Belief is Irrational

Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Belief is Irrational

If you believe in invisible, intangible beings with magical powers, you can NOT claim to be 100% Rational.
This doesn't mean you are unintelligent, stupid or insane. It means what it says, you can not lay claim to being completely rational.

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:jcgadfly

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:
 "The Christian's axioms are self-consistent and make good sense of the evidence"

And you can't name one.

1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.

2. The universe has a beginning.

3. Therefore the universe has a cause. 

4. Complex specified information always requires an intelligent message sender.

5. All living organisms have complex specified information.

6. Therefore the complex specified information in living organisms requires an intelligent message sender. 

Refute any one of these criteria logically.

jcgadfly wrote:
Lee2216 wrote:
"The atheist's axioms are ultimately self-refuting"

The only axioms atheists have are the ones you've made up?

Where's your proof I've made this up? This is just your assertion.

jcgadfly wrote:
Good thing that science doesn't work the way you're strawmanning it.

What does science have to do with you being irrational?

 

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

Things that don't begin to exist can't cause anything.

God has caused more violence, evil and hatred than any human.

Therefore God began to exist.

Therefore God had a cause.

+++

Poorly specified and designed information always requires an unintelligent message sender

All living organism have poorly specified and designed information

Therefore the poorly specified and designed information was generated by an unintelligent message sender.

+++

The difference between your arguments and mine? Mine have been observed and shown to be correct.

 

Where is my proof that you made up the statement of atheist axioms? Atheists have no axioms concerning their atheism.

"What does science have to do with you being irrational?" 

You have a poor grasp of science. That poor grasp of science leads you to believe that those who disagree with you and don't fellate your God are irrational. 

Go forth and learn something.

"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


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:1. Everything

Lee2216 wrote:

1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.

Radioactive decay doesn't. Brownian Motion doesn't for two examples...

Quote:
2. The universe has a beginning.

The present state of the universe has a beginning, there are many who think the 'stuff' that makes up the universe 'always' existed... If you consider an uninflated balloon as existing, then what one defines as a 'Balloon' exists only after it is inflated...
 

Quote:
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

If one considers cause and effect to be temporal phenomena, with cause always preceding effect, then the universe could NOT have had a cause, since time itself, the temporal dimension didn't exist until a fraction of the planck instant after the initial expansion.

Quote:
4. Complex specified information always requires an intelligent message sender.

This is the beginning of a circular argument, or at best a tautology.

Quote:
5. All living organisms have complex specified information.

Not true, just because you insist on calling DNA 'information' rather than what it is, a complex molecule, doesn't make it so.

Quote:
6. Therefore the complex specified information in living organisms requires an intelligent message sender.

Since there is none, this conclusion is moot...

Quote:
Refute any one of these criteria logically.

I did... just as I've refuted the same tired lame arguments a hundred times before... I wish you guys would come up with fresh material.

jcgadfly wrote:
Lee2216 wrote:
"The atheist's axioms are ultimately self-refuting"

The only axioms atheists have are the ones you've made up?

Quote:
Where's your proof I've made this up? This is just your assertion.

You know that being deliberately disingenuous is the same as lying, right?
You provided none of these 'Atheist Axioms'... which is CLEARLY what the gadfly was asserting...

jcgadfly wrote:
Good thing that science doesn't work the way you're strawmanning it.

Quote:
What does science have to do with you being irrational?

As I noted, being deliberately obtuse is a form of dishonesty...
You seem to have issues with the truth, and as I always say, if you have to lie to promote your beliefs, how valid can those beliefs be?

 

LC >;-}>

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:jcgadfly

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:
 "The Christian's axioms are self-consistent and make good sense of the evidence"

And you can't name one.

1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.

2. The universe has a beginning.

3. Therefore the universe has a cause. 

4. Complex specified information always requires an intelligent message sender.

5. All living organisms have complex specified information.

6. Therefore the complex specified information in living organisms requires an intelligent message sender. 

Refute any one of these criteria logically.

jcgadfly wrote:
Lee2216 wrote:
"The atheist's axioms are ultimately self-refuting"

The only axioms atheists have are the ones you've made up?

Where's your proof I've made this up? This is just your assertion.

jcgadfly wrote:
Good thing that science doesn't work the way you're strawmanning it.

What does science have to do with you being irrational?

 

Wrong on all counts.

Complexity of something does not need consciousness. A piece of driftwood is moved by the ocean and lands on the beach, insects take it over creating a complex environment by creating elaborate tunnels. Some used to store food, others to store eggs and others to simply get out of the weather. All that complexity starts from a non cognitive ocean moving a non cognitive piece of wood. There you have complexity arising from a non cognitive process.

Do you really want us to believe that there is a magic puppeteer controlling every atom and every quark in the universe via "poof".  If so, you don't need the god of Abraham to claim that. You could say that a magical unicorn did it, or Thor, or Neptune or the Egyptian sun god Ra.

Individual atoms are simple structures. The sun is made of atoms and even has a complex weather system, yet you don't believe the sun thinks like a human being.

The only thing "complex" about believers arguments is their ability to dress the empty box up with their mental pretty bows.

The reality is that god/deity/super natural belief exists as an unfortunate side affect of a natural flaw in evolution. You are merely mentally trying to replace your parents an ignore your finite existence. ALL god/deity/super natural belief is merely the evolutionary flaw of gap filling out of ignorance.

Evolution does not require us to get the nature of reality right or wrong, it's only goal is to get to the point of reproduction. If a placebo creates safety in numbers, no matter how false the belief may be, it can work to get the group to reproduction.

The Egyptians were successful as a group for 3,000 years and centered their success around the false belief that the sun was a thinking entity. You are NOT doing anything differently.

Biological life and the universe DO NOT need a consciousness as a cause. All this is a product of a "what" not a "who". Just like there is no ocean god who thinks about making hurricanes. Hurricanes start as smaller parts in the form of temperature and pressure changes and slowly build up into the complex eye we call a hurricane.

 

 

 

"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


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
You can't prove with 100%

You can't prove with 100% certainty that everything I say is false; therefore, it's true. Nyah nyah nyah. 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Simple causes...

I think it was Bob Spence that pointed out that causes don't need to be 'greater' than their effects...

An avalanche can be precipitated by a single dislodged pebble.

A single match can cause a forest fire that consumes square miles of land.

A human being is caused by two individual cells sharing chemicals...

Is it so hard to grasp that a universe could be caused by a minute fluctuation in quantum scaled values?

LC >;-}>

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:jcgadfly

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:
 "The Christian's axioms are self-consistent and make good sense of the evidence"

And you can't name one.

1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.

2. The universe has a beginning.

3. Therefore the universe has a cause. 

4. Complex specified information always requires an intelligent message sender.

5. All living organisms have complex specified information.

6. Therefore the complex specified information in living organisms requires an intelligent message sender. 

Refute any one of these criteria logically.

jcgadfly wrote:
Lee2216 wrote:
"The atheist's axioms are ultimately self-refuting"

The only axioms atheists have are the ones you've made up?

Where's your proof I've made this up? This is just your assertion.

jcgadfly wrote:
Good thing that science doesn't work the way you're strawmanning it.

What does science have to do with you being irrational?

1, 2. Not necessarily.

3. Maybe, but even it has a cause, there is no reason it need be anything beyond a random twitch of energy. No need for it to be an intelligent being, let alone an omni/infinite such entity.

5. There is no "specified' information in living organisms. There are complex structures, yes, but random mutation which can result in different rates of reproduction are more than enough to serve to generate the trend of changes which can result eventually in very different organisms.

The information in DNA is directly, chemically determined by the proteins and other molecules it 'codes' for, so there is no need for a separate specifier. That would only apply to codes where the structure of the code was not so directly and physically determined.

Random mutation, by definition, can lead to every possible DNA sequence, including the ones which code for the chemical components of living cells. The ones which don't work will not survive or produce living entities of any form, so once a population of self-reproducing molecule arises, 'blind' evolution explains the rest.

6. therefore you do not have an argument.

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


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:The

Lee2216 wrote:
The Christian's axioms are self-consistent and make good sense of the evidence. The atheist's axioms are ultimately self-refuting.

You got that backwards.

