Ah-yes, the classic "putting words in mouth deception, didn't say God did it, but
i'll just say he did"
jan.
Atheists please answer this
- Thread starter Joe K.
- Start date
Ah-yes, the classic "putting words in mouth deception, didn't say God did it, but
i'll just say he did"
jan.
I didn't ask if you thought they _could_ exist. I asked if they _did_.
Like I care. I don't believe in God. I'm under no obligation to prove that to you.
Yet again you fail to understand. We were talking about degrees of NOT. There are no degrees of NOT. There is just NOT. Get a grip.
Which part don't you understand?
That makes no sense whatsoever.
We are talking about belief, not absolutes. You don't _know_ you believe.
And consider what alternative? No, I don't doubt it.
I can't think anything would. I would question my sanity, over any single experience. Any convincing experience would have to be verified, scientifically, and be reproducible, of course.
They are exactly the petty nit pick, thin edge of the wedge diversionary nonsense I expect from someone who cannot make a decent argument.
phlogistician,
Why ask me that?
My response is in line with my original point.
Then for all I know you could well be a candidate for denial, as I see no
reason why you should care so much about a subject you absolutely, knowingly (according to you) don't believe in.
Erm, degrees begin at one extreme, and end at the other, including all
the stuff in between.
I understood it. It was a silly explanation, that's all.
What else would make me doubt?
And belief is based on understanding of experiences, from objective to subjective.
What experience did you have that made you believe there is no God?
Or do you know?
Believe in God.
Why not?
You mean you would sooner claim insanity than believe in God?
Classic symstems, i'm tellin ya.
Supposing it couldn't be verified, would you regard it as insanity?
Just like you would be prepared to disregard convincing experiences, you
avoid my questions disregarding real discussions about God, thereby keeping your denial nicely topped up.
jan.
Why ask me that?
My response is in line with my original point.
Then for all I know you could well be a candidate for denial, as I see no
reason why you should care so much about a subject you absolutely, knowingly (according to you) don't believe in.
Erm, degrees begin at one extreme, and end at the other, including all
the stuff in between.
I understood it. It was a silly explanation, that's all.
What else would make me doubt?
And belief is based on understanding of experiences, from objective to subjective.
What experience did you have that made you believe there is no God?
Or do you know?
Believe in God.
Why not?
You mean you would sooner claim insanity than believe in God?
Classic symstems, i'm tellin ya.
Supposing it couldn't be verified, would you regard it as insanity?
Just like you would be prepared to disregard convincing experiences, you
avoid my questions disregarding real discussions about God, thereby keeping your denial nicely topped up.
jan.
i wonder sometimes..
some atheist claim they don't believe in god, when they argue about it they bring up the go to hell part,they say why bother if we already sinned and we are going to hell.
i wonder how much of that non-belief is a hell avoidance argument.
(if i don't believe, i won't go to hell)
just curious
some atheist claim they don't believe in god, when they argue about it they bring up the go to hell part,they say why bother if we already sinned and we are going to hell.
i wonder how much of that non-belief is a hell avoidance argument.
(if i don't believe, i won't go to hell)
just curious
that argument is entirely illogical squirrel.
sorry..
i think i know what i am talking about.
i'm talking about what i am thinking.
sometimes my talking doesn't line up with my thinking.
then things get lost between my brain and yours..
:bugeye:
oh, i see. :huh:
Fair enough, doubt anything you want. But in placing your doubts, you neglect 2 important points:
1. Rocks are directly observable. You and I both know they exist. God is not directly observable, therefore it is more far-fetched to assert that "God did it" instead of "rocks had something to do with it".
2. Rocks are known to have many of the basic chemicals needed to make the more sophisticated chemicals found in Earth-based life. The Miller-Urey experiments, and subsequent followups, have already established that RNA and DNA can be synthesized in lab conditions meant to simulate primordial Earth, with rock surfaces serving as highly effective chemical catalysts. On the other hand, no one's ever produced a strand of DNA or RNA through prayer alone. Your assertions about the need for God are no better than assertions for the need of Tinker Bell and Peter Pan.
CptBork,
Thanks, i'm sure
ok.
