Sci-Phenomenon:
Prove it.
Prove it.
Last edited:
God Is Self-contradictory. Hence, God Doesn’t Exist.
- Thread starter AAF
- Start date
- Status
which brings us to the issue that existence is contingent on god's consciousness
Katha Up 2.2.13
The Supreme Lord is eternal and the living beings are eternal. The Supreme Lord is cognizant and the living beings are cognizant. The difference is that the Supreme Lord is supplying all the necessities of life for the many other living entities.
Last edited:
:bawl:
Hi Sarkus;
It doesn't matter how many times do people have to explain it to me!
What, really, does matter, here, is how the term 'atheism' has been
defined in the DICTIONARIES (the technical & the non-technical ones
as well). And there, the technical word 'atheism' is always defined as
"the belief that there is no God". And so theism is 'the belief that there
is God' & atheism is 'the belief that there is no God'. It's clear and simple.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheism&x=11&y=12
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/agnostic
However, I should point out that, in recent times, Christian preachers
have stopped using the word 'INFIDEL', because it's unacceptable
politically, and transferred its literal meaning to the politically
correct word 'ATHEIST'. And this redefinition of the word 'atheism',
in Christian circles, might have confused you & godless & swivel &
the writer of that wikipedia's article. But the fact remains, the word
'atheism' technically means 'the belief that there is no God', regardless
of what the pious preachers think of it.
Of course it does, it fits to a T! non of them have belief in god, thus atheists!
It holds water, as long as non of those species you mentioned do not believe in god. The only species to think of god, is the consciousness of human brain, if one does not accept the belief of god, one is an atheist, if one doesn't know the god of Christianity or any monotheist god, or rejects the notion of their existence then one is an atheist. There's nothing broad about it, just like Sarkus mentions above!
True, and the main reason is lack of evidence.
Not necessarily, atheism means without religion. Thus if a person denies any kind of religion, monotheists or polytheistic that person is considered atheist. On the other hand if that person knows of no god, or has no knowledge of any kind of god for whatever religion, or is completely unaware of cultural beliefs in religion of a region that person is said to be atheist. If a person is born with out a consciousness, lass a human vegetable, that person is an atheist, when a baby is born, his immature mind can't comprehend belief or is unaware of religious beliefs, he/she by default is an atheist. Thus atheism is simply (with out religion)
Sure it would only take a supernatural phenomenon that every one in the planet, with a consciousness and a reasonable mind can perceive the phenomenon. And even then, you'll have the doubters. But hey If I win the 500million$$ Lotto without buying a ticket, I'll believe!
They have had 3 millenniums by now you figured they would have worked it out. There is 1000's of gods, 33000 sects of Christianity alone, thousands of religions, most in conflict, the "hypothesis" has brought nothing more then human damnation and despair, stagnation to human advancement in many fields, truly religion has been nothing more, then an attempt at manipulating the masses.
Then theology must by default quit trying to explain the origin of the universe, life, and trying to dictate their moral code on the rest of us!
That is a canard. A claim always has to be proven by the one making the claim, not the other way around. Atheists simply deny claims made by theists, thus the burden of proof, is on their shoulders. Which brings us back to the point of "weak atheism" thus since I can't provide you with the evidence of what god is, or if it exists or not, then by default I don't claim "god does not exist" I simply claim I don't believe a god exists on the evidence or lack there of shown by theists.
No humanity just needs to further evolve, some of us already have!
I'll refer you to a book on a theory of consciousness and how it evolved, from a primitive mind "bicameral" to a conscious mind.
http://www.julianjaynes.org/bicameralmind.php
Mind you it's controversial theory, but non the less worth the time to read it.
It's that "demolition" of different sects of beliefs by other theological sects which brought me to atheism in a way. After reading the so many atrocities done in the name of god, I started to disbelief in such religious rhetoric. After learning more, and growing more, I realized that religion has been nothing more then a tool to manipulate a society, an ideology of competing clans over control of the masses, and still to this day, we continue, to try and force one ideology upon another.