Lee2216 wrote:
1. Everything which has a beginninghas a cause.2. The universe has a beginning.3. Therefore the universe has a cause. 4. Complex specified information always requires an intelligent message sender.5. All living organisms have complex specified information.6. Therefore the complex specified information in living organisms requires an intelligent message sender. 

You already have proven your ignorance of science and logic. Repeating yourself isn't going to change anything.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:1. Everything

Lee2216 wrote:

1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.

2. The universe has a beginning.

3. Therefore the universe has a cause. 

4. Complex specified information always requires an intelligent message sender.

5. All living organisms have complex specified information.

6. Therefore the complex specified information in living organisms requires an intelligent message sender. 

Refute any one of these criteria logically.

Oh no you dee-int!  You dee-int just bring up KCA... Smiling hehe, that's cute.  Which way do you want this refuted? I have about 6-7 nice ways of doing it... I'll let you pick.... What's your favorite number between 1 and 6?

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

We have massive evidence that we live in a world that corresponds fairly closely to our sense experience. 'Matter' is that which gives 'things' some persistent structure. Anything which retains its shape is evidence. Matter is simply anything which occupies space and has volume.

Physics IS evidence. It works.

And here you go spinning off into being completely wrong.

We cannot prove that =anything= outside our heads even exists.  For that matter, we can't even prove our head exists.  Scientifically, there is simply =zero= proof that there is even such a thing as "physical reality".  Not only is the vast majority of the Universe empty, the vast majority of what people think of as "filling the Universe" is empty space.  "Matter" is more "nothing" than "something".  What you think of as "volume" is Columbic Repulsion -- the opposition of stuff to other stuff, beyond which there is more No Stuff than Other Stuff.

You not only never touch the table you try to touch, but your mind doesn't even directly perceive touching the table you never actually touch.  Everything we know about the entire Universe is perceived indirectly, at best.  We do not "see things", we see the effort "things" make to insure we do not "see" them.

THAT is Physics.

We cant prove anything that exists outside our heads? What did you type this tripe on? Funny that you and I both type on something "we cant prove exists".I can give you a 4 win and 9 loss season, so far, outside you and me that proves the Redskins suck.

I am sorry, this is as silly as saying "If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" The laws of nature and physics still exist. The sound will exist, because of the laws of nature. Just like you cant hear someone talking in Japan doesn't mean the entire population is silent because you cant hear them.

Schrodinger's cat is mental masturbation, not empirical testing and falsification. It was meant as a thought exorcise. You fail to take into account probability and conditions at the moment. If we can't prove what is outside our own heads, then as you read this, my penis is literally turning into an orange right now. You cant see my penis and oranges exist, and because of quantum mechanics, it must be possible.

The earth was around before we were born and it will be here after we die. And it still would have been even if we had never been born.

 

 

 

"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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5849
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence wrote:

We have massive evidence that we live in a world that corresponds fairly closely to our sense experience. 'Matter' is that which gives 'things' some persistent structure. Anything which retains its shape is evidence. Matter is simply anything which occupies space and has volume.

Physics IS evidence. It works.

And here you go spinning off into being completely wrong.

We cannot prove that =anything= outside our heads even exists.  For that matter, we can't even prove our head exists.  Scientifically, there is simply =zero= proof that there is even such a thing as "physical reality".  Not only is the vast majority of the Universe empty, the vast majority of what people think of as "filling the Universe" is empty space.  "Matter" is more "nothing" than "something".  What you think of as "volume" is Columbic Repulsion -- the opposition of stuff to other stuff, beyond which there is more No Stuff than Other Stuff.

You not only never touch the table you try to touch, but your mind doesn't even directly perceive touching the table you never actually touch.  Everything we know about the entire Universe is perceived indirectly, at best.  We do not "see things", we see the effort "things" make to insure we do not "see" them.

THAT is Physics.

There you go again, equating Physics to all of Science. And insisting that knowledge requires solid proof, rather than a reasonably close correspondence with reality. Silly person.

The assumption that there is something beyond our own personal mental experience makes for a far simpler and more useful model of reality than trying to explain everything we experience in terms of the workings of our own minds.

Material objects displace other material objects, what we think of as solid matter cannot occupy the same space as other solid matter. That is the point. It is not an illusion. It really is irrelevant that at the next level of description down, ie at the level of atoms rather than of solid objects, a solid object is mostly empty 'space'. The two solid objects still cannot interpenetrate, at least not without losing their structure. Solid objects also tend to retain their shape. That is a matter of fact, within the context of the world of macro objects.

It's all about formulating useful models of reality, including devising means to compensate for the obvious limitations of our senses. The enormous complexity of reality also requires us to subdivide our descriptive of reality into different theoretical models applying to different areas of study, such as Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Zoology, Sociology, which can be seen as a progression of successively 'higher levels' of description. Each one describing the interactions of entities, and the next level up deals with the interactions of entities that are collections of the entities treated at the 'lower' level. So we start with the particles of Physics, which make up atoms, which are the main units of Chemistry, which make up large molecules which form the basis of Life, which is the subject of Biochemistry, and so on.

"Seeing" a thing is a meaningful description of an increasingly better understood process of what happens when we 'perceive' something visually. Similarly with "touch". This involves neuroscience and physiology. Physics and Chemistry will address the mechanics of what happens when photons hit the retina, but are not useful in examining the way nerve impulses combining to produce 'perception'.

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


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Things that

jcgadfly wrote:
Things that don't begin to exist can't cause anything.

God has caused more violence, evil and hatred than any human.

Since God doesn't exist how can a non-existent being cause violence, evil and hatred?

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:jcgadfly

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Things that don't begin to exist can't cause anything.

God has caused more violence, evil and hatred than any human.

Since God doesn't exist how can a non-existent being cause violence, evil and hatred?

1.  You didn't read the argument.

2a. I used the premise that "God has caused more violence, evil and hatred than any human"

2b. From that I concluded that God began to exist.

2c. Therefore by your argument He had a cause.

I believe that cause to be human imagination.

Are you saying your God doesn't exist now?

"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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:jcgadfly

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Things that don't begin to exist can't cause anything.

God has caused more violence, evil and hatred than any human.

Since God doesn't exist how can a non-existent being cause violence, evil and hatred?

Holy crap, boy did you miss the point. If you jumped off a cliff in the Grand Canyon, you'd still miss the Grand Canyon. Please don't try that at home.

Seriously though, we do not believe in non-existent beings. We are simply addressing the CLAIMS of the people who buy these claims. We are addressing the god character like a book critic in a newspaper or movie critic in a news paper.

As a written character, the god of Abraham is a nasty fuck, He uses threats and bribes to keep you in line and is willing to throw dissenters into an eternal torture chamber, even if their only crime is not wanting to hang out with him. Try reading your bible as if you never heard of it. It reads like a gang manual. It teaches you to enslave your mind to bow to authority, not through consent of the governed, but through "might makes right".

God as written does not have to listen to our concerns. He can do whatever we wants and does what he wants, AS A character. His actions AS A CHARACTER are selective and arbitrary and the fans of this fictional character chalk it up to "poof" and " he can do what he wants".

Outside that book in reality, gods do not exist and humans are not gods themselves. There are simply a species which a majority still likes the idea of a fictional super hero saving them,

The good and bad humans have done in our species evolution, and the good and bad we still do today, are a result of nature, not a man with a beard and magic wand, or a devil with a pitchfork re-arranging the neurons in your brain trying to get you to do bad things.

Seriously, if you truly want to know how absurd your book is, put it next to a copy of Harry Potter. Swap reading pages one at a time. What you will find is morals exist in both, nasty things happen in both, and fantastic claims are made in both. The only difference is that one is accepted as fiction and the other is not. But both ARE fiction.

Individuals and entire groups and entire nations do harm to others because of a lack of resources or a false sense of a threat. There is no magic to life and no need for a god to explain the good or bad that happen in life.

 

 

"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


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher wrote:Lee2216

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

1. Everything which has a beginning has a cause.

Radioactive decay doesn't. Brownian Motion doesn't for two examples...

Since radioactive decay and Brownian Motion are part of the universe they too had a beginning and a cause.

Louis_Cypher wrote:
The present state of the universe has a beginning

Which both the Bible and science conclude.

