Can you really say that? In contrast to what? Knowing? What do we really know?
As an Atheist what do you teach kids?
- Thread starter EmptyForceOfChi
- Start date
Can you really say that? In contrast to what? Knowing? What do we really know?
You can always play that game. How do we know that logic is logic? How can we be sure that 2+2=4?
You just made up a story YoYo. Much like a thiest. You postulating god does not exist is just as bad as stating god does. Reality is interesting in what sense? In the sense of us not understanding in its entirety the nature of reality correct? Leaving much room for inter. and speculation inferred from common knowledge.
I'm not playing a game and I'm not ascertaining god to exist. It makes sense based on my understanding on the essense of consciousness and the lack of our importance in the grand scheme of things. Why would evolution create complex consciousness with biological imprints that create our nature deprived from the will to survive and adapt. Arent there much better ways organisms can survive and adapt on earth? I would go as far as to say that complex consciousness is counter productive in favour of evolution on a cosmological and biological scale.
I dont believe in revelations from god described in organized religion. However if you must know, I think that we are all collectively apart of god. Like tiny drops of water in an ocean, each with our own focal point of perspective, consciousness and reality. We all can make a difference, or not, choose events, etc. because we are all apart of the same source. We'll live infinite lives in infinite realities because time is an illusion. It's kind of like you owning everything, it gets boring and pointless so you try to create some purpose, even if its just an illusion, so god created experience in every potential. Morals come into play because we see a tiny fragment of ourselves in other people, know the experience to an extent and this is where the biological imprint comes from in my humblest opinion but its far from "knowing" anything.
Last edited:
Yes, my mistake. I read it as "evolution", not origin. (Conflated it with Darwin's book title). Apologies.
Huh?
So effectively you're saying that we'll never be able to duplicate it? Because...?You said:
No. I asked what term I should use. You haven't given a preference. I used the default.
So you're accusing me of promoting discussion. :shrug:
Er, the subjects of threads I post in.
Know what? That it isn't "random"? What on Earth makes you think it is?
No. They are claimed to be, but not with rational support.
How difficult is for you to grasp that a half-assed guess is NOT support?
So where's the contention?
I don't "suppose" at all. it's there. End of story. it's proposed, now and again, that it be done away with altogether.
So you're complaining because I have a different standard of "support" from certain other posters?
Insult? Only of intransigent stupidity.
And your point?
But it's personal and subjective, That does not constitute "evidence".
3. God is claimed to exist but I see no evidence.
Not at all. Not in the slightest.
You have made a specific claim: please support it without making further accusations of dishonesty.
How can I argue against something I don't believe in?
Please show me where I have argued "against god".
Science also illustrates our lack of importance with such revelations as the Hubble Telescope pictures. I'm not sure what you mean by "deprived of the will to survive and adapt". If there is anything humans do well it is survive and adapt. It has yet to be proven in the long term, since we could kill ourselves with our own weapons, but so far we are dominating the planet.
"Like tiny drops of water in an ocean, each with our own focal point of perspective, consciousness and reality. We all can make a difference, or not, choose events, etc. because we are all apart of the same source. It's kind of like you owning everything, it gets boring and pointless so you try to create some purpose, even if its just an illusion...Morals come into play because we see a tiny fragment of ourselves in other people, know the experience to an extent and this is where the biological imprint comes from in my humblest opinion but its far from "knowing" anything."
This statement could be said by any atheist.
I was wondering how the mere possibility of a god would create a moral sense within you? I think morality is quite apart from questions of god. Morality is an evolved trait of social animals, it derives from having to get along with each other.
No problem, sir
Can you think of the implications of duplicating consciousness would indivisualism even matter.
All the obvious reasons, dwy.
"God" is fine but "he" implies a predisposed bias resulting from organized religion. That's all I said. Nothing more.
No, the lack there of.
Are you genuinely interested in for example, JESUS when you go into a thread making fun of a christian or are you interested in the capacities of the religious person.
