Atheists please answer this

[machaon]

There is no reason to include a god within the framework of science. If that not is what god wanted he would let us know. If god did not exist that is exactly what he would do.

 

[Neverfly]

Neverfly,
You are are seeing change in perceptions of individual reality as a kind of pause. For example your watching a dvd, you fancy a cup tea, so you simply pause the the player. In reality there is no pause, everything is actual.

If you are as high as a kite, or you have been knocked the f^*k out cold.
You are still in reality, but tho your perception may be different.

We cannot directly observe reality.
See?

I really do not see what is so hard about this.

Err, hello! My thinking is joined up, and as such I pick and choose from any part of it to make a point. Your's, I'm sorry to say is random and with strokes of hopefullness thrown in. Hoping that I can't see through you.
For example you claim that the person alluding to that piece of toast as something supernatural was deluded. Dude, did you actually look at that piece of toast. Now, I don't know whether that person's belief was delusional, but I am not going to deny what I saw. You will. You will put an end to it because it does not match with your world view. And as such create a barrier of intimidation to anyone who does not agree with you.
This, my dear sir, is ignorance of the highest order. And it is not because you are atheist. Religions of the institutional kind have done the same thing.

You're not going to deny what you saw?
Pareidolia.

See- this is where reality kicks in and your failure to percieve it. You then try to turn the tables and accuse me of it... Claiming that I intimidate and arrogantly bully my opinion... Would you claim a psychiatrist was doing that to a patient or a school teacher was doing that to a student that didn't agree with the math?
What you're doing is the same as the patient or the student in that example.
Your accusations and your excuses are absurd.

Err, you did the equivelant of accompanying me to the front door, knocking on it, then did a runner. I gave you 2 questions to answer, the second one being in the vain of 'are you telling me that everybody from time immemorial, and billions of folk now, are DELUDED'.
Now why the f^*k do I need to snooping around talk origins or wiki pedia to answer my question to you? DUH!!! :bugeye:

No, I did the equivalent of supporting my claims. Something you have yet to do.
It's Not My Job To Do Your Work For You.

I can sit here and type at you until I'm blue in the face and you and I both know that you'll just rationalize it away- as you are doing in this post.
So- I post the information (Supportive evidence) for YOUR examination.
Again- Stick to reality, here.

And further more, to this day you still have not provided an answer. Even Iceaura chimed in with some pathetic response, albeit in a hit and run fashion.

I have provided clear answers. Your denial of that does not change the fact that I have.

I do all my own work. I have answered and responded to everything you've thrown at me. That you don't understand, and choose to throw stones is not my problem.

No, you just prattle on with nonsense, ignore evidence and assert your opinions without research.
You don't do ANY work- you just talk.

You want me go snooping in talk origins. For what?

SNOOPING?!

Reading a public site to learn the information they provide for you (Free of Charge!) is SNOOPING?!

 

[lightgigantic]

There is no reason to include a god within the framework of science. If that not is what god wanted he would let us know. If god did not exist that is exactly what he would do.

huh?

 

[scifes]

huh?

it's when circular arguments get....circular?

 

[NMSquirrel]

Originally Posted by machaon
There is no reason to include a god within the framework of science. If that not is what god wanted he would let us know. If god did not exist that is exactly what he would do.

i got confused at 'If that not is what'

 

[deicider]

Ridiculous,you're all pathetic,to see humans than have fallen so low,corrupted logic,ignorance that makes your brain bleed,the ridiculously selective knowledge.
And all this for an imaginary insurance company.

The biggest misconception made both by theists and atheists is that there is no scientific evidence that disproves god.

 

[Neverfly]

The biggest misconception made both by theists and atheists is that there is no scientific evidence that disproves god.

I disagree... Nothing, scientifically, can ever be proven or disproven.

However, evidence can be very compelling.

So while God may never be disproven (Or a negative proven), there's overwhelming evidence that no god exists.

 

[NMSquirrel]

I disagree... Nothing, scientifically, can ever be proven or disproven.

However, evidence can be very compelling.

So while God may never be disproven (Or a negative proven), there's overwhelming evidence that no god exists.

and the argument goes in circles again..

 

[geeser]

and the argument goes in circles again..

How so, explain!

 

[Jan Ardena]

Neverfly,

We cannot directly observe reality.
See?

I really do not see what is so hard about this.

Let's say I'm observing planets and stars.
At what point does my observation become "directly observing reality"?
Untill that point arises, what would be my status regarding "observing reality"?
How does one decide what is reality and what is not?