Louis_Cypher wrote:
there are many who think the 'stuff' that makes up the universe 'always' existed

Which is a FAITH statement.
 

Louis_Cypher wrote:
If one considers cause and effect to be temporal phenomena, with cause always preceding effect, then the universe could NOT have had a cause, since time itself, the temporal dimension didn't exist until a fraction of the planck instant after the initial expansion.

That would be true if they were temporal but the God of the bible is eternal so it's makes logical sense that the universe had a beginning.

Louis_Cypher wrote:
 

Lee2216 wrote:
4. Complex specified information always requires an intelligent message sender.

This is the beginning of a circular argument, or at best a tautology.

No, this is true.

Louis_Cypher wrote:
Lee2216 wrote:
5. All living organisms have complex specified information.

Not true, just because you insist on calling DNA 'information' rather than what it is, a complex molecule, doesn't make it so.

Is true! I said DNA contains information. Maybe you should question Vastet on that one?

Vastet wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:
The information in DNA is evidence although I know you'll dismiss it. Information can only be produced by an intelligent sender and not natural random processes.

A DNA strand doesn't contain information, it is information.

Louis_Cypher wrote:
Lee2216 wrote:
6. Therefore the complex specified information in living organisms requires an intelligent message sender.

Since there is none, this conclusion is moot...

Your being irrational!

 

 

 

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Lee, there is no such thing

Lee, there is no such thing as a magical invisible super brain with a magic wand. There never was or ever will be a "chosen people". There is just you wanting a super hero. It is all in your head, nothing more. You could worship Yoda and try to argue that the Force  is real and you'd be doing the same thing.

Thoughts require a material process. Evolution is the only thing that has produced consciousness. There is no such thing as a consciousness existing outside evolution.

You accept that the sun is not a thinking being like the Egyptians once falsely believed. It should not be that much of a stretch to accept that like their wishful thinking, you are NOT doing anything differently.

Try understanding WHY you reject all other god claims besides your own. The only difference between you and I is that I reject one more pet god claim than you do.

The bible is not a science textbook. It bases it's morality on ancient societies that valued tribalism and dictatorships. It values absolute power in the autocratic character of God. It values slavery and sexism and values the slaughter of dissent merely for the act of dissent, even if it is non violent objection.

It is neither a good moral book in its entire collective motif as a story line, and most certainly not anywhere close to being a science textbook.

Your god belief is merely YOU and the evolutionary flaw of gap filling in the form of a placebo in the attempt to replace your parents and ignore your finite existence. You are NOT doing anything differently than the Ancient Egyptians, or even Muslims or Hindus or claimants of Big Foot do today.

Humans are notorious for making up and believing false claims. THAT is all you are doing. You have merely fallen for your own emotions and credulity.  You are not special and your pet god claim is not special either.

 

"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


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Sigh....

Radioactive decay and Brownian motion, even if it 'began' with the universe HAS NO CAUSE.

Get it? Got it? Good.

No, not faith, observation and certain accepted laws... energy (the 'stuff' of which the universe is ultimately formed) can neither be destroyed or CREATED... It's not faith to assume that in some form, energy has 'always' existed.

If doesn't make a flying fart in a whirlwind if you define your sky fairy as 'eternal'... it STILL doesn't alter the sequence of cause and effect... and that there could be NO cause BEFORE time itself... (now, I'm beginning to think you are just dim witted, please don't confirm my analysis)

I've seen your asinine, repeatedly disproven claims about DNA and information theory over and over... You are obviously too fucking stupid to get it... You and the morons you parrot are WRONG. You are conflating what is a ill though philosophic notion with real science and coming up with what you laughably think is an argument which you cling to like a hound on a pork chop... But no matter how many times you ignore when your pet delusion is debunked... you are still dead certainly, absolutely and without a scientific doubt WRONG.

You are being an idiot.

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Are you

jcgadfly wrote:
Are you saying your God doesn't exist now?

You know exactly what I was asking. Since you know God doesn't exist how can He cause violence, evil and hatred.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Which both the Bible

Quote:
Which both the Bible and science conclude.

BULLSHIT! There is no scientific language in Genesis because the inept writers didn't know shit about reality.

"Beginning" to them was merely pondering nothingness. That idea has always been in our species mind because none of us can live before we are born. It was referring to humans and the first SUDDEN magic "poof" of humans.

It does not use the word "singularity" or "big bang" or "back ground radiation". It does not in any way show scientific work like you'd expect taking an exam in a science class. The only "explanation" is "poof" "God did it".

And it isn't even the first comic book to make claims about the "first humans". That motif has always existed in some form of myth even if not written in a holy book.

It reads like fiction, not like science. It reads like a comic book. All you are doing is retrofitting after the fact. I have seen Muslims do this too pointing at a red nebula because of a "red sky" verse in the Koran. I have seen them talk about Allah picking the sex of the baby based on a verse talking about "congealed blood". I have seen both Christians and Muslims quote "mountains moving" as proof of knowledge of plate tectonics. It is bullshit when others do it and it is no different than when you do it.

AND on top of you using selection bias Genesis is full of patently absurd claims about the nature of reality. It pops out humans as adults SUDDENLY, and one adult woman from a man's rib. It pops out adult plants SUDDENLY without the aid of photosynthesis. It treats the sun and moon as separate sources of light and creates those SUDDENLY.

The galaxy took billions of years to form. Our planet took billions of years to form. Evolution took millions of years to happen. None of that was sudden and all of that is backed up by SCIENTIFIC STUDY, not the absurd naked assertions of a comic book written by scientifically ignorant people.

You KNOW the sun is not a god like the Egyptians falsely believed. Take the next step and accept that "beginning" in Genesis, was used in the context of ignorance because the people who wrote it knew nothing about reality, just like the Egyptians did not know what the sun was in reality.

You will not get away with trying to equate that comic book to valid science text books.

 

 

 

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
AND since all three major

AND since all three major fans of the three  big comic books do this, please tell me why you don't buy the claims of Muslims or Jewish gods.

Now please don't say "they are all the same god". I agree, all of them stem from the same comic books and are mere spin offs.

If they are all the same god then you could be Jewish or Muslim and it would not matter.

The truth is that ALL OF YOU got it wrong and are basing your morals and reality on fantasy.

If you are unwilling to become a Muslim when they try to claim science backs up the Koran and by proxy proves the existence of Allah, then you should easily be able to understand why I reject this tactic coming from you as well.

 

"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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:jcgadfly

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Are you saying your God doesn't exist now?

You know exactly what I was asking. Since you know God doesn't exist how can He cause violence, evil and hatred.

And you still haven't read the argument or the explanation that I gave for it.

If you don't give a flying rip what the answer is why do you ask the question?

"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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:jcgadfly

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Are you saying your God doesn't exist now?

You know exactly what I was asking. Since you know God doesn't exist how can He cause violence, evil and hatred.

We've addressed this. But for the ADD afflicted I'll try again.

We cannot hate your god any more than we can hate Mickey Mouse or Lex Luthor. We hate the fact that humans falsely go around claiming non-existent beings. Just like YOU would be right to hate it if someone was still insisting that the earth was flat.

AS A WRITTEN CHARACTER ONLY and as a piece of horribly written literature at that, we view the bible and the character of the bible much like a movie or book critic writes about a bad movie or bad book.

From page one to the last page the bible makes absurd claims about the nature of reality. It has a head character who stalks you, you have no privacy or autonomy from him. And is willing to torture you forever, even if your mere crime is not wanting to be a member of his club. The bible has no plot development and ends in an orgy of violence where all outsiders are thrown in the garbage like trash. And the only point of that book is for the god to get you to kiss his ass forever.

The God of the bible DOES NOT reflect our western pluralistic values. You cannot leave him, like you can leave a job you don't like. You cannot vote this god out of office. You cannot impeach him or replace him. He only gets involved when he wants and we have no say about the game he set up.

In real life outside that work of fiction, we have a say. We value dissent. We value our privacy and have privacy to a much greater extent than to that of an "all seeing god" who even watches when you have sex or pee. Remember that the next time you are naked.

