The truth about Atheism?

CA,

What is vague and imprecise about the absence of logical contradiction? In fact, it answers your closed box example, since by concealing the contents of the box you conceal the potential for logical contradiction thereby rendering the issue of possibility unanswerable.
Click to expand...
Yeah OK.

BTW: what do you see as the distinction between possibility and probability? How can you assert, on the one hand:
· "Isn't this just a speculation where nothing meaningful can be said about its possibility or impossibility?"
while asserting a zero probability of God(s) in the other thread?
Click to expand...
One is deductive while the other is inductive. Something is either possible or it isn't, there is no in-between.

Probability is a subjective appraisal that leaves open possible doubt, no matter how small. My assessment is based on such a low probability that the doubt was as close to zero as is practically possible.
 
Cris

Probability is a subjective appraisal that leaves open possible doubt, no matter how small. My assessment is based on such a low probability that the doubt was as close to zero as is practically possible.
<HR>
It's your turn to fry, Cris. On what exaclty is your model of entropic probability based? You say you 'assessed' or 'appraised' the possibility. I would hope such an important assessment included some form of mathematics. If so, which variables did you include in your matrices?

You should admit that you doubt the existence of God to such a degree that you 'theorize' God does not exist with absolutely zero evidence to support your 'findings.'

You did NOT investigate, assess, or appraise the situation.

I suspect you read some impressive prose written by antitheistic prophets of theological psuedo-science, and that rhetoric convinced you in a subjective way, that there must be no God.

You are deluded about your own objectivity.
Your logic is based on the worst kind of principle, nothing.
 
Re: Cris

Originally posted by Fluidity
...entropic probability...
Are you making that up? ;)

You say you 'assessed' or 'appraised' the possibility. I would hope such an important assessment included some form of mathematics.
possible - Capable of occurring or being done without offense to character, nature, or custom
probability - The likelihood that a given event will occur
You make a guess( which may be educated) about possibilities. You can calculate probablity.

If so, which variables did you include in your matrices?
And why would he be using a matrix to do this? This isn't a complicated math problem, as you so elegantly demonstrated with Human - Universe = God


You should admit that you doubt the existence of God to such a degree that you 'theorize' God does not exist with absolutely zero evidence to support your 'findings.'
Well if it has zero evidence it isn't much of a theory. But it's just as much evidence as you have supplied us for a god.


I suspect you read some impressive prose written by antitheistic prophets of theological psuedo-science, and that rhetoric convinced you in a subjective way, that there must be no God.
I suspect you read some impressive prose written by theistic prophets of theological psuedo-science, and that rhetoric convinced you in a subjective way, that there must be a God. I'm guessing it was the Bible.

Your logic is based on the worst kind of principle, nothing.
If anyone is totally devoid of logic... it ain't Cris. Care to make any guesses?
 
I hate repeating myself

And why would he be using a matrix to do this? This isn't a complicated math problem, as you so elegantly demonstrated with Human - Universe = God
<HR>
First, cris has demonstrated circular reasoning in her own argument.

Second, if the above mathematical problem is simple enough, what did you conclude if we calculated the possibility of God is a,
humanity b, and the Universe is c. Given two numbers only, 1 and 0, the probability is 50 percent. a + b = c

Cris in no way acknowledges the possibility of God.
She has no evidence to support her claim, mine is above.

The reason God and humanity are on the left hand side of the equation is obvious; we know there is humanity, and that humanity is part of the Universe. The Universe is then the simple product of God (or not) and humanity.
 
Re: DarkNut

Originally posted by Fluidity
This is delusional. Apparently, you don't read much or even leave the house.
If you knew me personally, very closely, only then would you know the things I have said here.
Click to expand...

You mean I cannot understand what you said here because I don't know you personally? that why you bother to sy things that cannot be understood on public message boards? And stop those pathethic personal attacks ,they dont contribute to productive discussion.

What kind of art do you like? This is the kind of beauty I speak of.
A beautiful woman, a beautiful child. A night when aurora borealis is visible from a house boat.
Click to expand...

And???? All those are human traits and humans have some common standarts .But even between humans those standarts are different . " A beatufull " woman for you could be considered ugly and disgusting by some folks and/or in some historical period . Those all are very subjective things and you cannot say like there is some universal "beauty" or "love'. It varies no only from species to species but even between individual representatitves of species.



Have some respect for another intelligent member of the human race, and stop shouting virtual epithets in my direction.
Click to expand...

Which epithets?


I love life. How I love life is a personal choice. Why do you ask?
Click to expand...

