Dr. Dino's Challenge Accepted... again

Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
Dr. Dino's Challenge Accepted... again

http://web.archive.org/web/20060526053859/http://ne-plus-ultra.net/pubs/kisby_hovindarticle_rev2.pdf

 

Unfortunately, my stupid little copy of Acrobat won't let me cut and paste this article.  Can someone else do 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


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2399
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

 

               I'm not dishonest I am an atheist. I  have a complete  disbelief in all gods. Your so called proof of your god is no different then any other proof of any other god,  since you do NOT believe in any other god you must be an atheist also, except I disbelieve in one MORE god then you.   Life is so much calmer without a dogma to dog my days.  Thank you  Richard Dawkins.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:If everyone

hanntonn wrote:

If everyone of you are not against the faith idea, why is that that you talk about my faith in a mind as the first cause as being naive, yet you think your faith is less naive. Why is that? if there is no proof on either sides, then it is just a question of opinion as to why something is naive or not. So, why should I care about your opinion?

If someone think that it is unlikely that God exist, then it might also be likely that he exists. If not, why?

I don't care about what you guys think about religious people or the Bible, etc, etc. If you think the God of the Bible is inconsistent, then imagine another God as you like him except that he has free will. Then, and only then you can start talking about arguing against the possibility of it existence. If you have nothing to prove it, then your atheism is not more rational than any faith.

By the way, an atheist mean someone that believe that God doesn't exist. An agnostic is someone that doesn't know if God exist or not. So an agnostic atheist would be someone that don't know if God exist, but believe that God doesn't exist. If this is your title, then your opinion on God is only supported by your faith. So, your opinion do not even matter since faith is something irrational.

Because you equate your faith with knowledge while lacking evidence to support it.

You claim that you know a mind created the universe because you believe it. However, you can't articulate any basis for your belief than "It makes me feel good"

How about this instead - instead of imagining another God, why don't we put our time and energy toward making society better for the people who are actually here? Have you thought about that or are you too heavenly minded to be of earthly good?

No, an atheist is a person who holds no belief in gods period. It is a standard of belief. Agnosticism is a standard of knowledge and is as you claim. Belief and knowledge are not the same things. If you have knowledge of something, you don't need a belief in that something as well. Do you know 2+2=4 or do you just believe it but haven't proved it yet?

Faith may be irrational. However, the definition I used included a need for evidence. I notice you bypassed that one to crush the straw man you built. congrats.

"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


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
The problem with you

The problem with you atheists is that you don't understand what is the meaning of evidence. An evidence is something irrefutably true. If we make the leap of faith that this world is not an illusion, then after this, to prove that God can't have created the Universe, you must see an observation through your senses in the world that shows order and free will cannot be made by a supernatural mind. This is impossible to show. So, believing that God can't exist on that basis is clearly irrational.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:The problem

hanntonn wrote:

The problem with you atheists is that you don't understand what is the meaning of evidence. An evidence is something irrefutably true. If we make the leap of faith that this world is not an illusion, then after this, to prove that God can't have created the Universe, you must see an observation through your senses in the world that shows order and free will cannot be made by a supernatural mind. This is impossible to show. So, believing that God can't exist on that basis is clearly irrational.

Another straw man or did I miss this one from earlier?

We have evidence that the world is not illusory. No one has claimed that the world is an illusion. This may shock you but The Matrix is fictional.

If the leap of faith is that God didn't create the universe you must have something to show that your position is legitimate.

Where is it?

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


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2399
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
WTF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

hanntonn wrote:

The problem with you atheists is that you don't understand what is the meaning of evidence. An evidence is something irrefutably true. If we make the leap of faith that this world is not an illusion, then after this, to prove that God can't have created the Universe, you must see an observation through your senses in the world that shows order and free will cannot be made by a supernatural mind. This is impossible to show. So, believing that God can't exist on that basis is clearly irrational.

                             Why would I need a "Leap of Faith"   that the world is "Not  an  illusion"?  After that  'if god created the universe'  what is your evidence? And yes "seeing the world has  [natural] order and that free will  cannot be made by a supernatural mind is TRUE!!!!!!!!!!  How can you call yourself a theist with such things springing forth from your fingertips?

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5853
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:Bob, even if

hanntonn wrote:

Bob, even if there were new information arising in genes, what I don't think you've proved (but I don't want to get away from the subject), even if a mind was not necessary for the existence of the Universe, it could still be true that a mind caused the Universe. There are no objection there. You've flawed nothing of what I said. Teacups orbiting Jupiter have no basis to be there. There are even no indications there could be teacups there. As to the existence of God, since you've said that a primary cause is possible, a mind causing the Universe is clearly possible even in your mind. You just don't like what type of God it could be. For that part, I won't object, it's not my point.

If Faith is really believing what is not, then I must be wrong in thinking my senses are not illusions of a false world.

You said mutation cannot generate new information. That HAS been disproved.

The point of the teacup (from famous philosopher Bertrand Russell), is that the common argument we get that tends to rely on statements like we "can't show that God is impossible", or we "can't prove God doesn't exist", is silly, since it can with equal logical validity be applied to such fanciful ideas as the possible existence of a porcelain teacup in orbit around some body in the Solar System.

I said that identifying that first cause with a mind simply makes no sense - it would require us to assume the existence of a mind utterly different in so many ways from any we have any experience of as to be without any serious justification. You would not only have to believe in disembodied minds, you have to believe in magic abilities, such as the ability to 'will' something into existence...

And that all the evidence is that minds are dependent, emergent phenomena, not primary elements of existence. So it is clearly impossible in my mind, or as close to impossible as makes no practical difference.

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5853
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:The problem

hanntonn wrote:

The problem with you atheists is that you don't understand what is the meaning of evidence. An evidence is something irrefutably true. If we make the leap of faith that this world is not an illusion, then after this, to prove that God can't have created the Universe, you must see an observation through your senses in the world that shows order and free will cannot be made by a supernatural mind. This is impossible to show. So, believing that God can't exist on that basis is clearly irrational.

No, evidence is just facts that point to a particular event being more likely to have occurred than not.

We don't need to prove God can't create the universe.

We can show in trivial ways that order definitely does not require a God, a mind.

Free will is a misconception - the perception of having free will exists, but in no way establishes that any choices are not ultimately determined by the immediately preceding state of your mind and the environment.

It has been shown that a Universe originating from non-supernatural causes is definitely possible, so it is NOT necessary to show that the universe cannot be made by a supernatural mind, merely that we have better explanations, that are more consistent with the actual evidence, such as it is.

