As an Atheist what do you teach kids?

[Dywyddyr]

1. Surely you can read in context?

I can. You appear to be assuming a void comes with the lack of belief in god. Can you show this is true, and explain what this "void" is?

2. Try reading again, Dwy. I know you can do better than that.

I can. But I'm not prepared to assume your meaning. Please explain what you mean by "irrationality" and how personal beliefs are "becoming a religion".

3. I didn't say that Dwy. Is that what you believe? What difference would it make as an athiest?

Really?

...kids were raised as athiests and than believed in eugenics...

Your wording implies that one is a consequence of the other. If this isn't what you meant could you rephrase the point?

 

[phlogistician]

Phlo: Wouldent agnostic be more appropriate than as a label?

Again NO!

Atheism deals with faith, or lack thereof.

Agnosticism deals with knowledge.

Get this straight in your head before attempting further debate please.

 

[420Joey]

1. It's a circular argument, dwy. Pointless to elaborate on you'll just declare it annul but I'll make a small attempt. I dont have much time for this untill after 6 p.m. In our subjective reality, many people, if not everyone feels a "void" when it comes to understanding or placing a narration or frame of reference to our reality. If you deny this than I apologize and consider you enlightened. Or delusional for ascertaining the truth. My only point to "fill in the void ourselves" is to shew the absurdity that consiousness and reality is a simple mechanical process.

2. Based on the association "god" has with organized religion it is conduced he does not exist which is as absurd as this. "Jesus, gods only son, was sacraficed for us!" - this irrational warped perspective is what you draw your conclusions from.

3. Really. What is the fabric of morals threaded on. Let's adopt a purely scientifical standpoint with no attempt of understanding a philosophical or narrative reference what would it matter if millions died who were genetically inferior. What does life and death matter at any rate it will come and go. Your "feelings" for other people are chemical processing that does not matter. Or does it? This uncertainty is why I say people cannot "not" believe in god.

4. No I'm not going to rephrase it. That is what I mean not as a consequence as you describe it.

Phlo: So.... do you have faith in god or not ?? No faith in god is not believing god which is what an athiest is? In those regards I am most certainly an agnostic but not athiest.

 

[Dywyddyr]

In our subjective reality, many people, if not everyone feels a "void" when it comes to understanding or placing a narration or frame of reference to our reality.

Many? And this "void" is due to lack of belief in god?

My only point to "fill in the void ourselves" is to shew the absurdity that consiousness and reality is a simple mechanical process.

What does consciousness and reality have to do with a "void" due to lack of belief in god?
And how do you know it's an absurdity to claim they're a "simple mechanical process"?

2. Based on the association "god" has with organized religion it is conduced he does not exist which is as absurd as this. "Jesus, gods only son, was sacraficed for us!" - this irrational warped perspective is what you draw your conclusions from.

Oh okay, you're assuming again aren't you? You have decided what my lack of belief is based on, and that makes it easier(?) for you to declare it (and me) irrational. False premises lead to false conclusions.

3. Really. What is the fabric of morals threaded on.

Biology.

Let's adopt a purely scientifical standpoint with no attempt of understanding a philosophical or narrative reference what would it matter if millions died who were genetically inferior.

Because life as we live it isn't "purely scientifical".

This uncertainty is why I say people cannot "not" believe in god.

But you're wrong.

4. No I'm not going to rephrase it. That is what I mean not as a consequence as you describe it.

Then I have little choice but to take as I read it.

 

[phlogistician]

Phlo: So.... do you have faith in god or not ??

No, I have no faith/belief in any god(s).

No faith in god is not believing god which is what an athiest is?

Yes, but not believing in something does not equate to believing it doesn't exist.

In those regards I am most certainly an agnostic but not athiest.

I don't see who you can be an agnostic theist though. If you don't think you can know the answer, you must have doubt, and merely be forcing yourself to believe akin to Pascal's wager. The position of agnostic theist isn't very sound.

 

[420Joey]

Many? And this "void" is due to lack of belief in god?


What does consciousness and reality have to do with a "void" due to lack of belief in god?
And how do you know it's an absurdity to claim they're a "simple mechanical process"?


Oh okay, you're assuming again aren't you? You have decided what my lack of belief is based on, and that makes it easier(?) for you to declare it (and me) irrational. False premises lead to false conclusions.


