You know God. You know God created the universe. You know He loves you. Surely, then, this will be no trouble for you...

Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
You know God. You know God created the universe. You know He loves you. Surely, then, this will be no trouble for you...

Explain to me the mechanisms by which God created the universe, creates souls, set-up Heaven and Hell, transformed into Jesus and performed miracles (just to get us started). Give me all the juicy details (post a video with them included, if you like. Or even just one of them), using the Rosetta Stone of mathematics and science as your descriptors.

I mean, you know the guy, right? So who/where is he? What's he made of? And just how did he manufacture the cosmos (Hint: Genesis's answers are definately incorrect ones)?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Daedalus, let's run through a hypothetical scenario. Suppose we rewind to the fifteenth century. You and I are both peasants walking around in the muck. We are both totally ignorant of wondrous 20th century scientific advances. Now, would you say that we are warranted in believing that matter is solid, even though we don't know why it's solid?

I have a hard time with this question because your hypothetical 15th century peasants both are and are not warranted in their belief.

Solid is, in itself, an hypothesis which, in a probable future of the hypothetical, will fail. In 20th-21st century physics 'solidness' refers to a repelling force and it is fairly clear in my mind that your hypothetical characters would argue that they aren't meaning anything of the sort by their coining of the word 'solid'.  And furthermore it is also hard to say that a 21st century person is any more warranted in believing the hypothesis of repelling forces as an alternative descriptor. The existence of things and processes are essentially presupposed to be described and the epistemic justification for doing so comes from the axioms that allow us to engage in sensical communication not from any assurance that the hypotheses of form and process are inherently absolute. A presuppositionalist will insert God and say that's why it makes sense, while a smart secular scientist would say NO it doesn't necessarily make sense and no complex assumption slid under the foundation should be able to change that; I simply accept that is way it is, and one can always systematically check and recheck definitions/hypotheses.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Religion , it's all the same

Religion , it's all the same SHIT CRAP. Here's prophet Pat Condell's latest ....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIq7tsVvEoY


trubeliever
Theist
Posts: 28
Joined: 2008-09-15
User is offlineOffline
Kevin R Brown wrote:Explain

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Explain to me the mechanisms by which God created the universe, creates souls, set-up Heaven and Hell, transformed into Jesus and performed miracles (just to get us started). Give me all the juicy details (post a video with them included, if you like. Or even just one of them), using the Rosetta Stone of mathematics and science as your descriptors.

I mean, you know the guy, right? So who/where is he? What's he made of? And just how did he manufacture the cosmos (Hint: Genesis's answers are definately incorrect ones)?

you are basically asking theist to define god withing the confines of science. first off science has its limitation if you do not agree with that then i highly encourage you to look at that.

now you are asking about god, so i think we need to be on the same understanding as to what we believe god is for the sake of the argument. as a christian i will say this

God is the uncaused cause of everything.

He is the uncreated creator.

The unmoved mover.

If you cannot agree on those statements for the sake of the argument then you are not treating it fairly.

now, if god is the uncreated creator, to create the universe he cannot be in the universe. something inside the universe cannot created something from nothing within that universe. so quite simply god could not be in the universe to create the universe, so to ask us to define god withing the confines of science is an unfair and illogical question. however, with science i think it is fairly easy to prove the POSSIBILITY of a god. it is impossible to 100% prove god, why else would we need faith?


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
trubeliever wrote:Kevin R

trubeliever wrote:

Kevin R Brown wrote:

Explain to me the mechanisms by which God created the universe, creates souls, set-up Heaven and Hell, transformed into Jesus and performed miracles (just to get us started). Give me all the juicy details (post a video with them included, if you like. Or even just one of them), using the Rosetta Stone of mathematics and science as your descriptors.

I mean, you know the guy, right? So who/where is he? What's he made of? And just how did he manufacture the cosmos (Hint: Genesis's answers are definately incorrect ones)?

you are basically asking theist to define god withing the confines of science. first off science has its limitation if you do not agree with that then i highly encourage you to look at that.

now you are asking about god, so i think we need to be on the same understanding as to what we believe god is for the sake of the argument. as a christian i will say this

God is the uncaused cause of everything.

He is the uncreated creator.

The unmoved mover.

