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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144 View Post
This is actually a very good thread. Why do the atheists not believre in God? Because they have a distorted view of what God is supposed to be, so the concept seems ridiculous.
And as per your usual MO, you roll into a thread and tell us what YOU think atheists think. And usually when you do this you are simply wrong. I would prefer to hear from atheists what they think, rather than hear your straw man version of it.
Actually, I told you what an atheist of comment #2 on this thread defined it. While not universal, it is indicative of the sort of naive mentality on God. Can there be atheists that have thought a little more about it? Yes. But the stupidest voices often win out as being the loudest. Don't confuse an observation for a straw man. So without further ado, let's look at you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144 View Post
This is actually a very good thread. Why do the atheists not believre in God? Because they have a distorted view of what God is supposed to be, so the concept seems ridiculous.
For me "god" is a non-human intentional and intelligent agency. One that is responsible for the creation of our universe. What is distorted about that?
The reason I do not believe in that god? Because there is not a SHRED of argument, evidence, data or reasoning on offer (much less from you) to even begin to suggest there is such an entity.
That definition is perfectly fine.
I have heard this all the time. It's bullcrap. The absence of evidence does not equal a thing's nonexistence. Prior to a means of gauging UV or gamma radiation, you couldn't see certain wavelengths. They could still burn out your eyes. We just didn't have a means of detecting it. Could there be animals somewhere in the world that we haven't seen? Yes. Say one of those things is a unicorn. Do you automatically discount something you haven't seen just because the idea seems away from norm? Not necessarily. Do you automatically believe something without reasonable proof? No. You believe in something because there is reasonable proof.
It CAN be proven. Rather easily. Evolution as a theory implies agency. Things are evolving according to a design, even if that design is only natural selection. That is, when things evolve they (generally) move to a state of less developed to more developed. Let's talk about another agency. The Big Bang. I dunno about you, but I think of this as a massive fission reaction. However, in basically any uncontrolled fission explosion (i.e. a nuke) the only thing created is high amounts of toxic radiation, and burst apart atoms. In a controlled nuclear reaction such as those in atom smashing laboratory, yes they have made new elements and stuff. But here is as I say, a controlled environment. This implies agency, does it not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144 View Post
Case in point, second poster compared God to Santa Claus. No they aren't the same thing.
Functionally, for many, yes they are. Because many people see their god, like Santa, as a relatively powerful entity, which judges you morally in thought and deed, and modifies your well being and rewards relative to it's judgement.
In that sense their god, and santa claus, are very much the same thing.
Not the same thing. Let's assume your argument of a non-human ordered entity stands. Such a being would have no interest in whether humans are naughty or nice, but be remote from everyday reality. This wouldn't even need to be a deity as we know it, simply some kind of law or something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144 View Post
Numbers exist in counts, but prior to something to write or draw on, there was no real √3 in the universe.
In that sense numbers are just a language and √3 is just a label. Your nonsense therefore is the same as saying that rocks never existed until someone came along and called them rocks. The thing rocks refers to, and the thing √3 refers to, both existed before we came to label them.
A rock is something you can see and touch. It exists in the physical world. A √3 is something that exists on a chalkboard, and in our heads. This is what I mean by physical world versus mental world. I haven't time to discuss Ultimate Reality with you since I am writing during slow periods at work. And I am pretty certain you wouldn't believe in it anyway, nor would I be able to explain it properly without possibly confusing myself, so let's end our discussion with earthly things, specifically mathematical symbols.
Regarding mass hallucination. If all of us tomorrow took magic mushrooms, our eyes would likely see any number of different things, based on our personality. I might see giant flaming kittens, you might see a crane.We would not generally see the same thing. This is why mass hallucination is an invalid theory, if we all see a common thing, it generally isn't a hallucination, because we hallucinate what we want to see. The only time a common hallucination exists is when it based on a point of reference. Like it we are all looking at tree, we might each see different distortions of the tree, but it will still come from the same frame of reference, the tree.
In order for them to all hallucinate the person of Jesus, raised, there must of been a person of Jesus as frame or reference, and they all had to see him alive. It would be more likely that he simply had been comatose rather than dead and "Lord a'mercy! He's back from the dead" they saw him after torture rendered him comatose, than it would be that 12 people gave a (sane and) identical view of what happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144 View Post
Nor was there a naturally occuring triangle until someone built a house with a roof in this way.