Biology.


Because life as we live it isn't "purely scientifical".


But you're wrong.


Then I have little choice but to take as I read it.

1. Correct
2. Everything. For me anyway. I consider god the source of "reality" and consciousness. I dont have enough information to speculate further but enough to ascertain "god" must exist which does provide some closure to the void but as evidence of this interaction - not enough - and that's speaking for both of us. You can pretend you are not intrigued by your fascination of reality but you wouldent be trying so hard to discredit this and similar concepts if you werent seeking the truth. Being objective is the best way to filter but its not the same as being obstructive!

If It's a simple mechanical process we would have been able to demonstrate how to duplicate. Thus, not a simple mechanical process.

3. My assumptions are based on my observations. I want to hear a rationale argument against god besides ones constructed from organized religion.

4. Biology makes people care? That's what science/evolution states? Are you trying to infer an ultimate source of intelligence by this statement or is it a result of random mechanical processing?

5. We dont live a purely scientifical world? Judging from your posts about god one would be inclined to believe thats what you think.

 

[420Joey]

No, I have no faith/belief in any god(s).



Yes, but not believing in something does not equate to believing it doesn't exist.



I don't see who you can be an agnostic theist though. If you don't think you can know the answer, you must have doubt, and merely be forcing yourself to believe akin to Pascal's wager. The position of agnostic theist isn't very sound.

I do have doubt as to how god exists. However I do have faith god does exist because in my opinion it is a more rationale approach to trying to understand reality than believing that we manifested from nothing or whatever because whatever for nothing. I think we are here to experience. I think this is intentional. For something to be intended, there must be a will and its beyond what we could ever understand. (My personal belief) Short of god screaming "Im here Im here" people are not going to believe and that's fine but deep down I think they do.

 

[Dywyddyr]

1. Correct

Ah, an assumption.

2. Everything. For me anyway. I consider god the source of "reality" and consciousness. I dont have enough information to speculate further but enough to ascertain "god" must exist which does provide some closure to the void but as evidence of this interaction - not enough - and that's speaking for both of us. You can pretend you are not intrigued by your fascination of reality but you wouldent be trying so hard to discredit this and similar concepts if you werent seeking the truth. Being objective is the best way to filter but its not the same as being obstructive!

Unlike you I don't assume god exists in my search for "truth". And I am not trying to discredit anything. (except for specious claims and arguments). How can you claim to be objective when you've already decided god exists?

If It's a simple mechanical process we would have been able to demonstrate how to duplicate. Thus, not a simple mechanical process.

What arrant nonsense. Or maybe you expect us to have solved every problem in science just in time for you to decide we ought to be able to do it.

3. My assumptions are based on my observations. I want to hear a rationale argument against god besides ones constructed from organized religion.

Against god? Why should I argue "against" god? I haven't been shown he exists, so what's the point in arguing against something that cannot be shown to exist?

4. Biology makes people care?

Yes.

That's what science/evolution states?

Yes.

Are you trying to infer an ultimate source of intelligence by this statement or is it a result of random mechanical processing?

Why would we even want to infer an "ultimate source of intelligence"? What does that have to do with a biological basis for morality?

5. We dont live a purely scientifical world? Judging from your posts about god one would be inclined to believe thats what you think.

Then you obviously (again) don't read my posts well enough.
If someone tells me a movie is good I ask them "Why do you think it's good?" Is that "scientifical"? Likewise if someone tells me I ought to believe in god I ask them "Why should I?"

 

[YoYoPapaya]

I do have doubt as to how god exists. However I do have faith god does exist because in my opinion it is a more rationale approach to trying to understand reality than believing that we manifested from nothing or whatever because whatever for nothing. I think we are here to experience. I think this is intentional. For something to be intended, there must be a will and its beyond what we could ever understand. (My personal belief) Short of god screaming "Im here Im here" people are not going to believe and that's fine but deep down I think they do.

deep down I think you're scared of the unknown and that's why you choose to believe in an imaginary father figure to comfort you.

 

[420Joey]

See what I mean?

I dont believe in a father figure god or any other entity described in any organized religion. Deep down you must be a confused thiest. You have the same personality traits as one, you believe your statements are conclusive. You think you "know" something. Your god is random nothing-something that you postulate turned itself into matter.