If you cannot agree on those statements for the sake of the argument then you are not treating it fairly.

now, if god is the uncreated creator, to create the universe he cannot be in the universe. something inside the universe cannot created something from nothing within that universe. so quite simply god could not be in the universe to create the universe, so to ask us to define god withing the confines of science is an unfair and illogical question. however, with science i think it is fairly easy to prove the POSSIBILITY of a god. it is impossible to 100% prove god, why else would we need faith?

Our old friend the first cause argument - if only it worked.

"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


WillieBop
Theist
Posts: 61
Joined: 2007-03-19
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Our old

jcgadfly wrote:

Our old friend the first cause argument - if only it worked.

 

It's amazing how utterly incapable of following simple english communication atheists are.   I'll try and use small words.



TB  made no argument it was a statement of a definition.  If you can't follow such simple things maybe you should stop trying to communicate on the internet.


 


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
WillieBop wrote:It's amazing

WillieBop wrote:
It's amazing how utterly incapable of following simple english communication atheists are.   I'll try and use small words.

TB  made no argument it was a statement of a definition.  If you can't follow such simple things maybe you should stop trying to communicate on the internet. 

You really have no clue what an "argument" is, do you?

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
WillieBop wrote:jcgadfly

WillieBop wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Our old friend the first cause argument - if only it worked.

 

It's amazing how utterly incapable of following simple english communication atheists are.   I'll try and use small words.



 

TB  made no argument it was a statement of a definition.  If you can't follow such simple things maybe you should stop trying to communicate on the internet.


 

 

an argument consists of a premise and a conclusion, both of which TB supplied.  maybe you should brush up on what "argument" really means, instead of making up bullshit terms like "statement of a definition," whatever the fuck THAT means.

and you, motherfucker, are bordering on being a troll.  what say you, mods?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


jcgadfly
Superfan
Posts: 6791
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
WillieBop wrote:jcgadfly

WillieBop wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Our old friend the first cause argument - if only it worked.

 

It's amazing how utterly incapable of following simple english communication atheists are.   I'll try and use small words.

 

TB  made no argument it was a statement of a definition.  If you can't follow such simple things maybe you should stop trying to communicate on the internet.

 

 

Oh, there was a load of special pleading also.

Renaming something is not defining it. You may have to read up on those critical thinking skills a little more.

Or will that delay your pursuit of the Halfbright scholarship?

"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


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
trubeliever wrote:you are

trubeliever wrote:
you are basically asking theist to define god withing the confines of science. first off science has its limitation if you do not agree with that then i highly encourage you to look at that.
Would you please divulge what these limitations are?

Quote:
now you are asking about god, so i think we need to be on the same understanding as to what we believe god is for the sake of the argument. as a christian i will say this

God is the uncaused cause of everything.

He is the uncreated creator.

The unmoved mover.

If you cannot agree on those statements for the sake of the argument then you are not treating it fairly.

That is not a suitable definition.  What is an 'unmoved mover'?  What is an 'uncaused creator'?  What is the 'uncaused cause of everything'? Seriously, don't answer 'god'.  Please, provide a coherent defiintion.

Quote:
now, if god is the uncreated creator, to create the universe he cannot be in the universe.
Mhmm...

Quote:
something inside the universe cannot created something from nothing within that universe.
Mhmm... this part doesn't even make sense.

Quote:
so quite simply god could not be in the universe to create the universe
You wrote that already.

Quote:
so to ask us to define god withing the confines of science is an unfair and illogical question.
It's illogical to presuppose that something without of the universe (something which we would be unable to talk about coherently because it's without the universe) could cause or have any effect on the universe.  Further, what's not fair is that you, who has a paltry understanding of philosophy and cosmology, presume to define (incoherently) something you admit is without of the universe, presume that this something without of the universe could have any effect on it and expect people to accept this as a decent answer to any question about the nature of your god or the method by which it performs the actions you attribute to it.  I'll preclude you appealing to your god's awesome powers right now by reminding you that you have yet to define it coherently and by your own admission can't logically know anything about it.  Why don't you try again?  And this time define your god coherently and then work toward explaining how it created the universe (and not from where, your answer for which, even were that the question asked, is nonsense).

Quote:
however, with science i think it is fairly easy to prove the POSSIBILITY of a god.
How could the possibility of something existing be determined utilizing the very thing within which it cannot be, according to you, fairly defined?