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


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:The problem

hanntonn wrote:

The problem with you atheists is that you don't understand what is the meaning of evidence. An evidence is something irrefutably true. If we make the leap of faith that this world is not an illusion, then after this, to prove that God can't have created the Universe, you must see an observation through your senses in the world that shows order and free will cannot be made by a supernatural mind. This is impossible to show. So, believing that God can't exist on that basis is clearly irrational.

 

Evidence is something measurable.  Height, length, breadth, circumference, chemical analysis, radiation, electromagnetic properties - if you can measure it in some fashion, it exists in reality.  We can measure radiation that we can not see - x-rays, infrared, ultraviolet - agreed?  And we can see the results of over (or under) exposure - sun burns, pictures of our bones, heat, radiation sickness - agreed?  So they exist.  Emotions exist - we can create pictures of our brain's response to emotions (PET, fMRI, etc) and we can analyze and measure the chemical changes in hormone composition in our brain and blood stream as a result of emotions. 

So where is god/s/dess?  How do you measure him/her/it/them?  What impact do they have on reality? 

Saying that god/s/dess kicked off the big bang is not evidence.  Proving it (or not) using some philosophical argument is not evidence it happened.  Get some videos, get some physical or chemical evidence.  Until then, I choose not to believe your "evidence" since it is no such thing.  Honest scientists say they don't have that evidence, but they are exploring ways to discover it.

Oh, and flagellum?  Even Answers in Genesis says not to use that argument anymore as it has been demonstrated how flagellum evolved.  The guys going around doing no research, making tons of money doing the speaker circuit, talking to audiences composed of people who want to believe, keep repeating it as they don't want to lose their income.  If they stopped lying about flagellum, they wouldn't be able to make the payments on their mcmansions and luxury cars.
 

 

-- 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.


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:We have

jcgadfly wrote:

We have evidence that the world is not illusory.

Show them to me if you have evidence. Show me the proof that what I see is not illusory and that the rationality by which I comprehend the reality is not illusory also. If you say that the evidence is that I can doubt, but it could be that even our doubting is something all predetermined and illusory. In fact, Bob would agree with me since there is no real freedom to his view. One could say that at least the illusion is real, but even this could be only an illusion. This may not sound logical, but no one has ever proved that logics must be logical.

jcgadfly wrote:
If the leap of faith is that God didn't create the universe you must have something to show that your position is legitimate.

No, the leap of faith is believing that our reason really works and that the observable reality is real also. After this, there are no need for a leap of faith. We follow the best evidence. I don't have to show why my position is legitimate. Basing myself on the faith that my reason works well, I came to the conclusion that God exists. I didn't ask you to believe me. I asked atheists for proofs that they can really call them atheists and not only agnostics. It's not because atheists are asking for evidences that they are somehow more rational. I've never seen Australia, yet I believe it does exist. Am I irrational to believe such a thing? Sometimes asking for evidences is what becomes irrational. As for example, Should you ask your wife for evidence that she loves you? In this case, asking such a thing would be madness. If a lot of people were running away from some place and would tell you that they are running because there is a cloud of insects that bite people to death that is heading towards you, would you go to look at the evidence directly or would you run and get special clothes on before heading to the cloud of insects? It's the same thing for the idea of God. If you've nothing to lose to believe in a God, why should you anger him with insults if there is even a slightest possibility that he exists. The answer is that you should be as careful with God as you should be with the cloud of insects if he is really your creator. Because if you don't, you might wake-up without anything gained from your life and everything lost.


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick

Jeffrick wrote:

                           Why would I need a "Leap of Faith"   that the world is "Not  an  illusion"?
You need a leap of faith because you can't know anything if the world is an illusion. But since you can't prove rationally that the world is real since your rationality may also be an illusion, you need to make the leap of faith that at least your rationality does work really and is not an illusion.
Jeffrick wrote:
After that  'if god created the universe'  what is your evidence? And yes "seeing the world has  [natural] order and that free will  cannot be made by a supernatural mind is TRUE!!!!!!!!!!  How can you call yourself a theist with such things springing forth from your fingertips?

I don't understand this part of your reasoning. I may just comment before you instruct me on this that as a theist, I don't have limitation. The world could have been made randomly or by spontaneity and God could still have caused those thing. God could exist even if his existence could be completely non-apparent.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5853
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:Jeffrick

hanntonn wrote:

Jeffrick wrote:

                           Why would I need a "Leap of Faith"   that the world is "Not  an  illusion"?
You need a leap of faith because you can't know anything if the world is an illusion. But since you can't prove rationally that the world is real since your rationality may also be an illusion, you need to make the leap of faith that at least your rationality does work really and is not an illusion.
Jeffrick wrote:
After that  'if god created the universe'  what is your evidence? And yes "seeing the world has  [natural] order and that free will  cannot be made by a supernatural mind is TRUE!!!!!!!!!!  How can you call yourself a theist with such things springing forth from your fingertips?

I don't understand this part of your reasoning. I may just comment before you instruct me on this that as a theist, I don't have limitation. The world could have been made randomly or by spontaneity and God could still have caused those thing. God could exist even if his existence could be completely non-apparent.

You don't need a leap of faith that the world is not illusory, it is the default position, so it is the simplest working assumption until proved otherwise.

OTOH, if you assume the Universe is under the control of a sentient super-being, that is when you have to logically admit you can know nothing, since such a being can change anything at a whim, could make you see or believe anything, and you could have no way to detect his deceptions.

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


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Because you

jcgadfly wrote:

Because you equate your faith with knowledge while lacking evidence to support it.

You equaly have no evidence of the contrary.

jcgadfly wrote:
You claim that you know a mind created the universe because you believe it. However, you can't articulate any basis for your belief than "It makes me feel good"

It's not the case, but if it was, what would be wrong with it. If there are no evidence of anything that may give a purpose to life, that doesn't prove it would be bad that I live in that illusion. Don't you like living in the illusion that God doesn't exist?

jcgadfly wrote:
How about this instead - instead of imagining another God, why don't we put our time and energy toward making society better for the people who are actually here? Have you thought about that or are you too heavenly minded to be of earthly good?

There's nothing contrary here. Christianism for example, if you read the Gospel, is all about making society better. Examples such as Mother Teresa, Jean Vanier, Brother André (he has just been canonized) are very good examples of people making society better. This, we've never seen such things among atheists.

jcgadfly wrote:
No, an atheist is a person who holds no belief in gods period. It is a standard of belief. Agnosticism is a standard of knowledge and is as you claim. Belief and knowledge are not the same things. If you have knowledge of something, you don't need a belief in that something as well. Do you know 2+2=4 or do you just believe it but haven't proved it yet? 

