Atheism is Insanity, and Theism is Sanity

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

Atheism is insanity, and theism is sanity.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The last judgement:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

From the United States Declaration of Independence:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
RE: Epic-steamy-illogical-bs

I think I heard my colon make some kinda noise... better make sure I'm wearing diapers.


Epistemologist
Posts: 161
Joined: 2010-03-25
User is offlineOffline
 robj101 wrote:“I

 

robj101 wrote:
“I like how this guy needs to write an essay to explain his beliefs. I'm afraid it is usually the simplest and easiest answer that is correct.

 

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

 

I agree. It is the simplest answer that is correct. This is what I am saying, in the most condensed form:

 

- We have abstraction and reality the wrong way around . . . . . . . . . . . . . . That's it!

 

What we currently think are natural sciences (including biology, chemistry, and physics) are actually abstract sciences. And what we now classify as abstract sciences (mathematics, logic and religion), are actually natural sciences.

 

Because mathematics is reality and physics is not, it means we are immortal, God exists, and religious texts are Divine Revelation from God. It means that religious texts like the Bible and the Koran are actually natural science textbooks. It means that books on biology and chemistry are actually abstract science textbooks.

 

It means that DNA is not the blueprint of life, and that human beings are not the product of biological evolution – because biological phenomena are an abstraction and not reality. And it means that consciousness is not a biological phenomenon because the universe (including the brain and body) is abstract ideas inside our minds.


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Epistemologist

Epistemologist wrote:

 

robj101 wrote:
“I like how this guy needs to write an essay to explain his beliefs. I'm afraid it is usually the simplest and easiest answer that is correct.

 

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

 

I agree. It is the simplest answer that is correct. This is what I am saying, in the most condensed form:

 

- We have abstraction and reality the wrong way around . . . . . . . . . . . . . . That's it!

 

What we currently think are natural sciences (including biology, chemistry, and physics) are actually abstract sciences. And what we now classify as abstract sciences (mathematics, logic and religion), are actually natural sciences.

 

Because mathematics is reality and physics is not, it means we are immortal, God exists, and religious texts are Divine Revelation from God. It means that religious texts like the Bible and the Koran are actually natural science textbooks. It means that books on biology and chemistry are actually abstract science textbooks.

 

It means that DNA is not the blueprint of life, and that human beings are not the product of biological evolution – because biological phenomena are an abstraction and not reality. And it means that consciousness is not a biological phenomenon because the universe (including the brain and body) is abstract ideas inside our minds.

Ok now paisley the joke is up, I can't believe everyone fell for it. Seriously a lack of comprehension of what the terms used are and a lack of understanding regarding philosophy, science and well pretty much everything else....I just can't believe there are 2 people on this board that are A) this daft. B) this inclined to ignoring everything else everyone points out as errors in their thinking.


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

Epistemologist wrote:

 

robj101 wrote:
“I like how this guy needs to write an essay to explain his beliefs. I'm afraid it is usually the simplest and easiest answer that is correct.

 

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

 

I agree. It is the simplest answer that is correct. This is what I am saying, in the most condensed form:

 

- We have abstraction and reality the wrong way around . . . . . . . . . . . . . . That's it!

 

What we currently think are natural sciences (including biology, chemistry, and physics) are actually abstract sciences. And what we now classify as abstract sciences (mathematics, logic and religion), are actually natural sciences.

 

Because mathematics is reality and physics is not, it means we are immortal, God exists, and religious texts are Divine Revelation from God. It means that religious texts like the Bible and the Koran are actually natural science textbooks. It means that books on biology and chemistry are actually abstract science textbooks.

 

It means that DNA is not the blueprint of life, and that human beings are not the product of biological evolution – because biological phenomena are an abstraction and not reality. And it means that consciousness is not a biological phenomenon because the universe (including the brain and body) is abstract ideas inside our minds.

I completely agree, now, I used to work at the state hospital here in town, if you just go to the front gate of your local mental health institutuion and tell them about your findings, I'm sure they will listen and probably even set you up with an appointment with someone of importance with whom you can share these findings. They will even set you up with room and board for the duration of your stay. The remote in the day room is easily handled by one with intact cognitive skills so you may even get to watch the channel you like! Pay no mind to the drooling people on the couch, they are just like you and have been put in a stabilization mode, in preparation for their transcendences and are currently living in the higher plane of knowledge which you describe in great detail.

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


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

latincanuck wrote:

Epistemologist wrote:

 

robj101 wrote:
“I like how this guy needs to write an essay to explain his beliefs. I'm afraid it is usually the simplest and easiest answer that is correct.

