Theists don't ask questions

Argue for and against Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm

Theists don't ask questions

Post #1

Post by Blastcat »

Hi

I ask a lot of questions.. and SOMETIMES ( but not always ) get answers.

One of the reasons that I do ask a lot of questions, is that I don't actually learn anything new by proselytizing atheism. I do that a bit, of course, I think it's important that people get to know an atheist and what he thinks about the "big questions" and so on, but I am ALSO here to learn what OTHER people think.

So, the questions.

It just occurred to me that I RARELY get any questions from the theists.
Isn't that odd?

____________

Question for debate:


  • Why is it that theists don't seem very curious as to what outsiders to their beliefs think?

____________


:)

Zzyzx
Site Supporter
Posts: 25079
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 10:38 pm
Location: Bible Belt USA
Has thanked: 39 times
Been thanked: 65 times

Re: Questions, Questions...

Post #171

Post by Zzyzx »

.
Hector Barbosa wrote:
Zzyzx wrote: A rational start toward reasoned discussion would be to understand that Atheism means "without belief in gods", NOT 'rejection of belief'.

Unless people are born believing in gods, they are born "without belief in gods" and are later TAUGHT to believe.
You are not the authority on what is "rational" so that subjective opinion is a irrelevant argument against anything I said unless you can provide evidence for your claims to be more "rational".
Correction: My position is that rational debate / discussion requires understanding of the definition of Atheism -- according to Atheists -- NOT as defined by others (including Theists).

Readers will decide for themselves if that is a valid argument / position or not. The opinion of an opposition debater is immaterial.
Hector Barbosa wrote: As far as atheism goes, I have already proved my point about the meaning of Atheism and why it can not both cover a meaning of anything that is not theist, and opposition to theist at the same time without contradiction, so I am not interested in doing that again here since there are better threads for that debate where I can avoid having to repeat myself.
It would be prudent to understand that the 'A' in Atheism means 'NOT'. Combining NOT with Theist = not a theist. Must we also play games with the meaning of 'theist'?

My position is also 'not a Theist' which I prefer to specify as Non-Theist to avoid warping / willful 'misunderstanding' by debate opponents (who often seem inclined toward playing word games rather than debating substantive issues).

In this Forum each person is entitled to identify their theistic position -- without being 'corrected' by others.


Notice that the question for debate is: "Why is it that theists don't seem very curious as to what outsiders to their beliefs think?

This thread illustrates part of the reason -- some Theists evidently are convinced that they KNOW what outsiders to their beliefs think -- better than the outsiders know their own position. Those who already have all the answers are not curious about what they already think they KNOW.
Hector Barbosa wrote: Regardless, I will ignore any further point you make about that here, if you wish to debate the definition of atheism with me, then read what I have already posted and we can debate it on another thread.

All your points relates to this topic, and I don't want to have to repeat my argument every single time a new atheists comes along here who don't understand why I truly do KNOW that I am neither a atheist or theist by any definition I have read including the one you stated.

For what you seem to fail to understand, is what the word "belief" means and how you get it, just like blastcat and so many other atheists I have debated, just like most atheists I have debated struggle with understanding the word "faith" and even "truth".
Many who do not fare well in debate focus upon other debaters personally rather than on issues.


I appreciate all the help to illustrate what I say regarding word games and personal remarks.
.
Non-Theist

If you stop claiming knowledge of invisible, undetectable unicorns, I will stop challenging your claim. Same goes for gods

ANY of the thousands of "gods" proposed, imagined, worshiped, loved, feared, and/or fought over by humans MAY exist -- awaiting verifiable evidence

For a quick tutorial on science vs. religion, compare modern internet weather radar to ancient religious beliefs and superstitions about weather

"Demand money with the threat of violence and you'll get arrested. Do it with the threat of eternal damnation and it's tax deductible"

TheBeardedDude
Scholar
Posts: 258
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:06 pm
Location: Connecticut

Re: Theists don't ask questions

Post #172

Post by TheBeardedDude »

William wrote:
TheBeardedDude wrote:
William wrote:
"Call it a form of questioning atheist positions... "
There remains only one atheist position: a lack of belief in a god(s)
That is the shared default position.
Q: What kind of atheist fits you best in relation to the subset positions?

"Incorrect. The unicorn is mentioned for its natural strength."
Something that doesn't exist can't have natural strength. If it doesn't exist, then any attribute attributed to it is fictional. I don't care why people try to justify it being in the bible, this is irrelevant to me. Unicorns are not real and never have been.
Perhaps it should have been called a 'unihorn' then?
If you don't care to do some research on it, then so be it.

Q: Why, as a particular type of atheist, do you refuse to examine possible explanations regarding the mention of the unicorn, when the opportunity is afforded to you to do so?

Your argument under the circumstance, has no traction.

Why Does The Bible Mention Unicorns? [Linky]

It appears that the link is a Christian perspective, but from a Jewish perspective, there is this;

UNICORN: [Linky]

Now, the more one searches the perspectives, the more one can see that there is still some differences of perspective and some still invoke a supernatural quality to this beast.
When such happens, I tend to discard both as relevant - as they contradict to the point where debate about it becomes moot. All that is debatable is the 'supernatural' aspect. That is the aspect you are focused upon.

In relation to the idea of GOD, this for you, translates to 'a supernatural being' which is not how I 'see' the Idea of GOD.
So you are arguing with the wrong man in that regard as I don't claim that my idea of GOD is 'supernatural' - I do, however, acknowledge that something can appear to be the case, but consider such to be something which happens naturally which is altogether outside the parameters of past and present human ability to understand in relation to nature.

"In regard to the biblical God, please explain to me what you are meaning by "supernatural attributes". "
Supernatural: does not exist in nature.


Then it does not exist in relation to this universe.
There may indeed be another universe which works in conjunction with this on, largely invisible to human senses.
Even so, this would not mean that anything 'supernatural' is actually going on, because the word 'supernatural' was invented by humans to explain something which does go on with humans.

Q: IF:
Another universe does exist alongside our own;
THEN:
Would those within that other universe see us as 'supernatural'?

Q: IF:
Another universe does exist alongside our own;
THEN:

Would it not likely be that those within it would see themselves as 'natural'?

Q: IF:
Those within it would see themselves as 'natural', and their position in relation to ours as being 'natural', would we be wise to consider such a universe and its creatures as 'supernatural' even that;

1: It appears to be the case for us because it is 'not normal' when the universes interact in relation to individual subjective reality and subsequent experience.

