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.
You are simply repeating the same fallacy of personal belief "it does to me," and fallacy of numbers "has for billions of others"
as a springboard for the leap of faith from quantum -Woo designed to impress and confuse to a God -claim presented as fact without any decent evidence at all. And as if that wasn't putrid enough, you tack on the ludicrous claim that thereby you have debunked atheism and agnosticism.
You are producing nothing that we need to get Hip to, but you need to get Hip to the fact that more and more people are sussing you out and you are rapidly losing credibility and are well on the way to becoming a laughing -stock. Do you really want to see "Everything on your desk is God" up there with "freeze -dried eucalyptus leaves"?
As Gandalf said "I'm not trying to rob you, I'm trying to help you.'.
This is turning out to be a Good new year after all.
My argument of "numbers" is not on offense.. it is in rebuttal of your illogical claim that since you believe "most people think of God as X" and "most people define God only as X"...God should not and cannot be defined or considered any other way.
I noted that, First, that isn't true...I and countless others don't think of or define God as only the way you do (and must to maintain the illogical Atheist concept) AND Second, that is irrelevant and inconsequential anyway.
You say you are no longer Religious...but the effects still have you bound...so much so, that you can't even contemplate God as anything beyond a "being that rules".
Your claim that for EVERYTHING/ALL to be God it must be intelligent and forward planning shows this.
Also, there is the part you leave out...the other part of it that binds you: It has actually forward-planned and executed that plan.
You are unable to consider that EVERYTHING/ALL, in what ever state it has ever been in...however it came to be that way...could be viewed as The Ultimate Reality and Something of Supreme Value, and perceived and revered as God on that basis.
Even though that ideology comports definitively, logically, and reasonably...the great power of Religion still has you over a barrel, and it closes your mind and tunnels your vision.
Not so much "enlightened"...just logical and reasonable, working with facts and evidence.
For over 40 years I worked off a flawed "no evidence" premise...and used that to draw the illogical conclusion and determination that based on that flawed premises, it made sense not to believe God exists.
Upon coming to this board, I came to understand that "G-O-D" was not limited to just Religious Deities, and that the totality of EVERYTHING was as "Godly" as Godly gets (as per how God is known to be defined), and could be logically and reasonably be perceived as GOD. Thus, GOD.
Though, if one perceives that as being "enlightened"...it is fully logical and reasonable they apply that descriptor.
I then, through that perception, objectively become one who IS "enlightened"....and, furthermore, "The Enlightened" objectively exist. Also, that any others may not, or do not, perceive the understanding I came to as "enlightened" does not change that at all.
See how that works?
Not so much "enlightened"...just logical and reasonable, working with facts and evidence.
For over 40 years I worked off a flawed "no evidence" premise...and used that to draw the illogical conclusion and determination that based on that flawed premises, it made sense not to believe God exists.
Upon coming to this board, I came to understand that "G-O-D" was not limited to just Religious Deities, and that the totality of EVERYTHING was as "Godly" as Godly gets (as per how God is known to be defined), and could be logically and reasonably be perceived as GOD. Thus, GOD.
Though, if one perceives that as being "enlightened"...it is fully logical and reasonable they apply that descriptor.
I then, through that perception, objectively become one who IS "enlightened"....and, furthermore, "The Enlightened" objectively exist. Also, that any others may not, or do not, perceive the understanding I came to as "enlightened" does not change that at all.
See how that works?
your lines of logic and what you call "objectively" must do this or that isn't sound for me. When you just look at the data, nothing else, then we are part of a more complex system. If it is more complex it may be alive. That's what "they" are calling god. Thats the connections they feel. even if its only the earth it would seem infinte to us. But the traits are wrong. no need for Omni dude. But "they" hated theist are not dead wrong. I don't goto war for personal opinions that aint based in reason.
Now let's look at less complex, or humans as the last emergence. that just does not make any sense at all. In fact, it counters observations. But remember gld, they aint fighting over facts. No facts means I can't help ya. sorry man.
yup, we did before and you and that girls father were trounced and it will happen again. as easily as before.
