for atheists

[Bambi]

Originally posted by James R

It's nice to be approaching a consensus, indeed.

<i>What you seem to be missing with your postulates, is the very fact that "God is made of ectoplasm" means that ectoplasm is primary and God secondary. Which was my argument all along.</i>

Ok. I'll concede that point for now. What I set out to show was that God could not be ruled out on logical grounds. We seem to have reached the point where we can agree on a particular concept of God which is not ruled out on logical grounds, so I'm happy to leave it there.

Well, now that we have that particular hurdle out of the way, here comes the juice.

First of all, if a god is to be the explanation of where the universe came from, the following question arises: where did ectoplasm come from? The point of that question is that no matter how many links you postulate in the story of creation, there is always going to be such a question applicable to the very first link -- and by the virtue of that being necessarily rhetorical. This shows that no intelligent designer can be a sufficient explanation of all existence.

Now, if ectoplasm is primary and a god secondary, one has to explain how that god came to be within the ectoplasm. That is qualitatively no different than explaining how the known universe came to be within the ectoplasm. In fact, it's arguably easier in the case of the known universe, since it is by definition simpler than God.

Granted, the upshot is that any god is merely unnecessary and explicatively futile on logical grounds. And you’re right, God cannot be ruled out on such a basis. However, God being unnecessary helps quite a bit in the argument that no god exists (at least no god as construed by any known religion.)

Moreover, the argument demonstrates that no God exists (with the capitalized form meaning as conceived in Abrahamic religions) because such a god is the be-all and end-all of existence, which is impossible since ectoplasm has to be the real deal.

 

[Hoth]

Reaching way back to something near the beginning of the thread:

Originally posted by physicsforums.com
I said any TRUE atheist should by reason, kill themselves.

A true atheist has no reason to do anything, and no reason to not do anything. Most people naturally tend to do things... a true atheist can't see anything wrong with that. In fact, for a true atheist there's nothing wrong with being religious (no inherent superiority of truth).

I don't believe there's any real objective meaning to things, I don't think humanity has any inherent importance, I don't think life has any objective meaning (only subjective) and I don't think anyone will ever be truly immortal. That leaves me with absolutely no reason to kill myself.

There's nothing wrong with nothingness... there can't be, it can't have a value. People just have a biological fear of it, natural selection got rid of everything that didn't fear death and nothingness.


If I believed in a god, logic would probably force me to kill myself. If I believed in a benevolent god, one that doesn't condemn it's creations to eternal torture, I'd kill myself and be in heaven that much quicker. If I believed in a god that did condemn it's creations to eternal torture, I'd still kill myself because I'd much rather spend eternity safely down in hell rather than with an evil god.

 

[Bambi]

Hoth,

Wellcome to the religion forum; I don't think I've seen you here before.

While I agree with much of what you have to say, there are a couple of places that need a Bambi touch. So here goes:

A true atheist has no reason to do anything, and no reason to not do anything.

That would be true if a true atheist was an immortal and all-powerful being who is in the universe all alone by itself. However, even atheists have to feed and clothe themselves. Also, atheists who live in a society need to care about what that society does to their freedoms. In lieu of which, there is plenty of reason for an atheist to behave him/herself -- first, as part of a mutual social contract with other people, and second, as part of enjoying good relationships. Now, of course if you were talking of reasons in an absolute, transcendent sense, then you have a point. However your personal life is neither absolute nor transcendent (and you did at least make it sound like you don't wish to screw it up or worse, to end it.)

Most people naturally tend to do things... a true atheist can't see anything wrong with that.

Well, it depends. A psychotic serial murderer's natural behavior is probably something any atheist would see as unacceptable.

In fact, for a true atheist there's nothing wrong with being religious (no inherent superiority of truth).

I beg to differ. Religion is not only a mass psychosis that affects individual freedoms of atheists, but it is also an impediment to truth.

 

[Hoth]

Originally posted by Bambi
That would be true if a true atheist was an immortal and all-powerful being who is in the universe all alone by itself. However, even atheists have to feed and clothe themselves. Also, atheists who live in a society need to care about what that society does to their freedoms. In lieu of which, there is plenty of reason for an atheist to behave him/herself -- first, as part of a mutual social contract with other people, and second, as part of enjoying good relationships. Now, of course if you were talking of reasons in an absolute, transcendent sense, then you have a point. However your personal life is neither absolute nor transcendent (and you did at least make it sound like you don't wish to screw it up or worse, to end it.)

