The Nonsense of Atheists

[NMSquirrel]

An attempt to define god by what he knows and that's it. He has no knowledge and thus can not define god. It would be like me asking you 3000 years ago what a computer was and left it at that.]

if a computer did show up, how would it be described?
they do not have the terminology to describe it..
if 12 ppl sat down and described it the best they could,you would get 12 different answers..if those records were to survive till this day, would we be able to see that they were talking about a computer?
i say we would be able to tease out the clues from the various sources to get a yes answer..this is why i say not everyones opinion is invalid..

But it has to be left at that. I know it is difficult to accept that and it in a sense leaves you out in no mans land on the subject

.
now you are asking me not to question my own beliefs..
to accept and not speculate..

Others, who follow a religion can not accept that. Which is why they want all these others to believe in one way, the way they believe, it gives them comfort and strengthens the belief. It gives legitimacy to the belief and it starts to sound like knowledge to them.

Yet, all they have done is accept someone else's definition and run with it. This is when the term sheep comes in. Just blindly following.

i agree

Even though you are wise to avoid religion, you still want to offer legitimacy to it by making statements that their definitions still have value. They don't.

the clues in the definition gives it value..IOW as data it should be valued..as a rule of life (unquestioning obedience) is what you are talking about..

IOW even wrong definitions have value..it lets you know what it is not..

Avoid the texts and think for yourself, which is what you are doing for the most part anyway. Just IMO need to let go of the extra baggage.

don't avoid the texts..read them in context..man wrote them,man is attempting to describe god,(not define)..
i think thats where we are getting mixed up..you are using the term 'define' which means a definitive description that everyone can agree on..
like a suspect in case..you ask 12 different ppl and would get 12 different answers..in order to sort out the truth one must hear all those descriptions to get a better picture of who the suspect is..
with god you cannot ask enough ppl to get a clear picture of who/what god is..at some point you have to make a decision as to who/what god is..
that question does not come down to his definition but of 'is god a good thing or a bad thing?'

Believe in your god, without the religion and you won't find any contradictions. Throw religion in there and it all goes out the window. Then the definitions can be scrutinized and they don't hold water.

thats cause religion is filled with ppl who love to verbalize their opinions..
some are more influential/charismatic than others

This again is where you and your personal beliefs come in. They are fine for you and how you believe god to be but that's it. You can't define god for others, you can't lay out a definition of god that any possible equation will be able to determine the likelihood of being correct.

i have said this..

That is not how god works or that is not what god wants etc etc are claims of knowledge. By saying such, you are claiming to know how god works etc.
Does that make sense ?

are you saying you want to believe me when i say that?
or do you just want to hear what i say and compare it to what you know/believe about god..
IOW are you trying to make me responsible for telling you 'this is true' or would you rather make up your own mind? IOW do you believe it just cause i said so or does it ring of truth?(see above analogy about computers and suspects)

I know it may seem like I am being tough on you. I wouldn't bother if I felt you were not open minded enough to at least consider what I am suggesting.

the only disagreement we have right now that i can see is the difference between objective definitions equaling knowledge and subjective descriptions equaling knowledge..

The god is defined, others believe the definitions and so on. Even though the original definitions were faulty because man doesn't have this knowledge

.
faulty does not equal wrong..(see edison and how many ways he found to NOT build a lightbulb),
there have been many advances in science cause they learned from being (avoiding the term 'wrong').. faulty..

In short, I am suggesting that you become a theist/agnostic. Which you believe you are, but not quite all the way there because you still want to give some legitimacy to the texts and others definitions or clues. When they can not know.

agnostic? wishy washy? sometime believer?
i believe all the time..
just cause they cannot know does not mean they don't have a clue..

And anybody who makes claims to know has no more knowledge than you or I.

this is getting down to the definition of knowledge as being objective or subjective..knowledge can be subjective..

All religions are man made, not works of god.

i agree with this..but with all myths there are truths in them..
( i did NOT just call religion a myth..)

 

[420Joey]

Athiests demand proof from religion, Religion demands proof from athiests. Alas there are none to reference, just speculation. Its immaterial whether athiests believe in god or not, they live in a shallow shell (the ones that believe in "god" just not organized religion are okay), I for one believe I am an expression of a collective source (god) which is maintained by energy that cannot be created or destroyed just transfered and everchanging

 

[birch]

Athiests demand proof from religion, Religion demands proof from athiests. Alas there are none to reference, just speculation. Its immaterial whether athiests believe in god or not, they live in a shallow shell (the ones that believe in "god" just not organized religion are okay),

you're making stupid assumptions and statements and that's why most theists are "nonsense."

atheist does not mean 'empty shell'. that is your belief because without a concept of god, YOU would feel empty.

atheists have a lot in life to think about, experience, absorb and even wonder/speculate. that is a hell of a lot better and more enriching than everthing excluded unless it fits into one's narrow definition of what god is or that it's an entity.

