Atheism is Insanity, and Theism is Sanity

Epistemologist
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Atheism is Insanity, and Theism is Sanity

Atheism is insanity, and theism is sanity.

 

Likewise, eliminative materialism (including naturalism and physicalism) is insanity, and eliminative (Platonic) idealism is sanity.

 

The ultimate difference between people is not whether they are theist (including religious and eliminative idealist) on the one hand, or atheist (and eliminative materialist) on the other. The ultimate difference between people is whether they are good or evil. There are good and evil theists, and there are good and evil atheists.

 

The purpose of human life (the meaning of life) is to choose between being good, and being evil.

 

Reality is composed of three levels, including the physical universe, Heaven, and Hell.

 

If you choose to be good, you will go to Heaven. Heaven is happiness that increases exponentially for eternity. However, if you choose to be evil, you will go to Hell. Hell is suffering that increases exponentially for eternity. Heaven and Hell are outside time and space, which is why they cannot be experienced through the five senses of sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell.

 

The existence of Heaven, Hell, and God, is realized through intuitive perception of the Soul, which is itself outside time and space.

 

Time and space are properties of the observed physical universe, but they are not properties of the conscious mind. Time and space are merely observed by the mind, and they are not reality. Consciousness is therefore not a biological phenomenon, contrary to what eliminative materialism claims.

 

Human beings were created by God and in God’s image, because that is what the Bible says, and logic dictates that the Bible is divine revelation from God: “"God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them."218 Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is "in the image of God"; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created "male and female"; (IV) God established him in his friendship.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 355). http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p6.htm

 

You do not have to ‘believe’ in anything to go to Heaven. You do not, for example, have to believe in God, and you do not have to believe that Jesus Christ is Lord, or God. Everyone ‘knows’ that God exists, because that is self-evidently true; people that deny that God exists are clearly absolutely insane. You only have to obey the teachings of the Gospels, which merely require us to live as humanely as possible i.e. the Gospels teach humanism.

 

Jesus Christ was just a human being (however, he was God in the sense that he knew more about God than anyone else ever has – so he may as well be God from our human perspective). He condemned people that failed to live virtuously, and that called him ‘Lord’: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles? Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’” (Matthew 7: 21-23)

 

Evil people are those who harm other people. Good people are those who help or heal other people. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether you are ‘atheist’ or ‘theist’. That is the only difference between good and evil people, and it is exactly what Jesus Christ said:

 

The last judgement:

 

“When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and He will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. Then the king will say to those at His right hand, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” ... “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.”

 

Then He will say to those at His left hand, “You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.” ... “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.” And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Matthew 25:31-36, 40-43, 45-46 NRSV) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Judgment

 

A picture of the last judgement (Bear in mind that the last judgement occurs outside time and space, so it is difficult to capture in a picture): http://www.cedcc.psu.edu/khanjan/europe_images/025_sistine%20chapel.jpg

 

Jesus Christ was the wisest human being that has ever lived, besides Plato and Socrates. That is because Christianity is the largest religion. It can only be the largest religion because people intuitively know through their souls that Jesus Christ was the wisest human being, as is expressed through his teachings in the Gospels.

 

I am an agnostic atheist because I do not know that God does not exist. However, I am also a Gnostic theist because I know that God does exist.

 

God is the source of life. He lives in Heaven, and not on Earth (or the physical universe). The physical universe that we experience through our senses is only a reflection of Heaven. It is like the reflection of the sky on the sea. Heaven is reality, and the physical universe is not. God is an eternal tunnel of spiritual light surrounded by and filled with infinite legions of angels. Here is a picture of God in Heaven. It is called the Beatific Vision: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Paradiso_Canto_31.jpg

 

Another reason why Jesus Christ was the wisest human being that has ever lived, is because Platonic (eliminative) idealism is true, and naturalism, physicalism, and eliminative materialism are false. Platonic idealism is true because both eliminative idealism and eliminate materialism are in agreement that universals (ideal perfect forms, including mathematical and moral truths) only exist in human thought; universals do not exist in the physical universe that we experience through our senses, according to both eliminative materialism and eliminative idealism. But we only know the physical universe through universals (not particulars), which is why the physical universe only exists in our thought, and not independently from our thought.

 

I understand the truth. I understand that atheists and eliminative materialists (including naturalists and physicalists) are insane. Atheism and materialism are insanity, and theism, religion and idealism are sanity. Atheists and materialists (including naturalists and physicalists) are lost children. In terms of wisdom, Jesus Christ is the Father of all human beings. Parents care about children that are lost more than any of their other children, and so does Jesus Christ.

 

See the parable of the lost sheep: “How think ye? if a man have a hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? 13And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.” (Matthew 18:12–13) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Lost_Sheep

 

This is a picture of an atheist: http://trevinwax.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/lost-sheep1.jpg

 

In contrast, the picture of the Beatific Vision, includes two theists, as you have seen: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Paradiso_Canto_31.jpg

 

Jesus Christ is the parent of all atheists and materialists (as well as all other people). Atheists and materialists are the lost children of Jesus Christ.

 

God loves you, Jesus Christ loves you, I love you, and I want to lead you away from Hell and into Heaven. Take my hand, and I will lead you out of the darkness, and into the light. When you let go (when you doubt the truth of the Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), it means that you are in danger of falling into Hell.

 

There is only one path, and the path is narrow. Few find it. Monsters and demons are real, and they live on both sides of the path, so do not stray from the path. Monsters and demons include harmful ideas, and sins. The monsters want to kill and eat you, and take you to Hell. You are only safe from them on the path:

 

“Then Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. Someone asked him, “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?” He said to them, “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.” (Luke 13: 22-25)

 

Virtue (obeying the teachings of Jesus Christ) causes forward movement on the path, which leads to Heaven. Sin (disobeying the teachings of Jesus Christ), causes backwards movement on the path, towards Hell.

 

There is more evidence that God exists, that the Gospels are the wisest books ever written, and that human beings are immortal, than there is that the physical universe exists. God exists, you exist, and the physical universe we experience through our senses does not exist (ultimately, that is). The Bible is Divine Revelation from God, and that is an incontrovertible scientific fact.

 

As you can clearly see, it is perfectly logical that God exists, because Platonic idealism is automatically true by default. Atheism is logically false by default. Because I have revealed this truth, I expect that atheists will call me a ‘troll’, simply because they are logically debunked. The ‘The Rational Response Squad’ and Richard Dawkins are also logically debunked. ‘The Rational Response Squad’ is actually ‘The Irrational Response Squad’. Atheism is ‘faith’, and theism is ‘knowledge’. So atheism is irrational, and theism (including religion) is rational.

 

Theism and religion are in perfect harmony with science. Atheism is in conflict with science. That is because eliminative (Platonic) idealism is true by default, and eliminative materialism (including naturalism and physicalism) is false by default.

 

The burden of proof is on atheism, not on theism.

 

The existence of God is self-evident. Atheism is not self-evident.

 

From the United States Declaration of Independence:

 

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

 

I was invited to the forum of The Rational Response Squad by an advert, which said that if I am a theist, I should come to this forum to learn the truth. The advert claimed that atheism is the truth, and theism is not.

 

I am a humanist. I am an agnostic atheist, and a Gnostic theist. I am a Roman Catholic. The Roman Catholic Church is the Church of God. And the Pope is God’s ambassador on Earth. I am also a Benedictine Oblate.

 

So, I put this to ‘The Rational Response Squad’: Demonstrate to me, using logic, that atheism is true, and theism is false. I only believe in logic, and at the moment, logic dictates that theism is true, and atheism is false, as I have outlined above.

 

If you are an atheist, the ‘burden of proof’ is on you.

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:There are good and

Quote:
There are good and evil theists, and there are good and evil atheists.

Which makes human behavior a product of evolution and psychology and environment, not needing Thor, or Isis or Jesus or lucky socks.

Insane is despite being told what DNA is, and PROVING that DNA exists, and proving that you need TWO SETS to manifest into a zygote and onto a baby, INSANE is despite all that EVIDENCE, willfully buying bullshit stories of virgin births.

God/s are myth and when our species dies so will our ability to make them 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


Epistemologist
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Atheism is Insanity, and Theism is Sanity

 

Brian37 wrote:
Epistemologist wrote:
 There are good and evil theists, and there are good and evil atheists.

 

Which makes human behavior a product of evolution and psychology and environment, not needing Thor, or Isis or Jesus or lucky socks.

 

Insane is despite being told what DNA is, and PROVING that DNA exists, and proving that you need TWO SETS to manifest into a zygote and onto a baby, INSANE is despite all that EVIDENCE, willfully buying bullshit stories of virgin births.

 

God/s are myth and when our species dies so will our ability to make them up.

 

You are making the basic mistake of assuming that reality is that which we experience through our senses (the ‘apparent’ physical universe). I assert, with Plato, that reality is not that which we experience through our senses. Reality is our minds.

 

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that anything exists other than minds, and consciousness – apart from God that is, who is experienced intuitively through the soul.

 

The physical universe, including biological phenomena, are a reflection of reality. They are not reality itself. The only reality consists of universal truths (like morality, logic, and mathematics), and those truths exist in our minds alone, as is agreed by both eliminative idealists and eliminative materialists.

 

So as our minds are the only reality, it means that mystical experiences are real i.e. mystical experiences of God are not biological phenomena.

 

Mystical experiences of God are absolutely incontrovertible scientific proof that God exists, and that the Bible is Divine Revelation from God.

 

There is more evidence for the existence of God than there is for the existence of the brain, or other biological phenomena.

 

Theism is ‘knowledge’, and atheism is ‘faith’. Therefore theism is rational, and atheism is irrational.

 

The burden of proof lies on atheism, because the existence of God is self evident and incontrovertibly true.


liberatedatheist
atheistScience Freak
liberatedatheist's picture
Posts: 137
Joined: 2009-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Epistemologist wrote:

Epistemologist wrote:

Reality is composed of three levels, including the physical universe, Heaven, and Hell. 

This doesnt even follow from anything you have tried to prove here or in your other posts.

 

Epistemologist wrote:
 If you choose to be good, you will go to Heaven. Heaven is happiness that increases exponentially for eternity. However, if you choose to be evil, you will go to Hell. Hell is suffering that increases exponentially for eternity. Heaven and Hell are outside time and space, which is why they cannot be experienced through the five senses of sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell. 
now i feel like you are just making shit up

 

 

 

Epistemologist wrote:

Human beings were created by God and in God’s image, because that is what the Bible says, and logic dictates that the Bible is divine revelation from God: “"God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them."218 Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is "in the image of God"; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created "male and female"; (IV) God established him in his friendship.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 355). http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p6.htm

 

Ah yes divine revelation, how could we have been so foolish. The book with the most inconsistencies, failed prophesies, and immoral teachings ever written can only have come from God's divine revelation not misogynistic homophobes looking to maintain their social dominance

 

I Am My God

The absence of evidence IS evidence of absence


liberatedatheist
atheistScience Freak
liberatedatheist's picture
Posts: 137
Joined: 2009-12-08
User is offlineOffline
 Another quick question, if

 Another quick question, if plato was so in tune with the abstract reality of forms and eliminative idealism and these concepts are able to somehow prove that the bible is divinely inspired then why couldn't Plato have deduced or discovered that the jewish god, which was in existence during his lifetime, was the one true god?

