Atheists are cool, and you don't need religion to live a meaningful life.

Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Atheists are cool, and you don't need religion to live a meaningful life.

Hi everyone,

I was just reading a blog that I saw linked on this forum, written by greta christina. I instantly liked her I found all she said honest forthright and full of clarity and insight.

A Comment on one of her entries which was written by someone named Myk questions greta's idea that there are theists who "think atheists are cool, who get that you don't need religion to live a good, happy, meaningful life." saying that there probably aren't.

I know that there is at least one here

So i thought I'd put my hand up!! (MeEmbarassed)

and why not? while I'm at it, ask for a roll call, I'm sure there are other theists somewhere around here that will agree:

Atheists are cool, and you don't need religion to live a good, happy, meaningful life!

 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


stuntgibbon
Moderator
stuntgibbon's picture
Posts: 699
Joined: 2007-05-17
User is offlineOffline
I'm reading this over and

I'm reading this over and over again and trying to figure out what's going on.. you're just looking for theists that think we're cool and live meaningful lives?


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
stuntgibbon wrote: I'm

stuntgibbon wrote:
I'm reading this over and over again and trying to figure out what's going on.. you're just looking for theists that think we're cool and live meaningful lives?

yeah, sort of. In a way I am looking to unite those that are here in  stating that position openly. I think it may be a relevant influence on the direction and atmosphere in this forum if not all theists come here to decry the RRS movement, which I am pretty sure is the case.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Archeopteryx
Superfan
Archeopteryx's picture
Posts: 1037
Joined: 2007-09-09
User is offlineOffline
stuntgibbon wrote: I'm

stuntgibbon wrote:
I'm reading this over and over again and trying to figure out what's going on.. you're just looking for theists that think we're cool and live meaningful lives?

 

I sure hope some show up....

 

*looks around*

 

............ 

 

*invokes "awkwardness" cough* 

 

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

 

*crickets chirping*

 

...........

 

They're coming! Any time now! =D

 

Don't mean to ridicule the thread. Just having fun. But I will be surprised if there turns out to be more than two. 

A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Wavefreak and Pineapple are

Wavefreak and Pineapple are still around. That's at least 3.

Of course, they're only theists in the sense that they're really weird and refuse to believe that the universe doesn't fart on cue from time to time.

I'm sure there are Christians who will say we're ok at first, but if you ask them approximately three more questions, you'll find their tune changes -- for instance:

1) Ok, so we have meaningful lives. Do you think our lives are equally meaningful as people who have religion?

For the few who answer "yes" to this one, ask:

2) Do you think there is something particularly meaningful about theism that atheists don't get to experience?

When they inevitably say yes, because they have to or they're invalidating their own theism, you ask them:

3) So, you actually do think our lives are less meaningful than yours?

Then, you sit back and watch them get pissed and call you names for shitting on their religion and their beliefs.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Wavefreak and Pineapple are still around. That's at least 3.

Of course, they're only theists in the sense that they're really weird and refuse to believe that the universe doesn't fart on cue from time to time.

I'm sure there are Christians who will say we're ok at first, but if you ask them approximately three more questions, you'll find their tune changes -- for instance:

1) Ok, so we have meaningful lives. Do you think our lives are equally meaningful as people who have religion?

yes.

Quote:

For the few who answer "yes" to this one, ask:

2) Do you think there is something particularly meaningful about theism that atheists don't get to experience?

Yes, of course there is something particularly meaningful about theism. notice how you have switched from saying 'religion' to saying 'theism' to make your point here, Hamby. either you and i agree on this notable difference between theism and religion and you have tried to subtley subvert it, or you mean thesim and religion interchangeably and if that's the case restate this question using the word religion and I'll give the appropriate answer .

In the meantime, I don't think atheists don't get to experience what is particularly meaningful about theism, i think rather that they don't always explore what is interesting and meaningful to me just as I don't always explore what is interesting and meaningful them.

Quote:

When they inevitably say yes, because they have to or they're invalidating their own theism, you ask them:

3) So, you actually do think our lives are less meaningful than yours?

No. but in question 2 you ask it if was particularly meaningful at all, not more meaningful than everything so I am not contradicting myself.

I never once said the meaningfulness of an atheist's life was mundane because I don't think it is, at that.

 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
How can our lives be

How can our lives be equally meaningful if there's something you have that we can't?  That's unequal.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
P.S.  I am using religion

P.S.  I am using religion to mean the practice of theism.  Theism is the belief.  Religion is the practice.  It can be individual or group.  Praying is practicing theism, and so is religion.  Meditation, whatever.  If you act on your theism, you're practicing religion.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cernunnos
Cernunnos's picture
Posts: 146
Joined: 2007-07-04
User is offlineOffline
It's all subjective.

It's all subjective.

If given any particular group of people that is defined by a single common attitude and a person thinks most of them are cool, then I think that that person has to be guileless and gormless but probably happy.

...and somebody who makes the above statement is conceited and cynical but probably right Eye-wink

 

 

 

 

 

I often say that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Cernunnos wrote: It's all

Cernunnos wrote:

It's all subjective.

If given any particular group of people that is defined by a single common attitude and a person thinks most of them are cool, then I think that that person has to be guileless and gormless but probably happy.

...and somebody who makes the above statement is conceited and cynical but probably right Eye-wink

 

Embarassed oops, i should qualify that a bit, I think...

let me say, primarily, the sense in which i mean to say 'cool' is 'alright by me' , in a general way atheism is great, an expression of value and integrity, definitely not 'uncool' if you'll pardon the double negative.

individually I am bound an determined to say some atheists are cooler than others. and i particularly like the RRS because you know, you guys stand for something in a world that needs it, so yeah.... there it's qualified much more nicely now... thanks cernunnos

 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

How can our lives be equally meaningful if there's something you have that we can't? That's unequal.