There wasn't? I can not WAIT to hear your substantiation for this one.
A triangle is a makeshift object based on analogous objects. Such as, a mountain is roughly triangular. But it is not an equilateral triangle. Or isosceles. Or scalene. It is made of angles, but is not strictly speaking a real shape. Only manmade objects are triangular. You do not just see triangles floating in the sky like...
(Legend of Zelda, btw)
What about Pi? Nope, the Pi is a lie. 22/7 does not even equal Pi, it equals an approximation of Pi. Which btw, is based on screwy math. In order to get the circumference of a circle you have to use Pi. How was Pi first found? By trying to find the circumference of a circle. Not only is Pi not found physically in the real world, but its existence is basically a tautology. There is another way to measure a circle without this nonsense.
In essence, Pi isn't even a real idea, but we still believe in it. So how is it that you begrudge us theists an idea that seems to be logical (most things in nature come from something, so the universe must also come from something) over one that can't even work out properly when done as intended?
Actually, I told you what an atheist of comment #2 on this thread defined it. While not universal, it is indicative of the sort of naive mentality on God. Can there be atheists that have thought a little more about it? Yes. But the stupidest voices often win out as being the loudest. Don't confuse an observation for a straw man. So without further ado, let's look at you.
yeah, some fundy atheists just don't see it. Apologetic atheist see it, and along with apologetic theists, we can have some real progress in learning and rational law making. But those darn fundie-mentals keep getting in the way.
why they keep trying to force non-apologetic stances on us in this matter is beyond me. fundy-mental is a personality disorder not a statement on a belief. Its rather how a statement is expressed.
If you have false hope that people will act any different then people, you will be disappointed. But false hope in living this life as best you can will pay off, is reasonable.
Do please learn to use the quote function correctly and do not put your text in my mouth thanks. I have met 8 year olds who can use it, you can too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
Don't confuse an observation for a straw man. So without further ado, let's look at you.
Yet the only one confused about atheists is you. I have pulled you up on many posts, in many threads, on your absolute blatant misrepresentations of atheists, and what atheists think say and do. You have observed nothing, you have simply made it all up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
hat definition is perfectly fine. I have heard this all the time. It's bullcrap. The absence of evidence does not equal a thing's nonexistence
Then perhaps yuo can take your diatribe rant to someone who has made such a claim. Given I did not, you are spewing your nonsense at someone for whom it is not relevant. The simple fact remains though that although I never said there is no possibility of there being a god, I very clearly did say there is CURRENTLY no basis AT ALL to think there is one.
So try replying to what I wrote, not what your knee jerk responses require me to have written.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
No. You believe in something because there is reasonable proof.
Exactly. Butthe issue for you and your nonsense inventing ilk is that there is no "reasonable proof" of a god by the definition I offered and you agreed with. There is not even an iota of argument, evidence data or reasoning on offer at all to even SUSPECT there is a god by the definition I offered and you agreed with.
So what is your point exactly? Do you have one? Do you even know?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
Evolution as a theory implies agency.
No. It very much does not. You simply made that up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
Things are evolving according to a design
Entirely unsubstantiated nonsense fantasy from you here. There is no evidence of any agency, therefore there is no evidence of any design.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
Not the same thing.
Except yes, there are, by the criteria I identified and you ignored. You simply switching in a different set of criteria for comparison does not negate the ones I offered and used, much as you might be desperate to wish they would.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
A rock is something you can see and touch. It exists in the physical world. A √3 is something that exists on a chalkboard, and in our heads.
You would very much benefit from getting a basic understanding of number theory and what numbers are and how we formed them. AGAIN mathematics in this sense is only a language, describing the reality we observe. It is not "all in our heads" as a mere concept like you pretend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
if we all see a common thing, it generally isn't a hallucination, because we hallucinate what we want to see.
Again this is simply not always true, and you are presuming to comment on an area of science you clearly know very little about. There are many hallucinations, mundane and complex, that are uniform across multiple people when those people have one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bulmabriefs144
(Oh wait, that's ghosts?)
So your argument that they do not exist is to post a link to something that does not say they do not exist, but that an absolutely "perfect" one can not exist. Do you even read what you link to before you post your crap? Or does maintaining an aura of someone who clearly has NO IDEA what they are on about actually please you in some way?
As far as I can tell, time is nothing like the gods humans have traditionally believed in. Time isn't conscious, it can't reward/punish/smite, it can't listen to prayers and answer them, it can't deliver us from enemies, etc.
