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.
Haha, yeah, I don't know of perhaps any agnostics who hold to that definition.
According to the dictionary, an atheist is essentially an agnostic and an agnostic is a whole new ball game.
I follow the dictionary definitions for the purpose of standardizing, but I definitely understand that it can cause confusion
It tells me just that. Of all the countless things you could have thought of for your analogy...you thought of a "penis" for it. You must have some kind of mental propensity to think about "penis"...for whatever reason.
I just noted a expert provided definition for Atheism that had a much more substantial position.
It was the "Lack of Belief" definition of Atheism that I referred to as "wimpy". It is still a definition...but is one of bereft of any real conviction.
Read Mystics Synthesis 1-5.
now wait just a second, I have the female version of the penis on my mind a lot. I know what it says about me. In fact, I could use inappropriate analogies to make a point stick, but oh so good.
on a serious note:
there just is no way around it gld. it is a god phobia for them, its the word. I know when a word bugs me to the point that I would dismiss observation I have to rethink myself before I even address the stance.
They are at war with religion, that is not what we (me and you, I think) are doing here. I know myself, when I tell theists there is no god I offer real science to explain what they think they feel. Like a connection to something bigger. There is a ton of reasonable answers that don't end in omni dude or lack belief blind faith statements.
some atheist are sick. In fact, there are as many as there are sick theists. The normals, in the middle, reach reasonable conclusions quickly. regardless of what they believe.
When I first started reading this thread I thought you were an intelligent poster capable of rational discussion on a controversial topic. At least I've learned something through discussion with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
You searched it even more! Good job...WhooHoo!
I believe that doing research and gathering information is an important part of rational discussion - your sarcasm seems to show that you feel otherwise.
However, in this instance I didn't search it "even more". I just added. :shrug:
Quote:
But you STILL keep forgetting that I said, "mentioned in an analogy". Get that straight! Now, check the usage of all (ALL of them...each one!!) those you found to see if that is how they were being used. Let me know the results.
A few problems here.
The first, is that you made the original claim:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
"Lamp" (or any other such object) would be rather ordinary to see mentioned in an analogy on a general discussion board with strangers on the interweb (one for Religion & Spirituality to boot)..."penis", not so much.
So, either you
1) did the research to come to this conclusion
2) just made an unfounded assumption
I'm pretty sure we both know which it was.
A typical "tactic" of people who can't engage in rational discussion:
1) Present something with no evidence.
2) Reject actual evidence presented which counters the assertion
3) Demand more evidence to disprove the unsupported assertion
It's pretty tiresome.
You've claimed, based on nothing, that "lamp" is more likely to be used in an analogy than "penis"
I've shown, with evidence, that "lamp" and "penis" are used with roughly the same frequency in this forum.
If it's your belief, as you appear to have stated, that "lamp" is used more frequently as an analogy than "penis" then it's your prerogative to show it.
Quote:
Let me know the results.
One would not have to 'check the usage of all (ALL of them...each one!!)' to have some idea if "lamp" was more frequently used in an analogy than "penis". One could simply take a random sample.
Anyway, it's clear that this word "penis" has caught your attention and distracted from the overall point.
So, I'm done discussing it outside of
1) the overall point - that using one meaning of a word as a 'gotcha' compared to another meaning of a word is intellectually dishonest.
2) your, soon, I'm sure, to be findings on it's relative use in analogies.
Quote:
By the way...noting a whole bunch of different definitions for the same word that are completely unrelated is a bogus analogy to definitions for the same word that do relate.
I am surprised how often I see this type of flawed argument on this board.
First, LOL
Second, I disagree that the two meanings of the word "god" we are discussing are similar
1 - a deity
2 - a thing of supreme value
Again. My saying the Mike Trout is a god should, to any reasonable person with an understanding of English, not be conflated, in any way, with my saying that he is a deity.
Your switching the meaning of two words
"God (a thing of supreme value)=nature". nature exists. Atheism (the lack of belief in a deity) is disproven
is not even intellectual enough for me to call it intellectual dishonest; it's a 3rd grade pun.
Atheism is a lack of belief in deities, not a lack of belief in things with supreme value.
That deities and things with supreme value can be described with the same word is completely irrelevant.
Quote:
Then you break out the other typical flawed argument...listing things known not to exist (usually unicorns, leprechauns, the Tooth Fairy, etc...but you invented Giant Cucumber Cheeto housemaid)...and trying to conflate them with something that is known to exist.
I'm curious how you know that these things do not exist?
Is it because there is a lack of evidence for them existing?
Now, if you actually believe what you're posting, the world must be very stressful for you. I'm sorry.
How difficult must it be to not be able understand the difference in meaning of words based on context.
If someone tells you to "turn on the light", you wouldn't know if you should flip the switch or, say, dance seductively with it without someone cherry picking and excising the definitions that might confuse you.
More than one poster has messaged me warning me against engaging with you.
I think I'll follow that advice.
I won't respond to any more nonsense that you post, but if you have any actual logical or rational points to add, then I'll continue.
Last edited by BlueQueuedQuarks; 12-20-2016 at 10:11 AM..