Quote:
it is impossible to 100% prove god, why else would we need faith?
Indeed, if god cannot be proved beyond a reasonable doubt (which does not require 100% certainty, something which does not practially exist) to exist, why would you bother attempting to prove it at all?  Why even bother defining it?  Faith is belief in the absence, and increasingly in the face, of reason or evidence.  Presumably faith is all a theist requires or would want in order to maintain her belief, since her belief is already contradicted to the point of nullification by the body of knowledge in all science collectively.  In fact, faith requires an absence of reason or evidence for it to be considered as such and so it is only secure so long as faith is all that is needed.  If your faith is not enough then I'd suggest opening a textbook from any science or philosophy and actually learning something.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
WillieBop wrote:It's amazing

WillieBop wrote:
It's amazing how utterly incapable of following simple english communication atheists are.
Really?  The fact that we could respond to our interlocutor at all would seem to contradict that observation.  It's exceedingly difficult to sort through the nonsense and make some sense of what was written.

Quote:
I'll try and use small words.
Please, humour us.

Quote:
TB  made no argument it was a statement of a definition.
You're wrong and some of those words were pretty big!

Quote:
If you can't follow such simple things maybe you should stop trying to communicate on the internet.
Perhaps it would be best for you to take your own advice?

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
"God is the uncaused cause

"God is the uncaused cause of everything. He is the uncreated creator. The unmoved mover." ~ trubeliever

Geezz what a clever way of saying nothing, pointing to nothing to worship but the unknown, nor how to worship, and if that was what chrisianity even is, I actually wouldn't object so vigorously. Christianity is a hocu pocus dance of make believe, using the the bi bull as some kind of esp of magical supernatural voodoo communication.

Religion is all bunk, wisdom pollution, mental and physical poison, blasphemy to reason, blind, hypocricy, terrorism, dishonest, and a sick slandeous joke to any reasonable godly sense.   .... and atheistic buddha jesus wepted, as I do. Heal the enemy, religion is dogma, religion is hell, a place of wrong separatism thinking.


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Quote:"God is the uncaused

Quote:

"God is the uncaused cause of everything. He is the uncreated creator. The unmoved mover."

 

Or put another way (but keeping semantic faith with the sentiment expressed):

 

God is the unreasonable reason for everything. He is the unoriginal originator. The unestablished establisher.

 

Or as fine an admission as you can get that for all their pretences at being intelligent theists can never move too far away from admitting that they glorify ignorance.

 

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Nordmann wrote:Quote:"God is

Nordmann wrote:

Quote:

"God is the uncaused cause of everything. He is the uncreated creator. The unmoved mover."

 

Or put another way (but keeping semantic faith with the sentiment expressed):

 

God is the unreasonable reason for everything. He is the unoriginal originator. The unestablished establisher.

 

Or as fine an admission as you can get that for all their pretences at being intelligent theists can never move too far away from admitting that they glorify ignorance.

 

i prefer to think of god as the unshat shitter. 

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Very profound.

Very profound.


Thomathy
Superfan
Thomathy's picture
Posts: 1861
Joined: 2007-08-20
User is offlineOffline
Anyone care to hazard a

Anyone care to hazard a quess at where Consumption and NellyBoy got off to?  Hopefully not to spread their respective disease and  persuasion (sinful, both) around the internetz?  I'm sure we'd all like responses and I, at least, would think it better to contain them here.

BigUniverse wrote,

"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."


Presuppositionalist
Theist
Presuppositionalist's picture
Posts: 344
Joined: 2007-05-21
User is offlineOffline
Eloise

Eloise wrote:

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Daedalus, let's run through a hypothetical scenario. Suppose we rewind to the fifteenth century. You and I are both peasants walking around in the muck. We are both totally ignorant of wondrous 20th century scientific advances. Now, would you say that we are warranted in believing that matter is solid, even though we don't know why it's solid?

I have a hard time with this question because your hypothetical 15th century peasants both are and are not warranted in their belief.

Solid is, in itself, an hypothesis which, in a probable future of the hypothetical, will fail. In 20th-21st century physics 'solidness' refers to a repelling force and it is fairly clear in my mind that your hypothetical characters would argue that they aren't meaning anything of the sort by their coining of the word 'solid'. And furthermore it is also hard to say that a 21st century person is any more warranted in believing the hypothesis of repelling forces as an alternative descriptor.

