Scientists discover that atheists might not exist, and that’s not a joke

Status
Not open for further replies.
Coffee break

Time out


Let the debate continue on this 6 minute video

1 cartoon atheist against a small crowd of theist who can't get it together

:)
 
Musika said:
I asked whether you thought the solar system model was self organized. You responded by talking about how the solar system is self organized. I simply responded in turn, guessing why you chose to answer in such an obtuse manner.
Click to expand...
I clearly answered your question. Do I really need to repeat myself? I showed you how an aspect of the universe functions and you come to me with a question about a poorly constructed non-functional plastic toy?

C'mon Musika, you can do better than that, I hope. Else this entire discussion has been a waste of my time. There is nothing in your posits that has peaked my interest in the least. Boring!
 
Write4U said:
I clearly answered your question. Do I really need to repeat myself? I showed you how an aspect of the universe functions and you come to me with a question about a poorly constructed non-functional plastic toy?

C'mon Musika, you can do better than that, I hope. Else this entire discussion has been a waste of my time. There is nothing in your posits that has peaked my interest in the least. Boring!
Click to expand...
You still haven't properly explained why a model must necessarily have a creator. So far as I can gather, all you can muster is that the model is not sufficiently complex to warrant not having a creator .... which is kind of a strange position .... It just raises the question of precisely where on the slippery slope you draw the line regarding "sentience must necessarily be more stupid in designing things than an absence of sentience"
 
Capracus said:
No, atheists like theists are human beings who have the desire to congregate in fellowship with the goal of trying to improve the condition of their societies.
Click to expand...

Why do humans need to congregate to improve their societies?
There are enough activoties where humans congregate in fellowship (the pub, sports, Facebook, schools, colleges, universities, fashion shows, etc.) . Why the need to start a church, which is traditionally a place of worship of God?

Also, why are atheist churches a recent phenomenon?

Jan.
 
Write4U said:
Rubbish.
The explanation and simple definition of a Divine Being named God gets curioser and curioser.
Click to expand...

"God" isn't the name of God. It is a designation.
Maybe you should learn some more about God, even if you think God is fictional.

What gets curiouser and curiouser, is you denial and rejection, which prevents any kind of comprehension.

It reminds me of a verse from the Bhagavad Gita...

... I am seated in everyone's heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness. By all the Vedas am I to be known; indeed I am the compiler of Vedānta, and I am the knower of the Vedas.

Isn't God merciful. He grants forgetfulness to any living entity that desires it.

If we look at the Bible verse, "The fool says in his heart, there is no God" , it kind of puts it into perspective.

When one forgets something, the thing they forget, temporarily does not exist as long as one is in forgetful mode. It is only when one remembers, that thing comes into focus.

Jan.
 
Musika said:
Because it doesn't make sense to believe otherwise.
If I presented you with a model of the solar system or even a teacup and tried to convince you that it wasn't created by anyone, you would never believe me ... yet an atheist would have us believe that is the case for the universe and everything within it.
Click to expand...
Not that an entity of sufficient capability could not have created a solar system, galaxy, or universe, but then you have to account for the creation of the entity itself. Like their creations, entities exist as processes. So whatever drives the process, also drives the entity and their creations. Humans like all life on earth are processes, that beget other processes, and so on and so on. That appears to be the nature of the universe we inhabit. So at whatever level you want to imply the existence of creator, there will be another process that precedes it. In the case of a human being it’s biology, in the case of a Swiss watch it’s a Chinese watchmaker. In the case of your imagined god? or our universe? Who knows which would be the cause of the other.
 
Musika said:
You still haven't properly explained why a model must necessarily have a creator. So far as I can gather, all you can muster is that the model is not sufficiently complex to warrant not having a creator .... which is kind of a strange position .... It just raises the question of precisely where on the slippery slope you draw the line regarding "sentience must necessarily be more stupid in designing things than an absence of sentience"
Click to expand...
Boring!!!
 
Jan Ardena said:
"God" isn't the name of God. It is a designation.
Click to expand...
At last, we have a true qualifier.
Now can you explain what you mean by that and how that relates to your world view?

p.s. What makes you think I don't know your God? You think I reject God from ignorance?

Apparently you do not understand true humility. All I see is hubris and prejudice. :frown:

Personally I like the philosophy of Khalil Gibran. IMO, The Prophet is a timeless philosophic masterpiece.
In truth, The Prophet is a work of such universal appeal that there is little to be gained from speculating on the identity of persons or places represented in it. For Gibran's purpose was a lofty one, and his belief in the 'unity of being', which led him to call for universal fellowship and the unification of the human race, is a message which retains its potency today as do the messages of all great poets.
Click to expand...
Inspired by his experiences in a country far from the land of his origins, he strove to resolve cultural and human conflict, in the process developing a unique genre of writing, and transcending the barriers of East and West as few have done before or since. He became not only Gibran of Lebanon, but Gibran of America, indeed Gibran the voice of global consciousness: a voice which increasingly demands to be heard in the continuing Age of Anxiety.
Click to expand...
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Prophet
 
Last edited:
Write4U said:
At last, we have a true qualifier.
Now can you explain what you mean by that and how that relates to your world view?
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "true qualifier"?
Do you call everybody you know, or even don't know, human?
How does calling other people by their name, relate to you your world view?

