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.
We have done this several times already and I am not going to do it again. If it is not Intelligent it is nature, not God, and if it IS Intelligence - prove it.
All the rest - appeals to antiquity and authorities (who lacked a lot on information we now have) and the rest are fallacies.
You have always failed to understand this. Arach has explained it too...and you still don't "get it".
Whatever any entity does...The Universe is necessarily doing.
For years now, I have tried to get you hip to the concept that any attribute or characteristic any entity possesses...is necessarily possessed by The Universe.
Is there such an attribute or characteristic as "Intelligence"? If so, The Universe necessarily possesses that attribute/characteristic.
Of course, "Intelligence" is required to assign anything a name or title...or for there to even be such things as names and titles. So...
The one working off a fallacy is YOU. The Logical Fallacy, "Argument From Ignorance". You claim there is "No Evidence"...but then employ that as evidence...in the form of a flawed premise you then follow to a conclusion you make determinations off of.
You have always failed to understand this. Arach has explained it too...and you still don't "get it".
Whatever any entity does...The Universe is necessarily doing.
For years now, I have tried to get you hip to the concept that any attribute or characteristic any entity possesses...is necessarily possessed by The Universe.
Is there such an attribute or characteristic as "Intelligence"? If so, The Universe necessarily possesses that attribute/characteristic.
Of course, "Intelligence" is required to assign anything a name or title...or for there to even be such things as names and titles. So...
The one working off a fallacy is YOU. The Logical Fallacy, "Argument From Ignorance". You claim there is "No Evidence"...but then employ that as evidence...in the form of a flawed premise you then follow to a conclusion you make determinations off of.
I think he may understand gld.
But he has a statement of belief to support (rhetoric) and a set of belief system rules (rituals) he has to follow. He answers to atheism, we don't. I claim he willfully deny's, avoids, and ignores data that doesn't fit "atheism". You, I, and others, are just atheist by definition.
That claim that we do what the universe does (Literal pooping using an anus excluded, we are adults) is so basic there are only two reasons to deny it. there is no logical reason to understand the claim "that whatever property we have the universe must have" while denting that to be the case.
The one reason to deny that claim is exactly the same as a young earth scientist reasons denying evolution.
I don't understand the difference between atheism and pantheism.
Normally that would be easy. Nature... or Intelligent nature? It isn't even a question of religion or irreligion. Though in actual practice it seems that the pantheists (Nature-as -Goddists) Deists, Sortagod -agnostics and what have you tend to NOT be members of organized religions.
But of course there are some who make a relatively simple thing difficult, though I think at the moment it isn't Some but One - as even Mystic (with a New Improved Pantheism with extra Agape that you'd better ask him about) seems to get the idea that nature has to be intelligent to be God and just being our Origin isn't anything like good enough.
But I can speak as a self accredited Spokesbod for atheism and say that we differ from pantheists as we don't think there is an intelligent nature, as we differ from agnostic -goddists in that we see no reason to believe in an invisible cosmic mind.
And as to the difference between pantheists and agnostic theists, you'd better ask them, as I'm buggered if I know.
I don't understand the difference between atheism and pantheism.
technically there is none. But some of the people treatment them differently.
they both have a religious slant in that the people that control the "-ism" part have to answer to a belief or set of beliefs. All observations have to fit the "-ism" or are dismissed. pantheist to pantheism and atheist to atheism.
some atheist treat atheism, witch is different than a atheist, as a religious that is equal and opposite to other religions. They will have words like sortagod and other nonsensical terms to distinguish itself as a separate religion from the others. some atheists have to assign meaning to claiming that we are part of a living system and then dismiss that meaning for themselves. its kind of weird, but that's what they do.
basically the (-ism) part, obligates the individual to answer to the group's faith claims.
You have always failed to understand this. Arach has explained it too...and you still don't "get it".
Whatever any entity does...The Universe is necessarily doing.
For years now, I have tried to get you hip to the concept that any attribute or characteristic any entity possesses...is necessarily possessed by The Universe.
Is there such an attribute or characteristic as "Intelligence"? If so, The Universe necessarily possesses that attribute/characteristic.
Of course, "Intelligence" is required to assign anything a name or title...or for there to even be such things as names and titles. So...
The one working off a fallacy is YOU. The Logical Fallacy, "Argument From Ignorance". You claim there is "No Evidence"...but then employ that as evidence...in the form of a flawed premise you then follow to a conclusion you make determinations off of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
I think he may understand gld.
But he has a statement of belief to support (rhetoric) and a set of belief system rules (rituals) he has to follow. He answers to atheism, we don't. I claim he willfully deny's, avoids, and ignores data that doesn't fit "atheism". You, I, and others, are just atheist by definition.
That claim that we do what the universe does (Literal pooping using an anus excluded, we are adults) is so basic there are only two reasons to deny it. there is no logical reason to understand the claim "that whatever property we have the universe must have" while denting that to be the case.
The one reason to deny that claim is exactly the same as a young earth scientist reasons denying evolution.
In fact I Get entirely what BOTH of you are are saying. But what I am not buying into is anything More than what you are saying. The universe does what it does. Call it an entity "God", nature, or spoozlewackett if you want. It doesn't alter that it does what it does.
What doers it do? So far as we know unplanned and unthinking physical processes and if there is Anything more, prove it. If not unplanned mechanical processes is all we can assume it does.
That's al you need to be an atheist and if that's all the two of you are saying, you are atheists, too. For a long time I was bewildered as to why Arach had such a beef with atheists - of our kind - whatever that was. I couldn't work out what. I know now, and I believe that he, like you, is Meaning Something More than just what the universe does and how it works, and Mystic at least explains his hypothesis pretty well. But can validate not a shred of it.