2: The natives of the other universe are not self-identifying as 'supernatural' anyhow?
Meaning that god is supposed to be able to do things that nothing else can do within the natural realm.
Apparently that isn't the obvious case though is it?
So naturally we should question the claim that GOD can indeed reach from one realm (universe) to the other and do physical tricks to entertain the natives?
Even if it were possible for one universe to do that to another, ripple effects can be major...even in very negative ways.
So we cannot assume that GOD can do whatever IT likes to do, within the parameters of any universe just to satisfy science and convince atheists.
Nature is limited, but god is supposed to be unlimited, that would make god's "unlimitedness" supernatural.
Only in human terms grounded in ignorance but wanting to make a statement anyway.
"Supernatural" is a human term for wanting something to happen which can never happen, naturally speaking. It is a human idea which may not have any relevance to the facts of what occurs in relation to individual human experience.

"One is of form, the other is not. Please explain how "verifiable evidence" can be made available in relation to something which has no known form. "
Things don't need "form" to be verified with evidence.
Really? Please name one for me.
Opinions don't have form either, but you can verify the existence of opinions with evidence by asking for opinions and documenting them.
Okay.

Did you notice that the opinion didn't actually become a "thing" until the process of recording it happened?
Yet, it existed before it became a "thing".

Please explain how individual subjective thought can really be a thing before it is recorded. I am not arguing that before it is made into a thing, it didn't exist.
I am arguing that before it was made into a thing, it did indeed exist.
Light doesn't have form, nor does energy of any kind.


I think this is plainly incorrect Clownboat.

Essentially light is information and given enough timespace it transforms into things and all those things are products of information.
Energy and light are the same. Energy is the manifestation of things - Lights way of...well...doing things
Dark matter and dark energy have no known forms, but we have evidence they exist too.
They are things because they have mass. At that rate they represent things which are able to extinguish all light from there mass (what they are - there structure - as far as we can tell anyhoo) and this could represent the sum total of all information from light having perhaps created its masterpiece in those sections of the universe where they exist as things. - the ultimate end product of the data of light. Light has done its job in those departments.

"Therefore, why are you making a false analogy between the two ideas and trying to use that as an argument? "
Not liking an analogy doesn't make it a false analogy.
It isn't a question of me not liking it Clownboat. It is a question of why it should not be liked.
I gave examples as to why it should not be accepted as true argument, but rejected as fallacy (false argument)
I used unicorns as an example hoping we could both find common agreement that unicorns can have no evidence verifying their nonexistence, highlighting that the burden of proof is on the one claiming they exist instead of the one rejecting the claim. The exact same argument is what I use when rejecting god claims and the shifting of the burden of proof.
As explained Clownboat, the argument you are using is shown to be false.

1: In this universe, it is mathematically feasible that unicorns (as in the form of a horse with a horn growing out of the middle of its forehead) likely do exist.

Thus 'unicorns most likely exist in this universe'.

The idea of GOD as being a formless self aware consciousness, is another kettle of fish.

The analogies therefore do not align and thus the demand for burden of proof is a false one.

Burden of proof is not required. [linky]

"If I said, "GOD exists", then that is a positive claim is it not? "
correct
"THEN more is required from me in relation to what I mean by "GOD', correct? "
correct
"THEN in providing more data, it is found that the idea being described cannot be produced through "verifiable evidence" for logical reasons, there is no case for burden of proof to be enforced. It is a fallacy to demand such. "
incorrect

Either something exists, allowing you to know something about it, or something does not exist and attributes are made up about it. If you believe you know specific properties of your god, then there must be a way of verifying that knowledge.
"The Way" is the manner in which one approaches the subject at the go-get.
It is the reality of the individuals subjective experience which provides the evidence to that individual.
Therefore in relation to that individual, yes - the knowledge is verified, as far as the individual is concerned.
In that, your demand for science to intervene on the matter is besides the point. Science is not about that. Subjective reality is off limits to present day science and generally rejected as unusable in relation to 'verifiable evidence'.

The subject of GOD is a question of philosophy and in that Burden of Truth is what is looked for in regard to evidence. The mind of the matter.

BoT rather than BoP.
Otherwise, you don't know anything about your god because you couldn't possibly know anything about it if nothing about it can be verified.


Untrue! The individual can indeed know something of the nature of their idea of GOD through that subjective interaction. To be sure, the individual is indeed dealing with something way beyond normal comprehension and thus metaphor comes into its own in attempts to make the idea a THING through the process of explanation - now situated within the physical universe in the form of written language.

Verbal language is the same process - it is made a thing through sound. What is made a thing? An idea, a thought. A thought exists even before it is made into a sound and the sound needs to somehow be captured in order to make it into a thing.
It isn't a fallacy to expect evidence of existence for something claimed to exist.
In the case of ideas and thoughts, we all know that they exist right? Even that until we make them into things, they dont exist in this universe as solid measurable objects.
Thus fallacy to expect evidence of existence for something which everyone knows exists, even that we cannot see these as solid objects, until we make them so.

"Bad analogy. What guilt is there, associated with having knowledge of an idea of GOD? "

Once again, not liking or understanding an analogy doesn't make it "bad."
You do me a disservice not to acknowledge that I have already explained WHY it is bad.

The analogy is intended to discuss the existence or nonexistence of a god. I'll elaborate further by now comparing the example to the god question specifically (this is an argument I have heard used elsewhere by people like Matt Dilahunty, so it is not my own).

God is the subject on trial. We can either find god "guilty" of existing through the evidence presented or "not guilty" because of a lack of verifiable evidence. No evidence can be presented to show innocence, all one can do is try and disprove or poke holes in the evidence produced to try and show guilt. With no evidence of a god to show it being "guilty" of existence, one might reasonably conclude that god being "not guilty" of existence is sufficient reason to conclude that gods are truly "innocent" of existing.
Okay.

So in relation to that analogy, 'we' are the jury and all the evidence is not in so we are not even in the chamber where we can discuss the guilt or non-guilt of the idea of the being in question. (GOD)

Your analogy simple presumes the evidence is all in but the Judge has not asked the jury to deliberate and come up with a verdict. The jury still sits in the court, still being supplied with the evidence.

In the simplest terms, what is occurring here is that there are two courts.

One is bogus and the other is legitimate.

Due to the philosophical nature of the subject under investigation, The legitimate court is The Court of Philosophical Questions, not The Court of Scientific Questions.

In reality, because all the evidence is not even in, the proceedings are not even at the court stage re the investigations.

