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 03-27-2015, 06:28 AM
 
39,203 posts, read 10,880,280 times
Reputation: 5096

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
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!
I'm sorry old mate this is your worst ever. I have explained the process as much as I can. since I am not an expert. You reject that and harp on what gaps there are in the explanation. I have got to say that your reasoning is as bad at those creationists who deny evolution on the pretext that we only have hypotheses about abiogenesis, and on the basis of faith.

Your laugh and headslap icons and resorting to God-phobia just are nore nails in the coffin of your theory and credibility. I am just sayin' as they say. Your views as well at your own reputation are utterly discredited are utterly unimportant. I really don't know why I even bother, but you will keep posting, peddling and prodding.

Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-27-2015 at 06:42 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-27-2015, 06:40 AM
 
39,203 posts, read 10,880,280 times
Reputation: 5096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
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.
I'm a nice guy. I won't even go into the 'projection' of your first para. I'm giving you a chance to salvage your rapidly eroding credibility. What are some of you basing your claims on? I can - I have - explained in detail the valid logic of the atheist position and the invalid logical position of the theist position. Also the invalid midway position - whatever that is.

The rationale is sound. The end view - rationality rather that religious myth - has to come. Those who deny without even the poor reason of belief are truly Nowhere men.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2015, 06:45 AM
 
5,006 posts, read 13,864,143 times
Reputation: 2427
A middle ground:

"Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.

God is subtle but he is not malicious,

The finest emotion of which we are capable is the mystic emotion. Herein lies the germ of all art and all true science. Anyone to whom this feeling is alien, who is no longer capable of wonderment and lives in a state of fear is a dead man. To know that what is impenetrable for us really exists and manifests itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, whose gross forms alone are intelligible to our poor faculties - this knowledge, this feeling ... that is the core of the true religious sentiment. In this sense, and in this sense alone, I rank myself among profoundly religious men.

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift."

ALL OF THESE QUOTES COME FROM EINSTEIN.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2015, 06:58 AM
 
7,802 posts, read 5,284,580 times
Reputation: 2973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattie Jo View Post
A middle ground:

"Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe
Except that is neither true nor is it a middle ground. Actually it is a canard built into a canard. "anyone who is seriously involved" gives one the back door to say that anyone who does not become convinced of this claim must just not be "seriously involved". The cop out is built into the claim.

In fact religiosity among the scientific faculties and associations is lower than the general public. So the statement is also simply wrong from the outset.

So no I see no middle ground in your statement. Rather I see an attempt to build a disparaging "out" into a statement that attempt to hold itself up rather than be held up by an actual basis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattie Jo View Post
ALL OF THESE QUOTES COME FROM EINSTEIN.
Which, even if true, is irrelevant. The content of a statement is what is important. Not the source.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2015, 07:02 AM
 
39,203 posts, read 10,880,280 times
Reputation: 5096
"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man.

I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.


I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." (Albert Einstein)

Einstein was one of our greatest scientists, but he did not know about everything. DNA hadn't even been discovered in his day and he had no way of understanding instinct and the drives and impulses that we call 'love' and the like and whether or not he would agree with those who use it to argue that some cosmic spirit exists, known through the ecstatic experience (which I accept happens) if not through this or that Holy Book, which Einstein did not follow, from what I can tell. I would like to think that he would listen to reason.

I don't know whether he would have approved of the way that science is finding clues to thought, love and the mystical experience, or whether he would have preferred them to remain nicely unexplained and mysterious. It is not his style, I think to refuse knowledge on the grounds that it removes mystery. There is plenty of that left!

As to religion, Perhaps I could show him that it is not the source of morality, higher thought and the basis of civilization that those who cannot accept the idea of removing its authority over society use as reasons to keep it, true or not. Perhaps he would be stubborn and wrongheaded about that - just as he was about quantum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2015, 08:59 AM
 
13,493 posts, read 5,008,949 times
Reputation: 1368
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
I'm a nice guy. I won't even go into the 'projection' of your first para. I'm giving you a chance to salvage your rapidly eroding credibility. What are some of you basing your claims on? I can - I have - explained in detail the valid logic of the atheist position and the invalid logical position of the theist position. Also the invalid midway position - whatever that is.