In real life we can have our politicians removed from office, or even arrested if they commit a crime. We can have our judges and cops arrested if they commit a crime. If we don't like the laws we have we can work through the system WE set up to change the system WE set up.

As a motif the god character is everything modern secular society is not.

Our objections are to the CLAIMS and concepts, not to any real god. Just like I would object to someone claiming they could fix my car merely by waving a feather boa over the hood of the car.

Consider us book critics. I've read good fiction and bad fiction. The bible is the worst piece of literature humans have ever inflicted themselves with. It is the worst myth ever sold.

NOW before you stupidly claim bigotry and hate. My words are harsh, true. But it is merely cold water on your face in order to snap you out of your delusion. Much like the Church had to let go of believing the earth was flat. Much like you don't believe the sun is a god.

 

 

 

"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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Lee2216

Brian37 wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Are you saying your God doesn't exist now?

You know exactly what I was asking. Since you know God doesn't exist how can He cause violence, evil and hatred.

We've addressed this. But for the ADD afflicted I'll try again.

We cannot hate your god any more than we can hate Mickey Mouse or Lex Luthor. We hate the fact that humans falsely go around claiming non-existent beings. Just like YOU would be right to hate it if someone was still insisting that the earth was flat.

AS A WRITTEN CHARACTER ONLY and as a piece of horribly written literature at that, we view the bible and the character of the bible much like a movie or book critic writes about a bad movie or bad book.

From page one to the last page the bible makes absurd claims about the nature of reality. It has a head character who stalks you, you have no privacy or autonomy from him. And is willing to torture you forever, even if your mere crime is not wanting to be a member of his club. The bible has no plot development and ends in an orgy of violence where all outsiders are thrown in the garbage like trash. And the only point of that book is for the god to get you to kiss his ass forever.

The God of the bible DOES NOT reflect our western pluralistic values. You cannot leave him, like you can leave a job you don't like. You cannot vote this god out of office. You cannot impeach him or replace him. He only gets involved when he wants and we have no say about the game he set up.

In real life outside that work of fiction, we have a say. We value dissent. We value our privacy and have privacy to a much greater extent than to that of an "all seeing god" who even watches when you have sex or pee. Remember that the next time you are naked.

In real life we can have our politicians removed from office, or even arrested if they commit a crime. We can have our judges and cops arrested if they commit a crime. If we don't like the laws we have we can work through the system WE set up to change the system WE set up.

As a motif the god character is everything modern secular society is not.

Our objections are to the CLAIMS and concepts, not to any real god. Just like I would object to someone claiming they could fix my car merely by waving a feather boa over the hood of the car.

Consider us book critics. I've read good fiction and bad fiction. The bible is the worst piece of literature humans have ever inflicted themselves with. It is the worst myth ever sold.

NOW before you stupidly claim bigotry and hate. My words are harsh, true. But it is merely cold water on your face in order to snap you out of your delusion. Much like the Church had to let go of believing the earth was flat. Much like you don't believe the sun is a god.

 

 

 

I proved by his own argument that God exists and has a cause (human imagination. He's just a tad butthurt.

"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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Brian37

jcgadfly wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Are you saying your God doesn't exist now?

You know exactly what I was asking. Since you know God doesn't exist how can He cause violence, evil and hatred.

We've addressed this. But for the ADD afflicted I'll try again.

We cannot hate your god any more than we can hate Mickey Mouse or Lex Luthor. We hate the fact that humans falsely go around claiming non-existent beings. Just like YOU would be right to hate it if someone was still insisting that the earth was flat.

AS A WRITTEN CHARACTER ONLY and as a piece of horribly written literature at that, we view the bible and the character of the bible much like a movie or book critic writes about a bad movie or bad book.

From page one to the last page the bible makes absurd claims about the nature of reality. It has a head character who stalks you, you have no privacy or autonomy from him. And is willing to torture you forever, even if your mere crime is not wanting to be a member of his club. The bible has no plot development and ends in an orgy of violence where all outsiders are thrown in the garbage like trash. And the only point of that book is for the god to get you to kiss his ass forever.

The God of the bible DOES NOT reflect our western pluralistic values. You cannot leave him, like you can leave a job you don't like. You cannot vote this god out of office. You cannot impeach him or replace him. He only gets involved when he wants and we have no say about the game he set up.

In real life outside that work of fiction, we have a say. We value dissent. We value our privacy and have privacy to a much greater extent than to that of an "all seeing god" who even watches when you have sex or pee. Remember that the next time you are naked.

In real life we can have our politicians removed from office, or even arrested if they commit a crime. We can have our judges and cops arrested if they commit a crime. If we don't like the laws we have we can work through the system WE set up to change the system WE set up.

As a motif the god character is everything modern secular society is not.

Our objections are to the CLAIMS and concepts, not to any real god. Just like I would object to someone claiming they could fix my car merely by waving a feather boa over the hood of the car.

Consider us book critics. I've read good fiction and bad fiction. The bible is the worst piece of literature humans have ever inflicted themselves with. It is the worst myth ever sold.

NOW before you stupidly claim bigotry and hate. My words are harsh, true. But it is merely cold water on your face in order to snap you out of your delusion. Much like the Church had to let go of believing the earth was flat. Much like you don't believe the sun is a god.

 

 

 

I proved by his own argument that God exists and has a cause (human imagination. He's just a tad butthurt.

Well, I hope for his sake, someday, he, and more and more people of all walks of life,  stop banging their heads trying to defend a myth. It feels much better when you stop doing that.

It takes much more effort to defend a myth than it does to accept reality. And it feels soooooo much better when you stop doing that.

He doesn't want to see, like most believers, that reality is much more filling even with the bad that happens in life. He doesn't want to accept that his god only exists because of his imagination. I hope for his sake he figures that out some day.

 

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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
And let me add Lee, this is

And let me add Lee, this is not a case of us being the bad guy like Darth Vader trying to tempt you to the "Dark Side of the Force" Our brains are not being manipulated by a guy with a pitchfork.

We are merely, however bluntly, trying to help you out of what you have needlessly self inflicted on your brain. No one here thinks that believers are automatically bad because they hold claims we find absurd. We are merely trying to get you, and people with any kind of superstition, of any label, to see that it is merely all in your head.

Always keep that in mind when you post here.

 

"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
Louis_Cypher wrote:Yes

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Yes indeed... didn't someone say something to the effect that it's our "delusion about the goodness, beauty and intelligence of our children is all that keeps us from strangling them at birth..."

LC >;-}>

Google comes up with nothing. You either invented that phrase yourself, or you took an actual phrase and misplaced/thesaurus'd/rearranged some of the words used. /insertae_sedis

Since I have frequent delusions of reference (which I simply ignore most of the time), I am certainly not 100% rational. Yes, as vastet pointed out... emotions fuck with rationality. If you've ever had first-hand or second-hand experience with steroid-induced psychosis, overabundant cortisol levels (emotional stress), hypogonadism/andropause/menopause along with HRT, "neurosis" (inability to functionally process certain neurotransmitters, at least from my limited personal experience) and/or most mood disorders, phobias, behavior while under the effects of withdrawal, and behavior while after the intensive use of deliriants... you have an idea of how easily human rationality can be crippled without being affected by any 'direct external force' (things such as pain, generalized emotional distress, dehydration, electrolyte imbalance, amnesia, psychosis partially derived from 'personality', and various types of dementia.)

To give an example of both an internal and external source of irrationality using one of my delusions of reference as a starting point, I offer Prozacdeathwish's Disturbia Mouse avatar. Not too long ago, I was likely suffering an anion gap or other dehydration/electrolyte-related health problem, and my cognitive processes also suffered as a result. This type of image is one that will 'offer' my mild delusions a feeding frenzy while I am disoriented. Most times, I'd just shrug it off. This time, I thought PDW was giving a passive suggestion to "Get the hell out!"

I ended up a half-inch away from taking it rather literally. Thankfully, my superfan and atheist tags were not removed as I suggested to the person in charge of this site. They are of entirely symbolic value anyhow, and I could easily lose them for enjoying pestering/harassing the modmins too much. I could also lose them for being too much of a useless asshole, with that being something I don't care to risk.

I don't "need" them.