Write4U said:
p.s. What makes you think I don't know your God? You think I reject God from ignorance?
Click to expand...

Because you are human you know God, but you have forgotten. You have forgotten because you wanted to. You cannot know anything you have forgotten, until you remember.

Write4U said:
Apparently you do not understand true humility. All I see is hubris and prejudice.
Click to expand...

What a pointless statement. :rolleyes:

Jan.
 
Capracus said:
Not that an entity of sufficient capability could not have created a solar system, galaxy, or universe, but then you have to account for the creation of the entity itself. Like their creations, entities exist as processes. So whatever drives the process, also drives the entity and their creations. Humans like all life on earth are processes, that beget other processes, and so on and so on. That appears to be the nature of the universe we inhabit. So at whatever level you want to imply the existence of creator, there will be another process that precedes it. In the case of a human being it’s biology, in the case of a Swiss watch it’s a Chinese watchmaker. In the case of your imagined god? or our universe? Who knows which would be the cause of the other.
Click to expand...
This seems to be approaching some form of begging the question (at least until the end where you say "your imagined form of god" .... at which point it becomes fully fledged begging of the question) .... Whether (unaided) biological and/or physical processes alone are sufficient to be ultimate causes of life or not is precisely the contentious realm of the problem at hand.
IOW to say any and all forms of sentience must take a biological form and thus assume a position in the due course of cause and effect presupposes a bunch of (unevidenced theoretical) things about the nature of life and consciousness and the universe it appears in .... just to be clear, its obvious that we are not the consciousness responsible for causing this phenomenal world, so its poor form to utilize the experience of the unlimitedly limited (ie, us) as some sort of yardstick to gauge the unlimitedly unlimited (ie God).
 
Jan Ardena said:
"God" isn't the name of God. It is a designation.
Maybe you should learn some more about God, even if you think God is fictional.

What gets curiouser and curiouser, is you denial and rejection, which prevents any kind of comprehension.

It reminds me of a verse from the Bhagavad Gita...

... I am seated in everyone's heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness. By all the Vedas am I to be known; indeed I am the compiler of Vedānta, and I am the knower of the Vedas.

Isn't God merciful. He grants forgetfulness to any living entity that desires it.

If we look at the Bible verse, "The fool says in his heart, there is no God" , it kind of puts it into perspective.

When one forgets something, the thing they forget, temporarily does not exist as long as one is in forgetful mode. It is only when one remembers, that thing comes into focus.

Jan.
Click to expand...
For me it brought to mind a different verse :

Some look on the soul as amazing, some describe him as amazing, and some hear of him as amazing, while others, even after hearing about him, cannot understand him at all.

o_O
 
Musika,

I hear you.

As long as we're discussing the 2nd verse, I have to quote one that resonated with me instantly...

As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. A sober person is not bewildered by such a change.

Jan.
 
Write4U said:
Unfortunately they insist we must accept that which they do not know exists.
Click to expand...

Who insists?
You're an atheist, which means you currently cannot accept God. The acceptance can only come from you, just as your non-acceptance does.

Jan.
 
Last edited:
Jan Ardena said:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
Jan.
Click to expand...
Isn't it amazing how wave functions can be causal to self-organizing coherent patterns from chaos?!

The Word (causality) you are looking for is "de Broglie-Bohm Pilot Wave"
The de Broglie–Bohm theory, also known as the pilot wave theory, Bohmian mechanics, Bohm's interpretation, and the causal interpretation, is an interpretation of quantum mechanics. In addition to a wavefunction on the space of all possible configurations, it also postulates an actual configuration that exists even when unobserved. The evolution over time of the configuration (that is, the positions of all particles or the configuration of all fields) is defined by the wave function by a guiding equation. The evolution of the wave function over time is given by the Schrödinger equation. The theory is named after Louis de Broglie (1892–1987) and David Bohm (1917–1992).
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Broglie–Bohm_theory

Your problem is that a Word without definition has no meaning. The word God has no defined meaning other than that it is a word and therefore is meaningless.
 
Last edited:
Jan Ardena said:
How does calling other people by their name, relate to you your world view?
Click to expand...
Their actual existence is physically verifiable. Those are "controlled hallucinations".
Some people see non-existent nameless ghosts. Then it's called an "uncontrolled hallucination" (Anil Seth).
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top