I Am My God

The absence of evidence IS evidence of absence


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
In other words, because God

In other words, because God is a product of the minds of men - he must be real because the only things that are real are in the minds of men.

"Batman Forever" said it best.

Batman: I read your work. Insightful. Naive, but insightful

 

"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


Epistemologist
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Atheism is Insanity, and Theism is Sanity

liberatedatheist wrote:
Epistemologist wrote:
“Reality is composed of three levels, including the physical universe, Heaven, and Hell.

 

This doesnt even follow from anything you have tried to prove here or in your other posts.

 

Communication involves a transmitter, a communicative medium, and a receiver. If one of these three things doesn’t work properly, then communication does not succeed. I have logically proved that mystical experiences of God are real, and that therefore it is an incontrovertible scientific fact that God exists. It is also an incontrovertible scientific fact that what the Gospels say about reality being composed of three levels – the physical universe, Heaven and Hell – is true. That is because Christianity is the world’s biggest religion. The reason why it is the world’s biggest religion is because when people read the Gospels, they know through personal mystical experience of God that what the Gospels say is true i.e. what the Gospels say corresponds with their personal mystical experience of God. 2.2 billion people claiming that the Gospels are true means that the Gospels are definitely true. That many people cannot possibly be wrong, especially when we accept a ‘guilty’ or ‘non-guilty’ verdict from a handful of juries and one judge in a court of law. If 2.2 billion people in a jury decided that someone is ‘guilty’ or ‘not guilty’, we would conclude, without doubt, that they must be right. It is statistically impossible for that many people to get it wrong, especially when they are all in agreement on exactly the same conclusion, and there are only two possibilities.

 

liberatedatheist wrote:
Epistemologist wrote:
If you choose to be good, you will go to Heaven. Heaven is happiness that increases exponentially for eternity. However, if you choose to be evil, you will go to Hell. Hell is suffering that increases exponentially for eternity. Heaven and Hell are outside time and space, which is why they cannot be experienced through the five senses of sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell.

 

now i feel like you are just making shit up

 

I didn’t make that up. That is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church is the Church of God, and it reveals the truth of reality to the world. It is the Church of God because it is the largest Christian denomination. Over a billion people are Roman Catholics. It is statistically impossible for that many people to be wrong.

 

liberatedatheist wrote:
Epistemologist wrote:
Human beings were created by God and in God’s image, because that is what the Bible says, and logic dictates that the Bible is divine revelation from God: “"God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them."218 Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is "in the image of God"; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created "male and female"; (IV) God established him in his friendship.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 355). http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p6.htm

 

Ah yes divine revelation, how could we have been so foolish. The book with the most inconsistencies, failed prophesies, and immoral teachings ever written can only have come from God's divine revelation not misogynistic homophobes looking to maintain their social dominance

 

It is a scientific fact that the Bible is Divine Revelation from God. And as I explained above, communication involves a transmitter, a medium, and a receiver. In terms of the Bible, God is the transmitter, and the human mind and soul is the medium and receiver. If there is a problem with the transmitter, the medium, or the receiver, then communication fails, or the transmitted meanings are incomplete or distorted. Bear in mind that God is the creator of the universe. So God must have great difficulty explaining Himself to us. Think about that. God knows everything about the universe, so his intelligence and understanding must be infinite. We human beings do not have infinite intelligence and understanding. Do you seriously think that when the creator of the universe has a conversation with a human being, that that human being will understand everything they say?

 

If you don’t mind, I am going to explain this further:

 

There is no evidence whatsoever that atheism is true. Atheism is just a belief. However, theism is knowledge. Everyone knows that God exists. Everyone knows that the Gospels are Divine Revelation from God. It’s a scientific fact.

 

For atheism to be true, consciousness has to be a biological phenomenon. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that consciousness is a biological phenomenon. The evidence actually points in the other direction i.e. the logical evidence clearly shows that all biological phenomena, including the brain, are ideas in our minds (Platonic idealism). Since the brain is actually an idea in the mind, consciousness certainly does not come from the brain. Consciousness is outside time and space. Time and space are properties of the physical universe, which we observe through our senses. Time and space are not properties of consciousness.

 

For atheism to be true, universal truths have to be unreal (not reality). That includes geometrical truths. If, for example, the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees, it means that atheism is false, and theism is true. Well, of course the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees. Therefore atheism is false, and theism is true i.e. it is an incontrovertible scientific fact that God exists. For atheism to be true, human thought has to be a biological phenomenon i.e. eliminative materialism has to be true. Eliminative materialism can only be true if universal truths do not exist in nature. Physics asserts that the universal truths of geometry do not exist in nature. Natural science defines nature as that which is observed through the senses. Eliminative materialism can only be true if the definition of nature from the perspective natural science is true i.e. universal truths have to exist only in human thought, and therefore not be real. The problem is that universal truths are real, and therefore they do not only exist in human thought. It means that human thought is the only reality, because universal truths are real, but they only exist in human thought – and that is from the perspective of both eliminative materialism, and eliminative idealism.

 

It is also a self-evident scientific fact that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church of God, and that the Pope is God’s ambassador on Earth. Over a billion people cannot be wrong.

 

 


ContemptableWitness
ContemptableWitness's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2010-04-06
User is offlineOffline
 You have offered no proof

 You have offered no proof for anything you've said.  All you have done is state assertion.

Quote:
The purpose of human life (the meaning of life) is to choose between being good, and being evil.

Show me your evidence for this.

Quote:
Reality is composed of three levels, including the physical universe, Heaven, and Hell.

Only one of those three levels can be demonstrated to exist. Heaven and Hell have not been demonstrated to exist and your essay does not even attempt to do so.

Quote:
Time and space are properties of the observed physical universe, but they are not properties of the conscious mind. Time and space are merely observed by the mind, and they are not reality. Consciousness is therefore not a biological phenomenon, contrary to what eliminative materialism claims.

Demonstrate that time and space are not reality. Besides, your conclusion (consciousness is not a biological phenomenon) does not in any way follow from your premise. It's a non sequitir.

Quote:
Human beings were created by God and in God’s image, because that is what the Bible says, and logic dictates that the Bible is divine revelation from God: “"God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them."218 Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is "in the image of God"; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created "male and female"; (IV) God established him in his friendship.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 355). http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p6.htm

Circular logic. You are arguing that the bible is the word of God because the bible says so. I just wrote on a piece of paper that I am the living embodiment of God, so therefore it must be true because logic dictates my piece of paper is a divine revelation from God, because since I'm god and I wrote it, it must be true.  See how that falls flat on its face?  Again, you are asserting something for which you have offered no evidence. I don't believe that the Bible is the word of God, so arguments from the Bible do little to persuade me until it can be demonstrated to me that what the Bible says about the given topic is factual. In fact there are many things in the Bible that are demonstrably incorrect (a round pit being 10 cubits across and 30 cubits around, for example. Those measurements are impossible, as it would be 31 cubits around, not 30).  In order to determine something's authenticity, it must be verified in its entirely by objective means. Using the Bible to prove the Bible is not an objective method.

Quote:
I am an agnostic atheist because I do not know that God does not exist. However, I am also a Gnostic theist because I know that God does exist.

An agnostic atheist is an absurd label. An atheist is someone who does not believe in God. An agnostic is someone who does not claim any special knowledge (known to the ancient greeks as "gnosis&quotEye-wink of divine matters. Agnosticism and Atheism are two different ways of saying the same thing. In both cases, you are claiming the opposite.  You cannot be an atheist and a theist. You cannot be an agnostic and a gnostic. These are both logical impossibilities. It is like saying you are both A and not A, both B and not B.

Quote:
God is the source of life. He lives in Heaven, and not on Earth (or the physical universe). The physical universe that we experience through our senses is only a reflection of Heaven. It is like the reflection of the sky on the sea. Heaven is reality, and the physical universe is not. God is an eternal tunnel of spiritual light surrounded by and filled with infinite legions of angels. Here is a picture of God in Heaven. It is called the Beatific Vision:http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Paradiso_Canto_31.jpg

How could anyone have painted a picture of God if he is not part of the physical universe?  Again, you've offered nothing of substance here, only mere statements of dogma with no supporting evidence.

Quote:
Another reason why Jesus Christ was the wisest human being that has ever lived, is because Platonic (eliminative) idealism is true, and naturalism, physicalism, and eliminative materialism are false. Platonic idealism is true because both eliminative idealism and eliminate materialism are in agreement that universals (ideal perfect forms, including mathematical and moral truths) only exist in human thought; universals do not exist in the physical universe that we experience through our senses, according to both eliminative materialism and eliminative idealism. But we only know the physical universe through universals (not particulars), which is why the physical universe only exists in our thought, and not independently from our thought.

There is no contemporary evidence that Jesus ever existed. The earliest historical accounts were written by men born after he was supposedly crucified. All their accounts confirm is the existence of Christians in the first century. You again follow with incomprehensible babble, dogmatic claims that are not and cannot be demonstrated.  The universe doesn't exist because two philosophical viewpoints you've made up agree on a single point?  Please!

Quote:
God loves you, Jesus Christ loves you, I love you, and I want to lead you away from Hell and into Heaven. Take my hand, and I will lead you out of the darkness, and into the light. When you let go (when you doubt the truth of the Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), it means that you are in danger of falling into Hell. There is only one path, and the path is narrow. Few find it. Monsters and demons are real, and they live on both sides of the path, so do not stray from the path. Monsters and demons include harmful ideas, and sins. The monsters want to kill and eat you, and take you to Hell. You are only safe from them on the path:

Ahh the appeal to fear. Sorry, I don't believe in Hell (in fact I never did, even as a Christian), so your little threat doesn't bother me.  I mean are you honestly, sincerely insulting my intelligence by using threats that probably wouldn't even work on a 5-year-old?  You know, Allah loves you, and unless you embrace the true faith of Islam, he will cast you along with the other infidels into Hell!  Prove me wrong!

Quote:
Virtue (obeying the teachings of Jesus Christ) causes forward movement on the path, which leads to Heaven. Sin (disobeying the teachings of Jesus Christ), causes backwards movement on the path, towards Hell.

No supporting evidence for this statement. Dogma.

Quote:
There is more evidence that God exists, that the Gospels are the wisest books ever written, and that human beings are immortal, than there is that the physical universe exists. God exists, you exist, and the physical universe we experience through our senses does not exist (ultimately, that is). The Bible is Divine Revelation from God, and that is an incontrovertible scientific fact.

I think you should look up the word 'evidence' in the dictionary (of course according to you dictionaries don't exist), because it doesn't mean what you think it means.  All you've done is make baseless assertion after baseless assertion. That is not evidence, that is "because I said so."  That is what religion is. It is the practice of abandoning the demand of empirical evidence in favor of simply believing whatever a self-appointed authority figure tells you to believe.

It has become clear to me that you don't actually know what science is, so the Bible being a divine revelation from god is not and could not be a scientific fact by any stretch of the imagination. Science is the study of the physical universe, which you claim doesn't exist. Therefore, according to your logic, science doesn't exist, so you can't just invoke it when it's convenient for you.  

