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 04-01-2015, 06:43 AM
 
Location: South Carolina
3,533 posts, read 2,450,698 times
Reputation: 24028

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
The guys that think like I do Neil deGrasse Tyson, Carl Sagan, Edward Witten. And more. so the word "nonsense" is just avoidance really. You can take what I said to any physics guy you know. ANY. It's just not nonsense. but ifen your trained I'll listen to where you think I may be misstating something. I Love learning. the last goes ened in; complete untruths and tried very hard to get off topic. One went off the hinge. and resort to posting that I hacked an account. So I would say that "nonsense" just does not fit.
If you wanna have a go and stay on just evidence based conclusions I'll have a go
No thanks. Buh-bye.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-01-2015, 07:04 AM
 
13,493 posts, read 5,004,197 times
Reputation: 1366
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northsouth View Post
No thanks. Buh-bye.
lmao. you and I know you only had two options. ignore or exposed. Like theist, many atheist have little in the way of rational based belief and objectivity. only north or south leaves a limited journey and narrow word view. just like bible literalism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2015, 07:31 AM
 
Location: Divided Tribes of America
13,717 posts, read 5,529,326 times
Reputation: 5388
So will Arequipa rejoin this thread and take the opposite stance?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-01-2015, 09:25 AM
 
13,493 posts, read 5,004,197 times
Reputation: 1366
I don't get it freak, I can't understand what the trouble is. Just lay out the data and draw reasonable conclusion from the data as best we can. We don't have to listen to fundies, they are not rational people to me. That does not mean every single thing they say is wrong. I like candy too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2015, 02:06 AM
 
3,637 posts, read 2,699,186 times
Reputation: 4300
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!
Your personal screed against the user aside - his position is stronger than yours. Because it relies on nothing but the evidence we currently have. We may not understand consciousness entirely but there is no reason to think it anything but an emergent property. Because to assume it to be anything but an emergent property requires evidence we do not have - or assumptions we have no basis to make.

Sure we do not understand it fully and can not explain it fully - but neither are we blind and devoid of all evidence. None of this is the "godophobia" you use to ground a persecution complex - but nothing more than a reluctance to jump to any hypothesis that is not founded in at least some real world evidence we actually have at this time.

For example you speak often of a consciousness energy - and how we convert energy into consciousness energy. A pretty little hypothesis - but not grounded in anything - and all energy going into and out of the body is currently accounted for. So you are merely postulating an energy neither observed - measured - or implicated in any other formula or data we have.

And usually when this is pointed out you run around shouting "Dark Energy" as if this phrase somehow does the work for you.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2015, 05:49 AM
 
39,155 posts, read 10,865,034 times
Reputation: 5091
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle View Post
Radio Edit version:

The simple fact is. that you can't honestly deny the fact that with just emergence and field theory that it is more likely that something higher is present and that we are connected to it. Those notion clearly demonstrate that some people are more aware of it than others. That stance may revolt you. When I dislike an answer to the core I try and find out why that is. Is it because the answer is just that wrong or is it because I am emotionally attached to the a solution.

My stance is more valid than your stance. You adamantly saying I did not answer you when I did along with the other things proves it. You couldn't openly hold onto your stance without seeing it as "less valid". If you need "popular people" that think like I do. see witten, neil, and carl take on it. Thats a good group.

Thank you admins
That relates to topic - the 'Order' of the cosmos suggests a creator/Designer. As we said at the start, not a new argument and not a valid one. The idea of obviously designed order in the cosmos is an argumentum ignorantiam, indeed. It is overlooking that what works, persist, what does not ceses, so what Emerges (and that is a definite mechanism applied to evolution and Evilution - the idea of natural developing processes applied to the stuff before life) is designed - by trial and error, just as evolved bioforms - t work. But they do not work perfectly, just as the human body is badly designed because it evolved to do things with a body not designed for it.
A designed universe is based on a misunderstanding of the theory (and is perhaps mostly an hypothesis), an illogical approach - is science can't explain everything it is claimed that it can't explain anything - and a Faith based desire to prove a Creator any way it can be done. It is absolutely no more than a gap for God argument, just as Irreducible complexity was, though that at least tried to make a scientifically -based mechanism to provide some evidence.

