In regards to atheism.

[Michael 345]

I came up with a design for a new automobile, it exists in spirit or as information.

I came up with a design for a new automobile,

good for you BUT IT (automobile)

DOES NOT EXIST

it exists in spirit or as information. << this is NOT existence

ex·ist
\ig-ˈzist\

• : to have actual being : to be real
• : to continue to be or to live

Mirriam-Webster

exist
ɪɡˈzɪst,ɛɡˈzɪst/
verb

1. 1.
   have objective reality or being.

Google

I could keep adding definetions but none would come up with spirit or information

Please post link reference if you find different

may not be aware that the idea behind the car, existed way before its physical reality.

Would not matter if they were or were not aware of the idea <<< ideas do not exist

Before there was hydrogen in the universe, it was expected form, based on the forces of nature at a given set of future conditions

Expected by whom?

God creating the universe is about spirit; information, leading matter, in time.

Cowpat

The belief in heaven and hell is information about the future, whether true to not.

Ummmm so you are contending

belief in heaven and hell is information about the future

whether true or not

So let's go with not

Prey tell if heaven and hell do not exist from whence comes the information for belief?

The remainder of the post is a mix of pretzels in a can of worms tipped into a bowl of spaghetti

Two hard to unravel

 

[Jan Ardena]

I have seen you stating it, but have yet to see you explain it. Please can you highlight where? A post number will suffice

No.

The topic is in regards to atheism. As explained, one can not separate atheism from the issue of evidence for God, and why some people see things as evidence and some do not.

That's not what atheism is.
I've posted a definition.

So it is the topic, Jan.

No it's not.
You simply don't want to go down my route, because you cannot direct or control it's outcome.

This is the position of your strawman, Jan. Try listening and actually discussing things with atheists in this thread rather than asserting your blinkered view of them from the get go.

We've already been through this.

Good grief, Jan. Does it come to this, to you trying to excuse yourself by claiming a question mark was indicating anything more than a rhetorical question?

They were questions, as evidenced by the question marks, and the testimony of the person who composed them.

Now at least pretend that you are rational, and go where the evidence leads.

Bye Sarkus.

Jan.

 

[birch]

also, society breeds and supports deception by raising children to believe the world is good when it isn't or with rose colored glasses. there is a difference between protection vs engendering notions towards false idealism. because paradoxically, being aware of the real bottomline is empowering and helps to alleviate evil and that is that the notion that most of society is good is a terrible untruth and it's not just a small fraction. children at a certain time in development should be told that many people in society have various corrupt tendencies or commited such deeds or would if upon chance opportunity. that doesn't mean they should not treat people with basic dignity but an outward act or appearance is just that. a healthy skepticism regarding humanity is a good immune system and compass because there are very few 'innocent' people and just because people may not commit offenses that would land them in prison doesn't mean they aren't manipulative to act out harm or exploit in other ways. it's important to protect while letting them know the real truth. deception and corruption grows and easily built on when people are less aware. evil is very content for people to wear veils over their eyes or be mostly hoodwinked so it can keep doing what it does under the surface where the real action takes place anyways. it's important society doesn't just doesn't define everything by the surface with pretense.

and i realized how evil paradoxically even prospers also by this idea that spreading the 'light' to all is the epitomy of spreading good. because whitewashing the world's surface does nothing but add another mask. sometimes spreading the light means rooting out the truth by acknowledgeing the uglies because when evil people feed on the light, they almost never change their real values but its utilized as an additional form of cover or tool. it uses that energy to empower themselves even more to decieve making them even better at it because it just develops their charisma. evil is never made good by receiving good, i've learned by experience, but only by accountability and shedding 'light' on who they really are. this is because the root of true evil is built from becoming spoiled rotten, entitled and narcissism so until that is addressed, feeding the monster is like feeding cancer. this is the proverbial lucifer that feeds on light to shine a false light, charisma etc but at core has contrary agenda. strangely, love/goodwill extended towards evil people just empowers evil intent even more because they feel they can further get away with it. they don't produce their own inner good because they dont want to change their values to good that would develop their light, they exploit it from others so they can have their cake and eat it too. aka cheating. nature is horrible. good can't even win for losing at it's own cost with them.

 

[Jan Ardena]

H-m-m-m-m- . . . . Jan . . . . . ever notice that the theists posting on this thread tend to use the term 'God' ( upper-case G) whereas the atheists tend to use the term 'god' (lower-case g)?