You're not going to deny what you saw?
Pareidolia.

No.
I saw an image of a face in the piece of toast, and I saw an image of a face
on that shower curtain. That's my perception, perception = reality, even if it's my own.

If I know that I don't percieve the images, but convince myself that I have, then I am deluded.

You then try to turn the tables and accuse me of it... Claiming that I intimidate and arrogantly bully my opinion...

So do you see facial images in both items.

Would you claim a psychiatrist was doing that to a patient or a school teacher was doing that to a student that didn't agree with the math?

If a psychiatrist tried to tell me that I was deluded because I saw a facial image in the toast, yes.
If I had an experience which led me to believe that that was a vision of Jesus, and he argued that I was deluded, but couldn't account for my personal experience. I would say yes.

Regarding the student. It would depend on the circumstances.

No, I did the equivalent of supporting my claims. Something you have yet to do.
It's Not My Job To Do Your Work For You.

You haven't supported your claims.
You have yet to answer my question which was directed at you, then you post a link to talk origins home page.
Just answer the question for cryin out loud.

I can sit here and type at you until I'm blue in the face and you and I both know that you'll just rationalize it away- as you are doing in this post.
So- I post the information (Supportive evidence) for YOUR examination.
Again- Stick to reality, here.

You post irrelevant information, like definitions of words, pictures, talk origins, with no explanation.

I have provided clear answers. Your denial of that does not change the fact that I have.

You claim we cannot directly observe reality, an illogical assumption straight of the bat. All you have done is assert this over and over again without any explanation.

No, you just prattle on with nonsense, ignore evidence and assert your opinions without research.
You don't do ANY work- you just talk.

And talking's not work?
I'd be interested to hear what I've said that's non-sensical, and why you've
come to that decision.
Who am I kidding? You're not going to.

SNOOPING?!

Figure of speech. (FOS)

jan.

 

[iceaura]

That's what it looks like, anyway. Any reason to think otherwise?
”
Why does it look like that?

My guess is because that's how it is - the simplest explanation, and a very good fit to the evidence.

I take it you agree that (thus far) life is only known to come from life.

I don't agree. Everything we know points to life having emerged from non-living substrates on this planet. We certainly don't know otherwise.

That's my perception, perception = reality,

If that were so, you'd never trip over a chair in the dark - and you'd never know it was even possible to trip over a chair in the dark. When children covered their eyes, their mothers would really not be there.

If I had an experience which led me to believe that that was a vision of Jesus, and he argued that I was deluded, but couldn't account for my personal experience.

After a few thousand experiences of accounting for the more common delusions, we are entitled to put the burden of proof on those claiming that some given instance is not delusion.

Labeling something that appears to be, by all the evidence, a delusion, "delusion" is accounting for it, to a first approximation. Delusions, like chickadess, exist. Properly labeled, they are to that extent accounted for.

You claim we cannot directly observe reality, an illogical assumption straight of the bat.

It's an observation. We lack the means to directly observe, period. It's hard to imagine what a direct observation in the sense here would be, even - a copy, maybe?

 

[NMSquirrel]

If a psychiatrist tried to tell me that I was deluded because I saw a facial image in the toast, yes.
If I had an experience which led me to believe that that was a vision of Jesus, and he argued that I was deluded, but couldn't account for my personal experience. I would say yes.
jan.

and everyone arguing with you never even considered..this.

 

[Neverfly]

How does one decide what is reality and what is not?

Is this argument still going on?
Jeez...

If we could directly observe reality- there would be no such question as you just asked.

No.
I saw an image of a face in the piece of toast, and I saw an image of a face
on that shower curtain. That's my perception, perception = reality, even if it's my own.

If I know that I don't percieve the images, but convince myself that I have, then I am deluded.

If you believe that the percieved images are real, of divine source or representative of a spiritual communication- You are deluded.

If I had an experience which led me to believe that that was a vision of Jesus, and he argued that I was deluded, but couldn't account for my personal experience. I would say yes.

Yes, you should argue with the expert when you're the one who needs help- Brilliant.

You haven't supported your claims.

Liar.

You have yet to answer my question which was directed at you, then you post a link to talk origins home page.
Just answer the question for cryin out loud.

Very well... Repeat the question.

With all of your pussy footing around, I can't even remember what it was anymore.

Figure of speech.

Hardly.

It was more likely an attempt at obfuscation and deception on your part.