Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[BreezeWood]

.

Scientists specializing in the mind have begun to unravel religion's DNA. They've produced theories, backed by empirical evidence including imaging studies of the brain at work that support the conclusion that it was humans who created God, not the other way around.

the Spirit is not within the CNS (central nervous system) - the physiology is and its origin is not from a physical location, either. Flora has no neurons and as with all beings is Spiritually endowed. humans have created an answer without an expatiation that someday will be known or they will become extinct.

 

[Czernobog]

The matter and energy that make up who we are right now, literally existed when space and time were created. You and I are quite literally a part of the universe. We are having a discussion about the universe of which we are a part of. The universe is quite literally discussing itself. Do you need for me to explain to you the Conservation of Mass and Energy? Do you need for me to explain the evolution of matter from inception to now? Because based upon these scientific princples, the universe has become self aware. How is it that a man as intelligent as you are was not aware that the universe has become self aware through beings which know and create which are products of the evolution of the universe?



Carl Sagan — 'We are the local embodiment of a Cosmos grown to self-awareness.

You lose again.

Okay. I'm going to just take your points one at a time, and I am going to start with the most ridiculous of them. You quoted Carl Sagan, without even a little understanding of Carl Sagan. The quote you used was taken out of context, and ignores the poetry of his statement, which had nothing to do with the science that he presented. The oceans are teeming with fish. Is the ocean, itself, "alive"? No. The ocean is simpmly H2O. That's it. It is a collection of Hydrogen Dioxide molecules. It is not alive. It is not conscious. it has no intelligence. It is just water. To suggest that humanity is representative of the entire universe is egocentricity at its worst. You have replaced rational scientific study with irrational philosophical musings, called it rationality, and declared me the "loser".

How about you make a decision. Do you want to debate rational scientic study, and evidence, or do you want to wax poetic over philosophy. Because you can't do the latter, and call your argument rational.

Bullshit, even Carl Sagan... an atheist... was not so devoid of reason to deny the reality that we are literally made up of star dust and that our atoms literally came into existence when space and time did. Are you seriously arguing against the scientific laws and principles which prove this?

"Did you know that the matter in your body is billions of years old? According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago...."

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

Now what do you have to say? How's your mocking going now?

I'm not denying that. That has nothing to do with your statement. You know what? We're going to resolve this with just a few, simple, yes, or no questions:

We are made of the same stuff as the entire universe, correct?

The matter that makes us up was present at the big bang when space and time came into existence. Since that time it has only changed form. Yes.

Good! Something we can agree on. So, you would agree that everything that exists, is made up of the same molecular material that humanity is, yes?

 

[Mudda]

You just think that because I'm the only rational person here and you want a piece of that. Um... no.

Well no one's going to join your boring club. I've seen the insides of churches. A lot of fun. And it's a lot of fun telling people that god was made up by man a long time ago and no one has ever met him. Not even close. You sit on the fence and watch the match. You shouldn't even be commenting. You have no opinion. Just watch the adults speak. You know who else is agnostic about things?



Do you really not have an opinion on whether or not you are a god yourself waiting for this shell you are in now to die so you can go off and live for eternity glorifying god? It's so fucking stupid. But you stay on the fence you big baby.

Ideally you should admit you are an agnostic atheist. Anyone who doesn't get why agnostic atheism is the most rational position needs to wake up. I'm right.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Actually, I get to argue against atheists AND theists. As you're both deluded with no proof of your position.

I'm explaining how you made it up. Not my fault you are stubborn or don't get it.

There's an equal probability for the existence or not or a god until proven otherwise. You, sir, have nothing.

So wrong but in America you are free to be wrong.

We can be better as a species if we recognize religion as a man-made construct. We owe it to ourselves to at least consider the real roots of religious belief, so we can deal with life as it is, taking advantage of perhaps our mind's greatest adaptation: our ability to use reason.

Imagine that.

Then use it.

When wondering how the universe got its start, it is logical not to rule an external god/person/... without any evidence. Ex: Our universe could an experiment in someone's lab for all we know. But you've ruled out ALL external possibilities. Which of course is not logical without proof.

 

[ding]

The matter and energy that make up who we are right now, literally existed when space and time were created. You and I are quite literally a part of the universe. We are having a discussion about the universe of which we are a part of. The universe is quite literally discussing itself. Do you need for me to explain to you the Conservation of Mass and Energy? Do you need for me to explain the evolution of matter from inception to now? Because based upon these scientific princples, the universe has become self aware. How is it that a man as intelligent as you are was not aware that the universe has become self aware through beings which know and create which are products of the evolution of the universe?