 

I think I expressed my not agreeing to that part when I said that the value that comes from theism is not something an atheist can't have, athesist movements like the RRS, who believe in standing up for right in spite of the adversity, experience it, scientists like DG, who search through creation every day for new truths and new understanding, experience it too, because that's what the particular experience that comes from theology is as well.

some theists will call it getting closer to God and then call god "love" or "the truth and life of the universe", but never once put two and two together to see how simple it is. Atheism can be a very holy road. LOL. I think God likes irony. Smiling

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


LosingStreak06
Theist
LosingStreak06's picture
Posts: 768
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Wavefreak and Pineapple are still around. That's at least 3.

Of course, they're only theists in the sense that they're really weird and refuse to believe that the universe doesn't fart on cue from time to time.

You forgot about me. For shame. Although I guess if you want to get technical, I'm not sure I really believe in meaningful life, so it would follow that I might not qualify as a theist who believes that atheists can live meaningful lives. But when taken in context, I still would fall into the category of giving atheists and theists equal blessing, which is what I believe the whole thing is about.

Quote:
I'm sure there are Christians who will say we're ok at first, but if you ask them approximately three more questions, you'll find their tune changes -- for instance:

1) Ok, so we have meaningful lives. Do you think our lives are equally meaningful as people who have religion?

Are there different degrees of meaningful-ness? Could you perhaps define them, or suggest a way of measuring such variances? The way I see it, something is either meaningful, or it isn't. For the sake of your argument, however, let us assume that there are variances, and that they can be distinguished. I would say that yes, they are equally meaningful, if "equally" is defined as "having the same amount of value."

Quote:
For the few who answer "yes" to this one, ask:

2) Do you think there is something particularly meaningful about theism that atheists don't get to experience?

Uh-huh. I think there is something particularly meaningful about atheism that I don't get to experience as well.

Quote:
When they inevitably say yes, because they have to or they're invalidating their own theism, you ask them:

3) So, you actually do think our lives are less meaningful than yours?

Then, you sit back and watch them get pissed and call you names for shitting on their religion and their beliefs.

Is the life of a blind man "less meaningful" than yours because he cannot see and you can? Sure, he cannot see the beautiful sunset, but you will never hear Haydn's "Sunrise" quartet the same way that he does.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13657
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Many here, and I dont speek

Many here, and I dont speek for everyone, just as you dont speak for every theist. I do apreciate the attempt at the "olive branch".

I do take a govermental Jeffersonian approach regarding religion, "This goes here, that goes there, and nay shall the two mix" IE "wall".

From a strictly autonomus view I do believe in your right to be a theist, of whatever label. And I am capable of getting along with and loving theists. I cant excape it even if I wanted to. They are in my family and are my co-workers and friends.

NOW, having said that you do have to keep in mind some here take a soft aproach while others, including me dont mind taking the gloves off when it comes to theistic claims. Bottem line, we are all different, even atheists dont agree on all things all the time.

You are getting questioning about your original post, not to put you down, but to get you to think about why you make the claims you make, nothing more, nothing less.

We are happy and angrey at the same time. In our personal lives we are happy. But we are angrey at how science has been attacked and dumped by schools as a priority and used and twisted by relgiion to prop up myth(NOT JUST CHRISTIANS). We are angrey at being marginalized and demonized and tired of being equated to Stalin and Hitler who were far from atheists.

So thank you for stating what we already know and it is important for theists to hear it, not just from atheists, but other theists, like you as well.

However, the question still remains as Hambi rightfully asked. "What is it that you think you have that we dont?" We are not asking that to upset you, but for YOU to ask yourself WHY you believe what you believe, not WHAT you believe.

Here is where we are going with this. If you admit, as you have and rightfully so, that atheists can live without theism and still lead decent moral lives, then why arent you an atheist? 

We see theism as unesssary baggage. It is utiopian wishfull thinking based on wanting a super hero to protect you. We are not saying that to put you down, but merely to get you to consider something you may not be aware of going on in your head.

It is quite simple. As fervant as you may believe in your version of deity, so did ancient Egyptians believe in Isus and Osirus and Horus. You know that those deities were nothing but the envention of Egyptian emagination. If human nature is consistant, what makes modern society, no matter what deity they claim, any different than the ancient socieites that have deities that your rightfully reject today?

You are right in saying that we atheists dont need a deity to lead a meaningfull life. THANK YOU! That is a sincere thank you.

Now be brave and ask yourself why you need a deity yourself. Could it simply be that you like the idea of a super hero protecting you? If you reject the super heros of others, and have reasons for rejecting the others, we simply reject one more super hero than you do.

"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


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4558
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is onlineOnline
My wife thinks I'm cool and

My wife thinks I'm cool and she's a theist. At least she hasn't thrown me out yet even when I had no job and no money with a bunch of debt.

I think my mother-in-law thinks I'm cool and she is a practicing Catholic.

My brother is a bible thumping baptist and he thinks I'm cool but he used to be an atheist. 

There are about three religious people in the world who think I'm cool (and know I'm an atheist). Although, I have to admit I generally avoid religious conversations around my mother-in-law.

I just usually go with my own taste. If I like something, and it happens to be against the law, well, then I might have a problem.- Hunter S. Thompson


Strafio
Strafio's picture
Posts: 1346
Joined: 2006-09-11
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

How can our lives be equally meaningful if there's something you have that we can't? That's unequal.

 


Someone takes up dancing while another martial arts.
Each will have some kind of meaing that the other doesn't have access to, but in a sense they both have the same 'amount' of meaning in their lives.

Religion gives meaning to the life of the believer that a non-believer doesn't get, but the non-believer will have their own sources of meaning. You've probably noticed that I'm fine with moderate religion, recognising they have something I don't, but also recognising that I don't need it because I have something of my own.

Edit: I think Eloise's reply to your point was better than mine.
btw, I think you (and Wave, LosingStreak and Pineapple) are all cool too. thumbs up


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Hi Brian, and thankyou back

Hi Brian,

and thankyou back for your olive branch, I appreciate it. 

Brian37 wrote:

However, the question still remains as Hambi rightfully asked. "What is it that you think you have that we dont?" We are not asking that to upset you, but for YOU to ask yourself WHY you believe what you believe, not WHAT you believe.