 

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

 

I agree. It is the simplest answer that is correct. This is what I am saying, in the most condensed form:

 

- We have abstraction and reality the wrong way around . . . . . . . . . . . . . . That's it!

 

What we currently think are natural sciences (including biology, chemistry, and physics) are actually abstract sciences. And what we now classify as abstract sciences (mathematics, logic and religion), are actually natural sciences.

 

Because mathematics is reality and physics is not, it means we are immortal, God exists, and religious texts are Divine Revelation from God. It means that religious texts like the Bible and the Koran are actually natural science textbooks. It means that books on biology and chemistry are actually abstract science textbooks.

 

It means that DNA is not the blueprint of life, and that human beings are not the product of biological evolution – because biological phenomena are an abstraction and not reality. And it means that consciousness is not a biological phenomenon because the universe (including the brain and body) is abstract ideas inside our minds.

Ok now paisley the joke is up, I can't believe everyone fell for it. Seriously a lack of comprehension of what the terms used are and a lack of understanding regarding philosophy, science and well pretty much everything else....I just can't believe there are 2 people on this board that are A) this daft. B) this inclined to ignoring everything else everyone points out as errors in their thinking.

True I haven't seen paisley posting lately, but I can still have fun with it right?

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


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:I completely

robj101 wrote:

I completely agree, now, I used to work at the state hospital here in town, if you just go to the front gate of your local mental health institutuion and tell them about your findings, I'm sure they will listen and probably even set you up with an appointment with someone of importance with whom you can share these findings. They will even set you up with room and board for the duration of your stay. The remote in the day room is easily handled by one with intact cognitive skills so you may even get to watch the channel you like! Pay no mind to the drooling people on the couch, they are just like you and have been put in a stabilization mode, in preparation for their transcendences and are currently living in the higher plane of knowledge which you describe in great detail.

You're a mean sunavabitch, y'know that!

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


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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

This is my definition of consciousness, so please tell me if it is wrong: Mathematical truths (e.g. geometry), logical truths and mystical experiences.

 

Mathematical truths would still be true if you chopped everyone’s heads off and fed them to crocodiles. Both naturalism and physicalism assert that mathematical truths (like geometry) do not exist in nature; they only exist in human thought or consciousness i.e. mathematical truths have to be ‘not real’ for physicalism and naturalism to be true. So if human consciousness is a biological phenomenon, it means that mathematical truths are not real. However, we know that mathematical truths are real, so consciousness is not a biological phenomenon. If you think I am mistaken, please tell me how, because I cannot see any fault in my logic.

 

What you say about hallucinogens is extremely important. Because Platonic (eliminative) idealism is true by default, and eliminative materialism (including naturalism and physicalism) are logically false by default, it means that: Hallucinogens are not chemicals. Because reality is mind and not matter, hallucinogens must be something spiritual. The hallucinogenic effect of cannabis, for example, could be the soul of the cannabis plant i.e. Hallucinogenic plants are a type of spiritual or Divine Revelation. It means that the very concept of ‘hallucination’ is completely false. Hallucinations have some kind of spiritual meaning, and since reality is in our minds, then ‘hallucinations’ are not really ‘hallucination’. They are a dimension of reality. Hallucinogenic plants are doorways into other worlds, just as real as the world we live in.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Love is HateFreedom is

Love is Hate

Freedom is Slavery

Ignorance is Strength

 


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I have a sneaking suspicion

 

We might actually know pissed ontologist...


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Epistemologist wrote:This is

Epistemologist wrote:

This is my definition of consciousness, so please tell me if it is wrong: Mathematical truths (e.g. geometry), logical truths and mystical experiences.

It's wrong.  

Buy a dictionary. Look up 'consciousness,' 'mysticism,' 'science,' 'religion,' 'atheism,' 'theism,' 'knowledge,' 'belief,' 'logic,' 'naturalism,' 'physicalism,' 'truth,' 'mathematics,' 'physics,' 'biology,' 'philosophy,' and about a thousand other words. Because you don't know the meaning of any of those. In fact, you might as well read the dictionary from cover to cover. If anyone needs it, it's you. 

Tell me when you're done.

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


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

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

 

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

 

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

 

OK, as you know what reality is, and I do not: Tell me, what is reality?

 

Since you know what reality is, it will be extremely easy for you to reveal it to me, using crisp, clean, logic.

 

This question also applies to everyone reading it.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic wrote:And

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

And the Matrix Triology based on his beliefs

The Matrix's last two sequels might actually have been entertaining if the whole 'religious Matrix bs' was limited to just Christianity. Unfortunately, it wasn't!

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


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

 

cj wrote:
DON'T FEED THE TROLL.

 

Don’t worry cj. No one is going to feed you. Everyone knows that the real troll is you. 