Thus atheists using the argument of science as a means to jump the gun and get to the finish line ahead of proceedings, is - while amusing - nonetheless, bogus.

"Still a bad analogy. Someone who claims GOD exists is not guilty of anything. Is not even guilty of being unable to provide "verifiable evidence" because of the nature of their subjective experience in relation to that. "
You completely misunderstood the analogy. You aren't on trial, your god is.
You either misunderstand 'my god' or are ignorant about Her. My idea of GOD is not on trial. My idea of GOD is still very much under investigation.

"Atheists would be far better off understanding this and trying a different approach toward theists belief systems. "
Take a step back sometimes and ask yourself "Do I understand what they are actually saying? Do I understand it well enough to make assumptions about it?" Rather than making assumptions because of a lack of understanding, ask for clarification.
Please clarify what you mean by the above. Thanks.

"Rubbishing, mocking, belittling, demanding "verifiable evidence" etc simply won't cut it because these are dishonest approaches, and fail to respect the sacredness of an individuals experience in relation to their own understanding of what GOD is. "

You are now accusing me of being dishonest?
You are being dishonest. I have pointed out where this is occurring in your argument.
I am able to understand why you believe you are being honest, but that still doesn't mean it is something I should accept from anyone as 'The Truth' when I can see and explain why it is NOT.
I see nothing wrong with asking for evidence of a god before determining that one exists.
If you want evidence that what I might testify of as having experienced, you would ask me for that evidence, would you not?
If you want evidence that GOD exists, should you not be asking that of GOD?

But how can you when you lack belief in all ideas of gods?

Is that my fault? Why should I be the one to prove to you that GOD is real in the context of MY subjective experience, even that it was even possible for me to do this for you?

You ask for far too much in relation to reality. What you ask for cannot be done for you, by me or by anyone else.

If such evidence does exist, I want to see it.
Then ask GOD for it.
This isn't being dishonest. Don't accuse me of such intellectual manipulation and I won't accuse you of being intentionally obtuse.
*sniffles*

"Only if said theists broke the law and murdered others claiming GOD told them to, can guilt and GOD be linked with said act. Giving testament to the power of an idea of GOD in ones life, is not and should never be considered a thing to be ashamed of and thus requiring some sort of social judgement and condemnation for holding such a position."
I have no idea what this ramble is about, but I suspect it is from a lack of understanding what my analogy means.
Now you're being rude and personal. :blink:

The courtroom analogy is and always has been to demonstrate where the burden of proof lies. You never answered my question on this.
:blink:
Does the claimant (the state prosecutor) have the burden of proof, or the defendant (my hypothetical hermit without electronic devoices)? Does the defendant have to prove with evidence their innocence, or is it the prosecution's job to demonstrate (with evidence) guilt?

:study:
"That is the shared default position.
Q: What kind of atheist fits you best in relation to the subset positions?"


I have no "subset" position. I am an atheist in that I meet the definition of an atheist (lacks a belief in a god). Once again, it is literally that simple.

"Perhaps it should have been called a 'unihorn' then?
If you don't care to do some research on it, then so be it. "


I know of the unicorn myths. Myth being the keyword. I don't care why one (of many) myths are retroactively reinterpreted to try and justify their inclusion.

"Q: Why, as a particular type of atheist, do you refuse to examine possible explanations regarding the mention of the unicorn, when the opportunity is afforded to you to do so? "

I am not interested in the special pleading arguments that are based on confirmation bias that lack evidence to substantiate them. Don't assume that because I didn't engage with your links, that I have never researched biblical myths.

"In relation to the idea of GOD, this for you, translates to 'a supernatural being' which is not how I 'see' the Idea of GOD.
So you are arguing with the wrong man in that regard as I don't claim that my idea of GOD is 'supernatural' - I do, however, acknowledge that something can appear to be the case, but consider such to be something which happens naturally which is altogether outside the parameters of past and present human ability to understand in relation to nature."


Argument from ignorance. Presuming that a god is using "natural" processes that we don't as yet understand, doesn't explain anything. It is another form of magical thinking. The very existence of a god requires supernature. The idea of nature as we understand it, has no room for nor any need for a god.

"There may indeed be another universe which works in conjunction with this on, largely invisible to human senses."

No evidence of other universes either.

"Q: IF:
Another universe does exist alongside our own;
THEN:
Would those within that other universe see us as 'supernatural'? "


No evidence other universes exist. I don't play "what-if" games like this one because they only tell us about the imagination and not reality.

"So we cannot assume that GOD can do whatever IT likes to do, within the parameters of any universe just to satisfy science and convince atheists. "

A god that is indistinguishable from fiction. If I wouldn't accept this argument for the existence of Gandalf, why would I accept if for a god?

"Did you notice that the opinion didn't actually become a "thing" until the process of recording it happened?
Yet, it existed before it became a "thing". "

Please explain how individual subjective thought can really be a thing before it is recorded. I am not arguing that before it is made into a thing, it didn't exist.
I am arguing that before it was made into a thing, it did indeed exist.


I didn't notice that because it isn't true. My opinion (as a thought) can exist in my mind prior to being recorded. So it didn't only become a "thing" after recorded. It became digestible by another sentient being after being recorded, but that wasn't the moment it existed.

But even before recording it (writing it down), one can see evidence of the thought process. For instance, one could watch a person think via an MRI.

But what you are alluding to is the limitation of the observer. If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound? If a person thinks about something, does the thought exist even if they don't record it? Yes and yes. But both are temporary occurrences in the universe of easily verifiable and observable phenomena. We can measure sound and we can record opinions and observe brain chemistry. If a god exists and interacts within or upon the universe, it must do so in a way that could be verified. Otherwise, it cannot be known that it ever acted upon or within the universe, making the assumption that it did so indistinguishable from fiction.

"I think this is plainly incorrect Clownboat. "

I am not clownboat. And "form" means:
the visible shape or configuration of something (light isn't matter, so it can't have visible shape or configuration

Perhaps "form" isn't the word you were looking for. For instance, thought doesn't have form either.

"Essentially light is information and given enough timespace it transforms into things and all those things are products of information.
Energy and light are the same. Energy is the manifestation of things - Lights way of...well...doing things "


This is what is incorrect. Light isn't information. Humans can use light to transmit information (fiber optic cables for instance). Light is energy. Thanks to Einstein, we know that energy and matter can be interchangeable, but that does not meant that they have similar properties (meaning that while matter can have form, that does not mean light can).

"They are things because they have mass."

