The joys of life without God

[Enterprise-D]

Well, it seems some of you will be fuel for satans bar-b-que.
have fun with that.
so many people like to tie GOD to religion.
religion is about GOD..
GOD, is not about religion.
every religion on earth could be completely wrong, and there could still very well be a GOD....
you can argue a million ways against GOD... and if your right.. you win nothing.
if your wrong... you win the fires of hell.
good luck.
-MT

SUPERLUMINAL STEAKS.
-MT

Someone has had a deep phobia drilled into him..."satan's bar-b-que" indeed.

 

[superluminal]

either that or you don't understand what I posted

lets take this back a step by asking you a q

How does a lemon tree produce citric acid?

What an idiot. Whatever you do, don't answer him. The answer is simple. The ultimate cause of everything is consciousness and/or a mysterious unknown (consciousness).

 

[superluminal]

There is room for ironing out details in religion
-For instance god is accepted as the creator of the universe - how he created, why he created etc etc are all details

Only if you are a highschool dropout.

And such an idea that god created the universe does not inhibit empirical scientific investigation -

Except for highschool dropouts.

Inother words science with out a sense of the absolute is a waste of time - this is what I think is the essence of einsteins quote.

Holy shit. Only a highschool dropout could be this confused.

If you neglect that you are left with an absurd picture of working in a system that has scale but not size

Just what the hell does that mean, in highschool dropout-ese?

 

[lightgigantic]

What an idiot. Whatever you do, don't answer him. The answer is simple. The ultimate cause of everything is consciousness and/or a mysterious unknown (consciousness).

So I am idiot if I don't explain my answers and I am an idiot if I do?

And on top of this you insist that my questions not be answered?


Actually this analogy doesn't take that path

It is more to do with the inconceivable potency of a living entity, visible even in a lemon tree.

Of course you probably don't understand exactly what I am referring to, hence the reason for an analogy

And if you insist on remaining on the emmotional plaform you probably won't be able to venture beyond th e point of imagining you know what I am talking about - which kind of raises the question why you would want to post here in the first place

 

[lightgigantic]

Superluminal

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
There is room for ironing out details in religion
-For instance god is accepted as the creator of the universe - how he created, why he created etc etc are all details ”


Only if you are a highschool dropout.

Its not my idea - it as idea advocated by numerous scientists and philosophers who have a large backlog of credentials - BTW what are your credentials, apart from being hot-headed?

“ And such an idea that god created the universe does not inhibit empirical scientific investigation - ”


Except for highschool dropouts.

What are you trying to do?
Charm me with your charisma?

“ Inother words science with out a sense of the absolute is a waste of time - this is what I think is the essence of einsteins quote. ”


Holy shit. Only a highschool dropout could be this confused.

You might want to reassess your academic qualifications by looking at th e unified field theory , which was the unfinished work of einstein that left him greatly puzzled

“ If you neglect that you are left with an absurd picture of working in a system that has scale but not size ”


Just what the hell does that mean, in highschool dropout-ese?

For someone who is very confident in their knowledge it seems to fail you at critical times

 

[Godless]

Well that settles it then. LG is a highschoold drop out

 

[lightgigantic]

Well that settles it then. LG is a highschoold drop out

I guess when you run out of arguments you just attack the person to avoid looking stupid

-unfortunately the guise rarely works

 

[Godless]

I don't choose to argue with you light, cause you have no argument at all, I don't choose to participate much with your mindless bs, cause you don't offer anything of substance.

Really check this shit out:

Its not my idea - it as idea advocated by numerous scientists and philosophers who have a large backlog of credentials

From your many, many posts, you always commit this, it's called "Appeal to authority" yet in this case you don't even mention the "numerous philosophers or scientists" this is what I call one of you main weaknesses in argument, you constantly appeal to authorative figures.

This says nothing about the universal intelligence of the universe

Have you presented emperical evidence that there is such a thing as "universal intelligence" show the evidence. Where or whom would you use to suit your claim as an authorative figure, that says there is such phenomena? Present the evidence, who said there's such a thing as "universal intellegence, and what is their evidence?"

einstein had reservations about the instituitions of religion but he clearly attributed some transcendent inteligence to the universe

Present the evidence. To my understanding Eistein is an appeal to authorative figure, and furthermore, I truly think he mentioned many, many times he didn't believe in any personal god.

its just a response to your claims that having a conviction about the nature of god indicates one is outof touch with the material reality - on the contrary there are numerous examples of scientific and philosophical persons who's conviction of a transcendant intelligence is strengthened by their material investigations

Again appeal to authorative figures, and to my understanding there are way more people who after rigorous scientific study either become atheists, or agnostic at best, cause what they believe totally contradicts what they have learned with scriptures or their mysticism.

Godless

 

[Satyr]

Godless, shame on you.
He’s simply using a well known method of judging reality.

I’ve learned and now I copy his greatness.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=57766

 

[Bells]

You say god is an imagniation.
I say god is not.

Did I? I merely said that there is no god. You say there is. You might imagine god and what god might look like, but I do not. One cannot imagine about something that is not there.