I think, that if our human society had chosen another path, and by the time of Jesus birth, airplanes were flying between continents, he would have been locked up as a lunatic. If humanity would have rejected mysticism of Plato and embraced objectivism of Aristotle we would be 2000 years more advanced today then we are now. However we are at a threshold. Its called the "nuclear threshold". As a human society if we continue on the same path, we will have to make that choice, to survive as a human species or to embrace mysticism or reason!
Hello godless;
It's me again!
Obviously, the words (infidel & atheist) are synonymous to you!
Let me repeat what I just said. Christian preachers have stopped using the word 'infidel', because it's unacceptable politically in multi-cultural societies, and have re-assigned what it means to the politically correct word 'atheist'. And this recent redefinition of the word 'atheism', in Christian circles, might have confused you and Sarkus and swivel and the writer of that wikipedia's article. Nonetheless, the term 'atheism' means exactly and precisely 'the belief that there is no God', regardless of what the preachers say about it. Your 'weak atheists', therefore, should be re-classified as 'agnostics'.
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/e_haldeman-julius/meaning_of_atheism.html
You said above that it takes only one 'supernatural phenomenon' to make a theist out of you! But what could the 'supernatural phenomenon' be? Is it a Biblical miracle? For instance, can 'walking on water' convince you? Is the 'burning bush' enough? Are the receding waters of the Red Sea supernatural? Or do you mean 'resurrecting the dead' is the miraculous one? Well, if it takes only the rise of one dead person to convince you, then you are not, really, an atheist, not even a 'weaker' one; am I right?
Is theology 'by default to quit trying to explain the origin of the Universe, the origin of life, and dictating the moral code'? Clearly, you're implying here that the opposite is true & my statement that 'empirical evidence plays no role in theology' is nonsense; correct? Well, unlike the definition of atheism, I have, in this case, the unequivocal support of Prince_James; and I just can't lose! Since it's very clear that no empirical evidence could ever be supplied and advanced and put forwards regarding the origin of the Universe & the origin of life & the construction of the moral code. And that is because all of them are history, now, and their scenarios can only be mentally re-constructed and speculated about and nothing more.
Also, it is not a canard. The burden of disproof is, indeed, on the shoulders of the challenging atheists. Consider this! Theists have been around for thousands of years. Their hypothesis is very conventional. And they are very much in the majority. With credentials like these, they don't have to prove anything. The situation, here, is very similar to eating monkeys in the Rain Forest! Do you think that you can convince some tribe of the Rain Forest; it's very unhealthy to eat monkeys, by merely asking for evidence to the contrary? I think not! If you want to convince those tribesmen, you have, first, to disprove their conventional belief that monkey meat is healthy and very delicious. Otherwise, they just continue to consume it despite their lack of evidence. There can be no doubt about it.
Wait a minute; we still have a major disagreement, here! First of all, no belief system could have possibly led to the invention of airplanes by the time of Christ. And that is because technological inventions have one and only one driving force; and that driving force is called 'capitalism'. It's absolutely impossible for airplanes to be invented anywhere, except in a capitalistic society; and not just any capitalistic society, but a capitalistic society with a lot of money to spare! The same applies to all other modern inventions.
Also, Aristotle's objectivism' was proven, during the time of Galileo, to be an obstacle to progress of science. Only when the empirical approach of Aristotle was successfully combined with the mathematical approach of Plato & Archimedes did physics and astronomy and other sciences advance and move forwards to where they are today. Moreover, Plato was not a mystic, but mathematical idealist:
http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-464109/Plato
And so it might be the case that you're referring to the mystic and the Gnostic philosopher of Alexandria, Plotinus. This neo-Platonist of the Hellenistic Era was, indeed, mystic and superstitious:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plotinus/
Last edited:
Indeed!
