same reason why you believe you're right and I'm wrong.  The evidences you've seen and accepted as reasonable and rational for the subject in question.

Joker wrote:

Assuming then, Cap, that your deity isn't just the result of the telephone game played with myths about some person or 'metaphysical being' how do you differentiate? I mean I doubt you think that any of those faiths are correct, so are you henothiest? If you're not familiar with the term it means that there are many deities or deific beings but that either they have spheres and areas of influence or that there is some hierarchy among these beings. If so, then what proof do you have? I mean I have no more proof for your deity than I do of say those in the Hindu pantheon or the Norse pantheon, so what do you have to prove yours is better than theres let alone correct and/or accurate.

Well, the Bible paints that picture very well with the story of the alter built for the false god then the one built for our God among other stories in different books.  I have a theory that those other gods are fallen angels trying to deceive people.  

Everyone asks me what proof I have.  Too much to just reply in one post.  What exactly would you be looking for.  If it's rational, I'll see if that means of proof exists.  If it's not, I'll explain to you why I feel it's not by a rational and common sense means.  

Some of the reasoning I have to following my angle is that I know the source of the other followings. e.g. Muslims have the one sole person who was privileged enough to get the writings of Allah which is suspect to me that either this person was deceived or is a deceiver.  Confucianism was started by faithful followers of Confucius and was never intended to be a following by the alleged founder.  I could go on for quite a few more.  

let's stick with what you're looking for


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Do you accept the existence of these other metaphysical beings as unquestioningly as you accept Yahweh? Or do you require evidence of their existence first?

The problem with answering your question is that I required evidence of Yahweh's existence first as well.   So... considering that i "require evidence of" Yahweh's Existence, I "require evidence of their existence" as well.  

Yahweh's been shorting you - there is no evidence of his existence. You see evidence of Yahweh's existence becaused you believe in Yahweh. You have your conclusion and you fit the evidence to it.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Another way to put it is that the Logos as a singularity is the boundary condition or objectification of the boundless such that the boundless has location but remains boundless. The boundless is Being. Being is potentiality while existence is actualization of the potentiality and therefore actuality. Being is real and actuality exists.  Being carries as an epistemic " I am all there is is/Apart from me(the boundless) there is Nothing) The singularity has no internality and is non-durative so ceases as it began as an individuation. It is the dialectic of epistemic Apart from Being is Nothing. The singularity would be the big bang, an inifinite point of singularity that in relation to the boundless potentiality of Being inflates instantly into existence.  The self reference of the boundless or Being as the singularity is a dialectic  I am all there is/ apart from me there is nothing becomes something as Logos. All things are created through it. The objectification as singularity is such that its internality is actually the boundless external state since a singularity is itself vacuous. The relationship of the one( singularity) to the boundless is two and then an infinite regression as the logos expands as creation into the boundless.  So the boundless would only be bounded by its self reference which is Logos and the subsequent creation. The Being is Nothing qs potentiality and becomes something as logos. But that is only one theory.

I love this guy!  

Now the big question that keeps being asked of me and so maybe you can help me explain how it's possible.  How do we study that under a microscope?  Brian among others seem to think it's possible to do.

Well here's the problem caposkia.  Obviously I wrote a major paper on this and so it is simply a summary.  That you understand it is awesome but you are metaphysically equipped to do so.  This scenario really if analysed would indicate that theism and atheism are the same!!!! It ultimately puts an anthropomorphic understanding to the scenario as is necessary when speaking about a boundless or infinite qua consciousness.  So the idea of god as person is a means to understand the absolute whose properties are boundless and the boundary conditions of the universe.  The attributes attributed to god only have representative correspondence.  That is to say that which is attributed to the boundless is the idea of "god" but the absolute is beyond that conception. The attributes are not abstracted as is the case with logos. The definition of god then itself becomes an idolatry in that it is accepted as god itself.  But logos is simply the actualization of the boundless and the structure of creation. When it is mistaken as god then it as the "word" or the word "god" as representation of god becomes an idol. 

