When/ how did you become an atheist?

[John99]

Like I said, too many unknowns to generate an accurate probability.

50-50 is not generating a probability...that is why it is 50-50..LOL/

 

[Dywyddyr]

It is NOT 50-50.
And what makes you think that 50-50 isn't a probability?

 

[YoYoPapaya]

So the last 2000 years dwy we havent proven evolution to exist but we believe its true based on historical evidence.

Thus I'm inclined to believe in god because we exist. It's sufficient in evidence to me abiogenesis is no more sound than believing in god.

I hope you're not a scientist if this is all the evidence you need.

Your definition of god includes the supposition that god is a he and that he had complex intelligence? This is what you base your opinion on. I believe that god had to be the premise for consciousness it just wouldent make any sense to me otherwise its more sound to believe in one complexity versus infinite amounts unless we put in consideration that infinite amounts origin from the same source like physical with contigent matter.

It's perfectly fine to have beliefs but you must understand you have no logical reason to assume that the chances are 50/50 of a god existing.

Oh nevermind dwy's position " I dont know so im going to attack you for your claim because it makes me feel like I know something, that your full of shit" is a stupid position, pointless and stupid.

Stupid: no
Ignorant: yes

But at least it doesn't claim to be otherwise.

"Religion and science have a common ancestor - ignorance"

A.C. Grayling

 

[universaldistress]

I was hoping to learn something from you for once. Let's see..

Definition of frame: A frame is a structural system that supports other components of a physical construction.

Definition of reference: A references can take on many forms, including: a thought, a sensory perception that is audible (onomatopoeia), visual (text), olfactory, or tactile, emotional state, relationship with other[2], spacetime coordinate, symbolic or alpha-numeric, a physical object or an energy projection; but, other concrete and abstract contexts exist as methods of defining references within the scope of the various fields that require an origin, point of departure, or an original form. This includes methods that intentionally hide the reference from some observers, as in cryptography.

Wow I think my statements were used properly in context. Care to try again? Ah I see you put "loosely based"

so I'm not wrong? I want to see specific examples dwy. Please show me how im misusing the term or retract your allegation.

I am not abreast of the implications of D's allegation but the term you are using is more than the sum of the derivative components. It is a phrase that does have applicable meaning. If you wish to use the term you should abide by established usage, or if not use a different phrase?

 

[420Joey]

Except that we have proven evolution exists. Oh wait! Are you claiming there's historical evidence for god? Go ahead...

Sufficient evidence for me - we exist. We have recently found evidence for evolution so right before it if I made your claim (the same type of hyperbole) it would be more sound? Cuz we havent found evidence yet?? Circular logic. Abiogenesis isnt neccessarily emperically proven if you know what I mean.

In other words you're not actually interested in a genuine answer.

My idea of god may be different than your preconceptions.

One more time: no. I'm using the generally understood term.
generally understood that god is a he?? What are you talking about.

Which means what? God is just nature taking its course?

Nature has a course?? Proof to me that god exists. No I dont believe god has to be originally intelligent I believe one complex source of consciousness evolved(god) and that were all apart of it.

Still misreading. I don't have a position: I'm questioning claims that others make.

:shrug: For what?? A religion is a "belief" you demand evidence. Your reaching for apples in a mango tree.

 

[universaldistress]

50-50 is not generating a probability...that is why it is 50-50..LOL/

He was generating the probability from insufficient evidence. 50/50 IS the probability he was proffering.

 

[420Joey]

I am not abreast of the implications of D's allegation but the term you are using is more than the sum of the derivative components. It is a phrase that does have applicable meaning. If you wish to use the term you should abide by established usage, or if not use a different phrase?

We have a frame of reference to assume that there is not an elephant in dwys room.

We have a structural system of physical and abstract understandings to conclude that there is most likely not an elephant in dwy (a regular citizen somewhere in britain or somewhere) room. Not to say its impossible. If he lived in africa and trained elephants than that would be the frame of reference I would infer from to conclude if the statement is false or not. Are you saying his statement is not a hyperbole? That im using the terms incorrectly? How, please explain?? I want to learn. Go ahead. The term im using is more than the sum of derivative components?? How?? What are you talking about. Be clear.

 

[universaldistress]

I believe one complex source of consciousness evolved(god) and that were all apart of it.

Tell us more of your theory/belief. Sounds interesting.

 

[Dywyddyr]

And now you're misusing hyperbole... (again).
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hyperbole

 

[universaldistress]

We have a frame of reference to assume that there is not an elephant in dwys room.