I don't know that this statement is true about either dark energy or dark matter. They can interact with light, but as far as I am aware, we don't know that either have mass.

"At that rate they represent things which are able to extinguish all light from there mass (what they are - there structure - as far as we can tell anyhoo) and this could represent the sum total of all information from light having perhaps created its masterpiece in those sections of the universe where they exist as things. - the ultimate end product of the data of light. Light has done its job in those departments. "

I have no idea what you are talking about. Light is energy. It isn't "information" nor is it doing "its job." You are anthropomorphizing light to an extreme.

"It isn't a question of me not liking it Clownboat. It is a question of why it should not be liked. "

I am still not clownboat.

"I gave examples as to why it should not be accepted as true argument, but rejected as fallacy (false argument) "

No, you didn't. You gave a poor attempt at dismissal based on misunderstanding what was being said and implied.

"As explained Clownboat, the argument you are using is shown to be false"

Still not clownboat.

"1: In this universe, it is mathematically feasible that unicorns (as in the form of a horse with a horn growing out of the middle of its forehead) likely do exist."

It is possible an as yet discovered species of animal (fossil or extant) exists, of course. But that has NEVER been what I have been talking about. I am talking about the MAGICAL and SUPERNATURAL unicorn (as claimed to exist in a variety of myths, like the bible).

"Thus 'unicorns most likely exist in this universe'."

No, this isn't true even assuming we are only talking about a horned horse. It would be correct to say that: "a horned horse-like animal may be possible to exist, or it may be possible that one once existed." You can't say "most likely" when all you have is an assumption about possibility when it references a specific scenario.

For instance, is it possible that life exists elsewhere in the universe? Yes, it is possible because we know of at least one planet that can sustain life. Does that mean it is most likely that life exists in our solar system (not counting Earth)? No, we don't know what is more or less likely in our solar system. This is why when searching for habitable planets elsewhere in the solar system, we look for those most similar to Earth.

"The idea of GOD as being a formless self aware consciousness, is another kettle of fish.

The analogies therefore do not align and thus the demand for burden of proof is a false one.

Burden of proof is not required. "


Baloney special pleading. If you claim something exists, then you have a burden of proof to demonstrate it.

"The subject of GOD is a question of philosophy and in that Burden of Truth is what is looked for in regard to evidence. The mind of the matter.

BoT rather than BoP. "


In order to show something is true (when it comes to something existing), it must be shown to exist. You can't make truth claims about something while simultaneously saying it is real without first showing it is real. We can argue about what is or isn't true about Gandalf inside the Lord of the Rings universe. Therefore we can make true and false statements about Gandalf. But making true statements about Gandalf, does not make Gandalf real or possible to exist in reality.

"Untrue! The individual can indeed know something of the nature of their idea of GOD through that subjective interaction. "

They can BELIEVE they know something about their god, but that doesn't mean that what they "know" about their god is true. I can know all sorts of things about Gandalf and write fan-fiction so that I can have subjective experiences with Gandalf. That doesn't make him real.

"In the case of ideas and thoughts, we all know that they exist right? Even that until we make them into things, they dont exist in this universe as solid measurable objects. "

1) no one ever claimed (at least I didn't) that only solid objects exist in the universe
2) no one ever claimed (at least I didn't) that only solid objects are measurable

We can MEASURE things that exist that are not composed of matter. Like heat, or light, or sound, etc. Also, THOUGHTS. We can observe thoughts and even manipulate thoughts (big electromagnets have been shown to generate hallucinations in people).

"Thus fallacy to expect evidence of existence for something which everyone knows exists, even that we cannot see these as solid objects, until we make them so."

It isn't a fallacy. It is a misunderstanding on your part. Please stop throwing out the word "fallacy" because you don't like what I said.

"You do me a disservice not to acknowledge that I have already explained WHY it is bad."

You explained why you don't like it, but that does not make it objectively bad. Misunderstanding what I am saying does not make it bad.

"So in relation to that analogy, 'we' are the jury and all the evidence is not in so we are not even in the chamber where we can discuss the guilt or non-guilt of the idea of the being in question. (GOD)

Your analogy simple presumes the evidence is all in but the Judge has not asked the jury to deliberate and come up with a verdict. The jury still sits in the court, still being supplied with the evidence.

In the simplest terms, what is occurring here is that there are two courts.

One is bogus and the other is legitimate.

Due to the philosophical nature of the subject under investigation, The legitimate court is The Court of Philosophical Questions, not The Court of Scientific Questions.

In reality, because all the evidence is not even in, the proceedings are not even at the court stage re the investigations.

Thus atheists using the argument of science as a means to jump the gun and get to the finish line ahead of proceedings, is - while amusing - nonetheless, bogus. "


I don't understand how you took my example and perverted it to this degree. There aren't "two courts." And in the end, you concluded an argument from ignorance.

"You either misunderstand 'my god' or are ignorant about Her. My idea of GOD is not on trial. My idea of GOD is still very much under investigation. "

Either your god exists and can be shown to exist, or it doesn't and is indistinguishable from fiction.

"Please clarify what you mean by the above. Thanks. "

Seriously? This is why I re-explained my analogies. Please take the time to read through them to understand them instead of trying to disagree with them from the beginning under the assumption that I must be wrong and you must be correct.

"You are being dishonest. I have pointed out where this is occurring in your argument. "

I am done with you now. I do not engage with people who call me dishonest when I have been nothing but forthcoming.

User avatar
Blastcat
Banned
Banned
Posts: 5948
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 4:18 pm

Re: Questions, Questions...

Post #173

Post by Blastcat »

[Replying to post 163 by Hector Barbosa]




[center]
Defining atheism
Part two
[/center]

Well, if you mean that babies don't have any god beliefs?
I guess that's true.

We all start off being agnostics and atheists, ignorant of rocket science and political theories.
Hector Barbosa wrote:
How can you start being an atheist, if being an atheist is to REJECT a belief in God?
How can you reject a argument you have not heard?
Right.
Babies cannot REJECT or BELIEVE the "God Hypothesis".

Babies, I think lack a belief in any god.. of COURSE they don't have philosophical positions. Similarly, babies lack any belief in math, or in quantum physics.

Atheism isn't JUST a rejection, it's a lack of belief..

You can be an atheist even if you haven't considered theism as an option. If you don't believe in any gods, you are an atheist. You don't have to have a good reason for the lack of the belief. You can have a very BAD reason, or no reason at all.