You need to explain what is the difference then between someone that have never heard about God, therefore holding no belief in a God and an atheist which is more like a person which has heard about God, but hold a belief in a non-God cause for the Universe. There is a difference between both which you don't seem to see.

jcgadfly wrote:
Faith may be irrational. However, the definition I used included a need for evidence. I notice you bypassed that one to crush the straw man you built. congrats.

Faith is not irrational it is the basis on which you build every reasoning. Every premises, assumptions in a deduction are statements of faith. You always need a statement of faith to make any reasoning. To have no statement of faith (no premises) render impossible reasoning. Therefore, reasoning without faith is irrational. Your need for evidences need to prove, if faith is irrational, that these evidences are really evidences. Why shouldn't they be illusion of reality. What evidence is there that your reason, the process by which you comprehend evidences really works?


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2399
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn

hanntonn wrote:

Jeffrick wrote:

                           Why would I need a "Leap of Faith"   that the world is "Not  an  illusion"?
You need a leap of faith because you can't know anything if the world is an illusion. But since you can't prove rationally that the world is real since your rationality may also be an illusion, you need to make the leap of faith that at least your rationality does work really and is not an illusion.
Jeffrick wrote:
After that  'if god created the universe'  what is your evidence? And yes "seeing the world has  [natural] order and that free will  cannot be made by a supernatural mind is TRUE!!!!!!!!!!  How can you call yourself a theist with such things springing forth from your fingertips?

I don't understand this part of your reasoning. I may just comment before you instruct me on this that as a theist, I don't have limitation. The world could have been made randomly or by spontaneity and God could still have caused those thing. God could exist even if his existence could be completely non-apparent.

 

                         ................ What kind of medications does your psychiatrist have you on,  and why aren't you takeing them?

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:No,

BobSpence1 wrote:

No, evidence is just facts that point to a particular event being more likely to have occurred than not.

Facts are not facts if not by a statement of faith that the world is real.

BobSpence1 wrote:
We don't need to prove God can't create the universe.

You need to prove it in order to tell God believers that they are naive and irrational. If not, they are no more naive than you are.

BobSpence1 wrote:
We can show in trivial ways that order definitely does not require a God, a mind.

You can't show though that order can't permit the existence of God.

BobSpence1 wrote:
Free will is a misconception - the perception of having free will exists, but in no way establishes that any choices are not ultimately determined by the immediately preceding state of your mind and the environment.

There's no point in trying to convince anyone then. We're just executing the processes were determined to do and no one is brighter than anyone to believe this or this. Why try to convince believers then. There is nothing brighter in the belief that you've been determined to believe in.

BobSpence1 wrote:
It has been shown that a Universe originating from non-supernatural causes is definitely possible, so it is NOT necessary to show that the universe cannot be made by a supernatural mind, merely that we have better explanations, that are more consistent with the actual evidence, such as it is.

I don't think you've better evidences. And since the belief in God or in any other cause doesn't change anything in our life either by making us richer or more intelligent, then there is no proof why I should care about what you think are better evidences.


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

hanntonn wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Because you equate your faith with knowledge while lacking evidence to support it.

You equaly have no evidence of the contrary.

jcgadfly wrote:
You claim that you know a mind created the universe because you believe it. However, you can't articulate any basis for your belief than "It makes me feel good"

It's not the case, but if it was, what would be wrong with it. If there are no evidence of anything that may give a purpose to life, that doesn't prove it would be bad that I live in that illusion. Don't you like living in the illusion that God doesn't exist?

jcgadfly wrote:
How about this instead - instead of imagining another God, why don't we put our time and energy toward making society better for the people who are actually here? Have you thought about that or are you too heavenly minded to be of earthly good?

There's nothing contrary here. Christianism for example, if you read the Gospel, is all about making society better. Examples such as Mother Teresa, Jean Vanier, Brother André (he has just been canonized) are very good examples of people making society better. This, we've never seen such things among atheists.

jcgadfly wrote:
No, an atheist is a person who holds no belief in gods period. It is a standard of belief. Agnosticism is a standard of knowledge and is as you claim. Belief and knowledge are not the same things. If you have knowledge of something, you don't need a belief in that something as well. Do you know 2+2=4 or do you just believe it but haven't proved it yet? 

You need to explain what is the difference then between someone that have never heard about God, therefore holding no belief in a God and an atheist which is more like a person which has heard about God, but hold a belief in a non-God cause for the Universe. There is a difference between both which you don't seem to see.

jcgadfly wrote:
Faith may be irrational. However, the definition I used included a need for evidence. I notice you bypassed that one to crush the straw man you built. congrats.

Faith is not irrational it is the basis on which you build every reasoning. Every premises, assumptions in a deduction are statements of faith. You always need a statement of faith to make any reasoning. To have no statement of faith (no premises) render impossible reasoning. Therefore, reasoning without faith is irrational. Your need for evidences need to prove, if faith is irrational, that these evidences are really evidences. Why shouldn't they be illusion of reality. What evidence is there that your reason, the process by which you comprehend evidences really works?

1. Yes, and I don't claim to have knowledge that a god doesn't exist. I do have evidence (given to me by the writers of the Bible, Qu'ran and Torah - thanks guys) that the Abrahamic God doesn't exist. You claim that you know the God of the Bible solely because you have faith (despite the evidence that science and observation gives you).

2. Don't know the other two but saying that Mother Teresa made society better by gathering up people to die in one place while traveling the world collecting money to not help these people is a large stretch. Read Hitchens' information about her. You don't see atheists' doing good for society because there are fewer attention whores in the atheistic ranks.

3. Simple - The person who has never heard about God hasn't heard the BS that theists pass of as knowledge of God. The atheist has heard it and realizes that it's BS. There is no belief in a non-God just like not collecting stamps is not a hobby. I see the difference quite well - you're the one with vision problems.

4. You don't know the difference between a premise and an assumption? This explains much.

"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


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick

Jeffrick wrote:


                         ................ What kind of medications does your psychiatrist have you on,  and why aren't you takeing them?

Well, he gives me usually what is called Sandrodibothus Menthanolus. It's a very special medication that you won't even find in pharmacy because it is a very strong medication. He also gives me 1% liquid Cokaine that I inject in my veins. I must also take 20 red bulls each day. I must go sometimes in Colombia because the Cokaine that we have here is not strong enough. Sometimes, there are side effects of this and I must calm myself by plugging myself on the 550 Volts current. But you should try this.... it feels soooooo good   Anyway, isn't that all what life is about.