Louis_Cypher wrote:

No, we can never be assured of rationality in our lives but, we can seek to eliminate obvious and persistent bits of irrationality. Superstition comes to mind. Purging ones self of all those little habits and thought patterns brought about by culture and upbringing. If there is anything in your life that requires 'faith' to work... you have to ask yourself "Do I NEED this?"

But the original subject was about invisible, intangible beings with magical powers. No one who accepts them as real can claim rationality. I stand by that.

 

LC >;-}>

I don't "NEED" food, I don't "NEED" water, I don't "NEED" a sort of 'cosmic formation', I don't "NEED" life, I don't "NEED" liberty, and I don't need anything resembling gratification.

I choose these things from my own, basic cognizance. I can also suppress a drive for appetite out of a combination of minimal mental stress and having a disease that limits appetite from sodium loss. I like pain sometimes, just to enjoy the highly effective means through I can supress my brain's ability to process negative psychological signals, and develop increased tolerance.

The one fire ant sting I managed to get, previously, did not adequately satisfy this need. It only itched. The red wasp sting I got on my right hand at 8, however, was quite the pleasant non-lethal gift. It felt like any ultra-thin syringe does at the age (likely didn't exist yet), yet 5-10 seconds later my right ring finger briefly felt like someone had taken a hammer to it. So... throbbing, nearly agonizing pain for a minute or two, and with my friends/classmates surrounding me... I didn't dare shed a tear over it. You might say I felt magnanimous afterwards for not having done so... instead, merely gasping in pain, grinding my teeth nonstop and grappling my somewhat larger wrist. When most of the pain finally subsided... I fended off teachers and students trying to play a game of "invade your space". Yes, even the well-meaning classmates and grownups. Several minutes after that one sting... I didn't feel much (numbness) but I noticed my hand had changed glove sizes a bit. I felt anxious for the rest of the school day and later on (I don't know how much time later) I recall "Thank god you didn't  get stung on the neck like your (step-relative) did back in... (date/place.)"

Despite all that pride in my own 'unique' abilities to suppress emotion and mental input... I couldn't be bothered to buy into my family's supply of junkthought as a prepubescent child and could only be bothered to rethink my life views under the effects of a steroid known to heavily alter the psyche of anyone taking it, depending on certain body mass and chemical factors. Considering this only happened for two years, it was a largely transient phase.

And despite how Brian37 portrays himself... my teeth are always bigger.

“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)


War_Pig
War_Pig's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2011-10-31
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Did you ever consider

Quote:
Did you ever consider how much more dogmatic society was back then? It amazes me that he even got away with the quotes posted here without some nut popping him off. I bet if alive today, especially with all the new things we have uncovered since, he'd no doubt call himself an atheist. I find it highly likely he avoided the word because of the stupid stigma people like you falsely attach to it.

Even Jefferson, if he ran today could not get elected with what he said about religion and the absurd fantastic claims it makes.

So at the very least, even if he had a generic god, he would STILL despise the childish myths and violent tribalism it causes.

You want to lead us to the god of Abraham which is your ultimate goal. Using Einstein to do it is intellectually dishonest. regardless if he was an atheist or not. He rejected that particular god.

Outside this bad argument, you fail to consider that the "cause" of evolution and even that of the universe is the cause of a "what" and not a "who". Just like the ocean god Neptune does not cause hurricanes because it is merely a myth.

Einstein would not value the OT as literal fact , much less consider it a science textbook. At best he found some nice stories in it, at the most. But he considered the whole thing myth regardless.

Everything that is is the cause of a process and conditions of natural science, not a magic man with a magic wand. Much less that of the bloodthirsty mafia boss of the OT and bible.

Let's clear up the obvious. God, if he exists, is not white (much less a man), heaven is a myth, the OT was written by savages, human and animal sacrifices will not save you, and Jesus was probably nothing more than a revolutionist (and that's the generous way of putting it.)

I don't care whether or not Einstein believed in God, much less which God. I don't even necessarily agree with what he said on the subject. But I won't sit back and let people take his words out of context when he's made it more than clear that he believed in an actual god of some sort. The pushing of "Einstein used God as a metaphor for the laws of nature" by some of these atheists is inexcusable. Let atheism speak for itself, it doesn't need any fucking endorsements.

 

For the record, I am an implicit atheist. 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Your being

Quote:
Your being irrational!

Projection coupled with poor reading comprehension.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Ok, so I paraphrased from memory....

“Delusions are often functional. A mother's opinions about her children's beauty, intelligence, goodness, et cetera ad nauseam, keep her from drowning them at birth.”
Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

 

LC >;-}>

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Louis_Cypher

Louis_Cypher wrote:

“Delusions are often functional. A mother's opinions about her children's beauty, intelligence, goodness, et cetera ad nauseam, keep her from drowning them at birth.”
Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

 

LC >;-}>

 

I thought it sounded Heinlein-ish.  Very true. 

Though my delusions as a mother did not include how wonderful my children were, but how I didn't want to be committed - jail or mental institution.  Therefore, I had better find a way somehow to deal with the little monsters.

My oldest is 40 now and I still have no idea why I had children.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Reproduction...

My oldest is 36, my youngest is 19...
We adopted 8 +1 over the years for a total of 14 and have 36 grandkids...
And the funny thing is, I'm not all that fond of kids...

LC >;-}>

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:Louis_Cypher

Kapkao wrote:

Louis_Cypher wrote:

Yes indeed... didn't someone say something to the effect that it's our "delusion about the goodness, beauty and intelligence of our children is all that keeps us from strangling them at birth..."

LC >;-}>

Google comes up with nothing. You either invented that phrase yourself, or you took an actual phrase and misplaced/thesaurus'd/rearranged some of the words used. /insertae_sedis

Since I have frequent delusions of reference (which I simply ignore most of the time), I am certainly not 100% rational. Yes, as vastet pointed out... emotions fuck with rationality. If you've ever had first-hand or second-hand experience with steroid-induced psychosis, overabundant cortisol levels (emotional stress), hypogonadism/andropause/menopause along with HRT, "neurosis" (inability to functionally process certain neurotransmitters, at least from my limited personal experience) and/or most mood disorders, phobias, behavior while under the effects of withdrawal, and behavior while after the intensive use of deliriants... you have an idea of how easily human rationality can be crippled without being affected by any 'direct external force' (things such as pain, generalized emotional distress, dehydration, electrolyte imbalance, amnesia, psychosis partially derived from 'personality', and various types of dementia.)

To give an example of both an internal and external source of irrationality using one of my delusions of reference as a starting point, I offer Prozacdeathwish's Disturbia Mouse avatar. Not too long ago, I was likely suffering an anion gap or other dehydration/electrolyte-related health problem, and my cognitive processes also suffered as a result. This type of image is one that will 'offer' my mild delusions a feeding frenzy while I am disoriented. Most times, I'd just shrug it off. This time, I thought PDW was giving a passive suggestion to "Get the hell out!"

I ended up a half-inch away from taking it rather literally. Thankfully, my superfan and atheist tags were not removed as I suggested to the person in charge of this site. They are of entirely symbolic value anyhow, and I could easily lose them for enjoying pestering/harassing the modmins too much. I could also lose them for being too much of a useless asshole, with that being something I don't care to risk.

I don't "need" them.

Louis_Cypher wrote:

No, we can never be assured of rationality in our lives but, we can seek to eliminate obvious and persistent bits of irrationality. Superstition comes to mind. Purging ones self of all those little habits and thought patterns brought about by culture and upbringing. If there is anything in your life that requires 'faith' to work... you have to ask yourself "Do I NEED this?"

But the original subject was about invisible, intangible beings with magical powers. No one who accepts them as real can claim rationality. I stand by that.

 

LC >;-}>

I don't "NEED" food, I don't "NEED" water, I don't "NEED" a sort of 'cosmic formation', I don't "NEED" life, I don't "NEED" liberty, and I don't need anything resembling gratification.

I choose these things from my own, basic cognizance. I can also suppress a drive for appetite out of a combination of minimal mental stress and having a disease that limits appetite from sodium loss. I like pain sometimes, just to enjoy the highly effective means through I can supress my brain's ability to process negative psychological signals, and develop increased tolerance.

