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.
Maybe there’s an explanation beyond religion and atheist theory. The problem with current beliefs is that they are not observable in nature. Life is not created by supernatural gods or inorganic objects. We need a theory that follows the laws of nature.
Some atheists depend upon “The Nothing Theory” because they have been traumatized by theist ideology. Just saying, “We come from nothing, we are nothing, and we will be nothing” isn’t good enough. This is a tedious theory that closes your mind and inspires no one. We need a new theory. We need intelligent innovative ideas. We need to extrapolate from what is known to what is unknown.
Conclusion: Life begins through conception and birth. This planet is the seed from which life grows; another entity is the source from which life on this planet originates. This entity is a parent of life on this planet. Born of this world we are left alone on this planet to grow and evolve. Creation is a natural process. Creation and evolution are synergetic. We were created to evolve.
Please read the complete version CLICK HERE. IAI (I Assume Intelligence) – IAI the reader of this material. Please leave comments and questions that perpetuate knowledge and understanding.
It never seizes to amaze me how atheists and fundamentalists Christians are alike, neither will consider a middle ground. I rather like the debate, Deepak Chopra vs. Richard Dawkins and consider that Deepak Chopra had a better view: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4c_CrQzUGw
Atheists tend to consider God the Judea/Christian God and consider little else.
It never seizes to amaze me how atheists and fundamentalists Christians are alike, neither will consider a middle ground. I rather like the debate, Deepak Chopra vs. Richard Dawkins and consider that Deepak Chopra had a better view:
Atheists tend to consider God the Judea/Christian God and consider little else.
yep. One notion to base thousands of false claims. To Belittle and mock people. to Skew real data to support themselves. to Ignore facts that get in the way of an opinion. And if the opportunity would come up exterminate them.
list the personality traits of "militant" and "fundementalist".
hmm, back to the boggiee bag tags. Try opening up a claim/list of traits and have a sniff to "see" the difference. Fancy talkers call it "intentions". It all Reminds me of the bible thumper. And of course, the duck list.
I am sorry for my simple thinking. I only have two brain cells. One cell is for my name the other is for everything else. Dawkins is easy pickings. So is the camble soup dude. or was it Cample? maybe it was a summer camp bell ... ah whatever, he aint important and I am stupid anyway.
One of the most irritating things atheism has to deal with is this idea that religion and irreligion are both somehow being intolerant and the vociferous on each side are 'Fundamtentalists' and the obvious reasonable position is somewhere in between. That is like saying that the disagreement between the sun rising in the east or rising in the west is that it rises in between. In fact the sweet reasonables are being doubly wrong-headed.
If there is such a thing they are being fundamentalists undecided. They are making a sort of fetish of not making up their minds.
The rightness of the situation is not that scientific skepticism knows everything or that the Deepaks and mystics are wrong, but simply that we can rely on what science has validated, everything is speculation. Why is that somehow made to look like some kind of rabid skeptical extremistm?
One of the most irritating things atheism has to deal with is this idea that religion and irreligion are both somehow being intolerant and the vociferous on each side are 'Fundamtentalists' and the obvious reasonable position is somewhere in between. That is like saying that the disagreement between the sun rising in the east or rising in the west is that it rises in between. In fact the sweet reasonables are being doubly wrong-headed.
If there is such a thing they are being fundamentalists undecided. They are making a sort of fetish of not making up their minds.
The rightness of the situation is not that scientific skepticism knows everything or that the Deepaks and mystics are wrong, but simply that we can rely on what science has validated, everything is speculation. Why is that somehow made to look like some kind of rabid skeptical extremistm?
thats a personal opinion. for me, the most irritating thing is when people base a line of logic off a false axiom. And they buried the error in so much just justifying feelings they don't see it. Worst than even that, they judge other people lesser on it.
Your stance is based on a personal belief/feeling. Compare that to what some of us are basing our claims on.
Emergence explains NOTHING, Arq. It is NOT an explanation. It is just an inexplicable observation. What about that do you not understand???
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
I understand everything about it, and your bamboozlement and your faith -based arguments and the facts that you and your synthesis are all washed up, old son. emergence is a process, phenomenon, observation and mechanism, like evolution. I do hope you are not going to add cherry -picking definitions to your list of fallacious and deceptive arguments.
While it doesn't seem to have received as much attention as evolution, it is in fact an observable and demonstrable phenomenon that, viewed overall, nicely fits the 'Eviliooshun' (a Darwinistic process from the beginnings of matter to humans) category and in fact (gaps and unexplainds aside) answers the question.
It also explains consciousness, which is a constituent of action, reaction, semi -life (stromatolites and viruses) lower life to higher life, problem -solving and reasoning. I have explained this from our first discussion and repeatedly thereafter. I know that you sneer at 'Emergence', demonstrable though it is, as you do at the materialist default, evidentially supported though it is, simply because it doesn't fit in with your faith -based preferences.
I don't expect you to take this point on board even as a reason why your crafty attempts to ask me ( ) whyI don't understand. I merely repeat that you are flogging a very deceased Equuine and you and your theory are all washed up.
Sorry, Arq you just proceeded to show that you do NOT understand what is and what is not an explanation. Your God-o-phobia is so strong it seems to have you willing to forgo explanations and just pretend you have them. We ask how did consciousness arise from non-conscious material? You accept as an explanation that it "emerged." This simply means you have no clue how it came to exist. But you accept that it somehow "emerged" as your acceptable "non-explanation" explanation to avoid any possibility of a God. Riiiiiight! Talk about being all washed up! You don't even have a horse to flog!
One of the most irritating things atheism has to deal with is this idea that religion and irreligion are both somehow being intolerant and the vociferous on each side are 'Fundamtentalists' and the obvious reasonable position is somewhere in between. That is like saying that the disagreement between the sun rising in the east or rising in the west is that it rises in between. In fact the sweet reasonables are being doubly wrong-headed.