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:1. Yes, and I

jcgadfly wrote:

1. Yes, and I don't claim to have knowledge that a god doesn't exist. I do have evidence (given to me by the writers of the Bible, Qu'ran and Torah - thanks guys) that the Abrahamic God doesn't exist. You claim that you know the God of the Bible solely because you have faith (despite the evidence that science and observation gives you).

This would be possible to be discussed. But it's outside our discussion, so there is no need to comment on this. I don't argue about the existence of any God that you know, but an objective one that is possible to learn about scientifically. But since my reasons were ignored, I had to confront the atheists as to why they that God believers are naive if they have no rational reason to say that God don't exist.

jcgadfly wrote:
Don't know the other two but saying that Mother Teresa made society better by gathering up people to die in one place while traveling the world collecting money to not help these people is a large stretch. Read Hitchens' information about her. You don't see atheists' doing good for society because there are fewer attention whores in the atheistic ranks.

You say this because you have no knowledge about human dignity. Yes, Mother Teresa helped people that were going to die anyway. She only gave them a purpose to be happy in their sufferings even through their deaths. But since you don't consider that human need to die a happy death, because you don't believe in a post-mortem life, you would certainly prefer to tell these people to die through euthanasia or to get kill by mass murder (why not they're going to die anyway from diseases). And after this, you are still able to call yourself good. This is what does subjective morality.

jcgadfly wrote:
3. Simple - The person who has never heard about God hasn't heard the BS that theists pass of as knowledge of God. The atheist has heard it and realizes that it's BS. There is no belief in a non-God just like not collecting stamps is not a hobby. I see the difference quite well - you're the one with vision problems.

There is always a belief in a non-God when there is anger towards God-believers, which is something that would not happen if there was no non-God belief. This is all what atheism is about.

jcgadfly wrote:
4. You don't know the difference between a premise and an assumption? This explains much.

every premise depends somewhere on an assumption because the assumption is the bases. So a premise is also an assumption in so much as if the assumption happen to be false at the foundation of the reasoning, then every premise formed from the assumptions will also be false. So, in the end, yes a premise is also an assumption. We should even say that if it is true that we can't prove that our reasoning is functioning well, then the work of reasoning must also be assumed. This cause that everything we think in life is assumed since it basis is also assumed.


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2399
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn

hanntonn wrote:

Jeffrick wrote:


 

                         ................ What kind of medications does your psychiatrist have you on,  and why aren't you takeing them?

Well, he gives me usually what is called Sandrodibothus Menthanolus. It's a very special medication that you won't even find in pharmacy because it is a very strong medication. He also gives me 1% liquid Cokaine that I inject in my veins. I must also take 20 red bulls each day. I must go sometimes in Colombia because the Cokaine that we have here is not strong enough. Sometimes, there are side effects of this and I must calm myself by plugging myself on the 550 Volts current. But you should try this.... it feels soooooo good   Anyway, isn't that all what life is about.

 

 

                     I believe you,   it explains a lot.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:BobSpence1

hanntonn wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

No, evidence is just facts that point to a particular event being more likely to have occurred than not.

Facts are not facts if not by a statement of faith that the world is real.

 

Dude, you think we are living in a version of The Matrix?  Hello, that is science fiction - fiction, get it?  It isn't / wasn't real and it was really lousy sci-fi at that.  Trust me - I started reading sci-fi when I was in the third grade, I have been reading sci-fi for over 50 years now and it was a really overworked premise and the movie was lame.  I've seen better special effects in Hong Kong kung fu movies.

Reality is what you see, feel, touch, taste, hear, deal with as you go through life eating and fucking and shitting.  I would think a good orgasm - self generated or with the assistance of a friendly friend - would convince you of the realness of this world.  I don't have "faith" that the world is real.  I have experience in the reality.  And so do you.

-- 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.


Anonymouse
atheist
Posts: 1687
Joined: 2008-05-04
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:...a

hanntonn wrote:
...a non-God...

 

What's a "non-God" ?

Hey, if I don't believe in a "non-God", does that mean I actually believe in a non-non-God ?

Neat.

 

Btw, no offense, but is english your first language ?


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:OTOH, if

BobSpence1 wrote:

OTOH, if you assume the Universe is under the control of a sentient super-being, that is when you have to logically admit you can know nothing, since such a being can change anything at a whim, could make you see or believe anything, and you could have no way to detect his deceptions.

What you say about the illusions of a sentient super-being could also be true even if God didn't exist. There is no way you can know for sure that this world is an illusion. O wait, in fact, isn't what you actually believe? There is only an illusion of free will, why not an illusion of consciousness and an illusion of reasoning also. we're then not far from a world of deceptions. Why shouldn't God exist after this? It won't change anything.

BobSpence1 wrote:
it is the default position, so it is the simplest working assumption until proved otherwise.

Is any wrong position of yours making your assumptions more true before it is proven wrong? So you're going to tell everyone that one of your assumptions is true and when you're going to be proven wrong, you're going to tell them that you were right back then and now you are wrong? When you are going to die and find out that God exists, will you say to everyone that God was not existing in fact when you were alive, but now that it's the best assumption then it must be true now. Isn't this better to be careful when forming an assumption to make sure you don't look like a fool when you are proven wrong? it's very easy to show that there is no better assumption between believing in God or not. When we die, we won't keep any pleasure or memories. So, to believe in God, there is something to gain or to lose by not believing. But if he doesn't exist, you're not going to look like a fool, you'll be dead. So, the only ones that can look like fools when dead are wicked men. And refusing to accept the truth or not giving a chance to the truth to be heard is to be wicked.


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick

Jeffrick wrote:

                     I believe you,   it explains a lot.

Thanks! when are you coming to get stoned with me?


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5853
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:BobSpence1

hanntonn wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

No, evidence is just facts that point to a particular event being more likely to have occurred than not.

Facts are not facts if not by a statement of faith that the world is real.

No. Within the context of what we observe, as long as we can agree as to what we both appear to be seeing, the fact we are agreeing on is that it looks like X, regardless of whether what we both think we are looking at is actually X if viewed from some other context. So long as we share the same context, the ultimate truth is irrelevant for the purposes of discussion.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
We don't need to prove God can't create the universe.

You need to prove it in order to tell God believers that they are naive and irrational. If not, they are no more naive than you are.

No. We just need to show that our explanation is much more justifiable and supported by evidence.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
We can show in trivial ways that order definitely does not require a God, a mind.

You can't show though that order can't permit the existence of God.

I wasn't trying to. I was showing that you were wrong in insisting that order is only possible with God.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
Free will is a misconception - the perception of having free will exists, but in no way establishes that any choices are not ultimately determined by the immediately preceding state of your mind and the environment.