Carl Sagan — 'We are the local embodiment of a Cosmos grown to self-awareness.

You lose again.

Okay. I'm going to just take your points one at a time, and I am going to start with the most ridiculous of them. You quoted Carl Sagan, without even a little understanding of Carl Sagan. The quote you used was taken out of context, and ignores the poetry of his statement, which had nothing to do with the science that he presented. The oceans are teeming with fish. Is the ocean, itself, "alive"? No. The ocean is simpmly H2O. That's it. It is a collection of Hydrogen Dioxide molecules. It is not alive. It is not conscious. it has no intelligence. It is just water. To suggest that humanity is representative of the entire universe is egocentricity at its worst. You have replaced rational scientific study with irrational philosophical musings, called it rationality, and declared me the "loser".

How about you make a decision. Do you want to debate rational scientic study, and evidence, or do you want to wax poetic over philosophy. Because you can't do the latter, and call your argument rational.

Bullshit, even Carl Sagan... an atheist... was not so devoid of reason to deny the reality that we are literally made up of star dust and that our atoms literally came into existence when space and time did. Are you seriously arguing against the scientific laws and principles which prove this?

"Did you know that the matter in your body is billions of years old? According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago...."

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

Now what do you have to say? How's your mocking going now?

I'm not denying that. That has nothing to do with your statement. You know what? We're going to resolve this with just a few, simple, yes, or no questions:

We are made of the same stuff as the entire universe, correct?

The matter that makes us up was present at the big bang when space and time came into existence. Since that time it has only changed form. Yes.

Good! Something we can agree on. So, you would agree that everything that exists, is made up of the same molecular material that humanity is, yes?

I would agree that it all came from the exact same source, yes.

 

[Mudda]

You just think that because I'm the only rational person here and you want a piece of that. Um... no.

Well no one's going to join your boring club. I've seen the insides of churches. A lot of fun. And it's a lot of fun telling people that god was made up by man a long time ago and no one has ever met him. Not even close. You sit on the fence and watch the match. You shouldn't even be commenting. You have no opinion. Just watch the adults speak. You know who else is agnostic about things?



Do you really not have an opinion on whether or not you are a god yourself waiting for this shell you are in now to die so you can go off and live for eternity glorifying god? It's so fucking stupid. But you stay on the fence you big baby.

Ideally you should admit you are an agnostic atheist. Anyone who doesn't get why agnostic atheism is the most rational position needs to wake up. I'm right.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Actually, I get to argue against atheists AND theists. As you're both deluded with no proof of your position.

I'm explaining how you made it up. Not my fault you are stubborn or don't get it.

There's an equal probability for the existence or not or a god until proven otherwise. You, sir, have nothing.

There's another problem, you can't say there are equal odds unless you can actually make a case for those odds. You have done a magnificent job shooting down all of the cases for God, but you don't have a path to the God exists's case. You see, the problem you have with statistics is that if you say there are equal chances of each outcome and you ran a monte carlo simulation you would actually get nearly half outcomes being that there is a God. So, you can't use those odds because you have not proven those odds.

That's why I'm agnostic, until something can be proven, nobody has anything. But yes, you both have an equal chance of being wrong, because on this question, there's either a god or there is, a 50/50 proposition.

 

[Mudda]

Well no one's going to join your boring club. I've seen the insides of churches. A lot of fun. And it's a lot of fun telling people that god was made up by man a long time ago and no one has ever met him. Not even close. You sit on the fence and watch the match. You shouldn't even be commenting. You have no opinion. Just watch the adults speak. You know who else is agnostic about things?



Do you really not have an opinion on whether or not you are a god yourself waiting for this shell you are in now to die so you can go off and live for eternity glorifying god? It's so fucking stupid. But you stay on the fence you big baby.

Ideally you should admit you are an agnostic atheist. Anyone who doesn't get why agnostic atheism is the most rational position needs to wake up. I'm right.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Actually, I get to argue against atheists AND theists. As you're both deluded with no proof of your position.

I'm explaining how you made it up. Not my fault you are stubborn or don't get it.

There's an equal probability for the existence or not or a god until proven otherwise. You, sir, have nothing.

