Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[ding]

And then along come people, including those who have posted on all these threads, with rational minds, that say it is NOT ok for religious fanatics to pursue their make-believe fantasies, and kill or otherwise detriment others that don't believe likewise.

Should I break that up into separate thoughts, ding? So it's easier to understand?

The people who fight the evils your religions represent, are the people you should be listening to.

Follow your own faith that gives you meaning, but realize the truth about the institutionalization of your religion. And don't follow the bad boys anymore...

That is only because you don't see the whole picture that you have formed these subjective beliefs. You have already admitted that if it was up to you you would abolish all religion. You are dangerous.

 

[Mudda]

But if you were at the BB, nothing would point to us coming out 13 billion years later.

You mean other than the laws of nature and time?

You couldn't tell what's going to happen by the first moments of the BB. You're looking at the end of the movie and saying that it's obvious by the first few frames what the end is. Nope. You fail.

But we can. You fail.

So you can tell what kind of beings they'll be in 13 billion more years? Um... not a chance.

Yes, their consciousness will have evolved.

Nice guess. See? you have nothing to go on. Just like at the start of the BB.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

So you can tell what kind of beings they'll be in 13 billion more years? Um... not a chance

Yes, their consciousness will have evolved.

the genome was set at Singularity ... dimensionally.

 

[BreezeWood]

And then along come people, including those who have posted on all these threads, with rational minds, that say it is NOT ok for religious fanatics to pursue their make-believe fantasies, and kill or otherwise detriment others that don't believe likewise.

Should I break that up into separate thoughts, ding? So it's easier to understand?

The people who fight the evils your religions represent, are the people you should be listening to.

Follow your own faith that gives you meaning, but realize the truth about the institutionalization of your religion. And don't follow the bad boys anymore...

That is only because you don't see the whole picture that you have formed these subjective beliefs. You have already admitted that if it was up to you you would abolish all religion. You are dangerous.

.

That is only because you don't see the whole picture that you have formed these subjective beliefs. You have already admitted that if it was up to you you would abolish all religion. You are dangerous.

and another admiringly pure ad hominem assaults ... from the 4th century christian mentality, have you preyed to your god today - it's Sunday. or readied you whip for a loathsome sinner.

 

[Czernobog]

But if you were at the BB, nothing would point to us coming out 13 billion years later.

You mean other than the laws of nature and time?

You couldn't tell what's going to happen by the first moments of the BB. You're looking at the end of the movie and saying that it's obvious by the first few frames what the end is. Nope. You fail.

But we can. You fail.

So you can tell what kind of beings they'll be in 13 billion more years? Um... not a chance.

Yes, their consciousness will have evolved.

Into what, exactly?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[Czernobog]

And then along come people, including those who have posted on all these threads, with rational minds, that say it is NOT ok for religious fanatics to pursue their make-believe fantasies, and kill or otherwise detriment others that don't believe likewise.

Should I break that up into separate thoughts, ding? So it's easier to understand?

The people who fight the evils your religions represent, are the people you should be listening to.

Follow your own faith that gives you meaning, but realize the truth about the institutionalization of your religion. And don't follow the bad boys anymore...

That is only because you don't see the whole picture that you have formed these subjective beliefs. You have already admitted that if it was up to you you would abolish all religion. You are dangerous.

Neither of us has said that. You keep accusing us of that, and we keep pointing out that you're paranoid, and wrong.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[ding]

You mean other than the laws of nature and time?

You couldn't tell what's going to happen by the first moments of the BB. You're looking at the end of the movie and saying that it's obvious by the first few frames what the end is. Nope. You fail.

But we can. You fail.

So you can tell what kind of beings they'll be in 13 billion more years? Um... not a chance.

Yes, their consciousness will have evolved.

Into what, exactly?

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

How about the 6th stage of the morality progression?

 

[ding]

And then along come people, including those who have posted on all these threads, with rational minds, that say it is NOT ok for religious fanatics to pursue their make-believe fantasies, and kill or otherwise detriment others that don't believe likewise.

Should I break that up into separate thoughts, ding? So it's easier to understand?

The people who fight the evils your religions represent, are the people you should be listening to.

Follow your own faith that gives you meaning, but realize the truth about the institutionalization of your religion. And don't follow the bad boys anymore...

That is only because you don't see the whole picture that you have formed these subjective beliefs. You have already admitted that if it was up to you you would abolish all religion. You are dangerous.