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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

You disappoint me mellestad. I thought you would understand by now what I am revealing to you.

 

There is really no difference between atheists and theists. Everyone knows that God exists by default. You know that God exists, and you are just pretending that you don’t. Essentially, you are lying to yourself. All ‘proclaimed atheists’ are lying to themselves. You know that the Gospel message of Jesus Christ is true, and you know that sin leads to Hell, and virtue leads to Heaven. You are just a very naughty child of God, and you need to have your bottom smacked.


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Well, PissedOntologist

Epistemologist wrote:

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

 

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

 

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

 

OK, as you know what reality is, and I do not: Tell me, what is reality?

 

Since you know what reality is, it will be extremely easy for you to reveal it to me, using crisp, clean, logic.

 

This question also applies to everyone reading it.

 

You wallow in your phenomenological reality for all you're worth. I prefer to think of reality as being a state of things as they actually are/can be proven to be. The subjective nature of personal comprehension notwithstanding, there are universal constants that do not depend on human observation for their existence - as the presence of carbon-based life on this planet more than 3.5 billion years before our arrival so clearly attests.

 

 

 

 

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


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Epistemologist wrote: cj

Epistemologist wrote:

 

cj wrote:
DON'T FEED THE TROLL.

 

Don’t worry cj. No one is going to feed you. Everyone knows that the real troll is you. 

You're starting to piss me RIGHT the fuck off!

And... you don't wanna do that... so, uuhhh cut the bullshit out.

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


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Epistemologist

Epistemologist wrote:

 

robj101 wrote:
“I like how this guy needs to write an essay to explain his beliefs. I'm afraid it is usually the simplest and easiest answer that is correct.

 

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

 

I agree. It is the simplest answer that is correct. This is what I am saying, in the most condensed form:

 

- We have abstraction and reality the wrong way around . . . . . . . . . . . . . . That's it!

 

What we currently think are natural sciences (including biology, chemistry, and physics) are actually abstract sciences. And what we now classify as abstract sciences (mathematics, logic and religion), are actually natural sciences.

 

Because mathematics is reality and physics is not, it means we are immortal, God exists, and religious texts are Divine Revelation from God. It means that religious texts like the Bible and the Koran are actually natural science textbooks. It means that books on biology and chemistry are actually abstract science textbooks.

 

It means that DNA is not the blueprint of life, and that human beings are not the product of biological evolution – because biological phenomena are an abstraction and not reality. And it means that consciousness is not a biological phenomenon because the universe (including the brain and body) is abstract ideas inside our minds.

 

You think you exist in the land of never was and never will be I get  it now. You forgot to take your meds this week.

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

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


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

Epistemologist wrote:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

You disappoint me mellestad. I thought you would understand by now what I am revealing to you.

 

There is really no difference between atheists and theists. Everyone knows that God exists by default. You know that God exists, and you are just pretending that you don’t. Essentially, you are lying to yourself. All ‘proclaimed atheists’ are lying to themselves. You know that the Gospel message of Jesus Christ is true, and you know that sin leads to Hell, and virtue leads to Heaven. You are just a very naughty child of God, and you need to have your bottom smacked.

He is a typical moron, he really believes everyone is born with some belief in a "god". Fukin fool has not taken a look around. There are still people in this world who have not even heard of your god and they do not worship him. Faith, religion and god are instilled by man, and he is part of the problem, though granted he is no problem considering he is an idiot and only an idiot would fall for his line of reasoning, idiots deserve jesus.

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


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Callous of me to say idiots

Callous of me to say idiots deserve jesus, no one really deserves that =/


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

pauljohntheskeptic,

 

Sorry to dismiss your interesting detective work.

 

What you didn’t notice is that I made only one assertion. The other ‘assertions’ that you picked out are only logical implications of my one assertion.

 

My one assertion is that reality and abstraction are the opposite way around to what we think they are.

 

This began with Plato and Aristotle. Plato maintained that the only reality is universal truths (including mathematical truths, logical truths, and religion), which only exist in our thought. Aristotle maintained the opposite; that reality is that which we experience through our physical senses (the physical universe).

 

There are only two possibilities of what reality could be: It is either that which we experience in our minds (including mathematical truths), or that which we experience through our senses. Philosophers all realize that it is impossible for both to be true. This is expressed as the opposites of eliminative materialism (including naturalism and physicalism) and eliminative (Platonic) idealism.

 

Which version of reality is true? Is it Plato’s version, or Aristotle’s version? Or do you have another version that no philosopher has ever heard of before?

 

Please tell me, because I want to know. You are claiming that you know what reality is and I do not. So the burden of proof is on you to reveal to me what reality is using logic. If you cannot do that, it means you do not know what reality.