The one fire ant sting I managed to get, previously, did not adequately satisfy this need. It only itched. The red wasp sting I got on my right hand at 8, however, was quite the pleasant non-lethal gift. It felt like any ultra-thin syringe does at the age (likely didn't exist yet), yet 5-10 seconds later my right ring finger briefly felt like someone had taken a hammer to it. So... throbbing, nearly agonizing pain for a minute or two, and with my friends/classmates surrounding me... I didn't dare shed a tear over it. You might say I felt magnanimous afterwards for not having done so... instead, merely gasping in pain, grinding my teeth nonstop and grappling my somewhat larger wrist. When most of the pain finally subsided... I fended off teachers and students trying to play a game of "invade your space". Yes, even the well-meaning classmates and grownups. Several minutes after that one sting... I didn't feel much (numbness) but I noticed my hand had changed glove sizes a bit. I felt anxious for the rest of the school day and later on (I don't know how much time later) I recall "Thank god you didn't  get stung on the neck like your (step-relative) did back in... (date/place.)"

Despite all that pride in my own 'unique' abilities to suppress emotion and mental input... I couldn't be bothered to buy into my family's supply of junkthought as a prepubescent child and could only be bothered to rethink my life views under the effects of a steroid known to heavily alter the psyche of anyone taking it, depending on certain body mass and chemical factors. Considering this only happened for two years, it was a largely transient phase.

And despite how Brian37 portrays himself... my teeth are always bigger.

"Don't mess with my fangs. I worked hard on my fangs"(Spoof of Travolta in Saturday Night Fever taking about combing his hair perfectly)

I am a physical wimp though. If just about any adult wanted to kick my ass they probably could.

"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
[mildsnark]

War_Pig wrote:
Let atheism speak for itself, it doesn't need any fucking endorsements.

Atheism doesn't need any endorsements? Of course we don't... just let atheism and secularism been seen as disjointed movements started by kids and ex-theists  who are fed up with going to church. We don't need no stinkin' celebrities, scientists, or businesspeople backing up our efforts!

That'll help the cause immeasurably, with the word "help" being used in the loosest sense imaginable.

"Let atheism speak for itself"? Well... it makes sense to a few, but for the overwhelming majority of Earth's population it does not.

Louis_Cypher: Be careful with paraphrasing from memory, as I do it all the time here and remembering exact attribution, time, date, and place of one fact or another is almost never possible. I get challenged on it, too, and I welcome such challenges  though I can't guarantee I will always respond well to such! Yet, 'rediscovering' old childhood memories with nearly photographic detail at odd junctures... is very much within my capacity. It will happen, and I actively attempt to train such faculties of retaining and relocating information.

I can also recall the other times I was stung (or bitten?)... by a regular bee at 6 and by a Bumble Bee at an age I don't recall offhand. I wasn't in my teens, yet, however. The bumble bee attack got me on... one of my knees even though I don't remember which in this particular example. I had not yet familiarized myself with the usually docile nature of such apid insects and how powerful their sting can be.

I do recall running around the house a few times so that I wouldn't scream and draw undue notice to my behaviors. I failed anyhow, as the relatives present noticed me and were warning me not to pester "God's creations" beforehand. I did nearly anything (including a bit of "cry wolf" ) to get people to ignore me and leave me to my own devices, even at such a young age. I also failed to develop the usual sterile abscess that comes  with most bumblebee stings, yet the gash on my knee kept stinging long afterwards then finally numbed itself back down. It's worth pointing out I had a prominent fear of crawling or flying hymopterans for the remainder of my child and teenaged years way-back when. Alas, fear took years  to fully nullify... fear, and later generalized anxiety to the point that such an emotional reaction is largely under my control (I rarely fear, and nearly all of it at present is social anxiety.) Living next to a medical hub has its disadvantages, believe me.

The ultimate 'pain' challenge for me would be a few Bullet Ant stings and later Bullet Ant Gloves. If I could conceivably avoid any ill-health effects during the next 24 hours of the sting, it would be worth it. If ONLY I could be so lucky...

 

“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)


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
The Sting

It's been years since I was unlucky enough to get stung, but I remember the last time well. I was mowing the back yard, minding my own business, stopped to close the door of my storage shed, pissed off a swarm of bees... one of the little buggers nailed me right on the nipple....

I said some very bad words, in three languages.

LC >;-}>

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


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

Brian37 wrote:

Kapkao wrote:
(previous post)

"Don't mess with my fangs. I worked hard on my fangs"(Spoof of Travolta in Saturday Night Fever taking about combing his hair perfectly)

I am a physical wimp though. If just about any adult wanted to kick my ass they probably could.

I am physically 'wimpy' as well thanks to a native climate (deciduous forest in the American south) that encourages being sedentary as well as the need for water consumption and sodium intake when sweating heavily. Otherwise... heat delirium is welcome. I've grown accustomed to it.

I would NOT advise someone to physically attack me (except in jest) in my current state of mind. My current mood renders some immunity to fear. Fear has uses, but I can't even willingly or unwillingly experience it at present. "Awkward!"

Alas, time for me to back away from the site for a lil  while.

“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)


War_Pig
War_Pig's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2011-10-31
User is offlineOffline
Atheism doesn't need any

Quote:
Atheism doesn't need any endorsements? Of course we don't... just let atheism and secularism been seen as disjointed movements started by kids and ex-theists  who are fed up with going to church. We don't need no stinkin' celebrities, scientists, or businesspeople backing up our efforts!

That'll help the cause immeasurably, with the word "help" being used in the loosest sense imaginable.

Give me a break. Endorsements are largely an appeal to whatever emotional attachments one has for the endorser, which is pretty "irrational" when juxtaposed with actual reasoned arguments made by the atheist community itself. I could care less which businessmen, celebrities etc. support my "cause." Scientists? Sure! As long as they actually support it, which doesn't apply in this case.

 

Quote:
"Let atheism speak for itself"? Well... it makes sense to a few, but for the overwhelming majority of Earth's population it does not.

And having Einstein's or Stephen Hawking's or whoever's face next to the term atheism in the dictionary is going to change that? Don't be foolish. There have been some major breakthroughs by secularists in the past centuries and the time is nearing when religion will be the underdog. But it won't happen over night, and it won't happen because "so and so" believed this, and it won't happen because atheists used desperate propaganda schemes used by "kids and ex-theists who are fed up with going to church." It'll happen because science is advancing and reason and logic are being pushed.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
History shows bitching and

History shows bitching and fighting against oppression and anti-education establishments to be extremely successful. Sure it'll happen anyway, but we can make it happen faster not by sitting on our asses, and by directly challenging religion.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


War_Pig
War_Pig's picture
Posts: 26
Joined: 2011-10-31
User is offlineOffline
Well, sure. I'm mainly

Well, sure. I'm mainly arguing that pointing to endorsements to "round 'em up" per se isn't the right way to get things done, however effective it may or may not be. Voicing relentless objections to religion is the much more fun and honest (and as you pointed out, quick) way to get it done anyway.

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3653
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:I would NOT

Kapkao wrote:

I would NOT advise someone to physically attack me (except in jest) in my current state of mind. My current mood renders some immunity to fear. Fear has uses, but I can't even willingly or unwillingly experience it at present. "Awkward!"

Alas, time for me to back away from the site for a lil  while.

 I'm sorry that you're plagued with with a true plethora of mental aberrations ( even more than me ) as well as some unfortunate physical ailments .    The thing I often wondered when I hear my Bubba coworkers say something similar based upon their desire to intimidate other males " I'm not skeered of no man" is that not being scared doesn't afford them any more resistance to damage or injury.      Being willing to initiate an attack without considering the potential consequences can be fatal to the attacker.   An eighty pound woman might be truly fearless but if she attacked a group of gang members hanging out in an alley, well....at least she died being fearless.  

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3653
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:    If

Kapkao wrote:

 

 

 If you've ever had first-hand experience...with overabundant cortisol levels (emotional stress)..

 

 

                                                                                         Why yes,  ...yes I have.

 

Kapkao wrote:
To give an example of both an internal and external source of irrationality using one of my delusions of reference as a starting point, I offer Prozacdeathwish's Disturbia Mouse avatar. Not too long ago, I was likely suffering an anion gap or other dehydration/electrolyte-related health problem, and my cognitive processes also suffered as a result. This type of image is one that will 'offer' my mild delusions a feeding frenzy while I am disoriented. Most times, I'd just shrug it off. This time, I thought PDW was giving a passive suggestion to "Get the hell out!"