Neither of us has said that. You keep accusing us of that, and we keep pointing out that you're paranoid, and wrong.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

No. RWS has implicitly and unconditionally stated to me that he would abolish religion if he could.

 

[ding]

And then along come people, including those who have posted on all these threads, with rational minds, that say it is NOT ok for religious fanatics to pursue their make-believe fantasies, and kill or otherwise detriment others that don't believe likewise.

Should I break that up into separate thoughts, ding? So it's easier to understand?

The people who fight the evils your religions represent, are the people you should be listening to.

Follow your own faith that gives you meaning, but realize the truth about the institutionalization of your religion. And don't follow the bad boys anymore...

That is only because you don't see the whole picture that you have formed these subjective beliefs. You have already admitted that if it was up to you you would abolish all religion. You are dangerous.

Neither of us has said that. You keep accusing us of that, and we keep pointing out that you're paranoid, and wrong.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

This post was not directed at you. It was directed to RWS. Had I directed this post to you, I would have written that you actively seek to subordinate religion.

 

[Czernobog]

And then along come people, including those who have posted on all these threads, with rational minds, that say it is NOT ok for religious fanatics to pursue their make-believe fantasies, and kill or otherwise detriment others that don't believe likewise.

Should I break that up into separate thoughts, ding? So it's easier to understand?

The people who fight the evils your religions represent, are the people you should be listening to.

Follow your own faith that gives you meaning, but realize the truth about the institutionalization of your religion. And don't follow the bad boys anymore...

That is only because you don't see the whole picture that you have formed these subjective beliefs. You have already admitted that if it was up to you you would abolish all religion. You are dangerous.

Neither of us has said that. You keep accusing us of that, and we keep pointing out that you're paranoid, and wrong.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

This post was not directed at you. It was directed to RWS. Had I directed this post to you, I would have written that you actively seek to subordinate religion.

No, I don't. I don't need to subordinate religion. Religion is inherently self destructive. I don't need to do anything other than defend the Constitution, vigilantly prevent theocrats from suborning education with their religious indoctrination, and rational reason will do the work of destroying religion all. On. It's. Own.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

 

[ding]

And then along come people, including those who have posted on all these threads, with rational minds, that say it is NOT ok for religious fanatics to pursue their make-believe fantasies, and kill or otherwise detriment others that don't believe likewise.

Should I break that up into separate thoughts, ding? So it's easier to understand?

The people who fight the evils your religions represent, are the people you should be listening to.

Follow your own faith that gives you meaning, but realize the truth about the institutionalization of your religion. And don't follow the bad boys anymore...

That is only because you don't see the whole picture that you have formed these subjective beliefs. You have already admitted that if it was up to you you would abolish all religion. You are dangerous.

Neither of us has said that. You keep accusing us of that, and we keep pointing out that you're paranoid, and wrong.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

This post was not directed at you. It was directed to RWS. Had I directed this post to you, I would have written that you actively seek to subordinate religion.

No, I don't. I don't need to subordinate religion. Religion is inherently self destructive. I don't need to do anything other than defend the Constitution, vigilantly prevent theocrats from suborning education with their religious indoctrination, and rational reason will do the work of destroying religion all. On. It's. Own.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

As I remember from our previous chat, that was not the case. Or are you softening your position on how it is necessary ridicule and condemn respect for people who believe in God? Because it sounds to me that you are saying one thing about religion and have conveniently forgotten your positions on how you interact with its adherents. There seems to be a disconnect between the two.

 

[sealybobo]

Is God vs Satan - Final Battle how the world supposed to end?

"Was supposed to end"???

We have a very good idea what the future has in store for this universe.

But, that won't happen until a LONG long time after our planet no longer exists as a planet.

The planet will be just fine.

We need to go looking for god. Maybe that's what science needs to tell religious people to get them to go along with space exploration

 

[Czernobog]

And then along come people, including those who have posted on all these threads, with rational minds, that say it is NOT ok for religious fanatics to pursue their make-believe fantasies, and kill or otherwise detriment others that don't believe likewise.

Should I break that up into separate thoughts, ding? So it's easier to understand?

The people who fight the evils your religions represent, are the people you should be listening to.

Follow your own faith that gives you meaning, but realize the truth about the institutionalization of your religion. And don't follow the bad boys anymore...

That is only because you don't see the whole picture that you have formed these subjective beliefs. You have already admitted that if it was up to you you would abolish all religion. You are dangerous.

