Atheists please answer this

[Jan Ardena]

phlogistician,

I've experienced two earthquakes.

I've experienced one in the UK.
Yes you heard right, in the UK.
At first I thought it was some heavy vehicle coming down the road, as I felt
the room vibrate slightely. Then the vibration became more intense, like living near train lines. Then it became more intense, lasting a little longer than it should if it were vehicles. Then the whole house started to shake at which time I was quite scared and concerned for my family. Then it died out.
Made me realise how fickle life is, and how we really have no control over it.

I know it's due to plate tectonics. That is the scientific explanation, and there's no wiggle room for your God in there. Give up on this tack Jan, you are losing what little credibility you have left.

You mean I have cred? WOW!

No one is denying plate tectonics, and I'm not saying God is directly responsible for each and ever earthquake.
But you DO NOT know if God or gods is/are responsible, that's my point.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yeah, there aren't many cracks left for God to hide in. Theists just make increasingly preposterous claims to excuse this.

It's quite sad how they backpeddle.

LOL!!

You're funny.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Neverfly,

No matter where we look, from the very tiny, to the vastly humongously huge...
No hint, no sign, no clue as to the presence of a God.
The more this happens, the more believers just bump "God" up the falsifiabilty ladder.

So what you're implying is that at one time God was everywhere to be found (in form) but when the microscope came about, he became a little more invisible. Then as modern science really came into being he became absolutely invisible.?

But scriptures has always maintained that God is invisible to mankind, due to
mankinds ignorance. And reveals himself to those who are his devotees.

What do you say to that?

"God moved the Earth to cause the quake"
"God created the germs."
And then when you show emergence in germs, that demonstrates no divine intervention or how the faultlines release energy...
"God created the fault lines."
"God invented emergence."

How do you know that God is not the original cause?

It's gotten to the point, now, that God is so far removed by this bumping that there is no way he could actively be involved with Earth, anyway. So why bother?

God has never been described as a physical being, so you're talking nonsense.
You are basing all of this on atheism. Totally irrational and unreasonable.

jan.

 

[cruiser]

Jan

But it does all the same?

no. im blessed with omniscience

Pretty much the same as what people today think, who are not aware of the scientific explanation.

i thank you for the vast amount of light you just shed on the subject

If somebody stands on top of a skyscraper, drops some debris landing on a cyclists head killing him. It could be explained and believed that a strong gust of wind was the cause. Would that explanation be real?

no. id say it was the debris falling on his head that killed him as opposed to a gust of wind

What does, volume of knowledge, have to do with human intelligence?

intelligence being what you know. limited as in there is a limited amount of knowledge that we posess.
as in i have limited knowledge of grammar and correct spelling. it doesnt so much imply that i cant learn more, i just havent

Don't worry I am aware of your conditioning.

i use sunsilk. its good for split ends

Are you assuming again?

assuming what? u told me to go and learn.....

So what does this have to do with you understanding what you've been
programmed to hate?

sir i am no computer.
i have not been programmed.
i have been bought up to believe in a god.
i would say that in this case i overwrote the programming

What's harry potter got to do with anything?

why he was the son of dumbledore!!!!!
the omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient god!!! (anyone else enjoying the bearded old magical man symbolism?)

Why would I automatically assume you were mad for believing in him, without understanding your position?

im sorry. my position is i read this book. screwed around with the story to make it a little more fitting to my needs and then proclaimed it as my religion. understand?

You haven't show a perspective as yet, other than the usual cliched thinking, which is clearly the result of conditioning. Prove me wrong and
speak for yourself.

and your view that there is a god is just so gosh darn revolutionary....
i can tell you now i have never been conditioned, i have never really had the chance to speak with an educated athiest.unfortunately my cliched thinking is my own
i am sorry to dissapoint you

Look, I'm not gonna argue with you. If it's real, it's real.
But my point is, how do you know it's real, and not a clever replica?

you are arguing nonetheless.

a replica you say????
of what?
an amonite?
that roamed the seas many millions of years ago?
well yes i suppose it is possible that somone replicated an amonite

That's quite easy. Your cat acts like it's suppose to act.