I've been through this a good number of times with them. Explained the difference between a god, and God, to no avail.
I think they cannot bring themselves to use the upper-case 'g', because in their minds, and their fellow atheists, it would look like they are respectful of God. And they can't have that (at least not in public )

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Spidergoat: You appear to be heading off into your own la-la fallacy argument, not me. I approach things a bit more objectively. For example: IF there is a viable argument for God, and He does actually exist, I simply am asking what mechanisms and processes might He utilize to create and operate His Universe and, for example, why do the measured physical constants (Dave's reference on another thread) have the values that we observe. I am not afraid to consider such out-of-the-box conjectures, or even to attempt to answer my own questions that may be outside the Standard Model norm. Asking "What if", why" and "how" are very powerful tools in ascertaining and evaluating new concepts that may have value in the quest for heretofore unknown knowledge. Another important aspect in this regard is to (dare I say?) have faith and belief in one's hypotheses until they are either borne-out, or fail the test of the Scientific Method.

This what they want. Come up with some scientific theory, or hypothesis, then waste arguing from that perspective.

When you decide not to play their game, they become quite aggressive (as you have witnessed)

Jan.

 

[spidergoat]

I've been through this a good number of times with them. Explained the difference between a god, and God, to no avail.
I think they cannot bring themselves to use the upper-case 'g', because in their minds, and their fellow atheists, it would look like they are respectful of God. And they can't have that (at least not in public )

Jan.

I'm not a bit ashamed to be disrespectful of the idea of god. In all it's common forms, it's a monster.

 

[karenmansker]

Only just finished reading a number of articles on the subject

My overall understanding of biological processes is to use energy for growth and reproduction

HOW energy is converted relies on numerous processes of which tunneling now appears to be involved

So the processes are more complex than at first thought

Are there any other claims being made in the metaphysical arena?

"Are there any other claims being made in the metaphysical arena?"
More claims? . . . . . IMO, yes there are more, but I doubt atheists want to hear them . . . . except as an arena for defensive argument

"So the processes are more complex than at first thought"
Yes . . . IMO, complexity is one aspect of the Scientific Method that is seldom recognized . . . to make reality appear more complex than it actually is . . . . often manifest as a form of self-protection and survivalism to ensure one's professional recognition (ego) and funding (job) using other people's money! (HAHA!) . . . . . . HSIRI

"HOW energy is converted relies on numerous processes of which tunneling now appears to be involved"
IMO, perhaps . . . . . but there are less complex explanations. HSIRI

 

[Michael 345]

I'm not a bit ashamed to be disrespectful of the idea of god. In all it's common forms, it's a monster.

There is another thread around here asking to list who you think are the most evil persons

Only has one on my list

The pope

I consider this person

(or more precise the office and minions)

has done more to spread

death

destruction and

suffering

while keeping millions in poverty

while living in luxury

than any other person

alive or dead

 

[karenmansker]

There is another thread around here asking to list who you think are the most evil persons

Only has one on my list

The pope

I consider this person

(or more precise the office and minions)

has done more to spread

death

destruction and

suffering

while keeping millions in poverty

while living in luxury

than any other person

alive or dead

H-m-m-m-m . . . . IMO, you are beginning to sound like a disillusioned Catholic (HAHA!)

 

[Michael 345]

"Are there any other claims being made in the metaphysical arena?"
More claims? . . . . . IMO, yes there are more, but I doubt atheists want to hear them . . . . except as an arena for defensive argument

"So the processes are more complex than at first thought"
Yes . . . IMO, complexity is one aspect of the Scientific Method that is seldom recognized . . . to make reality appear more complex than it actually is . . . . often manifest as a form of self-protection and survivalism to ensure one's professional recognition (ego) and funding (job) using other people's money! (HAHA!) . . . . . . HSIRI

"HOW energy is converted relies on numerous processes of which tunneling now appears to be involved"
IMO, perhaps . . . . . but there are less complex explanations. HSIRI

The best aspects of the scientific method it is

OPEN to everyone

NEW explanations replace old explanations if they fit the observations and evidences better

DO NOT require faith

If you are under the impression that FAITH in a god is LESS complex than

understanding scientific explanations

then you really truly do not understand science

More claims? . . . . . IMO, yes there are more, but I doubt atheists want to hear them . . . . except as an arena for defensive argument

Here is a couple of fun facts

FACTS are just that FACTS

and are neutral as to IMOs

Atheists do not have arenas to defend FACTS

FACTS stand on their own two feet

OPINIONS on the other hand may require some defending

How do you defend OPINIONS?