I didnt ask if you love life ,especially I didnt ask how you do that.

You can't comprehend my concept of God. I would never expect
you to believe in what you cannot comprehend.
Click to expand...


I asked you what for you need someone to comprehend your concept of god, or maybe even share it. If you dont need other ppl to share it , why you start this debate at all? Are you ok that some ppl dont share your thoughts ,or worse ,oppose your point of view? What you are trying to prove here? At first you tried to prove crediblity of your view from the logical point of view ,but when you failed you now stating that its not important how logical or rational they are . So what are you trying to do? To convince ppl not to rely on logical and rational?



I find the biggest problem not even in that ppl have religious beliefs ,but that they want to FORCE em on other ppl .That they want to bend society in one way or another to follow their rules .Stating that they possess an ultimate truth ,the absolute key to things they consider important , and which is important they decide too .
 
Re: I hate repeating myself

You're an idiot.

Originally posted by Fluidity
Second, if the above mathematical problem is simple enough, what did you conclude if we calculated the possibility of God is a,
humanity b, and the Universe is c. Given two numbers only, 1 and 0, the probability is 50 percent. a + b = c
This equation does not mean anything. pizza+beerfart=Fluidity is just meaningful. That doesn't mean that you are infinite.

Cris in no way acknowledges the possibility of God.
She has no evidence to support her claim, mine is above.
evidence - Something indicative; an outward sign
You have no evidence. You have suggested fantasies based on god living in another dimension. You have explicitly stated that we can not obvserve this other dimension. Hence it is not something indicative or an outward sign.

The reason God and humanity are on the left hand side of the equation is obvious; we know there is humanity, and that humanity is part of the Universe. The Universe is then the simple product of God (or not) and humanity.
There is nothing else of value in the universe besides humanity? You have proof that no extra-terrestrials exist? How do you assign numbers to Humanity and Universe? How do you get a probability out of this equation? ow the hell are you so damn stupid?


I'd rather see someone use circular reasoning then no reasoning at all!
 
Cris - Persol

<i>Probability is a subjective appraisal that leaves open possible doubt, no matter how small.</i>
<HR>
Probability is expressed mathematically. It has nothing to do with doubt.
And, what did you mean by, 'leaves open?' Allows? Takes into consideration?

<i>
My assessment is based on such a <b>low</b> probability that the doubt was as close to <b>zero</b> as is <B>practically</b> possible.</i>
<HR>
Low indicates a figure, or, was it a feeling?
Again, close to zero, was there an exact figure here?
Practically. Define. Practically as in the scientific medium, 'practical.' or, is that just a was of saying 'reasonably' or 'subjectively?'

This is double-talk, Cris...babble. Means absolutely nothing.
What kind of logic do you think this is?
 
Re: I hate repeating myself

Originally posted by Fluidity
Second, if the above mathematical problem is simple enough, what did you conclude if we calculated the possibility of God is a,
humanity b, and the Universe is c. Given two numbers only, 1 and 0, the probability is 50 percent. a + b = c
.
Click to expand...


Lol . You know that classic anecdote about womens logic? :

What is the probability of meeting dinosaurus on the street?
Women replies 50% .
-Why?
- Either I meet him ,either not.
 
Persol

<b>You're an idiot.</b>
Judging from the towering mental capacity required to come up with this little jewel, I'd say I am pretty comfortable with my own intellect.

<b>This equation does not mean anything. pizza+beerfart=Fluidity is just meaningful. That doesn't mean that you are infinite.</b>
You can't change the variables in an equation once they've been defined.


<b>evidence - Something indicative; an outward sign
You have no evidence. You have suggested fantasies based on god living in another dimension. You have explicitly stated that we can not obvserve this other dimension. Hence it is not something indicative or an outward sign.</b>
If you or anyone else can suggest something does not exist, just because you can't see it or feel it, I ask you now to consider the future. It exists. It always exists. What is in it, you do not know. If there is a dimension three seconds from this one, sliding through time at the same rate we are, you wouldn' know it.
If that is where God is, you wouldn't know it. Yes, I suggest there are things we cannot see, feel or touch. I admit it.
You are refusing to admit the obvious. There is at least a 50 percent probability that God exists. Outward sign? And you think Cris has an argument about something based on nothing?

Lame.


<b>There is nothing else of value in the universe besides humanity? You have proof that no extra-terrestrials exist? How do you assign numbers to Humanity and Universe? How do you get a probability out of this equation? ow the hell are you so damn stupid?</b>
You have to put a one or zero in the equation. Take a dice, one three and five are valued at zero. Two, four and six are valued at one. Roll the dice a hundred, or a thousand or an infinite number of times. Did that help you?
 