 

                                                                        Sorry about that avatar thing being a psychological catalyst .

 

Kapkao wrote:
I ended up a half-inch away from taking it rather literally. Thankfully, my superfan and atheist tags were not removed as I suggested to the person in charge of this site. They are of entirely symbolic value anyhow, and I could easily lose them for enjoying pestering/harassing the modmins too much. I could also lose them for being too much of a useless asshole, with that being something I don't care to risk.

I don't "need" them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

uote]

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Kapkao

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

I would NOT advise someone to physically attack me (except in jest) in my current state of mind. My current mood renders some immunity to fear. Fear has uses, but I can't even willingly or unwillingly experience it at present. "Awkward!"

Alas, time for me to back away from the site for a lil  while.

 I'm sorry that you're plagued with with a true plethora of mental aberrations ( even more than me ) as well as some unfortunate physical ailments .    The thing I often wondered when I hear my Bubba coworkers say something similar based upon their desire to intimidate other males " I'm not skeered of no man" is that not being scared doesn't afford them any more resistance to damage or injury.      Being willing to initiate an attack without considering the potential consequences can be fatal to the attacker.   An eighty pound woman might be truly fearless but if she attacked a group of gang members hanging out in an alley, well....at least she died being fearless.  

I find that the sad downside to our evolution. Risk happens and it is needed in evolution to get resources, but you also get idiots like you mentioned, not just Bubba's but Frat boys and hoodies. There is always one nutjob who'd fight if you bumped into them even if you didn't mean to.

And these same people even if they are not fighting you always claim to know what the law is. When people talk like that around me especially if they have been drinking, I get the fuck away from them.

 

"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


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:There is

BobSpence wrote:
There is matter AND energy, at the very least. String theory and other hypotheses may suggest the possibility of more.

Uh, no.  There really is only "energy".  "Solid matter" is mostly not at all "solid".  A "table" feels "solid" because of electrostatic repulsion.  Going further into the atom, there is a large space of "nothing" between the electrons and nucleus.  Inside the nucleus, most what is "there" isn't "there" -- quarks behave essentially as "points", one dimensional nothings, and the nucleons are all made up of three quarks -- up-up-down for protons, up-down-down for neutrons.  Given enough pressure (gravity), electrons are forced into the nucleus and all those protons become neutrons.  Go up the energy scale, and you wide up with quark soup, not even any neutrons or protons or the rest of your "matter particles."

Seriously -- all the evidence is trending in a direction in which nothing is actually "matter".

Quote:
Quantum Theory tells us that the probability that any macro object such as a piece of furniture will change state or position at random over the life of the universe is so incredibly tiny that we really can safely ignore it. It says that the chance of it ceasing to exist is essentially zero, since that would be a massive violation of matter/energy conservation. "Idealism" is just a primitive philosophical idea, not relevant is a serious discussion.

That sounds a bit like "First assume a frictionless pulley".  There is no such thing as a "frictionless pulley".

Quote:
Black holes only require gravity and matter particles. As do stars and planets and galaxies. Not so special. No universe could exist without a version of matter particles, ie particles which persist for useful time periods. As does life.

Big stars do not require the existence of black holes. It has been suggested that big galaxies, ie collections of stars, are made more likely to form around big black holes. But stars only require clouds of gas and/or dust of sufficient size.

Mostly wrong again -- matter doesn't know where matter is without bosons, which aren't "matter".

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

BobSpence wrote:
There is matter AND energy, at the very least. String theory and other hypotheses may suggest the possibility of more.

Uh, no.  There really is only "energy".  "Solid matter" is mostly not at all "solid".  A "table" feels "solid" because of electrostatic repulsion.  Going further into the atom, there is a large space of "nothing" between the electrons and nucleus.  Inside the nucleus, most what is "there" isn't "there" -- quarks behave essentially as "points", one dimensional nothings, and the nucleons are all made up of three quarks -- up-up-down for protons, up-down-down for neutrons.  Given enough pressure (gravity), electrons are forced into the nucleus and all those protons become neutrons.  Go up the energy scale, and you wide up with quark soup, not even any neutrons or protons or the rest of your "matter particles."

Seriously -- all the evidence is trending in a direction in which nothing is actually "matter".

Quote:
Quantum Theory tells us that the probability that any macro object such as a piece of furniture will change state or position at random over the life of the universe is so incredibly tiny that we really can safely ignore it. It says that the chance of it ceasing to exist is essentially zero, since that would be a massive violation of matter/energy conservation. "Idealism" is just a primitive philosophical idea, not relevant is a serious discussion.

That sounds a bit like "First assume a frictionless pulley".  There is no such thing as a "frictionless pulley".

Quote:
Black holes only require gravity and matter particles. As do stars and planets and galaxies. Not so special. No universe could exist without a version of matter particles, ie particles which persist for useful time periods. As does life.

Big stars do not require the existence of black holes. It has been suggested that big galaxies, ie collections of stars, are made more likely to form around big black holes. But stars only require clouds of gas and/or dust of sufficient size.

Mostly wrong again -- matter doesn't know where matter is without bosons, which aren't "matter".

Even if I agreed with this, HOW would that prop up any non biological thinking "entity"? And if it did, which we both know it doesn't, but if we pretend it did for argument's sake only, since people throughout history make all sorts of claims about deities, HOW does it default to your pet god claim over all others?

Thinking does not exist outside biological evolution. PERIOD. "We don't know" does not make everything every human utters ON ANY SUBJECT, much less a god claim, true by default. Otherwise if what you were arguing justified "anything is possible", then I can fart a full sized Lamborghini out of my ass.

If "anything is possible" then the sun could be a god. If anything is possible, then Thor does make lightening. If anything is possible then Allah could be the one true god.

Once you buy into the bad logic of "it is true because we don't know everything" you can swallow any absurd claim by mistake.

How you can know science and still try to falsely defend a myth written at an ignorant age in our human history is astounding. I wish it was not the norm, but unfortunately it seems to be, even with people who are as intelligent as you.

You value science and if you try to claim that I don't know as much as you, fine. How about Stephen Hawkings who says a god is not required? How about Einstein who called the Jewish tradition "noble but childish?.?

We live in an age of computers, cell phones, modern medicine and space exploration, and none of those human ventures need a deity litmus test to happen.

Please Furry consider that you got it wrong and chalk it up to wishful thinking. I promise you wont get cooties, or get smoted. Life will continue as it has with both the good and bad that happen. The difference will be that you will outgrow something you don't need and the science you do know will become much more inspiring to you without the old baggage of superstition you try to mix it with.

 

 

"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


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Even if I

Brian37 wrote:

Even if I agreed with this, HOW would that prop up any non biological thinking "entity"? And if it did, which we both know it doesn't, but if we pretend it did for argument's sake only, since people throughout history make all sorts of claims about deities, HOW does it default to your pet god claim over all others?

Thinking does not exist outside biological evolution. PERIOD. "We don't know" does not make everything every human utters ON ANY SUBJECT, much less a god claim, true by default. Otherwise if what you were arguing justified "anything is possible", then I can fart a full sized Lamborghini out of my ass.

If "anything is possible" then the sun could be a god. If anything is possible, then Thor does make lightening. If anything is possible then Allah could be the one true god.

Once you buy into the bad logic of "it is true because we don't know everything" you can swallow any absurd claim by mistake.

How you can know science and still try to falsely defend a myth written at an ignorant age in our human history is astounding. I wish it was not the norm, but unfortunately it seems to be, even with people who are as intelligent as you.

You value science and if you try to claim that I don't know as much as you, fine. How about Stephen Hawkings who says a god is not required? How about Einstein who called the Jewish tradition "noble but childish?.?

We live in an age of computers, cell phones, modern medicine and space exploration, and none of those human ventures need a deity litmus test to happen.

Please Furry consider that you got it wrong and chalk it up to wishful thinking. I promise you wont get cooties, or get smoted. Life will continue as it has with both the good and bad that happen. The difference will be that you will outgrow something you don't need and the science you do know will become much more inspiring to you without the old baggage of superstition you try to mix it with.