If you cannot progres beyond this stalemate I guess the only option is for us both to eventualy die and find out which axiom holds out

Interesting. The way you worded this would indicate that you have progressed to my side of the fence, when in truth you have not. As to holding out to our deaths. You just do that. In all honesty I have better things to do than to imagine my not going 'ner ner' when I die and simply cease to exist in every sense of the word.

Basically you are expressing your impossibility to operate out of an alternative view point - which is fine - I certainly won't lose any sleep over your convictions, and god certainly is not increased or diminished regardless which way you go

Oh I was raised a Catholic. I have seen what is on the other side. And I simply did not buy it.. even as a small child. By the time I entered my teens I'd realised god simply did not exist and I continued to live my life.

You seem to be saying that authorities that are not directly perceivable (see, touch, smell etc) are not actually authorities on the strength of their nonexistence, even if there is a body of propaganda or media to suggest that they do exist (as in the case of scripture or verifications by saintly people)
So my question to you is, if you have not directly seen (TV and media is a re-presentation), touched or licked th e president of america, does the president of america exist and does his powers of authority bear result.
Also on top of this, if you sent an ultimatum to the prseident ("Come here so I can see, touch and lick you) what do you think would be the response?

Ah but you see I know the authorities exist. I can go out and see them whenever I choose to. I can pick up a legislation and see, read, lick, smell, etc, in all its glory. As for George Bush. I really would rather not. I find the man to be repulsive. Do I think Bush exists? Yes. In light of the fact that I have never seen him in person, touched, etc, him, do I think he does not exist? No. When I watch a movie and I see a representation of god in said movie as being an old man with white beard for example. Do I then think god exists because of this representation? No. That character in a movie is a representation. An image of Bush striding like a demented rooster down the lawn of the White House, for example, is not a representation but an image of a real person captured on film with which to terrorise the populace.

because now you are acknowledging the minds of others - so this vision of respecting the minds of others goes as far to entities that we perceive in our field of activities - since you readily admit that your perception does not innvolve god, it is understandable why don't work under the paradigm of god's authority - what this tells us nothing about is your level of perception - for instance a person, due to some mental impairment can be totaly oblivious to the existence of social authorities (for instance they go around with no clothes on - which will affect other peoples minds but not their own because they don't take into account other people).

So now you view my not believing in god as being similar to someone with a mental impairment not believing that authorities exist? Right..

On top of this there are very good reasons and clear scriptural statements why it is that god is not perceptable to everyone in the fashion that you demand he be. (just like there are very good reasons why everyone cannot directly perceive electrons and other branches of subtle knowledge).

Clear scriptural statements from whom exactly? You mean the other believers who can't see him but just "know" he is there, so have written about why he can't be seen.. for others such as yourself to believe and tell others of why he can't be seen.. etc.. kind of a vicious circle is it not? I am reminded of a South Park episode where they were making fun of Mormons and Joseph Smith sticking some stones in a top hat and sticking his face into the hat and reading what god had written on the stone. Of course he was the only one who could read the stones in the hat... dum de dum dum dum..

I do not demand that he be perceptable. For me to demand such a thing would mean that I did believe that he existed and wanted to see proof for myself of said existence. I cannot demand to see something that simply does not exist.

So obviously you are applying an epistemological principle here so please tell us what it is.

I am? I am merely saying god does not exist. You are saying he does. I am not trying to investigate whether god does exist or not.

If you insist on a discussion based on a battle of wills I honestly don't kow what your proposal is, except that we both lead our lives as we want until we both drop dead and then see who laughs last

I'm guessing the one who laughs last will be the one who's still standing when the other keels over.

It was a subtle way of indicating that your attitude prevents you from perceiving the evidence, just like the attitude of a high school drop out prevents them from perceiving an electron

I think he was trying to point out that faith is not evidence. You can run around the issue as much as you wish, but if you are unable to answer the question, just say so.

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't choose to argue with you light, cause you have no argument at all, I don't choose to participate much with your mindless bs, cause you don't offer anything of substance.

Really check this shit out:


“ Its not my idea - it as idea advocated by numerous scientists and philosophers who have a large backlog of credentials ”



From your many, many posts, you always commit this, it's called "Appeal to authority" yet in this case you don't even mention the "numerous philosophers or scientists" this is what I call one of you main weaknesses in argument, you constantly appeal to authorative figures.

I would have thought that a person even half familiar with philosophy would not require names - its quite obvious on even a cursory glance of philosophy, even if you want to just for the sake of argument look at only the past 200 years of western philsophy, that many worked out of paradigms that innvolved transcendental notions.
If you require more evidence just check out wikipedia for a quick education.
As for scientists if you examine them ,which I am sure that you haven't and probably won't, there are many , just to call a few off the top of my head there is Planck, Max Born, E Schrodinger, townes, eccles, einstein, P Lauterbur, Penrose, w Arber, george wald, M denton, fred hoyle, oppenheimer, Eugene Wigner, A Schawlow - all who have given credibility to something beyond matter heading in the direction of transcendental intelligence.