The rationale is sound. The end view - rationality rather that religious myth - has to come. Those who deny without even the poor reason of belief are truly Nowhere men.
lmao, yah, I'll ask your mum how nice you are

I am not sure what claim you mean but I will address my over all claims in terms of atheism

atheist is a non belief and I make no claims about a non belief. But People should support any claim that is important to them.

in regards to standing up to religions:
I Remove god because I don't believe in one and work with what's left.

We are fighting personality types not beliefs. Good people are good people. bad people are bad people.

personality types, for the most part, are independent of beliefs. Being OCD is not based on a person not believing in no god.

My cred drops every time I substitute "atheist" for "theist". many of my claims can hold either word. I sub them in to see how people react and what they understand. Yours can't so it is less valid. simple really.

You stance is valid and clear to you. It's a personal opinion based in feelings.

so, point to the errors, you know ... to drop my credz more

Last edited by Arach Angle; 03-27-2015 at 09:15 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2015, 09:13 AM
 
13,493 posts, read 5,008,949 times
Reputation: 1368
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
[i]"

As to religion, Perhaps I could show him that it is not the source of morality, higher thought and the basis of civilization that those who cannot accept the idea of removing its authority over society use as reasons to keep it, true or not. Perhaps he would be stubborn and wrongheaded about that - just as he was about quantum.
he used what knew. like neil and carl. More importantly he knew what he didnt know.


As to religion,

1) not the source of morality, not the source higher thought

2)"not the source" basis of civilization

3)"not the source for" that those who cannot accept the idea of removing its authority over society use as reasons to keep it, true or not.

4)Perhaps he would be stubborn and wrongheaded about that - just as he was about quantum.

this are true arg. If you would stick to these and be nice to the little stupid theist I would be with you.

eye-ny was a hinny. people get all wigged out that he can do math. "time" was the last thing that could be changed. The very last. He did think that the instruments were good enough for the first time. I am not even sure of that. And he was sitting at a desk trying to get out of that place. he had time on his side
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2015, 09:23 AM
 
13,493 posts, read 5,008,949 times
Reputation: 1368
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
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.

I see. you need to be clear. I see it now. There either is, or is not. And you will not predict anything other than not. and you are right. there is no middle ground for. ocdpd. "no nothing" does not match observations so I guess that leaves us with one choice.

The middle ground is assigning traits. There is middle ground between "no nothing" and "omni thingie."
point out where I am wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2015, 09:33 AM
 
7,802 posts, read 5,284,580 times
Reputation: 2973
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
I see. you need to be clear. I see it now.
I was. Your failure to parse something is not indicative of a lack of clarity on what you failed to parse. The problem lay with you. Or, at least, with how you in particular parse my words because it is far from uncommon that you claim I said or did things I never did. So for whatever reason my particular mode of speech is not one you parse clearly.

But given you are ONE person in many many I communicate with over quite a number of forums, some of which I moderate, I see no reason to think the fault lies at my end.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
There either is, or is not. And you will not predict anything other than not.
I would if given any cause to do so. I have not so thus far I have not. But "thus far" is not the same as "will not". Again a parse failure on your side.

I would "predict" a god if the data set gave me any cause to do so. Currently it does not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-27-2015, 09:33 AM
 
39,203 posts, read 10,880,280 times
Reputation: 5096
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
lmao, yah, I'll ask your mum how nice you are

I am not sure what claim you mean but I will address my over all claims in terms of atheism

atheist is a non belief and I make no claims about a non belief. But People should support any claim that is important to them.

in regards to standing up to religions:
I Remove god because I don't believe in one and work with what's left.

We are fighting personality types not beliefs. Good people are good people. bad people are bad people.

personality types, for the most part, are independent of beliefs. Being OCD is not based on a person not believing in no god.

My cred drops every time I substitute "atheist" for "theist". many of my claims can hold either word. I sub them in to see how people react and what they understand. Yours can't so it is less valid. simple really.

You stance is valid and clear to you. It's a personal opinion based in feelings.

so, point to the errors, you know ... to drop my credz more
You posted "what some of us are basing our claims on." so you tell me what those claims are. Don't ask me.

And personality types? Who the heck is fighting them? All I am fighting is claims made as logical and evidentially valid when they are neither (as an academic mater) and authority over all of us being pursued on the basis of those unlogical and invalid (evidentially) claims, on the basis of faith, tradition or civilization would collapse without it.

A point can be stretched of course, but my beef with religion is that in the past it has not done much stretching on the points, more usually on the rack.
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
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