I think it may be necessary to point out here that I wasn't the one who put the theist badge under my name, were it not for that, I doubt there is any evidence or symbolism to the conclusion that I am making a claimof having something that only theists have.

That said, why do I believe what I believe? the reason is basically as I have given it throughout my time here at the boards, I was raised by very liberal existentialist people, they insisted from my first day on the planet that I make my own informed choice on the matter of what to believe, I explored theology, science and whatever else I could get my hands on and I believe because there is something to believe. it doesn't ask defending, so I won't defend it. but I believe it, I believe what i see, like a strand of RNA believes four proteins are enough to code a lifeform, a small world is not so insignificant to a universe. I know this small world has universes within it, but moreover I believe they are not so distant from our reality. 

Quote:
 

Here is where we are going with this. If you admit, as you have and rightfully so, that atheists can live without theism and still lead decent moral lives, then why arent you an atheist?

Well the real, and virtually only, difference is that I see value in theological study and atheists don't, but that is such a small part of the whole person it doesn't matter to me all that much. Still I wear the theist badge without shame, I'm happy to identify as theist because it is relevant to my position.

 

Quote:

We see theism as unesssary baggage. It is utiopian wishfull thinking based on wanting a super hero to protect you. We are not saying that to put you down, but merely to get you to consider something you may not be aware of going on in your head.

I know that. I don't see theism as necessary, but I no more see it as baggage, either. 

when you talk about wanting a superhero to protect you, I have to reject that claim because the theology I've read an understood is about the opposite, it's about having the mettle to go for an ideal, to shun the desire for protection and take one for the team.

 

Quote:
 

It is quite simple. As fervant as you may believe in your version of deity, so did ancient Egyptians believe in Isus and Osirus and Horus. You know that those deities were nothing but the envention of Egyptian emagination. If human nature is consistant, what makes modern society, no matter what deity they claim, any different than the ancient socieites that have deities that your rightfully reject today?

I don't know how this applies to me, I have no interest in organised religion whatsoever and I think organised religion is the same as it ever was, misguided and deluded, all of it.  Through history, in general, good ideas and philosophies of spiritual people have brought liberty and justice to cultures who were in need, while organised religion and structures of authority have brought  oppression and madness. this has always been the difference, for me, between religion and faith. Religion is just another structure built by humans to overwhelm opposition to their intolerable demands. Faith is a human trait which can achieve great good. 

 

Quote:
 

You are right in saying that we atheists dont need a deity to lead a meaningfull life. THANK YOU! That is a sincere thank you.

Now be brave and ask yourself why you need a deity yourself. Could it simply be that you like the idea of a super hero protecting you? If you reject the super heros of others, and have reasons for rejecting the others, we simply reject one more super hero than you do.

You're welcome, equally sincere.

I don't feel I need a deity, I simply believe there is a unified self of being which belongs to all of us and it just is.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Lux
Theist
Posts: 204
Joined: 2007-05-14
User is offlineOffline
Cool atheists? They have a

Cool atheists? They have a celebrity atheist list somewhere. I was quite surprised to see some of the names on it. I saw Jack NIcholson, who I freaking love. I saw BIlly Joel, who has some great songs. Does it really matter if someone is an atheist? I mean does it make them any "cooler"? There are a bunch of cool christians too ya know. And cool Muslims......Ok maybe not cool Muslims, wait, isn't Muhamad alli a Muslim? he's pretty cool. Though I don't know of any cool Mormons, haven't met any, I thik its agaisnt The book of mormon to be cool.... 

"Atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning..." -CS Lewis


d4rkph03nix
d4rkph03nix's picture
Posts: 31
Joined: 2007-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I know cool people of many

I know cool people of many different faiths as well as cool atheists. I don't think that religion or lack thereof is typically the most defining characteristic of a person. My own best friends are mormon, jewish, deist, agnostic, coptic and atheist respectively. Generally speaking we all get along very well and manage to politely disagree about religion without it having any real effect on our friendships.

I think tolerance, respect and love have a lot more to do with a person being 'cool' than any other traits or beliefs tey might have. 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Sorry Losingstreak... I

Sorry Losingstreak...

I guess you um... just ... can't win.... um....

sorry. Had to go there.

 

Eloise, I get what you're saying about finding meaning in your life. Even outside of RRS, I have a great deal of meaning in my life. I have yet to concoct the perfect bernaise sauce, for instance. I don't mean that to sound flippant. I really dig cooking.

Here's my question to you. Suppose god doesn't exist. Despite everything you believe you have felt or experienced, what if it was wrong? What if everything you've felt was simply chemicals inducing nerves to fire in a certain way, and there is no spirit world, no god, no nothing other than this world. While you can easily say that your life experience has given you purpose or meaning, despite being based on something that isn't real, wouldn't it be fair to say that IF god isn't real, THEN everyone experiences personal satisfaction based on their own experiences?  In other words, if there is no spirit world, then your happiness/contentment/etc is on an equal field with mine, regardless of whether you believe it comes from something greater?

In still more words, if there is no spirit world, then people are more or less happy based entirely on their own experiences and choices, right?  (and brain chemistr!)

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13657
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote: You're welcome,

Quote:

You're welcome, equally sincere.

I don't feel I need a deity, I simply believe there is a unified self of being which belongs to all of us and it just is.

I hate to tell you this, but that is just as unprovable and untestable and unfalsifiable and just as ambigious as "deity" "god" "spirit" and "universal conciousness".

Again, what you fail to consider is that you merely found an idea that you like. If you have no way of proving it, we dont expect you to. But if you speak of it, and cant demonstrably emperically show evidence for such a claim, we are under no intelectuall obligation to buy the claim and change our position to yours.

"This is my idea" is not evidence. It is a claim. 

"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


Nero
Rational VIP!
Nero's picture
Posts: 1142
Joined: 2007-05-22
User is offlineOffline
Well, that's just great. 

Well, that's just great.  Now, the cat is out of the bag.  What is going to be my new excuse for not having a good, happy, meaningful life?  Hmmmm, I guess I could blame my lack of bonhommerie. 

