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)
 
Old 03-13-2014, 08:15 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
14,197 posts, read 9,097,133 times
Reputation: 6081

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
There is nothing that actually exists that needs to be accounted FOR BY the existence of Santa or the Easter Bunny. That is not true about God. There IS something that actually exists (reality) that needs to be accounted FOR and is currently unknown (or unknowable).
There are Christmas presents that need to be accounted for. Santa is supposedly what accounts for them, or so we like to tell our children. Of course there are far better things to account for Christmas presents.

There IS a reality that needs to be accounted for but the key difference is that while there are flesh and blood people who demonstrably account for who obtains and conveys Christmas presents at Christmastime, and actual brick and mortar factories that we can show make these products, there is nothing whatsoever demonstrable about god as an explanation for reality. You cannot produce god for my examination, and from all accounts, he'd not be amenable to my scrutiny anyway, as he's excessively modest, and tetchy about anyone violating his personal space.

Meanwhile, although we don't have a 100% accounting for all aspects of reality, we do know a great deal about it and have an excellent method (the scientific one) for building on that knowledge, which has grown exponentially in the past four centuries or so. We have greatly improved the knowledge of humanity by this method and we have every reason to expect to continue to do so.

What to do, what to do ...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-13-2014, 08:23 PM
 
39,213 posts, read 10,895,806 times
Reputation: 5097
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
You know what my response to this is, Arq. You can NOT therefore claim the default because that IS asserting that there is "No God" responsible for our reality. That IS a positive claim about the unknown . . . much as you seek to deny it. You prefer to say we don't need to assign responsibility for the existence of our reality . . . it is OK to not know. That is a preference . . . NOT a default. God as the reason for our reality is also a preference. BOTH are a priori presumptions based on preference. If you claim either one as default . . . you are making an unsubstantiated positive assertion, period.
No...I'm sure I said this before...we do NOT assert there is No God. We do not believe in the claim because the evidence is not good enough. We prefer the materialist default because the evidence is sound enough in that it demonstrably explains many processes in a way that does not require a god.

This is very basic stuff. I don't know why it is so difficult for you...and those chaps at Stanford, apparently.

"Must because our minds are too highly trained, Majiccthise."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2014, 08:38 PM
 
40,117 posts, read 26,779,715 times
Reputation: 6051
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I could turn the tables and ask why the other senses the brain uses to interpret reality (which are equally disconnected from the stimuli) are believed and accepted . . . but this one is deemed to be tricked or a dysfunction? Why is the interpretation of God's presence NOT an accurate one . . . but the interpretations of all the other senses are? Why default to the exception instead of the rule?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
If I put one of those tinfoil helmets your'e talking about on you and you sensed god, I would not. Either god is present, or not. Which one of us is correct?
If we both had such a helmet stimulating our god spot, I daresay that the specifics of our experience would not match, either.
Usually you provide logical arguments in rebuttal . . . but these were so off the beam that they require no response. Of course the brain can be tricked. Of course the brain can be dysfunctional. I am NOT suggesting that the God Helmet is causing someone to experience God. It is obviously tricking the brain. But in tricking the brain . . . it revealed an new sensory modality . . . fields. Since our reality is comprised of fields . . . this is noteworthy. Your examples above are silly. There IS no presence detectable by the brain in a normal state. The brain is tricked into sensing an artificial field. If you both had helmets on . . . you would both be sensing artificial fields. They prove nothing other than the brain can sense fields.

If we were smart enough . . . and we are making enormous strides in this area . . . we could artificially stimulate the optic areas of the brain with the correct stimuli and cause the brain to interpret it as seeing the color yellow. The brain would interpret it as yellow . . . but there would be no actual yellow to see. The brain would be tricked artificially. The same thing is true when the brain is tricked by a weak artificial field and interprets it as the presence of God and oneness.

What this evidence provides is support for those of us who alter our brain state and detect the presence of God . . . WITHOUT any artificial stimuli. When we alter our brain state in meditation or truly devout prayer . . . we tune our consciousness so that it is somehow resonant with the consciousness field of God. Hence we sense God . . . and there is NO artificial stimuli present to account for it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2014, 08:51 PM
 
354 posts, read 246,115 times
Reputation: 105
Quote:
Hence we sense God . . . and there is NO artificial stimuli present to account for it.
No, what you sense is something you are calling "God". It may not represent anything beyond the confines of your brain, or it might be in response to an external stimuli most reasonable people would not call a god.