Babies are atheists, but they have "no reason at all".
We all have to LEARN about religion and gods and how to think critically and so on.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
The fact that children exist is one of many evidences against the argument that you are either a theists or atheist. For it is total nonsense to say that children are naturally theists or atheists.
You are having a bit of trouble with the definition of "atheist".
If you are NOT a theist, you are an atheist.

Dogs and rocks are atheists, in the most general sense.
They are NOT theists... ( and nobody cares :) )

Hector Barbosa wrote:
Children are naturally children, they have not been offered either position.
Not until they can understand those rather "lofty" positions... I think I remember being 3 or 4 when I had an idea of "God". It's real easy for young children to imagine things like "An invisible man in the sky who loves you a lot" ....

I know I didn't have ANY trouble ...
And you have to remember that I was ENCOURAGED a lot.

If my mama told me it was true, I didn't ask too many questions ( until I started getting older ).

Hector Barbosa wrote:
In fact many Christians would argue that children are naturally theists rather than atheist, because children have a natural trust in the unseen, and indeed many children
come to naturally believe in God quite fast if they are not taught against that belief.
Yes.
Many people do.

I'd say that they are most likely wrong about that.
I think our most natural, uneducated state includes a lot of hard wired cognitive biases. We have to learn how to spot and remove them.

Hence, the skeptical method of testing propositions for the truth.
Science uses it, because it's a very sound method.

But it has to be learned.
I encourage people to learn skepticism.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
I disagree with either argument. Anyone who has ever known a child should know that it is quite obvious that children are neither theists or atheists, for if they were then they would not be "innocent". Innocence comes from being unaware, and if you are unaware you can not be deeply convinced of a position.
True.
But if we don't believe X, we lack that belief.

In that sense, babies don't believe in gods, and lack a belief in gods.
They have to be taught to believe in gods or goddesses.

Most are.

But you aren't a baby any longer.
You can make up your mind now.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
You answer to William that you believe that if God exists then God should easily be able to be scientifically verified. Would you care to explain how that would be if God is a "spirit" or "immaterial" or if God is all powerful and does not WISH to be discovered?
Right.
Hide and seek.

Well, if an all powerful god doesn't want to be detected, ok then.
Whatarwegonnado about that?

God remains undetected... for WHATEVER reason.
Peek a boo... I see you.....

Well, sorry, I DON'T see the god.
Do you?

Hector Barbosa wrote:
Can you really not think of any way that a God could exist without the knowledge of scientists on the small spect in the universe called earth? If so I don't think you have much grasp of how big the universe actually is.
I don't really know what you're getting at here.. sorry. I think that an all knowing god would have heard of the scientific method.

Atheism is only about the non belief in gods or goddesses.
Anti-religionism would be something else.

I think I have both, but they are different.
Hector Barbosa wrote:
I agree that they are different, and wouldn't that be evidence that you can be religious and a atheist? I mean are Buddhist really theists? I think you could argue either way.
Yes, I agree.
It's entirely possible to be "religious" and atheist.

It stretches the definition of what a "religion" is, but fine. I would call some forms of Eastern traditional beliefs "atheist" religions.

Most religions, however are institutionalized theology... about gods.

Not all, but most.

I'm a secular Taoist, by the way.. no gods or supernatural at all... It's my "religion" of one, if you will. Completely agnostic and atheistic.

It's my "way".
I never proselytize my Taoist "way".


I proselytize skepticism, because that way is a very good way for all.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
It is very clear to me that atheists can be at least as dogmatic as religious people :)
Yes, of course.
Atheism does not imply skepticism.

Atheists, like everyone else, are prone to cognitive biases.. AKA "mistakes". Adhering too much to an established notion might get in their way. That would be a cognitive bias.

In science, for example, cognitive biases just get in the way. If a scientist's dogmatism ends up in his work, that's a mistake.
The scientific method looks out for mistakes like that. Cognitive biases are no good at all to science, or to the method known as "skepticism".

Science checks for mistakes.
So does skepticism.

I just think it's about time that we take a hard look at the benefits of religion.
Hector Barbosa wrote:
Benefit of religion to you? or to everyone?
To the world, yes.
Is the world a better place with religions in it, going forward, or a worse place?

I think that's highly debatable, don't you?

Hector Barbosa wrote:
If it is about benefits to just you, what relevance does it have what others believe?
I'm not thinking just to me, but everyone on the planet. I'm affected, of course, and many are more affected, depending on where they happen to live. I live in a very liberal part of the world, so religion doesn't affect my day to day life.

But all I have to do is listen to the news.. and find out what's happening in other parts of the world, where liberalism isn't so strong.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
If its about benefits to others, does this mean that you believe in ONE objective truth? Wouldn't that be evidence that you then also believe in objective morals? And if so what source is this objective truth or morals?
You do have a lot of questions.
I like that...

If I answered everything in one go, this post would get too long. That's why we have so many threads in here.

The whole discussion of "objective morality" vs subjective and so on is very complex.
Let's just say that most people have a moral sense.. some people insist that morality has to be "objective" ... and those people are mostly theists.

To me, morality is about "right and wrong", and figuring out if it's objective or not, and what "objective" means in relation to morals is rather meaningless.

I'd rather just know what's right or wrong and why.
There are pressing moral dilemmas... lets get on with it.

Bickering about if God grounds our morality or not is quite meaningless.. while the world awaits what is the moral thing to do in any particular circumstance. We have a Trump to contend with. We are going to have to decide if what he does is right or wrong. Forget if it's objective or not...

I don't think that religion should have a place in politics.
Hector Barbosa wrote:
So you don't believe in freedom of speech and free right to practice religion?
I wonder how you arrived at that conclusion?

Atheism has nothing to do with freedom of speech.

Religious people should be free to practice their religion but not free to IMPOSE their religion on others. Politics yields a lot of POWER. Politicians create LAWS.

We don't want to end up with religious police, do we?

Hector Barbosa wrote:
Can you separate a belief in religion from politics, or atheistic views in politics?
The only view an atheist has is the lack of belief in gods or goddesses.
Atheism has no theology, no ideology, no political agenda.

If you don't believe in any gods or goddesses, you are an atheist.
That's it.

I'll keep repeating that seemingly difficult definition until it sinks in.
I've seen a lot of theists struggle over that one.

_____________

Santa vs God:


I don't believe in Santa...
I don't have a word for it.. no shortcut.

I'm agnostic about "Santa"... I have no knowledge of any "evidence" other than all the marketing and stories ... So, I also do not believe in "Santa". To me, "Santa" is a story book character.. great for movies and so on... but nothing else.