And I refer to this authority because superliminial suggests that only a high school drop out gives credibility to the notion of god - obviously such statements are emmotional because they certainly don't tally with the body of science and philosophy, either in its history or current station.

“ This says nothing about the universal intelligence of the universe ”



Have you presented emperical evidence that there is such a thing as "universal intelligence" show the evidence. Where or whom would you use to suit your claim as an authorative figure, that says there is such phenomena? Present the evidence, who said there's such a thing as "universal intellegence, and what is their evidence?"

Not to provide an exhaustive list but here is a tip of the iceberg

"in my search for the secret of life, I ended up with atoms and electrons which have no life at all. Somewhere along the line, life has run out through my fingers. So , in my old age, I am now retracing my steps " Szent Gyorgyi

"the results of the scientific search in which, during several decades, I have taken a small part, ... leads unavoidably back to those eternal questions which go under the title of metaphysics" - Max Born

"It is premature to reduce the vital process to the quite insufficiently developed conception of 19th and even 20th century chemistry and physics" Louis de Broglie

"I maintain that the human mystery is incredibly demeaned by scientific reductionism, with its claim in prmissory materialism to account eventually for all teh spiritual world in term sof patterns of neuronal activity. This belief must be classed as a superstition ... we have to recognize that we are spiritual beings with souls existing in a spiritual world as well as material beings with bodies and brains existing in the material world " - Eccles

"We really don't know what the Earth was like three or four billion years ago. So there are all sorts of theories and speculations. The major uncertainty concerns what the atmosphere was like. This is a major area of dispute" Stanley Miller

"there are several tenable theories about the origin of organic material on the primitive earth, but in no case is the supporting evidence compelling" Leslie Orgel

"At present, the gap from the primal soup to the first RNA system capable of natural selection looks forbiddingly wide" - Francis Crick

"The legal issue of responsibility seems to imply that there is indeed within each of us, some kind of an independant self with its own responsibilities - and by implications, rights - whose actions are not attributable to inheritance or chance" - Penrose

"thought processes as well as consciousness are the primary concepts, ... our knowledge of the external world is the content of our consciousness, and this consciousness cannot therefore be denied" Wigner

“ einstein had reservations about the instituitions of religion but he clearly attributed some transcendent inteligence to the universe ”



Present the evidence. To my understanding Eistein is an appeal to authorative figure, and furthermore, I truly think he mentioned many, many times he didn't believe in any personal god.

I agree he didn't mention a personal god - put he did refer to a pantheistic one - as to why I would belabour presenting the views of a scientist, such as einstein, is to question the general sentiment that only foolish people who are ignorant of science say there is intelligence within universal creation - on the contrary many foundational figures of contemporary science outwardly disagree or see severe limitations from exercising such a view.

“ its just a response to your claims that having a conviction about the nature of god indicates one is outof touch with the material reality - on the contrary there are numerous examples of scientific and philosophical persons who's conviction of a transcendant intelligence is strengthened by their material investigations ”



Again appeal to authorative figures, and to my understanding there are way more people who after rigorous scientific study either become atheists, or agnostic at best, cause what they believe totally contradicts what they have learned with scriptures or their mysticism.

Godless

mysticism is not the question here - the question is whether life owes its origins to consciousness or whether consciousness is a material phenomena - this is teh crux of the whole ID/Molecular evolution debate, which is essentially what this opening thread was addressing

 

[lightgigantic]

Bells

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic

You say god is an imagniation.
I say god is not.
”


Did I? I merely said that there is no god. You say there is. You might imagine god and what god might look like, but I do not. One cannot imagine about something that is not there.

So I say "God is not an imagination"
How do you respond to that?

“ You seem to be saying that authorities that are not directly perceivable (see, touch, smell etc) are not actually authorities on the strength of their nonexistence, even if there is a body of propaganda or media to suggest that they do exist (as in the case of scripture or verifications by saintly people)
So my question to you is, if you have not directly seen (TV and media is a re-presentation), touched or licked th e president of america, does the president of america exist and does his powers of authority bear result.
Also on top of this, if you sent an ultimatum to the prseident ("Come here so I can see, touch and lick you) what do you think would be the response? ”


Ah but you see I know the authorities exist. I can go out and see them whenever I choose to.

On the contrary - no you cannot - you could not even get past the first of mr bushes 10 000 secretaries

I can pick up a legislation and see, read, lick, smell, etc, in all its glory.

You can do the same with a bible too

As for George Bush. I really would rather not. I find the man to be repulsive. Do I think Bush exists? Yes. In light of the fact that I have never seen him in person, touched, etc, him, do I think he does not exist? No. When I watch a movie and I see a representation of god in said movie as being an old man with white beard for example. Do I then think god exists because of this representation? No.

Actually in christianity they have no concept of a personal god - although such a personality is indirectly inferred - in other words I would challenge whether the old figure "god" is a proper representation of a god who is supposed to be eternal and omnipotent

That character in a movie is a representation. An image of Bush striding like a demented rooster down the lawn of the White House, for example, is not a representation but an image of a real person captured on film with which to terrorise the populace.