Consider this! Your plane crash lands on an island. The inhabitants of that island tell you all about the great invisible leprechaun that they believe in and worship. You lack a belief in this great invisible leprechaun that they believe in and yet they keep lumping it on you, telling you that the great invisible leprechaun is in fact there and if you don't want an eternity of pain you must also believe in it. You, as a person that lacks belief in this great invisible leprechaun naturally start asking some questions:
"If it's invisible how does anyone know it's there?" (etc)
They give an answer, well.. more to the point, they all give a different answer. They give you a book to read that is full of contradiction and error, well.. more to the point, they give you 50 different versions of that book.
Are you saying that you should believe in this great invisible leprechaun until you can prove it doesn't exist? That's utter foolishness!! There can be no doubt about it!! (exclamation marks added for impact).
You are one person alone among many. Every single person minus you believes in this great invisible leprechaun. Would you just believe in it because everyone else does or would you question it because that belief is an alien concept to you?
the high school drop out is situated on his platform of knowledge and understanding due to applying the identical general principleSorry I won't suspend REASON for delusion!!
This is redundant argument, it has been refuted, debunked, yet you continue to use it, it has been shown to you of it's flaws, yet you continue to come again and again with the same crap, can't you think outside the hole you have dug yourself in? Thus the "highschool" analogy brought SL's analogy of Lenny the Leprechaun to refute your stance, on this flawed, and debunked argument. Please face the reality of it's failure, your beginning to annoy people with the same crap!
Hello Lote-Tree;
Yes; that is true.
The truth stands on its own regardless of anything else.
But the point, here, is that a widespread belief cannot be
put out of business by lack of evidence. And it would be unrealistic
and lazy, on the part of the atheists, to think that they can
do away with theism by merely asking their fellow theists to
prove it.
Hi SnakeLord;
From where you've gotten the idea that I would believe
in the 'invisible leprechaun', until I have my disproof of it
developed & crystallized?
However, your 'crash-landing' Scenario is, undoubtedly,
among the worst cases possible. Above all, it would be
extremely ungrateful & foolish & even suicidal, on my part,
to start questioning the 'invisible leprechaun' belief of those
very hospitable and friendly people, immediately, after that
horrible crash-landing on their island.
As long as this 'invisible leprechaun' does not require a human
sacrifice of strangers on its altar, I should keep smiling and
flattering and praising very highly this supposed deity of theirs.
It's a survival strategy, you know!
Not only that, but the temptation of telling miracles and
imaginary stories, here, is overwhelming. Would you imagine
the rewards of telling those islanders that their 'invisible
leprechaun' saved you and guided you to their island and
prophesied that you shall marry their most beautiful princess?
But this game is very risky, because the 'invisible leprechaun'
must have official priests; and of course, priests everywhere
are most of the time quite cynical and smart; right?
AAF:
Well spoken.
Well spoken.
I haven't gotten the idea that you would believe in anything, the point was that if you were subject to someone elses belief that you lacked belief in, it wouldn't matter how many others believed in that thing or how many years they had believed in that thing. What remains is that to get you to believe in the leprechauns that they believe in, the onus is on them, not you.
All I actually did was reverse what you had said but with a more pertinent analogy. The best argument you could muster was that they had 'believed for thousands of years and were in the majority' which is meaningless to someone that lacks that belief. We could argue all day long, I could impress you with tales of leprechauns but if I were to try and get you to believe in those leprechauns the onus would be on me to support that claim with something substantial to you, the unbeliever. You claim the burden is on the atheist. Simply put, you're wrong.
All due respect but it was a tad better than your monkey brain scenario.
Disrespect, foolishness, ungratefulness etc are irrelevant to your lack of belief - and if they want you to believe as they do the onus is on them - absolutely smegging regardless to how long they have believed it and how many of them there are.
Oh praise the weakness of man.
It would be lazy and inaccurate on the part of anyone to think that atheists intend to do away with theism when they ask theists to
its amazing
everytime I bring up the high school drop out analogy all the opponents can do is let go with a gastric release of ad homs
as for the lenny thing, what makes it stand aside from the claims of both physicists and theists is that it is simply a claim (as opposed to a claim that comes with a process that enables direct perception)
- Status