I don't believe in "God".
I have a word for that.. a shortcut, which is "atheist".

I'm agnostic about "God"... I have no knowledge of any "evidence" other than the religious "marketing" ( preaching and so forth ) and the stories. .. So, I also do not believe in "God". To me, "God" is a story book character.. great for movies and so on... but nothing else.

I hope that you notice the similarity.

There is no real word for "not believing in Santa".. because I guess the "Santa" belief isn't being discussed in here.

There IS a word for those who do not believe in "God", though.

That word is "atheist".

_____________

Hector Barbosa wrote:
How would you deside objectively on right to practice free religion, or on what curriculum should be taught in school if you have made your mind up to believe in God or not to?
If religion should not have a place in politics, why should atheism?
I already said that atheism has no place in politics.
People should be free to practice their religion as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone's freedoms.

Religiously motivated terrorism, for example, would infringe on other people's freedoms.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
You say there is no atheistic branch which promote war, but if that is the truth how can you argue that there is a religious branch who does?
Just a look at the news should do the trick.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
How many religions do you know which teach its members to fight physical wars?
I don't know.
But if a religion does, it should be stopped, don't you think?
I don't happen to like war very much.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
Maybe you can argue that Islam and Catholicism does though many in those religions are opposed to war and most of their religious text is too.
Christians and Muslims have used their religions as pretexts for war. They found some way to justify it... people are very clever that way.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
But is Jehovah Witnesses, Mormons, Baptists, Buddhists and Taoists really promoting war?
Did Jesus?
Well, that's debatable, isn't it?

Hector Barbosa wrote:
If you can claim that they did, couldn't it then also be said that communism is a atheistic branch which promote war?
No.

It can't be truly said.
However, that doesn't stop many apologists from making the stunningly weird and false argument. Atheism doesn't have a "communistic branch".

Communists wanted to suppress the freedom of the speech.. religions had ideas of their own. That's a no-no in a repressive regime, apparently.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
For communism is very strongly opposed to religion and the belief in God.
As it was practiced under Stalin, yes.
But communism has nothing to do with religion.

There are different kinds of communism. Stalin and the Russian communism is extremely repressive.

Not just to religion, of course.
They didn't like the dissidents.

Hector Barbosa wrote:
You might even argue that fascism and national socialist (nazis) were too.
Well, I might not, but you are welcome to...

And by the way, welcome to debates.
Isn't it fascinating?


:)

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 7957
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 52 times
Been thanked: 94 times

Re: Theists don't ask questions

Post #174

Post by Clownboat »

Hector wrote:http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/phys ... fiability/]There is 0 REAL evidence that man evolved from Apes, it makes no logical sense,
It is not our job to educate you about evolution.
Evolution DOES NOT support the idea that man evolved from Apes. Let me say it again, man did not come from apes.

Yet here you are in amazement, saying that it makes no logical sense. Meanwhile, those of us that understand evolution are sitting here shaking our heads at you.

What you're saying is similar to:
The Christian act of Communion, does not require you to kill a human and take their flesh.

You would probably be left sitting there trying to not have a stroke, much like I find myself doing when you talk about what you think evolution says.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
Hector Barbosa
Apprentice
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:19 am
Location: Scandinavia/UK

Re: Questions, Questions...

Post #175

Post by Hector Barbosa »

[Replying to post 171 by Zzyzx]
Correction: My position is that rational debate / discussion requires understanding of the definition of Atheism -- according to Atheists -- NOT as defined by others (including Theists).

Readers will decide for themselves if that is a valid argument / position or not. The opinion of an opposition debater is immaterial.
Which is the most important, understanding a definition you memorize to use in communication, but which is false applied practically, or understanding how practical truth is applied so that you can fit definition to a use which can both better communication and result?

As I have explained to Blastcat and others the meaning of atheism came from a ancient Greek world where science did not have the ability to prove things factually it has today, religion did not have examples of practical miracles to rely on, and skepticm had not developed into a field which could factually show evidence to support not being convinced in the two extreme polar arguments. In ancient Greek time there was no need for more than two definitions, the world appeared black and white, because nothing religiously or scientifically could really be proved or applied to much.

We don't live in such a world any more. Today there are very good factual grounds to be skeptical of both theism and atheism, and both the theist, atheist, agnostic and skeptic arguments has developed much further than in Greek times with many different sub-branches today which was not classified then.

To hold on to ancient greek definition of atheism would be no better than to hold on to the ancient view of God or what "belief" is.

The fact is that while the truth may be black and white (though we rarely know enough to see these extremes), beliefs are NOT black and white for if they were they would not be beliefs.

So to categorize beliefs into a black and white, when the position to disbelieve both i not only present, but likely the most logical and scientific one is not just impractical, it is ignorant and in opposition to evolution, just like it would be if we held on to the argument that the earth was the center of the universe.

You can NEVER prove that beliefs are a either you do or you don't, for it is simply not true and it is quite easy to prove this concept false.

When you learn how to dive, shoot, play a music instrument etc....do you learn these things perfectly at once at do as Joda in Star Wars or a sci-fi like matrix bit "do or do not, there is no try"? No! No one goes straight from nothing to perfection in one go. Learning is a long gradual process. So though the truth may be black and white, it can take years maybe even more than a life time to get to the point of knowing or even being convince that one idea is true or false.

So it is nuts that anyone especially atheists can not see this argument and debate with the notion of a black and white, which is actually far more in nature with theism than with atheism. It totally contradicts atheism.

For if atheism's position is that there is no right or wrong, no purpose, no objective truth, then there is also NO POSSIBLE WAY that belief can be black or white!
The make belief black or white is to argue for objective truth and to hand the argument straight over to the attentive theist. And this is exactly why I HAVE to move away from the position of atheism though I do not believe in theism.

For the atheist argument does not have a leg to stand on if it argues for a black-white belief scale. Then the carrot of atheism is gone for anyone but the ignorant weak people who follow it either because they can't live by theistic morals or because they give in to peer-pressure.

Please don't tell me the atheistic argument is that week, for though I have know a lot of ignorant dogmatic atheists, I refuse to believe that there is not good grounds to be thorough, skeptical and honest.

You can not win a honest argument by stating that all who don't prefer the color white are automatically people who prefer the color black, when it is obvious to anyone with the least bit of attention that the color spectrum includes far greater varieties of colors.

Did you even read the post I made to Blastcat! Do you not understand it? Can you really not see that you prove atheism a walking contradiction by arguing for a black-white belief system?