There's another problem, you can't say there are equal odds unless you can actually make a case for those odds. You have done a magnificent job shooting down all of the cases for God, but you don't have a path to the God exists's case. You see, the problem you have with statistics is that if you say there are equal chances of each outcome and you ran a monte carlo simulation you would actually get nearly half outcomes being that there is a God. So, you can't use those odds because you have not proven those odds.

Yea mudda, make your case for how a god is an equally probable outcome. Ding even realizes you are full of shit.

Make your case for either side so we at least know you understand what we are discussing here.

Why do you believe a god has a 50 50 chance?

I believe you are going to prove agnostics are retards.

God has a 50/50 chance of existing because well, he either is or isn't, a 50/50 proposition. Seems pretty simple really.

 

[ding]

Well no one's going to join your boring club. I've seen the insides of churches. A lot of fun. And it's a lot of fun telling people that god was made up by man a long time ago and no one has ever met him. Not even close. You sit on the fence and watch the match. You shouldn't even be commenting. You have no opinion. Just watch the adults speak. You know who else is agnostic about things?



Do you really not have an opinion on whether or not you are a god yourself waiting for this shell you are in now to die so you can go off and live for eternity glorifying god? It's so fucking stupid. But you stay on the fence you big baby.

Ideally you should admit you are an agnostic atheist. Anyone who doesn't get why agnostic atheism is the most rational position needs to wake up. I'm right.

The existence and non-existence of a god are not equally probable outcomes. The majority of things we can possibly imagine do not exist. Thus, belief is not as valid a position as skepticism when dealing with unsupported or unfalsifiable claims. Agnostic atheism is the most rational position.

Actually, I get to argue against atheists AND theists. As you're both deluded with no proof of your position.

I'm explaining how you made it up. Not my fault you are stubborn or don't get it.

There's an equal probability for the existence or not or a god until proven otherwise. You, sir, have nothing.

There's another problem, you can't say there are equal odds unless you can actually make a case for those odds. You have done a magnificent job shooting down all of the cases for God, but you don't have a path to the God exists's case. You see, the problem you have with statistics is that if you say there are equal chances of each outcome and you ran a monte carlo simulation you would actually get nearly half outcomes being that there is a God. So, you can't use those odds because you have not proven those odds.

That's why I'm agnostic, until something can be proven, nobody has anything. But yes, you both have an equal chance of being wrong, because on this question, there's either a god or there is, a 50/50 proposition.

Great so if you really believe there is a 50% chance of God existing then just tell me what that looks like. Make an argument for it. I'll wait. I know you can't.

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. I'm going to just take your points one at a time, and I am going to start with the most ridiculous of them. You quoted Carl Sagan, without even a little understanding of Carl Sagan. The quote you used was taken out of context, and ignores the poetry of his statement, which had nothing to do with the science that he presented. The oceans are teeming with fish. Is the ocean, itself, "alive"? No. The ocean is simpmly H2O. That's it. It is a collection of Hydrogen Dioxide molecules. It is not alive. It is not conscious. it has no intelligence. It is just water. To suggest that humanity is representative of the entire universe is egocentricity at its worst. You have replaced rational scientific study with irrational philosophical musings, called it rationality, and declared me the "loser".

How about you make a decision. Do you want to debate rational scientic study, and evidence, or do you want to wax poetic over philosophy. Because you can't do the latter, and call your argument rational.

Bullshit, even Carl Sagan... an atheist... was not so devoid of reason to deny the reality that we are literally made up of star dust and that our atoms literally came into existence when space and time did. Are you seriously arguing against the scientific laws and principles which prove this?

"Did you know that the matter in your body is billions of years old? According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago...."

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

Now what do you have to say? How's your mocking going now?

I'm not denying that. That has nothing to do with your statement. You know what? We're going to resolve this with just a few, simple, yes, or no questions:

We are made of the same stuff as the entire universe, correct?

The matter that makes us up was present at the big bang when space and time came into existence. Since that time it has only changed form. Yes.

Good! Something we can agree on. So, you would agree that everything that exists, is made up of the same molecular material that humanity is, yes?

I would agree that it all came from the exact same source, yes.