Quote:
Theism and religion are in perfect harmony with science. Atheism is in conflict with science. That is because eliminative (Platonic) idealism is true by default, and eliminative materialism (including naturalism and physicalism) is false by default.

Again, you can't invoke science when you neither know what it is or believe it exists.

Quote:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

The men who wrote that statement weren't talking about the Christian god. The founding fathers were children of the Enlightenment, an eclectic mix of deists and Christians. Thomas Jefferson (the man who penned those words) was a deist who did not believe in divine revelation or the sanctity of scripture. In fact, he did a hack-and-slash job on the Bible, compiling all four Gospels into a single story while removing all the references to miracles. He saw Jesus as merely a moral teacher, not the son of God.  The 1787 Treaty of Tripoli explicitly states that the United States was not founded on the Christian religion in article 11, and this document was unanimously passed by the Senate. 

Quote:
I am a humanist. I am an agnostic atheist, and a Gnostic theist. I am a Roman Catholic. The Roman Catholic Church is the Church of God. And the Pope is God’s ambassador on Earth. I am also a Benedictine Oblate.

If the pope is God's ambassador on earth, then child molestation is a virtue, because the current pope knowingly and purposely kept known pedophile priests in an environment that enabled them to continue their crime.  The catholic church is a den of perverts, a pedophile paradise from the top down.  Your pope has also been instrumental in the needless deaths of thousands of Africans due to AIDS, spreading the lie that condoms do not prevent it. Your church has been and is a blight on humanity and civilization, it is a disease, and I hope to live to see the day of its destruction.

Quote:
So, I put this to ‘The Rational Response Squad’: Demonstrate to me, using logic, that atheism is true, and theism is false. I only believe in logic, and at the moment, logic dictates that theism is true, and atheism is false, as I have outlined above.

You don't believe in logic. You don't understand what it is or what it means. Your entire post violates logical rules in every way possible. You are so far off-base that you cannot even be engaged logically.  Besides, using your method of argumentation, logic does not exist. It is something perceived by our conciousness and does not exist outside of it. Therefore it doesn't exist.

You still have the burden of proof. Simply stating that you don't doesn't make it a matter of fact. You are claiming that something exists. When you claim that something exists, the burden of proof is on you. Otherwise, anybody could make any kind of claim they want. I claim that I am God's messenger on earth. I state that the Bible is a false book and therefore cannot be used to disprove anything I say. Demonstrate that I am not God's messenger on earth.  Do you see the problem here?  You've given us nothing but statements of your personal belief. You've given us nothing that we can go out and verify for ourselves. You are simply making dogmatic statements and demanding we believe because you are sincere.  I do not doubt your sincerety, but sincerety does not make one correct. Popularity of a belief does not make it correct. Your church is the largest because over 1,500 years ago the emperor of the largest empire on earth (Justinian) made it illegal to follow any other religion!  Your popularity rose because for centuries the church tortured and killed all its rivals, not because everyone in the west had a sincere conversion.


ContemptableWitness
ContemptableWitness's picture
Posts: 43
Joined: 2010-04-06
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:For atheism to be

 

Quote:
For atheism to be true, consciousness has to be a biological phenomenon. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that consciousness is a biological phenomenon.

Then I give you this challenge: have yourself lobotomized. According to you, there is no evidence whatsoever that consciousness is a biological phenomenon. Therefore, if you were to have parts of your brain removed, your consciouness would not be altered in any way. Heck, you could even have your entire frontal lobe removed (leaving the parts responsible for autonomic function) and you would still have the same consciousness.  

What happens to your consciousness when you go to sleep or when you are knocked out?  Why is it that brain injuries induce comas?  According to your statement, comas are impossible, since that would be altering consciousness through biological means! Getting high would also be impossible, since according to your belief, that would be evidence that consciousness is a biological phenomenon!  

Consciousness can be altered in many ways using biological means. There is ample evidence that it is a biological phenomenon. You have failed.

 


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
A pretty verbose Poe. Well

A pretty verbose Poe. Well played, sir.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Epis must be a freaky troll

 

No one could believe the things he believes on the basis of no actual evidence or claim the things he claims. No one could insist things are logically proved by the gospels, or align themselves with plato - what has that guy got to do with reality today, anyway?

All these walls of text are just a grab-bag of assumptions and assertions backed up by nothing but repetition. Epis is like a mutant paisley. All the same arguments are there, the same slogans, the same 'strongpoints' based on rudimentary "if this, then this" arguments, all of which are fallacious.

No one could have such a broad spread of pointless religious affiliation. And there's something about the tone of the thing that suggest Epis doesn't really luuuurve jesus.

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
DON'T FEED THE TROLL. 

DON'T FEED THE TROLL. 


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: No

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

No one could believe the things he believes on the basis of no actual evidence or claim the things he claims. No one could insist things are logically proved by the gospels, or align themselves with plato - what has that guy got to do with reality today, anyway?

All these walls of text are just a grab-bag of assumptions and assertions backed up by nothing but repetition. Epis is like a mutant paisley. All the same arguments are there, the same slogans, the same 'strongpoints' based on rudimentary "if this, then this" arguments, all of which are fallacious.

No one could have such a broad spread of pointless religious affiliation. And there's something about the tone of the thing that suggest Epis doesn't really luuuurve jesus.

 

He's just playing games.  In one post he says he's an atheist, in another he says he's a theist, he changes his arguments about metaphysics and philosophy at every turn, etc.

About the only thing consistent is he uses a tone that gets people riled up, which I imagine is the point.

 

At least with Paisely I am pretty sure he actually believes (or wants to believe) what he is writing about.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Epistemologist
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Atheism is Insanity, and Theism is Sanity

 

liberatedatheist wrote:
Another quick question, if Plato was so in tune with the abstract reality of forms and eliminative idealism and these concepts are able to somehow prove that the bible is divinely inspired then why couldn't Plato have deduced or discovered that the Jewish god, which was in existence during his lifetime, was the one true god?

 

That is the very essence of what we are talking about. Thank you for the question.

 

Firstly, the concept of ‘abstract’ in terms of universal (ideal) truths is a misconception. Universal (ideal) truths (including mathematical and moral truths), by logical default, are reality. So abstraction is the opposite way around to what we think it is i.e. it is actually the physical universe we experience through our senses that is abstracted from reality. Universal (ideal) truths, including mathematical and moral truths, are not abstract.

 

Essentially, what I am saying is that, for 2500 years, we have had reality and abstraction the wrong way around. Aristotle maintained that universals (including mathematical and moral truths) were abstract, and particulars (the experiences through our senses) were not. Plato maintained the opposite i.e. that Universals are reality, and particulars are not. Mathematics is therefore the king of the sciences, and not the queen. And so physics is actually the queen of the sciences, and not the king. The ultimate difference between Platonism and Aristotelianism (in science), is whether it is mathematics or physics that is the arbiter (judge) of reality.

 

I have demonstrated, logically, that it is mathematics, and not physics. I could only do this by studying metaphysics. Most people do not study metaphysics, because there has been an erroneous belief for a long time that philosophy is useless. But it’s not useless. It is only through philosophy (particularly metaphysics) that we can know what is and what is not reality. Science (natural science and mathematics) cannot do that, but philosophy can. That is why philosophy is so important. Mathematics (including logic), physics, and philosophy, are the three most important sciences, in terms of understanding what reality ultimately is. Philosophy sits in between the king and the queen, and unites them in marriage. Philosophy, mathematics and physics, are the holy trinity of science.

 

On your final point, of why couldn’t Plato find out that the Jewish God was the right one. This boils down to the difference between kataphatic and apophatic theology. It is to do with the difference between reality and abstraction. Kataphatic theology maintains that Divine Revelation is only that which we observe through our senses (for example, in the form of the Bible). Apophatic theology maintains the opposite; that the Bible, or other religious texts, are actually a human interpretation of Divine Revelation, in abstract form. According to Apophatic theology, real Divine Revelation is that which we personally experience mystically i.e. Apophatic theology maintains that God can only be known through direct personal experience in the world of ideal (universal) perfect forms outside time and space.

 

This is a serious difference between Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. In Protestantism (including Evangelicals, Pentecostals, and Baptists), it is the Bible that is used as the source of Divine Revelation i.e. Protestants usually assert that Kataphatic theology is true, and apophatic theology is false. Roman Catholics maintain almost the opposite of Protestants. Roman Catholics use both apophatic and kataphatic theology. The Roman Catholic Church encourages and allows mysticism, and Protestantism usually does not. There are thirty-three Doctors of the Roman Catholic Church: http://www.amazon.com/33-Doctors-Church-Christopher-Rengers/dp/0895554402

 

At least three of the Doctors are mystics, including St. Catherine of Sienna, St. John of the Cross, and St Theresa of Avila. St. John of the Cross was one of the most important Roman Catholic mystics, and he was apophatic. He asserted that God could only be known through ‘unknowing’, because we have reality back to front. Two other important Roman Catholic Apophatic mystics are Cardinal Nicolas of Cusa, and Meister Eckhart. Cusa maintained (as did Plato) that God could only be known through universal (ideal) forms, outside time and space, and that God is the coincidence of opposites. Eckhart was nearly excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church, because he maintained that to find God, you have to reject all ideas about what God is e.g. realise that the Bible is actually an abstract interpretation of God, and not the literal word of God. Eckhart summarised this as: “ . . . let us pray to God that we may be free of God, that we may gain the truth and enjoy it eternally, there where the highest angel, the fly and the soul are equal, there where I stood and wanted what I was, and was what I wanted.”

 

So for kataphatic theology to be true, eliminative materialism has to be true; or in other words, that which we experience through our senses has to be reality, and not the abstraction. But it’s not. It is actually Platonic (eliminative) idealism that’s true, and eliminative materialism is false. Reality is actually the universal truths we experience in our minds (including mathematical and moral truths).

 

Another important point is that, because from the perspective of Platonic (eliminative) idealism, mind is the only reality, there is no point in calling it ‘mind’. That is because, since ‘mind’ is the only thing that there is, it makes no sense to differentiate mind and matter, using ‘mind’ i.e. the very concept of there being a difference between mind and matter is a misconception, since there is no matter for mind to be different from. Reality is simply reality, and the only reality is mind.

 

This truth, explained above, about the relationship between reality and abstraction, does not only debunk atheism. It Debunks Young Earth Creationists, Intelligent Design theorists, Agnosticism, Protestantism, Communism, Mormonism, Naturalism, Physicalism, possibly Islam and Judaism, and probably a whole host of other different ‘isms.’ In contrast, it supports Zen Buddhism, Via Negativa Hinduism, Freemasonry, Rosicrucianism, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox Christianity. 


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Epistemologist wrote:Atheism

Epistemologist wrote:

Atheism is insanity, and theism is sanity.

 Assertion 1.

Epistemologist wrote:

Likewise, eliminative materialism (including naturalism and physicalism) is insanity, and eliminative (Platonic) idealism is sanity.

Assertion 2.

 

Epistemologist wrote:

The ultimate difference between people is not whether they are theist (including religious and eliminative idealist) on the one hand, or atheist (and eliminative materialist) on the other. The ultimate difference between people is whether they are good or evil. There are good and evil theists, and there are good and evil atheists.

 Assertion 3.