Quote:
the consciousness field of God
So the god is producing some type of radiation that can be tested? If so, this seems like a material process and not worthy of the "god" label.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2014, 08:56 PM
 
392 posts, read 291,095 times
Reputation: 476
Most atheists I know just want to feel superior to the rest. There is no proof of a non-existence of God...anymore than there is the existence of an all powerful eternal entity. I play it safe because I am slightly more intelligent than most atheists...I believe...besides...what harm can it do? There are more benefits in being a believer than not...and it is the safer route. Had a conversation with my second daughter about the universe...She found it mind boggling that it is possible that there is no end....I said .....That is just GOD showing off.....how grand he is....eternity and endlessness are a powerful concept...as is GOD.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2014, 08:58 PM
 
Location: Sitting beside Walden Pond
4,609 posts, read 4,117,789 times
Reputation: 1399
I understand this whole thread started because a Theist said:

"Since no one can prove or disprove God exists, atheists are wrong to assert their disbelief as truth"

Actually, I can assert it is true that I do not believe in any god. In other words, my disbelief is true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2014, 09:06 PM
 
40,117 posts, read 26,779,715 times
Reputation: 6051
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
No...I'm sure I said this before...we do NOT assert there is No God. We do not believe in the claim because the evidence is not good enough. We prefer the materialist default because the evidence is sound enough in that it demonstrably explains many processes in a way that does not require a god.
This is very basic stuff. I don't know why it is so difficult for you...and those chaps at Stanford, apparently.
"Must because our minds are too highly trained, Majiccthise."
You have been plying this rhetorical tirck for far too long, Arq. There is NO materialist default because a default would be a positive assertion of a state of reality . . . in your case a "No God" state. That is an unsubstantiated positive claim. I know why it is so difficult for you and your cohort to accept . . . "God-o-phobia."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2014, 09:09 PM
 
40,117 posts, read 26,779,715 times
Reputation: 6051
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant View Post
There are Christmas presents that need to be accounted for. Santa is supposedly what accounts for them, or so we like to tell our children. Of course there are far better things to account for Christmas presents.
There IS a reality that needs to be accounted for but the key difference is that while there are flesh and blood people who demonstrably account for who obtains and conveys Christmas presents at Christmastime, and actual brick and mortar factories that we can show make these products, there is nothing whatsoever demonstrable about god as an explanation for reality. You cannot produce god for my examination, and from all accounts, he'd not be amenable to my scrutiny anyway, as he's excessively modest, and tetchy about anyone violating his personal space.
Meanwhile, although we don't have a 100% accounting for all aspects of reality, we do know a great deal about it and have an excellent method (the scientific one) for building on that knowledge, which has grown exponentially in the past four centuries or so. We have greatly improved the knowledge of humanity by this method and we have every reason to expect to continue to do so.
What to do, what to do ...
The caliber of your argumentation has seriously declined recently, Mordant. I don't have to produce God for any reason other than to assert God as the default. But NEITHER of us can assert ANY default because we have no positive proof of a Source for our reality. It is ALL preference based on differential knowledge and experiences, period.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-13-2014, 09:18 PM
 
16,105 posts, read 17,923,003 times
Reputation: 15897
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmking View Post
To equate the easter bunny and Santa Clause as akin to God is not a good comparison. Most know those are fictional. But God? Not so fast. Whether God exists or not, the perception of a god is ingrained in every culture on earth, be it relatively new or ancient. This concept built cities, empires and universities and cultures. So, to dismiss or equate god as the tooth fairy is not fair. I don't mean that God exists but that mankind seems to be hardwired for it, and perhaps for a reason we just have not grasped yet. It could be man's desire for answers and God fit nicely. It could be man's desires for power etc. But for sure its much more complex, I believe, than the face of a hardwired god.
Actually, God is NOT ingrained in all cultures.

The Pirah„: People Who Define Happiness Without God - Freedom From Religion Foundation

The Piraha have no concept of creation because they live in the moment.

Quote:
If you ask them about God, they donít understand it, even when you translate it.
Quote:
What are the lessons we can learn from the Pirah„? Well, for one thing, the Pirah„ are happy without god. And that violates a lot of the predictions not only of religious folks but of anthropologists, who believe that god is an essential ingredient of all cultures. Thatís false. There are cultures that get by just fine without any concept of god.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-14-2014, 12:11 AM
 
354 posts, read 246,115 times
Reputation: 105
Quote:
Originally Posted by nana053 View Post
Actually, God is NOT ingrained in all cultures.

The Pirah„: People Who Define Happiness Without God - Freedom From Religion Foundation

The Piraha have no concept of creation because they live in the moment.
Very interesting nana, thanks for sharing.
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