Arach...wel, the theory is still coming out, but it does seem to be like a cosmic spinal column.
That's pretty much the same with you Goldie - an intelligent nature, and the only reason you try to evade saying so (1) is to evade the burden of proof. I need hardly revisit your ludicrous attempts to get unthinking nature accepted as a "God" label that nevertheless debunks atheism - that's the point - the cosmologist or physicist who calls unthinking nature "God" probably IS an atheist. But you Goldnruin, using the same label (ostensibly) claims it debunks atheism. I need hardy explain more.
And thereby is exposed your agenda and Arach backs it up by tossing in a lot of absurd lies and calumnies about Atheism. And the only reason why is that you both really believe in a cosmic intelligence you cal God and, like a good few "agnostic" (irreligious) -theists, you hate it when we decline to believe.
I think this exposes both of you, your rationale and agenda, so you can post all the abuse, lies and accusations you like - it doesn't matter. Nor does you goading, sneering, abuse, and needling. Doesn't matter -A Bit .
(1) your evasions don't help a bit - if the universe doesn't need to be be intelligent, then assume it isn't and call it ' nature' - semantic tricks aside) and if it is postulated that it does need to be intelligent, then prove that it is.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 03-04-2017 at 09:09 AM..
I am at least agnostic in my religious beliefs because my mind can't wrap around the idea of "nothing" creating the universe.
Don't let religion decide your conclusion. let observation do that.
I am with you, I don't know if 'something" forever is more freaky than "nothing" forever.
I only deal with what we have now. Make a measurement:
Compare the biosphere to the interactions of "non-life", "viruses", and "a cell". Like holding up a meter stick to a table leg and reading off 93.33cm, I assign no personal meaning to the comparison/reading. i only record the measurement.
"atheism", as per our self appointed priest arg, obligates me to assign an anti religious meaning to the measurement.
In fact I Get entirely what BOTH of you are are saying. But what I am not buying into is anything More than what you are saying. The universe does what it does. Call it an entity "God", nature, or spoozlewackett if you want. It doesn't alter that it does what it does.
What doers it do? So far as we know unplanned and unthinking physical processes and if there is Anything more, prove it. If not unplanned mechanical processes is all we can assume it does.
That's al you need to be an atheist and if that's all the two of you are saying, you are atheists, too. For a long time I was bewildered as to why Arach had such a beef with atheists - of our kind - whatever that was. I couldn't work out what. I know now, and I believe that he, like you, is Meaning Something More than just what the universe does and how it works, and Mystic at least explains his hypothesis pretty well. But can validate not a shred of it.
Arach...wel, the theory is still coming out, but it does seem to be like a cosmic spinal column.
That's pretty much the same with you Goldie - an intelligent nature, and the only reason you try to evade saying so (1) is to evade the burden of proof. I need hardly revisit your ludicrous attempts to get unthinking nature accepted as a "God" label that nevertheless debunks atheism - that's the point - the cosmologist or physicist who calls unthinking nature "God" probably IS an atheist.
And thereby is exposed your agenda and Arach backs it up by tossing in a lot of absurd lies and calumnies. And the only reason why is that you both really believe in a cosmic intelligence you cal God and, like a good few "agnostic" (irreligious) -theists, you hate it when we decline to believe.
I think this exposes both of you, your rationale and agenda, so you can post al the abuse you like - it doesn't matter. Nor does you goading, sneering, abuse, and needling. Doesn't matter -A Bit .
(1) your evasions don't help a bit - if the universe doesn't need to be be intelligent, then assume it isn't and call it ' nature' - semantic tricks aside) and if it is postulated that it does need to be intelligent, then prove that it is.
you sure do need rhetoric to self support. like i said. You willfully dismiss observations that don't support your "-ism". that's religious.
for example, your last line ... "Doesn't need to be ... "
of course it doesn't need to be. You seem to "need" the universe to be something you want.
I only do what it is doing, not what it needs to be doing. There are any number of possible solutions. But we are talking about the solutions in front of us. Like animals don't "need" 4 legs to move around. Or the sun doesn't "need" to be shinning in the visible EMR range. But they are, just a fact.
its just a fact, that what property you have, the universe has.
I am at least agnostic in my religious beliefs because my mind can't wrap around the idea of "nothing" creating the universe.
I can relate to that. As an atheist I really can. There is no real quarrel between an "agnostic" theist and an atheist (unless the Agnostic is In an organized religion or has some persona beef with atheism), but I can see quite well the logical and intuitive problems involved in cosmic origins.
I'd perhaps want to discuss what is probable, feasible and logical and then, perhaps if you should opt for some will, intent or purpose before the whole thing (if not with will, intent or purpose, then "Theism" is not an appropriate title in any common usage), I can reate to that, even if I opt for the other.
Then I'd ask whether you think that is the more probable explanation, the TRUE explanation or so probable that you have to say "that directing creative being must exist" Not because it would make you less or more of an agnostic" Theist, but just whether you thought it probable, 'Knew' (on reason) that it existed or believed it on conviction And in fact there is so little difference that it wouldn't matter much.
We would disagree. Perhaps heatedly, but as I say, I can relate to the way you think. It is not unreasonable.
P.s I can also parse your 'religious' reference as really being 'Theistic' rather than following some organized religion. Some make a big deal of being Theist but not reliogious. Really for no better purpose than a rhetorical trick to wrongfoot the opposition.
But it might he handy to keep 'Theism' for a god -belief, and 'religious' for following some organized religion - which need not of course, be Theistic!
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.
. 