By producing FACTS to back your assertions

By the by the continuous use (frequently incorrectly) of IMO is tiresome

Since YOU are posting most of the participants in the thread would take it as a given it is YOUR opinion

More claims? . . . . . IMO, yes there are more,

Sample of incorrect use

You imply there are more claims as an opinion when it should be a FACT

More claims exist or do not

You do yourself and others a disservice by then not listing other claims and doubting

atheists want to hear them . . . . except as an arena for defensive argument

How condersending of you to make up our minds for us without showing us the other claims

 

[karenmansker]

The best aspects of the scientific method it is

OPEN to everyone

NEW explanations replace old explanations if they fit the observations and evidences better

DO NOT require faith

If you are under the impression that FAITH in a god is LESS complex than

understanding scientific explanations

then you really truly do not understand science

More claims? . . . . . IMO, yes there are more, but I doubt atheists want to hear them . . . . except as an arena for defensive argument

Here is a couple of fun facts

FACTS are just that FACTS

and are neutral as to IMOs

Atheists do not have arenas to defend FACTS

FACTS stand on their own two feet

OPINIONS on the other hand may require some defending

How do you defend OPINIONS?

By producing FACTS to back your assertions

By the by the continuous use (frequently incorrectly) of IMO is tiresome

Since YOU are posting most of the participants in the thread would take it as a given it is YOUR opinion

More claims? . . . . . IMO, yes there are more,

Sample of incorrect use

You imply there are more claims as an opinion when it should be a FACT

More claims exist or do not

You do yourself and others a disservice by then not listing other claims and doubting

atheists want to hear them . . . . except as an arena for defensive argument

How condersending of you to make up our minds for us without showing us the other claims

Thanks, Michael! . . . You prove my points exactly!

 

[Michael 345]

H-m-m-m-m . . . . IMO, you are beginning to sound like a disillusioned Catholic (HAHA!)

Oh god I created another bold IMO

Along with a capital HAHA

My apologies to all the other posters in the thread

I truly did not mean to do so

Having never been a catholic I'm not sure of the protocol in begging for forgiveness

Is it three hail Mary's or four?

 

[Sarkus]

No.

An honest answer for once, but no less helpful.

That's not what atheism is.
I've posted a definition.

The definition details the what, not the why. If you want to understand the atheist then you need to understand their thought processes, the whys. Are you interested in that?

No it's not.
You simply don't want to go down my route, because you cannot direct or control it's outcome.

What route? You mean the one where you just repeat ad infinitum "you are without God" or "God does not exist for you"? The one where you simply assert your strawman vision of the atheist, and insist that whether or not they accept it that they conform to your vision? The one where you don't listen to what they actually say?
You don't need this thread for that route, Jan. You and your strawman can have that conversation on your own.

We've already been through this.

Much good it ever does given that you return each time, each thread, to your strawman.

They were questions, as evidenced by the question marks, and the testimony of the person who composed them.

Whether or not they were questions (and I still doubt that they were intended as genuine questions), you put them forth as examples to be considered. As such my comment still stands: as examples they beg the question. So I ask again: do you have any examples that do not beg the question?

Now at least pretend that you are rational, and go where the evidence leads.

The evidence leads to you being a troll, to being dishonest, and with no genuine interest in discussing, but rather to wage a war that you imagine is going on, irrespective of what people actually say.

Bye Sarkus.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

[karenmansker]

In addition to the Hail Marys, your most hated person (the Pope) would likely also require a few Our Fathers . . . . but hey that's just IMO . . . you'd have to ask him directly, I suppose. But, enough off-topic banter . . . . we should try to get back on the OP topic. (ps/ I also have never been Catholic . . . .OMG! . . . we have something in common!!! HAHA!/ksm)

 

[birch]

as i mentioned before that evil is also engendered through teaching ignorance and especially bringing up children to believe that "GOD" is watching and especially protecting them as well as indoctrinating them in a belief system that everything that occurs is his will. this disempowers them through naivetey and sets them up to be victims or deluded about how nature really works. it grooms victimhood as well as unrealistic reasoning. You see god's beautiful creation? everything is in order and as it should be. this is their schpiel. the difference with religion is it takes power away from people by believing god is in control of their lives as well as those religous psycopaths who believe they are the hand of god/like god. because they can exercise it against the vulnerable, how can they be wrong? well, according to nature they aren't wrong technically or ethically because nature is amoral but the god part just makes it even more obscene/perverted because people (even victims) tend to believe god created and loves them, looking out for them etc. and god really IS NOT which they can breakdown or have existential confusion over it. GOD is not trustworthy because it is absent or corrupt or nonexistent. religion fosters that one should give up trust in oneself (their inner compass/knowing/sense of direction etc) to some imagined entity which only makes people vulnerable to those who may be religious on the outside but know better in the inside and take control/advantage of them.