There's no need to feed yourself or anything like that, you just happen to die if you don't. There's nothing inherently wrong about that, unless you either have a god or worship life itself. We just all tend to want to live because that's the sort of creatures we are, we wouldn't be alive if we weren't that sort of creatures (obviously enough). Of course, without a god or other worship there's nothing to make it wrong to want to live, so it's just fine if you feed and cloathe yourself and have social contracts and value freedom and that sort of stuff as most of us do.

Basically, the lack of absolute motivations or absolute good or bad is what makes it not an inherently bad thing to go ahead and decide what you want to call meaningful or good for yourself.

When you say religions or other types of mass psychosis are bad, you're saying it goes against what you like. That means from your perspective it's bad, but the universe couldn't care less, it certainly doesn't punish people for being religious.

 

[Bambi]

Fair enough

Peace, brother.

Oh wait, just one point:

I hope we both agree that being a true atheist does not preclude one from having personal preferences or desires. Which was basically my main beef with your position. IOW, if someone claims to be a true atheist that doesn't mean they don't care about anything (the two positions are not mutually exclusive.)

 

[Teg]

The Loone issue...

I think I have come to the conclusion as to the true nature of Loone. For a while I thought him an escaped mental patient. No religious zealot could so damage their position with the type of messages that he spreads. At this point I think that Loone is an atheist, posing as a zealot. There can be no other reason for him to destroy any credibility of the position he claims to take.

There is a second scenario. Perhaps he is very young. From his behavior and grammar I would say somewhere between 8 and 12. This also brings with it a second possibility. I have heard tale of people whose age is somehow stuck at a juvenile setting. It could be retardism or back again to the orignal postulate, insanity.

Sir. Loone: No more pain, sickness and dieing! Best of all, no more Devil ever! Inwhich the host of you are greatly decieved of SATAN the Devil! The 'Prince of the power of the air! The Dragon!

The immature are often marked by a lack of imagination or generalized positions. In a way similar to cries for world peace, we see here a borrowed position, of which he seems not to have a comprehension. In all he simply repeats religious dogma, albeit not in great detail.

 

[Bebelina]

Well that was poetic. Maybe he´s just a a free-styling poet roaming the scenes ? A little kinder pehaps then calling him retarded....

Cris on the other hand...lol..."But there is no other perspective." Does it get any stiffer than that?
The dream world is real, and so is everything else ever perceived by anyone in whatever state of consciousness. Imagination is a wonderful tool, that you may have forgotten to use. New perspectives are born within it, in the thought of the "impossible".

I am open to new ideas and find joy in scientific discoveries, the physical world, and how it´s built up both on a physical and spiritual level. Is the fact that I´m open to new perspectives, limit my perspective? I don´t THINK so, but that thought in itself became an intruiging mystery waiting to be solved. Is it impossible?

Yes, of course we are all here mostly to enjoy a good conversation or discussion, but some seem to get so lost in the arguments that they forget their original intention....lost in a dream world perhaps?

Be nice people, don´t call eachother retards, anti-christs and whatever...we all have names, let´s use them instead.

 

[Teg]

Re:Well that was poetic

Maybe he´s just a a free-styling poet roaming the scenes ? A little kinder pehaps then calling him retarded....

Do I really need to include the "" to let you know that I am not being serious. Read Jonathan Swift lately? When a person describes another individual as an escaped mental patient or a mentally retarded person, bells should be going off.

My main point of that little sarcastic stint was that whoever Loone may be (I swear you're really an atheist), he is not a big help to his side. If he is an atheist he is not a good example as a deceptive individual. If he is a true Christian, then he is not a good example as someone of limited oratory abilities. Either case paints him in a sad light.

All I ask is for him to level with us.

Yes, of course we are all here mostly to enjoy a good conversation or discussion, but some seem to get so lost in the arguments that they forget their original intention

Does Loone even have an intent?

Beware the Anti-Christ! Time is very close but no one really knows eccept GOD Himself!

I suppose the negative has been affirmed through that statement. I wish it were as easy as the act of pointing to him as a reflection of a system, but that only seems to galvanize him. Those of his religion will support him and those not Christian will see his empty threats for their true value.

When I think of a society built around Loone sympathizers, I become very anxious about the future of this race and life in general on this planet. I recall the Inquisitions, witch hunts, and the red scare. Is this the world that we wish to mold for our posterity? Loone will forver be looking for his "Anti-christ" and "Armageddon." I think that those sentiments mark an unbalanced individual and through their complacency, an unbalanced society. It would not take much for this world to devolve into another set of Israelites vs. Palestinians, Catholics vs. Protestants, and Scientist vs. Religionist. Please cease the hate borne from your traditions.

 

[Bebelina]

Well, I have to admit that I haven´t read Loones posts that often that I can tell what his intentions are. But the thought of him actually being an atheist , using aversion therapy, gives an interesting new perspective on his personality.