There's no point in trying to convince anyone then. We're just executing the processes were determined to do and no one is brighter than anyone to believe this or this. Why try to convince believers then. There is nothing brighter in the belief that you've been determined to believe in.

No. It implies the very opposite. If what a person chooses to believe is determined, among other things, by what evidence is presented to them, which is what I have been saying, it is definitely worth pointing it out to them.

If their choices as to what to believe are not determined by such things, then it would be pointless,

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
It has been shown that a Universe originating from non-supernatural causes is definitely possible, so it is NOT necessary to show that the universe cannot be made by a supernatural mind, merely that we have better explanations, that are more consistent with the actual evidence, such as it is.

I don't think you've better evidences. And since the belief in God or in any other cause doesn't change anything in our life either by making us richer or more intelligent, then there is no proof why I should care about what you think are better evidences.

Thank you for finally admitting you don't f**king care what evidence and clear disproof of your ideas I present to you, you are gonna keep believing in your fantasy, and f**k the truth.

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5853
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:BobSpence1

hanntonn wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

OTOH, if you assume the Universe is under the control of a sentient super-being, that is when you have to logically admit you can know nothing, since such a being can change anything at a whim, could make you see or believe anything, and you could have no way to detect his deceptions.

What you say about the illusions of a sentient super-being could also be true even if God didn't exist. There is no way you can know for sure that this world is an illusion. O wait, in fact, isn't what you actually believe? There is only an illusion of free will, why not an illusion of consciousness and an illusion of reasoning also. we're then not far from a world of deceptions. Why shouldn't God exist after this? It won't change anything.

If there is no such being able to intervene at any moment, then we can be more confident that there will be more consistency and stability, making it worth trying to understand how it all works. The success of Science suggests that this is the case.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
it is the default position, so it is the simplest working assumption until proved otherwise.

Is any wrong position of yours making your assumptions more true before it is proven wrong? So you're going to tell everyone that one of your assumptions is true and when you're going to be proven wrong, you're going to tell them that you were right back then and now you are wrong? When you are going to die and find out that God exists, will you say to everyone that God was not existing in fact when you were alive, but now that it's the best assumption then it must be true now. Isn't this better to be careful when forming an assumption to make sure you don't look like a fool when you are proven wrong? it's very easy to show that there is no better assumption between believing in God or not. When we die, we won't keep any pleasure or memories. So, to believe in God, there is something to gain or to lose by not believing. But if he doesn't exist, you're not going to look like a fool, you'll be dead. So, the only ones that can look like fools when dead are wicked men. And refusing to accept the truth or not giving a chance to the truth to be heard is to be wicked.

If I find there is a God when I die I will ask him why did he behave like such a dick towards mankind? And why did he set up the world in such a way that it looked to a careful, honest investigation exactly as we would expect it be if he did not exist, and then want to punish us for making the honest and natural assumption that he didn't exist?

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


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:No. Within

BobSpence1 wrote:

No. Within the context of what we observe, as long as we can agree as to what we both appear to be seeing, the fact we are agreeing on is that it looks like X, regardless of whether what we both think we are looking at is actually X if viewed from some other context. So long as we share the same context, the ultimate truth is irrelevant for the purposes of discussion.

You are right; it's out of context. Amusing stuff tough.

BobSpence1 wrote:

No. We just need to show that our explanation is much more justifiable and supported by evidence.

That, you didn't do it even if you think so, you're not being objective.

BobSpence1 wrote:

I wasn't trying to. I was showing that you were wrong in insisting that order is only possible with God.

I still think that, but since I failed to explain that to you, I changed my strategy.

BobSpence1 wrote:

No. It implies the very opposite. If what a person chooses to believe is determined, among other things, by what evidence is presented to them, which is what I have been saying, it is definitely worth pointing it out to them.

If their choices as to what to believe are not determined by such things, then it would be pointless,

That's not my point. If your beliefs are determined and not chosen, is also the fact that you try to convince others to your idea determined? Why do you bother convincing people? If it is determined, then, you won't be able to stop trying to convince others. Or maybe, this process could be random. You will say that if you find a reason, you may do that. But what about doing it just to see if you can have a free will. Will also this desire be deterministic?

BobSpence1 wrote:

Thank you for finally admitting you don't f**king care what evidence and clear disproof of your ideas I present to you, you are gonna keep believing in your fantasy, and f**k the truth.

That's not what I meant. I meant that there is no point to need to convince God believers if it doesn't change anything in our lives. Since there are no proofs that God doesn't exist, there will never be any moment in history that people will stop believing in God. So, it is useless to try to convince people that they should be atheist. In doing so, you are only doing your deterministic job to talk against God exactly like a dog barking against people can't stop by it own will. If you know your war is lost in advance, why keeping hope to convince everyone. This is the principal reason why you are angry.

 


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:If there is

BobSpence1 wrote:

If there is no such being able to intervene at any moment, then we can be more confident that there will be more consistency and stability, making it worth trying to understand how it all works. The success of Science suggests that this is the case.

You forget to say that science was created by God believers trying to explain the functions that God had made in nature. Logics is something that was created by God believers. The kind of reasoning that comes from superstition like the theory of evolution produce false conclusions from the datas. For example, there was the idea of the embryology before, which was something made up to prove evolution, there was a bunch of fossils falsely assemble to prove evolution. Lastly, which bad assumption was destroyed not long ago, there was the idea of the DNA scrap which was assumed because there was a bunch of non-coding DNA needed in order for evolution to be true. Now, there are less and less reasons to continue believing in evolution which is really the belief in spontaneity as a supreme cause in the Universe. This is a superstition. hopefully, the truth is being spread and there will soon be only be a few atheists  those that would never care about evidences. I know that you don't care about evidences when I know that even if I would prove to you that evolution can't happen, you would no more believe in God. So, this proves you don't care about the Truth.

Quote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
it is the default position, so it is the simplest working assumption until proved otherwise.

Is any wrong position of yours making your assumptions more true before it is proven wrong? So you're going to tell everyone that one of your assumptions is true and when you're going to be proven wrong, you're going to tell them that you were right back then and now you are wrong? When you are going to die and find out that God exists, will you say to everyone that God was not existing in fact when you were alive, but now that it's the best assumption then it must be true now. Isn't this better to be careful when forming an assumption to make sure you don't look like a fool when you are proven wrong? it's very easy to show that there is no better assumption between believing in God or not. When we die, we won't keep any pleasure or memories. So, to believe in God, there is something to gain or to lose by not believing. But if he doesn't exist, you're not going to look like a fool, you'll be dead. So, the only ones that can look like fools when dead are wicked men. And refusing to accept the truth or not giving a chance to the truth to be heard is to be wicked.