 

And therefore you cannot possibly know that I do not know what reality is.

 


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
You deserve a BEER for that!

robj101 wrote:

Callous of me to say idiots deserve jesus, no one really deserves that =/


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

 

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

 

The point I was making is that mystical experiences must be real. That is because mathematical truths are real. Natural science asserts that mathematical truths (e.g. geometry) do not exist in nature. It asserts that mathematical truths only exist in human thought. Mathematical truths are real, and that must mean that human thought is more real than the ‘physical universe’ we experience through our senses i.e. it must mean that the physical universe is an illusion, that Platonic (eliminative) idealism is true, and eliminative materialism is false.

 

People follow a particular religion because mystical experience of God dictates to them that that religion is true i.e. people only follow a religion because God has personally told them it is the right one to follow. By that reasoning, he has told most people to be Christians. He has told most Christians to be Roman Catholics, and so the Roman Catholic Church must be the Christian denomination and religion chosen by God.

 

The Rosary is a great way to have a personal relationship with God. I pray the Rosary every day, and I follow apparitions of Mary, like Medjugorje: http://www.medjugorje.org/olmpage.htm


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Epistemologist

Epistemologist wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic,

 

Sorry to dismiss your interesting detective work.

 

What you didn’t notice is that I made only one assertion. The other ‘assertions’ that you picked out are only logical implications of my one assertion.

 

My one assertion is that reality and abstraction are the opposite way around to what we think they are.

 

This began with Plato and Aristotle. Plato maintained that the only reality is universal truths (including mathematical truths, logical truths, and religion), which only exist in our thought. Aristotle maintained the opposite; that reality is that which we experience through our physical senses (the physical universe).

 

There are only two possibilities of what reality could be: It is either that which we experience in our minds (including mathematical truths), or that which we experience through our senses. Philosophers all realize that it is impossible for both to be true. This is expressed as the opposites of eliminative materialism (including naturalism and physicalism) and eliminative (Platonic) idealism.

 

Which version of reality is true? Is it Plato’s version, or Aristotle’s version? Or do you have another version that no philosopher has ever heard of before?

 

Please tell me, because I want to know. You are claiming that you know what reality is and I do not. So the burden of proof is on you to reveal to me what reality is using logic. If you cannot do that, it means you do not know what reality.

 

And therefore you cannot possibly know that I do not know what reality is.

 

If reality and abstraction are opposites then you don't really exist anywhere except in my mind. If you exist in my mind my next step is to press the delete key. You are now deleted from it. Since you don't exist no answer is required.

However, if you can read this then perhaps you exist in a time space dimension along with many others called humans. If you wish to interact with others called humans you may wish to buy that dictionary and begin reading from the beginning.

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

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Epistemologist

Epistemologist wrote:

 

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

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

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

 

This is my definition of consciousness, so please tell me if it is wrong: Mathematical truths (e.g. geometry), logical truths and mystical experiences.

Mathematical truths would still be true if you chopped everyone’s heads off and fed them to crocodiles. Both naturalism and physicalism assert that mathematical truths (like geometry) do not exist in nature; they only exist in human thought or consciousness i.e. mathematical truths have to be ‘not real’ for physicalism and naturalism to be true. So if human consciousness is a biological phenomenon, it means that mathematical truths are not real. However, we know that mathematical truths are real, so consciousness is not a biological phenomenon. If you think I am mistaken, please tell me how, because I cannot see any fault in my logic.

What you say about hallucinogens is extremely important. Because Platonic (eliminative) idealism is true by default, and eliminative materialism (including naturalism and physicalism) are logically false by default, it means that: Hallucinogens are not chemicals. Because reality is mind and not matter, hallucinogens must be something spiritual. The hallucinogenic effect of cannabis, for example, could be the soul of the cannabis plant i.e. Hallucinogenic plants are a type of spiritual or Divine Revelation. It means that the very concept of ‘hallucination’ is completely false. Hallucinations have some kind of spiritual meaning, and since reality is in our minds, then ‘hallucinations’ are not really ‘hallucination’. They are a dimension of reality. Hallucinogenic plants are doorways into other worlds, just as real as the world we live in.

That is a somewhat strange definition of consciousness. "Truths" of any kind are things that a conscious being may apprehend, of course, but to suggest that they somehow define consciousness? That makes no sense.

'Experience' is part of defining consciousness, sure, but in no way does it only involve 'mystical' experiences. The ability to have 'experience' is indeed almost the definition of consciousness.