The difference between good and evil assumes a moral basis. Morality is fluid based on cultures. A good Aztec theist was proficient at cutting out a heart to offer to the god. A good Christian theist during the middle ages was proficient in the use of the rack to extract confessions of heresy. This is judgmental on your part and assumes a perspective of good and evil.

In any culture, good is what propagates and enables a society to flourish and continue. Evil is that which will sap a society's lifeblood and cause its eventual elimination.

Epistemologist wrote:

The purpose of human life (the meaning of life) is to choose between being good, and being evil.

 Assertion 4.

The purpose of human life is survival of the species, meaning propagation and continuance.

Epistemologist wrote:

Reality is composed of three levels, including the physical universe, Heaven, and Hell.

Assertion 5.

Reality is only what occurs in the time space dimension which the observer occupies. As Heaven and Hell are assertions and are even claimed by you to be outside of time and space this is erroneous.

 

Epistemologist wrote:

If you choose to be good, you will go to Heaven. Heaven is happiness that increases exponentially for eternity. However, if you choose to be evil, you will go to Hell. Hell is suffering that increases exponentially for eternity. Heaven and Hell are outside time and space, which is why they cannot be experienced through the five senses of sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell.

 Assertion 6.

Assumption that being good has a reward and being evil is part of man's desire for justice in the Universe. Nothing you have shown indicates that

is so.

Epistemologist wrote:

The existence of Heaven, Hell, and God, is realized through intuitive perception of the Soul, which is itself outside time and space.

 Assertion 7.

Now you assume there is something that transcends the observed reality of this time space dimension allowing interaction and eventual migration to the other dimension which is outside of the one which the observer occupies.

Epistemologist wrote:

Time and space are properties of the observed physical universe, but they are not properties of the conscious mind. Time and space are merely observed by the mind, and they are not reality. Consciousness is therefore not a biological phenomenon, contrary to what eliminative materialism claims.

 Assertion 8.

Assumption is the mind transcends observed reality outside of time and space. As the human occupies coordinates in only the observed time space dimension it is purely speculative and conjecture to claim otherwise.

Epistemologist wrote:

Human beings were created by God and in God’s image, because that is what the Bible says, and logic dictates that the Bible is divine revelation from God: “"God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them."218 Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is "in the image of God"; (II) in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds; (III) he is created "male and female"; (IV) God established him in his friendship.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 355). http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p6.htm

 Assertions 9, 10. 11,12

Assumption that man was created not evolved. Assumption that man is made in the image of the god, test tube clone? Assumption the Bible is something of meaning other than a collection of myths & legends from a barbaric savage culture. Assumption this Bible is of the dictates of the god.

Epistemologist wrote:

You do not have to ‘believe’ in anything to go to Heaven. You do not, for example, have to believe in God, and you do not have to believe that Jesus Christ is Lord, or God. Everyone ‘knows’ that God exists, because that is self-evidently true; people that deny that God exists are clearly absolutely insane. You only have to obey the teachings of the Gospels, which merely require us to live as humanely as possible i.e. the Gospels teach humanism.

This is a core doctrine of the Catholic Church. It has no basis and is assertion. It leads to the problem the savages in New Guinea would have gone to heaven until the Church came in and told them about Jesus. Now they will burn in Hell for rejecting him according to Catholicism.

Epistemologist wrote:

 Jesus Christ was just a human being (however, he was God in the sense that he knew more about God than anyone else ever has – so he may as well be God from our human perspective). He condemned people that failed to live virtuously, and that called him ‘Lord’: “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles? Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’” (Matthew 7: 21-23)

 Assertions 13, 14, 15

Jesus Christ existed. He wasn't part of the Hebrew god. That he will be involved in the end of the world judging.

This part is considered heresy and would have got you the stake during the Middle Ages. If you are Catholic, send your name and address to the Vatican along with this statement and it should get you excommunicated. Send it to The Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith, Benny's old job.

Epistemologist wrote:

Evil people are those who harm other people. Good people are those who help or heal other people. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether you are ‘atheist’ or ‘theist’. That is the only difference between good and evil people, and it is exactly what Jesus Christ said:

 Again, this is related to the culture and morals of the culture. I would agree that in the society I desire that this would be my view. However, this has not always been what has occurred even in your great world of Catholicism.

Epistemologist wrote:

 The last judgement:

 “When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and He will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. Then the king will say to those at His right hand, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” ... “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.”

 Then He will say to those at His left hand, “You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.” ... “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.” And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” (Matthew 25:31-36, 40-43, 45-46 NRSV) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_Judgment

 A picture of the last judgement (Bear in mind that the last judgement occurs outside time and space, so it is difficult to capture in a picture): http://www.cedcc.psu.edu/khanjan/europe_images/025_sistine%20chapel.jpg

 Jesus Christ was the wisest human being that has ever lived, besides Plato and Socrates. That is because Christianity is the largest religion. It can only be the largest religion because people intuitively know through their souls that Jesus Christ was the wisest human being, as is expressed through his teachings in the Gospels.

Assertion 15 restated & expanded RE: Judgment Time and 16.

Assumes the rant in Revelation is something of merit. Assumes Jesus existed & had a high level of intelligence based on 2nd & 3rd hand legends & stories.

Epistemologist wrote:

I am an agnostic atheist because I do not know that God does not exist. However, I am also a Gnostic theist because I know that God does exist.

 This is like selling an option for a put in the stock market and buying the same put. Or it's like betting on both teams to win in the Superbowl.

Epistemologist wrote:

God is the source of life. He lives in Heaven, and not on Earth (or the physical universe). The physical universe that we experience through our senses is only a reflection of Heaven. It is like the reflection of the sky on the sea. Heaven is reality, and the physical universe is not. God is an eternal tunnel of spiritual light surrounded by and filled with infinite legions of angels. Here is a picture of God in Heaven. It is called the Beatific Vision: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Paradiso_Canto_31.jpg

 Assertions 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23

God is source of life - probably rehash of # 9

The god lives in heaven. - rehash of # 7

Not on Earth.

Universe is a reflection of heaven that isn't in observed reality, therefore conjecture and unprovable.

Heaven is the real reality though that contradicts the reality of the time space we occupy and is unprovable.

The assumed god is eternal of spiritual light another assertion of unprovable statements.

The assertion that the assumed god is surrounded by creatures called angels which are infinite.

Epistemologist wrote:

Another reason why Jesus Christ was the wisest human being that has ever lived, is because Platonic (eliminative) idealism is true, and naturalism, physicalism, and eliminative materialism are false. Platonic idealism is true because both eliminative idealism and eliminate materialism are in agreement that universals (ideal perfect forms, including mathematical and moral truths) only exist in human thought; universals do not exist in the physical universe that we experience through our senses, according to both eliminative materialism and eliminative idealism. But we only know the physical universe through universals (not particulars), which is why the physical universe only exists in our thought, and not independently from our thought.

 Assertion 24. If Jesus Christ existed and wasn't a myth then..................

Epistemologist wrote:

I understand the truth. I understand that atheists and eliminative materialists (including naturalists and physicalists) are insane. Atheism and materialism are insanity, and theism, religion and idealism are sanity. Atheists and materialists (including naturalists and physicalists) are lost children. In terms of wisdom, Jesus Christ is the Father of all human beings. Parents care about children that are lost more than any of their other children, and so does Jesus Christ.

 Assertions 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31.

All claims of assumptions. What is truth? What is your real level of understanding of truth? What is sanity and insanity? Lots of conjecture.

Epistemologist wrote:

See the parable of the lost sheep: “How think ye? if a man have a hundred sheep, and one of them be gone astray, doth he not leave the ninety and nine, and goeth into the mountains, and seeketh that which is gone astray? 13And if so be that he find it, verily I say unto you, he rejoiceth more of that sheep, than of the ninety and nine which went not astray.” (Matthew 18:12–13) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Lost_Sheep

 This is a picture of an atheist: http://trevinwax.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/lost-sheep1.jpg

 In contrast, the picture of the Beatific Vision, includes two theists, as you have seen: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Paradiso_Canto_31.jpg

 Jesus Christ is the parent of all atheists and materialists (as well as all other people). Atheists and materialists are the lost children of Jesus Christ.

 

More conjecture and assumption.

Epistemologist wrote:

God loves you, Jesus Christ loves you, I love you, and I want to lead you away from Hell and into Heaven. Take my hand, and I will lead you out of the darkness, and into the light. When you let go (when you doubt the truth of the Gospels – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John), it means that you are in danger of falling into Hell.

 There is only one path, and the path is narrow. Few find it. Monsters and demons are real, and they live on both sides of the path, so do not stray from the path. Monsters and demons include harmful ideas, and sins. The monsters want to kill and eat you, and take you to Hell. You are only safe from them on the path:

 “Then Jesus went through the towns and villages, teaching as he made his way to Jerusalem. Someone asked him, “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?” He said to them, “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.” (Luke 13: 22-25)

 Methinks you need your meds now.

Epistemologist wrote:

Virtue (obeying the teachings of Jesus Christ) causes forward movement on the path, which leads to Heaven. Sin (disobeying the teachings of Jesus Christ), causes backwards movement on the path, towards Hell.

 There is more evidence that God exists, that the Gospels are the wisest books ever written, and that human beings are immortal, than there is that the physical universe exists. God exists, you exist, and the physical universe we experience through our senses does not exist (ultimately, that is). The Bible is Divine Revelation from God, and that is an incontrovertible scientific fact.

 Assertion once more rehashed of # 12. Assumes the Bible is something more than tales and stories of one of many barbaric savage cultures.

Epistemologist wrote:

As you can clearly see, it is perfectly logical that God exists, because Platonic idealism is automatically true by default. Atheism is logically false by default. Because I have revealed this truth, I expect that atheists will call me a ‘troll’, simply because they are logically debunked. The ‘The Rational Response Squad’ and Richard Dawkins are also logically debunked. ‘The Rational Response Squad’ is actually ‘The Irrational Response Squad’. Atheism is ‘faith’, and theism is ‘knowledge’. So atheism is irrational, and theism (including religion) is rational.

 Theism and religion are in perfect harmony with science. Atheism is in conflict with science. That is because eliminative (Platonic) idealism is true by default, and eliminative materialism (including naturalism and physicalism) is false by default.

 The burden of proof is on atheism, not on theism.

 The existence of God is self-evident. Atheism is not self-evident.

 

More assertion. You have a full load of claims you have made without a shred of basis. All you have written is but conjecture.

 

Epistemologist wrote:

 

I am a humanist. I am an agnostic atheist, and a Gnostic theist. I am a Roman Catholic. The Roman Catholic Church is the Church of God. And the Pope is God’s ambassador on Earth. I am also a Benedictine Oblate.

 

 

So do you live in a monastery?

 

Epistemologist wrote:

So, I put this to ‘The Rational Response Squad’: Demonstrate to me, using logic, that atheism is true, and theism is false. I only believe in logic, and at the moment, logic dictates that theism is true, and atheism is false, as I have outlined above.

 If you are an atheist, the ‘burden of proof’ is on you.  

Based on just the perusal of your OP, with 30 to 40 assertions and conjecture it would appear you have built your house on a mound of sand and not on any solid foundation. You have not used logic in this futile exercise at all, just unsupported assertions.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Epistemologist wrote:  I

Epistemologist wrote:

 

I didn’t make that up. That is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church is the Church of God, and it reveals the truth of reality to the world. It is the Church of God because it is the largest Christian denomination. Over a billion people are Roman Catholics. It is statistically impossible for that many people to be wrong.