I dont think its random, you supposedly do I dont know. I think there is an intent.
So everything is subject to your definition of rational? Again would it even be anything but science if it had this rational support that conformed with emperical evidence. What support do you suppose we use, what would evidence of god look like short of him coming jumping around and saying It's me.
You should apply this, dwy.
Because you use it that way.
Why do you suppose the athiesm subforum failed? Why do you suppose religion subgenre and others like it arent gone alltogether. Is it because Dyw's methods are not warranted?? Maybe because we can be open minded without having to accept?
The way you conduct yourself can be considered such. What intelligent result or outcome are you looking for when you post such insults.
You create regress, others serve there purpose.
Again, that requirement of evidence is limited to fields having to do with science.
Look around you. Accept it as a intelligence or randomness. You cant critique others without nothing to contrast.
How do you suppose I talk about god and not get slammed than? If I want to hear others take on reality for example whats to stop you from saying "CRANK" theory followed by insults and shitting on everything when someone says something about dimensions or something else that we cant explain fully.
You are being dishonest DWY. I have clearly stated more than once why I believe this.
Simple. You argue because you don't believe. Which is fine. Pointless, but fine. Insulting is when the line is crossed.
That is my point. Humans do well in surviving and adapting as other animals but this does not require a complex consciousness as you suggest we might be setting ourselves up for failure. On a cosmological scale, we mean nothing. This is partially why I believe there is a god.
"Like tiny drops of water in an ocean, each with our own focal point of perspective, consciousness and reality. We all can make a difference, or not, choose events, etc. because we are all apart of the same source. It's kind of like you owning everything, it gets boring and pointless so you try to create some purpose, even if its just an illusion...Morals come into play because we see a tiny fragment of ourselves in other people, know the experience to an extent and this is where the biological imprint comes from in my humblest opinion but its far from "knowing" anything."
Morality can hinder evolution in alot of cases, it certainly is a moot question. I believe that imprints of morality come from all of us having been postulated by the same matter. I think that we are all a little like god. Thus we have kids, create another focal point of perspective and fade away. Morality is not needed.
As much as it does now.
You'll have to expand on that. I have no idea what "the obvious reasons" are.
Fair enough.
Um, you stated that I "create discourse in the thread" and now you're saying I promote the lack? :shrug:
I'm interested, as I have said repeatedly, WHY someone believes in Jesus, and why they believe he was the son of god (or whatever else they claim).
What makes you think I think it's random? Or are you just ignorant about evolution? Here's something to read up on.
So you think I should accept answers that I don't think stand up? I should just say "well normally that wouldn't be good enough to convince me, under any circumstances, but in this case, hey" I'll just take your word for it"? Okay...
Take a wild guess.
Poster 1) I haven't seen any evidence for god.
Poster 2) Me neither.
Poster 3) Wow! Coincidence, nor have I.
Atheism is NOT a subject, not a subject, not a topic. It's a stance based on (against) a single claim.
Supposition that it's limited to those two choices.
By basing the argument on something more than baseless speculation.
Both of these are based on an untrue a priori assumption on your part.
You have yet to show me WHERE (as requested a number of times) I have "argued against god".
You are a strange one 420Joey. Most people would say that god makes us feel more important, central to the universe, it's purpose. You say that our insignificance actually means that there is a god. I don't get it.
Nothing "hinders" evolution. Perhaps you are talking about the evolution of altruism. There are plausible theories of altruism. The theory goes that in the early days of our species, most people we met in our lives were members of a tribe or village, and most of them shared a significant percentage of your genes. If we do things to help them, our shared genes would survive, so the genes that code for moral, even sacrificial behavior, is retained, even if an individual dies. I think evolution explains morality better than the commonality of our constituent matter could.