Would you care to direct to where you think I was trounced?
Quote:
we both know there is no omni dude, so that's out. where too from here?
Neither of us 'know'. That is why we are agnostics. I do not believe in god -claims that are unjustified or invalid. I don't knoiw about you. Your inclination to insist on 'something more' sounds the wrong side of disbelief to me.
Quote:
let's start with a risk versus benefit of religion? or should we start with how we are more likely part of a more complex systems. As soon as we hit your personal emotional take, it's over and you lose. OK?
Passing over the accusation of (emotional) bias, a stock pretext for dismissing the atheist case, and overlooking what sounds like Pascal's wager which in the context of a sortagod with no bribe to offer or punishment to threaten, is so inappropriate that I will give you benefit of doubt, I shall simply take it that you are arguing for religion - true or not - because of the good it does.
Disagree. Even if one takes the best possible view of organized religion, its' benefits do not outweigh the desirability of believing what (as far as reason and good evidence goes) is right.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-10-2016 at 11:48 PM..
You need a different way of thinking when you approach Theist Fundies - whether they believe in a particular god or just a sortagod, like Mystic's Universal Field (Aka "God") which Gldnrule seized on with glad cries when looking for a God -belief that he thought he could bamboozle us with.
Honesty, truth and sincerity isn't important when Fundy theists argue. The Faith in God "God" or (God) as an a priori given is all that matters and getting that Faith -belief through by any means or at least causing total confusion, a flame war, or or getting the other side to give up (recall the smug "since you both give up I must be right" post. he gave himself away there allright) allows them to retain the delusion that their Faith -belief is valid.
The methods are the same whether the Faith is in Biblegod, sortagod, UFO's or the international Jewish conspiracy. I call it 'Theistthink' (TM) but the term 'Fundy' gets put around a lot, mainly by religious or agnostic theists with a hate and fear of atheism and the attention it is getting.
On some level I know rational discussion is probably futile with someone like Gldnrule because they're incapable of or refuse to think in rational terms, yet I can't help responding because their thinking is genuinely baffling to me.
I know we all have our attributes and weaknesses, but fundies' nearly complete lack of understanding evidence and logic is really disturbing. So 'god' now refers to all that exists? What does that even mean? It's like saying everything is everything: It's true, but entirely useless and explains nothing.
I just don't understand how such a persons brain works...
My argument of "numbers" is not on offense.. it is in rebuttal of your illogical claim that since you believe "most people think of God as X" and "most people define God only as X"...God should not and cannot be defined or considered any other way.
I noted that, First, that isn't true...I and countless others don't think of or define God as only the way you do (and must to maintain the illogical Atheist concept) AND Second, that is irrelevant and inconsequential anyway.
It is not only an "offense" (as you call it) against sound logic but debunks what you say above. "Most People" would never think of using your semantic trickery. They would simply say that God was a divine, invisible creative being either in the universe the same size as the universe, or going beyond time and space. However, what you actually said: "It may "say nothing" to you...but it does to me, and has for billions of others." sounded like appeal to the beliefs of billions of God -believers as way of validating God -belief. It does not. It is the fallacy of appeal to numbers.
Quote:
You say you are no longer Religious...but the effects still have you bound...so much so, that you can't even contemplate God as anything beyond a "being that rules".
Your claim that for EVERYTHING/ALL to be God it must be intelligent and forward planning shows this.
Also, there is the part you leave out...the other part of it that binds you: It has actually forward-planned and executed that plan.
You are unable to consider that EVERYTHING/ALL, in what ever state it has ever been in...however it came to be that way...could be viewed as The Ultimate Reality and Something of Supreme Value, and perceived and revered as God on that basis.
Even though that ideology comports definitively, logically, and reasonably...the great power of Religion still has you over a barrel, and it closes your mind and tunnels your vision.