This stuff doesn't approach even bad science, it is the sort of tosh the more boneheaded type of creationist come up with. And, if the perpetrators of this flapdoodle are not Creationists themselves, they have been bamboozled into parroting their garbage.

However, Arach, old mate, we have got off that subject (which is actually academic, except where it is used as to dress up genesis -literalist creationism in a lab coat to try to smuggle it into the science -class) onto what we are militant about, which is religion; organized religion, and its ongoing, pervasive and in fact invalid even where it it is not actually pernicious, nasty or downright dangerous, influence and authority.

That is what we are militant about, not a possible Creator/possibly not. So having a go at our militancy is poor thinking and off topic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2015, 07:06 AM
 
13,493 posts, read 5,004,197 times
Reputation: 1366
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
That relates to topic - the 'Order' of the cosmos suggests a creator/Designer. As we said at the start, not a new argument and not a valid one. The idea of obviously designed order in the cosmos is an argumentum ignorantiam, indeed. It is overlooking that what works, persist, what does not ceses, so what Emerges (and that is a definite mechanism applied to evolution and Evilution - the idea of natural developing processes applied to the stuff before life) is designed - by trial and error, just as evolved bioforms - t work. But they do not work perfectly, just as the human body is badly designed because it evolved to do things with a body not designed for it.
A designed universe is based on a misunderstanding of the theory (and is perhaps mostly an hypothesis), an illogical approach - is science can't explain everything it is claimed that it can't explain anything - and a Faith based desire to prove a Creator any way it can be done. It is absolutely no more than a gap for God argument, just as Irreducible complexity was, though that at least tried to make a scientifically -based mechanism to provide some evidence.

This stuff doesn't approach even bad science, it is the sort of tosh the more boneheaded type of creationist come up with. And, if the perpetrators of this flapdoodle are not Creationists themselves, they have been bamboozled into parroting their garbage.

However, Arach, old mate, we have got off that subject (which is actually academic, except where it is used as to dress up genesis -literalist creationism in a lab coat to try to smuggle it into the science -class) onto what we are militant about, which is religion; organized religion, and its ongoing, pervasive and in fact invalid even where it it is not actually pernicious, nasty or downright dangerous, influence and authority.

That is what we are militant about, not a possible Creator/possibly not. So having a go at our militancy is poor thinking and off topic.
listen arg, thank you. I am trying to find out why am having trouble understanding your stance. I base every single claim a person makes on uniformatiatianism. Its that simple. you call it natural laws. bare with me please.

I see. this post answers the claim "something" is more valid than "no-nothing". based on natural laws, That I call uniformatiatianism. What I am saying is that the universe may have formed in the exact same manor you were formed. That stance is more valid than a omni-creator. That ends that discussion for me. I am ok with that. "calling me stupid" and that stance Nonsense" is wrong. along with everything else that was done to me.

back to me trying to understand militant or the emotional attachment against religion. My family calls me "The Pod" because they think I am devoid of emotion. I say foof them and the horse they road in. Proper foof too.

" .... what we are militant about, which is religion; organized religion, and its ongoing, pervasive and in fact invalid even where it it is not actually pernicious, nasty or downright dangerous, influence and authority...."

Ok, I see, so discussing "no-nothing" has nothing to do with this. So fighting that stance is irrelevant. But wouldn't using "no-nothing" to fight religion also be as irrelevant? "nasty and downright dangerous". I live in south eastern Pennsylvania. "liberal thinking" puts children and women in far more danger than any religion around my way. I would extend that too the east coat.

So what you are saying is that you feel about religion as I do liberals? But I blame some, not even most, liberal people not liberalism? wait wait wait I brought myself back to people again. where did I mess up?

thanks for your post. I missed aigain I think.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2015, 07:28 AM
 
39,155 posts, read 10,865,034 times
Reputation: 5091
Yes. In fact theists should be thanked for pointing up that atheism was really anti -religion.

In fact atheism is simply no god -belief. The debate about ID/IC Order and first cause are academic, really. Yes, really. As are those about mysticism, consciousness and prayer-healing.

It is only when it gets threatening that we get militant, and rightly so (and personalities are a red herring; it is policies that matter. If Luther raised a valid objection to the catholic church it doesn't matter whether it was because he suffered from chronic constipation or not) IF our argument based on logic and reason is valid (because nobody can be sure 100% whether we are right, only whether we have the better case) then it HAS to be the one on which our human worldview is based, not one based on religious beliefs (various).