But still - you haven't directly seen bush - it could be a computer animation

“ because now you are acknowledging the minds of others - so this vision of respecting the minds of others goes as far to entities that we perceive in our field of activities - since you readily admit that your perception does not innvolve god, it is understandable why don't work under the paradigm of god's authority - what this tells us nothing about is your level of perception - for instance a person, due to some mental impairment can be totaly oblivious to the existence of social authorities (for instance they go around with no clothes on - which will affect other peoples minds but not their own because they don't take into account other people). ”


So now you view my not believing in god as being similar to someone with a mental impairment not believing that authorities exist? Right..

mental impairment was just an analogy - I would say it definitely indicates an impaired vision though - just to say you cannot see something is not a solid statement unless you can also validate that your seeing is valid (for instancethere are numerous arguments given why subtle knowledge cannot be perceived by everyone, what to speak of god)

“ On top of this there are very good reasons and clear scriptural statements why it is that god is not perceptable to everyone in the fashion that you demand he be. (just like there are very good reasons why everyone cannot directly perceive electrons and other branches of subtle knowledge). ”


Clear scriptural statements from whom exactly? You mean the other believers who can't see him but just "know" he is there, so have written about why he can't be seen..

No - I mean persons who have actually attested to direct perception of god - not to say that anyone who ever attested something of this nature is true

for others such as yourself to believe and tell others of why he can't be seen.. etc.. kind of a vicious circle is it not?

Well what is the basis for you having not seen god "I was dragged to church, hating every second of it and I didn't see god" - you would have to establish how being dragged to church against one's will is the process that god (or jesus, god's pure representative in the case of the xtians) advocates for coming to understand him

“ So obviously you are applying an epistemological principle here so please tell us what it is. ”


I am? I am merely saying god does not exist. You are saying he does. I am not trying to investigate whether god does exist or not.

Ok fine - then why the hell are you parading around a religion forum if thats the message you want to promote - I would have thought that a person who sincerely thought like that would have better things to do with their time



“ If you insist on a discussion based on a battle of wills I honestly don't kow what your proposal is, except that we both lead our lives as we want until we both drop dead and then see who laughs last ”


I'm guessing the one who laughs last will be the one who's still standing when the other keels over.


“ It was a subtle way of indicating that your attitude prevents you from perceiving the evidence, just like the attitude of a high school drop out prevents them from perceiving an electron ”


I think he was trying to point out that faith is not evidence. You can run around the issue as much as you wish, but if you are unable to answer the question, just say so.

 

[Bells]

So I say "God is not an imagination"
How do you respond to that?

Then more power to you. If you thought god was an imagination, we would not be having this discussion.

On the contrary - no you cannot - you could not even get past the first of mr bushes 10 000 secretaries

The question is, why would I want to?

You can do the same with a bible too

As you can with any book. Does not mean that the bible is somehow divine.

Actually in christianity they have no concept of a personal god - although such a personality is indirectly inferred - in other words I would challenge whether the old figure "god" is a proper representation of a god who is supposed to be eternal and omnipotent

Let me guess.. a bright blinding light.. feeling of warmth and "love".. etc?

But still - you haven't directly seen bush - it could be a computer animation

Then the programmer is a sick son of a bitch.

mental impairment was just an analogy - I would say it definitely indicates an impaired vision though - just to say you cannot see something is not a solid statement unless you can also validate that your seeing is valid (for instancethere are numerous arguments given why subtle knowledge cannot be perceived by everyone, what to speak of god)

Riigghhtt. We'll just leave it at the fact that I have not been blinded and made insensible by the light.

No - I mean persons who have actually attested to direct perception of god - not to say that anyone who ever attested something of this nature is true

So you don't know for sure if they did "perceive" god, but you'll just take their word for it? Mmmm hmmmm.. So next time someone says they've seen Jesus on taco shell, you'll not believe them, but you'd believe a story supposedly written by the apostles and re-written, tweaked and altered to suit the needs of the puritanical maniacs?

And if someone came to you today and said that god spoke to them and had said that you should give him all your money, you'd doubt him? Why? If you truly believe in god, you'd have to believe someone who also perceived him.. non? After all, you seem to believe the bible, a book supposedly written by people who you have stated have "actually attested to direct perception of god".

Speaking of which, I have a bridge I want to sell you. You buy! Cheap cheap!

Well what is the basis for you having not seen god "I was dragged to church, hating every second of it and I didn't see god" - you would have to establish how being dragged to church against one's will is the process that god (or jesus, god's pure representative in the case of the xtians) advocates for coming to understand him

I used to believe in god when I was a little girl. I used to believe in santa claus as well. That was until my grandmother shattered my illusion at the age of 4 and told me santa was not real. I cried for 2 days. As a little girl I didn't mind going to church. It used to mean an ice-cream on the way home. But as time went on and when I started to develop some sense of the world around me, I came to the realisation that there was no god. Being told "you have to believe" just didn't cut it for me. But hey, if you're into that, then as I said before, knock yourself out. Refer to above regarding bridge.