I never was religious. And YOU said or agreed that EVERYTHING/ALL as God is intelligent and forward planning. It is surely a no -brainer to argue that if it is not intelligent and forward planning, there is no reason to call it "God" rather than "Nature", or at least you cannot expect atheists to do so.
I only await clarification now of your apparent claim that some intelligent elements in Everything makes the whole thing 'intelligent' and therefore the "God" label is appropriate. If you want to argue that it is appropriate without intelligence and forward planning (apart from us) then I say that you can't expect us to buy that, no matter how much you cherry pick Dictionary definitions or appeal to fallacies of numbers.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-10-2016 at 11:50 PM..
On some level I know rational discussion is probably futile with someone like Gldnrule because they're incapable of or refuse to think in rational terms, yet I can't help responding because their thinking is genuinely baffling to me.
I know we all have our attributes and weaknesses, but fundies' nearly complete lack of understanding evidence and logic is really disturbing. So 'god' now refers to all that exists? What does that even mean? It's like saying everything is everything: It's true, but entirely useless and explains nothing.
I just don't understand how such a persons brain works...
Well, I think it is the Buy In to an idea on faith. But, although Faith is often touted as all the justification you need, Theist apologists do neem to feel the need to justify the faith on logical and evidential grounds. Since it does not, that means that evidence and logic have to be fiddled to make them look as though they support God -belief.
Lane-Craig's arguments for God on morality, Kalam and resurrection was discussed recently and they are demonstrably wrong and indeed fiddled and the fiddling does seem to depend on starting with the assumption that "a god exists and thus..." and this is the key to understanding theist-think.
Not so much "enlightened"...just logical and reasonable, working with facts and evidence.
For over 40 years I worked off a flawed "no evidence" premise...and used that to draw the illogical conclusion and determination that based on that flawed premises, it made sense not to believe God exists.
Upon coming to this board, I came to understand that "G-O-D" was not limited to just Religious Deities, and that the totality of EVERYTHING was as "Godly" as Godly gets (as per how God is known to be defined), and could be logically and reasonably be perceived as GOD. Thus, GOD.
Though, if one perceives that as being "enlightened"...it is fully logical and reasonable they apply that descriptor.
I then, through that perception, objectively become one who IS "enlightened"....and, furthermore, "The Enlightened" objectively exist. Also, that any others may not, or do not, perceive the understanding I came to as "enlightened" does not change that at all.
See how that works?
Yes. It doesn't because of the invalid premise. " a flawed "no evidence" premise".
This knock on from belief in a god as a given is that the burden of proof lies with those who see no reason to believe in a god. It does not and to say that it does is incorrect logic.
That is of course why such effort is put into establishing a god, a god -concept or even just the label by any means. We have had it all, appeal to morality, numbers of believers, First cause, ID and Anselm's rather whacky 'If we can imagine it, it must exist' argument. But your argument for applying the "God" - label to unthinking and unplanning nature (which is what we see in all the mechanisms we know about and is therefore the preferred default -explanation) is one of the worst I have heard.
I think you know it is false too as you go to great lengths to not say that it is, so far as evidence goes, unplanning and non -intelligent, without actually having to produce evidence that it is actually intelligent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
your lines of logic and what you call "objectively" must do this or that isn't sound for me. When you just look at the data, nothing else, then we are part of a more complex system. If it is more complex it may be alive. That's what "they" are calling god. Thats the connections they feel. even if its only the earth it would seem infinte to us. But the traits are wrong. no need for Omni dude. But "they" hated theist are not dead wrong. I don't goto war for personal opinions that aint based in reason.
Now let's look at less complex, or humans as the last emergence. that just does not make any sense at all. In fact, it counters observations. But remember gld, they aint fighting over facts. No facts means I can't help ya. sorry man.
Well, here, Gldnrule, chum, even Arach sees that your argument must "work" or he can't buy it.
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.
sorry man.
It doesn't because of the invalid premise. " a flawed "no evidence" premise".