 I was a Catholic before I was an atheist. I converted to Catholicism from a Lutheran. One thing I learned is that Catholics are very knowledgeable about the Rosary, saying by rote Hail Marys & Our Fathers. I had several months of classes when I converted. Later, I went to a Jesuit University for my grad degree. Catholics have not independently analyzed and studied theology and religion and these masses of people are little better than auto-matrons at Disney. They follow through on the expected actions and demonstrate little actual understanding & knowledge. So for you to claim that a billion people can't be wrong, is first an appeal to the mass and 2nd assumed that these people actually understand any of the church's doctrine. As the Church interprets the Bible and the doctrine for its members, what each member knows is not considered necessary, only that they acknowledge the Church as the ultimate authority in regards to spiritual matters and doctrine.

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Has anyone ever actually

Has anyone ever actually made a dent in a person who argues like this?

 

You can point out what they are doing and why it is invalid but they just don't care, and their friends don't care.

 

I don't know how to explain things to them...the fact is, unless you are willing to abide by certain conventions in debate there is literally no way for people with different opinions to discuss anything and ever have movement.  This same idea comes up a lot in political discussions on some other sites I visit.  Sad

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Epistemologist wrote:

 

I didn’t make that up. That is the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church is the Church of God, and it reveals the truth of reality to the world. It is the Church of God because it is the largest Christian denomination. Over a billion people are Roman Catholics. It is statistically impossible for that many people to be wrong.

 I was a Catholic before I was an atheist. I converted to Catholicism from a Lutheran. One thing I learned is that Catholics are very knowledgeable about the Rosary, saying by rote Hail Marys & Our Fathers. I had several months of classes when I converted. Later, I went to a Jesuit University for my grad degree. Catholics have not independently analyzed and studied theology and religion and these masses of people are little better than auto-matrons at Disney. They follow through on the expected actions and demonstrate little actual understanding & knowledge. So for you to claim that a billion people can't be wrong, is first an appeal to the mass and 2nd assumed that these people actually understand any of the church's doctrine. As the Church interprets the Bible and the doctrine for its members, what each member knows is not considered necessary, only that they acknowledge the Church as the ultimate authority in regards to spiritual matters and doctrine.

 

 

 

This is one thing that actually kind of bums me out:  Even the intellectuals in theism are often pretty empty when you take the time to cut through the fancy wording.

 

When I was still calling myself an agnostic I spent a lot of time looking for really good arguments for god, and I was actually disapointed because there didn't seem to be anything as brilliant as I assumed there would be.

I remember, as a kid, always being told how wonderful C.S. Lewis was, and then as an adult I read some of his theological stuff and I was thinking, "Really?  Is that it?  That is the best you can do?".  Sad 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote: This is

mellestad wrote:

 

This is one thing that actually kind of bums me out:  Even the intellectuals in theism are often pretty empty when you take the time to cut through the fancy wording.

 

When I was still calling myself an agnostic I spent a lot of time looking for really good arguments for god, and I was actually disapointed because there didn't seem to be anything as brilliant as I assumed there would be.

I remember, as a kid, always being told how wonderful C.S. Lewis was, and then as an adult I read some of his theological stuff and I was thinking, "Really?  Is that it?  That is the best you can do?".  Sad 

I agree it seems pointless at times to debate theists, however, remember for each member you see on this site there are 10 to 20 observers. I realize that probably nothing will ever get through to the hard-headed theists but perhaps one can show the undecideds and those in the gray areas just why the claims of the theists are unfounded.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Yea, I know, I just like to

Yea, I know, I just like to know if anyone has ever had any success.  I agree though, much of the debate here is not aimed at the people we are actually debating, it is about the presumed audience.

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Has anyone

mellestad wrote:

Has anyone ever actually made a dent in a person who argues like this?

You can point out what they are doing and why it is invalid but they just don't care, and their friends don't care.

I don't know how to explain things to them...the fact is, unless you are willing to abide by certain conventions in debate there is literally no way for people with different opinions to discuss anything and ever have movement.  This same idea comes up a lot in political discussions on some other sites I visit.  Sad

And it's doubly-hard when the person isn't sincere. For all his/her claims of sincerity, Epistemologist has too many contradictory statements, and too few answers, to be anything but a troll at this point. I doubt she/he actually believes those walls of text. To claim to be both atheist and theist? To claim to follow logic, but ignore logic and make many logical blunders (appeal to popularity, bald assertions, ad hominem fallacies, and so on)? To move from a mild to an inflammatory to a batshit-crazy presentation? To refuse to answer questions? All that adds up to an intentional troll.

Oh, well. It was fun up 'til the batshit-crazy part. I hate it when trolls go too far for their joke.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Epistemologist
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Atheism is Insanity, and Theism is Sanity

 

ContemptableWitness wrote:
Epistemologist wrote:
The purpose of human life (the meaning of life) is to choose between being good, and being evil.

 

Show me your evidence for this.

 

My evidence for this is the Gospels of Jesus Christ – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

 

ContemptableWitness wrote:
Epistemologist wrote:
Reality is composed of three levels, including the physical universe, Heaven, and Hell.

 

Only one of those three levels can be demonstrated to exist. Heaven and Hell have not been demonstrated to exist and your essay does not even attempt to do so.

 

Ah, but what you don’t realize is . . . It is actually the physical universe that has not been demonstrated to exist. Heaven and Hell exist by logical default. Mind is the only reality, and we experience Heaven and Hell in our minds. The physical universe is not reality; it is an abstraction of reality. Reality is our minds, our consciousness. There is only consciousness . . . unless you can prove otherwise.

 

ContemptableWitness wrote:
Epistemologist wrote:
Time and space are properties of the observed physical universe, but they are not properties of the conscious mind. Time and space are merely observed by the mind, and they are not reality. Consciousness is therefore not a biological phenomenon, contrary to what eliminative materialism claims.

 

Demonstrate that time and space are not reality. Besides, your conclusion (consciousness is not a biological phenomenon) does not in any way follow from your premise. It's a non sequitir.

 

You are jumping the gun. My conclusion does indeed follow from my premise. For biological phenomena to be the source of mind or consciousness, time and space have to be real, because biological phenomena are physical things. Logically, only universals (including mathematical and moral truths) can exist, and not particulars (because we only know reality by and through universals – not particulars). Reality is therefore defined by mathematics and not physics. In mathematics there is no such thing as time and space, because mathematical truths do not possess the properties of time and space.

 

ContemptableWitness wrote:
Circular logic. You are arguing that the bible is the word of God because the bible says so. I just wrote on a piece of paper that I am the living embodiment of God, so therefore it must be true because logic dictates my piece of paper is a divine revelation from God, because since I'm god and I wrote it, it must be true.  See how that falls flat on its face?  Again, you are asserting something for which you have offered no evidence. I don't believe that the Bible is the word of God, so arguments from the Bible do little to persuade me until it can be demonstrated to me that what the Bible says about the given topic is factual. In fact there are many things in the Bible that are demonstrably incorrect (a round pit being 10 cubits across and 30 cubits around, for example. Those measurements are impossible, as it would be 31 cubits around, not 30).  In order to determine something's authenticity, it must be verified in its entirely by objective means. Using the Bible to prove the Bible is not an objective method.

 

I wasn’t using the Bible to prove the Bible, although that is what it may have looked like. It is a scientific fact that the Bible is Divine Revelation from God, and this is why. Mind and consciousness is the only reality, because the physical universe that we experience through our senses is only an abstraction or reflection of reality. It is actually only what we experience in our self that is real. That includes universal truths, like mathematical and moral truths. It also includes our emotions and mystical experiences. Because the only reality is our minds, it means that mystical experiences are not biological phenomena i.e. mystical experiences cannot possibly originate from, or occur in, the brain. Mystical experiences of God are therefore completely real experiences of God. The Bible is documented mystical experiences of God by different people. 2.2 billion people know that what is written in the Bible, particularly the Gospels, corresponds with what their mystical experiences tell them i.e. 2.2 billion people (Christians) cannot possibly be wrong). It is statistically impossible for them to be wrong. And the Bible is only the ‘literal’ word of God from the perspective of kataphatic theology. From the perspective of apophatic theology, the Bible is an abstraction of reality. Kataphatic theology is irrational, and apophatic theology is rational.

 

ContemptableWitness wrote:
Epistemologist wrote:
I am an agnostic atheist because I do not know that God does not exist. However, I am also a Gnostic theist because I know that God does exist.

 

An agnostic atheist is an absurd label. An atheist is someone who does not believe in God. An agnostic is someone who does not claim any special knowledge (known to the ancient greeks as gnosis of divine matters. Agnosticism and Atheism are two different ways of saying the same thing. In both cases, you are claiming the opposite.  You cannot be an atheist and a theist. You cannot be an agnostic and a gnostic. These are both logical impossibilities. It is like saying you are both A and not A, both B and not B.

 

Well then, you have just encountered a new concept. I am an apophatic theist. That means I am a theist, but I do not believe in the existence of God.

 

ContemptableWitness wrote:
Epistemologist wrote:
God is the source of life. He lives in Heaven, and not on Earth (or the physical universe). The physical universe that we experience through our senses is only a reflection of Heaven. It is like the reflection of the sky on the sea. Heaven is reality, and the physical universe is not. God is an eternal tunnel of spiritual light surrounded by and filled with infinite legions of angels. Here is a picture of God in Heaven. It is called the Beatific Vision: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Paradiso_Canto_31.jpg

 

How could anyone have painted a picture of God if he is not part of the physical universe?  Again, you've offered nothing of substance here, only mere statements of dogma with no supporting evidence.

 

It is because mystical experiences of God are real. There have been many mystics over the course of human history who have experienced and perceived God in an intimate and direct way. That picture of God (the Beatific Vision) is of mystical vision of God, outside time and space. The physical universe, including time and space, are not reality. God only lives in reality, and reality is Heaven.

 

ContemptableWitness wrote:
There is no contemporary evidence that Jesus ever existed. The earliest historical accounts were written by men born after he was supposedly crucified. All their accounts confirm is the existence of Christians in the first century. You again follow with incomprehensible babble, dogmatic claims that are not and cannot be demonstrated.  The universe doesn't exist because two philosophical viewpoints you've made up agree on a single point?  Please!

 

Ah, but it doesn’t matter whether or not Jesus existed. The physical universe is not reality, and so neither is human history. The Gospels are understood by Christians to be Divine Revelation because the spiritual truths documented in the Gospels correspond with the mystical experiences of the Christians that read them. So the truths expressed in the Gospels are justified as being true by personal mystical experience of individual Christians. A personal relationship with God does not require historical evidence.

 

I did not make up the two philosophical viewpoints of eliminative materialism (including naturalism and physicalism), and eliminative (Platonic) idealism. Those viewpoints began with Aristotle and Plato, and they mark the central division in western thought. It starts with the question, “What is reality?” Is reality what we experience through our physical senses (the natural sciences)? Or is reality what we know and experience by reason and in our minds (mathematical truths, moral truths, and mystical experiences). Those are the only two possibilities of what reality is. If reality can be something else, please tell me. Richard Dawkins takes the position that reality is only that which we experience through our physical senses – the ‘truths’ of the natural sciences.