 

[420Joey]

Ah, an assumption.


Unlike you I don't assume god exists in my search for "truth". And I am not trying to discredit anything. (except for specious claims and arguments). How can you claim to be objective when you've already decided god exists?

You are not trying to discredit anything besides specious claims and argument? Why do you consider god specious and not your theory of origin? Please explain.

What arrant nonsense. Or maybe you expect us to have solved every problem in science just in time for you to decide we ought to be able to do it.

I'm not the one saying its a simple mechanical process? Consciousness is poorly understood if you claim the contrary than my initial question still stands and is equivlical to us having a computer that we understand fully but cant make.

Against god? Why should I argue "against" god? I haven't been shown he exists, so what's the point in arguing against something that cannot be shown to exist?

You do argue against god all the time. If you sincerely believe god does not exist why do you depict him with a gender? Why do you reply to so many threads about god in so many subforums you obviously have no interest in. When have you ever tried having a rational discussion without discourse in a religion topic?

Yes.


Yes.


Why would we even want to infer an "ultimate source of intelligence"? What does that have to do with a biological basis for morality?

So that does not infer an ultimate source of intelligence? I thought you would understand the link, apparently not.

Then you obviously (again) don't read my posts well enough.
If someone tells me a movie is good I ask them "Why do you think it's good?" Is that "scientifical"? Likewise if someone tells me I ought to believe in god I ask them "Why should I?"

You dont have to why should you interefere in people wanting to have a rational discussion about the possibility of god. Why discourse to witty irrelevant and stupid bandwagon posts. If someone says a description of the movie I dont like I dont hang around the movie theatres calling them idiots unless I have some motive to do so.

 

[Dywyddyr]

You are not trying to discredit anything besides specious claims and argument? Why do you consider god specious and not your theory of origin? Please explain.

Because we have evidence for one and none for the other. And note that I said "claims" not god him/ her/ itself.

I'm not the one saying its a simple mechanical process? Consciousness is poorly understood if you claim the contrary than my initial question still stands and is equivlical to us having a computer that we understand fully but cant make.

Correct. Consciousness is, at the moment, poorly understood. What's your point? (PS, if you're going to argue about the word "simple" I assumed you didn't mean simple as in 2+2...)

You do argue against god all the time.

Links please.

If you sincerely believe god does not exist why do you depict him with a gender?

Two errors. I have not stated that I believe he doesn't, but I have stated that I don't believe he does. And I use "he" because that appears to be the "standard convention". What term would you rather I use?

Why do you reply to so many threads about god in so many subforums you obviously have no interest in.

Slight error there. I can't recall ever having replied to something I'm not interested in.

When have you ever tried having a rational discussion without discourse in a religion topic?

I try to be rational in all of my discussions.

So that does not infer an ultimate source of intelligence?

No. It doesn't.

I thought you would understand the link, apparently not.

Well obviously one of us hasn't. Please quote the relevant portion where an "ultimate intelligence" is implied in that link. Or maybe you're working from your predetermined bias again...

You dont have to why should you interefere in people wanting to have a rational discussion about the possibility of god.

Because I'm asking questions: WHY do they believe in god? Etc... This is a science board. If you want unconditional agreement on god's existence then go elsewhere.
How can you have a "rational" discussion about god when it's not even generally agreed what he is, let alone whether he exists or not.

If someone says a description of the movie I dont like I dont hang around the movie theatres calling them idiots unless I have some motive to do so.

If someone in my local starts spouting off nonsense about why I should see a movie then I'll question them. In case you hadn't noticed theists pop up in most of the sun-forums and espouse "god" as reason. So I come into the religion sub-forum of this science board to discover more about their claims.

 

[420Joey]

Because we have evidence for one and none for the other. And note that I said "claims" not god him/ her/ itself.

Evidence of what? The non-existance of god?

Correct. Consciousness is, at the moment, poorly understood. What's your point? (PS, if you're going to argue about the word "simple" I assumed you didn't mean simple as in 2+2...)

:shrug:

Two errors. I have not stated that I believe he doesn't, but I have stated that I don't believe he does. And I use "he" because that appears to be the "standard convention". What term would you rather I use?