1. that makes no sense
2. that still makes no sense
3. if only you had met my cat....... you would shut your mouth right now
4. did you just imply that being real or not is defined by wether or not you act like your ment to???
5. yup you did...... you really should have stopped arguing where you said you were going to.

No, you said "christian religions"

sure did. whats your point.

And brand new cars work just fine without putting oil in them, untill of course it gets real
low, then you have problems.
I guess it's all a matter of time.

1. if i never put fuel in my car how can it get low
2. that is what petrol stations are for. im not sure what cars have to do with photosynthesis

So you believe the amonite fossill is genuine, your freind doesn't.
Based on your definition, who is right, and why?

my definition was of reality.... not of how to determine wether a fossil is fake or not. the fossil is part of reality. it is not reality itself, even if the fossil is genuine and true.

 

[cruiser]

You are basing all of this on atheism. Totally irrational and unreasonable.

jan.

lol
sorry. didnt realise believing in god became a rational way of thinking.

 

[Neverfly]

Neverfly,

I believe science, as in moden science (method) has to be limited to the basic senses, but I don't believe human intelligence has that limitation. And
I don't believe science can conclude that human intelligence is limited.
So what seemed like a harmless statement is loaded with what I regard as propoganda.

I disagree.

Human Intelligence is limited by our evolution that has been based on perceptions in survival and an environment in which survivalist traits are favored.
This means that we can never observe reality directly.
We can only build Models of reality and try to make them as accurate as possible with testing and observation. Which is the purpose of the scientific method.
It removes us from our pareidolia infested mental state as a check and balance.

You're quite correct.
Cruiser, welcome to sciforums, and please accept my appology for being a little harsh, although I'm sure you can handle yourself, and give as much as you can take.
I'll understand if you don't wish to further our discussion.

Irrelevant.

The issue I took was that you made the claim: "Talking shit again."
The implication was seemingly to present the illusion that this person is one with whom you have history of talking shit during disagreement- as if to discredit their arguments.
Since the poster is shiny and new- how could that be the case?

I cannot claim that I know one way or the other if your motive was to paint that illusion or if it was a simple mistake in wording. But then, that's why the issue is raised, no?

So what you're implying is that at one time God was everywhere to be found (in form) but when the microscope came about, he became a little more invisible. Then as modern science really came into being he became absolutely invisible.?

No.

The bible and various other sources of scripture, the tenets as described by dogma and the average believers claims present the image of God as:
The Creator
Omnipotent
All knowing
Present in everything.

However, when examination is performed, that studied always lacks any supernatural or divine source. All action is defined and falsifiable.
Evolution demonstrates not only the lack of a God, but that to have a creator would require a cosmic conspiracy designed to hide the very existence of the creator.

Because of this, believers do what YOU are doing now, as I outlined above.
They bump him to a new location and then ask, "How do you know he;s not over here, then?"

I could bump an invisible Unicorn around all day, too. I assure you, you will never find my invisible pink unicorn.

But scriptures has always maintained that God is invisible to mankind, due to
mankinds ignorance. And reveals himself to those who are his devotees.

Ohhh cool! You've seen him!?
Tell me you took pictures!

What do you say to that?

I graciously thank you for demonstrating my example flawlessly. I couldn't have come up with an analogy that did it as well as you just had.

How do you know that God is not the original cause?

How do you know my invisible pink unicorn did not tell me so?

God has never been described as a physical being, so you're talking nonsense.
You are basing all of this on atheism. Totally irrational and unreasonable.

Ok. Lack of belief in absurdities, fairy tales, dragons and grand designers is irrational and unreasonable.

That's good enough for me.

I'm a he.

jan.

Now, I'm confused... I thought Cruiser was referring to herself... Himself?
Itself.

I'm aware Jan is a male name...

Umm


Me- I'm a transexual lesbian trapped in a gay mans body.

Nahh... I'm just some dude.

 

[Jan Ardena]

cruiser,

no. im blessed with omniscience

No you're not.

i thank you for the vast amount of light you just shed on the subject

Sarcasm is innapropriate.

no. id say it was the debris falling on his head that killed him as opposed to a gust of wind

A wise-guy huh!
That's already been established, much like the movement of tectonic plates.

intelligence being what you know. limited as in there is a limited amount of knowledge that we posess.