 

ContemptableWitness wrote:
Ahh the appeal to fear. Sorry, I don't believe in Hell (in fact I never did, even as a Christian), so your little threat doesn't bother me.  I mean are you honestly, sincerely insulting my intelligence by using threats that probably wouldn't even work on a 5-year-old?  You know, Allah loves you, and unless you embrace the true faith of Islam, he will cast you along with the other infidels into Hell!  Prove me wrong!

 

But it’s not a threat. Telling the truth and making a threat are two completely different things. Hell (eternal damnation) is real because it says so in the Gospels of Jesus Christ. And that the Gospels are true is a scientific fact by default.

 

ContemptableWitness wrote:
Epistemologist wrote:
Virtue (obeying the teachings of Jesus Christ) causes forward movement on the path, which leads to Heaven. Sin (disobeying the teachings of Jesus Christ), causes backwards movement on the path, towards Hell.

 

No supporting evidence for this statement. Dogma.

 

You are confusing scientific fact with dogma. They are not the same thing. Religion is a natural science, and the Gospels are a science textbook (or textbooks) which describe reality. The above is from the Gospels, and they are the arbiter of reality.

 

ContemptableWitness wrote:
I think you should look up the word 'evidence' in the dictionary (of course according to you dictionaries don't exist), because it doesn't mean what you think it means.  All you've done is make baseless assertion after baseless assertion. That is not evidence, that is "because I said so."  That is what religion is. It is the practice of abandoning the demand of empirical evidence in favor of simply believing whatever a self-appointed authority figure tells you to believe.

 

It has become clear to me that you don't actually know what science is, so the Bible being a divine revelation from god is not and could not be a scientific fact by any stretch of the imagination. Science is the study of the physical universe, which you claim doesn't exist. Therefore, according to your logic, science doesn't exist, so you can't just invoke it when it's convenient for you.

 

I didn’t mean to imply that the physical universe does not exist. What I meant is that it is a reflection or abstraction of reality, and not reality itself. So it is not reality.

 

What you haven’t understood is that the burden of proof is not on theism. The burden of proof is on atheism. God exists, and human beings are immortal, by logical default. Atheism, to be taken seriously has to prove that God does not exist, and that human beings are not immortal. Until atheism can do that, atheism is just an irrational and superstitious belief.

 

Science is not just the study of the physical universe. Science also includes mathematics and logic, which explore truths of reasoning that do not exist in the physical universe. And as I said before, science also includes religion, because religion is a natural science. Religion studies the soul and God, which are natural phenomena.

 

ContemptableWitness wrote:
Epistemologist wrote:
Theism and religion are in perfect harmony with science. Atheism is in conflict with science. That is because eliminative (Platonic) idealism is true by default, and eliminative materialism (including naturalism and physicalism) is false by default.

 

Again, you can't invoke science when you neither know what it is or believe it exists.

 

But you are the one who doesn’t seem to know what science is. You didn’t seem to know that mathematics is a science. Plato and Aristotle put reality and abstraction different ways around. From Plato’s perspective, biology, chemistry and physics are not natural sciences, but abstract sciences, and mathematics and logic are the natural sciences. Plato also classified religion as a natural science, because from the perspective of eliminative (Platonic) idealism, mystical experiences are real. It is only from the perspective of eliminative materialism (including naturalism and physicalism) that mystical experiences are not real, and eliminative materialism is actually a ‘faith’ and logically false by default. And from Aristotle’s perspective it was the other way around; biology, chemistry and physics are the natural sciences, and mathematics and logic are the abstract sciences. To choose between Plato and Aristotle, you have to decide whether nature is that which you know by reason (and through your mind), or that which you know by perception through your physical senses.

 

Atheism is a ‘belief’, with no supportive evidence whatsoever, and theism is ‘knowledge’. Atheism has to be learned, but human beings are theist naturally.

 

ContemptableWitness wrote:
The men who wrote that statement weren't talking about the Christian god. The founding fathers were children of the Enlightenment, an eclectic mix of deists and Christians. Thomas Jefferson (the man who penned those words) was a deist who did not believe in divine revelation or the sanctity of scripture. In fact, he did a hack-and-slash job on the Bible, compiling all four Gospels into a single story while removing all the references to miracles. He saw Jesus as merely a moral teacher, not the son of God.  The 1787 Treaty of Tripoli explicitly states that the United States was not founded on the Christian religion in article 11, and this document was unanimously passed by the Senate.

 

However, they still knew that God existed, and clearly asserted that the existence of God is self evidently true. And they asserted that it is self-evidently true that human beings are created by God i.e. they asserted that theism is logically true be default, and atheism is logically false by default.

 

ContemptableWitness wrote:
Epistemologist wrote:
I am a humanist. I am an agnostic atheist, and a Gnostic theist. I am a Roman Catholic. The Roman Catholic Church is the Church of God. And the Pope is God’s ambassador on Earth. I am also a Benedictine Oblate.

 

If the pope is God's ambassador on earth, then child molestation is a virtue, because the current pope knowingly and purposely kept known pedophile priests in an environment that enabled them to continue their crime.  The catholic church is a den of perverts, a pedophile paradise from the top down.  Your pope has also been instrumental in the needless deaths of thousands of Africans due to AIDS, spreading the lie that condoms do not prevent it. Your church has been and is a blight on humanity and civilization, it is a disease, and I hope to live to see the day of its destruction.

 

You are making a very severe fallacy there. You are saying that just because some natural scientists are paedophiles, or that natural scientists in positions of power have covered up cases of paedophilia to protect their reputations: it means that the discoveries of scientists are not true. Sorry, but that claim is simply ridiculous. Pythagoras’ theorem would still be true if he had been a paedophile. If every mathematician that had ever existed had been a paedophile, the mathematical truths that they revealed or discovered would still be true. Religion is a natural science, which studies natural phenomena – the soul and God. It is a scientific fact that the Pope is God’s ambassador on Earth, and Roman Catholicism is a natural science. Essentially, the Pope is the world’s leading natural scientist.

 

The paedophilia cover ups have nothing to do with the natural scientific truths taught by the Roman Catholic Church. All human beings make mistakes, and there is a lower incidence of paedophilia amongst Roman Catholic priests than there is amongst married couples. http://www.thetablet.co.uk/article/14543

 

The Roman Catholic Church certainly does not teach people to practice paedophilia. It teaches people to obey the message of Jesus Christ in the Gospels.

 

And you will be surprised to learn that the distribution of condoms is actually correlated with an increase in the spread of AIDS, not a decrease. This statistical fact is presented by Ann Widdecombe in the Intelligence Squared debate, ‘The Catholic Church is a Force for Good in the World’: http://www.intelligencesquared.com/iq2-video/2009/catholic-church

 

Population growth is also ultimately more harmful than diseases like AIDS. Famine is a consequence of excessive population growth. If we save people from AIDS, they will simply die from famine instead at a future point. Disease creates homeostasis within ecosystems, by controlling the ratio of one organism group to another.

 

And homosexuality is not just immoral. It is unnatural. If everyone were homosexual, then we would not be here. That is why homosexuality must be discouraged.

 

ContemptableWitness wrote:
You don't believe in logic. You don't understand what it is or what it means. Your entire post violates logical rules in every way possible. You are so far off-base that you cannot even be engaged logically.  Besides, using your method of argumentation, logic does not exist. It is something perceived by our conciousness and does not exist outside of it. Therefore it doesn't exist.

 

You still have the burden of proof. Simply stating that you don't doesn't make it a matter of fact. You are claiming that something exists. When you claim that something exists, the burden of proof is on you. Otherwise, anybody could make any kind of claim they want. I claim that I am God's messenger on earth. I state that the Bible is a false book and therefore cannot be used to disprove anything I say. Demonstrate that I am not God's messenger on earth.  Do you see the problem here?  You've given us nothing but statements of your personal belief. You've given us nothing that we can go out and verify for ourselves. You are simply making dogmatic statements and demanding we believe because you are sincere.  I do not doubt your sincerety, but sincerety does not make one correct. Popularity of a belief does not make it correct. Your church is the largest because over 1,500 years ago the emperor of the largest empire on earth (Justinian) made it illegal to follow any other religion!  Your popularity rose because for centuries the church tortured and killed all its rivals, not because everyone in the west had a sincere conversion.

 

You do not seem to realize it is completely the other way around. The burden of proof is absolutely on atheism, and not remotely on theism. Theism is true because eliminative idealism (the basis of theism) is logically true, and eliminative materialism (the basis of atheism) is logically false.

 

I have asserted exactly the opposite of saying logic does not exist. I have asserted that logic and mathematics are the only things that do exist, apart from God and the soul, Heaven and Hell.

 

God exists by default, and human beings are immortal by default. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that human beings are not immortal and that God does not exist.

 

The Bible is Divine Revelation from God because 2.2 billion Christians know that it is. And the Pope is God’s ambassador on Earth because over a billion Roman Catholics know that he is. It is statistically impossible for that many people to be wrong. No one knows that you are God’s ambassador on earth, and that is the difference between you and the Pope.

 

The reason why the Roman Catholic Church tortured and killed heretics is because heresy is a lie that leads people to eternal Hell i.e. heresy is infinitely more evil than torturing and killing heretics. Heretics should definitely be tortured and killed (or imprisoned), because they are leading people to Hell. Heresy is evil, and it has to be purged. Heretics should be imprisoned or tortured until they recant. If they do not recant, heretics and infidels must be killed. The world must become Roman Catholic, with the Pope as its leader, to save the maximum number of souls from Hell, and lead the maximum possible number of souls to Heaven.

 

I will explain further:

 

Because what we experience through our physical senses is an abstraction of reality, and not reality itself, the more we seek reality through our physical senses, the further from reality we end up. Darwin’s theory of Evolution, and DNA are good examples. DNA is only the blueprint of life from the perspective of eliminative materialism. However, from the perspective of eliminative (Platonic) idealism, DNA is not the blueprint of life; it is just an abstract idea, which represents the journey of the soul; biological phenomena are a reflection of spiritual phenomena; biological phenomena are the abstraction, and spiritual phenomena are the reality. Spiritual phenomena exist in the real world of universal (ideal) forms or truths (the Platonic world of forms outside time and space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_Forms

 

Reality is inside us – inside our consciousness. Reality is not in the physical universe. The physical universe is an illusion, and that is a scientific fact.

 

This is why monks and nuns isolate themselves in solitary confinement in monasteries and convents. They are closing down their physical senses, so that they can come to perceive ultimate reality, which is spiritual and not physical.


Whatthedeuce
atheist
Whatthedeuce's picture
Posts: 200
Joined: 2008-07-19
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:DON'T FEED THE

cj wrote:

DON'T FEED THE TROLL. 

 

I agree with cj

 

Mellestad wrote:

About the only thing consistent is he uses a tone that gets people riled up

this is precisely what makes him a troll

I don't understand why the Christians I meet find it so confusing that I care about the fact that they are wasting huge amounts of time and resources playing with their imaginary friend. Even non-confrontational religion hurts atheists because we live in a society which is constantly wasting resources and rejecting rational thinking.


