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.
for example. I say we are surrounded by a system life and that's what some theist are misrepresenting as god.
I base every statement about what religion claims off of that base claim because its the "lowest common denominator" for rational people. It eliminates the infinite regress problem because we are here now and describing the system we know.
whats yours? your base claim? and how does that address infinite regress?
You've examined the whole of the universe? I have not. I have no need to be anyone's authority of anything on these forums.
you're way to emotional. But i'll try to sort this out. because I feel you are actually being as honest as you can.
ok, so their are fundy think types in atheism.
That claim is more valid than the claim that there is not fundy-think types in atheism.
how you feel about me using the words way to much, or even if you claim I am OCD about it, isn't relevant to my claims about science.
Emotional? Please.... Internet forums do not make me emotional. As I have said before, I type quickly, and a lot of times on my phone, so things may come across more.... Rude, angry, emotional than I intend, or that I mean.
I have said this is the case, Arach. There are people who get bent out of shape, or who are way too invested in every group. Not just religious/not religious either. You being obsessive over may not have any relevancy to your claims of science, but it does have relevancy as to how your post is read, and understood.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
next point.
I was answering the statement that "science doesn't support god claims."
i said that is actually wrong. science does support some claims about god and doesn't support other claims about god."
please indicate where that is wrong and tell me what is a more valid statement?
Please indicate where science "supports some claims about God" and we'll talk. Because unless science can show that the "universe is god" or that there is some other version of God supported, the statement is meaningless. Personal claims and using science to further personal beliefs does not mean science supports some claims about God.
You've examined the whole of the universe? I have not. I have no need to be anyone's authority of anything on these forums.
we are here, for most of us, to examine our base claims and see if our lines of logic are sound. Some of us even modify them when the data suggest we should.
some are here to tell us that anti-god/relion is what we need to be saved and others are here to tell us that their "my-god-only" will save us we don't have to be like that.
ok, so you don't want to influence people. I get the fear in that. But you do know that we are here to help each other. if you are here to honestly help others, just saying that we can take any notion to far, although valid, falls short.
its ok to tak about what you know to help others.
If anti-religion or my-religion-only is the base you are using, rational people will see it.
To me it's strange whenever an atheist puts God in the plural or uses "gods".
Because atheists do not believe in ALL gods, plural. Even I can explain this and English is not even my first language.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
Is it just a lack of simple understanding about how man has used language to describe the divine. Each culture was independent from the others, yet they each developed their own religions to help explain God.
No, other cultures invented their own gods, because most people gave a cognitive bias called teleological thinking. Your ad hoc excuse is you not wanting to admit gods are often invented, because that may mean your god is also an invention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
Why is that so difficult to understand? I'll answer: It's NOT difficult to understand. So the only conclusion one can take from listening to an atheist is that he has a moral problem in accepting his need for God. Only that would cause them to say such convoluted things that you know even they couldn't believe.
Convoluted! It is you who is claiming your god is the brother and sister of himself / herself as well as his / her own mother and father while at the same time being his / her own son and daughter. Because that is where you ad hoc excuse leads. How is Chronos eating his own sons and being tricked by his sister an explanation of your god?
It is a simple concept. We do NOT believe in any gods. Is it your delusion limiting your ability to think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by OzzyRules
That's a scientific and rational conclusion.
Your conclusion is based on your ignorance and ad hoc excuse. A house of cards built on sand and buried under the usual BS.
It's not as facinating of subject as you may think or embrace. It sort like an unattractive person who is convinced your obsessed with them, so they position themselves around the water-cooler and want to talk ad nausem about their beauty.
Why some people have a need for there not be any God(s) varies.
First of all, it's wrong to say "specific God". The different religions are just different languages people have used to describe the same thing. Don't pretend that you can't the understand the concept.
So you do not understand the concept that teleological thinking makes people invent gods? We have the science showing this. Your narrow minded way of thinking seems unable to see other alternatives.
Emotional? Please.... Internet forums do not make me emotional. As I have said before, I type quickly, and a lot of times on my phone, so things may come across more.... Rude, angry, emotional than I intend, or that I mean.
I have said this is the case, Arach. There are people who get bent out of shape, or who are way too invested in every group. Not just religious/not religious either. You being obsessive over may not have any relevancy to your claims of science, but it does have relevancy as to how your post is read, and understood.
Please indicate where science "supports some claims about God" and we'll talk. Because unless science can show that the "universe is god" or that there is some other version of God supported, the statement is meaningless. Personal claims and using science to further personal beliefs does not mean science supports some claims about God.
ok,that settled. there are fundy think types in atheism too. I have repeatedly said in every group. I always say "The same goes for theism".
yes, if people can't stay focused on what was said because I use the words"fundy atheist", that is kind of a clue what I am dealing with. Can they address what is said? are they emotionally mature enough to actually see past themselves? do they care just about our place in the universe or are they pushing theism and/or atheism as our filters?
how it supports some god claims.
lets look at mystic's. mystic says that QED defines our realty. That is a trait of his god that is supported by science.
Your unwarranted slander says more about you than it does others.
Others are wising up to your schtick.
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.