Re: Cris - Persol

Originally posted by Fluidity
<i>Probability is a subjective appraisal that leaves open possible doubt, no matter how small.</i>
Probability is expressed mathematically. It has nothing to do with doubt.
You can 'guess' at a probability without math. And what do you mean that it has nothing to do with doubt? I can calculate the probability that the next part of an assembly line has a .01% chance of being damaged. I can doubt that the next one will be damaged.

And, what did you mean by, 'leaves open?' Allows? Takes into consideration?
Unless you have 100% you have room for doubt that something may not happen.

Again, close to zero, was there an exact figure here?
You have no room to demand figure clarification from anyone. You have stated many 'quotes' which you can not back up.

This is double-talk, Cris...babble. Means absolutely nothing.
What kind of logic do you think this is?
Better logic then "I believe in another dimension; I believe god is there; i am right you are wrong; that is my proof for god existing". Excuse the paraphrasing;)

You're like the people that represents themselves in court, and have no idea what they are talking about. Maybe you should seek profesional help.
 
Re: Cris

Originally posted by Fluidity
I suspect you read some impressive prose written by antitheistic prophets of theological psuedo-science, and that rhetoric convinced you in a subjective way, that there must be no God.
Click to expand...

Fluidity, you are resorting to condescending bullshit. It does not become you. You should reconsider resorting to this style of argument, for it warrents only taunting and name calling (which I had to restrain myself from indulging in). The fact is, you are waffling and your argument is weak. I appreciate the tenacity of your effort, but you have no case.

Theism is a circular argument by definition. It is fine as long as you keep it to yourself and the other theists. I can't imagine what progress you think you're going to make trying to convince a bunch of anti-religious aithiests that you have some corner on the market of spritual wisdom. We can still all be friends, but if you keep up your stupid crap, I'll just end up calling you names. I don't want that... do you? I believe we can all agree that all the participants in this conversation are reasonably intelligent (likely all quite far above average). Let's do the scholarly thing and agree to disagree before it takes a turn for the worse shall we?
 
Last edited:
Re: Persol

Originally posted by Fluidity
Judging from the towering mental capacity required to come up with this little jewel, I'd say I am pretty comfortable with my own intellect.
Sorry... just stating an opinion:)

You can't change the variables in an equation once they've been defined.
I didn't redifine the equation... I made a new one. It's just as foolish because it has just as much basis.

<i>evidence - Something indicative; an outward sign
You have no evidence. You have suggested fantasies based on god living in another dimension. You have explicitly stated that we can not obvserve this other dimension. Hence it is not something indicative or an outward sign.</i>
If you or anyone else can suggest something does not exist, just because you can't see it or feel it, I ask you now to consider the future.
If you say that the real stay-puff-marshmello man is out front of your house samshing cars, I guess you'd object if I say it doesn't exist.

It exists. It always exists. What is in it, you do not know. If there is a dimension three seconds from this one, sliding through time at the same rate we are, you wouldn' know it.
And it wouldn't really matter either.

If that is where God is, you wouldn't know it.
You seem to think you know it though.

Yes, I suggest there are things we cannot see, feel or touch. I admit it.
Fine to say that... but then to suggest specific things that we cannot see, fell, touch, or ever know about is pointless.

You are refusing to admit the obvious. There is at least a 50 percent probability that God exists.
First, that isn't how probability works. Second, you just stated that an atheist has as much chance as being right as you do.

Lame.
Gonna call me a duck now?

<i>There is nothing else of value in the universe besides humanity? You have proof that no extra-terrestrials exist? How do you assign numbers to Humanity and Universe? How do you get a probability out of this equation? ow the hell are you so damn stupid?</i>
You have to put a one or zero in the equation.
Once again, not how probabilty works... so the probabilty of god existing can be 200%?

Take a dice, one three and five are valued at zero. Two, four and six are valued at one. Roll the dice a hundred, or a thousand or an infinite number of times.
You want me to base the existance of god on dice rolls? Very silly argument.

Did that help you?
No... not really.
 
Wes

Fluidity, you are resorting to conscending bullshit. It does not become you. You should reconsider resorting to this style of argument, for it warrents only taunting and name calling.
<HR>
Being flamed in here for 48 hours has taken its toll.
Only one person admitted the off chance that God might exist.
I think its reasonable of you to make this suggestion, and I appreciate it.