Intuitive 'truths', derived by, processed by, and apprehended by reason are the least reliable source of Truth, Even if we could assume that our reasoning ability was perfect, which would be an enormous presumption, any reasoning purely based on some initial presumptions or axioms, is utterly dependent on the accuracy and completeness of those axioms to produce reliably true conclusions. The many discrepancies between Plato's ideas of natural laws and what was later shown to be true, such as the way things move when thrown or dropped, one of which Galileo's possibly apocryphal experiment in Pisa disproved, should be evidence that 'pure' reason' is not a reliable source of truth, even about mundane matters.

Without the ongoing process of checking and correction of its conclusions against whatever passes for reality within your worldview, which is what happens in natural sciences, the slightest error in either the axioms or subsequent reasoning can rapidly lead to total fantasy. Mathematics is the most successful of the formal 'sciences', since it restricts its attention to clearly definable axioms, and avoids tackling more imponderable things like the nature of mind, morality, ultimate origins, consciousness, and so on. Which is why metaphysics is the least useful.

Intuitions are indeed the initial default assumptions, but that doesn't make them true. The intuitions we are born with are derived from the distant past of our species in a very different environment, where the prime imperative was not metaphysical truth, but survival, followed by successful interactions with the other members of the group, the tribe, which is the origin of morality.

This is for the benefit of other readers of this thread, since it has been obvious for quite a while now that you are not going to shift your position.

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


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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Oh dear mellestad, either I haven’t made my point clear, or you do not understand what I mean.

 

I am not asserting anything. I am asking you atheists to prove to me the following:

 

Prove that eliminative materialism (including naturalism and physicalism) is true.

 

You have to prove that eliminative materialism is true to prove that atheism is true. As I said in my opening post, theism is true by logical default, because Platonic (eliminative) idealism is true by logical default. Atheism is false by logical default.

 

The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate, logically, that eliminative materialism (including naturalism and physicalism) is true. If you cannot prove that, it means that atheism is illogical and irrational.

 

The burden of proof is on eliminative materialism.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Pick me!! I know the answer---

robj101 wrote:

Callous of me to say idiots deserve jesus, no one really deserves that =/

Epis has been watching too much "Alice" and he is experimenting with Mercury in order to take over the Mad Hatter role.  Did I win?

-- 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.


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

 

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

 

That is absolute nonsense, and you know it. Everyone knows that God exists, because that is a scientific fact. Theism is perfectly rational, and atheism is completely irrational. Theism is true by logical default, and atheism is false by logical default. Theism is ‘knowledge’, and atheism is ‘belief’ i.e. theism is a natural science, and atheism is a religion.

 

That is because Platonic (eliminative) idealism is true by logical default. Natural science (primarily physics) asserts that universal truths (including mathematical geometric truths) like geometry) do not exist in nature, and only exist in human thought. Natural science incorporates the perspective of eliminative materialism (including naturalism and physicalism). Eliminative materialism can only be true if the mathematical truths in human thought do not exist in nature i.e. the mathematical truths in human thought, like geometry, have to be unreal for eliminative materialism to be true. However, we know that mathematical truths are not unreal, so that means that nature and human thought are the same thing. It means that the physical universe we experience through our ‘physical’ senses is actually human thought. Reality does not exist independently of human thought, and therefore Platonic (eliminative) idealism, and therefore theism, are true by logical default.

 

The burden of proof is on eliminative materialism (including naturalism and physicalism).


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

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

 

The burden of proof is on eliminative materialism (including naturalism and physicalism). Atheism can only be true if eliminative materialism is true.

 

Eliminative materialism is false by logical default, and therefore atheism is false by logical default.

 

On the other hand, theism is true by logical default, because Platonic (eliminative) idealism is true by logical default.

 

So the burden of proof is absolutely on atheism, and the burden of proof is absolutely not on theism.

 

Atheism is debunked.

 

Wake up and smell the coffee.

 


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

 

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

 

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

 

Wakey wakey nigelTheBold.

 

You are calling me a ‘troll’ simply because I have debunked atheism using logic.

 

I have logically proved that atheism is absolutely irrational and false.

 

Oh, I am sorry, did I hurt your feelings? I don’t mean to make fun of your religious and superstitious belief in atheism.

 

If you want to cling to the irrational crutch of atheism because you cannot face the reality of logic, I wouldn’t want to take your faith away from you. I mean, if your religious faith in atheism gets you through your day, I really would not want to take that away from you.

 

Anyway, just to remind you again:

 

ATHEISM IS LOGICALLY DEBUNKED.

 

That is why you and several others here in this forum are calling me a troll. You just cannot handle it that I have logically demonstrated that atheism is an absolutely irrational and false religious and superstitious belief.

 

I am sorry that I have hurt your feelings by logically debunking atheism.