"Tis better to rule in Hell than to serve in Heaven." -Lucifer


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:
Quote:

You're welcome, equally sincere.

I don't feel I need a deity, I simply believe there is a unified self of being which belongs to all of us and it just is.

I hate to tell you this, but that is just as unprovable and untestable and unfalsifiable and just as ambigious as "deity" "god" "spirit" and "universal conciousness".

Again, what you fail to consider is that you merely found an idea that you like. If you have no way of proving it, we dont expect you to. But if you speak of it, and cant demonstrably emperically show evidence for such a claim, we are under no intelectuall obligation to buy the claim and change our position to yours.

"This is my idea" is not evidence. It is a claim.

It is tested and proven, it's a matter of translation. conscious mind is a phenomenon that rises, basically, out of constantly changing and exchanging bits of energy. when we identify with our mind our self is the phenomenon that surfs the wave of all that is. the surfer is imaginary physical and physically real is the wave which that projection of self identity rides, and you are an intrinsic part of my wave, my mind rises from the energy of our interaction. this is unity.

I'm not asking you to change your position to mine. It's just my position.

 

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

Eloise, I get what you're saying about finding meaning in your life. Even outside of RRS, I have a great deal of meaning in my life. I have yet to concoct the perfect bernaise sauce, for instance. I don't mean that to sound flippant. I really dig cooking.

Here's my question to you. Suppose god doesn't exist. Despite everything you believe you have felt or experienced, what if it was wrong? What if everything you've felt was simply chemicals inducing nerves to fire in a certain way, and there is no spirit world, no god, no nothing other than this world. While you can easily say that your life experience has given you purpose or meaning, despite being based on something that isn't real, wouldn't it be fair to say that IF god isn't real, THEN everyone experiences personal satisfaction based on their own experiences?

I already say that, Hamby, but as I mentioned to Brian, I don't thus conclude that my theism is baggage it's part of my expereinces and I have gleaned a lot of wisdom, philosophy and understanding from those experiences. I believe theology has the reputation for being divinely inspired because it is often the product of an inspired writer with interesting insight; mythology and parable are great art forms in themselves.

Quote:

In other words, if there is no spirit world, then your happiness/contentment/etc is on an equal field with mine, regardless of whether you believe it comes from something greater?

there is a "spirit world" we just have come to better understanding of it since that phrase was coined and I like that.

The phrase 'spirit world' conjures up the religious desire to position itself at a distance from the natural explorations of humanity. This is ironic considering the first believers of the spirit world intiated naturalistic quests to prove it. frankly, the oppositioning of latter day religions against naturalism is all about the securing the pertuity of material structures and control, a stubborn determination to 'survive' by establishing a saleable entity on a point of difference. the point of difference is made up nonsense and always will be.

What is, is that quantum mechanics predicts a floor level of material energy, the ground state. beyond the ground state, the zero point, there is a breakdown of material laws. this quantum vacuum interacts with the material world and virtual particles pop in to existence from it. It's a part of our own reality. It's not called the spirit world in naturalism, but that means nothing. Spirit world was an ambiguous term for something intuited but not seen, seeing it gives it a different meaning, a more precise meaning. Letting go of the 'spirit world' and letting go of the superstitious nonsense that has slowly engulfed the original intitive reasoning, are two different things.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13657
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Eloise wrote: Brian37

Eloise wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
Quote:

You're welcome, equally sincere.

I don't feel I need a deity, I simply believe there is a unified self of being which belongs to all of us and it just is.

I hate to tell you this, but that is just as unprovable and untestable and unfalsifiable and just as ambigious as "deity" "god" "spirit" and "universal conciousness".

Again, what you fail to consider is that you merely found an idea that you like. If you have no way of proving it, we dont expect you to. But if you speak of it, and cant demonstrably emperically show evidence for such a claim, we are under no intelectuall obligation to buy the claim and change our position to yours.

"This is my idea" is not evidence. It is a claim.

It is tested and proven, it's a matter of translation. conscious mind is a phenomenon that rises, basically, out of constantly changing and exchanging bits of energy. when we identify with our mind our self is the phenomenon that surfs the wave of all that is. the surfer is imaginary physical and physically real is the wave which that projection of self identity rides, and you are an intrinsic part of my wave, my mind rises from the energy of our interaction. this is unity.

I'm not asking you to change your position to mine. It's just my position.

 

 

That "energy bit" is dependant on the brain, when the brain dies your conciousness dies. And once again, your definition is ambigious and unproven.

Your thoughts and memories are distroyed when your brain dies. The only thing that lives on is the memory in other's brians after you die.

You have not demonstrated anything, you have done nothing but make claims. 

"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


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: I don't thus

Quote:
I don't thus conclude that my theism is baggage it's part of my expereinces and I have gleaned a lot of wisdom, philosophy and understanding from those experiences.

You keep citing your judgement as if it's the final authority.

Quote:
I believe theology has the reputation for being divinely inspired because it is often the product of an inspired writer with interesting insight; mythology and parable are great art forms in themselves.

I love many of the stories in myths. Besides being poetically beautiful, many myths are windows into the minds of our predecessors.

If you mean inspired to be taken naturally, I agree with you. If you're suggesting you have to be in touch with the spirit world (sic!) to be an artist, I'll have to flog you with one of my piano's strings -- after all, I will not be needing them, since I reject the spiritual as nonexistent woo-woo. All that time I spent in music school.... wow... all a waste.

Quote:
there is a "spirit world" we just have come to better understanding of it since that phrase was coined and I like that.

There again with your judgement as fact.

Quote:
The phrase 'spirit world' conjures up the religious desire to position itself at a distance from the natural explorations of humanity. This is ironic considering the first believers of the spirit world intiated naturalistic quests to prove it. frankly, the oppositioning of latter day religions against naturalism is all about the securing the pertuity of material structures and control, a stubborn determination to 'survive' by establishing a saleable entity on a point of difference. the point of difference is made up nonsense and always will be.

You see, Eloise, I think you do buy into that horse-hockey in the websites you linked for me. When you start opining on religion, you sound just like them. I think you were embarrassed that I was so angry about them, and disavowed them. Shame on you.