Knowing stuff doesn't make you intelligent.
How you act and operate, ones ability to understand, and so on, is what determines levels of intelligence.

i use sunsilk. its good for split ends

Not conditioner, silly!!!
CON-DITION-ING.

sir i am no computer.
i have not been programmed.

So you do not regard your brain as a type of computer?
I'm afraid we've all been programmed, and conditioned.

i have been bought up to believe in a god.

Were you?
What went wrong?

i would say that in this case i overwrote the programming

Laypersons tinkering with sophisticated software, not good.

im sorry. my position is i read this book. screwed around with the story to make it a little more fitting to my needs and then proclaimed it as my religion. understand?

Ok, so now I understand your position, why would/should I assume you
are mad?

and your view that there is a god is just so gosh darn revolutionary....

Stop with the lame sarcasm already, duh!

i can tell you now i have never been conditioned,

Then you are unique in western history.

i have never really had the chance to speak with an educated athiest.unfortunately my cliched thinking is my own
i am sorry to dissapoint you

Fair enough.

you are arguing nonetheless.

Not regarding it's status of being real or not.

a replica you say????
of what?
an amonite?

Erm no, the amonite fossil.
http://www.soil-net.com/album/Soils_Rocks/slides/Fossil Amonite.html

You think some artist could do a replication of this, convincing enough to fool the human eye?

that roamed the seas many millions of years ago?
well yes i suppose it is possible that somone replicated an amonite

You're just being a silly-billy now, aren't you.

4. did you just imply that being real or not is defined by wether or not you act like your ment to???
5. yup you did...... you really should have stopped arguing where you said you were going to.

Erm, well, I didn't imply that reality is defined as such, but in terms of
understanding your cat to be real it does help. Wouldn't you agree?

1. if i never put fuel in my car how can it get low
2. that is what petrol stations are for. im not sure what cars have to do with photosynthesis

Things can appear to work all by themselves, or without some kind of aid, but it doesn't necessarily mean they actually do.

my definition was of reality.... not of how to determine wether a fossil is fake or not. the fossil is part of reality. it is not reality itself, even if the fossil is genuine and true.

You implied your friend had reality issues, as in making adjustments, because she couldn't accept the reality you showed her.
Why do you regard your revelation as reality?

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

lol
sorry. didnt realise believing in god became a rational way of thinking.

I didn't say or even imply that.
You really should pay attention.

jan.

 

[NMSquirrel]

Irrelevant.

all knowing

The issue I took was that you made the claim: "Talking shit again."
The implication was seemingly to present the illusion that this person is one with whom you have history of talking shit during disagreement- as if to discredit their arguments.

and you don't?

No.

all knowing again..

I could bump an invisible Unicorn around all day, too. I assure you, you will never find my invisible pink unicorn.

quit drinking..

Ohhh cool! You've seen him!?
Tell me you took pictures!

see comment about talking shit.

How do you know my invisible pink unicorn did not tell me so?

listen to your inner pink unicorn..you won't listen to no-one else..

Ok. Lack of belief in absurdities, fairy tales, dragons and grand designers is irrational and unreasonable.

prove it..

That's good enough for me.

didn't you argue with me when i said that?
what did you say again?

Me- I'm a transsexual lesbian trapped in a gay mans body.

i knew it..

for the record:
this is my attempt to use the same arguments you use to respond to my posts,in an effort to show you how idiotic your responses are..unfortunately i am not as well versed in the idiotic as some users, so it probably will not make any sense to you.

 

[visceral_instinct]

Let's say there is someone who makes the following argument:

Darwinism is a scientific fact. We know that it works, and how it works, and we know that it is the explanation for life on earth as we know it - but Darwinism works as it does because God is guiding it.

This is not my view, I don't believe in evolution, but my question is:

By what scientific evidence (not arguments or logic but scientific evidence) can you prove this person wrong?

Your disbelief in god is purely subjective, based on your own personal needs. Atheism is wish fulfilment.