Who gives a hoot what the definition is, if the definition is wrong! Then it must be changed!

I appreciate all help to illustrate in regard to word game and personal remarks too, and I have done so quite thoroughly now on more than one occasion, and I really have a point in what I say here, so please try to pay attention if you can (with my long posts).

I don't take your view or critique personal I have heard this point of view probably a million times already, and it always end the same too.

To make it simple...

Theism is to believe (be convinced) in God.
Atheism is to not believe (not be convinced) in God or be convinced there is no God.

But if you are not convinced by either argument or position, or you have a tiny possible belief that there could be a God, then you do NOT fall in either of these categories.

There is not just...you love me or you don't, there are millions of opinions in-between.

I find not to believe in God, for there is no proof against the existence of God. So I can not be a atheist.

But I can not see how I can be convinced there is a God, since I know of no evidence proving God, and so I can not be a theist.

We don't live in ancient Greece any more that was about 3000 years ago. A lot has happened since then. It is time we start waking up and realize that since both side of the argument has been PROVED wrong countless of times, we HAVE to make room for a definition which covers a third option which is not expressed by the two extreme dogmatic poles.

Please read and think about what I said this time, for if I have to repeat myself again while listening to the same argument for the millionth and first time, then I am done debating you.

User avatar
Hector Barbosa
Apprentice
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:19 am
Location: Scandinavia/UK

Re: Theists don't ask questions

Post #176

Post by Hector Barbosa »

[Replying to post 174 by Clownboat]
It is not our job to educate you about evolution.
Who says it is? It is not my job to educate you about truth or science either.

I understand evolution so I don't need an education on it, in fact I would have no reason to come here for that reason, I could find this answer reading not even 1/10th of what I have read on this site already.

You want to believe you are a Ape on blind faith, fine I don't have a problem with that, but you will never convince me of such nonsense for there is 0 evidence of it.

I have already repeated many times that evolution itself is factual and I believe in it just like I am sure all theists do too. But devolution is just as factual and the evolution theory and evolution is not the same. Evolution theory deals with a specific theory about natural selection which I believe has been grossly misunderstood by the agnostic author Darwin who was married to a theist.

the evolution theory IS a theory, evolution as a concept is a fact.
Evolution theory does not prove a beginning, creation of life or how man came to be, in fact it is kind of a useless theory when it comes to the existence of mankind since it is talking about a process in between.

You can not know where a man came from or where he is going if all you observe is the time in between.

And I don't care if what I say is similar to the Christian act of Communion, I would be very surprised if every source direction and organization did not say something I agree with. And if the Christian act of communion is against killing and taking human flesh I am in full support. I don't believe in murder or cannibalism.

That proves nothing other than that you flunk on the scientific method if you think you can conclude I am a religious man who don't believe in or understand evolution. You are far too fast to conclude, and while it explains why you believe the way you do, it also explains why you have already drawn so many false conclusions in the brief time I have communicated with you.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 7957
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 52 times
Been thanked: 94 times

Re: Theists don't ask questions

Post #177

Post by Clownboat »

Hector Barbosa wrote: [Replying to post 174 by Clownboat]
It is not our job to educate you about evolution.
Who says it is?
No one, but at some point it would sure be nice if you would learn that which you attempt to debate against.
I understand evolution
The facts betray this statement.
You want to believe you are a Ape
We are members of the great ape family. More accurately Homo sapiens sapiens.
you will never convince me of such nonsense

Your denial does not affect the facts, sorry.
I have already repeated many times that evolution itself is factual
But then you say things like "man evolved from Apes", which shows a lack of understanding for this thing you claim is factual.
But devolution is just as factual
I looked up devolution, and what I found had nothing to do with Evolution.
Evolution theory deals with a specific theory about natural selection which I believe has been grossly misunderstood by the agnostic author Darwin who was married to a theist.
Perhaps your lack of understanding about the theory you attempt to dismiss by calling it 'grossly misunderstood' is at play? That and what bearing does who he was married to have to do with anything?
You can not know where a man came from or where he is going if all you observe is the time in between.
Which straw man here said anything differently? Please quote and link please.
That proves nothing other than that you flunk on the scientific method
Yet it is I who is providing an accurate definition while you struggle to understand why creation scientists are not doing science.
How I'm flunking here, I would need you to elaborate on.
if you think you can conclude I am a religious man who don't believe in or understand evolution.
You say things that those who struggle with evolution say. I don't know if you are religious or not.
Do you accept that Jesus is your Lord and savior and that he died on the cross for your sins?
You are far too fast to conclude, and while it explains why you believe the way you do, it also explains why you have already drawn so many false conclusions in the brief time I have communicated with you.
You're funny.
To quote you again: "There is 0 REAL evidence that man evolved from Apes"

You are claiming that there is 0 evidence for something that evolution states does not happen. You can't expect us to draw the conclusion from that, that you know much about evolution.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 7329
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 83 times
Been thanked: 303 times
Contact:

Re: Theists don't ask questions

Post #178

Post by William »

TheBeardedDude wrote:
William wrote:
TheBeardedDude wrote:
William wrote:

"That is the shared default position.
Q: What kind of atheist fits you best in relation to the subset positions?"

I have no "subset" position. I am an atheist in that I meet the definition of an atheist (lacks a belief in a god). Once again, it is literally that simple.
Therefore I can confidently say that while you identify as 'being an atheist' this in itself has no bearing on you position as an individual self conscious human being with opinions to express.
Your opinions expressed are not BECAUSE you self identify as an atheist. You self identifying as an atheist is besides the point in relation to your opinions.


"Perhaps it should have been called a 'unihorn' then?
If you don't care to do some research on it, then so be it. "

I know of the unicorn myths. Myth being the keyword. I don't care why one (of many) myths are retroactively reinterpreted to try and justify their inclusion.
Your opinion re unicorns has nothing to to with atheism.

"Q: Why, as a particular type of atheist, do you refuse to examine possible explanations regarding the mention of the unicorn, when the opportunity is afforded to you to do so? "
I am not interested in the special pleading arguments that are based on confirmation bias that lack evidence to substantiate them. Don't assume that because I didn't engage with your links, that I have never researched biblical myths.
Your opinion here has nothing to do with atheism. Your actions or none actions are irrelevant in regard to atheism.

"In relation to the idea of GOD, this for you, translates to 'a supernatural being' which is not how I 'see' the Idea of GOD.
So you are arguing with the wrong man in that regard as I don't claim that my idea of GOD is 'supernatural' - I do, however, acknowledge that something can appear to be the case, but consider such to be something which happens naturally which is altogether outside the parameters of past and present human ability to understand in relation to nature."