Ok fine - then why the hell are you parading around a religion forum if thats the message you want to promote - I would have thought that a person who sincerely thought like that would have better things to do with their time

Parading? Seeing how much of a busy little bee you have been in the religious subforum of this sciforum, I think you need to look in the mirror when you mention the words 'parading' and 'message' and 'promote'. Had I been trying to promote something, I'd have been starting threads and demanding that everyone believes as I do. Looking through this forum, I fail to see where I have said anything of the kind.

Would I want you to switch sides and become an atheist? Hell no. It is obvious you are.. ermm.. right at home in your beliefs.

As to why I participate in this forum. Because I am free to do so. Why do you participate so avidly in this forum?

“ It was a subtle way of indicating that your attitude prevents you from perceiving the evidence, just like the attitude of a high school drop out prevents them from perceiving an electron ”

You really should see someone about your obsession about high school drop outs. As for evidence. What evidence? Oh wait! That's right.. the evidence is there because others who have "perceived" it say it's there. When you learn to think for yourself, get back to me. But in the meantime.. about that bridge..

 

[lightgigantic]

Bells

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
So I say "God is not an imagination"
How do you respond to that?
”


Then more power to you. If you thought god was an imagination, we would not be having this discussion.

The point is that for some strange reason you don't want to say that you think god is an imagination , but rather you think that I am imagining that you think god is an imagntaion because you think god does not exist

“ On the contrary - no you cannot - you could not even get past the first of mr bushes 10 000 secretaries ”


The question is, why would I want to?

Because you just said you could see the president any tim e you wanted

“ You can do the same with a bible too ”


As you can with any book. Does not mean that the bible is somehow divine.

No - but it indicates how we often take shelter of authority to understand things beyond our direct perception - in other words its not sufficient to show how accepting an authority is intrinsically fallacious
After all it doesn't address whether the auhtority is actually valid or not

“ Actually in christianity they have no concept of a personal god - although such a personality is indirectly inferred - in other words I would challenge whether the old figure "god" is a proper representation of a god who is supposed to be eternal and omnipotent ”


Let me guess.. a bright blinding light.. feeling of warmth and "love".. etc?

Well I will let you guess - but it still stands that in christianity the guy with the beard doesn't fit the bill

“ No - I mean persons who have actually attested to direct perception of god - not to say that anyone who ever attested something of this nature is true ”


So you don't know for sure if they did "perceive" god, but you'll just take their word for it? Mmmm hmmmm..

No - I am just taking this very slowly for your benefit - obviously there are numerous claims made in the name of science - and obviously all of them are not true - in other words the ability to discriminate depends on one's ability to determine quality

So next time someone says they've seen Jesus on taco shell, you'll not believe them, but you'd believe a story supposedly written by the apostles and re-written, tweaked and altered to suit the needs of the puritanical maniacs?

well actually no - if you apparently did I can understand why you left religion at a young age - who would believe a taco shell

And if someone came to you today and said that god spoke to them and had said that you should give him all your money, you'd doubt him? Why?

To begin with it would be a bit difficult to understand why god would be hard strapped for cash

If you truly believe in god, you'd have to believe someone who also perceived him.. non?

Actually usually the first requirement god asks for is not that we hand over all our money but that we learn how to keep our pants on and behave - in the absence of that it doesn't how much money you dump on the plate when it goes around
!

“ Well what is the basis for you having not seen god "I was dragged to church, hating every second of it and I didn't see god" - you would have to establish how being dragged to church against one's will is the process that god (or jesus, god's pure representative in the case of the xtians) advocates for coming to understand him ”


I used to believe in god when I was a little girl. I used to believe in santa claus as well. That was until my grandmother shattered my illusion at the age of 4 and told me santa was not real. I cried for 2 days. As a little girl I didn't mind going to church. It used to mean an ice-cream on the way home. But as time went on and when I started to develop some sense of the world around me, I came to the realisation that there was no god. Being told "you have to believe" just didn't cut it for me. But hey, if you're into that, then as I said before, knock yourself out. Refer to above regarding bridge.

So after all is said and done - you still have no idea what is the process recommended by god for getting to know him - the ice cream was optional I guess

“ Ok fine - then why the hell are you parading around a religion forum if thats the message you want to promote - I would have thought that a person who sincerely thought like that would have better things to do with their time ”


Parading? Seeing how much of a busy little bee you have been in the religious subforum of this sciforum, I think you need to look in the mirror when you mention the words 'parading' and 'message' and 'promote'. Had I been trying to promote something, I'd have been starting threads and demanding that everyone believes as I do. Looking through this forum, I fail to see where I have said anything of the kind.

Actually I am interested in discussion - in other words I usually try and back up statements with premises rather than wild accusations
Usually it is quite enlivening when one encounters an atheist who has premises

“ “ It was a subtle way of indicating that your attitude prevents you from perceiving the evidence, just like the attitude of a high school drop out prevents them from perceiving an electron ” ”


You really should see someone about your obsession about high school drop outs. As for evidence. What evidence? Oh wait! That's right.. the evidence is there because others who have "perceived" it say it's there. When you learn to think for yourself, get back to me. But in the meantime.. about that bridge..