I'm going to spare you the vitriol, and just ask you to recall how many fallacies and how much unsupported nonsense there was in that page I deconstructed.

To keep it simple, I'll point out that this is a completely, utterly, and in all other ways unsupported viewpoint you're putting forth. This thread isn't about whether the spirit world (sic!) exists. It's about whether atheists are cool or not, so I'm not going to keep on about this.

Quote:
What is, is that quantum mechanics predicts a floor level of material energy, the ground state. beyond the ground state, the zero point, there is a breakdown of material laws. this quantum vacuum interacts with the material world and virtual particles pop in to existence from it. It's a part of our own reality. It's not called the spirit world in naturalism, but that means nothing. Spirit world was an ambiguous term for something intuited but not seen, seeing it gives it a different meaning, a more precise meaning. Letting go of the 'spirit world' and letting go of the superstitious nonsense that has slowly engulfed the original intitive reasoning, are two different things.

Oh, you better hope deludedgod doesn't read this thread. He'll probably unleash a bit of his own vitriol if he sees you misusing quantum physics like this. I'll give you the short version.

A) First, this is a fallacy of composition. Even though things behave a certain way at a quantum level, we cannot extend that behavior to things above that level. Unless you're prepared to present a Nobel Prize winning proof that we've got quantum physics completely wrong, you probably will want to back off of the claim that the spirit world has anything to do with quantum physics.

B) Second, you need to think seriously about this theory of the origins of spirituality. Are you an anthropologist? Evolutionary psychologist? Historian? Anything that would qualify you to make such a judgement? I'm trying to warn you that if you continue to assert this viewpoint, you're going to get smacked down pretty hard when someone decides it's time to set you straight. There aren't too many ways you could be more wrong about this.

C) Finally, you need to do some real study about what intuition is, and more importantly, what it isn't. There's plenty of material out there. Please do yourself a favor and learn what scientists know about it. Once you do that, go back to your basic Critical Thinking Textbook -- you know, the one you would have if it was actually taught to school kids like it should be -- and review where intuition falls on the heirarchy of reliability.

 

 

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: It is tested and

Quote:
It is tested and proven, it's a matter of translation. conscious mind is a phenomenon that rises, basically, out of constantly changing and exchanging bits of energy. when we identify with our mind our self is the phenomenon that surfs the wave of all that is. the surfer is imaginary physical and physically real is the wave which that projection of self identity rides, and you are an intrinsic part of my wave, my mind rises from the energy of our interaction. this is unity.

You're making a grave mistake here. We have tested that:

1) Conscious mind is a result of matter and energy interacting.

2) "Self identity" is a construct of the conscious mind.

The rest of that wave unity shit is not tested, nor scientifically approved. It's not even defined well enough to be scientifically tested. Remember how you couldn't give me a single definition of god? You also can't give me a definition of your wave. It's more of that seeker nonsense you linked and then disavowed when I blasted it so hard.

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: The only

Brian37 wrote:
The only thing that lives on is the memory in other's brians after you die.

God NOOOOOO!!!!!  Tell me there aren't more of you!   The world can only handle one brian.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Watcher
atheist
Posts: 2326
Joined: 2007-07-10
User is offlineOffline
Is life

Is life meaningful?

Well...you could do something great to advance humanity like Galileo, Darwin, Newton, Einstein, etc. did.  To advance our knowledge.  But is humanity meaningful?

Just like it is 100% certain that every human will die, it's got to be just of a good chance that humanity will die.

If we do spread to the stars, well what happens with the universe?  Either it keeps expanding and entropy happens where all the stars die out eventually and then really, how much longer can we take energy from the universe?  Even if we convert all of the matter in the universe into energy that is not an infinite amount of energy.  But hell what are the chances we will even settle an independent colony on another habitable planet?  Will we even need to if we can make a space station for life?  Hell planets are a pain in the ass.  Quakes, extreme weather, other life forms that are deadly/dangerous, meteor impacts.  A large space station could conceavably be much better.

But otherwise the universe could reverse and go into a big crunch.  How the heck are we going to escape that?  Especially if time reverses when everything starts coming back together?

Humanity will die.  So what is our meaning after our universe ends?

Can their be a meaning if humanity even is not immortal?  I think we have no more meaning than an ant.

This might depress some people but I don't see it that way.  I like it.  There is no meaning to life.  It just is.  When you die, no meanings follow you, no memories, nothing.  You no longer exist.  And eventually all life on Earth will too.

I take this as a reason to relax.  Don't take life so seriously.  Just have a stroll and laugh with a friend.

Nothing really matters.  Make each other happy as much as possible and just enjoy the insanity of existence.

Revel in it.  Look at the world, the universe.  Learn of it.  Marvel at it.

Love people and stay fascinated with things.

That's my philosopy.  Cause, fuck it.  In 100 years what will it matter?

"I am an atheist, thank God." -Oriana Fallaci


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
It is tested and proven, it's a matter of translation. conscious mind is a phenomenon that rises, basically, out of constantly changing and exchanging bits of energy. when we identify with our mind our self is the phenomenon that surfs the wave of all that is. the surfer is imaginary physical and physically real is the wave which that projection of self identity rides, and you are an intrinsic part of my wave, my mind rises from the energy of our interaction. this is unity.

You're making a grave mistake here. We have tested that:

1) Conscious mind is a result of matter and energy interacting.

2) "Self identity" is a construct of the conscious mind.

The rest of that wave unity shit is not tested, nor scientifically approved.

(1) proves that neither brain or conscious mind are isolated systems

thus

(2) self identity is a construct of the whole system in which a brain and a conscious mind can exist. The anthropic principle.

To say 'wave unity shit' is just projecting the 'woo woo' image you think is me onto what I am saying instead of actually noting what I am saying.

The surfer analogy refers to an energy gradient and I think its a very good analogy, however judge for yourself.

In a wave of surf the molecules of water are in motion with lots of energy, there is enough force behind the wave that a person can stand atop it and be carried on it.

