What do atheists think that "to know God" means?

[lightgigantic]

Someday it will all be unified.

hence ...
“
Grumpy : And what is the devine aspect of this world, other than your own personal opinion. Got any evidence it exists outside your fevered mind?

LG: Just try talking about how life is a materially reducible phenomena without the hope that empiricism will someday evidence the claim if you want evidence of a fevered mind

 

[lightgigantic]

lightgigantic



You can't deal with what I said? You call this a reasoned reply? That's three or four times now you've pulled this cowardly and dishonest tactic, that you then accuse me of in the next sentence...



You don't even answer ANY of my post(after I quoted line and verse and responded to each point of yours)and I'm the one who's sidestepping? Dude, you just defined sidestepping with your perfect demonstration of the technique! Ah, the desperation of a LOSER:bawl:. You should know by now I plow right through stupidity, I sidestep nothing, and as long as the stupidity keeps coming, I will keep plowing.

Grumpy

On the contrary you have not responded to key points. You even edited this ....

If you can't understand how this is not evidence, it appears you have something more to read up upon than wiki pages about "world view".
... out of your current attempt at a response (for about the second or third time in a row)

Get back to us when you can manage a response relevant to the discussion.

:shrug:

 

[Grumpy]

lightgigantic

Now your just babbling, boy.

Grumpy

 

[spidergoat]

hence ...
“
Grumpy : And what is the devine aspect of this world, other than your own personal opinion. Got any evidence it exists outside your fevered mind?

LG: Just try talking about how life is a materially reducible phenomena without the hope that empiricism will someday evidence the claim if you want evidence of a fevered mind

But... we do think that empiricism will be able to provide evidence of the hypothesis that life is material, and that material is very strange of itself.

 

[lightgigantic]

But... we do think that empiricism will be able to provide evidence of the hypothesis that life is material, and that material is very strange of itself.

post dated rain cheques + empiricism = bad science

whoever the "we" doing the speaking is certainly not "science" (or at least the functional good part of it)

 

[Balerion]

What argument? On this thread you have asked what a subset of readers interpret a certain phrase to mean, without having given sufficient context for that phrase to have a meaning. That is not offering an argument. If you have an argument, spell it out. Present the premises and conclusion, in skeletonised form. Give reasons for your reader to consider your premises to be plausible and show that your conclusions are entailed by the premises.

Welcome to the wonderful world of Wynn.

 

[DaveC426913]

Then it is not chaos, if it can be mathematically described.

You need to understand the terms you are using. Chaos theory is a mature branch of science with well-developed mathematics

Chaos is beautiful?

Indeed, it is spectacularlybeautiful.

Even you can't deny that.

That is very New Age.

This leads me to believe that your understanding of chaos is about 30 years out of date.

As long, of course, you also firmly believe that you have your, body, your senses and your mind fully under your control.

No. The fact that I may or may have 100% control of my body, senses and mind does not mean I'm not still the master of my destiny. It is enough that
a] no one else is master of my destiny, and
b] my destiny is not known (i.e. you say unpredictable).

That said - can you tell your fingernails not to grow, and they stop growing?
Can you tell your stomach not to demand food, and it stops demanding food?
Do you always remember everything you want to remember?

How does that follow from being master of my own destiny? It is difficult to carry on a discussion if you think that that is a valid counter-argument.

There seems to be a striking similarity between scientism and New Age ...

Truer words were never spoken. It seems, as I pointed out at the top, you don't know the difference between science and new age-ism. How are we supposed to carry on a meaningful conversation about natural processes if you don't even know what chaos theory is?

 

[aaqucnaona]

Welcome to the wonderful world of Wynn.

Or rather, to that of dishonest irrational, to which most comformation baised theists belong.

We are giving speeding tickets to cheetahs on the crossing for the elderly.

 

[aaqucnaona]

You need to understand the terms you are using. Chaos theory is a mature branch of science with well-developed mathematics


Indeed, it is spectacularlybeautiful.

Even you can't deny that.


This leads me to believe that your understanding of chaos is about 30 years out of date.



No. The fact that I may or may have 100% control of my body, senses and mind does not mean I'm not still the master of my destiny. It is enough that
a] no one else is master of my destiny, and
b] my destiny is not known (i.e. you say unpredictable).



How does that follow from being master of my own destiny? It is difficult to carry on a discussion if you think that that is a valid counter-argument.



Truer words were never spoken. It seems, as I pointed out at the top, you don't know the difference between science and new age-ism. How are we supposed to carry on a meaningful conversation about natural processes if you don't even know what chaos theory is?

I think she does know about the mathematical chaos theory and the distinction between science and new age, its just that as always, she cant admit a mistake or a loss.

 

[wynn]

I think she does know about the mathematical chaos theory and the distinction between science and new age, its just that as always, she cant admit a mistake or a loss.

You, of course, are not a militant atheist.



You certainly don't make an effort to sound like someone who believes he could be wrong.

 

[wynn]

What argument? On this thread you have asked what a subset of readers interpret a certain phrase to mean, without having given sufficient context for that phrase to have a meaning. That is not offering an argument. If you have an argument, spell it out. Present the premises and conclusion, in skeletonised form. Give reasons for your reader to consider your premises to be plausible and show that your conclusions are entailed by the premises.

Some people who consider themselves to be atheists do have very strong and clear ideas about what "to know God" means. There are even some direct replies at the beginning of this thread.

Further, as already noted by Yazata and LG earlier, people who consider themselves atheists necessarily do have some ideas about "God" or else they couldn't consider themselves "atehsits."

 

[aaqucnaona]

You, of course, are not a militant atheist.



You certainly don't make an effort to sound like someone who believes he could be wrong.

First, how is that supposed to be a responce to my post?