To start with you could perhaps elaborate exactly what was the process you applied to understand god in the first place - so far we have ice cream and placing one's backside on a church seat.

 

[Enterprise-D]

Bells


The point is that for some strange reason you don't want to say that you think god is an imagination , but rather you think that I am imagining that you think god is an imagntaion because you think god does not exist

Just wanted to jump in for Bells here...Lightee, this is the most convoluted attempt at confusing an issue I have ever seen. No wonder you had to use the icon

Because you just said you could see the president any tim e you wanted

Doesn't mean she WANTED to. She just said she had the capability of doing so.

No - but it indicates how we often take shelter of authority to understand things beyond our direct perception - in other words its not sufficient to show how accepting an authority is intrinsically fallacious
After all it doesn't address whether the auhtority is actually valid or not

Authority in science are addressable figureheads. Even when they're dead, the general public can devise tests for any of their postulations. The Bible has no such route.

Well I will let you guess - but it still stands that in christianity the guy with the beard doesn't fit the bill

That's been a recent development. After sci-fi shows introduced the concept of shapeshifting.

No - I am just taking this very slowly for your benefit - obviously there are numerous claims made in the name of science - and obviously all of them are not true - in other words the ability to discriminate depends on one's ability to determine quality

Any claims made in science that aren't true were proven untrue via the scientific method. Faith based theories do not have that route. Point, you may ask? Measurement of faith-based theory quality is pointless. Therefore the process of epistomologizing its conclusion is pointless. Arriving at the ontological end you are bandying about is pointless. et cetera. (i'm getting to like your two words Lightee)

well actually no - if you apparently did I can understand why you left religion at a young age - who would believe a taco shell

Quite a deft dodge of the tweaking of the bible there...

To begin with it would be a bit difficult to understand why god would be hard strapped for cash

Another deft dodge. The question wasn't of any god's financial status. It was of YOU believing or doubting someone claiming that god spoke to them.

Actually usually the first requirement god asks for is not that we hand over all our money but that we learn how to keep our pants on and behave - in the absence of that it doesn't how much money you dump on the plate when it goes around!

You've stumbled across a reason that religion is becoming unpopular. Who wants to keep their pants on nowadays (jk)
Seriously though, Bells running comparison is of the jokers who wheedle and connive money from a vast but naive horde of theist listeners

So after all is said and done - you still have no idea what is the process recommended by god for getting to know him - the ice cream was optional I guess

You have detailed your process in another thread Lightgigantic's epistemology thread . It depends on unverifiable authority figureheads...

"...disciplic succession..."

in points 1,2,3,4,6 AND 7 out of 9

...a compendium

Knowledge conveyed through scripture...

...and blind faith

Scripture must be accepted 'as is...

All of which the logicians in sciforums that have contested your claims have pointed out make no sense in a proof process.

Actually I am interested in discussion - in other words I usually try and back up statements with premises rather than wild accusations
Usually it is quite enlivening when one encounters an atheist who has premises

You mean the fallacious Ps and their C that you keep dreaming up?

To start with you could perhaps elaborate exactly what was the process you applied to understand god in the first place - so far we have ice cream and placing one's backside on a church seat.

That's the point, Bells used the epistemology drilled into her by her parents and local pastor, which I believe would DEFINITELY match your process...her authority figures (parents and pastor) were the disciplic representatives, the scripture compendium is constant and well she did not have blind faith 'unfortunately', but her authority figures did. I suppose though that anyone can 'accept' the compendium as it is written even without believing it.

Bells came up with the logical conclusion. They were wrong.

 

[lightgigantic]

D Enterprise

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Bells


The point is that for some strange reason you don't want to say that you think god is an imagination , but rather you think that I am imagining that you think god is an imagntaion because you think god does not exist
”



Just wanted to jump in for Bells here...Lightee, this is the most convoluted attempt at confusing an issue I have ever seen. No wonder you had to use the icon

Don't know if you caught the earlier threads - she is the one that insists on using convulted language to the effect of saying "god is imagination" without saying god is imagination - at least I think so - it s kind of hard to get a straight answer

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
Because you just said you could see the president any tim e you wanted
”


Doesn't mean she WANTED to. She just said she had the capability of doing so.

How? When she doesn't have the capability to get past the first of his 10 000 secretaries?

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
No - but it indicates how we often take shelter of authority to understand things beyond our direct perception - in other words its not sufficient to show how accepting an authority is intrinsically fallacious
After all it doesn't address whether the auhtority is actually valid or not
”


Authority in science are addressable figureheads. Even when they're dead, the general public can devise tests for any of their postulations. The Bible has no such route.

How many people have measured the speed of light?