Neither of us has said that. You keep accusing us of that, and we keep pointing out that you're paranoid, and wrong.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

This post was not directed at you. It was directed to RWS. Had I directed this post to you, I would have written that you actively seek to subordinate religion.

No, I don't. I don't need to subordinate religion. Religion is inherently self destructive. I don't need to do anything other than defend the Constitution, vigilantly prevent theocrats from suborning education with their religious indoctrination, and rational reason will do the work of destroying religion all. On. It's. Own.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

As I remember from our previous chat, that was not the case. Or are you softening your position on how it is necessary ridicule and condemn respect for people who believe in God? Because it sounds to me that you are saying one thing about religion and have conveniently forgotten your positions on how you interact with its adherents. There seems to be a disconnect between the two.

Because I find religionists, like yourself, ridiculous, and worthy of making isn't because I feel the need to "subordinate religion". It's just because you're ridiculous, and need to be mocked. Nope. I have always held the same position. I do not need to do anyting. Religionists will destroy themselves.

 

[sealybobo]

Seems pretty animated to me. Has a pulse and one day will die.

And if life comes from stars they also give birth

That's not how it works.

The 7 Characteristics of Life

I know but at least you and cz are in agreement on something.

And I am reconsidering my position because of it.

I'm going to church today. 40 days after someone dies we get together. Let's see if I'm moved. Maybe the holy ghost will visit me. Maybe they'll have a healer there today. Or will they talk about a charity or that the churches operating costs are $375k a year?

Or maybe you will at least become objective.

I still think its the greatest bullshit story ever invented but it makes a lot of people happy. Ignorance is bliss. Lol.

I'm going to start going once a month. My mom just died and my dad wants to go but won't go by himself.

Isn't one of the rules honor your mother and father? Even us atheists understand that.

 

[WillReadmore]

We have what was created as evidence. We can study that. There's nothing circular about it. There are two options, there either is or there isn't. It is not circular to examine each option.

Only if you presume that the universe was, in fact created. In order to do that, you need to, first, provide objective evidence that it was created.

What you are presenting is a circular argument. "Proof that the universe was created is found in the existence of God, and proof of the existence of God is that the universe was created, "

This is the problem with theism. Ultimately, it always digresses to ignoring one logical fallacy, or another, in order to accept its conclusions.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Sure, make the presumption and then test it.

Okay. Test away. How do you intend to test your premise that the Universe was created?

What do you think I've been doing, lol.

Well, I've pointed out that you are tending to go in circles.

Also, it seems weird to me to depend so thoroughly on science and then flip to a totally non-scientific direction.

It's been more like stuck in first gear than circles. Can you give an example of my "flip?" I don't follow you.

Another scholar who just isn't quite smart enough to realize that I haven't made a single argument for religion anywhere in this thread. Likewise, supposed atheists haven't made a single argument in support of atheism. They can only argue against religion because there is no affirmative argument for atheism.

I share that view - that science doesn't offer an affirmative argument for atheism (or for theism).

On the other hand, I think religion makes the existence of god a root assumption - thus something that can't be proven true or false within religion.

All hypothesis start out as unproven. It must be examined and tested to be proven.

The rules of science don't allow for there to be any hypothesis that includes references to God.

Even when it is of the natural world? If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you?

Science does that all the time. No problem with that.

However, you won't be able to find out whether I'm God by doing that.

Agreed, I never said otherwise. I can learn certain things about you.

The catch is that you aren't applying the constraints that are fundamental to science. You are suggesting that we could identify something as requiring the supernatural.

No. I don't believe I have done that. Can you show me what I have written that led you to believe that?

We can use science to learn about our universe, but what we are learning is how natural processes work. When we run into stuff we don't understand, the answer from science is, "I don't know."

After a bunch more work, we often go back and say, "OK, now I know."

But, you are suggesting that at some point we should NOT say, "I don't know" - that we should instead say "God did it."

But, science has NO WAY to determine when to switch from "I don't know" to "God did it".

Again, I don't know how you are making this leap. I am examining the only evidence we have for a Creator which is what and how it was created. I am using our experiences as a proxy in doing so.

The point is that what you are doing isn't science. You can try to get around the rules, but in the end it just isn't science.

Your "is there a god" thing is not a "hypothesis", because no hypothesis in scientific method can refer to god in any way. There is no possibility of testing for god. Thus it's outside of science. End of story.