I skimmed your synthesis. I've listened to hordes of educational Youtube videos, so I have a rudimentary understanding of quantum physics as well as most of the other topics you mentioned. I can respect the thought that went into your synthesis. Here are some of my thoughts:
The first criticism I had was in your post titled "Reality Re-Orientation" which your link "My Synthesis1" led to.
You had typed:
Quanta are the first localized (massed) packets of energy with a given frequency. I should point out that light is quanta. In Genesis, light is the first creation. Even more interesting, light is represented as the first creation in the Indian, Greek, and Phoenician cosmogonies; and freely interpreted, is implied in the ancient Babylonian writings because they ascribe the creation of the world to the sun-god Marduk. Strange that all these sources should place light, alias quanta, first in the sequence of creation. Why wasn't it placed second or third or even simultaneously with darkness? What intuitive (right brain) insights underlie such consistency?
The light that came before everything else in the Bible was visible light. I have sources for this, but I don't even know if you'll read this yet, so if you'd like the source I'll provide it if you wish. I don't remember exactly what the source is at the moment and it might take a few minutes to dig it up, and I'm lazy, so I won't do it unless you'd like me to.
From that same above source I mentioned, I learned that visible light did not exist in our universe until the first stars were formed. Before that it was only other types of energy that existed.
Now, my first thought is that the ancients who wrote the bible associated the absence of light with the absence of anything because we don't see things without light. We go to sleep without light. In darkness, our self-awareness fades away. We have many reasons to associate light with the absence of anything.
Presumably the writers of the Bible felt that god spoke to them through feelings, and they felt that the absence of light means the absence of things, and they felt a strong association between light and the existence of things so it would have made perfect sense for them to imagine light to be the beginning of creation.
Now, in your idea's defense...the ancients wouldn't have understood the types of energy we understand today. Light would have been about as close as a human writer with a god's knowledge of the cosmos could get to describing the beginning of the universe...but that's still pretty unconvincing to me, particularly considering what I consider the more plausible explanation I listed above.
What Wing should have said is that “ . . . we live in a participatory universe where all reality and physical laws as measured and apprehended by us are dependent upon an observer to formulate them.†Our thoughts provide us with the ability to measure and apprehend the relative incompleteness of our becoming in sequential fashion only because of our access to a frame of reference in infinite becoming that shares a temporal equivalence with the physical world.
I've never really understood the idea of our monitoring events on the quantum level affecting their outcome. I've always wondered if perhaps it isn't so much our monitoring the events changing them, but some photons or energy or particles ejected from our devices used to monitor them altering them or something like that, or perhaps the error is in how we perceive them, and they're merely not behaving as we perceive them. I lack a firm understanding of quantum physics. Also, I've heard that the only true way to understand quantum physics is through extensive mathematical study...and I never went further into mathematics than algebra classes.
If your idea is correct though, I've mentioned on this thread that I'm intrigued by the idea that the laws of physics would have been created by a mind because we know of no way to create rules other than through a mind. I've also mentioned that a reason I'd ignore that possibility is because our minds don't appear able to create laws of physics, or affect reality at all merely through our thoughts.
If you're above statement is actually correct...that's another characteristic of god discovered that I'd been looking for: the ability to affect the universe through only thought.
The primary reason I don't believe in a god is because there are many of it's characteristics that don't seem to exist in nature, so I see searching for its characteristics in nature as an important step in the search for a god.
The next criticism I had was from your thread titled "The Big Brain: Our Soul Factory" that your link "My Synthesis5" led to. You stated:
Most scientists believe that our mind is merely a function of our extremely versatile brain, consequently, they conclude, our brain is the reason we have a mind. This circular logic is like saying that transportation is a function of our extremely versatile cars, therefore, cars are the reason we have transportation. Science credits our brain with being the instrument of our superiority over the lower animals. But as our sense of self and inner experience of control suggests . . . since it is an instrument . . . there must be someone or something using it.
I kind of agree that there has to be someone or something using it: the conscious person, but there doesn't need to be anything beyond that. I see the reasoning that the brain is the reason we have a mind as a perfectly reasonable assumption. I suppose you could say it's wrong to see it as anything more than an assumption, but it isn't circular reasoning to say that the brain is the reason we have a mind. Our mind, our thoughts, our feelings...sure, we don't need to feel them to do what we do. I could presumably program an automaton to behave exactly as I have throughout my life, but it could quite easily be true that our consciousness is simply a side effect of evolution. Yes, that's an assumption, but I don't know why we'd assume anything else.
To me, the flaw of the idea of the homunculus can be described by a cartoon. The cartoon would show a man with a little man in his head, pressing buttons on a control panel and looking out through the bigger man's eyes. The interior man is the reason why the bigger man is self-aware. However, there's also need to be a reason why the little man is self-aware, so inside the little man's head is another little man, pressing buttons on a control panel and looking through the little man's eyes who is bigger than him. Inside that smaller little man's head there's an even littler man pushing buttons on a control panel and looking through that tiny man's eyes. Guess what's inside that minute man's head?