Nope. I disbelieve in God for the same reason I disbelieve in Lord Poop and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There's zero evidence for them.

 

[scifes]

Nope. I disbelieve in God for the same reason I disbelieve in Lord Poop and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. There's zero evidence for them.

that's bull crap and a strawman.

EDIT: well i wondered if bothering would be a waste of time, but anyway; http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=97610

 

[Jan Ardena]

Neverfly,

Human Intelligence is limited by our evolution that has been based on perceptions in survival and an environment in which survivalist traits are favored.

That's nonsensical.
If anything human intelligence shapes evolution.
Survival is a triumph of intelligence.

This means that we can never observe reality directly.
We can only build Models of reality and try to make them as accurate as possible with testing and observation.

And this is based on our observation of reality, unless discovery comes by accident. The method acts as a super-sense which allows us to understand phenomena we couldn't have before, IMO.
The conclusion drawn from it is reality as far as it is understood to be, not reality period.

Which is the purpose of the scientific method.
It removes us from our pareidolia infested mental state as a check and balance.

No it's not.
Read above.

I cannot claim that I know one way or the other if your motive was to paint that illusion or if it was a simple mistake in wording. But then, that's why the issue is raised, no?

It's all water under the bridge now. (is that the correct saying?
Me and cruiser are getting married next spring.

shhh...she doesn't know it yet.

However, when examination is performed, that studied always lacks any supernatural or divine source.

Looking for supernatural, or divine source under strict scientific circumstances, is like looking for the actual thing that makes a joke funny to some folks. Or looking for the actual thing that makes someone dance beautifully. These things are in the moment. Reality is now, always.

All action is defined and falsifiable.
Evolution demonstrates not only the lack of a God, but that to have a creator would require a cosmic conspiracy designed to hide the very existence of the creator.

Evolution demonstrates no such thing.
The creator may be hidden from our view, but his/its work is a testament.
As we are alive, there are many living entities living within us, and on us. This is possible because we are alive. The moment we die, all activety stops for these entities. They cannot percieve us, and may or may not have some knowledge of their environment. But they will never understand us, yet we are real.

Because of this, believers do what YOU are doing now, as I outlined above.
They bump him to a new location and then ask, "How do you know he;s not over here, then?"

I have a little understanding of God as defined in the scriptures (and I mean a little), and as such there is no need of reinvention. It may seem that way to you because I'm trying explain from your point of view, as a person whose understanding is zilch.

I could bump an invisible Unicorn around all day, too. I assure you, you will never find my invisible pink unicorn.

I'm not "bumping"God around, it just seems that way to you.
The concept of the IPU is nonsense put about by those who refuse to develop understanding of God. It is a diversion tactic.

Ohhh cool! You've seen him!?
Tell me you took pictures!

I did but I had my thumb over the lense.
Soz!

How do you know my invisible pink unicorn did not tell me so?

I asked first.
Well?

Ok. Lack of belief in absurdities, fairy tales, dragons and grand designers is irrational and unreasonable.

That's good enough for me.

Fair enough.

jan.

 

[Neverfly]

and you don't?

No, I don't. If ever I do, point it out.

But dude, don't invent false claims, such as this, just to present the illusion that I'm equally guilty. FOR ONCE, back up your statements or don't bother making them.

all knowing again..

Yes, when I was asked if his interpretation of what I said was correct and I answered- That meant I'm all knowing. Seriously, do you read the stuff that you try to distort first?
Because that was a pretty major fail on your part right there.

quit drinking..

I don't drink.

prove it..

Bitter?
Very well...
http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Irrationality

for the record:
this is my attempt to use the same arguments you use to respond to my posts,in an effort to show you how idiotic your responses are..unfortunately i am not as well versed in the idiotic as some users, so it probably will not make any sense to you.

Epic fail.

Try applying reasoned and logical arguments instead of misapplying parrot speak. You might have more luck.

Neverfly,
That's nonsensical.
If anything human intelligence shapes evolution.
Survival is a triumph of intelligence.

Are you saying that the theory of Evolution is nonsensical and that psychology does not support what I just claimed?
Are you suggesting that human intelligence shaped evolution... PRIOR TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF HUMANS?
Speaking of something being nonsensical.