 


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

hanntonn wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

1. Yes, and I don't claim to have knowledge that a god doesn't exist. I do have evidence (given to me by the writers of the Bible, Qu'ran and Torah - thanks guys) that the Abrahamic God doesn't exist. You claim that you know the God of the Bible solely because you have faith (despite the evidence that science and observation gives you).

This would be possible to be discussed. But it's outside our discussion, so there is no need to comment on this. I don't argue about the existence of any God that you know, but an objective one that is possible to learn about scientifically. But since my reasons were ignored, I had to confront the atheists as to why they that God believers are naive if they have no rational reason to say that God don't exist.

jcgadfly wrote:
Don't know the other two but saying that Mother Teresa made society better by gathering up people to die in one place while traveling the world collecting money to not help these people is a large stretch. Read Hitchens' information about her. You don't see atheists' doing good for society because there are fewer attention whores in the atheistic ranks.

You say this because you have no knowledge about human dignity. Yes, Mother Teresa helped people that were going to die anyway. She only gave them a purpose to be happy in their sufferings even through their deaths. But since you don't consider that human need to die a happy death, because you don't believe in a post-mortem life, you would certainly prefer to tell these people to die through euthanasia or to get kill by mass murder (why not they're going to die anyway from diseases). And after this, you are still able to call yourself good. This is what does subjective morality.

jcgadfly wrote:
3. Simple - The person who has never heard about God hasn't heard the BS that theists pass of as knowledge of God. The atheist has heard it and realizes that it's BS. There is no belief in a non-God just like not collecting stamps is not a hobby. I see the difference quite well - you're the one with vision problems.

There is always a belief in a non-God when there is anger towards God-believers, which is something that would not happen if there was no non-God belief. This is all what atheism is about.

jcgadfly wrote:
4. You don't know the difference between a premise and an assumption? This explains much.

every premise depends somewhere on an assumption because the assumption is the bases. So a premise is also an assumption in so much as if the assumption happen to be false at the foundation of the reasoning, then every premise formed from the assumptions will also be false. So, in the end, yes a premise is also an assumption. We should even say that if it is true that we can't prove that our reasoning is functioning well, then the work of reasoning must also be assumed. This cause that everything we think in life is assumed since it basis is also assumed.

Now we get to what's under the manure you've been spreading.

You assume atheists hate God because they don't see any evidence for him? Did you ever bother thinking that if there was a God who loved humanity and he knew atheists needed evidence that he'd provide it. Since he hasn't, perhaps it's your God who hates unbelievers. So much for that wanting all to come to repentance crap. 

When did you give reasons for your objective God? I honestly haven't seen anything beyond your claim that you have faith.

Apologies. Assumption was the incorrect word. I meant to say that you were confusing premises and assertions.

"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


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Now we get to

jcgadfly wrote:

Now we get to what's under the manure you've been spreading.

You assume atheists hate God because they don't see any evidence for him? Did you ever bother thinking that if there was a God who loved humanity and he knew atheists needed evidence that he'd provide it. Since he hasn't, perhaps it's your God who hates unbelievers. So much for that wanting all to come to repentance crap.

No I assume atheists hate God because they can't accept the repentance crap. Why should God give you evidence of his existence? Are you greater than God so that you can command to him even though you are a sinner? If you don't see the evidence of God's presence in the beauty of the love of anyone to someone else, then you really can't comprehend God and this is why you don't see him. You need to look more with the eyes of the Hearth. If there is only hate in your hearth toward God, how can you see him who is only love? Finding God will give a purpose to your life. Without him your life will vanish without traces.

jcgadfly wrote:
When did you give reasons for your objective God? I honestly haven't seen anything beyond your claim that you have faith.

I've talked about the problem of the finite time Universe many time. I won't repeat myself again. This was all contained inside my first few posts. I don't remember which one.

jcgadfly wrote:
Apologies. Assumption was the incorrect word. I meant to say that you were confusing premises and assertions.

an assertion is someone's saying. A premise is an assumption prior to a deduction and a conclusion. But I may really confuse certain words. English is not my primary language.


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:You still

hanntonn wrote:

You still don't have any reasons why someone very sad shouldn't make suicide. 

If you didn't have god belief and were sad would you commit suicide? 

I don't because I prefer to work through my sadness and overcome it.  I've had enough good experiences to realize they are plentiful.

 

Do you wear your seatbelt?  Do you take care of your health?  If you have a family member with cancer or a life threatening illness, do you pray for them?  If the answer to any of them is "yes," I must ask you why.  Your posts wreak of Christianity, so as a Christian you believe after death you (and other XIAN loved ones) are going to a better place... so why delay it?  

Why do Christians pray for life when it seems much better to just die and go to heaven?  When you figure the answer out to that one you'll understand why atheists would want to live through a little sadness.

 

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:No I assume

hanntonn wrote:

No I assume atheists hate God because they can't accept the repentance crap. Why should God give you evidence of his existence? Are you greater than God so that you can command to him even though you are a sinner? If you don't see the evidence of God's presence in the beauty of the love of anyone to someone else, then you really can't comprehend God and this is why you don't see him. You need to look more with the eyes of the Hearth. If there is only hate in your hearth toward God, how can you see him who is only love? Finding God will give a purpose to your life. Without him your life will vanish without traces.

 

You know, that is one of your problems - you assume.  Many of the atheists on this forum were raised as christians or like me, attempted to be a good christian as adults.  I tried very hard to believe, to be what I thought I was supposed to be.  And it just didn't work for me.  I can't believe in all the miracles - I can't see evidence of god/s/dess in this world.  We love regardless of what religion we have or don't have.  The sun rises and sets regardless of our faith.  Beauty is all around us and so is pain and anger and fear and ugliness.  No god/s/dess - just random stuff - shit happens to those who pray and those who don't.

Your posts come across as very arrogant - you know what is truth and the rest of us are just angry stupid atheists.  You know what is best for us.  You are the source of knowledge.  Well, you aren't any of that and neither are we.  

Your concepts of science demonstrate your lack of knowledge - about all the sciences and mathematics.  You appear to be deliberately ignorant and enjoy being ignorant.  You wear your ignorance like some sort of badge.  You express no desire to get an education.  That is not how you are going to win converts or convince anyone here. 

To repeat - you have been shown how wrong you are, where the flaws in your logic are (just reread the posts), and just how little you understand of science.  Also, you may have wondered why we are getting a little rude with you.  It is because you haven't stated one new concept - all of your ideas are from other creationists - and we have heard all of them at least 100 times before.  It is because you are obviously uneducated and just as obviously proud to be ignorant.