It makes more sense to see the boundless as a simple undifferentiated state that is the potentiality of the big bang than something complex like a thinking multimodule mind. From simplicity to complexity is what we observe in existence. We see evolution not a fall.  We see millions  and billions of years of development where suffering is simply the conflict of causality but from which life moves away to more pleasant and better states of environment. With man we see the intentional adaptation and alteration of environment to seek well being and less suffering. This is a primeval awareness in the organic of sustaining,  growing and evolving ultimately into human consciousness where nature can transcend itself and go against its own evolution in its species, homo sapiens.  To use god terminology can at best be poetic as is the philosophical language I used to explain the poetical science. The scenario actually would unexpectedly work with a Buddhist atheism thus my statement that atheism and theism are ontologically the same.  Consciousness is simply a physical aspect of reality that as it become more complex in chemical and molecular interactions organic.  iT IS NO MORE SUPERNATURAL OR TRANSCENDENT THAN GRAVITY.  An author David Chalmers is researching the hypothesis that consciousness is simply a fundamental property of nature that is non-reducible. When it is developed into something as complex as a nervous system it processes external properties into representative information in a localized system. Eventually we see the most complex as the human brain.  The mind is simply the interaction of this property of consciousness with other neuron based systems that have functions that are not conscious in themselves such as memory, language, feelings, emotions. Some things never come to conscious states such as neuronal processing of sensations like sounds, balance, color distinction, neurons for horizontal and vertical lines, number  and then number representation, breathing, heartbeat. Some of these contribute to conscious understanding. To posit this in the idea of Being as potentiality goes against Occam's Razor or parsimony.  Ergo my stance as an atheist.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Yahweh's been

jcgadfly wrote:

Yahweh's been shorting you - there is no evidence of his existence. You see evidence of Yahweh's existence becaused you believe in Yahweh. You have your conclusion and you fit the evidence to it.

He's been shorting me huh.  What if I said there's no logical reasoning to suggest he doesn't exist... and that you see reasoning he doesn't exist because you don't believe in Yahweh.  you have your conclusion and you fit the evidence to it.

c'mon Jc, you can do better than that.  I know you're smarter than that too.  What's happened to you lately?  everything alright? You used to be one that made an effort in the conversation


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Well here's

TGBaker wrote:

Well here's the problem caposkia.  Obviously I wrote a major paper on this and so it is simply a summary.  That you understand it is awesome but you are metaphysically equipped to do so.  This scenario really if analysed would indicate that theism and atheism are the same!!!!

i remember saying that myself at one point... more on the religious front, but nonetheless they didn't like that perspective.

TGBaker wrote:

It ultimately puts an anthropomorphic understanding to the scenario as is necessary when speaking about a boundless or infinite qua consciousness.  So the idea of god as person is a means to understand the absolute whose properties are boundless and the boundary conditions of the universe.  The attributes attributed to god only have representative correspondence.  That is to say that which is attributed to the boundless is the idea of "god" but the absolute is beyond that conception. The attributes are not abstracted as is the case with logos. The definition of god then itself becomes an idolatry in that it is accepted as god itself.  But logos is simply the actualization of the boundless and the structure of creation. When it is mistaken as god then it as the "word" or the word "god" as representation of god becomes an idol.

i can see that... which is why I think amidst the confusion, 1000's of religions form because no one can agree on the perspective of the idol.

TGBaker wrote:

It makes more sense to see the boundless as a simple undifferentiated state that is the potentiality of the big bang than something complex like a thinking multimodule mind.

This is where I'd disagree with you obviously, but we can get more into it on our thread.  I'll read on.

TGBaker wrote:

From simplicity to complexity is what we observe in existence. We see evolution not a fall. 

are you referring to Adam and Eve?  The Bible doesn't go against an evolutionistic idea.  The fall would have been one event in history dating back further than the earliest of human remains we could find.  What exactly would be evidence of "the fall" if it were the case?