This is a little like how we understand intelligence, we are bombarded with physical data/energy/information until it builds up a certain momentum which affects the state of the conscious mind, this process is the substratum of self identity; and we go further to identify with the imaginary surfer floating on the process instead of the process which is the physical actuality; but most importantly the process is the product of the data, the free energy in motion. And the free energy in motion is the definition of conscious mind and the system that supports it.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: Eloise

Brian37 wrote:
Eloise wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
Quote:

You're welcome, equally sincere.

I don't feel I need a deity, I simply believe there is a unified self of being which belongs to all of us and it just is.

I hate to tell you this, but that is just as unprovable and untestable and unfalsifiable and just as ambigious as "deity" "god" "spirit" and "universal conciousness".

Again, what you fail to consider is that you merely found an idea that you like. If you have no way of proving it, we dont expect you to. But if you speak of it, and cant demonstrably emperically show evidence for such a claim, we are under no intelectuall obligation to buy the claim and change our position to yours.

"This is my idea" is not evidence. It is a claim.

It is tested and proven, it's a matter of translation. conscious mind is a phenomenon that rises, basically, out of constantly changing and exchanging bits of energy. when we identify with our mind our self is the phenomenon that surfs the wave of all that is. the surfer is imaginary physical and physically real is the wave which that projection of self identity rides, and you are an intrinsic part of my wave, my mind rises from the energy of our interaction. this is unity.

I'm not asking you to change your position to mine. It's just my position.

 

 

That "energy bit" is dependant on the brain, when the brain dies your conciousness dies. And once again, your definition is ambigious and unproven.

Hi Brian, 

As I was just saying to Hamby, the brain depends on the system, the interdependence is key to what I am saying about unity.

Quote:
 

Your thoughts and memories are distroyed when your brain dies. The only thing that lives on is the memory in other's brians after you die.

I don't know why you bring this up, it's not relevant to what I was saying about the shared self of being. Yes, once your brain is 'dead' to the system it becomes something other than a substrate of consciousness. If there is any imprint of consciousness in reality beyond that it must necessarily be in some other form. The material world is in constant interaction with the vacuum of "empty" space and that vacuum has properties which are absurd to classical physics, so it's not impossible for consciousness to have some other form of reality before during or after death, however, that's simply not relevant to what I was saying about the interdependence of the physical system. The existence of my present self is quite utterly dependent on you being exactly as you are, the world being exactly as it is and etc, the system is not closed therefore there is unity.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: To say 'wave unity

Quote:
To say 'wave unity shit' is just projecting the 'woo woo' image you think is me onto what I am saying instead of actually noting what I am saying.

Truthfully, it's incomprehensible to me.  Could you point me to the peer reviewed science journal that explains it?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
I don't thus conclude that my theism is baggage it's part of my expereinces and I have gleaned a lot of wisdom, philosophy and understanding from those experiences.

You keep citing your judgement as if it's the final authority.

I cite my judgement because the default position of any theist on this board is to accept that the rationality of their judgement is under scrutiny. It's seems simply appropriate to expose my judgement, I'm not ashamed of it. 

 

Quote:

Quote:
I believe theology has the reputation for being divinely inspired because it is often the product of an inspired writer with interesting insight; mythology and parable are great art forms in themselves.

I love many of the stories in myths. Besides being poetically beautiful, many myths are windows into the minds of our predecessors.

If you mean inspired to be taken naturally, I agree with you. If you're suggesting you have to be in touch with the spirit world (sic!)

 

Does it look like I am suggesting that? 

 

Quote:

Quote:
there is a "spirit world" we just have come to better understanding of it since that phrase was coined and I like that.

There again with your judgement as fact.

In all too many religions, myths and stories the word spirit is explained as light or energy. it doesn't take a genius to figure the rest out, but I concede I may be dumber than the dumbest to assume such a simple correlation is accurate.

Quote:
 

Quote:
The phrase 'spirit world' conjures up the religious desire to position itself at a distance from the natural explorations of humanity. This is ironic considering the first believers of the spirit world intiated naturalistic quests to prove it. frankly, the oppositioning of latter day religions against naturalism is all about the securing the pertuity of material structures and control, a stubborn determination to 'survive' by establishing a saleable entity on a point of difference. the point of difference is made up nonsense and always will be.

You see, Eloise, I think you do buy into that horse-hockey in the websites you linked for me. When you start opining on religion, you sound just like them. I think you were embarrassed that I was so angry about them, and disavowed them. Shame on you.

Read the thread Hamby, I'm hiding absolutely nothing. I posted before you to tell you that you had mistaken the reason why I posted those links. It's right there in black and white. There was nothing to disavow, they were random people who identified as seekers, I hadn't ever read a word of what they were saying and I really don't care what they said. The point is, contigent god believers are not a figment of my imagination and I have proved it. Would you like to go back to the discussion from that point? 

 

Quote:

 This thread isn't about whether the spirit world (sic!) exists. It's about whether atheists are cool or not, so I'm not going to keep on about this.

And atheists are cool, and using my judgement however you see it as unsupported, I conclude that you don't need religion to live a good, happy, meaningful life.

 

Quote:

Quote:
What is, is that quantum mechanics predicts a floor level of material energy, the ground state. beyond the ground state, the zero point, there is a breakdown of material laws. this quantum vacuum interacts with the material world and virtual particles pop in to existence from it. It's a part of our own reality. It's not called the spirit world in naturalism, but that means nothing. Spirit world was an ambiguous term for something intuited but not seen, seeing it gives it a different meaning, a more precise meaning. Letting go of the 'spirit world' and letting go of the superstitious nonsense that has slowly engulfed the original intitive reasoning, are two different things.

Oh, you better hope deludedgod doesn't read this thread. He'll probably unleash a bit of his own vitriol if he sees you misusing quantum physics like this. I'll give you the short version.

I certainly do hope Deluded reads this thread. We've had a similar discussion to this one, the first discussion I ever had on RRS. I don't mind DG at all, and I think he is a cool atheist. If he dislikes me equating light and virtual particles .... well he probably won't do that, actually.