Fantastic. Then I eagerly await your link to the scientific studies, and the measurements of the self awareness of the rock in your front yard. After all, since it is your contention that, because we all came from the same "cosmic stuff", that, in the words of Carl Sagan, "We are the local embodiment of a Cosmos grown to self-awareness.", by which he clearly meant that all of the universe is self-aware. Since all of the universe is self aware, I will eagerly await your scientific measurements of the self awares of a rock.

 

[Mudda]

Actually, I get to argue against atheists AND theists. As you're both deluded with no proof of your position.

Ya know. You keep saying that, as if someone taking a null position, proposing a negative assertion has the requirement to prove the negative. You get that is not how this works, right? Atheists don't have to prove anything. All they have to do is stand by their negative assertion, until such time as the theists effectively provide objective evidence of their positive assertion. You see, you seem to think that atheism takes the postion that "There is no God, and it is not possible for there to be a God".

That's not atheim. I don't know what that is, but it isn't atheism. Atheism is based on a simple, negative assertion: "There is no God," Period. Full stop. It makes no assertions about possibilities. The very point of Heizenberg's Uncertainty principle is that, literally, anything, so long as it falls in the realm of physical laws, is possible. Thus, the existence of God is a possiblity. Atheists make no claims about the possible. Only about the observable, and proven. There. is. No. God. Period. Full stop.

Now. Now that you have a fuller understanding of the atheist position, what do you propose atheists are responsible for "proving"?

If you're leaving the door open for possible eventual proof either way of a god, then your an agnostic.
If you say that there is no god, then you need proof for your assertion.

 

[Mudda]

Actually, I get to argue against atheists AND theists. As you're both deluded with no proof of your position.

I'm explaining how you made it up. Not my fault you are stubborn or don't get it.

There's an equal probability for the existence or not or a god until proven otherwise. You, sir, have nothing.

There's another problem, you can't say there are equal odds unless you can actually make a case for those odds. You have done a magnificent job shooting down all of the cases for God, but you don't have a path to the God exists's case. You see, the problem you have with statistics is that if you say there are equal chances of each outcome and you ran a monte carlo simulation you would actually get nearly half outcomes being that there is a God. So, you can't use those odds because you have not proven those odds.

That's why I'm agnostic, until something can be proven, nobody has anything. But yes, you both have an equal chance of being wrong, because on this question, there's either a god or there is, a 50/50 proposition.

Great so if you really believe there is a 50% chance of God existing then just tell me what that looks like. Make an argument for it. I'll wait. I know you can't.

I can't tell you what something that hasn't been proven to exist looks like. If god exists, it could look like any number of things, again, until proven otherwise.

 

[Mudda]

I'm arguing against an atheist, isn't that what you claimed I didn't do and therefore wasn't agnostic?

Loser. Again.

No. If you were arguing against the atheists you would be making my argument and concluding that it was not knowable either way. You are quibbling over the philosophy of belief system not the existence of God which is the core of the philosophies. You can't bring yourself to argue the other side of existence because you don't believe it. Not that you don't know it. You literally do not believe it and that is why you are an atheist.

Why would I argue your side, you have no proof either? And you're totally unclear of the concept of agnosticism, I don't believe both sides equally, I reject both sides equally for lack of real proof.

That's my point. You have not rejected both sides equally. I even gave you a way to do it.

I'm stating right now that I reject both sides equally, you're just pissed because you know that I'm right.

Prove it. Explain to me how God is possible.

On the question of how the universe came to be, it is possible that an external force/person/... could have been involved. To discount such a possibility would not be logical.

 

[Czernobog]

Let me tell you how relationships with omnipresent omniscient omnipotent beings work... it's never their fault.

And there is the irrationality of religion. "It's never their fault". Period. Full stop. For every good thing that hapens, God gets 100% credit. It doesn't matter what it is, or how that good thing came about, God gets the credit. Go ahead, and pick a positive event. I don't care what it is, just pick one, and I will demonstrate how it was "God that did it". However, God is never responsible for a single bad thing that ever happens. Not. One, because...It's. Never. Their. Fault. period. Full stop.

This is you mixing the two questions; 1. Is there a God? 2. Who is God?. You are trying to use 2 to disprove 1. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. They are independent questions. You are trying to take a sophomore class as a freshman. You are viewing this as a possible way out of the freshman classes that are kicking your butt. You wouldn't stand a chance at the sophomore level either.

Well, that's because you insist on skipping over question one. I have asked repeatedly for your objective evidence that God exists, and your answer is, "You can't find that, because he is supernatural, and outside of the observable universe". So, you don't get to complain when I skip over Question 1, as you have insisted on doing that during this entire discussion.