Epistemologist
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Atheism is Insanity, and Theism is Sanity

 I use perfect, crisp, clean logic, to demonstrate that theism is true by default, and atheism is false by default. Because I have logically debunked atheism, I get accused of being a troll. Because I have logically demonstrated that the Pope is God’s ambassador on Earth, I get accused of being a troll.

 

You guys have got to understand the difference between logic and trolling. They are absolutely different. I cannot believe you do not understand the difference. Logic is a science, and trolling is not. Science advances human knowledge. Get it?


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
(including the more

(including the more 'mainstream' cults like Xtianity)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3391
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
i can believe he's a monk. 

i can believe he's a monk.  monks are one of the only demographics that would have this much time.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Yeah, well...

iwbiek wrote:

i can believe he's a monk.  monks are one of the only demographics that would have this much time.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Epistemologist
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Atheism is Insanity, and Theism is Sanity

To everyone: Attacking a person who has presented to you a sound logical argument, as I have, does not falsify that argument. This is supposed to be The Rational Response Squad forum, so you should be using logic, and not personal attacks. I appeal to your intellects. Please use your intellects, and not engage in knee-jerk emotive reactions. Your knee-jerk emotive reactions are meaningless nonsense. Science does not proceed through knee-jerk emotive reactions. Science has to use logic, or otherwise it fails. The Rational Response Squad will fail if it does not use logic, and the Roman Catholic Church will win because it uses logic. Logic is the arbiter of reality. If you cannot see that, then you are blind.

 

Stop the name-calling, and stop the personal attacks.

 

Please, please, please, use logic!

 

The burden of proof is on atheism, because eliminative materialism (including naturalism and physicalism are false). Both eliminative materialism and eliminative (Platonic) idealism are in agreement that universal truths (including mathematical and moral truths) only exist in human thought. We only know the physical universe through the truths of mathematics, which are universals. Therefore the physical universe only exists in our thought. Logically, it (the physical universe) does not exist independently of our thought, which means that it is an illusion. It is the ideal, universal truths that are reality (we have abstraction and reality the wrong way around). That is perfectly logical. Calling me a ‘troll’ does not in any way falsify what I have said.

 

Philosophers in universities to not create new philosophical ideas by calling each other ‘trolls’ simply because they disagree with each other. They carefully analyse each others ideas using logic, and logic alone. Ad hominem is never justified in logical discussion, because it adds absolutely no useful meaning, and it actually stifles the advancement of science.

 

If you cannot handle the truth, which is presented to you logically, that is not my problem. That is your problem. It means that you need to get your emotions straightened out. Relax, go to the cinema, or go for a nice country walk, or do some other relaxing activity. Don’t let your emotions take you over. Emotion is the enemy of logic and reason. That is what Jean-Jacques Rousseau concluded, and his conclusion spawned the French Revolution – a result of which was the cultural replacement of ‘faith’ with ‘reason’. Atheism is ‘faith’ and irrational, while in contrast, theism and religion are ‘knowledge’ and ‘rational’. Religion is natural science, which studied the natural phenomena of God and the soul.

 

On the other hand. Atheism is nothing. It’s not a science. Atheism is just nonsensical trash, because naturalism and physicalism are logically false by default, as I have logically proven.

 

 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
"MEIN LIEBBEN!"

Epistemologist wrote:

To everyone: Attacking a person who has presented to you a sound logical argument, as I have, does not falsify that argument. This is supposed to be The Rational Response Squad forum, so you should be using logic, and not personal attacks. I appeal to your intellects. Please use your intellects, and not engage in knee-jerk emotive reactions. Your knee-jerk emotive reactions are meaningless nonsense. Science does not proceed through knee-jerk emotive reactions. Science has to use logic, or otherwise it fails. The Rational Response Squad will fail if it does not use logic, and the Roman Catholic Church will win because it uses logic. Logic is the arbiter of reality. If you cannot see that, then you are blind.

 

Stop the name-calling, and stop the personal attacks.

 

Please, please, please, use logic!

 

The burden of proof is on atheism, because eliminative materialism (including naturalism and physicalism are false). Both eliminative materialism and eliminative (Platonic) idealism are in agreement that universal truths (including mathematical and moral truths) only exist in human thought. We only know the physical universe through the truths of mathematics, which are universals. Therefore the physical universe only exists in our thought. Logically, it (the physical universe) does not exist independently of our thought, which means that it is an illusion. It is the ideal, universal truths that are reality (we have abstraction and reality the wrong way around). That is perfectly logical. Calling me a ‘troll’ does not in any way falsify what I have said.

 

Philosophers in universities to not create new philosophical ideas by calling each other ‘trolls’ simply because they disagree with each other. They carefully analyse each others ideas using logic, and logic alone. Ad hominem is never justified in logical discussion, because it adds absolutely no useful meaning, and it actually stifles the advancement of science.

 

If you cannot handle the truth, which is presented to you logically, that is not my problem. That is your problem. It means that you need to get your emotions straightened out. Relax, go to the cinema, or go for a nice country walk, or do some other relaxing activity. Don’t let your emotions take you over. Emotion is the enemy of logic and reason. That is what Jean-Jacques Rousseau concluded, and his conclusion spawned the French Revolution – a result of which was the cultural replacement of ‘faith’ with ‘reason’. Atheism is ‘faith’ and irrational, while in contrast, theism and religion are ‘knowledge’ and ‘rational’. Religion is natural science, which studied the natural phenomena of God and the soul.

 

On the other hand. Atheism is nothing. It’s not a science. Atheism is just nonsensical trash, because naturalism and physicalism are logically false by default, as I have logically proven.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Epistemologist wrote:You are

Epistemologist wrote:

You are making the basic mistake of assuming that reality is that which we experience through our senses (the ‘apparent’ physical universe). I assert, with Plato, that reality is not that which we experience through our senses. Reality is our minds.

The Farce will be with you always Luke.

"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


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3391
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Epistemologist wrote:If you

Epistemologist wrote:

If you cannot handle the truth, which is presented to you logically, that is not my problem. That is your problem.

 

yup, you're right, on all counts.  you have the truth and we're just too obstinate to accept it.  it is totally our problem.  i'm afraid there is nothing else you can do for us here.

bye-bye.

 

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Epistemologist wrote:Please,

Epistemologist wrote:

Please, please, please, use logic!

We will as soon as you do.

What you present is not logic. So far, you have presented a series of unfounded assertions, strawmen (neither mathematics nor moral truths are universal truths -- one is a tool used to help model reality, and the other is nothing but a religious misconception), and serious logical fallacies. (Something has to be true because a bunch of people believe it to be true? Are you fucking serious? That's a blunder I might expect in Logic 101, on the first day. After that, there's no excuse.)

You seem to have no desire to engage us in logical debate. You appear to desire only to preach, and to prove to the world your own brilliance. The first makes you a troll, and the second shows you misjudge your own competence. If you don't wish to be labeled a troll, stop acting like one.

You can start by defending your position. We really don't mind discussing philosophy around here, as long as you don't mind being mercilessly grilled. If you can hold and defend your position, you might even earn some respect. (Look to Eloise for an example there -- she has some odd beliefs, but she manages to explain and defend them fairly well, though they are very complex and subtle ideas. We might not agree with her on everything, but she has our respect.) Start by presenting your premises, and answer questions. If we demonstrate an idea suffers from a philosophical or logical problem, either demonstrate how our concerns are misplaced, or admit the weaknesses.

Until then, this is the last chance I'm giving you. I will ask my questions one more time. If you evade them, or do not answer them directly and logically, or start a new thread to avoid answering them, I must assume you are merely a troll, in spite of your protestations.

1. How does group solipsism avoid the epistemic problems of regular old solipsism?

2. How do you have group solipsism without objectively-existing entities to participate in the aggregate reality?

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Epi, old son, I'd love to

Epi, old son, I'd love to discuss your sound, logical argument.

Unfortunately what you've brought up fails on all three points.

"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


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Epistemologist wrote:~rip~ 

Epistemologist wrote:

~rip~

 

Please, please, please, use logic!

 

~rip~

 

Philosophers in universities to not create new philosophical ideas by calling each other ‘trolls’ simply because they disagree with each other. They carefully analyse each others ideas using logic, and logic alone. Ad hominem is never justified in logical discussion, because it adds absolutely no useful meaning, and it actually stifles the advancement of science.

 

So far you have stated naked assertions and premises. You have not logically made any case.

 

Epistemologist wrote:

If you cannot handle the truth, which is presented to you logically, that is not my problem. That is your problem. ~rip~

 

On the other hand. Atheism is nothing. It’s not a science. Atheism is just nonsensical trash, because naturalism and physicalism are logically false by default, as I have logically proven.

Claiming something is so does not make it so. That's the problem with your entire OP. The truth is you have made a lot of statements and you have nothing but conjecture as a basis.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
(No subject)

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Thanks, Kapkao.

Kapkao wrote:

Thanks, Kapkao. I rarely use text speech, but: LOL. To the point of snarfing ginger ale out my nose.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Epistemologist

Epistemologist wrote:

 

ContemptableWitness wrote:
Epistemologist wrote:
The purpose of human life (the meaning of life) is to choose between being good, and being evil.

 

Show me your evidence for this.

 

My evidence for this is the Gospels of Jesus Christ – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

 See a thread I did called Easter Myth Week - http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/20050 it details just the few problems with the legends of Jesus the Super Hero during Passion Week. There are many more problems when you consider the entire legendary episodes of Jesus the rebel of Judea in all the contradictory Gospels.

Epistemologist wrote:

ContemptableWitness wrote:
Epistemologist wrote:
Reality is composed of three levels, including the physical universe, Heaven, and Hell.

 

Only one of those three levels can be demonstrated to exist. Heaven and Hell have not been demonstrated to exist and your essay does not even attempt to do so.

 

Ah, but what you don’t realize is . . . It is actually the physical universe that has not been demonstrated to exist. Heaven and Hell exist by logical default. Mind is the only reality, and we experience Heaven and Hell in our minds. The physical universe is not reality; it is an abstraction of reality. Reality is our minds, our consciousness. There is only consciousness . . . unless you can prove otherwise.

So clearly you took the blue pill and you don't care if the steak is real or not.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
nigelTheBold wrote:Thanks,

nigelTheBold wrote:

Thanks, Kapkao. I rarely use text speech, but: LOL. To the point of snarfing ginger ale out my nose.

Nigel... there's a lil sumtin' I gotta confess to ya, bud. I'm curious why you were chosen for the role of "Messenger pigeon", telling me why I don't qualify as 'troll' and shit.

I think... REALLY hard about it, and then I decide: I need to edit a post of mine in Irrational Precepts!

So that's what Ima gonna do: announce the fact that my head's a little closer to Earth than it was 2-3 days ago. Meds are difficult sometimes, but self-medication can still cure, I say to all all of you!

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5851
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Logic cannot prove anything

Epistemologist, Logic cannot prove anything about reality.

It can only demonstrate whether your conclusion (God exists, etc) is consistent (or not) with your initial premises or assumptions.

So if you start by assuming a reality consistent with God, of course you will 'prove' God.