We do the same with stuff like string theory. We have no way of testing whether these ideas are part of our natural world. So, we have smart people thinking about things, using math, accepting progress science is making, but that doesn't mean it is science. It's not.

In your case, you are still applying the idea that if TODAY we can't explain some phenomenon we see, then it must be evidence of God - and that is BS.

If we can't explain some phenomenon we see, that is evidence that we don't know something.

 

[sealybobo]

Only if you presume that the universe was, in fact created. In order to do that, you need to, first, provide objective evidence that it was created.

What you are presenting is a circular argument. "Proof that the universe was created is found in the existence of God, and proof of the existence of God is that the universe was created, "

This is the problem with theism. Ultimately, it always digresses to ignoring one logical fallacy, or another, in order to accept its conclusions.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Sure, make the presumption and then test it.

Okay. Test away. How do you intend to test your premise that the Universe was created?

What do you think I've been doing, lol.

Well, I've pointed out that you are tending to go in circles.

Also, it seems weird to me to depend so thoroughly on science and then flip to a totally non-scientific direction.

It's been more like stuck in first gear than circles. Can you give an example of my "flip?" I don't follow you.

I share that view - that science doesn't offer an affirmative argument for atheism (or for theism).

On the other hand, I think religion makes the existence of god a root assumption - thus something that can't be proven true or false within religion.

All hypothesis start out as unproven. It must be examined and tested to be proven.

The rules of science don't allow for there to be any hypothesis that includes references to God.

Even when it is of the natural world? If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you?

Science does that all the time. No problem with that.

However, you won't be able to find out whether I'm God by doing that.

Agreed, I never said otherwise. I can learn certain things about you.

The catch is that you aren't applying the constraints that are fundamental to science. You are suggesting that we could identify something as requiring the supernatural.

No. I don't believe I have done that. Can you show me what I have written that led you to believe that?

We can use science to learn about our universe, but what we are learning is how natural processes work. When we run into stuff we don't understand, the answer from science is, "I don't know."

After a bunch more work, we often go back and say, "OK, now I know."

But, you are suggesting that at some point we should NOT say, "I don't know" - that we should instead say "God did it."

But, science has NO WAY to determine when to switch from "I don't know" to "God did it".

Again, I don't know how you are making this leap. I am examining the only evidence we have for a Creator which is what and how it was created. I am using our experiences as a proxy in doing so.

The point is that what you are doing isn't science. You can try to get around the rules, but in the end it just isn't science.

Your "is there a god" thing is not a "hypothesis", because no hypothesis in scientific method can refer to god in any way. There is no possibility of testing for god. Thus it's outside of science. End of story.

We do the same with stuff like string theory. We have no way of testing whether these ideas are part of our natural world. So, we have smart people thinking about things, using math, accepting progress science is making, but that doesn't mean it is science. It's not.

In your case, you are still applying the idea that if TODAY we can't explain some phenomenon we see, then it must be evidence of God - and that is BS.

If we can't explain some phenomenon we see, that is evidence that we don't know something.

We say a child is a gift from God. No it isn't. Two people had sex. We know how the kid got here. We say God formed the planets. But we know scientifically how we got here.

We don't know how life got started here on earth but science most likely has an answer for that. But because we don't know people thank "whatever did it". We also don't know what caused the big bang or how. But most likely there is a scientific explanation behind it.

But because we don't know and most likely will never know the answers to some questions people will continue to call it God not "whatever did it". But that's the truth.

Now I went to Christian church today and they claim to know for a fact God exists. They have a little saying they repeat about how God sentt his only begotten son to the Virgin Mary and he was crucified and he rose after three days and these people all pledge that they believe this. I sit there in amazement

 

[ding]

Is God vs Satan - Final Battle how the world supposed to end?

"Was supposed to end"???

We have a very good idea what the future has in store for this universe.

But, that won't happen until a LONG long time after our planet no longer exists as a planet.

The planet will be just fine.

We need to go looking for god. Maybe that's what science needs to tell religious people to get them to go along with space exploration

Sort of like global warming?

 

[ding]

That is only because you don't see the whole picture that you have formed these subjective beliefs. You have already admitted that if it was up to you you would abolish all religion. You are dangerous.

Neither of us has said that. You keep accusing us of that, and we keep pointing out that you're paranoid, and wrong.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

This post was not directed at you. It was directed to RWS. Had I directed this post to you, I would have written that you actively seek to subordinate religion.