I for one believe I am an expression of a collective source (god) which is maintained by energy that cannot be created or destroyed just transfered and everchanging

that is not a belief in "god", oh mighty theistic genius. you are just calling energy, the laws of nature or physics or consciousness 'god'. in fact, you have hijacked other new age or scientific interpretations of life experience and tacked on the word 'god'. how is that any realistically different whether what label they use for it?

energy or consciousness exists whether you believe in it or not which also affects atheists and they also embody it. how does that make you less of an 'empty shell'?

 

[NMSquirrel]

you're making stupid assumptions

judgemental much?

atheist does not mean 'empty shell'

.
he was using an analogy..

atheists have a lot in life to think about, experience, absorb and even wonder/speculate.

they have to convince themselves there is no god...otherwise they know they are going to hell...

that is a hell of a lot better and more enriching than everthing excluded unless it fits into Birch's narrow definition of what god is or that it's an entity.

need more be said..

that is not a belief in "god", oh mighty theistic genius. you are just calling energy, the laws of nature or physics or consciousness 'god'. in fact, you have hijacked other new age or scientific interpretations of life experience and tacked on the word 'god'. how is that any realistically different whether what label they use for it?

very bitter comment.

energy or consciousness exists whether you believe in it or not which also affects atheists and they also embody it. how does that make you less of an 'empty shell'?

now here is the statement/question.
why can't you just post this birch?
why do you have to judge and demean before you ask the good questions?

 

[420Joey]

You're making stupid assumptions and statements and that's why most theists are "nonsense."

What came first, matter or consiousness?

Existence is inextricably intertwined with the ego organization providing the illusion of self in the physical domain. Notice how we sometimes lose the emulaton of self in dreams? The framework for subjective experience has a few static properties: existance, identity, and consiousness. On this basis I can understand why you dont believe in god. Perception needs the "identity" property to understand its nature (what kind, whatever is) but this thinking is an assembled standpoint from left-brain operations. The fact is we can't confirm the creation of existance; like before we could confirm the world was round - your belief lies in your scope.

I for one cannot believe in a random world that created : universe, matter, volume, space, time, sound, motion, light, forces, fields, voiliton and consiousess. I believe god is everything, the bind, if you will.

Most theiests are nonsense not because "the belief in god" but because the exploit of "religion" (which I personally believe is controlled by athiest masonry or some shadow goverment) Its not nonsense to assume the created has a creator, its nonsense to think that the creation is random and that our existance is purposeless to think that all of this exists as a perfect byproduct of randomness is stupid.

"Photons come out of nowhere, they cannot be stored, they can barely be pinned down in time, and they have no home in space whatsoever. That is, light occupies no volume and has no mass. The similarity between a thought and a photon is very deep. Both are born in the region beyond space and time where nature controls all processes in that void which is full of creative intelligence." Deepak Chopra

"Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. That we are all one consciousness experiencing tself subjectively. There is no such thing as death. Life is only a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves."
Bill Hicks

atheist does not mean 'empty shell'. that is your belief because without a concept of god, YOU would feel empty.

Yes I would feel empty thinking my boundary of existance is limited to five senses and would feel empty without "God". My concept of god is radically different from what most would believe. I do believe in reincarnation, ascension, etc.

atheists have a lot in life to think about, experience, absorb and even wonder/speculate. that is a hell of a lot better and more enriching than everthing excluded unless it fits into one's narrow definition of what god is or that it's an entity

.

It appears to me that you just like the label of athiest. How is the experience of "existance" more enriching than everything excuded? My definition of god is far from narrow..

“ I for one believe I am an expression of a collective source (god) which is maintained by energy that cannot be created or destroyed just transfered and everchanging ”

that is not a belief in "god", oh mighty theistic genius. you are just calling energy, the laws of nature or physics or consciousness 'god'. in fact, you have hijacked other new age or scientific interpretations of life experience and tacked on the word 'god'. how is that any realistically different whether what label they use for it?