As I and others have said, saying "time = god" is nothing more than a semantics game.
As far as I can tell, time is nothing like the gods humans have traditionally believed in. Time isn't conscious, it can't reward/punish/smite, it can't listen to prayers and answer them, it can't deliver us from enemies, etc.
As I and others have said, saying "time = god" is nothing more than a semantics game.
Do please learn to use the quote function correctly and do not put your text in my mouth thanks. I have met 8 year olds who can use it, you can too.
Yet the only one confused about atheists is you. I have pulled you up on many posts, in many threads, on your absolute blatant misrepresentations of atheists, and what atheists think say and do. You have observed nothing, you have simply made it all up.
Then perhaps yuo can take your diatribe rant to someone who has made such a claim. Given I did not, you are spewing your nonsense at someone for whom it is not relevant. The simple fact remains though that although I never said there is no possibility of there being a god, I very clearly did say there is CURRENTLY no basis AT ALL to think there is one.
So try replying to what I wrote, not what your knee jerk responses require me to have written.
Exactly. Butthe issue for you and your nonsense inventing ilk is that there is no "reasonable proof" of a god by the definition I offered and you agreed with. There is not even an iota of argument, evidence data or reasoning on offer at all to even SUSPECT there is a god by the definition I offered and you agreed with.
So what is your point exactly? Do you have one? Do you even know?
No. It very much does not. You simply made that up.
Entirely unsubstantiated nonsense fantasy from you here. There is no evidence of any agency, therefore there is no evidence of any design.
Except yes, there are, by the criteria I identified and you ignored. You simply switching in a different set of criteria for comparison does not negate the ones I offered and used, much as you might be desperate to wish they would.
You would very much benefit from getting a basic understanding of number theory and what numbers are and how we formed them. AGAIN mathematics in this sense is only a language, describing the reality we observe. It is not "all in our heads" as a mere concept like you pretend.
Again this is simply not always true, and you are presuming to comment on an area of science you clearly know very little about. There are many hallucinations, mundane and complex, that are uniform across multiple people when those people have one.
So your argument that they do not exist is to post a link to something that does not say they do not exist, but that an absolutely "perfect" one can not exist. Do you even read what you link to before you post your crap? Or does maintaining an aura of someone who clearly has NO IDEA what they are on about actually please you in some way?
Here is the thing, when i quote your way i am seeing exactly one half of the conversation. This means that everything here that i am reading is out of context. Given no context, i just see you going blah blah blah to points i dont remember. Internal text quoting is my preferred method, because otherwise i just see chunks of conversation. I check citydata maybe once a week. Dont make me remember snippets of conversation less than a paragraph.
Which is kinda the point. If you are going to nitpick every paragraph i write without seeing how it connects with other paragraphs, effectively breaking my post into your responses, the one quoting wrong is you. I cannot read this in response page. So i wont. Too long;didnt read;garbage.
If you read my whole post and quoted that, i could look at the post and when i quoted a response i would still have a legitimate persuasive paragraph to respond to. This is how adults debate. Children look at "but you said..." Yes, and? I also said this. Because the whole of what i say is meant to be a blend of several points. If you dont bother to determine what i am actually saying but pick it apart in chunks, i dont need to bother. Basically it would be like me talking and having someone interrupt at every turn. It doesnt make them right. It makes them attention defecit. If you want me to listen to you, dont interrupt paragraphs, listen to the end then respond. Do it here. Quote just these paragraphs as a whole and say what you were going to say.
And another thing. From what little i read, you even quoted me wrong! I had two different paragraphs spaced apart. As in, i agree with that definition of a God. Paragaph space, but i do not agree with the "no evidence" assessment, you just couldnt find any. No finding evidence for something and admitting that you couldnt, is different from being obdurant and staring evidence, good or not, in the face. I gave you evidence. You wanna call it nonsense, this your hangup not mine. But to deny it even exists after i gave it to you means there is no sense talking to you.
Actually, thsat's right. If there is no sense talking to you, im gonna ignore you. I want to talk to people who actually listen, not who chop my words in half hoping for a contradiction that already exists three paragraphs later.
Last edited by bulmabriefs144; 10-05-2016 at 04:26 AM..
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.
fundy-mental is a personality disorder not a statement on a belief. Its rather how a statement is expressed.