But you have consistently demonstrated a defective understanding and application of logic, so you fail at at least two levels.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13667
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:nigelTheBold


Quote:
I'm curious why you were chosen for the role of "Messenger pigeon"

Because god needs someone to tease after you wash your car.

"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


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
And then Bob comes along and

And then Bob comes along and proves how intellectually inferior I am to him... without a hint of doubt, really.

hehe

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:I'm

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
I'm curious why you were chosen for the role of "Messenger pigeon"

Because god needs someone to tease after you wash your car.

God=Hammy, in this scenario?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


nigelTheBold
atheist
nigelTheBold's picture
Posts: 1868
Joined: 2008-01-25
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Nigel...

Kapkao wrote:
Nigel... there's a lil sumtin' I gotta confess to ya, bud. I'm curious why you were chosen for the role of "Messenger pigeon", telling me why I don't qualify as 'troll' and shit.

Oh, I wasn't chosen. I have nothing to do with the mucketee-mucks who run the show here. I have no special privileges. I was just making an observation that you contribute positively to the conversation. You are just too damned insightful in some of your posts. Your mode of expression may be intentionally geared towards gaining a troll badge, but really you just come off as funny.

At least, that's how I take it.

"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
'Weak links in the evolutionary chain', is what I what I've got.

nigelTheBold wrote:

Kapkao wrote:
Nigel... there's a lil sumtin' I gotta confess to ya, bud. I'm curious why you were chosen for the role of "Messenger pigeon", telling me why I don't qualify as 'troll' and shit.

Oh, I wasn't chosen. I have nothing to do with the mucketee-mucks who run the show here. I have no special privileges. I was just making an observation that you contribute positively to the conversation. You are just too damned insightful in some of your posts. Your mode of expression may be intentionally geared towards gaining a troll badge, but really you just come off as funny.

At least, that's how I take it.

I guess I just get up in the morning... and, for no particular reason, I learn (via indirect observation) people are talking about me behind my back. Not necessarily a bad thing... chalk it up to human nature, hmph. But sometimes... it's hard to decide how prolific and active the gossip-mill has been with regards to my behavior (particularly during neurochemical instability)...

"Delusions of Reference", they are called. (and sometimes they aren't all that delusional in meaning, but in fact, VERY astute!)

Wikipedia wrote:
Having the experience that people (often strangers) drop hints or say things about them behind their back

What can I say? I sleep with one eye open and I wait for a threat to my existence that never comes. (all metaphorically, of course)

All of which appears to be a fault of genetics - see, both my SUPERneurotic paternal Grandmother (who finally succumbed to dementia, thankfully) and my Dad act...  delusional, in their own unique way. Both of them always seem to have theories of conspiracy of some sort rising up against them, and they seem to have (biologically) passed those delusions on to me.

Bad roll of the genetic die, if you get my meaning... and probably due to excessively endogamous intrabreeding practices somewhere up in the family tree. (AKA incest-children) Hard to tell, without solid record keeping from the 19th century/early 20th century.

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Quote:My evidence for this

Quote:

My evidence for this is the Gospels of Jesus Christ – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

 

You forgot about the gospel of Jesephius.  You cannot be a true believer without knowledge of it.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
v4ultingbassist

v4ultingbassist wrote:

Quote:

My evidence for this is the Gospels of Jesus Christ – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

 

You forgot about the gospel of Jesephius.  You cannot be a true believer without knowledge of it.

And the Matrix Triology based on his beliefs

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
I like how this guy needs to

I like how this guy needs to write an essay to explain his beliefs. I'm afraid it is usually the simplest and easiest answer that is correct.

God is made up, I believe in what I can see, without using, LSD.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:I like how

robj101 wrote:

I like how this guy needs to write an essay to explain his beliefs. I'm afraid it is usually the simplest and easiest answer that is correct.

God is made up, I believe in what I can see, without using, LSD.

 

Yea, it always makes me suspicious when someone writes an essay to defend a moral, political, philosophical or theological claim.  Doubly so when, in that wall of text, there are no links to all the assertions contained therein.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Epistemologist
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Atheism is Insanity, and Theism is Sanity

 I have logically proved the following:

 

Monarchy (Government by a King or Queen) is the best form of government, because the ‘Divine Right of Kings’ is true.

 

God exists, and He created human beings in his image.

 

Human beings are immortal, because time and space are not reality.

 

Biology, Chemistry and physics are abstract sciences. And mathematics, logic, and religion, are natural sciences.

 

The Roman Catholic Church is the Church of God, and the Pope is God’s ambassador on Earth.

 

Logic and science are the only path to truth and reality. Natural science is the ultimate arbiter of reality. Religion is the leading natural science, because mystical experiences of God are the most real experiences we have.

 

The Bible and other religious texts are Divine Revelation from God, and they are natural science textbooks.

 

Apophatic theology is true, because the physical universe is an abstraction, while the world of universal (ideal) forms (outside time and space) in human minds is actually reality. Kataphatic theology is false (i.e. the Bible is not the literal word of God, and neither is the Koran or any other religious text), because the Bible is part of the abstraction of the physical universe.

 

The Queen of England is the Queen of Heaven. English is the language of Heaven, and Heaven is England. Heaven is England because England is outside time and space, and is eternal. The Queen of England is the Queen of the universe. The Pope is the leader of the Queen of England, because the Pope is God’s ambassador on Earth. The United States of America is part of England. The Queen of England is the Queen of the United States, and the United States is the Queen of England’s best swordsman. The entire universe will become England, simply because the universe is inside the mind of the queen of England.

 

Strawberry ice cream is the best ice cream, and The Lord of the Rings is the best movie trilogy to watch while eating strawberry ice cream. And the Lord of the Rings is a true story.

 

The above is true, simply because eliminative idealism is true by default, and eliminative materialism is false by default. The so-called ‘natural sciences’ (including biology, chemistry and physics) can only reveal reality if reality is that which we experience through our physical senses i.e. naturalism and physicalism have to be true. But naturalism and physicalism are false, because only universal truths are real (mathematical, moral and religious truths). Both eliminative (Platonic) idealism and eliminative materialism (including naturalism and physicalism) are in agreement that universal truths only exist in human thought. We only know that the universe exists through universal (ideal) truths (including the truths of mathematics and physics). That means that the ‘physical universe’ we experience through our ‘physical’ senses, only exists in our thought i.e. mind is the only reality. Mathematics is reality, and physics is an abstraction. For 2500 years, we have actually had reality and abstraction the wrong way around. Aristotle asserted that reality is that which we perceive through our physical senses. Plato asserted that reality is that which we experience in our minds (universal truths, including mathematics and religion). Most people sided with Aristotle, because they thought Plato’s claim was madness. But people got it the wrong way around. It was Aristotle’s claim that was madness, and Plato’s claim was sanity.

 

So, in summary:

 

We have reality and abstraction the wrong way around.

 

Biology, chemistry and physics are not natural sciences; they are abstract sciences. That means for example that DNA is not the blueprint of life. DNA is an abstraction of the blueprint of life.

 

Mathematics, Logic and religion are not abstract sciences. They are natural sciences, and the leading natural science is religion, because mystical experiences are more true and real than any other experiences human beings have.

 

The Bible and other religious texts are natural science textbooks, because religion is the scientific study of natural phenomena. The soul and God are natural phenomena. The Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious institution. And because religion is the leading natural science, the Roman Catholic Church is therefore the largest natural science institution. The Pope is the world’s leading natural scientist, and therefore, the Pope is the intellectual leader of the world, regardless of whether or not he covered up cases of paedophilia by Roman Catholic Priests.


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Epistemologist wrote: I

Epistemologist wrote:

 I have logically proved the following:

 

Monarchy (Government by a King or Queen) is the best form of government, because the ‘Divine Right of Kings’ is true.

 

God exists, and He created human beings in his image.

 

Human beings are immortal, because time and space are not reality.

 

Biology, Chemistry and physics are abstract sciences. And mathematics, logic, and religion, are natural sciences.

 

The Roman Catholic Church is the Church of God, and the Pope is God’s ambassador on Earth.

 

Logic and science are the only path to truth and reality. Natural science is the ultimate arbiter of reality. Religion is the leading natural science, because mystical experiences of God are the most real experiences we have.

 

The Bible and other religious texts are Divine Revelation from God, and they are natural science textbooks.

 

Apophatic theology is true, because the physical universe is an abstraction, while the world of universal (ideal) forms (outside time and space) in human minds is actually reality. Kataphatic theology is false (i.e. the Bible is not the literal word of God, and neither is the Koran or any other religious text), because the Bible is part of the abstraction of the physical universe.

 

The Queen of England is the Queen of Heaven. English is the language of Heaven, and Heaven is England. Heaven is England because England is outside time and space, and is eternal. The Queen of England is the Queen of the universe. The Pope is the leader of the Queen of England, because the Pope is God’s ambassador on Earth. The United States of America is part of England. The Queen of England is the Queen of the United States, and the United States is the Queen of England’s best swordsman. The entire universe will become England, simply because the universe is inside the mind of the queen of England.

 

Strawberry ice cream is the best ice cream, and The Lord of the Rings is the best movie trilogy to watch while eating strawberry ice cream. And the Lord of the Rings is a true story.

 

The above is true, simply because eliminative idealism is true by default, and eliminative materialism is false by default. The so-called ‘natural sciences’ (including biology, chemistry and physics) can only reveal reality if reality is that which we experience through our physical senses i.e. naturalism and physicalism have to be true. But naturalism and physicalism are false, because only universal truths are real (mathematical, moral and religious truths). Both eliminative (Platonic) idealism and eliminative materialism (including naturalism and physicalism) are in agreement that universal truths only exist in human thought. We only know that the universe exists through universal (ideal) truths (including the truths of mathematics and physics). That means that the ‘physical universe’ we experience through our ‘physical’ senses, only exists in our thought i.e. mind is the only reality. Mathematics is reality, and physics is an abstraction. For 2500 years, we have actually had reality and abstraction the wrong way around. Aristotle asserted that reality is that which we perceive through our physical senses. Plato asserted that reality is that which we experience in our minds (universal truths, including mathematics and religion). Most people sided with Aristotle, because they thought Plato’s claim was madness. But people got it the wrong way around. It was Aristotle’s claim that was madness, and Plato’s claim was sanity.

 

So, in summary:

 

We have reality and abstraction the wrong way around.

 

Biology, chemistry and physics are not natural sciences; they are abstract sciences. That means for example that DNA is not the blueprint of life. DNA is an abstraction of the blueprint of life.

 

Mathematics, Logic and religion are not abstract sciences. They are natural sciences, and the leading natural science is religion, because mystical experiences are more true and real than any other experiences human beings have.

 

The Bible and other religious texts are natural science textbooks, because religion is the scientific study of natural phenomena. The soul and God are natural phenomena. The Roman Catholic Church is the largest religious institution. And because religion is the leading natural science, the Roman Catholic Church is therefore the largest natural science institution. The Pope is the world’s leading natural scientist, and therefore, the Pope is the intellectual leader of the world, regardless of whether or not he covered up cases of paedophilia by Roman Catholic Priests.

So, in your mind, when you confirm evidence for something it is confirmation and evidence that everyone should believe. I like peanut butter and banana sandwiches, they are delicious, so everyone likes them.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
http://www.southparkstudios.c