TGBaker wrote:

We see millions  and billions of years of development where suffering is simply the conflict of causality but from which life moves away to more pleasant and better states of environment. With man we see the intentional adaptation and alteration of environment to seek well being and less suffering. This is a primeval awareness in the organic of sustaining,  growing and evolving ultimately into human consciousness where nature can transcend itself and go against its own evolution in its species, homo sapiens.  To use god terminology can at best be poetic as is the philosophical language I used to explain the poetical science. The scenario actually would unexpectedly work with a Buddhist atheism thus my statement that atheism and theism are ontologically the same.  Consciousness is simply a physical aspect of reality that as it become more complex in chemical and molecular interactions organic.  iT IS NO MORE SUPERNATURAL OR TRANSCENDENT THAN GRAVITY. 

I've used that example as well.  The catch with my case is gravity is a constant

TGBaker wrote:

An author David Chalmers is researching the hypothesis that consciousness is simply a fundamental property of nature that is non-reducible. When it is developed into something as complex as a nervous system it processes external properties into representative information in a localized system. Eventually we see the most complex as the human brain.  The mind is simply the interaction of this property of consciousness with other neuron based systems that have functions that are not conscious in themselves such as memory, language, feelings, emotions. Some things never come to conscious states such as neuronal processing of sensations like sounds, balance, color distinction, neurons for horizontal and vertical lines, number  and then number representation, breathing, heartbeat. Some of these contribute to conscious understanding. To posit this in the idea of Being as potentiality goes against Occam's Razor or parsimony.  Ergo my stance as an atheist.

 

I see your perspective and it's a very logical one.  Though you seem to think that bringing a god being into the picture is going further then necessary in understanding, ergo Occam's Razor, I don't see the consideration of a god being as a cause or mechanism going beyond the necessary or making it more complicated for that matter.  If anything, despite the greater volume of questions that might arise, I feel it may simplify things in many ways.  Likelihood and odds ultimately go way up for results that otherwise would be deemed impossible by science though they happened anyway.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:jcgadfly

caposkia wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Yahweh's been shorting you - there is no evidence of his existence. You see evidence of Yahweh's existence becaused you believe in Yahweh. You have your conclusion and you fit the evidence to it.

He's been shorting me huh.  What if I said there's no logical reasoning to suggest he doesn't exist... and that you see reasoning he doesn't exist because you don't believe in Yahweh.  you have your conclusion and you fit the evidence to it.

c'mon Jc, you can do better than that.  I know you're smarter than that too.  What's happened to you lately?  everything alright? You used to be one that made an effort in the conversation

I can state my logical reasoning, cap. Where's yours? I do believe people have asked and you haven't given it (not even to TG who's been putting forth a yeoman's effort).

Cap, you're the second person who has asked me if I'm all right because I took a more direct tone and (most importantly) didn't agree with their views. The first I excuse because he has been a good friend for 35 years and he might actually be concerned for my welfare. You aren't even close so cut the crap.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

Well here's the problem caposkia.  Obviously I wrote a major paper on this and so it is simply a summary.  That you understand it is awesome but you are metaphysically equipped to do so.  This scenario really if analysed would indicate that theism and atheism are the same!!!!

i remember saying that myself at one point... more on the religious front, but nonetheless they didn't like that perspective.

TGBaker wrote:

It ultimately puts an anthropomorphic understanding to the scenario as is necessary when speaking about a boundless or infinite qua consciousness.  So the idea of god as person is a means to understand the absolute whose properties are boundless and the boundary conditions of the universe.  The attributes attributed to god only have representative correspondence.  That is to say that which is attributed to the boundless is the idea of "god" but the absolute is beyond that conception. The attributes are not abstracted as is the case with logos. The definition of god then itself becomes an idolatry in that it is accepted as god itself.  But logos is simply the actualization of the boundless and the structure of creation. When it is mistaken as god then it as the "word" or the word "god" as representation of god becomes an idol.

i can see that... which is why I think amidst the confusion, 1000's of religions form because no one can agree on the perspective of the idol.