"the standard convention" remember my earlier point about organized religion and your presdisposed bias on god that you deemed assumption?

Slight error there. I can't recall ever having replied to something I'm not interested in.

So you are interested in religious, psuedo, para, etc. concepts but create discourse in the thread? Your illustrating your dishonesty just admit that you get a kick of it via self esteem boost and thats what your interested in.

Well obviously one of us hasn't. Please quote the relevant portion where an "ultimate intelligence" is implied in that link. Or maybe you're working from your predetermined bias again...

Your right. There is no underlying intelligence in biology. It's random.

Because I'm asking questions: WHY do they believe in god? Etc... This is a science board. If you want unconditional agreement on god's existence then go elsewhere.

I'm so tired of this cop-out!
"This is a science board" that just happens to have "Philosophy, Free Thoughts, Cess Pool, Psuedo, Para, Art, Entertainment, About the Members, etc." ??

In order words the sole purpose of having a religious subforum is for the scientific community to make fun of those who engage ? Is there some psychological motive to allow this linked with the science of the mind or something? If people believe in god they should go elsewhere!! Hahaha when even scientests believe in god? What does science have to do with god?

How can you have a "rational" discussion about god when it's not even generally agreed what he is, let alone whether he exists or not.

How can we have a rational discussion about dreams and reality if we dont know if it exists or not? Because we have enough information to conclude that it would be useful to continue investigation.

If someone in my local starts spouting off nonsense about why I should see a movie then I'll question them. In case you hadn't noticed theists pop up in most of the sun-forums and espouse "god" as reason. So I come into the religion sub-forum of this science board to discover more about their claims.

Your not trying to discover unless you mean you diss people and cover your tracks with fabrications to rationalize your behavior.

 

[YoYoPapaya]

See what I mean?

I dont believe in a father figure god or any other entity described in any organized religion. Deep down you must be a confused thiest. You have the same personality traits as one, you believe your statements are conclusive. You think you "know" something. Your god is random nothing-something that you postulate turned itself into matter.

Projection.

I don't claim to know, nor do I feel the need to make up a story to believe in.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Evidence of what? The non-existance of god?

What?
You: Why do you consider god specious and not your theory of origin?
Me: Because we have evidence for one and not for the other.

Now try to address the point without introducing straw men.

:shrug:

If we both agree that consciousness is poorly understood at the moment then why do expect us to be able to reproduce it now?

"the standard convention" remember my earlier point about organized religion and your presdisposed bias on god that you deemed assumption?

Given the lack of any preferred term from you what else should I use?

So you are interested in religious, psuedo, para, etc. concepts but create discourse in the thread?

You do know what "discourse" means, don't you?

Your illustrating your dishonesty just admit that you get a kick of it via self esteem boost and thats what your interested in.

Again you seem to be reading something I haven't written. I'll try again: I am interested in all of those. That's why I post there.

Your right. There is no underlying intelligence in biology. It's random.

"Random" isn't exactly the term, but you're on the right track.

I'm so tired of this cop-out!
"This is a science board" that just happens to have "Philosophy, Free Thoughts, Cess Pool, Psuedo, Para, Art, Entertainment, About the Members, etc." ??

Correct. If you bother to check the rules for each sub-forum you WILL find that opinions are expected to be supported.

In order words the sole purpose of having a religious subforum is for the scientific community to make fun of those who engage ?

I doubt that was the reason for its introduction. And i think you'd find that isn't how it's generally used.

What does science have to do with god?

Very little. But when someone makes claims about god, or the attributes thereof they should expect to be asked to substantiate those claims or admit they're just blowing smoke.

How can we have a rational discussion about dreams and reality if we dont know if it exists or not?

We have sufficient evidence to accept dreams as existing. Reality...? that depends on how you want to define it.

Because we have enough information to conclude that it would be useful to continue investigation.

And yet, in many cases, the claimed "evidence/ information" is either not provided or turns out not to hold up as such when looked at.

Your not trying to discover unless you mean you diss people and cover your tracks with fabrications to rationalize your behavior.

That's your perception, not the actuality.
Please learn the difference.

PS:
You: You do argue against god all the time.
Me: Links please.

Still waiting...

 

[420Joey]

Projection.

I don't claim to know, nor do I feel the need to make up a story to believe in.