And this is based on our observation of reality, unless discovery comes by accident.

You didn't understand what I said, did you?
Heck, you pretty much agreed with me and seem totally unaware that you did.

No it's not.
Read above.

You mean the part where you changed a couple words and reiterated what I said, basically? Sure, I'll read it again.



Thanks. I didn't think it would be funny the second time around, but it still was.

It's all water under the bridge now. (is that the correct saying?
Me and cruiser are getting married next spring.

shhh...she doesn't know it yet.

Ok.

Looking for supernatural, or divine source under strict scientific circumstances, is like looking for the actual thing that makes a joke funny to some folks. Or looking for the actual thing that makes someone dance beautifully. These things are in the moment. Reality is now, always.

What makes the brain laugh at absurdity or why the brain responds to our perception of beauty CAN be described, measured and studied scientifically.

Currently, we lack the technology to study it in great detail. But the principle is sound.

The supernatural, on the other hand, is utterly absent from ANY method of study. ANY.

Evolution demonstrates no such thing.
The creator may be hidden from our view, but his/its work is a testament.
As we are alive, there are many living entities living within us, and on us. This is possible because we are alive. The moment we die, all activety stops for these entities. They cannot percieve us, and may or may not have some knowledge of their environment. But they will never understand us, yet we are real.

Clearly, you do not understand evolution.

Read here:http://www.talkorigins.org/

Learn it- THEN try making claims.

You essentially just said something as absurd as: "Mathematics does not demonstrate that pi is an irrational number. Pi is a testament to the beauty of whole numbers."

I have a little understanding of God as defined in the scriptures (and I mean a little), and as such there is no need of reinvention. It may seem that way to you because I'm trying explain from your point of view, as a person whose understanding is zilch.

You just admitted that you lack understanding.
Having spent five years In The Ministry- it's a safe bet I understand scripture better than you do.
So how is it you claim that with your lack of understanding, you've determined that I understand Zilch?
No. It's embarrassingly clear that you're just rationalizing your belief. Deal with it instead of making biased assumptions about my knowledge base.

I'm not "bumping"God around, it just seems that way to you.
The concept of the IPU is nonsense put about by those who refuse to develop understanding of God. It is a diversion tactic.

When the hand of God is not found and the believer then asks, "Well, then how do you know he isn't up HERE (Above area studied)?"
That's Bumping.

It's not rocket science.

I asked first.
Well?

You asked me to support your delusion.

 

[cruiser]

No you're not.

i have faith in it so i must be right

Sarcasm is innapropriate.

general statements that do not answer a question arent appropriate

Not conditioner, silly!!!
CON-DITION-ING.

i have been conditioned with conditioner. who are you to dispute that

So you do not regard your brain as a type of computer?
I'm afraid we've all been programmed, and conditioned.

not in the commonly used sense of the word

Were you?
What went wrong?

i grew up and stopped entertaining childish ideas as reality. sure i like unicorns but untill your bring me one i refuse to believe they exist

Laypersons tinkering with sophisticated software, not good.

software:written programs or procedures or rules and associated documentation pertaining to the operation of a computer system and that are stored in read/write memory.
i refuse to believe that a person bought up being taught only that which is proven beyond all reasonable doubt, with no mention of god to them not even to tell them that there is or isnt a god,will know a god and worship a god. because i do not believe that god is something imprinted in your brain. i believe god is just an idea that you learn.

Ok, so now I understand your position, why would/should I assume you
are mad?

because this is totally irrational and unfounded of me. i apologise if you believe in dumbledore and harry, but i assume you dont, as god demands you to be monotheistic

Stop with the lame sarcasm already, duh!

never.

Erm no, the amonite fossil. (cannot post link)

You think some artist could do a replication of this, convincing enough to fool the human eye?

you said replica. this implies that there first had to be somthing to replicate.
and im not sure what you are implying but yes. i do believe a human could replicate that. during ww2 many Homo erectus fossils were destroyed. luckily some clever cookie had made casts of the skulls. replicas were then made and they would easily fool the human eye, they are very realistic

Erm, well, I didn't imply that reality is defined as such, but in terms of
understanding your cat to be real it does help. Wouldn't you agree?

no. i really dont find that helpful.... but i cant speak for everyone

Things can appear to work all by themselves, or without some kind of aid, but it doesn't necessarily mean they actually do.

this is true. but you cant prove that there is extra aid. are you saying my car appears to work without oil? im kindof lost....