No, I don't. I don't need to subordinate religion. Religion is inherently self destructive. I don't need to do anything other than defend the Constitution, vigilantly prevent theocrats from suborning education with their religious indoctrination, and rational reason will do the work of destroying religion all. On. It's. Own.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

As I remember from our previous chat, that was not the case. Or are you softening your position on how it is necessary ridicule and condemn respect for people who believe in God? Because it sounds to me that you are saying one thing about religion and have conveniently forgotten your positions on how you interact with its adherents. There seems to be a disconnect between the two.

Because I find religionists, like yourself, ridiculous, and worthy of making isn't because I feel the need to "subordinate religion". It's just because you're ridiculous, and need to be mocked. Nope. I have always held the same position. I do not need to do anyting. Religionists will destroy themselves.

Then stop lying about not wanting to subordinate religion. Grow you a pair for God's sake. In case you hadn't noticed you got schooled. You suck at trying to make me look ridiculous.

 

[ding]

That's not how it works.

The 7 Characteristics of Life

I know but at least you and cz are in agreement on something.

And I am reconsidering my position because of it.

I'm going to church today. 40 days after someone dies we get together. Let's see if I'm moved. Maybe the holy ghost will visit me. Maybe they'll have a healer there today. Or will they talk about a charity or that the churches operating costs are $375k a year?

Or maybe you will at least become objective.

I still think its the greatest bullshit story ever invented but it makes a lot of people happy. Ignorance is bliss. Lol.

I'm going to start going once a month. My mom just died and my dad wants to go but won't go by himself.

Isn't one of the rules honor your mother and father? Even us atheists understand that.

That would surely make you a good son.

 

[ding]

Only if you presume that the universe was, in fact created. In order to do that, you need to, first, provide objective evidence that it was created.

What you are presenting is a circular argument. "Proof that the universe was created is found in the existence of God, and proof of the existence of God is that the universe was created, "

This is the problem with theism. Ultimately, it always digresses to ignoring one logical fallacy, or another, in order to accept its conclusions.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

Sure, make the presumption and then test it.

Okay. Test away. How do you intend to test your premise that the Universe was created?

What do you think I've been doing, lol.

Well, I've pointed out that you are tending to go in circles.

Also, it seems weird to me to depend so thoroughly on science and then flip to a totally non-scientific direction.

It's been more like stuck in first gear than circles. Can you give an example of my "flip?" I don't follow you.

I share that view - that science doesn't offer an affirmative argument for atheism (or for theism).

On the other hand, I think religion makes the existence of god a root assumption - thus something that can't be proven true or false within religion.

All hypothesis start out as unproven. It must be examined and tested to be proven.

The rules of science don't allow for there to be any hypothesis that includes references to God.

Even when it is of the natural world? If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you?

Science does that all the time. No problem with that.

However, you won't be able to find out whether I'm God by doing that.

Agreed, I never said otherwise. I can learn certain things about you.

The catch is that you aren't applying the constraints that are fundamental to science. You are suggesting that we could identify something as requiring the supernatural.

No. I don't believe I have done that. Can you show me what I have written that led you to believe that?

We can use science to learn about our universe, but what we are learning is how natural processes work. When we run into stuff we don't understand, the answer from science is, "I don't know."

After a bunch more work, we often go back and say, "OK, now I know."

But, you are suggesting that at some point we should NOT say, "I don't know" - that we should instead say "God did it."

But, science has NO WAY to determine when to switch from "I don't know" to "God did it".

Again, I don't know how you are making this leap. I am examining the only evidence we have for a Creator which is what and how it was created. I am using our experiences as a proxy in doing so.

The point is that what you are doing isn't science. You can try to get around the rules, but in the end it just isn't science.

Your "is there a god" thing is not a "hypothesis", because no hypothesis in scientific method can refer to god in any way. There is no possibility of testing for god. Thus it's outside of science. End of story.

We do the same with stuff like string theory. We have no way of testing whether these ideas are part of our natural world. So, we have smart people thinking about things, using math, accepting progress science is making, but that doesn't mean it is science. It's not.

In your case, you are still applying the idea that if TODAY we can't explain some phenomenon we see, then it must be evidence of God - and that is BS.

If we can't explain some phenomenon we see, that is evidence that we don't know something.

Really? Sure, before the beginning is philosophy, but the rest? Can you be more specific about what isn't science?