As we're talking about conciousness, something ALSO NOT directly obsevable, but perceivable by it's effects, maybe you should look carefully at what you said.
Without conciousness there are no rocks, dna, perception, observation, or knowledge. There is nothing.
So, you're omniscient are you? Sheesh!
I've made no assertions for the need for God.
Are you on atheist auto-pilot?
jan.
Thanks, i'm sure
ok.
As we're talking about conciousness, something ALSO NOT directly obsevable, but perceivable by it's effects, maybe you should look carefully at what you said.
Without conciousness there are no rocks, dna, perception, observation, or knowledge. There is nothing.
So, you're omniscient are you? Sheesh!
I've made no assertions for the need for God.
Are you on atheist auto-pilot?
jan.
in regards to prayer, thoughts and desires always manifest themselves in a material form of some sort, even genetic material. you can observe that in the results of the experiments you choose to perform, and in the results of natural human evolution.
What's not directly observable about consciousness? You and I both have sense of self-awareness, we respond in certain seemingly illogical ways to natural stimulii. We can now also observe strong correlations between activity in certain regions of the brain, and certain associated thoughts and emotions. For all we know, we might be mere fancy computers, and consciousness might be an illusion formed by evolutionary self-preservation instincts. The important point is that it doesn't matter what consciousness is- there's no evidence to suggest consciousness has a root in anything but the physical world (after all, we've never observed consciousness in a braindead human being).
You have no proof that rocks and DNA need to be perceived by a human being in order to exist. Perception, observation and knowledge are also things that can exist without consciousness- smash a wall, and the wall has "knowledge" of the resulting hole, as demonstrated by the existence of said hole in what was previously an intact wall.
So, you're omniscient are you? Sheesh!
Feel free to conduct prayers and synthesize a DNA or RNA molecule, under conditions which can't be successfully repeated in a lab environment lacking prayer.
I guess I misunderstood the following quote then:
Jan Ardena said:
So you describe god (with a capital G) as a fundamental part of the universe, then you tell me you never asserted she was necessary?
Sorry, but I have yet to come across a repeatable experiment where things are physically set up exactly the same each time, but what you're thinking on the outside somehow affects the outcome. Same with evolution, I don't see any reason to think our thoughts shaped evolution, rather it very much seems to be the other way around.
i think this is over-simplifying the process.
the outcome could be a complete accident. i'm referring to thoughts and desires that determined whether, why, and/or how the experiment was set up in the first place.
what we think and desire determines how we live, where we live, what we value, what we believe, what we eat, who we have sex with, who we kill, who we save.
you don't think all of that has an effect on our evolution?
lol..Hello Ground...
that is the ideal lori, but that isn't always true,
selective breeding?
how well do you think that works in reality?
CptBork,
Actual conciousness itself.
Do you think this is ACTUAL conciousness?
So conciousness is in "evolutionary self-preservation"?
It does matter because without it there is actual nothing.
It doesn't matter whether there is evidence or not.
If the universe was devoid of consciousness then nothing would exists because there is no awareness of anything.
For something to exist, it must be understood to exist. And understanding something is a conscious pursuit.
I didn't say that.
So you think a wall has conciousness?
Why are you asking me to do it?
More than likely.
2 points.
If we are refering to the One God known as the Supreme Being, then using
an upper case 'G' is correct. Otherwise you are be talking about demi-gods.
God is not described a she, unless He chooses to be.
jan.
Actual conciousness itself.
Do you think this is ACTUAL conciousness?
So conciousness is in "evolutionary self-preservation"?
It does matter because without it there is actual nothing.
It doesn't matter whether there is evidence or not.
If the universe was devoid of consciousness then nothing would exists because there is no awareness of anything.
For something to exist, it must be understood to exist. And understanding something is a conscious pursuit.
I didn't say that.
So you think a wall has conciousness?
Why are you asking me to do it?
More than likely.
2 points.
If we are refering to the One God known as the Supreme Being, then using
an upper case 'G' is correct. Otherwise you are be talking about demi-gods.
God is not described a she, unless He chooses to be.
jan.
So you've never seen another conscious person? Or looked in a mirror? :shrug:
You speak of "consciousness" as if it is an object or entity in its own right... rather than merely a descriptor/property of an object, much like "width" is a property.