Nothing "hinders" evolution. Perhaps you are talking about the evolution of altruism. There are plausible theories of altruism. The theory goes that in the early days of our species, most people we met in our lives were members of a tribe or village, and most of them shared a significant percentage of your genes. If we do things to help them, our shared genes would survive, so the genes that code for moral, even sacrificial behavior, is retained, even if an individual dies. I think evolution explains morality better than the commonality of our constituent matter could.
Supposition
Well obviously we havent done it yet nor will we anytime soon so it should be self-evident unless you have irrational faith.
With conclusive statements that are anything but.
Why do you believe that we postulated from nothing into matter that self organizes itself into a complex being? No really, I myself wonder why people believe in the divinity of jesus (not jesus himself) but I won't bash anybody for it. I'll simply present my argument that blood shed created the belief in god. Asking questions I allready know the awnsers to or have a predisposed bias towards is pointless.
I'm sorry can you show me the part where it says it's not? Thank you.
Hyperbole. I never said blindly accept information.So you think I should accept answers that I don't think stand up? I should just say "well normally that wouldn't be good enough to convince me, under any circumstances, but in this case, hey" I'll just take your word for it"? Okay...
So athiests cannot engage in interactions that have to do with the unknown? What is considered progress in these genres, I'll ask you again, is it them surrendering what they subscribe to as beliefs?
What other choices are there. (Wow god must exist, wow god must not exist, wow I don't know)
By divulging in more baseless speculation?
I retract that statement, ok? You don't ever argue that god does not exist. My most dearest apologies, kind and gentle sir.
Ah right. Let's just stop conducting science etc. because that's trying to find things we don't already know and do things we haven't already done. Therefore it's self-evident that we won't ever know or do them.
Which doesn't address the point...
Is that what I believe? Thanks, I was unsure.
I agree. As is making comments based on supposition. Like thatone.
At a guess it would be the ENTIRE SECTION headed
"The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance."[/quote]
Which is the supposition of anti-evolution arguers. And it follows with:
I didn't claim you did. try reading it in context.
Of course they can. They do science sometimes you know. And talk about it.
Is it who?
God may or may not exist: I'll wait for evidence. Until then it's pointless to speculate.
Divulging? (Get a dictionary, please). If it has a reasonable basis then how can it be baseless?
Thank you. But that's also not quite what I have stated. What I do, once again, is argue against claims about god that are put forward. Usually by asking "how do you know?".
You dont want to get into what I believe. I believe if I were to die right now I might be you in the next instant and neither one of us would notice it. I suspect in the future evolution will continue untill we can manafacture our own realities. I think that everything happens in motion, rotation and is accelerated by the animation of god and I just happen to believe that consciousness is not neccessarily but inessentially dependant on the physical format of reality. A little anachronism but not really. Confusing I know but so is everything else. The fact that consciousness exists is enough proof to me that an intelligence exists (god) and the fact that we are meaningless is enough proof for me to believe that we are not an independent consciousness.
Nothing "hinders" evolution. Perhaps you are talking about the evolution of altruism. There are plausible theories of altruism. The theory goes that in the early days of our species, most people we met in our lives were members of a tribe or village, and most of them shared a significant percentage of your genes. If we do things to help them, our shared genes would survive, so the genes that code for moral, even sacrificial behavior, is retained, even if an individual dies. I think evolution explains morality better than the commonality of our constituent matter could.[/QUOTE]
Evolution is the processing of our constitutent matter. More or less the same thing. What I'm saying is that morality is not required.
That is not what I'm saying if you read earlier points you just proved the reason why I speculate in lieu of not knowing in entirety. Because investigation does make sense of what we could know infered by the knowledge and data available to us. To say we dont know is not cutting it as illustrated by your point.
You made it unclear what you believe. Apparently you dont believe in god or matter postulating itself. So I'm sure you have nothing to contrast these theories to.
And like the one you just made. Ironic, isnt it?
That is not explaining anything. I want the part that explains how origin came from random chance. Is it a supposition? Oh why yesss it is.