You implied your friend had reality issues, as in making adjustments, because she couldn't accept the reality you showed her.
Why do you regard your revelation as reality?

again i dont think it is reality, simply part of reality
it is real and true. i can touch it, see it, use it to effect other things. it is just a very aged dead organism. i regard it to be as real as any of the dead lambs that are lying all around the countryside at the moment. they arent suddenly fake coz they died.

on a more personal note.
jan.
i cant marry you, i wish to live in a large mansion with 3 wives and 4 husbands, i cant have you tying me down. xox

 

[Neverfly]

not in the commonly used sense of the word

On a sidenote... (also known as a thread hijack...)
Humans are programmed and conditioned. Not by a programmer, but by the developmental stages of evolution.
Pareidolia is a favorite...
Essentially, we all follow all of the influences that are inherent and from outside as a form of programming.
For instance, a person jumps out from behind a corner at you and yells, "Boo!"
Your eyes widen- Programming. It's not voluntary.
You assume a defensive stance- Programming.
Programmed behavior is responsible for superstition and belief in the irrational as well.

Overcoming ones programming can often require wrapping your mind around concepts that seem foreign to you, even counter-intuitive.

i cant have you tying me down.

Even if he uses padded ropes?

 

[cruiser]

On a sidenote... (also known as a thread hijack...)
Humans are programmed and conditioned. Not by a programmer, but by the developmental stages of evolution.
(cant post link) is a favorite...
Essentially, we all follow all of the influences that are inherent and from outside as a form of programming.
For instance, a person jumps out from behind a corner at you and yells, "Boo!"
Your eyes widen- Programming. It's not voluntary.
You assume a defensive stance- Programming.
Programmed behavior is responsible for superstition and belief in the irrational as well.

Overcoming ones programming can often require wrapping your mind around concepts that seem foreign to you, even counter-intuitive.


Even if he uses padded ropes?

fair call. i meant i am not a p.c. I am not the same as this laptop i am typing into.

padded ropes are for bitches. i use barbed wire

 

[Neverfly]

fair call. i meant i am not a p.c. I am not the same as this laptop i am typing into.

You are not the P.C. - but that is because you are Much, much more complex.
The principle of how each operates is the same.
You are correct- Jans comment was ridiculous. I was practicing semantics.

padded ropes are for bitches. i use barbed wire

Oh, the hell with that. I ain't marrying your crazy ass either!

 

[phlogistician]

But you DO NOT know if God or gods is/are responsible, that's my point.

jan.

It's quite simple Jan. We can model things mathematically, and use those models to predict things, and then match those predictions against other real world events, and see how they match up.

If God needed to be involved, there would be parameters that we could not model. Errors. Variables that we found unpredictable.

The more science we do, the fewer of those there are, and the smaller they get.

If you hold that God _could_ be involved, you have to admit that the study of Science is making your God shrink.

 

[phlogistician]

that's bull crap and a strawman.

How do you figure that?

VI and I are on the same page here. I too don't believe in God, because I've had nothing leading me to that viewpoint. Not one shred of evidence has presented itself to me. People have tried selling me God, but not one of them could give me honest answers to my questions. In the end, it comes down to faith, and personal wish fulfilment, and then people see what they want to see.

So our viewpoints are not straw men. They are derived from our personal experience, which has had ZERO interaction with a supreme being, nor have we come across anything that requires a paranormal explanation. 'Evidence' others present doesn't bear scrutiny either.

Soon, I think they'll come up a with a cure for those that suffer from religion. I'm sure this is possible.

 

[lightgigantic]

You are not the P.C. - but that is because you are Much, much more complex.
The principle of how each operates is the same.

now might be a good time to define exactly what principle you are talking about .....

.... it might also pay to be clear about whether you are talking about tried and tested models or simply extrapolating about some wonderful theory