The problem is that you heap assertion / assumption on top of assertion / assumption about what the god you don't believe in must be or do.

You also persist in trying to make someone like Einstein into an Atheist, when he =very= clearly stated that he isn't.

There really are god-concepts that differ from the ones you imagine.  So far you seem hung up on some brain somewhere that can't possibly exist because, well, it "just can't" for some reason.

Once you "get" that G-d does not, and cannot, exist within space-time, all of your "there is no such thing as a disembodied cosmic brain" assertions go flying out the window.  While I believe that G-d does not "think", because "thinking" is a human concept and G-d is not a "human concept", the basic facts -- which I don't see how you could possibly argue against -- is that anything which exists outside our space-time is NOT subject to any form of direct or indirect measurement.

What I see people like you doing, noble as it is, is focusing solely on "How?" and not at all on "Why?"  Because of an accident of birth (parents and family members who were science freaks ...), I focus on both -- "How does the Universe work" and "Why does the Universe work".  It is the "Why" questions, which strike me as being no less real, and no less important, which will forever cause me to believe there is more to Life than questions that start with "How".  "How" and "Why" are the Yin Yang of our existence.  Physics and Metaphysics.  The Common and the Divine.  To me, the "How" of Science is balanced by the "Why" of G-d.  The are opposite sides of the same coin.  Without an understanding of Scientific Reality, the person who focuses solely on their concept of the Divine is out of harmony with the physical world.  Without an understanding of Metaphysical Reality, the person who focuses solely on their concept Physical Reality is out of harmony with those things which make us Human.

When you find that one-sided coin, you let me know.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Problem.

Furry sanctimoniously intoned;

Quote:
Once you "get" that G-d does not, and cannot, exist within space-time, all of your "there is no such thing as a disembodied cosmic brain" assertions go flying out the window.  While I believe that G-d does not "think", because "thinking" is a human concept and G-d is not a "human concept", the basic facts -- which I don't see how you could possibly argue against -- is that anything which exists outside our space-time is NOT subject to any form of direct or indirect measurement.

 

The problem is, you have not shown that in any way shape or form that 'outside time and space' exists, or CAN exist. It's a lame apologetic, a sad, intellectually dishonest mechanism  that allows you to shelter the other absurd claim (of GOD not g_d... fucking GOD) from criticism...
Until and unless you can show that this Neverland is really there, your claims of GOD remain a silly unproven assertion.

LC >;-}>

 

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.


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

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Even if I agreed with this, HOW would that prop up any non biological thinking "entity"? And if it did, which we both know it doesn't, but if we pretend it did for argument's sake only, since people throughout history make all sorts of claims about deities, HOW does it default to your pet god claim over all others?

Thinking does not exist outside biological evolution. PERIOD. "We don't know" does not make everything every human utters ON ANY SUBJECT, much less a god claim, true by default. Otherwise if what you were arguing justified "anything is possible", then I can fart a full sized Lamborghini out of my ass.

If "anything is possible" then the sun could be a god. If anything is possible, then Thor does make lightening. If anything is possible then Allah could be the one true god.

Once you buy into the bad logic of "it is true because we don't know everything" you can swallow any absurd claim by mistake.

How you can know science and still try to falsely defend a myth written at an ignorant age in our human history is astounding. I wish it was not the norm, but unfortunately it seems to be, even with people who are as intelligent as you.

You value science and if you try to claim that I don't know as much as you, fine. How about Stephen Hawkings who says a god is not required? How about Einstein who called the Jewish tradition "noble but childish?.?

We live in an age of computers, cell phones, modern medicine and space exploration, and none of those human ventures need a deity litmus test to happen.

Please Furry consider that you got it wrong and chalk it up to wishful thinking. I promise you wont get cooties, or get smoted. Life will continue as it has with both the good and bad that happen. The difference will be that you will outgrow something you don't need and the science you do know will become much more inspiring to you without the old baggage of superstition you try to mix it with.

The problem is that you heap assertion / assumption on top of assertion / assumption about what the god you don't believe in must be or do.

You also persist in trying to make someone like Einstein into an Atheist, when he =very= clearly stated that he isn't.

There really are god-concepts that differ from the ones you imagine.  So far you seem hung up on some brain somewhere that can't possibly exist because, well, it "just can't" for some reason.

Once you "get" that G-d does not, and cannot, exist within space-time, all of your "there is no such thing as a disembodied cosmic brain" assertions go flying out the window.  While I believe that G-d does not "think", because "thinking" is a human concept and G-d is not a "human concept", the basic facts -- which I don't see how you could possibly argue against -- is that anything which exists outside our space-time is NOT subject to any form of direct or indirect measurement.

What I see people like you doing, noble as it is, is focusing solely on "How?" and not at all on "Why?"  Because of an accident of birth (parents and family members who were science freaks ...), I focus on both -- "How does the Universe work" and "Why does the Universe work".  It is the "Why" questions, which strike me as being no less real, and no less important, which will forever cause me to believe there is more to Life than questions that start with "How".  "How" and "Why" are the Yin Yang of our existence.  Physics and Metaphysics.  The Common and the Divine.  To me, the "How" of Science is balanced by the "Why" of G-d.  The are opposite sides of the same coin.  Without an understanding of Scientific Reality, the person who focuses solely on their concept of the Divine is out of harmony with the physical world.  Without an understanding of Metaphysical Reality, the person who focuses solely on their concept Physical Reality is out of harmony with those things which make us Human.

When you find that one-sided coin, you let me know.

God does not and cannot exist in space/time? Then either he doesn't exist or he is a logical fallacy.

"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


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13658
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Once you "get" that

Quote:
Once you "get" that G-d does not, and cannot, exist within space-time, all of your "there is no such thing as a disembodied cosmic brain" assertions go flying out the window

No you are just pulling it out of your ass.

You are merely part of a trend pf people of a variety of religions who are now back peddling because science and biology is not pointing to ANY god, much less yours.

"God is outside space and time"

Dont give a shit. If it were not an evolutionary brain then WHAT would this "out of time out of space" critter think with?

"it just does" is that all you got? That is the mother load grand daddy of all naked assertions.

It is merely wishful thinking and your own gap filling. No different in human history and no different when Muslims and Christians do it. No different when the Egyptians pointed at a sun and falsely believed it was a god. They had more to point to than you do.

Thoughts only exist in the context of biological evolution, nowhere else. Thus a non material god/ or God or "entity" you or anyone claims by any label are CRAP, claiming it is outside space and time explains nothing. And it most certainly does not give a description of the mechanism it thinks with.

"outside space and time" is just the ignorant way of denying you have nothing and are just making it up.

 

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


Lee2216
Theist
Lee2216's picture
Posts: 328
Joined: 2010-11-23
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Then either

jcgadfly wrote:
Then either he doesn't exist or he is a logical fallacy.

You can't logically state that there is no God because you cannot know all things so as to determine there is no God.

 

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. Romans 1:20


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:jcgadfly

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Then either he doesn't exist or he is a logical fallacy.

You can't logically state that there is no God because you cannot know all things so as to determine there is no God.

 

And you can't logically state that there is a god, because you don't know everything so as to determine there is one.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Lee2216 wrote:jcgadfly

Lee2216 wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
Then either he doesn't exist or he is a logical fallacy.

You can't logically state that there is no God because you cannot know all things so as to determine there is no God.

 

I didn't make an absolute claim. It was based on the claim that God is a being that exists outside of space and time. 

That reading issue is biting you in the butt again.

Where is your knowledge of all things to determine that there is a God?

"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


Louis_Cypher
BloggerSuperfan
Louis_Cypher's picture
Posts: 529
Joined: 2008-03-22
User is offlineOffline
Logically speaking...

The claim "There is no god." is perfectly logical, because it is easily falsified, all you need do is offer evidence that a god exists.
On the other hand, the claim "God Exists" isn't falsifiable, because I can't offer 'no god' as evidence.

 

LC >;-}>

Christianity: A disgusting middle eastern blood cult, based in human sacrifice, with sacraments of cannibalism and vampirism, whose highest icon is of a near naked man hanging in torment from a device of torture.