Con artists love people that see only the good in everything. They exist both in and out of church/religious affiliation.

One of the better new age philosophies, rather than orthodox, is just based on spirituality and that god exists 'within' all life rather than without. this is more, at least, respectful of the individual and their right to life, rather than demanding objective subjugation to a higher unquestioned authority, even at it's own expense or even demise.

the evil of religion is the idea of blind faith and trust. anything that asks for blind faith and trust is non-trustworthy. The most successful of religious people though know/aware of this and are really directing their own lives based on their own drives/nature/wishes/self-preservation attributing it to a god outside of them.

 

[Michael 345]

https://www.quora.com/How-do-I-mock-atheists-1

Ken Creten

A man answers the door and sees two suited gentlemen outside the door. They look sort of religious.

One of the men in suits hands the man a pamphlet. The man takes the pamphlet, flips through it and says, “there’s nothing in here, the pages are blank.”

One of the suited gentlemen says, “we’re atheists.”

Quora

Will post this in jokes thread

Just to sweet to pass up

 

[Jan Ardena]

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Yes, don't let it.
See ya!

Jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

The definition details the what, not the why. If you want to understand the atheist then you need to understand their thought processes, the whys. Are you interested in that?

Yes I am interested in that.
What's your point?

What route? You mean the one where you just repeat ad infinitum "you are without God" or "God does not exist for you"?

This is part of your thought process. Isn't it?

Whether or not they were questions (and I still doubt that they were intended as genuine questions), you put them forth as examples to be considered. As such my comment still stands: as examples they beg the question. So I ask again: do you have any examples that do not beg the question?

They were questions. As is this one...

... Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Yes I am interested in that.
What's your point?

"I prefer to keep it to this definition, as I don't believe that the question of God's existence is even present. At least not in this thread anyways." (#1660)
"That is for a discussion regarding God's existence, which this thread is not." (#1665)
"We don't need to go back through this existence thing. It has been done to death, and to no avail. So if you want to discuss God's "existence", be my guest. But it is one roller-coaster ride I will not be attending." (#1669)
"In this thread it doesn't matter what regard as evidence for God, because that is not the topic." (#1697)
(parts bolded by me for highlighting).

Yet now you say you are interested in the matter of why, yet you refuse to actually address the issue at the core of the why: the evidence.
So make up your mind. Atheists are telling you that the evidence (or lack of what they see as convincing evidence) is their why. You ignore them.
You and honest discussion really don't go hand in hand, do they?

This is part of your thought process. Isn't it?

No, it's part of your strawman's thought process, as explained many times in this thread.

They were questions. As is this one...

... Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

So you again confirm that you have zero interest in honest discussion, and instead you're here just to nosedive threads into the mire.

Begone, troll.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Yet now you say you are interested in the matter of why, yet you refuse to actually address the issue at the core of the why: the evidence.

So make up your mind. Atheists are telling you that the evidence (or lack of what they see as convincing evidence) is their why. You ignore them.
You and honest discussion really don't go hand in hand, do they?

Where have I ignored it?

If you have a lack of evidence for God, you must have some idea of what would be classed as evidence. But you don't.
If you don't have any idea, then as far as you're aware, God does not exist, even if you are open minded about God. This is the reason why you are atheist, and I don't need to talk to you to come to that conclusion.

Of course you can argue that maybe God doesn't exist, and theists are some how delusional, or simply lying to themselves. But that is based on your position which holds that there is no evidence for God, because you cannot currently comprehend God. Which is why I state that you can only go as far as atheism.

No, it's part of your strawman's thought process, as explained many times in this thread.

It's your mind that is processing that thought.

So you again confirm that you have zero interest in honest discussion, and instead you're here just to nosedive threads into the mire.

Nosedive the thread into the mire? Are you kidding me.
It's the most interesting thread in this forum, IMO.

Jan.