U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-02-2013, 09:11 PM
 
Location: Lower east side of Toronto
10,586 posts, read 10,769,514 times
Reputation: 9293

Advertisements

I love and understand science. I've been this way all of my life- I don't understand how the elimination of God makes things more understandable? I understand just fine with the God factor in place or out of place...it makes no difference in my mind if there is a God or not when it comes to understanding.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-02-2013, 09:15 PM
 
Location: Parts Unknown, Northern California
40,950 posts, read 18,569,815 times
Reputation: 18673
Quote:
Originally Posted by Basiliximab View Post

Some people's hearts are so hardened by the facts presented to the world through the sciences that they are not yet reached by God
Basil....you are among multitudes of well intended visitors to this forum with the above message.

Perhaps one day all of you will finally catch on, we do not think with our hearts here, we think with our brains. The notion that we are all closet theists but for emotional barriers, represents wishful thinking on your part. Rationality is behind the rejection of revealed truths, declared truths and scriptural truths. Not emotions.

Tell me, would you be a Muslim if your heart wasn't hardened against coming to Allah? Would you have any objection to continuously encountering Islamics who insisted that this could be the only reason you reject Allah, but one day you may see the light. Do you think that there is a chance of that ever happening?

Let us say that it does. Then after your conversion to Islam, a Latter Day Saint comes up to you and explains that the only reason you are not a Mormon is that your heart has been hardened against Joseph Smith...etc. Would you then open up your heart, throw off Islam in favor of the Mormon faith?

Are you offended by the suggestion that your current faith is so fragile that it can be easily shattered and replaced by some emotional experience?

If so, think about that before the next time your presume to explain our motivations to us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2013, 09:22 PM
 
39,062 posts, read 10,837,135 times
Reputation: 5085
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oleg Bach View Post
I love and understand science. I've been this way all of my life- I don't understand how the elimination of God makes things more understandable? I understand just fine with the God factor in place or out of place...it makes no difference in my mind if there is a God or not when it comes to understanding.
Well, let's take the Goldilocks argument. We are in just the right place and the right conditions for life to evolve. Or at least survive when created wholesale.

But scientific evidence tells us that we required the extinctions of Triassic reptiles to give dinosaurs the chance to dominate and then dinosaurs in the Cretaceous to allow mammals to dominate. If there was a god doing all this, why the need for it? To say 'God has His reasons' explained nothing. It makes it easier to explain if there is no God and life began without it. True, there is the unexplained abiogenesis, but even that has hypothetical explanations, which is more explanation than 'God has His reasons'.

One could take a step back and say that at least a god could have worked through the evolutionary process and the Bible is only 'metaphorically' true as regards biological origins.

But then we get some very nasty stuff in animal behaviour. I won't upset your breakfast by listing them, but they are not hard to find. Why on earth would God arrange such horrors in his evolutionary creation? Again, it is easier to explain if there was no God and evolution did what it did, because evolution is not always nice, but it is the best explanation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-02-2013, 11:02 PM
 
40,056 posts, read 26,739,576 times
Reputation: 6050
Quote:
Originally Posted by NoCapo View Post
He is excluding unverifiable, untestable personal anecdote, as well he should!
No he should not. He was criticizing my use of likelihood estimates based on MY knowledge . . . not general knowledge. The only one for whom verifiability is an issue is ME. Given MY knowledge . . . my estimates were not only possible but credible. It was HIS general verifiable concerns that made it impossible for him to see how any estimates could ever be made.
Quote:
You claim objective knowledge through a subjective evaluation of a subjective experience (You had a vision, and you have a feeling that the vision is true), which you cannot prescribe the steps to reproduce, nor can you measure test or observe it. It is quite literally no different than you making something up!
You (and I mean the generic you) have repeatedly misconstrued my views and attacked strawmen issues. The only things I consider objective are what science has established to date. Everything based on my personal experiences is ADDED to that to comprise MY certainty and achieve further understanding . . . then on top of that are my spiritual interpretations using the fossil record. You (generic) cannot seem to parse the various components of my views and instead treat them all as if they have the same provenance. It is a Synthesis that is very powerful and compelling FOR ME . . . and all my efforts to explain it are plagued by this one-size-fits-all critique which is very frustrating. The science is not really on your side despite your beliefs because "we don't know" is no basis for rejection. Lacking my personal experience (which I am convinced is achievable with sufficient discipline) skepticism is appropriate. But it is not dispositive since the ability to test it is there if you actually wanted to engage in the necessary discipline to achieve it. The spiritual interpretations are interpretations based on evaluations of the "spiritual fossil record" and choosing the likeliest scenario. You would probably consider it entirely Faith based despite the scholarship and analysis that went into it. You can legitimately ignore them if they do not resonate with your psyche.
Quote:
I enjoy working through the philosophy and logic of things with you, but with garbage like this you are showing yourself worse than the most dogmatic fundies, because at least they claim to have an objective source (the Bible). You have set yourself up like the next Jesus or Muhammed. There is no god but the universal consciousness and MysticPhD is its prophet. You have made your subjective experience the sole and final arbiter of truth. Once you start going down this path, you are doing nothing but proselytizing, proclaiming your personal gospel to the masses.
I repeat for the umpteenth time . . . I am not proselytizing. I am witnessing to my understanding based on a Synthesis of knowledge and experience. I am trying to explain WHY I hold the views I do in the face of significant criticism from BOTH atheists and theists. That is all. I have a great deal of certainty because of my experiences so that is bound to come through in the discussions.
Quote:
I enjoy discussing philosophy, consciousness, physics and all the other issues that your ideas bring up, but when you have to abandon rational discourse to preach, perhaps that is a sign that you should post that particular post in a different forum.
-NoCapo
I am and have been more than willing to parse the discussion and deal with the philosophical and science issues separately. Unfortunately, the one-size-fits-all approach of my critics seems to render them unable to separate the different aspects of my views . . . and they invariably muddle them together. It seems that the God concept has some seriously gestalt conceptual baggage that cannot be removed for such discussions. Rifleman seems to have particular difficulty with this focused as he is on the Christian Fundy Bible God as literally presented.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2013, 03:05 AM
 
39,062 posts, read 10,837,135 times
Reputation: 5085
I suppose it wouldn't do any good to repeat yet again, Mystic, that the way we see it is that your Mystical experience has formed a basis of Faith in one preferred explanation for that experience, and that Philosophy and science has been adapted to it.