The laws of nature and physics are all based on energy, enlightened one. God as a collective source of energy is not a hijack? I dont understand what you are implying...

energy or consciousness exists whether you believe in it or not which also affects atheists and they also embody it. how does that make you less of an 'empty shell'?

How do athiests compensate there lack of purpose? tantilization? Energy and consiousness to me = direct evidence of god. Universe independent of consiouness?

 

[NMSquirrel]

Birch;
if you are such a hater of religion and christians..

What are you doing in the religious forum?

 

[birch]

judgemental much?

and this entire thread is not judgemental of atheists? it's not judgemental to say that atheists live in an 'empty shell'?

are you really that blind or is it purposeful?

 

[NMSquirrel]

and this entire thread is not judgemental of atheists?

no, not the ENTIRE thread...just certain users..

it's not judgemental to say that atheists live in an 'empty shell'?

you tend to take everything as a personal attack birch..what if you are reading more into that?
IOW instead of getting all defensive about the word 'nonesense' IOW focusing on ones own emotional state of being(IE how you FEEL about it)..
or instead of going on the attack..
prove to the OP that it is not true..(lead by example)

you can start by verifying you are understanding what is communicated..
didn't you just post something like..;

Originally Posted by birch
there is a difference between the experience of something and what something actually is.

the experience may be an indication of it's source but it doesn't necessarily correlate to what it actually is.

to which i replied..

good point birch..
another way to put this is;
the description of the experience is limited by the vocabulary/experience of the man who describes it, this does not mean the man is wrong for trying to describe something that he is incapable of describing..but it also means there is a chance that the hearer will interpret that description according to the hearers vocabulary/experiences..

IOW the term 'Empty shell' is is an attempt to describe the 'source' but it doesn't necessarily corelate to what it actually means..

 

[NMSquirrel]

JP;

I understand the difference between saying;
"i think god doesn't want that."
and
"god doesn't want that"

but sometimes saying "i think" just undermines how strongly i feel about the statement..

 

[krreagan]

What came first, matter or consiousness?

Existence is inextricably intertwined with the ego organization providing the illusion of self in the physical domain. Notice how we sometimes lose the emulaton of self in dreams? The framework for subjective experience has a few static properties: existance, identity, and consiousness. On this basis I can understand why you dont believe in god. Perception needs the "identity" property to understand its nature (what kind, whatever is) but this thinking is an assembled standpoint from left-brain operations. The fact is we can't confirm the creation of existance; like before we could confirm the world was round - your belief lies in your scope.

I for one cannot believe in a random world that created : universe, matter, volume, space, time, sound, motion, light, forces, fields, voiliton and consiousess. I believe god is everything, the bind, if you will.

Most theiests are nonsense not because "the belief in god" but because the exploit of "religion" (which I personally believe is controlled by athiest masonry or some shadow goverment) Its not nonsense to assume the created has a creator, its nonsense to think that the creation is random and that our existance is purposeless to think that all of this exists as a perfect byproduct of randomness is stupid.

"Photons come out of nowhere, they cannot be stored, they can barely be pinned down in time, and they have no home in space whatsoever. That is, light occupies no volume and has no mass. The similarity between a thought and a photon is very deep. Both are born in the region beyond space and time where nature controls all processes in that void which is full of creative intelligence." Deepak Chopra

"Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration. That we are all one consciousness experiencing tself subjectively. There is no such thing as death. Life is only a dream and we are the imagination of ourselves."
Bill Hicks



Yes I would feel empty thinking my boundary of existance is limited to five senses and would feel empty without "God". My concept of god is radically different from what most would believe. I do believe in reincarnation, ascension, etc.

.

It appears to me that you just like the label of athiest. How is the experience of "existance" more enriching than everything excuded? My definition of god is far from narrow..



The laws of nature and physics are all based on energy, enlightened one. God as a collective source of energy is not a hijack? I dont understand what you are implying...



How do athiests compensate there lack of purpose? tantilization? Energy and consiousness to me = direct evidence of god. Universe independent of consiouness?

The length and breadth to which people will traverse just to convince themselves that they are not alone in the universe still amazes me.

This is just one in many billions of concepts to define a god fr the purposes of comfort. This one is no more probable then any of the rest, simply a deeper rationalization to be more specific to ones needs. This one has all the trimmings which indicate that ends defined the means. You said it yourself...

I for one cannot believe in a random world that created : universe, matter, volume, space, time, sound, motion, light, forces, fields, voiliton and consiousess. I believe god is everything, the bind, if you will.

It seems likely that your definitions were produced to fill a personal very specific pre-existing belief.