 

Quote:

A) First, this is a fallacy of composition. Even though things behave a certain way at a quantum level, we cannot extend that behavior to things above that level.

 

I didn't.

 

Quote:

Unless you're prepared to present a Nobel Prize winning proof that we've got quantum physics completely wrong, you probably will want to back off of the claim that the spirit world has anything to do with quantum physics.

 

To back off the claim that the spirit world has anything to do with light and energy popping into our reality from strange quarters would be intellectually dishonest. That's what the spirit world is about.

Quote:
 

B) Second, you need to think seriously about this theory of the origins of spirituality. Are you an anthropologist? Evolutionary psychologist? Historian? Anything that would qualify you to make such a judgement? I'm trying to warn you that if you continue to assert this viewpoint, you're going to get smacked down pretty hard when someone decides it's time to set you straight. There aren't too many ways you could be more wrong about this.

Smack away, Hamby.  Either it's something people thought up to explain their existence or it's not. Who's going to tell me it's not?

 

Quote:

C) Finally, you need to do some real study about what intuition is, and more importantly, what it isn't.

 

naked assertion.

 

 

Quote:

There's plenty of material out there. Please do yourself a favor and learn what scientists know about it. Once you do that, go back to your basic Critical Thinking Textbook -- you know, the one you would have if it was actually taught to school kids like it should be -- and review where intuition falls on the heirarchy of reliability.

I was taught critical thinking it was alive and well in the early 80's prior to the 'back to basics' push.  I don't put intuition too high, in fact I am critical of that position you wish me to find out it has in mainstream thought. I think intuition is better than that, and so it should be, we are bombarded full peg with data before we reason out a conscious answer, it takes us a long time to normalise the incredible amount of information and sense data we take in into a conscious idea, however all the data needed is available long before that happens, and intuition is the result. It's not always reliable, but then rational processes are not always reliable either. Both require a pretty much equal dose of skepticism, so why intuition should be considered generally unreliable compared to rational processes is beyond me.  However, suit yourself, I don't need the intuitions of old to hold my position, I'm happy.  

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Quote: Read the thread

Quote:
Read the thread Hamby, I'm hiding absolutely nothing. I posted before you to tell you that you had mistaken the reason why I posted those links. It's right there in black and white. There was nothing to disavow, they were random people who identified as seekers, I hadn't ever read a word of what they were saying and I really don't care what they said. The point is, contigent god believers are not a figment of my imagination and I have proved it. Would you like to go back to the discussion from that point?

Eloise, you're delusional.  You show me some people who spout some shit about seeking higher truth and gurus and true spirituality, and this proves contingent belief?

We can keep going back and forth all day, but the only two choices are:

1) You don't understand the difference between contingent and non-contingent faith (in which case, I don't think I can help you)

or

2) You're terribly confused, or lying, or lying to yourself (in which case, I probably can't help you)

I'm not trying to be mean.  I just can't think of any other way to explain it to you so you can understand.  There's one more thing you may not be comprehending, so I'll toss it out there.  Belief in other people is a contingent belief.  If you've always showed up to work on time, I have a contingent belief that tomorrow you will show up to work on time.  If you've always been honest with me, I have a contingent belief that you will continue to do so.

However, and this is a very important point, belief in the word of other people is not sufficient contingency for belief in something that is supposed to be beyond logic.  All signs point to trusting logic, empiricism, and probability over the judgement of people.  Saying that there are tons of people who believe they have spirituality is not proving contingency.  It's simply demonstrating that there are a lot of people who believe things that are illogical.  This is why I asked you to review what intuition is, and where it falls on the heirarchy of reliability.  

 

Quote:
I certainly do hope Deluded reads this thread. We've had a similar discussion to this one, the first discussion I ever had on RRS. I don't mind DG at all, and I think he is a cool atheist. If he dislikes me equating light and virtual particles .... well he probably won't do that, actually.

I have no problem with equating light and virtual particles.  I have problems with you insinuating that quantum physics in any way explains the spirit world.  I know DG does, too.  I've seen him thoroughly refute the position.

 

Quote:
To back off the claim that the spirit world has anything to do with light and energy popping into our reality from strange quarters would be intellectually dishonest. That's what the spirit world is about.

Naked assertion.  The spirit world is undefined, unfalsifiable, and obviously unprovable.

 

Quote:
Smack away, Hamby.  Either it's something people thought up to explain their existence or it's not. Who's going to tell me it's not?

You're backing off of what you said.  I'll leave you to your olympic backpedal.

 

Quote:

C) Finally, you need to do some real study about what intuition is, and more importantly, what it isn't.

 

naked assertion.

What the fuck?  I haven't asserted anything.

 

Quote:
I think intuition is better than that, and so it should be, we are bombarded full peg with data before we reason out a conscious answer, it takes us a long time to normalise the incredible amount of information and sense data we take in into a conscious idea, however all the data needed is available long before that happens, and intuition is the result.

This is precisely why I want you to do some study about what intuition is good for.  It's really good for spur of the moment decisions.  If you get a tickle at the back of your brain about the guy at the door, it's often best to leave the chain on the door.  Intuition is decidedly inferior for coming to complex rational conclusions when the time is available to do proper critical thinking.  This is not in debate.   This is scientifically verified, over and over and over and over.

 

Quote:
It's not always reliable, but then rational processes are not always reliable either.

Syllogism is 100% reliable if the premises are true and the form is valid.

Probability is extraordinarily reliable with enough information.  Our use of rational processes is not always reliable.  That's why we put them in print and let other people examine them for fallacies.

Seriously, this is the third time in this thread I've had to explain something to you that seemed completely obvious.  Are you being intentionally obtuse, or do you really think that intuition is on a par with logic?   If you do, then this discussion is over because you're demonstrably illogical and irrational.

 

Quote:
Both require a pretty much equal dose of skepticism, so why intuition should be considered generally unreliable compared to rational processes is beyond me.

That is so bizarre and incredibly mistaken that I don't even know how to respond to it.   Please, do what I asked and read about what intuition is, and read some of the studies available at any university library where it has been demonstrated over and over that intuition is good for snap decisions, but is virtually useless for more complicated problems.