But anyway, I do point out the miliant/irrational/strong athiesm where I find it, case in point - http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=112145&page=17 [post 325]
And I have never proclaimed certainty about the existence of gods, I have explained my athiesm as a reactionary stance on theism, not an epistemic position. Which is why I describe myself as an agnostic atheist [apathiest]. I have also made it a point to generally refer to probablities rather than assertions.
It seems you are either projection or ironically trying to wiggle your way out of admitting that you cannot admit a mistake. If you disagree [as I think you would be compelled to do], do go ahead a make a case for it, lets see if you can solve this one without any intellectually dishonest tactics.

 

[wynn]

So when the Bible says that the sun stopped in the sky that was not at god's whim? He didn't flood the whole Earth because he got mad? That all the miraculous things he is said to have done are not true? Welcome to reason!

This is your interpretation of what you have read in the Bible.

Again, find a theist who actually believes that the Universe follows "the whim of some inscrutable spirit."

The Old Greeks indeed would use phrases such as "to be at the whim of the gods."

But I've yet to meet a theist who would describe their own belief in terms of "the whim of some inscrutable spirit."

That God acts on "whims" and that God is "an inscrutable spirit" is merely your interperetation.

It's called probability, it can generate a cloud of possible outcomes and assign lower and higher probability zones. Tests against what really occurs show we can describe it pretty well(but never with certainty). A simplified version can be applied to two decks of cards when playing Black Jack. A group of students(from MIT, IIRC)got into a lot of trouble by winning huge amounts of money using this type of math. A scientific demonstration of the principle is the two slit experiment with light.

cha·os
   [key-os] Show IPA
noun
1. a state of utter confusion or disorder; a total lack of organization or order.
2. any confused, disorderly mass: a chaos of meaningless phrases.
3. the infinity of space or formless matter supposed to have preceded the existence of the ordered universe.
4. ( initial capital letter ) the personification of this in any of several ancient Greek myths.
5. Obsolete . a chasm or abyss.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chaos

We call that Rationalism, but the New Age reference belongs more in theism and spirituality, not in science. But I guess it's hard to find a group of people theists can say are even more irrational than they themselves are.

You seem to think I am a theist.
If you do think I am a theist, can you explain why you think so?

(I don't know any theist who would consider me a theist. All the theists I've known, consider me an atheist.)

 

[aaqucnaona]

Some people who consider themselves to be atheists do have very strong and clear ideas about what "to know God" means. There are even some direct replies at the beginning of this thread.

Further, as already noted by Yazata and LG earlier, people who consider themselves atheists necessarily do have some ideas about "God" or else they couldn't consider themselves "atehsits."

A valid point but an inadequate reply. His point was that you are yet to make your case for that matter despite the fact that you initiated this and therefore have the onus of making your full case.

 

[wynn]

Someday it will all be unified.

And you dare to criticize faith??!

You, who are so full of faith!

 

[aaqucnaona]

(I don't know any theist who would consider me a theist. All the theists I've known, consider me an atheist.)

IMO, you are a partisan theistic agnostic.

 

[wynn]

First, how is that supposed to be a responce to my post?

But anyway, I do point out the miliant/irrational/strong athiesm where I find it, case in point - http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=112145&page=17 [post 325]
And I have never proclaimed certainty about the existence of gods, I have explained my athiesm as a reactionary stance on theism, not an epistemic position. Which is why I describe myself as an agnostic atheist [apathiest]. I have also made it a point to generally refer to probablities rather than assertions.
It seems you are either projection or ironically trying to wiggle your way out of admitting that you cannot admit a mistake. If you disagree [as I think you would be compelled to do], do go ahead a make a case for it, lets see if you can solve this one without any intellectually dishonest tactics.

A valid point but an inadequate reply. His point was that you are yet to make your case for that matter despite the fact that you initiated this and therefore have the onus of making your full case.

What control freakery.

 

[aaqucnaona]

And you dare to criticize faith??!

You, who are so full of faith!

That is faith along the lines of 'the sun will rise tomorrow', not 'I will go to heaven' or 'God want kill infidel!'.

 

[aaqucnaona]

What control freakery.

Dodging, dodging, dodging.
Its not control freakery, its the accepted convention of an argumentative discourse. You can either make an assertion [or an assertive question] and make your case OR you can ask a speculative question and use the socratic method.

You cannot have your cake and eat it too, which is what you are trying here.

 

[wynn]

You need to understand the terms you are using. Chaos theory is a mature branch of science with well-developed mathematics
/.../
This leads me to believe that your understanding of chaos is about 30 years out of date.

By golly, they should rewrite the dictionary then, and make it suit the trends you prefer!

cha·os
   [key-os] Show IPA
noun
1. a state of utter confusion or disorder; a total lack of organization or order.
2. any confused, disorderly mass: a chaos of meaningless phrases.
3. the infinity of space or formless matter supposed to have preceded the existence of the ordered universe.
4. ( initial capital letter ) the personification of this in any of several ancient Greek myths.
5. Obsolete . a chasm or abyss.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/chaos

Indeed, it is spectacularlybeautiful.

Even you can't deny that.

Sry, my days of tripping on LSD are over.

No. The fact that I may or may have 100% control of my body, senses and mind does not mean I'm not still the master of my destiny. It is enough that
a] no one else is master of my destiny, and
b] my destiny is not known (i.e. you say unpredictable).

How does that follow from being master of my own destiny? It is difficult to carry on a discussion if you think that that is a valid counter-argument.

Can you sketch out what you mean by "being a master of one's own destiny"?

Truer words were never spoken. It seems, as I pointed out at the top, you don't know the difference between science and new age-ism. How are we supposed to carry on a meaningful conversation about natural processes if you don't even know what chaos theory is?

Indeed, how are we to do that?