 

[Teg]

Just a theory

I know it's out there, but I have to use my analytical abilities. Tony1 seems to have lost even an appetite for arguing facts. Lately he seems more content to spew bible quotes and issue sarcasm. I have heard some other credible theories. One had Loone as a frustrated street prophet. They are the ones that wear signs reporting that the end is near. His statements might match that profile.

 

[G0D]

Re: The Loone issue...

Originally posted by Teg
I think I have come to the conclusion as to the true nature of Loone. For a while I thought him an escaped mental patient. No religious zealot could so damage their position with the type of messages that he spreads. At this point I think that Loone is an atheist, posing as a zealot. There can be no other reason for him to destroy any credibility of the position he claims to take.

Hey! Finally, someone who agrees.

Originally posted by G0D
Is it just me?

Do you have the feeling sometimes that the poster called "Sir Loone" is actually poking fun at the christian position?

Consider -

The large font,
the colored text,
the wildly improbable assertations,
statements like "the bible is 100% FACTUAL",
the choice of user name (loony), etc.

It's like a caricature of a religious fundamentalist.

As a relatively new member, I have a constant feeling that he will soon reveal a punchline.

 

[Sir. Loone]

The TEG lie!

Originally posted by Teg
I think I have come to the conclusion as to the true nature of Loone. For a while I thought him an escaped mental patient. No religious zealot could so damage their position with the type of messages that he spreads. At this point I think that Loone is an atheist, posing as a zealot. There can be no other reason for him to destroy any credibility of the position he claims to take.

I speak the truth only of GOD's Holy Word conserning foolish persons of the 'Knockle-Draggers Club!' You shall stand before the GOD you thought did not exist! And shall be in great parell without JESUS as you Savoiur of your souls! You that hate GOD and his Word, and sob at the 'meaninglessness of life, needs to be in an institution before you hurt your selves!FOOLs of the Devil!

There is a second scenario. Perhaps he is very young. From his behavior and grammar I would say somewhere between 8 and 12. This also brings with it a second possibility. I have heard tale of people whose age is somehow stuck at a juvenile setting. It could be retardism or back again to the orignal postulate, insanity.

Because I have Faith in God of Abraham, I am and probbably older then you! Be not 'wise' TEG in your own eyes! For it is foolishness to discount that you refuse to understand of GOD! Your sounding much as a bad teen with nothing else to do but waller in the mud of deception and pride, the oldest known sin!

The immature are often marked by a lack of imagination or generalized positions. In a way similar to cries for world peace, we see here a borrowed position, of which he seems not to have a comprehension. In all he simply repeats religious dogma, albeit not in great detail.

We are not to be casting precious stones, diamonds, etc. before SWINE! You would know more of the Bible, Je'sus as the one and only Saviour of the World, and your future, if you come to know the lord for forgiveness of sins! The Bible speeks of you and your words of pride as that of a fool and his folly, wise in his own heart, and knowing nothing! Professing themselves to be wise, they have become fools, decarding the Word of God with it's wisdom and knowledge that is greater then man! Beware the worm, the worm that dieth not! At death you shall have no power over the truth heard or even pain forever! And that pride before GOD is as filty rags, (dirty diapers) GOD sees you and know that you are in ignorance to the truth!

 

[Sir. Loone]

Foolish Talkers!

Originally posted by James R
Sir Loone,

Putting your words in the largest possible font does not give them any extra authority. It's just annoying. Exclamation marks after every sentence also soon lose their impact, since everything has equal emphasis.

Why don't you go away and stop cluttering up an interesting thread. Thanks.

Size of font will shout out loud! I say that you must come to the truth before you know what you are talking about James R.!

"The fool has said in his heart, there is no God. Corrpt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good." (Psalms 53:1)

Read the Book more for your self! We would not of had free nations esp. the United States of America if it was not for the Judeo-Christian Faith! No, it would of been a far differant world that would be in greater chaose and freedoms would be for the men in power only! Thank the GOD you scorn, you lived in a free sociaty! JUESUS Saves All that will call on his name!

 

[Avatar]

sorry for asking, but have you considered going to a doctor? maybe try meditation or joga. You speak like child or a completely brainwashed person. calm down and bring some logic into your thoughts.
sorry for offence in advance
Cheers!

 

[James R]

Bambi,

<i>First of all, if a god is to be the explanation of where the universe came from, the following question arises: where did ectoplasm come from?</i>

You're still thinking in terms of time. If God (and ectoplasm if you like) is outside time, it didn't necessarily come from anywhere. Coming from somewhere implies motion in time.