 

Quote:
However, suit yourself, I don't need the intuitions of old to hold my position, I'm happy. 

Other than feeling like I've repeatedly banged my head against a wall, I'm pretty happy, too.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
To say 'wave unity shit' is just projecting the 'woo woo' image you think is me onto what I am saying instead of actually noting what I am saying.

Truthfully, it's incomprehensible to me. Could you point me to the peer reviewed science journal that explains it?

 

Ah whatever then here are three main views:

Metaphysics of non-locality -

 http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000PhDT.........7J

C-T-D 

 http://coblitz.codeen.org:3125/citeseer.ist.psu.edu/cache/papers/cs/13701/http:zSzzSzwww.qubit.orgzSzresourcezSzdeutsch85.pdf/deutsch85quantum.pdf

 Bohm Schotastic non-locality 

http://archive.numdam.org/ARCHIVE/AIHPA/AIHPA_1988__49_3/AIHPA_1988__49_3_287_0/AIHPA_1988__49_3_287_0.pdf

 Helpful? 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
Read the thread Hamby, I'm hiding absolutely nothing. I posted before you to tell you that you had mistaken the reason why I posted those links. It's right there in black and white. There was nothing to disavow, they were random people who identified as seekers, I hadn't ever read a word of what they were saying and I really don't care what they said. The point is, contigent god believers are not a figment of my imagination and I have proved it. Would you like to go back to the discussion from that point?

Eloise, you're delusional.

Niice. This is your refutation?

Quote:

You show me some people who spout some shit about seeking higher truth and gurus and true spirituality, and this proves contingent belief?

Of course it does. you're using an appeal to ridicule, logical fallacy. Calling it 'spouting shit' doesn't refute jack squat, Hamby, as long as the shit they're spouting says "seeking higher truth" it's contingent belief, conditional trust, rationalised by probability. That's all there is to it.

just as occurred the last time we had this conversation you are employing wilful ignorance to abscond from the facts presented. It's becoming clear that you will not steer from that course, I probably should have realised that long ago, if you're going to ignore the argument the first three times you're going to continue to ignore it the next twenty times too. There's no point continuing.

 

 

Quote:

We can keep going back and forth all day, but the only two choices are:

1) You don't understand the difference between contingent and non-contingent faith (in which case, I don't think I can help you)

or

2) You're terribly confused, or lying, or lying to yourself (in which case, I probably can't help you)

False dichotomy:

Option 3. Hamby is wilfully ignoring the evidence presented and pointed out, and pointed out, and pointed out again.

Quote:

I'm not trying to be mean. I just can't think of any other way to explain it to you so you can understand. There's one more thing you may not be comprehending, so I'll toss it out there. Belief in other people is a contingent belief. If you've always showed up to work on time, I have a contingent belief that tomorrow you will show up to work on time. If you've always been honest with me, I have a contingent belief that you will continue to do so.

However, and this is a very important point, belief in the word of other people is not sufficient contingency for belief in something that is supposed to be beyond logic.

The belief is not in the word of other people, Hamby, the belief is in the probability that there is some insight in the word of other people. This is a sufficient contingency.

As for the 'something that is beyond logic' there you go with the specific culture of moderate thinking again, that is a sweeping and false generalisation, but I suppose I shall have to find more evidence for that now which you will promptly challenge for the sake of it, ignore, misinterpret and then ignore some more, right?

 

 

Quote:
Quote:
I certainly do hope Deluded reads this thread. We've had a similar discussion to this one, the first discussion I ever had on RRS. I don't mind DG at all, and I think he is a cool atheist. If he dislikes me equating light and virtual particles .... well he probably won't do that, actually.

I have no problem with equating light and virtual particles. I have problems with you insinuating that quantum physics in any way explains the spirit world. I know DG does, too. I've seen him thoroughly refute the position.

Then let him come refute. I think you need to see that you are misreading my position.

 

Quote:
Quote:
To back off the claim that the spirit world has anything to do with light and energy popping into our reality from strange quarters would be intellectually dishonest. That's what the spirit world is about.

Naked assertion. The spirit world is undefined, unfalsifiable, and obviously unprovable.

Oh for Shit's sake!!! Now I have to find more evidence for you to ignore, mistake, ignore? surely you know this much? you seem to know so much about christian doctrine and their book is riddled with your evidence for the claim that spirit is defined as light/energy . Try again.

 

 

Quote:
Quote:
Smack away, Hamby. Either it's something people thought up to explain their existence or it's not. Who's going to tell me it's not?

You're backing off of what you said. I'll leave you to your olympic backpedal.

That's no backpedal Hamby, thats an invitation. Your response is evidence enough to me that you have read every thing I have written here with eloise-is-deluded-coloured lenses and missed completely that the entirety of my original assertion on this thread is pure physicalism.

we're done. Just last week Hamby, you were my favourite poster here (strange how things turn isn't it?) I have always respected you for your integrity (of all things?) but this discussion seems to have turned from a level debate from two sides of an idea into an endless litany of confirmation biased conclusions about the colour of my mental health and/or knowledge. I'm sorry, I just can't keep going here with you.

 

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is onlineOnline
Hambydammit

Hambydammit wrote:

Quote:
To say 'wave unity shit' is just projecting the 'woo woo' image you think is me onto what I am saying instead of actually noting what I am saying.

Truthfully, it's incomprehensible to me. Could you point me to the peer reviewed science journal that explains it?

 

 

Not to be a smartass, but the wave could take the form of

 

Hy=Ey

 

 

>_>

 

At least that's where I get my wave arguments from. 


Jacob Cordingley
SuperfanBronze Member
Jacob Cordingley's picture
Posts: 1484
Joined: 2007-03-18
User is offlineOffline
Atheists are cool and do

Atheists are cool and do live meaningful lives. Thank you. I'm sorry I can't add to your list because I'm not a theist but if I was I'd probably say that atheists are cool and live meaningful lives. Although if I was I'd probably be a hell of a lot stupider.