KRR

 

[NevaChu]

I think this thread proves how diverse idiots are ...atheist, agnostic, christian, etc.

 

[phlogistician]

Birch;
if you are such a hater of religion and christians..

What are you doing in the religious forum?

It's the religion section on a Science board.

 

[lightgigantic]

It's the religion section on a Science board.

so what?
hatred of religion is scientific?
Sounds like more nonsense from atheists ...

 

[phlogistician]

so what?
hatred of religion is scientific?

If you feel hatred, you are paranoid.

Sounds like more nonsense from atheists ...

Since when did a theist ever make any sense.

 

[pjdude1219]

human nature is to attempt to avoid judgement, which imo is the entire truth about the entire effect of every single thought and action you posses while alive on this earth.

some people do that by turning a blind eye.

some people do that by saying nothing matters.

and some people do that by using religion as a scapegoat.

phlog wants me to preach? ok, i'm here to tell you that not one of us will escape judgement, regardless of what they believe, and anyone who gives a shit will be kicking themselves in the ass, myself included.






yes, iow, you're afraid of the consequences. you might perceive them to be an obstacle.








well so the fuck what? when your choices and thoughts are meaningless.



your choices have to matter first sweetheart, otherwise you're just a hamster spinning a wheel.

things matter its just relative the idea that a being on the level of power of god talking to one such as a humaning being is to give humanity a worth it doesn't have. things just happen.

 

[wynn]

If you feel hatred, you are paranoid.

You are, of course, full of wub.

 

[gmilam]

they have to convince themselves there is no god...otherwise they know they are going to hell...

What does belief in god have to do with hell (or lack thereof)?

IF there is a god AND all he cares about is what I believe
(as opposed to how I live my life)

THEN he's an asshole.

 

[jpappl]

NMSquirrel,

Well sorry but you completely misunderstood the points I was making. Let me try again.

“ Originally Posted by jpappl
An attempt to define god by what he knows and that's it. He has no knowledge and thus can not define god. It would be like me asking you 3000 years ago what a computer was and left it at that.] ”

if a computer did show up, how would it be described?
they do not have the terminology to describe it..
if 12 ppl sat down and described it the best they could,you would get 12 different answers..if those records were to survive till this day, would we be able to see that they were talking about a computer?
i say we would be able to tease out the clues from the various sources to get a yes answer..this is why i say not everyones opinion is invalid..

What clues would we be teasing out of guesses at what a computer was from people who had no idea of what a computer was.

And I did not present one, I just asked you to describe a computer without seeing it. You would't even know where to begin.

Reverse this and you will better understand my point.

What good is the information from these guesses ?

They had no idea what a computer was so there was no knowledge in their definitions. Just like god, they can not have knowledge, so they are only throwing guesses around, but they want to claim they have knowledge.

Do you understand ?

This is what the texts are built upon. Claimed definitions of god, which they can not have knowledge of in the first place.

“ But it has to be left at that. I know it is difficult to accept that and it in a sense leaves you out in no mans land on the subject ”

.
now you are asking me not to question my own beliefs..
to accept and not speculate..

No, I am stating that all you can have is faith. All of the supporting information for a belief in god(s) the texts etc are nonsense created by men, they are myths. This does not mean there is no god. It just means that the texts or definitions are all bunk. They can not know anything about god anymore than they could about a computer at the time.

And there are no clues in there either. Anymore than there would be clues about a computer from guesses.

“ Even though you are wise to avoid religion, you still want to offer legitimacy to it by making statements that their definitions still have value. They don't. ”

the clues in the definition gives it value..IOW as data it should be valued..as a rule of life (unquestioning obedience) is what you are talking about..

IOW even wrong definitions have value..it lets you know what it is not..

Bold is mine. Here is where we are butting heads.

What value does guesses about god, or made up definitions of god have ?

You can not know if they are wrong or right. There is no value in there at all to define god, what god wants, doesn't want etc.

“ Avoid the texts and think for yourself, which is what you are doing for the most part anyway. Just IMO need to let go of the extra baggage. ”

don't avoid the texts..read them in context..man wrote them,man is attempting to describe god,(not define)..

Same thing. Scrutinize the texts and you see it's only men making stuff up.

Again, how can they describe or attempt to describe the unknowable. If it was a book of opinions and left at that I wouldn't be so opposed to treating it with any value.

with god you cannot ask enough ppl to get a clear picture of who/what god is..at some point you have to make a decision as to who/what god is..