Think about it.

 

-- 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.


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
Sapient,      The

Sapient,

     The purpose of life is to do good in this life. That's why anyone should live. It's not because our good experiences are good that we should keep fighting when we are very sad, but because there is still place to do good and to love others at that moment. There is a reward to accept sufferance. You say your good experiences are plentiful. That's true. But they won't be plentiful after your death because you won't keep them if there is no after death. So, for an atheist, even if he has good experiences, they stay purposeless anyway. That is why I can't understand your belief system.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5853
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn

hanntonn wrote:

Sapient,

     The purpose of life is to do good in this life. That's why anyone should live. It's not because our good experiences are good that we should keep fighting when we are very sad, but because there is still place to do good and to love others at that moment. There is a reward to accept sufferance. You say your good experiences are plentiful. That's true. But they won't be plentiful after your death because you won't keep them if there is no after death. So, for an atheist, even if he has good experiences, they stay purposeless anyway. That is why I can't understand your belief system.

So you never bother with a good meal, a good movie? Only experiences which last a long time, maybe forever, or have 'purpose',  contribute to enriching one's life?

I cannot understand people who insist that pleasant experience, enjoyment of life, *requires* 'purpose' to be valid. What if one person's personal purpose is to maximize the enjoyment of life while it lasts, and they are cool with that? Who are you to say they have made a wrong choice, and by what criterion?

And remember, there are people who get ultimate satisfaction from helping others to have a better life.

One of the things which contributes to my life satisfaction is the 'buzz' I get when someone expresses appreciation to me for some assistance I have been able to help them with.

Purpose is still in the mind of the individual. You can neither define 'purpose' for another, or deny what they feel is 'purpose' for them.

The fact that experiences are finite enhances our enjoyment of them. Virtually any experience which lasted too long would eventually become boring, that is our nature.

 

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


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

hanntonn wrote:

Sapient,

     The purpose of life is to do good in this life. That's why anyone should live. It's not because our good experiences are good that we should keep fighting when we are very sad, but because there is still place to do good and to love others at that moment. There is a reward to accept sufferance. You say your good experiences are plentiful. That's true. But they won't be plentiful after your death because you won't keep them if there is no after death. So, for an atheist, even if he has good experiences, they stay purposeless anyway. That is why I can't understand your belief system.

Are you really saying that an atheist who follows the purpose you describe in your first sentence really doesn't have a purpose?

Or are you saying that the only reason you have a purpose in life is because you believe in a mind that created the Universe that you call "God"?

News flash - you won't keep your good experiences either. Is the only reason you do good in this life so you can earn suck-up points in the hereafter you think is out there?

"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


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:You know, that is

cj wrote:

You know, that is one of your problems - you assume.  Many of the atheists on this forum were raised as christians or like me, attempted to be a good christian as adults.  I tried very hard to believe, to be what I thought I was supposed to be.  And it just didn't work for me.  I can't believe in all the miracles - I can't see evidence of god/s/dess in this world.  We love regardless of what religion we have or don't have.  The sun rises and sets regardless of our faith.  Beauty is all around us and so is pain and anger and fear and ugliness.  No god/s/dess - just random stuff - shit happens to those who pray and those who don't.

Ok, you say your problem is not the moral stuff. You say it's because you can't believe the miracles. Well, you didn't even look out for miracles, that's why. What could convince you about miracles is the incorruptible and apparently living piece of flesh that is observable in Lanciano Italy. Didn't you  know that there have been more than 50 saints whom their body didn't decompose after their death (and it's still observable). I think it's even over a hundred, but surely over 50. Could it be that miracles be true even if you can't believe them? I see that your problem is that shit happens to those who pray like those who don't. Would we prove that we have faith if shit didn't happen to those who pray? It doesn't matter in life what happen to us. The only happiness is found by loving others. If this wasn't true, how could we be happy if only shit happened to us except death? For an atheist who has no purpose to life, he would search death. The main problem is that you've not seen enough shit to understand that there must be a purpose to life in order to stay alive. The fact that you ignore your imminent death in order to keep meaning doesn't make you bright.

cj wrote:
Your posts come across as very arrogant - you know what is truth and the rest of us are just angry stupid atheists.  You know what is best for us.  You are the source of knowledge.  Well, you aren't any of that and neither are we. 

I still don't see the arrogance in there. What I said is still true for many atheists that I know. Many atheists are angry like you say and it's easy to see by reading their posts or hearing their comments about the church that they don't know.

cj wrote:
Your concepts of science demonstrate your lack of knowledge - about all the sciences and mathematics.  You appear to be deliberately ignorant and enjoy being ignorant.  You wear your ignorance like some sort of badge.  You express no desire to get an education.  That is not how you are going to win converts or convince anyone here.

This happen to be arrogant. Must I define arrogance? If I'm ignorant, you've still not shown where I made mistakes in my reasoning. I don't talk about the details, but my main point about the problem of finite time Universe.

cj wrote:
To repeat - you have been shown how wrong you are, where the flaws in your logic are (just reread the posts), and just how little you understand of science.  Also, you may have wondered why we are getting a little rude with you.  It is because you haven't stated one new concept - all of your ideas are from other creationists - and we have heard all of them at least 100 times before.  It is because you are obviously uneducated and just as obviously proud to be ignorant.

That's arrogant and you've not shown any flaws in my reasoning. I just didn't answer what was out of context. We're not here to debate everything. What I've said about the possibility of a mind as the cause of the Universe because of the finite time Universe. There was not even one comment on this and I've read everything was written. Yes, what you say is arrogant in the sense that you think that you've shown me anything without the need of even explaining anything.

Think about it.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5853
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The truly ignorant are those

The truly ignorant are those who don't even know what they don't know, who take their failure to understand the counter-arguments as proof that there are no valid counter-arguments.

Or not be able to consider the possibility that those who reject your world-view may do so not because they don't understand it, but actually understand it better than you do.

The testimony of many atheists is very much consistent with that idea, that they ultimately rejected belief and the Bible because they studied it more thoroughly than those who were quite happy to keep taking the Kool-Aid.

Also supported by the results of the recent survey which showed atheists know more about religion and the Bible than most believers.

Religion is so deeply superficial...

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


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:So you

BobSpence1 wrote:

So you never bother with a good meal, a good movie? Only experiences which last a long time, maybe forever, or have 'purpose',  contribute to enriching one's life?