The attempt to separate the issues is both futile and irrelevant because together or separate it becomes evident that Godfaith is your rationale for your argument, because we eventually run up against assumptions about God and reality and the burden of proof and the rejection of what we might call the scientific concensus about that and Godfaith is the reason why.

Proselytizing or witnessing your understanding is neither here nor there. We just note that you have a tendency to pop up on all manner of threads pushing your same religious views and arguments and so of course the same challenges are going to be made. I'm rather the same with my pet theory about the Pauline gospels, so I'm not criticizing, just explaining.

As I have said before, we agree on more than we disagree on. If your theory was purely resulting in sortagod - pantheist faith, there would be less of a problem, but for some reason it has become Biblegod -pantheist. You have surely seen enough posts on the Bible here to know that its god -claims are not worth the paper on which it is printed, and that the Jesus story is no more believable than Mallory's Arthur (1).

While I can understand and sympathize with your God-synthesis (the aliases of Universal field and cosmic mind are quickly seen through) and even the spiritual fossil record theory, I do find it hard to understand why you give any credence to any particular religion.

(1) If you were considering popping off the rather obvious ploy of 'Then you are claiming that Arthur never existed?', I suggest that you consider that as a strawman argument, and don't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2013, 10:57 AM
 
293 posts, read 212,723 times
Reputation: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander View Post
What you are actually doing is postulating two forms of truth, the actual one, as in factually established, and a bogus form which you characterize as "for me."

I consider the above nonsense. You could persuade yourself that it is not possible to burn your flesh, have that be one of your "for me" truths, and then I could heat an iron bar until it was white hot, apply it to your skin and your "me truth" would evaporate in screams.

If this is a personal thing for you, an indication of your need for clinging to delusions in order to generate emotional stability, then that is fine because it is something that works for you. When you bring it here and promote it before a bunch of rationalists, it comes across as silly.

Your ballpark feasibility remains absurd. You cannot compute the odds on something which has no comparative examples, nor has even been established as existing as a single case. Did you not understand the examples I provided in my previous post? What are the odds that Robin Hood wore three feathers in his hat? How fast could Tinkerbell fly? Could Mighty Mouse beat up Batman? What are the odds?

In my opinion, it was "game, set, match" after this post.

Outstanding work, sir...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2013, 11:22 AM
 
3,448 posts, read 2,678,922 times
Reputation: 478
Its not theism. Its a suitcase full of self made excuses for theism...Nothing to do with theism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2013, 12:40 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,372,762 times
Reputation: 3735
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
It is a Synthesis that is very powerful and compelling FOR ME . . . and all my efforts to explain it are plagued by this one-size-fits-all critique which is very frustrating. The science is not really on your side despite your beliefs because "we don't know" is no basis for rejection.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rflmn™
Well, yes in fact it certainly can be... as you have shown us time & again! The demonstrable, or even list of plausible, evidentiary items grows remarkably thin in your postulation.
Lacking my personal experience (which I am convinced is achievable with sufficient discipline) skepticism is appropriate. But it is not dispositive since the ability to test it is there if you actually wanted to engage in the necessary discipline to achieve it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LOL-rflmn™
What, you mean to artificially engage a specific philosophical perspective with it's own set of pre-calculated and assumptive presets? That immediately reduces it to a straw-argument, does it not?
I am and have been more than willing to parse the discussion and deal with the philosophical and science issues separately. Unfortunately, the one-size-fits-all approach of my critics seems to render them unable to separate the different aspects of my views . . . and they invariably muddle them together. It seems that the God concept has some seriously gestalt conceptual baggage that cannot be removed for such discussions. Rifleman seems to have particular difficulty with this focused as he is on the Christian Fundy Bible God as literally presented.
That is because I have chosen to pick apart that uniquely illiterate set of ideas, part of which you do indeed wholesomely embace, is that not precisely so, Mystic? It truly is very much a part of your individual spiritual psyche, if my read from many of your other threads over on the Christianity sub is any indication.

You do indeed have the right to your opinion, but I'd hope it might be more primally based in some ven slightly documented facts. Such facts do not ever arise. Ever.

Busted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2013, 12:42 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles County, CA
29,124 posts, read 22,032,738 times
Reputation: 6128
I never knew that there were evangelistic atheists until I happened upon this forum.

What a depressing way to live - spending all your time spreading your opinion that there is no God.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-03-2013, 12:53 PM
 
5,462 posts, read 5,938,252 times
Reputation: 1804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harrier View Post
I never knew that there were evangelistic atheists until I happened upon this forum.

What a depressing way to live - spending all your time spreading your opinion that there is no God.
Yet another poster is shocked that there is going to be atheist-related content in a forum titled "Atheism and Agnosticism". Shocked, I tell you. Next thing you know they'll be discussing cooking in a cooking forum. Certainly this sort of shocking content can not stand, my good sir.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top