So why did you analyze the proposition as if that were the intended meaning of the word? If you were interested in answering the actual point I was making, you would have made some attempt to interpret the proposition in a way a person in the 15th century might have comprehended. I think you're logic chopping, pointing out every sense in which the proposition is incorrect while dodging the context in which it was presented. I suppose if I had used the proposition "the sky is blue" you would have lectured me about light frequencies.

Quote:
The existence of things and processes are essentially presupposed to be described and the epistemic justification for doing so comes from the axioms that allow us to engage in sensical communication not from any assurance that the hypotheses of form and process are inherently absolute. A presuppositionalist will insert God and say that's why it makes sense, while a smart secular scientist would say NO it doesn't necessarily make sense and no complex assumption slid under the foundation should be able to change that; I simply accept that is way it is, and one can always systematically check and recheck definitions/hypotheses.

I'm not talking about the epistemic justification for describing phenomena. I was not inserting God as an explanation. I have no problem with scientific explanations for phenomena.

Q: Why didn't you address (post x) that I made in response to you nine minutes ago???

A: Because I have (a) a job, (b) familial obligations, (c) social obligations, and (d) probably a lot of other atheists responded to the same post you did, since I am practically the token Christian on this site now. Be patient, please.


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
The only logical deduction

The only logical deduction that I can see from your example is that ignorance tends to increase the propensity for assumption, experienced as belief, to be confused with knowledge of fact.

 

Your 15th century "solid feelers" would have had no knowledge of atomic theory but would have had sufficient kowledge of matter to differentiate between "solid", "liquid" and "gas" (cutting edge science at the time). Within the limited parameters of their scientific knowledge they had enough to go on, in other words, in order to make sense of their physical world, and it would never even have entered their minds that in light of more advanced understanding of matter the distinctions are no longer satisfactorily expressed in such a simplistic manner.

 

Exactly like theism, in other words.

 

So you raise an interesting point - why on earth should we be induced, in this day and age, to accept inferior definitions like theism, when better ones exist? Why resort to "belief" when the knowledge (or at least an improved version of it) not only exists but dispels the assumptions, and in doing so dispels the reason to "just believe" anything?

 

You'll never get away from the fact that "science" meets an anomaly with inquisition whereas religion meets it with assertion. Yet science actively seeks out anomalous challenges whereas religion abhors them, since they expose its over-reliance on assertion and its compulsion on its subscribers to repeat those assertions, even to the point of ludicrousness. You'll never convince me that your preference for the latter is the way to go.

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Religion is wako bunko,

Nordmann firing big bazooka gun! .... Religion is wacko bunko, obviously .... a great lesson it serves of wrong thinking.


Eloise
TheistBronze Member
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1807
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Presuppositionalist

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Eloise wrote:

Solid is, in itself, an hypothesis which, in a probable future of the hypothetical, will fail. In 20th-21st century physics 'solidness' refers to a repelling force and it is fairly clear in my mind that your hypothetical characters would argue that they aren't meaning anything of the sort by their coining of the word 'solid'. And furthermore it is also hard to say that a 21st century person is any more warranted in believing the hypothesis of repelling forces as an alternative descriptor.

So why did you analyze the proposition as if that were the intended meaning of the word?

I didn't. I analysed as if the intended meaning of solid referred to classical concepts of mass volume and density and I said contemporary terms paint a contrasting picture of what creates the sensation of solidness, in those terms the mass volume and density to which your peasants refer is non-existent and meaningless and in that way, your peasants are not warranted in their belief. By Aristotle, for example, they are saying of something that it is what it is not, which is false.

But... yet, at the same time they do have an epistemological foundation that warrants their belief, and this is the thing you're looking for someone to concede, they have an agreement on what is communicable about the world and the communication is meaningful in their contemporary epistemic framework. So they are warranted in their belief, they are warranted by the agreement which is essential to their epistemological concern.

So the question is difficult to address. Yes, they're wrong, but no less than we might be in the fact that contemporary theory contradicts them, because we all presuppose that 'things' and 'processes' have independent existence, we even presuppose 'independence' of existence. So theories of knowledge are complex and sensitive philosophical ground. full stop. And then we test those presuppositions against reality and take the validation of an hypothesis to be the criterion of knowledge - which is a good but by no means foolproof system.