Experiences that helps humanity contribute for the purpose of life. Personal experiences, contribute to that purpose also indirectly by giving yourself the basic animal pleasure you need to function affectively, psychologically, socially. Exagerating your personal needs and not thinking about the global good of humanity is a sin.

BobSpence1 wrote:
I cannot understand people who insist that pleasant experience, enjoyment of life, *requires* 'purpose' to be valid.
pleasant experience of life have a purpose because it is necessary to satisfy you basic needs to be able to help humanity. It's that simple.


hanntonn
Theist
Posts: 91
Joined: 2010-10-25
User is offlineOffline
Since there is no more

Since there is no more anything rational to say here, I don't post anymore on this subject. When it comes to fist fight, there is nothing else to say. So, see you later, irrational responders.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5853
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:BobSpence1

hanntonn wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:

So you never bother with a good meal, a good movie? Only experiences which last a long time, maybe forever, or have 'purpose',  contribute to enriching one's life?

Experiences that helps humanity contribute for the purpose of life. Personal experiences, contribute to that purpose also indirectly by giving yourself the basic animal pleasure you need to function affectively, psychologically, socially. Exagerating your personal needs and not thinking about the global good of humanity is a sin.

BobSpence1 wrote:
I cannot understand people who insist that pleasant experience, enjoyment of life, *requires* 'purpose' to be valid.
pleasant experience of life have a purpose because it is necessary to satisfy you basic needs to be able to help humanity. It's that simple.

Ahh, so your outlook is not all that different after all, you just use the word 'purpose' in a much broader, perhaps looser, sense.

Pleasant experiences are necessary to keep your outlook positive, but I think they are at a level above 'basic needs'.

Adequate satisfaction of all lower level needs does free one up to consider higher level sources of satisfaction, such as reaching out to help others, especially others in the wider global context.

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


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn wrote:cj wrote:You

hanntonn wrote:

cj wrote:

You know, that is one of your problems - you assume.  Many of the atheists on this forum were raised as christians or like me, attempted to be a good christian as adults.  I tried very hard to believe, to be what I thought I was supposed to be.  And it just didn't work for me.  I can't believe in all the miracles - I can't see evidence of god/s/dess in this world.  We love regardless of what religion we have or don't have.  The sun rises and sets regardless of our faith.  Beauty is all around us and so is pain and anger and fear and ugliness.  No god/s/dess - just random stuff - shit happens to those who pray and those who don't.

Ok, you say your problem is not the moral stuff. You say it's because you can't believe the miracles. Well, you didn't even look out for miracles, that's why. What could convince you about miracles is the incorruptible and apparently living piece of flesh that is observable in Lanciano Italy. Didn't you  know that there have been more than 50 saints whom their body didn't decompose after their death (and it's still observable). I think it's even over a hundred, but surely over 50. Could it be that miracles be true even if you can't believe them? I see that your problem is that shit happens to those who pray like those who don't. Would we prove that we have faith if shit didn't happen to those who pray? It doesn't matter in life what happen to us. The only happiness is found by loving others. If this wasn't true, how could we be happy if only shit happened to us except death? For an atheist who has no purpose to life, he would search death. The main problem is that you've not seen enough shit to understand that there must be a purpose to life in order to stay alive. The fact that you ignore your imminent death in order to keep meaning doesn't make you bright.

cj wrote:
Your posts come across as very arrogant - you know what is truth and the rest of us are just angry stupid atheists.  You know what is best for us.  You are the source of knowledge.  Well, you aren't any of that and neither are we. 

I still don't see the arrogance in there. What I said is still true for many atheists that I know. Many atheists are angry like you say and it's easy to see by reading their posts or hearing their comments about the church that they don't know.

cj wrote:
Your concepts of science demonstrate your lack of knowledge - about all the sciences and mathematics.  You appear to be deliberately ignorant and enjoy being ignorant.  You wear your ignorance like some sort of badge.  You express no desire to get an education.  That is not how you are going to win converts or convince anyone here.

This happen to be arrogant. Must I define arrogance? If I'm ignorant, you've still not shown where I made mistakes in my reasoning. I don't talk about the details, but my main point about the problem of finite time Universe.

cj wrote:
To repeat - you have been shown how wrong you are, where the flaws in your logic are (just reread the posts), and just how little you understand of science.  Also, you may have wondered why we are getting a little rude with you.  It is because you haven't stated one new concept - all of your ideas are from other creationists - and we have heard all of them at least 100 times before.  It is because you are obviously uneducated and just as obviously proud to be ignorant.

That's arrogant and you've not shown any flaws in my reasoning. I just didn't answer what was out of context. We're not here to debate everything. What I've said about the possibility of a mind as the cause of the Universe because of the finite time Universe. There was not even one comment on this and I've read everything was written. Yes, what you say is arrogant in the sense that you think that you've shown me anything without the need of even explaining anything.

Think about it.

Nah, desiccated heart tissue that gets replaced occasionally to maintain an illusion doesn't convince me of anything but a useful deception.

Nor do corpses that can't be examined by scientists who aren't owned by the church.

Many atheists may be angry - you've jumped to the generalization that all atheists are angry god-haters. I can't hate God. We've never met. You haven't met him either but you say you love him.

So many others have shown you the flaws in your arguments. Why reinvent the wheel? Just because we have a Universe with a beginning doesn't automatically mean a mind created it.

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


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7523
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
hanntonn

hanntonn wrote:

Sapient,

     The purpose of life is to do good in this life. That's why anyone should live. It's not because our good experiences are good that we should keep fighting when we are very sad, but because there is still place to do good and to love others at that moment. There is a reward to accept sufferance. You say your good experiences are plentiful. That's true. But they won't be plentiful after your death because you won't keep them if there is no after death. So, for an atheist, even if he has good experiences, they stay purposeless anyway. That is why I can't understand your belief system.

You think I lose a purpose if I can't continue one after my death?  I don't think along those lines.  My purpose is what I make of it while I'm alive.  I will live on through my family, friends, and those I've impacted.  I've had many people tell me what an impact I've made on their lives.  Many people have told me they've left religion because of something I'm responsible for, whether it's this site, or a video, or a public debate.  My impact on them affected the future of humanity, it made an impact on humanity that will last well past my death.  In that regard I will live past my death.  These are things I can prove, and that's what matters to me.  I am not concerned with a life that you think exists after the only life I have proof for.  That is why I can't understand your belief system.  

For what it's worth, this is one of my favorite quotes:

"To shun ignorance and superstition, to embrace knowledge and reason, to become the sum of all wisdom that one can absorb in a very limited lifetime-that is the purpose of humankind." - Ranjef

and another favorite:

"The world is my country, to do good is my religion." - Thomas Paine

 

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.