<i>The point of that question is that no matter how many links you postulate in the story of creation, there is always going to be such a question applicable to the very first link</i>

That's why I stop at God and don't progress to the ectoplasm.
But seriously, I know what you're getting at. It's the old "God made the universe, so who made God?" argument. The thing is, if God is eternal (or, more difficult, outside time), nobody made Him. He was simply always there. The problem disappears.

<i>However, God being unnecessary helps quite a bit in the argument that no god exists</i>

The argument that God is unnecessary is yet another track we could explore. Again, there is no evidence that God is unnecessary, in my opinion, though I can't immediately point to any evidence in favour of his necessity either.

 

[James R]

Sir Loone,

<i>Size of font will shout out loud!</i>

No. It's actually harder to read. Usually I just skip it, and I suspect many others do too. BTW, you're still doing the thing with the exclamation marks.

<i>I say that you must come to the truth before you know what you are talking about James R.!</i>

I could debate this, but I don't think it would be worth the effort.

<i>Read the Book more for your self! We would not of had free nations esp. the United States of America if it was not for the Judeo-Christian Faith!</i>

Evidence to support that assertion?

<i>Thank the GOD you scorn, you lived in a free sociaty!</i>

Where have I scorned God? Don't be silly.

<i>JUESUS Saves All that will call on his name!</i>

Who's this Juesus guy?

 

[daktaklakpak]

Re: Foolish Talkers!

Originally posted by Sir. Loone

[size=0.1]Size of font will shout out loud! I say that you must come to the truth before you know what you are talking about James R.!

"The fool has said in his heart, there is no God. Corrpt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good." (Psalms 53:1)

Read the Book more for your self! We would not of had free nations esp. the United States of America if it was not for the Judeo-Christian Faith! No, it would of been a far differant world that would be in greater chaose and freedoms would be for the men in power only! Thank the GOD you scorn, you lived in a free sociaty! JUESUS Saves All that will call on his name![/size]

You might need an eye doctor. I hope the size is big enought for you to see. Don't think god will help on your eye exam.

 

[Bambi]

Sir. Loone

Guys, if you're annoyed by the visual clutter his posts produce, just add him to your ignore list (under your control panel.) You can still choose to view the post any time, but at least you don't have to download them or scroll through them every time you view the thread. Then all you'll see is an inconspicuous:

<table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="1" border="0" width="100%"><tr valign="top"><td bgcolor="#F1F1F1" width="175" nowrap><font face="Lucida Grande, verdana, arial, helvetica" size="2" ><b>Sir. Loone</b></font><br><font face="Lucida Grande, verdana,arial,helvetica" size="1" ><img src="/images2/off.gif" border="0" alt="Sir. Loone is offline" align="absmiddle"><img src="/images2/posticon.gif" border="0" alt="Old Post">02-13-02 <font color="#666686">10:15 PM</font></font></td><td bgcolor="#F1F1F1" width="100%"><font face="Lucida Grande, verdana, arial, helvetica" size="2" >This person is on your <b>Ignore List</b>. To view this post click [<u>here</u>]</font></td></tr></table>

 

[Taken]

Ok guys, he isn't personally bashing anyone or degrading anyone. He has his beliefs and stands by the Bible.

Difference is what makes us all beautifull and unique.
Tony has slid back, don't make Loone the new martyr. Will you systematically add all Christians to the ignore list?
We have opposeing beliefs...thats what makes the forum full of opportunity in learning and exploring and understanding...On BOTH sides.

 

[Bambi]

Originally posted by James R

You're still thinking in terms of time. If God (and ectoplasm if you like) is outside time, it didn't necessarily come from anywhere. Coming from somewhere implies motion in time.

But by such reasoning, the universe itself could have come from outside time. A god becomes spurious in terms of explaining anything.

Moreover, there is a problem when transitioning between no-time and time; there is nothing in between. Does that mean that even if there are gods, they are forever excluded from the universe?

Finally, you did admit having difficulty with defining anything at all outside of time. And I would claim that is a fundamental difficulty that arises from the contradiction of a time-bound information processor (such as yourself) trying to represent an entity that is not time bound. By that reasoning, you cannot make any claims about any god whatsoever, including claims of existence thereof. And if you were to argue that "a god exists outside time", then you would have to explain, for starters, what it means to exist outside time (because to me, personally, such a concept is paradoxical.)

That's why I stop at God and don't progress to the ectoplasm. ... The thing is, if God is eternal (or, more difficult, outside time), nobody made Him. He was simply always there. The problem disappears.

Eternal but not the foundation of all existence -- that honor is reserved for ectoplasm (which, after all, was simply always there.) Though neither the phrase "always there" nor even the concept of "eternity" mesh very well with an "outside of time" postulate.