TGBaker wrote:

It makes more sense to see the boundless as a simple undifferentiated state that is the potentiality of the big bang than something complex like a thinking multimodule mind.

This is where I'd disagree with you obviously, but we can get more into it on our thread.  I'll read on.

TGBaker wrote:

From simplicity to complexity is what we observe in existence. We see evolution not a fall. 

are you referring to Adam and Eve?  The Bible doesn't go against an evolutionistic idea.  The fall would have been one event in history dating back further than the earliest of human remains we could find.  What exactly would be evidence of "the fall" if it were the case?

TGBaker wrote:

We see millions  and billions of years of development where suffering is simply the conflict of causality but from which life moves away to more pleasant and better states of environment. With man we see the intentional adaptation and alteration of environment to seek well being and less suffering. This is a primeval awareness in the organic of sustaining,  growing and evolving ultimately into human consciousness where nature can transcend itself and go against its own evolution in its species, homo sapiens.  To use god terminology can at best be poetic as is the philosophical language I used to explain the poetical science. The scenario actually would unexpectedly work with a Buddhist atheism thus my statement that atheism and theism are ontologically the same.  Consciousness is simply a physical aspect of reality that as it become more complex in chemical and molecular interactions organic.  iT IS NO MORE SUPERNATURAL OR TRANSCENDENT THAN GRAVITY. 

I've used that example as well.  The catch with my case is gravity is a constant

TGBaker wrote:

An author David Chalmers is researching the hypothesis that consciousness is simply a fundamental property of nature that is non-reducible. When it is developed into something as complex as a nervous system it processes external properties into representative information in a localized system. Eventually we see the most complex as the human brain.  The mind is simply the interaction of this property of consciousness with other neuron based systems that have functions that are not conscious in themselves such as memory, language, feelings, emotions. Some things never come to conscious states such as neuronal processing of sensations like sounds, balance, color distinction, neurons for horizontal and vertical lines, number  and then number representation, breathing, heartbeat. Some of these contribute to conscious understanding. To posit this in the idea of Being as potentiality goes against Occam's Razor or parsimony.  Ergo my stance as an atheist.

 

I see your perspective and it's a very logical one.  Though you seem to think that bringing a god being into the picture is going further then necessary in understanding, ergo Occam's Razor, I don't see the consideration of a god being as a cause or mechanism going beyond the necessary or making it more complicated for that matter.  If anything, despite the greater volume of questions that might arise, I feel it may simplify things in many ways. 

I think that there is no basis for a perfect homo sapien couple or sufficient couple that devolve or cause a worldwide much less  a universal corruption such as Paul presents. I guess we can discuss how positing a god  as first cause would simplify. I look at it as we can not determine the state prior to existence ( that is Being) thus we have a dialectic of theism/ non-theism. Empirically we can sustain the hypothesis of non-theism with lots of evidence but not so with theism. It takes the presuppostion of one looking for it and 2 a motivation derived either from believed revelation or inspiration. Your statement, "Likelihood and odds ultimately go way up for results that otherwise would be deemed impossible by science though they happened anyway..." really defends what Thomas Kuhn in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions presents a shift from a paradigm in which science can not see a possibility to one that explains the non-fitting evidence that is discovered. A panentheism is even more plausible than a theism.  It would accomadate an absolute consciousness that is non-personal but is both the external potentiality of reality and the body of actualization in existence with existence subject to Being. We certainly can move this to our discussion area.


 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I set up a discussion post for us in Atheists vs Theists. I hope to pull an elephant out of my hat though there is not much room for him. How do you eat a whole elephant. You can. But only a little at a time.

 

yea, that statement was more for Brian who has been taking the ignorant theist approach with me in hopes that I would just accept his belief out of redundancy and not reasoning.  I'm looking forward to our discussions

Yet you are still here. Still asking us what we would accept, and still dodging it damned well knowing you cannot meet our standards. Once again, not my problem.