A process or identity can be validated even if it's a non-starter. Take gravity for example - in Newtons time the hypotheses of gravity was that the earth exerted an attractive 'force' and since then the intended meaning of that word 'gravitational force' has fallen out totally with a major epistemic framework, namely Relativity. Nevertheless, Newtons calculations predicted the 'strength' of the force and repeated validation of these predictions facilitated the epistemological acceptance of the summary hypotheses, including it's flawed 'force' posit. 

 

Presuppositionalist wrote:

If you were interested in answering the actual point I was making, you would have made some attempt to interpret the proposition in a way a person in the 15th century might have comprehended. I think you're logic chopping, pointing out every sense in which the proposition is incorrect while dodging the context in which it was presented. I suppose if I had used the proposition "the sky is blue" you would have lectured me about light frequencies.

The way I see it I am not dodging the context of the original proposition but rather revising it and what entails the logic within it. You're clearly asking for us to suppose 'within' the logic of your 15th century context and critique the truth value of the statement in the light of 'knowing why something is solid" but I am introducing knowledge that the something isn't solid in those terms at all, this has an entirely different repercussion on your peasant's hypotheses.

 

Presuppositionalist wrote:

Quote:
The existence of things and processes are essentially presupposed to be described and the epistemic justification for doing so comes from the axioms that allow us to engage in sensical communication not from any assurance that the hypotheses of form and process are inherently absolute. A presuppositionalist will insert God and say that's why it makes sense, while a smart secular scientist would say NO it doesn't necessarily make sense and no complex assumption slid under the foundation should be able to change that; I simply accept that is way it is, and one can always systematically check and recheck definitions/hypotheses.

I'm not talking about the epistemic justification for describing phenomena. I was not inserting God as an explanation. I have no problem with scientific explanations for phenomena.

My apologies presupp, I was speaking generally to demonstrate the contrast between presuppositional and pragmatic epistemologies as I understand it and I didn't intend that to be a reflection or representation of what you've posted here.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
I love you Eloise, but come

I love you Eloise, but come on , do some ass kicking .... get wild and onry, I know it's in ya .... LOL .... "Shout at the Devil, Louder than Hell" .... ( motley crue band ,   )


Kevin R Brown
Superfan
Kevin R Brown's picture
Posts: 3142
Joined: 2007-06-24
User is offlineOffline
Quote:you are

Quote:

you are basically asking theist to define god withing the confines of science. first off science has its limitation if you do not agree with that then i highly encourage you to look at that.

Science = Knowledge.

You claim to know that God exists, don't you? And you claim to know that he created everything.

 

So, what gives? If he's outside your knowledge like you just claimed, how could you know anything about him at all, including that he exists and made everything?

Quote:

now you are asking about god, so i think we need to be on the same understanding as to what we believe god is for the sake of the argument. as a christian i will say this

God is the uncaused cause of everything.

He is the uncreated creator.

The unmoved mover.

How underwhelmingly vague. How do you know all of this in he first place, by chance? Clearly you have no idea how creation works.

 

More importantly, if creationism is not science, why is it that such a wide range of Christians want it added to the science curriculum?

Quote:
"Natasha has just come up to the window from the courtyard and opened it wider so that the air may enter more freely into my room. I can see the bright green strip of grass beneath the wall, and the clear blue sky above the wall, and sunlight everywhere. Life is beautiful. Let the future generations cleanse it of all evil, oppression and violence, and enjoy it to the full."

- Leon Trotsky, Last Will & Testament
February 27, 1940


trubeliever
Theist
Posts: 28
Joined: 2008-09-15
User is offlineOffline
my point earlier was that

my point earlier was that atheist cannot 100% prove w/ science that god does not exist. when people aske me, atheist, how sure am i that god exist, i say abt 95%. because if i could prove 100% that god exist there would be no room or need for faith, but whatever.

and im sorry thomathy, if you cannot understand that my definition of god would be the uncaused cause of everything, the uncreated creator. lolol that quite explains itself and if you cannot accept my definition of MY god, then how can u possible argue against my belief? to argue if god exist or not we must be on common ground on what we believe god is, now since you dont believe there is one, guess ill just go off my definition unless you wanna make one up...

also, quite fairly. i think that is a quite FAIR definition of what god is to theist. but if you cannot accept what we believe as god, then how can you possible argue against the idea? its not possible


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
tru, I'm pretty okay with

tru, I'm pretty okay with that god definition as it implies nothing but the unknown, and says nothing about creating an idol nor dogmatic ways of worship. It's like the eastern saying that god cannot be named. The word god doesn't mean a deity in taoism nor buddhism.