 

Am I blaspheming against atheism by using logic?


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Some strange last ditch

Some strange last ditch effort to "debunk" atheism, I'm sure people are chuckling and perhaps scratching their heads over this guy and his silly notions.

He deserves no less than :

 

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


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

Whatthedeuce wrote:
cj wrote:
DON'T FEED THE TROLL.

 

I agree with cj

 

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

 

this is precisely what makes him a troll

 

I am really sorry that I have logically debunked your absolutely irrational religious and superstitious belief in atheism.

 

I really don’t mean to hurt your feelings by telling you that you are absolutely insane and completely retarded.

 

ATHEISM IS DEBUNKED.

 

Atheism has logically lost, and theism has logically won. Get it?

 

The atheists are calling me a ‘troll’ simply because I have debunked atheism using logic.

 

The theists reading this thread are going to be pissing themselves laughing.

 

This section of the forum is supposed to be: Atheism vs. theism, and the atheists do not want me to post any more because I have absolutely logically debunked atheism. This is hilarious.

 

Ah, the poor atheists quivering in their boots behind their computers because their absolutely irrational religious and superstitious worldview has been shattered. Poor old atheists. Atheism has been defeated because logic and science has triumphed. What a shame. I feel so sad for them.

 

If you are an atheist, I am really sorry that I have logically demonstrated that you are completely retarded and absolutely insane.

 

I am really sorry that if you are an atheist, it means that you are just a complete looser and atheism sucks. Once again, sorry about that.

 

I am saying to the atheists exactly what they have been saying to me for over twenty years. Yes, I’ve had shit loads of abuse from atheists for years, just because I am a theist. Now it’s my opportunity to throw it right back at them, through logic. Atheists deserve exactly what’s coming to them. What goes around comes around. Get it?

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
But that's just it,

But that's just it, Epistemologist. You have not provided the actual logical justification for your position,

What you call logical statements are just a unproven proposition followed by a naked assertion as to what you consider that proposition 'logically' implies. You need to provide the logical steps by which you get from one to the other, in the form:

1. Proposition A is true;

2. if A then B; 

3. therefore B

where 2 may in turn have to justified itself by more detailed steps until we get to 'atomic' terms which cannot be further dissected.

 

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


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

 

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

 

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

 

bye-bye.

 

You don’t seem to realize that you are just a complete retard and you are absolutely insane.

 

The burden of proof is on you, you idiot.

 

For atheism to be true, you have to prove that eliminative materialism is true. Eliminative materialism (including naturalism and physicalism) is false by default, and therefore atheism is logically false by default. Platonic (eliminative) idealism is true by default, and therefore theism is logically true by default.

 

Don’t you understand that? Don’t you realize that you are a complete idiot? Wake up . . . . Please!

 

ATHEISM HAS BEEN DEBUNKED WITH LOGIC!

 

You atheists started the name calling by the way, by calling be a ‘troll’ simply because I debunked atheism with logic. If that is the level you want to get to, then that is what I will also have to do to get through your stupid thick skulls.

 

I have been polite and logical. It is you atheists who are rude and illogical.


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

nigelTheBold wrote:
Epistemologist wrote:
Please, please, please, use logic!

 

We will as soon as you do.

 

nigelTheBold, I am sorry to tell you, but you really are a complete idiot. You are the one who doesn’t know what logic is.

 

The fact that I have to keep repeating this merely demonstrates that atheists are absolutely retarded and completely insane.

 

For atheism to be true, eliminative materialism (including physicalism and naturalism) has to be true. But eliminative materialism is false by logical default.

 

Platonic (eliminative) idealism is true by logical default. And that means that theism is true by logical default.

 

That means that God exists, and that is a scientific fact.

 

Don’t you get that, you idiot? That’s perfectly logical.

 

ATHEISM HAS BEEN LOGICALLY DEBUNKED.

 

WAKEY WAKEY!

 


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2929
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
Why isn't this thread in

Why isn't this thread in trollville?

 

Am I missing something?  Isn't the simple fact that he says he is an atheist in one post and a theist in the next enough to get him moved on, past all the other games he is playing?

Is anyone benefiting, besides Epist getting some jollies by acting like a crazy person?

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


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

jcgadfly wrote:
“Epi, old son, I'd love to discuss your sound, logical argument.

 

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

 

No, what I have said is perfectly logical, and the only possible reason you don’t understand that is because you are insane and retarded.

 

Theism is true by logical default. And atheism is false by logical default.

 

Atheism can only be true if eliminative materialism (including naturalism and physicalism) is true. But eliminative materialism is false, by default. Therefore atheism is false by default.

 

If you don’t understand that, then you are simply an idiot. Sorry.