You and you alone. That is my point. Faith only. No definitions, and no attempt to define. You can have beliefs without knowledge. The problem is people are turning their beliefs into claims of knowledge prematurely.

that question does not come down to his definition but of 'is god a good thing or a bad thing?'

Same thing. That is an attempt to define. Do you know god is good or bad ?

You can only believe, once you start to claim god is good or bad, you are claiming knowledge of that which you can not know. Only believe.

“ This again is where you and your personal beliefs come in. They are fine for you and how you believe god to be but that's it. You can't define god for others, you can't lay out a definition of god that any possible equation will be able to determine the likelihood of being correct. ”

i have said this..

Right, you have, but then go on to claim knowledge. It's very hard not to if you believe, because your beliefs come out in statements.

If you described your belief in your words I would accept that you believe it.

However, when you start telling me that you collaborate or read the texts to have a better understanding about god, then you are no longer thinking about the god you believe in, and are now using someone elses made up ideas of god.

Since none of you can know, your guesses or beliefs are as valuable as ideas 3000 years ago of what a computer is. There is no value to the information.

Faith and faith only. No knowledge.

“ That is not how god works or that is not what god wants etc etc are claims of knowledge. By saying such, you are claiming to know how god works etc.
Does that make sense ? ”

are you saying you want to believe me when i say that?
or do you just want to hear what i say and compare it to what you know/believe about god..

:wallbang:

No, you are making claims of knowledge when you say things like:

That is not how god works
It's not what god wants
They are wrong about god
etc etc

Do you see ?

IOW are you trying to make me responsible for telling you 'this is true' or would you rather make up your own mind? IOW do you believe it just cause i said so or does it ring of truth?(see above analogy about computers and suspects)

I would definitely not accept your or anyone elses definition of god(s)

Since nobody can have such information, nobody can possibly define god. Just like nobody could have described a computer 3000 years ago.

Any attempt is a claim of knowledge or just a speculative guess for fun. What do you think the bible and the koran represent. A claim of knowledge or a fun speculative guess ?

“ The god is defined, others believe the definitions and so on. Even though the original definitions were faulty because man doesn't have this knowledge ”

.
faulty does not equal wrong..(see edison and how many ways he found to NOT build a lightbulb),
there have been many advances in science cause they learned from being (avoiding the term 'wrong').. faulty..

In this case it does, because there is noting to go on. There is no way to know what is a mistake or not. Just shooting blindly in the dark.

“ In short, I am suggesting that you become a theist/agnostic. Which you believe you are, but not quite all the way there because you still want to give some legitimacy to the texts and others definitions or clues. When they can not know. ”

agnostic? wishy washy? sometime believer?
i believe all the time..
just cause they cannot know does not mean they don't have a clue..

You missed or ignored the questions.

Do you believe in god ? YES (theist)
Can you prove or know that god exists ? NO (agnostic)

Don't have a clue about something that can not be known ?

Scrutinize it more NMSquirrel. Go back to the idea that others can not define god for you. It's a personal thing, faith only, never knowledge.

“ And anybody who makes claims to know has no more knowledge than you or I. ”

this is getting down to the definition of knowledge as being objective or subjective..knowledge can be subjective..

It can. However, on the subject of god which is unknown, any claims of knowledge are really just guesses, ideas and opinions.

It's never knowledge. The bottom line is that you have to be content believing what you believe without trying to create definitions or claims of knowledge about god.

The distinction I am making is to separate the theist from the religious.

The problem is most theists can not stay away from defining or making claims of knowledge, as you have done here even while trying to avoid doing it. It's not easy to realize that you, me or anyone else has no knowledge on the subject and can not, as said before, until you die (if there is an afterlife and you/me/others actually go somewhere with our memories intact.

“ All religions are man made, not works of god. ”

i agree with this..but with all myths there are truths in them..
( i did NOT just call religion a myth..)

LOL. Yes you went there.

Not all myths have truth. Furthermore, god can not be known, so the texts are pure myth. The only truth is what man knew about man. He made the rest up.

Man created god in his image.

 

[Lori_7]

things matter its just relative the idea that a being on the level of power of god talking to one such as a humaning being is to give humanity a worth it doesn't have. things just happen.

this quote is so appropriate for this thread.

 

[lightgigantic]

If you feel hatred, you are paranoid.



Since when did a theist ever make any sense.

lol
its kind of funny the way you open with the mood that you are not arguing from an emotional standpoint and then follow up with an emotional quip.


I think we can categorize it as yet another suitable contribution for this thread however .....