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.
The simple fact is that all life and everything else that exists is ample prima facie evidence of God (the source of it all). Your preference is "We don't know the source of it all, but it is NOT God." That seems a much weaker position to support given its embedded ignorance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy
That is not a fact. It is an opinion, and saying so is NOT ignorant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
That everything exists and we don't know the source of it is both fact and an expression of ignorance. What else does "we don't know" denote if not ignorance. Given the eons-long history of human thought on the source of it all as God, that is slightly MORE than a mere opinion.
You are moving the goal posts. In the first post quoted above, you said that it is a "fact is that all life and everything else that exists is ample prima facie evidence of God." In the second of your posts quoted, you changed and now say "everything exists and we don't know the source of it is both fact..."
The simple truth is that what you said in the first quote is not a fact. Why you have to keep throwing in the word "ignorant" is beyond me. We all know you're trying to get in a little dig at someone's intellect, even though the word simply means a lack of knowledge. What "we don't know" means is simply that we don't know. It has no negative connotation, and it implies nothing (such as "but it is not God"). Admitting that we don't know something does not even imply that anyone is "ignorant." It implies nothing.
What remains is that your first statement was not a fact. Then you tried to dance around it in your second quoted post and got your digs in with your repeated use of the word "ignorance." Everybody knows what you're doing.
You are moving the goal posts. In the first post quoted above, you said that it is a "fact is that all life and everything else that exists is ample prima facie evidence of God." In the second of your posts quoted, you changed and now say "everything exists and we don't know the source of it is both fact..."
The simple truth is that what you said in the first quote is not a fact. Why you have to keep throwing in the word "ignorant" is beyond me. We all know you're trying to get in a little dig at someone's intellect, even though the word simply means a lack of knowledge. What "we don't know" means is simply that we don't know. It has no negative connotation, and it implies nothing (such as "but it is not God"). Admitting that we don't know something does not even imply that anyone is "ignorant." It implies nothing.
What remains is that your first statement was not a fact. Then you tried to dance around it in your second quoted post and got your digs in with your repeated use of the word "ignorance." Everybody knows what you're doing.
That you (and others) attach a negative connotation about your intellect to the word ignorant is not my fault. It has nothing to do with our intellect, just our knowledge, and the simple truth is "We Do Not Know"(= we are ignorant of) the source of everything that exists or why it exists. That is why for eons we have attributed it to God. That tradition is obnoxious to atheists so they reject it in preference for the undeniable ignorance about it and then pretend that should be the default for our ignorance despite eons of tradition.
That you (and others) attach a negative connotation about your intellect to the word ignorant is not my fault. It has nothing to do with our intellect, just our knowledge, and the simple truth is "We Do Not Know"(= we are ignorant of) the source of everything that exists or why it exists. That is why for eons we have attributed it to God. That tradition is obnoxious to atheists so they reject it in preference for the undeniable ignorance about it and then pretend that should be the default for our ignorance despite eons of tradition.
No, for 'eons" "it" ( thunder, lightning,rain) or lack of it was attributed to many god type things.
The more we learn the less we attribute regardless of traditions.
So it's perfectly reasonable to reject that which we still don't, or may not, know as the default position.
...the simple truth is "We Do Not Know"(= we are ignorant of) the source of everything that exists or why it exists. That is why for eons we have attributed it to God. That tradition...
So you admit that we are ignorant (do not know) the source of everything, and the attribution to god is simply tradition.
Doesn't that seem like a rather weak reason to follow a religion? Simply because other people did because they had no better answer?
So you admit that we are ignorant (do not know) the source of everything, and the attribution to god is simply tradition.
Doesn't that seem like a rather weak reason to follow a religion? Simply because other people did because they had no better answer?
I thinks he means the word "god", not that it is that particular god.
it actually comes down to describing how the universe works. The word "life" seems more valid than non life with what we know these days. Applying the word "god" to the source of everything, here our universe, is the tradition. You may call it the universe and you would be correct.
That you (and others) attach a negative connotation about your intellect to the word ignorant is not my fault. It has nothing to do with our intellect, just our knowledge, and the simple truth is "We Do Not Know"(= we are ignorant of) the source of everything that exists or why it exists. That is why for eons we have attributed it to God. That tradition is obnoxious to atheists so they reject it in preference for the undeniable ignorance about it and then pretend that should be the default for our ignorance despite eons of tradition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
So you admit that we are ignorant (do not know) the source of everything, and the attribution to god is simply tradition.
Doesn't that seem like a rather weak reason to follow a religion? Simply because other people did because they had no better answer?
No, there is a lot more than tradition. Our reality is a LIVING one and a living reality is more accurately described as God than a dead one. Our reality is also conscious and a conscious reality is definitely more accurately described as God. I could go on, but it would be pointless to anyone who prefers ignorance as the default
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
I think he means the word "god", not that it is that particular god.
it actually comes down to describing how the universe works. The word "life" seems more valid than nonlife with what we know these days. Applying the word "god" to the source of everything, here our universe, is the tradition. You may call it the universe and you would be correct.
You correctly point out the relevant attribute, Arach - Life.
That you (and others) attach a negative connotation about your intellect to the word ignorant is not my fault. It has nothing to do with our intellect, just our knowledge, and the simple truth is "We Do Not Know"(= we are ignorant of) the source of everything that exists or why it exists. That is why for eons we have attributed it to God.
Gods, plural. Because people like to invent gods. Which is evidence your god is also an invention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
That tradition is obnoxious to atheists so they reject it in preference for the undeniable ignorance about it and then pretend that should be the default for our ignorance despite eons of tradition.
Which is a big misrepresentation. Using words like 'obnoxious', 'reject' and 'undeniable ignorance' is simply poisoning the well. That is not why we are atheists.
No, there is a lot more than tradition. Our reality is a LIVING one and a living reality is more accurately described as God than a dead one. Our reality is also conscious and a conscious reality is definitely more accurately described as God. I could go on, but it would be pointless to anyone who prefers ignorance as the default
Evidence. Not ignorance, evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
You correctly point out the relevant attribute, Arach - Life.
Which is just a subset of chemistry. An exergonic chemical reaction to be precise. And you accused us of using the composition fallacy.
That you (and others) attach a negative connotation about your intellect to the word ignorant is not my fault. It has nothing to do with our intellect, just our knowledge, and the simple truth is "We Do Not Know"(= we are ignorant of) the source of everything that exists or why it exists. That is why for eons we have attributed it to God. That tradition is obnoxious to atheists so they reject it in preference for the undeniable ignorance about it and then pretend that should be the default for our ignorance despite eons of tradition.
There is nothing negative about my intellect. It is common knowledge that the word "ignorant" has a negative connotation. Instead of saying "We don't know" or "unknown" or some other neutral phrase, you seem to repeatedly insert the word "ignorant" into your posts.
While it certainly looks like you tried to veer the conversation to the word "ignorant," the real point I was making with my post was that your statement "fact is that all life and everything else that exists is ample prima facie evidence of God" was not a fact, but an opinion. I'll stand by that. It's purely and simply an opinion.
No, there is a lot more than tradition. Our reality is a LIVING one and a living reality is more accurately described as God than a dead one. Our reality is also conscious and a conscious reality is definitely more accurately described as God. I could go on, but it would be pointless to anyone who prefers ignorance as the default.
That sound I hear must be the goalposts moving.
Thank you for not going on ad naseum. Your opinions that reality is alive and conscious have been noted, and deemed lacking due to lack of any supporting evidence.
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.