For me god and religion need be seen also as separate things. Religion is an important study of the cultural aspects of humanities confusion and errors. God is simply a scientific synonym for all the connected Oneness of all existence of total equality, of No possible Master.

Study awe, as I call it g-awe-d, with science and self awarness, and drop all religion dogma of separatism. All is 100% g-o-d. Atheistic Jesus and Buddha, as many others are exlint ancient mentors if you can seperate wisdom from folklore and attached dogmas. Start over with the idea, all is god, you are god .... LOL


Future Indefinite
Future Indefinite's picture
Posts: 42
Joined: 2008-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Uncaused Cause of Nonsense.

trubeliever wrote:

my point earlier was that atheist cannot 100% prove w/ science that god does not exist. when people aske me, atheist, how sure am i that god exist, i say abt 95%. because if i could prove 100% that god exist there would be no room or need for faith, but whatever.

and im sorry thomathy, if you cannot understand that my definition of god would be the uncaused cause of everything, the uncreated creator. lolol that quite explains itself and if you cannot accept my definition of MY god, then how can u possible argue against my belief? to argue if god exist or not we must be on common ground on what we believe god is, now since you dont believe there is one, guess ill just go off my definition unless you wanna make one up...

also, quite fairly. i think that is a quite FAIR definition of what god is to theist. but if you cannot accept what we believe as god, then how can you possible argue against the idea? its not possible

 

Whether a god or gods exist is not a question that is asked by rational people any more than whether or not  leprechauns exist.  It is a non-issue.  If you wish to make an assertion about such entities then the onus is on you to provide some evidence of them.  It is not up to the rest of us to disprove such nonsense.    

By asserting that gods are an "uncaused cause of everything" is nothing more than defining a god or gods into existence without evidence, which is a meaningless exercise.  The only reason such absurd assertions are not summarily dismissed as the nonsense they are is because (to the world's detriment) the god hypothesis has a long history of being taken seriously...but only because, for so long, there were no alternative explanations to the mysteries of the universe.  Now there are.  The gods arose initially out of ignorance and they linger more out of habit than anything else.  But, they are fading away.  It's inevitable.             

............................................................

"Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition". - Isaac Asimov


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
So very simply well said

So very simply well said Future ....    thanks, i god as you


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
A problem with the G-O-D

A problem with the G-O-D word is that,  it is most often equated as good, love, kindness ..... and so then fundy religion is tolerated by our non thinking, apathtic, moderate, appeasing nice, religiously uneducated, unaware dumb FUCK neighbors. 

I don't know much about much, but what I know about religion is more than enough to say FUCK THAT .....


Future Indefinite
Future Indefinite's picture
Posts: 42
Joined: 2008-05-28
User is offlineOffline
Hijacking Morality.

I AM GOD AS YOU wrote:

A problem with the G-O-D word is that,  it is most often equated as good, love, kindness ..... and so then fundy religion is tolerated by our non thinking, apathtic, moderate, appeasing nice, religiously uneducated, unaware dumb FUCK neighbors. 

I don't know much about much, but what I know about religion is more than enough to say FUCK THAT .....

 

 

Exactly!  As Arthur C Clarke said so eloquently:  "The greatest tragedy in mankind's entire history may be the hijacking of morality by religion". 

It's worth reading the rest of what he had to say on the subject:    http://www.mwillett.org/atheism/relmor.htm

 

............................................................

"Humanity has the stars in its future, and that future is too important to be lost under the burden of juvenile folly and ignorant superstition". - Isaac Asimov


I AM GOD AS YOU
Superfan
Posts: 4793
Joined: 2007-09-29
User is offlineOffline
Yeah Future, definitely, 

Yeah Future, definitely,  thanks for the worthy essay link, worth emailing out ....