That itself is a supposition, I would love for you to elobarate. I do believe in evolution. It's just funny how you ascertain the basis and origin of it by writing "random chance"
I am reading in context, what do you mean and what is the point of it.
They do science on the unknown?? What do you mean by that.
What is considered progress in these genres, I'll ask you again, is it them surrendering what they subscribe to as beliefs?
So your admitting that you are trolling those subgenres than?
What has a reasonable basis do you even know what were talking about anymore?
Right. You dont have any irrational contempt. You just ask "how do you know". Whatever you say.
Huh? Why is "we don't know" not cutting it? We don't at the moment. We may (or may not) know in the future.
Simply because we don't know now is not sufficient to state we will never be able to know.
I don't [believe] either - I don't know how things got started. I'm waiting to find out (and hoping that we'll find out before I die).
Ah, so your comment wasn't at all directed at me? Okay. Apologies.
The "origin"? We do not know. But evolution is nothing to do with the origin.
Incorrect. It's an oft-used "argument" against evolution.
"Random chance" is not a factor in evolution.
You asked if "everything is subject to [my] definition of rational? ".
My reply made it clear that for me to accept an answer then it must be. Otherwise I can't see the point in accepting that answer.
Science is an investigation of what we don't know to make it into something we do know. What did you think it is?
I don't understand what you mean by "surrendering what they subscribe to as beliefs". Progress, in Pseudosci (for example) would be : moving toward gaining an understanding of the phenomenon under consideration.
Which part of "asking questions in order to understand" did you miss?
If someone makes a claim is it not reasonable to ask how they know what they claim to know? How is "irrational" to ask that? How is it displaying "contempt"?
Look. There has to be a balance of two extremes dyw. We don't know. Granted. It's obvious. But the religion, psuedo, para, and philosophy is there for that purpose. Speculation is not baseless as there is information and data to infer to, like quantum physics being a frame of reference (possibly) or something of that nature. I don't know but I find it an interesting engagement with meaningful interaction. You disagree. You should stop posting in said genres or contribute meaningfully. "I dont know, your stupid" is not cutting it.
Agreed.
Uh
You finally understand my point?
ah....
Your bringing up random chance.
No one is asking you to accept anything. If you disagree. Present your argument or perspective. Insulting or demanding proof is circular (pointless).
I wasnt aware we can conduct science on unknown things.
This is the problem I'm having Dwy. I dont believe this is the case, I think you just insult people and bully them. If you go out of your way and time to provide them a rational explanation I retract everything I said. I just dont believe this as the case.
Ah.... this argument is done. It's going back and forth in a dishonest manner. I keep insisting that you insult you insist your asking questions. One of us is obviously lying.
[/quote]
That is not what I'm saying is irrational. Your contempt towards the idea of god is. Your basically saying hey we dont know that for sure so dont think about it!
Dictionary time again! You infer from or refer to. Please point out where I have stated "I don't know, you're stupid". I point where, and how the baseless supposition IS baseless.
No.
I think you'll find that it was you that brought it up.
You're still not getting it. I may agree if some support were offered. It's not a case of "I disagree, you're wrong" it's "Why do you think so?" and if a good explanation or reason is put forward I might well end up agreeing. But far too often it devolves into "look it up for yourself" or "it should be obvious".
How do you think we discovered things that were previously unknown?
Or completely mistaken.
Still wrong. I'm asking "how do you know?" when someone makes a claim.
You tell them that in the moment of death since the senses disappear your consciousness exits this reality and enters "zero-time." Like a dreamless sleep, hours and perhaps billions of years go by in less than a moment. You travel time until the atomic matter that makes up your body re-enters as a sentient being. IF that even happens, since most corpses are filled with formaldehyde anyway and thus not likely to be entering the food cycle decomposition for a very long time.
What I would prefer is that my family eats my brains after I die so that I can become a part of each person that eats my brains.... Seriously though!