<b>(which I had to restrain myself from indulging in). The fact is, you are waffling and your argument is weak. I appreciate the tenacity of your effort, but you have no case.</b>
I think it is also fair to say the argument has no foundation for a strong case on either side. To suggest it does, is an entirely subjective statement. I agree with you.


<b>but if you keep up your stupid crap...</b>
I have done nothing here that was not done to me. Do you realize how singular I have been made to feel here?
I was ostricized from the beginning. I remained polite, and even friendly at times. Keep in mind also, that any time there is one side to an argument, there are two sides. I'm guilty of nothing, but again, I appreciate the thought.

As for name calling, it's too late. I will close and move on.
 
Re: Wes

Originally posted by Fluidity
Fluidity, you are resorting to conscending bullshit. It does not become you. You should reconsider resorting to this style of argument, for it warrents only taunting and name calling.
<HR>
Being flamed in here for 48 hours has taken its toll.
Only one person admitted the off chance that God might exist.
I think its reasonable of you to make this suggestion, and I appreciate it.



<b>(which I had to restrain myself from indulging in). The fact is, you are waffling and your argument is weak. I appreciate the tenacity of your effort, but you have no case.</b>
I think it is also fair to say the argument has no foundation for a strong case on either side. To suggest it does, is an entirely subjective statement. I agree with you.


<b>but if you keep up your stupid crap...</b>
I have done nothing here that was not done to me. Do you realize how singular I have been made to feel here?
I was ostricized from the beginning. I remained polite, and even friendly at times. Keep in mind also, that any time there is one side to an argument, there are two sides. I'm guilty of nothing, but again, I appreciate the thought.

As for name calling, it's too late. I will close and move on.
Click to expand...

the problem is that in a proper debate, you must have the tenacity to defend your premise, but the emotional distance not to let it get to you if your argument is weak. I have zero motivation to negatively criticize you, in fact.. I'm inherently motivated to the opposite. I tell you with the utmost sincerity that you are somewhat deluded as to your debate skills. You did waffle. Here that is the smell of blood. It's debate, it's very sharp minds.... it is to me, where the fuck it's at. I LOVE minds, it's sort of a sickness for me. You are obviously quite intelligent but you're apparently a little scatterbrained or you don't have excellent communication skills. honestly, your problem is that you don't recognize logic when you see it. You are simply outgunned at the moment, learn from it, have fun with it... get stronger from it. Maybe step away from it for a bit (but I have a hard time doing that obviously), but whatever you do... don't let it get you down. Oh, and one last note: You have to be crazy to come into a den of very intelligent and motivated aithiests with a theistic argument and expect even a modicum of success. A few of the debators are insanely well versed with all the logical pitfalls of theism (I like to think I'm becoming one of them). Theism is not logical. What do you expect? Regardless, I hope you are feeling better about it. Either relax with your theism a bit or go find some theists to make you feel accepted. I am SO freakin rambling. Okay, back to pizza.
 
Re: Re: Re: I hate repeating myself

Originally posted by Persol
Lol... hate when that happens
Click to expand...

no doubt, me too. (cris should just suck it up and throw an h in there so we can stop having to try to grab his tits all the time) :D
 
Closure

It would appear that whether God exists or not is up to the individual. And if you think that implies we create God, that's fine with me.

It's a shame we have to disagree so vehemently on such fundamental personal choices. I don't know if it is customary to try to close a thread tactfully. I am trying desparately to do so.
Rest assured, my beliefs are not usually on display in the public forum; this has been a reinforcing example of the reasons why.
Also, be aware that I never once thought I could convert anyone in this forum to my own beliefs. I wouldn't want to hash through that with another theist, which is why I don't discusss it.

All in all, the original question was answered:

Truth about Atheism? It is clear to me that atheists are individuals. There are organizations with ant-religious goals, and individuals that find it irrational to believe in what we cannot see.
I find no fault in atheism, partly because I was an atheist for over seven years of my life. I also find it irrelevant to consider a person's beliefs in everyday life. Their behavior is much more important to me than what makes them happy in their deepest moments of contemplation.

As far as religion, most of you atheists would be surprised how much I share in common with your views. I can see almost no good coming from any of it. It has long been my belief that religion is more the root of evil than money ever could be.

I applaud the energy you all display, and your intelligence.
But, I cannot afford this kind of time on a regular basis.

I extend an apology to anyone I have offended or left feeling insulted. It most certainly was not a part of my original objective to cause any discomfort.

Thank you
 
A bit of ad hominem crept in there a little guys.

How about a little cool to compensate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top