That it is and pervasively, damagingly and threateningly so is the fact and we need to change it. And increasing numbers of agnostic, irreligious theists and 'nones' (whatever they actually are) are coming to see this.

We are not arrogant loudmouth atheist fundies; we are a people that see a need for change and can no longer be prevented by stake, rack or even dire warnings about the terror and Eugenics from saying so.

We'd like you on our side, but the choice is yours, but if not, they also serve who stand and don't heckle us from the sidewalk.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2015, 08:46 AM
 
13,493 posts, read 5,004,197 times
Reputation: 1366
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA View Post
Yes. In fact theists should be thanked for pointing up that atheism was really anti -religion.

In fact atheism is simply no god -belief. The debate about ID/IC Order and first cause are academic, really. Yes, really. As are those about mysticism, consciousness and prayer-healing.

It is only when it gets threatening that we get militant, and rightly so (and personalities are a red herring; it is policies that matter. If Luther raised a valid objection to the catholic church it doesn't matter whether it was because he suffered from chronic constipation or not) IF our argument based on logic and reason is valid (because nobody can be sure 100% whether we are right, only whether we have the better case) then it HAS to be the one on which our human worldview is based, not one based on religious beliefs (various).

That it is and pervasively, damagingly and threateningly so is the fact and we need to change it. And increasing numbers of agnostic, irreligious theists and 'nones' (whatever they actually are) are coming to see this.

We are not arrogant loudmouth atheist fundies; we are a people that see a need for change and can no longer be prevented by stake, rack or even dire warnings about the terror and Eugenics from saying so.

We'd like you on our side, but the choice is yours, but if not, they also serve who stand and don't heckle us from the sidewalk.
I am ok with this stance arg. I guess I have trouble calling them "based on a feeling fools" if I am a "based on a feeling fool".

I am not a militant. I deal in facts only. Where I help is teaching theist what science is. I teach them what it can say. When militants come and talk to me they know the first thing I ask is "what exactly is your claim and where in these textbooks is the support for that claim?" I do the same to theist. I do it for everybody.

Theist are shocked when I say "yeah you can believe in god and evolution.". I tell them science only deals with what we have. They are just as shocked when I say "you can believe in something more than us and not follow a religion.". They are absolutely floored when I say "If you think your religion has unfair or non-loving rules go make your leaders change the rules." I tell them you now have uniformatiatianism on your side. But watch out, they tend to get mad at us that arm ourselves with it. They killed that MAN jesus because he used it.


" ... We are not arrogant loudmouth atheist fundies ..."
Not all of us are, but we have as many as the precieved "enemy" does.

Thank you arg,
you made it crystal clear to people reading this and me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-02-2015, 11:26 AM
 
39,155 posts, read 10,865,034 times
Reputation: 5091
That's encouraging. One of our jobs is to explain why science really does not support the god -claim, neither does it disprove it. It leaves it open (agnosticism) which (logically) mandated non- belief, disbelief or reservation of belief until some good case is made.

Strictly the same is for evolution, there are gaps, but enough hard evidence to make a really solid case. No total proof that we came from apes, but some persuasive evidence that we did. And not a shred of hard evidence for Abiogenesis - not even as much as for the Big bang! But following the Trail back from the fossil single cells, it's a good bet, with some experimental work and some plausible hypotheses. That's from a laybods point of view, Charlie. Which is what I am. And it doesn't disprove a god. It is just the most science can tell us. And what it can't.

The other thing is to correct a few misunderstandings about atheism. I don't know how much of the bad rap is down to O'Hair and how much down to a hostile opposition who reckon that without God we are all amoral baby -eaters who want to fornicate in the street. I mean... at least some screens around us.

I think atheism has a lot to learn from theism too, and bods like you and Golderule who put tough questions. Yes, can we beat a huge weight of tradition and an innate need? Won't it be the Directory and red guard all over again? We may mean well, but don't the extremists take over? I think that is why we need much much more than understanding the religion debate, we need to understand what makes us all tick and be aware and beware of those evolved tendencies that make one group think 'Hah! Now we have power -let's eliminate all the others and take their wimmin'.

That should have gone out at the end of the bronze age, but it didn't.
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