We have a structural system of physical and abstract understandings to conclude that there is most likely not an elephant in dwy (a regular citizen somewhere in britain or somewhere) room. Not to say its impossible. If he lived in africa and trained elephants than that would be the frame of reference I would infer from to conclude if the statement is false or not. Are you saying his statement is not a hyperbole? That im using the terms incorrectly? How, please explain?? I want to learn. Go ahead. The term im using is more than the sum of derivative components?? How?? What are you talking about. Be clear.

I am not saying anything. This issue is between you and D. I was just pointing out facts. I do not analyse your original use, or make comment on that.

The answers you want need to come from D because he made the accusation.

 

[420Joey]

He was generating the probability from insufficient evidence. 50/50 IS the probability he was proffering.

There is insufficient evidence in both options.

God exists or god does not exist is a 50/50 probability unless you can demonstrate something intelligent coming from nothing, if you believe that monkeys throwing random machine parts in the wall will one day make a car. I believe we came from something intelligent (consciousness, awareness)(same source) that was evolved prior, hence god.

 

[420Joey]

And now you're misusing hyperbole... (again).
A figure of speech in which exaggeration is used for emphasis or effect, as in I could sleep for a year or This book weighs a ton.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/hyperbole

No your example was an exaggeration used for emphasis or effect.
LOL.

So I didnt misuse frame of reference than? Goody.

 

[Dywyddyr]

I believe we came from something intelligent (consciousness, awareness)(same source) that was evolved prior, hence god.

And where did that "something intelligent" come from?
You're a subscriber to turtles all the way down?

 

[Dywyddyr]

No your example was an exaggeration used for emphasis or effect.

How was it an exaggeration?

So I didnt misuse frame of reference than? Goody.

Yes you did.
We have just as much "frame of reference" for the elephant in my bedroom as we we have for the existence of god.
Either you were misusing the term or making false claims.

 

[420Joey]

One flaw in your BS. Evolution HAS been proven to be a system of change. If you want to meet 'Mr Evolution' you will be sadly diasappointed lol.

Obviously that went over your head. I said if I were to say the statement "It cant exist we havent found evidence in the last 1900 years" before lets say darwins time, would it have the same soundness as dwys statement that we havent found evidence of god in the last 2000 years. We lack the capacities maybe well find the "evidence" we seek in the future, like evolution. Im not spewing "BS" or saying god doesent exist. Learn to read.

 

[universaldistress]

There is insufficient evidence in both options.

God exists or god does not exist is a 50/50 probability unless you can demonstrate something intelligent coming from nothing, if you believe that monkeys throwing random machine parts in the wall will one day make a car. I believe we came from something intelligent (consciousness, awareness)(same source) that was evolved prior, hence god.

I do not see, and no one has ever seen 'nothing'. The universe is composed of stuff. Stuff that complexifies because of its base state. You are claiming the base state was designed? D claims the base state evolved? Both are equally hard to prove but that doesn't make a defineable proability. Insufficient evidence.

 

[420Joey]

And where did that "something intelligent" come from?
You're a subscriber to turtles all the way down?

Where did we come from? I have no reason to believe god didnt come prior us. Reality would be more complication under that supposition. I'll simplify it and say that god exists and that is why consciousness exists in a meaningful way.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Obviously that went over your head. I said if I were to say the statement "It cant exist we havent found evidence in the last 1900 years" before lets say darwins time, would it have the same soundness as dwys statement that we havent found evidence of god in the last 2000 years.

That would be incorrect.
The reason that we "didn't have evidence" for evolution (we in fact did - in fact we're making use of that evidence) is that no-one thought to look. This is not the case with god. As I pointed out.

 

[420Joey]

How was it an exaggeration?

Because you dont have an elephant? duh.

Yes you did.
We have just as much "frame of reference" for the elephant in my bedroom as we we have for the existence of god.
Either you were misusing the term or making false claims.

Incorrect. Frame of reference I can draw conclusions from. There is no frame of reference to god or god not existing. There is a frame of reference we can use to logically conclude that there is most likely not an elephant in your room (for all the obvious reasons)

 

[universaldistress]

Obviously that went over your head. I said if I were to say the statement "It cant exist we havent found evidence in the last 1900 years" before lets say darwins time, would it have the same soundness as dwys statement that we havent found evidence of god in the last 2000 years. We lack the capacities maybe well find the "evidence" we seek in the future, like evolution. Im not spewing "BS" or saying god doesent exist. Learn to read.

More fudging BS. I responded to:

Joey:

So the last 2000 years dwy we havent proven evolution to exist but we believe its true based on historical evidence.

I said:

One flaw in your BS. Evolution HAS been proven to be a system of change.

Trying to fudge the thread with more BS doesn't help your cause.