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
No - I am just taking this very slowly for your benefit - obviously there are numerous claims made in the name of science - and obviously all of them are not true - in other words the ability to discriminate depends on one's ability to determine quality
”


Any claims made in science that aren't true were proven untrue via the scientific method. Faith based theories do not have that route. Point, you may ask? Measurement of faith-based theory quality is pointless. Therefore the process of epistomologizing its conclusion is pointless. Arriving at the ontological end you are bandying about is pointless. et cetera. (i'm getting to like your two words Lightee)

But the axioms of science change - hence the truth of science is relative to the errors that they have superceded

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic

To begin with it would be a bit difficult to understand why god would be hard strapped for cash ”



Another deft dodge. The question wasn't of any god's financial status. It was of YOU believing or doubting someone claiming that god spoke to them.

And my answer is that if a person's sole claim to having direct experience of god is to cash them up they are nothing special - everyone entertains such a notion of god

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic

Actually usually the first requirement god asks for is not that we hand over all our money but that we learn how to keep our pants on and behave - in the absence of that it doesn't how much money you dump on the plate when it goes around! ”



You've stumbled across a reason that religion is becoming unpopular. Who wants to keep their pants on nowadays (jk)

People with aids - single parents - people stuck in dead end go nowhere relaionships - people who have destroyed solid relationships by being unfaithful etc etc

Seriously though, Bells running comparison is of the jokers who wheedle and connive money from a vast but naive horde of theist listeners

And my point is that if such persons do not have their senses under control then a person who gives them money wants to be cheated

“ Originally Posted by lightgigantic
So after all is said and done - you still have no idea what is the process recommended by god for getting to know him - the ice cream was optional I guess ”



You have detailed your process in another thread Lightgigantic's epistemology thread . It depends on unverifiable authority figureheads...

I guess you didn't read the first point then

.... what to speak of the other ones

That's the point, Bells used the epistemology drilled into her by her parents and local pastor, which I believe would DEFINITELY match your process...

Really?
At least bells mentioned ice cream and church - I have no idea what your "process" is - much less how it relates to the one I posted

her authority figures (parents and pastor) were the disciplic representatives,

and were they qualified
and if they were wha was th e process they advocated? (apart from the ice cream)

the scripture compendium is constant and well she did not have blind faith 'unfortunately',

If you read the thread you would see where I state that approaching the scripture directly is not effective

 

[Enterprise-D]

D Enterprise


Don't know if you caught the earlier threads - she is the one that insists on using convulted language to the effect of saying "god is imagination" without saying god is imagination - at least I think so - it s kind of hard to get a straight answer[/QUOTE[

How? When she doesn't have the capability to get past the first of his 10 000 secretaries?

I notice that exaggerations are a favourite of yours. Nevertheless, it is not impossible to seek audience with any human being that is alive. They are provable physical entities.

How many people have measured the speed of light?

Starting with Ole Roemer circa 1670, good old Heinrich Hertz in 1888, come forward to the present. Many. You can try it yourself even.
(I think you thought that was a hard question)

But the axioms of science change - hence the truth of science is relative to the errors that they have superceded

Do they? I know theories change. I never heard of the speed of light changing. Or the value of gravitic acceleration (which are actually strictly not axioms - they are both provable).
Besides which, humans err. It is how we learn. Evolve even. Theism personified arrogantly assumes all answers are godly, assumes itself devoid of error, and learns nothing.

And my answer is that if a person's sole claim to having direct experience of god is to cash them up they are nothing special - everyone entertains such a notion of god

Touche! *kneeling quickly to check my bank balance*

People with aids - single parents - people stuck in dead end go nowhere relaionships - people who have destroyed solid relationships by being unfaithful etc etc

You responded to a rhetoric...(jk) means just kidding. I am aware of social responsibilities of copulation.

And my point is that if such persons do not have their senses under control then a person who gives them money wants to be cheated

At least I can credit you for knowing that. Can I also credit you for not being cheated?

Really?
At least bells mentioned ice cream and church - I have no idea what your "process" is - much less how it relates to the one I posted

FYI, I went thru the rigors of religion as Bells did. And yes my disciplic folks were qualified. Good people at heart. They just didn't make sense. Your list of proper process was all I was concerned about, it was the crux of the matter. "First Communion" and "Confirmation" are RC's beginners indoctrination and they seem to match your process. I was forced to go thru both. That is enough of an encounter with your process as I can handle.
What about you? You "know" your process...how far did you go before you became scripted?

 

[Bells]

The point is that for some strange reason you don't want to say that you think god is an imagination , but rather you think that I am imagining that you think god is an imagntaion because you think god does not exist

You don't annoy easily do you? I can imagine world peace. While it may not exist today, it can exist sometime in the future when world leaders get their heads out of their backsides. It is a possibility. Do I imagine god? No. Because he does not exist and there is no possibility of his existing. For some, he could be seen to be an imagination, for me personally god is not. I cannot imagine something that cannot exist even on a remote scale.

Because you just said you could see the president any tim e you wanted

Yes. I can catch a plane to the US and attend any one of the damn rallies or public appearances he may make. The question as to why would I want to and why would I want to lick, touch, smell, etc, him.. well again I ask, why would I want to. Now had you said Kenneth Brannagh, then it would be a different matter.