You are not fighting us in reality, you are fighting yourself needlessly. WE are the ones trying to pull you out of your delusion and sky fairy claim.

Thoughts require a material process. PERIOD. You lose.

Magic invisible sky friends are works of fiction invented by humans and stupidly accepted by gullible people like you.  The sun was not a god, and your god is fictional too.

As soon as you face that you'll be a hell of a lot happier.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:caposkia

Quote:

I can state my logical reasoning, cap. Where's yours? I do believe people have asked and you haven't given it (not even to TG who's been putting forth a yeoman's effort).

Cap, you're the second person who has asked me if I'm all right because I took a more direct tone and (most importantly) didn't agree with their views. The first I excuse because he has been a good friend for 35 years and he might actually be concerned for my welfare. You aren't even close so cut the crap.

EDIT

Agreed.

Here are REAL examples of crap.

"The earth is flat"

"Thor makes lightening"

"Ouija Boards work"

"Big foot exists"

"Thoughts magically exist without brain structure"

The only one selling crap is you Cap. The only thing you deserve credit for is how elaborate your crap is and how deeply deluded you are. Being creative with fiction and falsely believing it only means you are creative.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:I can state

jcgadfly wrote:

I can state my logical reasoning, cap. Where's yours? I do believe people have asked and you haven't given it (not even to TG who's been putting forth a yeoman's effort).

Cap, you're the second person who has asked me if I'm all right because I took a more direct tone and (most importantly) didn't agree with their views. The first I excuse because he has been a good friend for 35 years and he might actually be concerned for my welfare. You aren't even close so cut the crap.

I may not have known you for 35 years, nor are we even friends let alone close friends, but that doesn't mean I can't be concerned about your welfare.  A friend of 35 years would know you best and if they're even asking then obviously something's changed, and it's not a more direct approach be it that when you were making an effort, I felt that you were being more direct than you are now.

I can state my logical reasoning and I have and you know it, but i'm not going to sit here and spin off years of research and study just to get 100 posts back talking about every random aspect of it.  There's no way i can focus on that, so what "focus" is it exactly that you feel I can't state my logical reasoning for?  This is the most redundant question on this site.  So redundant because it has yet to be addressed by those who seem to think they're being more direct with me.

oh, and i'm not looking for a focus like "god"... that's not a focus.  I'm looking for something more like; "I haven't seen you explain your logical reasoning for god scientifically considering an X point of view or Y focus in science"... basically I'm looking for you to tell me literally and clearly what exactly you need to hear from me.  You say you're being more direct... show me. Bring it.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:I think that

TGBaker wrote:

I think that there is no basis for a perfect homo sapien couple or sufficient couple that devolve or cause a worldwide much less  a universal corruption such as Paul presents.

again, i'm not sure what you'd be looking for in the way of that universal corruption.  What exactly would you expect to find if in fact such an event did happen.

On another note, there is geneological evidence that the human race started with a first homosapien couple that originated somewhere (I can't remember exactly where) in the east, northeast section of Africa.  In fact, there was a special on.... discovery??? nat. geo??? can't remember and they traced sample groups back to that same location and likely couple and mapped out the migration patterns of these people's ancestors to explain their heritage and how it came to be from one source.  Very informative.

TGBaker wrote:

I guess we can discuss how positing a god  as first cause would simplify.

Scientifically the unknowns and illogicals of The Big Bang theory (e.g. how some scientific laws would have to have been broken in order for it to happen as theorized) seem to get explained..  The complexity of DNA is more logical and the fact that there aren't more errors in its replication makes more sense if there was a creator behind it in my opinion.  The efficiency of the universe in the way that energy is neither created nor destroyed makes more sense.  it's a smart design.  The complexity of consciousness is comprehendable spiritually (your consciousness is spiritual)  doesn't explain it, but clarifies it's possibility.  Signalless communication makes no sense scientifically and only makes sense with the possibility of another means of communication e.g. metaphysical or spiritual.  