 

The burden of proof is on atheism.

 

ATHEISM IS DEBUNKED!


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:But that's

BobSpence1 wrote:

But that's just it, Epistemologist. You have not provided the actual logical justification for your position,

What you call logical statements are just a unproven proposition followed by a naked assertion as to what you consider that proposition 'logically' implies. You need to provide the logical steps by which you get from one to the other, in the form:

1. Proposition A is true;

2. if A then B; 

3. therefore B

where 2 may in turn have to justified itself by more detailed steps until we get to 'atomic' terms which cannot be further dissected.

 

Much like faith, it is in his own mind.

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


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

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
“So far you have stated naked assertions and premises. You have not logically made any case.”

 

The reason why you are saying that is because you are an idiot. All atheists are idiots by default.

 

I will repeat:

 

For atheism to be true, eliminative materialism (including naturalism and physicalism) have to be true. But eliminative materialism is false by logical default, and therefore atheism is false by logical default.

 

So the ‘burden of proof’ is on atheism. Get it?

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Epistemologist

Epistemologist wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:
“So far you have stated naked assertions and premises. You have not logically made any case.”

 

The reason why you are saying that is because you are an idiot. All atheists are idiots by default.

 

I will repeat:

 

For atheism to be true, eliminative materialism (including naturalism and physicalism) have to be true. But eliminative materialism is false by logical default, and therefore atheism is false by logical default.

 

So the ‘burden of proof’ is on atheism. Get it?

 

NO you are the moron that cannot understand that you have made nothing but naked assertions, even more so you have not disproved completely materialism in any way or fashion at all, as for atheism to be false the only possible way is that a god exist, something have failed to do, that is to prove that any god to exist. You have made a massive error in both logical thinking and more importantly failed to understand the terms you are using to describe most of your argument. As such you sir are the idiot by not just default but by the looks of it education as well. Thank you sir for your continued lack of comprehension of the material universe in which you exist in.


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

BobSpence1 wrote:
It can only demonstrate whether your conclusion (God exists, etc) is consistent (or not) with your initial premises or assumptions.

 

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

 

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

 

No. It is you atheists that don’t understand logic. Theism is automatically and self evidently true. That is because Platonic (eliminative) idealism is true by default, and eliminative materialism (including physicalism and naturalism) is false by default. Get it?

 

ATHEISM IS LOGICALLY DEBUNKED!

 

 


latincanuck
atheist
latincanuck's picture
Posts: 2038
Joined: 2007-06-01
User is offlineOffline
Epistemologist

Epistemologist wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
It can only demonstrate whether your conclusion (God exists, etc) is consistent (or not) with your initial premises or assumptions.

 

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

 

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

 

No. It is you atheists that don’t understand logic. Theism is automatically and self evidently true. That is because Platonic (eliminative) idealism is true by default, and eliminative materialism (including physicalism and naturalism) is false by default. Get it?

 

ATHEISM IS LOGICALLY DEBUNKED!

 

 

Ok it's a troll it's a troll, no one feed this troll, Epistemologist is a wee little troll with nothing else but BULLSHIT on it's mind, and a lack of education at that.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Hey Episs, I am right. 

Hey Episs,

 

I am right.  You are wrong.  You are wrong because it is logically self-evident that you are a moron.  I showed you this logical proof in the other thread.  Quit being so defiant of what you are.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Epistemologist

Epistemologist wrote:

BobSpence1 wrote:
It can only demonstrate whether your conclusion (God exists, etc) is consistent (or not) with your initial premises or assumptions.

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

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

No. It is you atheists that don’t understand logic. Theism is automatically and self evidently true. That is because Platonic (eliminative) idealism is true by default, and eliminative materialism (including physicalism and naturalism) is false by default. Get it?

ATHEISM IS LOGICALLY DEBUNKED!

Justify your assertion that "Theism automatically and self evidently true."

There are a many, many highly qualified and experienced philosophers who do not find it so.

It may well appear intuitively so to you. 

It has never appeared so to me.

This is the problem with purely intuitive, idealist based 'knowledge'. There is no way to distinguish actually true intuitive judgements, such as that assertion, from false ones. 

It is manifestly a fact that not every intuitive belief that even a 'properly' trained individual holds as 'self-evident' will actually be true.

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


Atheistextremist
atheist
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5134
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Wonder how long it'll be before he comes back

 

as some one/s else?

 

 

 


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

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
Justify your assertion that "Theism automatically and self evidently true."

 

The difference between idealism and materialism is very serious. If Platonic (eliminative) idealism is true, it means that most of what the dictionary says, and what other books we have written say, about reality, is wrong. Because we’ve got reality and abstraction the wrong way around, it requires a complete re-writing of our education system, in terms of the meaning and purpose of different academic disciplines.