Care to provide substantiation for this idea of yours?
Can you name an alternative explanation that is rationally based on the observed evidence?
Ah - you argue the primacy of consciousness over primacy of existence, it seems? Care to expand on why you think this?
Are you using a definition of "exist" that has an a priori assumption of consciousness?
Why does something need to be "understood to exist" for it to actually exist? Does a bullet that kills you before you knew it even existed not actually exist, because you didn't "understand it to exist"?
And did the universe not exist prior to consciousness arising?
People have mental aberrations, that is well known. For instance, 'God' told Peter Sutcliffe to go and murder prostitutes. He was convinced it was God. He was mental. People who experience God have mental health problems.
Your questions are stupid Jan. You fail to grasp simple logic. You don't seem very bright. No wonder you have no trouble believing on God, because it's a simple answer, and you aren't clever enough to see the gaping holes in your own arguments.
Sarkus,
Yes.
I have also seen a fat person, a tall person, a short person, an unconcious person, and a dead person.
Without it, there is no width, or any knowledge of property.
I figure it to be the most important element of our existence.
I don't know that is to be explained thusly, which is why I am asking.
If what you and the captain say is correct, then when did conciousness begin
to emerge? And is it necessarily in the interest of some inanimate objects to
develop it? And will inanimate object develop it in the future?
I am aware that you exist.
If I had no conciousness, hence, no awareness, then I would have no knowledge of your existence.
If I was a conscious mirco organism, aware of my particular surroundings, I most probably wouldn't know you exist as you are.
As it stands, there may be many things I am not aware of due to lack of
consciousness, which could cause me to believe they don't exist.
No.
My point was that you have to understand that it exist, or it can exist.
It doesn't matter whether it actually exists or not. "Understand" is the key word here.
We can argue whether or not God exists, but we must understand what it means to exist, to some degree or other.
We understand that bullets exist, and under the right circumstances can kill you. Yet a child with no conscious awareness of guns and bullets does not
know (as yet) that it can kill you.
From your perspective, i imagine so.
From my perspective, I don't see how it could.
jan.
Yes.
I have also seen a fat person, a tall person, a short person, an unconcious person, and a dead person.
Without it, there is no width, or any knowledge of property.
I figure it to be the most important element of our existence.
I don't know that is to be explained thusly, which is why I am asking.
If what you and the captain say is correct, then when did conciousness begin
to emerge? And is it necessarily in the interest of some inanimate objects to
develop it? And will inanimate object develop it in the future?
I am aware that you exist.
If I had no conciousness, hence, no awareness, then I would have no knowledge of your existence.
If I was a conscious mirco organism, aware of my particular surroundings, I most probably wouldn't know you exist as you are.
As it stands, there may be many things I am not aware of due to lack of
consciousness, which could cause me to believe they don't exist.
Are you using a definition of "exist" that has an a priori assumption of consciousness?
No.
My point was that you have to understand that it exist, or it can exist.
It doesn't matter whether it actually exists or not. "Understand" is the key word here.
We can argue whether or not God exists, but we must understand what it means to exist, to some degree or other.
We understand that bullets exist, and under the right circumstances can kill you. Yet a child with no conscious awareness of guns and bullets does not
know (as yet) that it can kill you.
From your perspective, i imagine so.
From my perspective, I don't see how it could.
jan.
On the contrary, calling upon Mr Sutcliffe to typify a claim of god's existence is a simple answer that bypasses logic in the minds of those who are not very bright ... much like anyone else who doesn't have problems with judging a genre by its worst example.
:shrug:
Guess you dont know what an atheist is or you would not have used such an incomprehensible sentence. There is no god.:shrug:
So you disavow HIS claims that God spoke to him, merely because he murdered people? And your OPINION is that God would never tell anybody to do that? Has God told you he would never tell anybody to do that?
How very selective you are. Unless you are making a logical choice.
Also, you seem to be implying that Peter Sutcliffe being told to kill by God was somehow unepresentative of God's communications. I beg to differ;
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=e...told+me+to+kill&aq=f&aqi=g2&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=