That's just the science part.  Beyond that, so many times people ask why.  I'm not saying all the answers will come, but many why's would be answered with the rule of a God behind it.  Unknown reasons, though not understood would be accepted as possible.  I could go on.

TGBaker wrote:

I look at it as we can not determine the state prior to existence ( that is Being) thus we have a dialectic of theism/ non-theism. Empirically we can sustain the hypothesis of non-theism with lots of evidence but not so with theism.

Be it that we are physical and have concentrated on studying the physical and non-theism requires nothing outside the physical that makes a lot of sense.

TGBaker wrote:

It takes the presuppostion of one looking for it and 2 a motivation derived either from believed revelation or inspiration. Your statement, "Likelihood and odds ultimately go way up for results that otherwise would be deemed impossible by science though they happened anyway..." really defends what Thomas Kuhn in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions presents a shift from a paradigm in which science can not see a possibility to one that explains the non-fitting evidence that is discovered. A panentheism is even more plausible than a theism.  It would accomadate an absolute consciousness that is non-personal but is both the external potentiality of reality and the body of actualization in existence with existence subject to Being. We certainly can move this to our discussion area.

Which is I think why Einstein supported that perspective.  First things first though, we'd have to agree on the plausibility of a metaphysical existence before discussing the likelihood of either.  a panentheism can't exist if metaphysics is false.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Yet you are

Brian37 wrote:

Yet you are still here.

it entertains me to watch you run from corner to corner.  You're like a lion in a cage that paces yet gets nowhere.  It's why people go to zoos.

Brian37 wrote:

Still asking us what we would accept, and still dodging it damned well knowing you cannot meet our standards. Once again, not my problem.

Your problem is coming up with logical reasoning for your point of view.  You keep saying you have and you can, but I haven't seen it.  

Brian37 wrote:

You are not fighting us in reality, you are fighting yourself needlessly. WE are the ones trying to pull you out of your delusion and sky fairy claim.

you've been fighting me?  I've just been messing with you... waiting until you want to get serious.'

Brian37 wrote:

Thoughts require a material process. PERIOD. You lose.

prove it. Show me a thought attempt outside a material process and give me the writeup on how it failed.  The only way you can claim that statement as fact is if you have proof that it's absolutely not possible.  Lack of evidence has never been an excuse to conclude anything..... think teapot.

Brian37 wrote:

Magic invisible sky friends are works of fiction invented by humans and stupidly accepted by gullible people like you.  The sun was not a god, and your god is fictional too.

that's an associative conclusion without basis.  The Sun god was not real and therefore my god isn't either.... therefore this must be true as well... Peter Griffen is not a real person and neither is Obama.    

Without any other support, reasoning or basis, my statement holds just as much water as yours... unless your'e holding out on me... what else do you have?

Brian37 wrote:

As soon as you face that you'll be a hell of a lot happier.

yea, I know, ignorance is bliss... but i'm much happier knowing what I know.   i don't get why you're so concerned about my happiness.


caposkia
Theist
Posts: 2577
Joined: 2007-05-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Here are REAL

Brian37 wrote:

Here are REAL examples of crap.

Guano

scat

poopy

dung

Brian37 wrote:

"The earth is flat"

at least that's what you'll say when you book a trip to the Sahara.  Don't delay, book today!!!

Brian37 wrote:

"Thor makes lightening"

and if you buy your tickets now, you'll get a free lightning pen!

Brian37 wrote:

"Ouija Boards work"

Yes, yes... spiritual yesses.  

Brian37 wrote:

"Big foot exists"

my uncle wears a size 14 shoe!

Brian37 wrote:

"Thoughts magically exist without brain structure"

now for my next magical trick, I'll pull a Brian out of a hat

Brian37 wrote:

The only one selling crap is you Cap.

$.35 a pound... great for fertilizer

Brian37 wrote:

The only thing you deserve credit for is how elaborate your crap is and how deeply deluded you are. Being creative with fiction and falsely believing it only means you are creative.

 

 

sorry, no credit cards accepted.