Which is why I am examining what He created. I did so and then made my case. The dots have been connected.

You see? You want your cake, and eat it, too. You want to ignore the first question, and examine the "creation" of a "creator" that you insist cannot be proven objectively. But, when I ignore that first question, and proceed to poke holes in the irrational concept of your nature of this mythical God, You cry foul.

 

[ding]

Bullshit, even Carl Sagan... an atheist... was not so devoid of reason to deny the reality that we are literally made up of star dust and that our atoms literally came into existence when space and time did. Are you seriously arguing against the scientific laws and principles which prove this?

"Did you know that the matter in your body is billions of years old? According to most astrophysicists, all the matter found in the universe today -- including the matter in people, plants, animals, the earth, stars, and galaxies -- was created at the very first moment of time, thought to be about 13 billion years ago...."

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

Now what do you have to say? How's your mocking going now?

I'm not denying that. That has nothing to do with your statement. You know what? We're going to resolve this with just a few, simple, yes, or no questions:

We are made of the same stuff as the entire universe, correct?

The matter that makes us up was present at the big bang when space and time came into existence. Since that time it has only changed form. Yes.

Good! Something we can agree on. So, you would agree that everything that exists, is made up of the same molecular material that humanity is, yes?

I would agree that it all came from the exact same source, yes.

Fantastic. Then I eagerly await your link to the scientific studies, and the measurements of the self awareness of the rock in your front yard. After all, since it is your contention that, because we all came from the same "cosmic stuff", that, in the words of Carl Sagan, "We are the local embodiment of a Cosmos grown to self-awareness.", by which he clearly meant that all of the universe is self-aware. Since all of the universe is self aware, I will eagerly await your scientific measurements of the self awares of a rock.

I don't claim the rock is self aware. I claim that you and I are. It is like any refining process. Just because I start with a barrel of oil does not mean I will get a barrel of gasoline. In fact, I can't think of any refining process where you don't have byproducts.

So are you going to seriously argue that since all of the universe does not have self awareness that none of the universe has self awareness?

Really? Is that your final answer? Would you like me to mock that now or later?

 

[ding]

Let me tell you how relationships with omnipresent omniscient omnipotent beings work... it's never their fault.

And there is the irrationality of religion. "It's never their fault". Period. Full stop. For every good thing that hapens, God gets 100% credit. It doesn't matter what it is, or how that good thing came about, God gets the credit. Go ahead, and pick a positive event. I don't care what it is, just pick one, and I will demonstrate how it was "God that did it". However, God is never responsible for a single bad thing that ever happens. Not. One, because...It's. Never. Their. Fault. period. Full stop.

This is you mixing the two questions; 1. Is there a God? 2. Who is God?. You are trying to use 2 to disprove 1. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. They are independent questions. You are trying to take a sophomore class as a freshman. You are viewing this as a possible way out of the freshman classes that are kicking your butt. You wouldn't stand a chance at the sophomore level either.

Well, that's because you insist on skipping over question one. I have asked repeatedly for your objective evidence that God exists, and your answer is, "You can't find that, because he is supernatural, and outside of the observable universe". So, you don't get to complain when I skip over Question 1, as you have insisted on doing that during this entire discussion.

Which is why I am examining what He created. I did so and then made my case. The dots have been connected.

You see? You want your cake, and eat it, too. You want to ignore the first question, and examine the "creation" of a "creator" that you insist cannot be proven objectively. But, when I ignore that first question, and proceed to poke holes in the irrational concept of your nature of this mythical God, You cry foul.

No. I started with a question and then made observations on what I could and defined boundary conditions for what I couldn't. You would rather never examine any evidence unless you already knew the outcome. It doesn't work like that. You have not poked holes in any of my beliefs. Which I will summarize again for posterity.

The universe had a beginning. What started it is beyond science. What happened after it can be studied. Matter evolved from subatomic particles into beings that know and create. The universe became self aware. The potential for this existed at the beginning. It occurred as a result of the laws of nature. Those laws of nature came into existence when space and time were created. Intelligence is the pinnacle of the evolution of matter. It is the nature of intelligence to create intelligence. The 1st Cause is required. The attribute of the first cause must be eternal. God is just as good as an answer to the first cause as anything else. These are not irrational beliefs. These are rational beliefs.