To me, the existence of a homunculus answers no useful questions about how our minds work and I see no reason to believe it exists.
I might go into your synthesis in more detail later. Remember, I just skimmed it this time.
Agnosticism can be a sincere and valid position. How can you attest to something you have no knowledge about?
The answer to the OP"s question is yes because some people have hybrid belief systems...so an agnostic-atheist can leave the door open for the supernatural.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyl3r
Perhaps I misinterpreted your post, but I believe that Gldn and you are referring to different definitions of the same word.
A lot of people take Agnosticism to be "I don't know" and atheism to be "Definitely not".
On the otherhand, the dictionary definition of Agnostic is: "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena"
Indicating that nobody knows anything about God and it is not possible for anyone to know anything about God, which is a very strong claim.
I think the "I don't know" stance can be sincere and valid, but the "can't possibly know" isn't valid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabfest
That dictionary definition seems over-reaching, limiting and would not describe any agnostic I've ever met.
I totally agree with the bolded. Ever met a militant agnostic? "I don't know! And you do not know either!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skyl3r
Haha, yeah, I don't know of perhaps any agnostics who hold to that definition.
Aezccording to the dictionary, an atheist is essentially an agnostic and an agnostic is a whole new ball game.
I follow the dictionary definitions for the purpose of standardizing, but I definitely understand that it can cause confusion
As I said...all that is "fluff" IMO.
Either one believes that a God Exists...or one believes that No God Exists.
Headtrips about "possibilities" are really inconsequential to "bottom line" position on the issue. "ANYTHING is "possible" about anything...so the claim of "possibility" could be used is a debate about whatever anyone can come up with.
Also...to claim that, based upon "No Evidence" one would then choose "Does Not Exist" as a default position on the issue, is bogus as well.
There IS evidence...just not "hard/objective" evidence. If there is no "hard" evidence either way...but one way has incredible amount of indirect/soft evidence (while the other way has none of either)...the scale must be reasonably tipped to the side that has the evidence. At least unless or until one side gets objective evidence to support it.
No matter. "GOD EXISTS" has such a prolific "saturation" of humankind...that it is, essentially, a "Standard of Human Understanding". If the opposing concept expects to contest that, they will have to prove their case.
"GOD EXISTS" is the "incumbent position", the "ruling viewpoint". It currently "holds office", and has for a thousand years.
Those that are looking for "facts" relative to the issue need to get hip to that one.
Also...to claim that, based upon "No Evidence" one would then choose "Does Not Exist" as a default position on the issue, is bogus as well.
There IS evidence...just not "hard/objective" evidence. If there is no "hard" evidence either way...but one way has incredible amount of indirect/soft evidence (while the other way has none of either)...the scale must be reasonably tipped to the side that has the evidence. At least unless or until one side gets objective evidence to support it.
So as you've just identified, you can not say there is no God, just that there's no reason to believe in one. AKA, you have a disbelief in God, AKA a lack of belief in God, AKA you agree so stop arguing and calling it fluff.
So as you've just identified, you can not say there is no God, just that there's no reason to believe in one. AKA, you have a disbelief in God, AKA a lack of belief in God, AKA you agree so stop arguing and calling it fluff.
No...this refers to the Atheists position...relative to the Deity Gods you limit your acknowledgment to.
I fully make a "God Exists" claim ..and declare that I have objective evidence to substantiate that claim.
But it is moot to those that redact and cherry-pick the full, expert definition of "G-O-D", and excise the ones that render their bogus Atheist viewpoint null and void.
No...this refers to the Atheists position...relative to the Deity Gods you limit your acknowledgment to.
I fully make a "God Exists" claim ..and declare that I have objective evidence to substantiate that claim.
But it is moot to those that redact and cherry-pick the full, expert definition of "G-O-D", and excise the ones that render their bogus Atheist viewpoint null and void.
Yeah me too, goddamnit. (<-- See that? We're clever aren't we)
now wait just a second, I have the female version of the penis on my mind a lot. I know what it says about me. In fact, I could use inappropriate analogies to make a point stick, but oh so good.
on a serious note:
there just is no way around it gld. it is a god phobia for them, its the word. I know when a word bugs me to the point that I would dismiss observation I have to rethink myself before I even address the stance.
They are at war with religion, that is not what we (me and you, I think) are doing here. I know myself, when I tell theists there is no god I offer real science to explain what they think they feel. Like a connection to something bigger. There is a ton of reasonable answers that don't end in omni dude or lack belief blind faith statements.
some atheist are sick. In fact, there are as many as there are sick theists. The normals, in the middle, reach reasonable conclusions quickly. regardless of what they believe.
Yes...I agree.
It boils down to bias due to Godophobia issues.
Or, even more simple: They have "issues".
Though I don't blame them. They are part of a team so pathetically poor (Atheism) that it has been whooped up on by the opposing team (Theism) for over a thousand years. Wow!
And now...with the "God Exists" concept spreading through the area that has a fifth of the world population (China)...they will be doing even worse in this world. Oh, well...they will have to learn to cope.
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.