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
caposkia wrote:TGBaker

caposkia wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

I think that there is no basis for a perfect homo sapien couple or sufficient couple that devolve or cause a worldwide much less  a universal corruption such as Paul presents.

again, i'm not sure what you'd be looking for in the way of that universal corruption.  What exactly would you expect to find if in fact such an event did happen.

On another note, there is geneological evidence that the human race started with a first homosapien couple that originated somewhere (I can't remember exactly where) in the east, northeast section of Africa.  In fact, there was a special on.... discovery??? nat. geo??? can't remember and they traced sample groups back to that same location and likely couple and mapped out the migration patterns of these people's ancestors to explain their heritage and how it came to be from one source.  Very informative.

TGBaker wrote:

 

I guess we can discuss how positing a god  as first cause would simplify.

Scientifically the unknowns and illogicals of The Big Bang theory (e.g. how some scientific laws would have to have been broken in order for it to happen as theorized) seem to get explained..  The complexity of DNA is more logical and the fact that there aren't more errors in its replication makes more sense if there was a creator behind it in my opinion.  The efficiency of the universe in the way that energy is neither created nor destroyed makes more sense.  it's a smart design.  The complexity of consciousness is comprehendable spiritually (your consciousness is spiritual)  doesn't explain it, but clarifies it's possibility.  Signalless communication makes no sense scientifically and only makes sense with the possibility of another means of communication e.g. metaphysical or spiritual.  

That's just the science part.  Beyond that, so many times people ask why.  I'm not saying all the answers will come, but many why's would be answered with the rule of a God behind it.  Unknown reasons, though not understood would be accepted as possible.  I could go on.

TGBaker wrote:

I look at it as we can not determine the state prior to existence ( that is Being) thus we have a dialectic of theism/ non-theism. Empirically we can sustain the hypothesis of non-theism with lots of evidence but not so with theism.

Be it that we are physical and have concentrated on studying the physical and non-theism requires nothing outside the physical that makes a lot of sense.

TGBaker wrote:

It takes the presuppostion of one looking for it and 2 a motivation derived either from believed revelation or inspiration. Your statement, "Likelihood and odds ultimately go way up for results that otherwise would be deemed impossible by science though they happened anyway..." really defends what Thomas Kuhn in his Structure of Scientific Revolutions presents a shift from a paradigm in which science can not see a possibility to one that explains the non-fitting evidence that is discovered. A panentheism is even more plausible than a theism.  It would accomadate an absolute consciousness that is non-personal but is both the external potentiality of reality and the body of actualization in existence with existence subject to Being. We certainly can move this to our discussion area.

Which is I think why Einstein supported that perspective.  First things first though, we'd have to agree on the plausibility of a metaphysical existence before discussing the likelihood of either.  a panentheism can't exist if metaphysics is false.

Einstein's "god" was nature, not anything close to a thinking being. He was using it as a metaphor for the gigantic size and gigantic potential and kinetic energy in the universe. He in no way bought into a human like god. AND he rejected the god of his own Jewish background calling the god of the bible "noble but childish", meaning a child's myth.

Pantheism is as much a joke as metaphysics. You are merely trying to use new age crap and twist Einstein's quotes to try to prop up your Jesus myth.

Your original goal on page one with your original post talked about the Christian god, your super hero Jesus. Everything since has been a back peddle.

Jesus was not a god, or the spawn of a god, because gods do not exist. Anymore than Thor makes lightening. Trying to use new age crap like "metaphysics" wont work. You would not buy your own arguments if a Muslim were trying to use "metaphysics" to sell Allah.

You would not buy Vishnu if a Hindu were claiming "metaphysics".

You still have yet to take your earth shattering claim of "metaphysics" into an independent lab and have people from all over the world of all labels "observe" this earth shattering discovery. If you could, you would have done so by now and it would be as easy as demonstrating DNA.

You have nothing but a dream, nothing but wishful thinking, just like every deity claimant in human history.

Give it up.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37