If there is such a thing they are being fundamentalists undecided. They are making a sort of fetish of not making up their minds.
The rightness of the situation is not that scientific skepticism knows everything or that the Deepaks and mystics are wrong, but simply that we can rely on what science has validated, everything is speculation. Why is that somehow made to look like some kind of rabid skeptical extremistm?
It's a common tactic to claim a false equivalency between religious extremism and atheism, in an attempt to discredit the latter. I hear it so often that I get tired of refuting it.
It never seizes to amaze me how atheists and fundamentalists Christians are alike, neither will consider a middle ground.
Well depending on the claim actually being made, there IS no middle ground. For example the claim there is a god. There either is one. Or there is not one. What "middle ground" do you expect or seek there exactly? It really is a true or false statement.
There is of course "middle ground" on issues such as the utility and effects of religion. But that is a different conversation entirely. I see little utility in religion at all. And what utility one can suspect there, usually turn out to be things you can achieve in better more effective ways with less of the cost. But at least such discourse can be had. There is no Black and White, 0 or 1, there and your precious land of "middle ground" at least exists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattie Jo
Atheists tend to consider God the Judea/Christian God and consider little else.
That is because definitions of "god" in our western society tend to BE the Judea/Christian God. Context is everything and if you are an atheist in a highly predominantly monotheistic god entity society, then your discourse is going to mold to fit that narrative. Yet you sound surprised for reasons unknown to me.
My own definition of "god" is similar but more dilute. When I use the word "god" I mean "A non human intelligent intentional agent responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe".
But usually when I go into a discussion with someone thinking god exists, my own definition is irrelevant and I dismiss it. It is _their_ definition I need. All too often when someone claims there is a god, the reaction is "Ok, have you any evidence for this?". Which is not a BAD question. But I think the FIRST question should first be "Ok, and what exactly do you mean by that?" and when you get THAT answer you THEN ask "Ok, have you any evidence for this?".
It's a common tactic to claim a false equivalency between religious extremism and atheism, in an attempt to discredit the latter. I hear it so often that I get tired of refuting it.
You are making a false EQ here. Its not Religious extremism vs athiests. It 'extremism" peroid.
ok, so now we have to play with your claim in this light. I do it. I base the claim that there are equivalencies between fundie atheist and militant theist. I base the claim on personality types. Since There is no Omni-god to use I base this "false" equivalency on the simple fact they are both a group of people and we can narrow people, not so much group, down to 4 or 12 types for the most part. Toss intra or extra and those numbers double.
we can also look at "discrediting" "atheists". I am an artist and don't really use equivalency to dicredit anything. "I am better so they are wrong." Just kinda sounds funny to me. Freak, what we do is assign proper weights to the data and think about a claim. "equivalence" doesn't really discredit claims. my point is not to discredit "atheism", we can't really do that. My point is that we have to address personality types and understand them when we are talking to or teaching them (thiests and athiest). It just works dude. It works even better we can loosely label ourselves. srry dude.
ok where is what I said wrong? exactly what can you refute?
Well depending on the claim actually being made, there IS no middle ground. For example the claim there is a god. There either is one. Or there is not one. What "middle ground" do you expect or seek there exactly? It really is a true or false statement.
There is of course "middle ground" on issues such as the utility and effects of religion. But that is a different conversation entirely. I see little utility in religion at all. And what utility one can suspect there, usually turn out to be things you can achieve in better more effective ways with less of the cost. But at least such discourse can be had. There is no Black and White, 0 or 1, there and your precious land of "middle ground" at least exists.
That is because definitions of "god" in our western society tend to BE the Judea/Christian God. Context is everything and if you are an atheist in a highly predominantly monotheistic god entity society, then your discourse is going to mold to fit that narrative. Yet you sound surprised for reasons unknown to me.
My own definition of "god" is similar but more dilute. When I use the word "god" I mean "A non human intelligent intentional agent responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe".
But usually when I go into a discussion with someone thinking god exists, my own definition is irrelevant and I dismiss it. It is _their_ definition I need. All too often when someone claims there is a god, the reaction is "Ok, have you any evidence for this?". Which is not a BAD question. But I think the FIRST question should first be "Ok, and what exactly do you mean by that?" and when you get THAT answer you THEN ask "Ok, have you any evidence for this?".
clowns to the left, jokers to the right ... here I am with you.
first line defines the rest "depending on the claim" and "no middle ground."
This assume more knowledge then we have nozz. while you are right about the yes and no part, the middle ground lies between "all right" or "nothing right" when describing this "something". The middle ground is sticking with what we have to make some predictions. Not all predictions are "naked assertions". I think it is ok to say "past that I don't know." or 'I have no meaning, to we are part of a more complex system". sometimes people want meaning to things like the sun past its an energy source and protection for earth.
We consider ourselves "not them" so you must be "not them". I did the same thing until I realized 'wait a second, how come I have to be all right and they have to be all wrong?" I couldn't find answer a rational answer to that question.
What you say about discussing religion is right. When we start honestly looking at an assigning weights to the disturbing and sickening events past how we feel about them the the discussion becomes more valid. When we properly assign weights to the warm and fuzzy all loving bunny we then can understand my atheists view.
No it does not. There either is a god, or there is not. That is a comment that is independent of how much knowledge we have or do not have. So my comment is actually the exact opposite of how you have parsed it.
We might not know which is right, but that does not change the fact there _is_ a right answer there. No middle ground. A god either exists, or it does not. It is not both. It is nothing something in between.
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.
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.
) why I 
don't understand. I merely repeat that you are flogging a very deceased Equuine and you and your theory are all washed up.