What you said is a projection.
I dont claim to know nor do I feel the need to make up a story to believe in either.
The problem is you just made one up.
Alternatively do you have a belief in origin we can contrast to shed light on how stupid any made up story is?

 

[spidergoat]

I do have doubt as to how god exists. However I do have faith god does exist because in my opinion it is a more rationale approach to trying to understand reality than believing that we manifested from nothing or whatever because whatever for nothing. I think we are here to experience. I think this is intentional. For something to be intended, there must be a will and its beyond what we could ever understand. (My personal belief) Short of god screaming "Im here Im here" people are not going to believe and that's fine but deep down I think they do.

Faith isn't rational, that's why that call it faith.

 

[YoYoPapaya]

No I don't.

I don't make up stories. Reality is interesting enough without them.

 

[spidergoat]

...

2. Based on the association "god" has with organized religion it is conduced he does not exist which is as absurd as this. "Jesus, gods only son, was sacraficed for us!" - this irrational warped perspective is what you draw your conclusions from.

3. Really. What is the fabric of morals threaded on. Let's adopt a purely scientifical standpoint with no attempt of understanding a philosophical or narrative reference what would it matter if millions died who were genetically inferior. What does life and death matter at any rate it will come and go. Your "feelings" for other people are chemical processing that does not matter. Or does it? This uncertainty is why I say people cannot "not" believe in god.

So you do not believe in any revelations from god as described in organized monotheism, but you somehow think that morals can be derived from the simple existence of god? How does that work?

 

[420Joey]

What?
You: Why do you consider god specious and not your theory of origin?
Me: Because we have evidence for one and not for the other.

Now try to address the point without introducing straw men.

We dont have evidence on any origin, dwy, why do you insist in making things up? We have evidence on the evolution of origin.

If we both agree that consciousness is poorly understood at the moment then why do expect us to be able to reproduce it now?

I dont expect us to reproduce it dwy thats what I'm saying! Can you even think of the implications that would result in us doing something like that?

Given the lack of any preferred term from you what else should I use?

So you do admit you have a predisposed bias towards god due to organized religion? as I've stated....

You do know what "discourse" means, don't you?

Yes I do.

Again you seem to be reading something I haven't written. I'll try again: I am interested in all of those. That's why I post there.

Interested in what is my question.

"Random" isn't exactly the term, but you're on the right track.

How do you know that? Please support that statement, thanks.

Correct. If you bother to check the rules for each sub-forum you WILL find that opinions are expected to be supported.

Opinions are supported. Your criteria: PROVE IT TO ME EMPERICALLY or ACCEPT MY INSULTS in a WITTY OR STRAIGHT UP FASHION. If thats the case why even have a religion, para, psuedo, etc. section???

If it had emperical proof it wouldent be a philosophy, religion, para, or psuedo? How difficult is this to grasp, dwy?

I doubt that was the reason for its introduction. And i think you'd find that isn't how it's generally used.

It's not generally used that way. If you doubt that as the purpose what do you suppose its there for? Actual discussion, right? Or regress?

Very little. But when someone makes claims about god, or the attributes thereof they should expect to be asked to substantiate those claims or admit they're just blowing smoke.

They do give you there reasons, dwy. You do not accept these as valid reasons and continue to insult. I see so many people debunking without resorting to your nature of posting.

We have sufficient evidence to accept dreams as existing. Reality...? that depends on how you want to define it.

I have sufficient evidence that god exists. Sufficient is a relative term. You can look at consciousness or the nature of our reality and draw 2 conclusions. 1. "God can't exist..." or 2. Wow god must exist.

And yet, in many cases, the claimed "evidence/ information" is either not provided or turns out not to hold up as such when looked at.

So what your saying is that since there is no 100% undisputable evidence of god or psuedo/para concepts it should not be discussed further. Think about what you are saying dwy. It would be science if we knew. Alternatively what would evidence of god look like to you Dwy? Falling short of god jumping up and down saying im here?

That's your perception, not the actuality.
Please learn the difference.

After you.

PS:
You: You do argue against god all the time.
Me: Links please.

Still waiting...

Your being dishonest Dwy. Your manipulating words in lieu of your intent to manafacture some rationalization. You deny that you argue "against" god even though you claim to be athiest?