No - but it indicates how we often take shelter of authority to understand things beyond our direct perception - in other words its not sufficient to show how accepting an authority is intrinsically fallacious
After all it doesn't address whether the auhtority is actually valid or not

And bible is merely because someone in the past wrote "so it is said" or "so it shall be"? That is all it takes for you to accept gods authority? As Enteprise above pointed out, I can pick up any scientific text and review and test the findings in there to see if it really is true or authoritative. But I can set as many bushes as I can on fire and I can assure you not one of them will speak to me. By the way, refer to post above about said bridge.

Well I will let you guess - but it still stands that in christianity the guy with the beard doesn't fit the bill

And if some poor Christian soul said that the old guy in the beard did fit the bill for him you'd tell him he was wrong and that was not how god really was or is? This is what gets me about "believers", only their vision of god or their interpretation of the bible is correct. There can be no other truths. Please, give me a break.

I have a cousin who is so entrenched in biblican studies and so believing that she's come out to my face and told me I'm going to burn and rot in ever lasting hell when I said that I was not going to christen my son.. this was said to me a month before my son was born while I was sick in hospital and fearing I was going to die due to complications with my pregnancy. So please save what your view of god is. I get enough of it from the kooks in my own family.

No - I am just taking this very slowly for your benefit - obviously there are numerous claims made in the name of science - and obviously all of them are not true - in other words the ability to discriminate depends on one's ability to determine quality

But the claims made in science can be tested and checked over and over again. You are taking at face value text written a few hundred years ago and changed, altered and yes.. tweaked.. over time to suit the needs and visions of a bunch of puritanic prats who were intent on scaring the crap out of anyone who might think if straying out of the line they thought was right? You see that as value and quality? Texts that in no way can be verified but can only be believed on faith alone? Errmm ok.. again refer to above about the bridge.

well actually no - if you apparently did I can understand why you left religion at a young age - who would believe a taco shell

And who would want to believe a text that cannot be verified in any way, shape or form. And that has been altered and changed about so many times that it now reads like a giant soap opera.

To begin with it would be a bit difficult to understand why god would be hard strapped for cash

That was just an example. So you would not believe someone who said god spoke to them and told them to do something and that you should perform a certain act, but you believe stories in the bible because the authors of the bible said you should believe them because god said so? Mmm hmm.. I have a spaceship I can sell you as well. Discount rate just for you.

Actually usually the first requirement god asks for is not that we hand over all our money but that we learn how to keep our pants on and behave - in the absence of that it doesn't how much money you dump on the plate when it goes around
!

Refer to above in regards to spaceship and bridge.

Was it god who wants you to keep your pants on and behave.. or the people who wrote the bible and changed and altered it to suit their needs and their puritanical beliefs of the time?

So after all is said and done - you still have no idea what is the process recommended by god for getting to know him - the ice cream was optional I guess

Ok. I see you still have failed to realise something. I do not believe in god. So how can I get to know something that does not exist? I am sure you have your little process and others have theirs. But I do not believe in blind faith merely because a book tells me too.. a book that cannot be verified at all except through.. yes that's right.. blind faith. You might be happy to do so, and that's your prerogative. As I said before, more power to you.

Actually I am interested in discussion - in other words I usually try and back up statements with premises rather than wild accusations

You have? Where? Einstein quotes and referring people to the bible just don't cut it for me I'm afraid. Your only back up is to refer to faith and blind belief because someone wrote that you should believe.

To start with you could perhaps elaborate exactly what was the process you applied to understand god in the first place - so far we have ice cream and placing one's backside on a church seat.

Process? I was told to believe. Much like you appear to have been told by your peers, bible, parents, etc (you take your pick). I was told that god existed and that was that. So I listened and at first I did believe. But then when I started to question, I was referred back to yes.. the bible.. and told that god had written it. So I asked, 'god's name is Paul?'. And then I was told that Paul was telling the story of his speaking to god.. blah blah blah... And then the penny dropped. I realised I was being scammed. I was about 8 or 9 at the time I think. So I asked even more questions and was constantly told that I had to believe because god told me so. 'Who is god?' I asked, and was replied with god is god, the father of jesus, your ultimate father and the creator. I remember looking at my dad and saying 'so you're not my dad?'. And was told no he was my father but god was his father as well. 'So god was grandpere?'.. And was told no god was my grandfather's father as well.. And so it went. In the end I realised I was getting dodgy answers and was just not satisfied. I listened to my brain and came to the conclusion that there was no god and never had been. No amount of ice-cream was going to buy my belief by this point.

Do you see now? No one can get to know something that does not exist. As a child I thought I knew santa, but he does not exist either.. Now THAT was a devasting realisation for me when I was four.

 

[superluminal]

So, LG. After all of these posts with the same basic theme, what point were you trying to make? Or was there one?

 

[lightgigantic]

So, LG. After all of these posts with the same basic theme, what point were you trying to make? Or was there one?

In a nutshell - basically that there are very good reasons for accepting inteligence as a driving force behind the universe