 

Platonic (eliminative) idealism is self evidently true, and therefore so to are mystical experiences of God (because they cannot be reducible to biological phenomena – the brain).

 

Mystical experiences of God are scientific proof that God exists, and they render God’s existence a scientific fact.

 

Idealism rationally justifies theism, which makes theism self evidently true, and atheism self-evidently false.

 

Ultimately, the world you perceive through your physical senses, is leading you astray; it is just an abstraction and reflection of reality. Your physical body is therefore not what you really are; it is just an abstraction of what you are. That’s the truth.


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Epistemologist

Epistemologist wrote:

 

BobSpence1 wrote:
Justify your assertion that "Theism automatically and self evidently true."

The difference between idealism and materialism is very serious. If Platonic (eliminative) idealism is true, it means that most of what the dictionary says, and what other books we have written say, about reality, is wrong. Because we’ve got reality and abstraction the wrong way around, it requires a complete re-writing of our education system, in terms of the meaning and purpose of different academic disciplines.

Platonic (eliminative) idealism is self evidently true, and therefore so to are mystical experiences of God (because they cannot be reducible to biological phenomena – the brain).

Mystical experiences of God are scientific proof that God exists, and they render God’s existence a scientific fact.

Idealism rationally justifies theism, which makes theism self evidently true, and atheism self-evidently false.

Ultimately, the world you perceive through your physical senses, is leading you astray; it is just an abstraction and reflection of reality. Your physical body is therefore not what you really are; it is just an abstraction of what you are. That’s the truth.

How do you justify "Platonic (eliminative) idealism is self evidently true"? Since it is by no means perceived that way universally. It amounts to little more than claiming that something is true because it seems 'obviously;true to you. That is not a valid logical argument. Even if everybody perceived it that way, that would still not be a logical claim.

The most you can claim about Platonic idealism is that the ideal forms do exist, but only 'self-evidently' as concepts in the minds contemplating them. It does not follow that they exist in as real a sense as actual objects approximating to such ideal shapes.

So how you to justify claiming that it is true because you happen to be in the group that perceives it that way?

Many mental experience have been linked directly to chemical and/or electro-chemical processes in the brain. They can be induced 'on cue' by stimulating the appropriate part of the brain chemically or electrically.

How do you justify the claim that certain categories of mental experience cannot, even in principle, be so linked?

You need to break down the logical steps in the claim that "Idealism rationally justifies theism", otherwise it is just a naked assertion, not a logical statement.

Internal intuitions also have lead people astray, as in all the cult disasters - "Heaven's Gate", the Reverend Jim Jones, David Koresh at Waco, Texas, etc,. not to mention every alternative religious dogma which does not align with yours.

"Mystical experiences" can only prove that people can have such experiences - establishing the ultimate origin and any deeper significance require some other evidence beyond the fact of the experience itself.

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


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4298
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Epistemologist wrote:

Epistemologist wrote:

ATHEISM IS DEBUNKED.

 

Atheism has logically lost, and theism has logically won. Get it?

 

yes, yes, YES, christ, YES, we GET IT!!!  YOU ARE RIGHT!!  i see it and anyone else here who doesn't see it is a fucking MORON so you can disregard them!

 

 

HEY GUYS, HE'S RIGHT!!!  STOP FUCKING ARGUING WITH HIM!  HE'S RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING!!!!

 

 

ok, Epis, your work is done.  anyone WORTH convincing has been convinced by your crisp, clear logic.

 

ATHEISM IS FUCKING LOGICALLY FUCKING DEBUNKED SO EVERYBODY SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

you WIN, epis!  go, my dear teacher!  go elsewhere to the darkness where your light has not yet shone!  we will not be so selfish as to try to hold you here, though it will be hard to find direction without you!

goodbye forever!

 

 

 

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


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
ZERO TOLERANCE! 

ZERO TOLERANCE!

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I realize I can be accused

I realize I can be accused of "feeding the troll", but I thought I'd try my strategy of digging down into some specific claim(s) to get to just where they 'leave the rails' from our point of view.

 

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


Kapkao
atheistSuperfan
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
If you're asking me, Spence...

BobSpence1 wrote:

I realize I can be accused of "feeding the troll", but I thought I'd try my strategy of digging down into some specific claim(s) to get to just where they 'leave the rails' from our point of view.

You're always welcome to do that. After nearly an entire adolescence dedicated with debating "Blood-on-the-cross" types, (and not a SINGLE date/mate to be had for it!) I kinda got burnt out on what you're referring to.

You're easily one of the smarter guys on the site. (If not smartEST!)

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