 

[Czernobog]

Actually, I get to argue against atheists AND theists. As you're both deluded with no proof of your position.

Ya know. You keep saying that, as if someone taking a null position, proposing a negative assertion has the requirement to prove the negative. You get that is not how this works, right? Atheists don't have to prove anything. All they have to do is stand by their negative assertion, until such time as the theists effectively provide objective evidence of their positive assertion. You see, you seem to think that atheism takes the postion that "There is no God, and it is not possible for there to be a God".

That's not atheim. I don't know what that is, but it isn't atheism. Atheism is based on a simple, negative assertion: "There is no God," Period. Full stop. It makes no assertions about possibilities. The very point of Heizenberg's Uncertainty principle is that, literally, anything, so long as it falls in the realm of physical laws, is possible. Thus, the existence of God is a possiblity. Atheists make no claims about the possible. Only about the observable, and proven. There. is. No. God. Period. Full stop.

Now. Now that you have a fuller understanding of the atheist position, what do you propose atheists are responsible for "proving"?

If you're leaving the door open for possible eventual proof either way of a god, then your an agnostic.

No. I'm atheist. Guess what? I also assert that pink polka-dotted flying moneys do not exist. I am not "agnostic" about their existence. I am certain of thier non-existence, until such time as someone provides me with objective proof of their existence.

If you say that there is no god, then you need proof for your assertion.

No, I don't. A negative assertion is not required to "prove the negative". It is the onus of theists to prove their positive assqertion. you are never require, and cannot, prove that you never raped your daughter. One cannot prove a negative. It is my responsiblity to prove that you did rape your daughter, if I were to make that positive assertion. It is this very principle of not being required to prove a negative assertion that out entire "innocent until proven guilty" legal system is based.

God does not exist until proven otherwise. And the proof required by atheists is objective, unambiguous evidence.

 

[Czernobog]

I'm not denying that. That has nothing to do with your statement. You know what? We're going to resolve this with just a few, simple, yes, or no questions:

We are made of the same stuff as the entire universe, correct?

The matter that makes us up was present at the big bang when space and time came into existence. Since that time it has only changed form. Yes.

Good! Something we can agree on. So, you would agree that everything that exists, is made up of the same molecular material that humanity is, yes?

I would agree that it all came from the exact same source, yes.

Fantastic. Then I eagerly await your link to the scientific studies, and the measurements of the self awareness of the rock in your front yard. After all, since it is your contention that, because we all came from the same "cosmic stuff", that, in the words of Carl Sagan, "We are the local embodiment of a Cosmos grown to self-awareness.", by which he clearly meant that all of the universe is self-aware. Since all of the universe is self aware, I will eagerly await your scientific measurements of the self awares of a rock.

I don't claim the rock is self aware. I claim that you and I are.

Except you, and I are not the universe. We are simply two beings who happen to reside within the universe. Thus endeth the lesson.

 

[ding]

The matter that makes us up was present at the big bang when space and time came into existence. Since that time it has only changed form. Yes.

Good! Something we can agree on. So, you would agree that everything that exists, is made up of the same molecular material that humanity is, yes?

I would agree that it all came from the exact same source, yes.

Fantastic. Then I eagerly await your link to the scientific studies, and the measurements of the self awareness of the rock in your front yard. After all, since it is your contention that, because we all came from the same "cosmic stuff", that, in the words of Carl Sagan, "We are the local embodiment of a Cosmos grown to self-awareness.", by which he clearly meant that all of the universe is self-aware. Since all of the universe is self aware, I will eagerly await your scientific measurements of the self awares of a rock.

I don't claim the rock is self aware. I claim that you and I are.

Except you, and I are not the universe. We are simply two beings who happen to reside within the universe. Thus endeth the lesson.

No, we are 7 billion beings who have satisfied the condition of the universe becoming aware of itself. It only takes one. You are quick to reject science when it does not suit your purpose. See the last line in my signature.

 

[ding]

Are Atheists able to use rational thought, deductive reasoning, and scrupulous logic to substantiate and legitimize their perceptions? Or are they simply lacking a perception that most people experience without the need for rationalization? Are they spiritually dumb?

Atheism really is an intellectual dead end.

 

[Mudda]

Actually, I get to argue against atheists AND theists. As you're both deluded with no proof of your position.

Ya know. You keep saying that, as if someone taking a null position, proposing a negative assertion has the requirement to prove the negative. You get that is not how this works, right? Atheists don't have to prove anything. All they have to do is stand by their negative assertion, until such time as the theists effectively provide objective evidence of their positive assertion. You see, you seem to think that atheism takes the postion that "There is no God, and it is not possible for there to be a God".

That's not atheim. I don't know what that is, but it isn't atheism. Atheism is based on a simple, negative assertion: "There is no God," Period. Full stop. It makes no assertions about possibilities. The very point of Heizenberg's Uncertainty principle is that, literally, anything, so long as it falls in the realm of physical laws, is possible. Thus, the existence of God is a possiblity. Atheists make no claims about the possible. Only about the observable, and proven. There. is. No. God. Period. Full stop.

Now. Now that you have a fuller understanding of the atheist position, what do you propose atheists are responsible for "proving"?

If you're leaving the door open for possible eventual proof either way of a god, then your an agnostic.

No. I'm atheist. Guess what? I also assert that pink polka-dotted flying moneys do not exist. I am not "agnostic" about their existence. I am certain of thier non-existence, until such time as someone provides me with objective proof of their existence.

If you say that there is no god, then you need proof for your assertion.

No, I don't. A negative assertion is not required to "prove the negative". It is the onus of theists to prove their positive assqertion. you are never require, and cannot, prove that you never raped your daughter. One cannot prove a negative. It is my responsiblity to prove that you did rape your daughter, if I were to make that positive assertion. It is this very principle of not being required to prove a negative assertion that out entire "innocent until proven guilty" legal system is based.

God does not exist until proven otherwise. And the proof required by atheists is objective, unambiguous evidence.

Then you're making a claim that you can't back up. On the question of how the universe was made, it is not logical to discount external help, such as a god...
Saying that there is no god is like saying gravity didn't exist until it was discovered. Whether we discover god or not, the possibility of the laws of nature being made by something outside this universe cannot be logically discounted.

 

[Czernobog]

And there is the irrationality of religion. "It's never their fault". Period. Full stop. For every good thing that hapens, God gets 100% credit. It doesn't matter what it is, or how that good thing came about, God gets the credit. Go ahead, and pick a positive event. I don't care what it is, just pick one, and I will demonstrate how it was "God that did it". However, God is never responsible for a single bad thing that ever happens. Not. One, because...It's. Never. Their. Fault. period. Full stop.

This is you mixing the two questions; 1. Is there a God? 2. Who is God?. You are trying to use 2 to disprove 1. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. They are independent questions. You are trying to take a sophomore class as a freshman. You are viewing this as a possible way out of the freshman classes that are kicking your butt. You wouldn't stand a chance at the sophomore level either.

Well, that's because you insist on skipping over question one. I have asked repeatedly for your objective evidence that God exists, and your answer is, "You can't find that, because he is supernatural, and outside of the observable universe". So, you don't get to complain when I skip over Question 1, as you have insisted on doing that during this entire discussion.

Which is why I am examining what He created. I did so and then made my case. The dots have been connected.

You see? You want your cake, and eat it, too. You want to ignore the first question, and examine the "creation" of a "creator" that you insist cannot be proven objectively. But, when I ignore that first question, and proceed to poke holes in the irrational concept of your nature of this mythical God, You cry foul.

No. I started with a question and then made observations on what I could and defined boundary conditions for what I couldn't. You would rather never examine any evidence unless you already knew the outcome. It doesn't work like that. You have not poked holes in any of my beliefs. Which I will summarize again for posterity.

It's not about knowing the outcome. It is the fact that your evidence is only valid, if one accepts the Premise of a creator without any evidence of the actual existence of a creator. Your the one who has set your conditions to ensure the outcome you want. "We cannot prove the existence of a creator, so we are going to simply presume a creator exists. Now that we have presumed facts not in evieence, we are going to examine the universe from the perspective that it was created, in order to guess at the nature of the creator that we have not proven, but presume, exists."

You want to ignore that there is no evidence of a creator, and proceed to use the universe to gleen uan inderstanding of the nature of a creator that you have not even established exists.

The universe had a beginning.

I am going to stop you right there. You keep making that statement as if it were undeniable fact, when there are multiple universal origin theories, and you were presented the most recent quantum theory which requires no such beginning, and does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. So you need to quit insisting that the universe has a beginning as if we "know this"l when we, in fact, know no such thing.