Argument from ignorance. Presuming that a god is using "natural" processes that we don't as yet understand, doesn't explain anything. It is another form of magical thinking. The very existence of a god requires supernature.
Again, this has nothing to do with atheism.
The idea of nature as we understand it, has no room for nor any need for a god.
This is not the atheist position. Lack of need in gods is not atheism.

"There may indeed be another universe which works in conjunction with this on, largely invisible to human senses."
No evidence of other universes either.
Besides the point I made.
Mathematically, there is a good case for the existence of multi universes. The math is still a work in progress.

"Q: IF:
Another universe does exist alongside our own;
THEN:
Would those within that other universe see us as 'supernatural'? "

No evidence other universes exist.
Mathematically, there is a good case for the existence of multi universes. The math is still a work in progress.
I don't play "what-if" games like this one because they only tell us about the imagination and not reality.
Imagination is an aspect of reality and useful even in relation to scientific discovery.
Apart from that, imagination is not a problem of atheism.

"So we cannot assume that GOD can do whatever IT likes to do, within the parameters of any universe just to satisfy science and convince atheists. "
A god that is indistinguishable from fiction. If I wouldn't accept this argument for the existence of Gandalf, why would I accept if for a god?
Accepting any idea of GOD is not what atheism is about. Atheism is the lack of belief in ideas of GODs. That is all. Nothing more.
As such, atheists are not looking for any evidence or required to accept any evidence so therefore if you are indeed an atheist, you have no reason to ask for evidence of GOD on behalf of atheism.

As you stated:
I have no "subset" position. I am an atheist in that I meet the definition of an atheist (lacks a belief in a god). Once again, it is literally that simple.
"Did you notice that the opinion didn't actually become a "thing" until the process of recording it happened?
Yet, it existed before it became a "thing". "

Please explain how individual subjective thought can really be a thing before it is recorded. I am not arguing that before it is made into a thing, it didn't exist.
I am arguing that before it was made into a thing, it did indeed exist.

I didn't notice that because it isn't true. My opinion (as a thought) can exist in my mind prior to being recorded. So it didn't only become a "thing" after recorded. It became digestible by another sentient being after being recorded, but that wasn't the moment it existed.
We agree.
But even before recording it (writing it down), one can see evidence of the thought process. For instance, one could watch a person think via an MRI.
We agree.
But what you are alluding to is the limitation of the observer. If a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?
If you took consciousness out of the universe, would the universe exist?
If a person thinks about something, does the thought exist even if they don't record it?
Yes and yes.
We agree.

But both are temporary occurrences in the universe of easily verifiable and observable phenomena. We can measure sound and we can record opinions and observe brain chemistry. If a god exists and interacts within or upon the universe, it must do so in a way that could be verified. Otherwise, it cannot be known that it ever acted upon or within the universe, making the assumption that it did so indistinguishable from fiction.
Obviously then, one is able to at least contemplate that the universe exists because of intelligent design, and in that, the evidence is there to poke and prod.

But is GOD also the thought voice in ones head? We agree that this exists independent of anyone recording it.

It is evident to the individual that this is the case.

Is the process therefore a matter of aligning the voice to the individuals preference?

For example, being conscientious allows for one to grapple with temptations, and the voice can act as a tempter or a counselor as the internal argument ensures and the individual makes a decision based upon personal preference.

The internal voice still essentially belongs to the individual as an aspect of the individuals overall consciousness but the voice also acts as a feedback system assisting and enabling the individual to come to a decision. Personal preference can act as a barrier to this process or as an enabler.

How are we to fully know that the internal voice is ONLY an aspect of our own consciousness or is working in conjunction with that, from some other source associated with GOD ideas?

We have personal power over it, and this can equate to ignoring it if it is in opposition with personal preference, especially if we want to succumb to the temptation. Eventually we can even silence that aspect of the internal voice altogether by becoming less and less conscientious.

"I think this is plainly incorrect Clownboat. "
I am not clownboat.
Sorry, my bad "TheBeardedDude"
And "form" means:
the visible shape or configuration of something (light isn't matter, so it can't have visible shape or configuration
Light is responsible for the existence of matter per science.
Perhaps "form" isn't the word you were looking for. For instance, thought doesn't have form either.
Again, whatever forms are created through human beings, started with thought. Without thought, humans cannot produce forms.

"Essentially light is information and given enough timespace it transforms into things and all those things are products of information.
Energy and light are the same. Energy is the manifestation of things - Lights way of...well...doing things "

This is what is incorrect. Light isn't information. Humans can use light to transmit information (fiber optic cables for instance). Light is energy. Thanks to Einstein, we know that energy and matter can be interchangeable, but that does not meant that they have similar properties (meaning that while matter can have form, that does not mean light can).
Matter is light in form. It is the result of light. Light is information, and without it, we could not be informed of anything.

For example, if you were in a universe full of light (or full of dark) then there is still information.
Why, because Consciousness exists as that which acknowledges - not only itself, but the information.
If there is no light, and only dark, then there is still information, so dark is also information, but it is also the absence of light, so it is absent the information which light is.

When the information of light becomes form, it manifests as the information in formation.

Science of course explains how light creates form.

"They [dark energy and dark matter] are things because they have mass."
I don't know that this statement is true about either dark energy or dark matter. They can interact with light, but as far as I am aware, we don't know that either have mass.
Well okay. I didn't run and look it up myself.
I had the notion that they were not just mathematical predictions but were observable due to their effect on other objects in the universe.
IF
That is the case
THEN
They must have mass, and are (as far as we can presently tell) without light.


"At that rate they represent things which are able to extinguish all light from there mass (what they are - there structure - as far as we can tell anyhoo) and this could represent the sum total of all information from light having perhaps created its masterpiece in those sections of the universe where they exist as things. - the ultimate end product of the data of light. Light has done its job in those departments. "
I have no idea what you are talking about.
That's alright. I was flying in my imagination.
Light is energy. It isn't "information" nor is it doing "its job." You are anthropomorphizing light to an extreme.
Well I don't know that light isn't conscious and even if it were the case, how would anyone go about proving it?

Bit certainly it is indeed INFORMATION.

(Without it, you could not read my words, as one example.)

"It isn't a question of me not liking it Clownboat. It is a question of why it should not be liked. "
I am still not clownboat.
I apologized already, can we move on now oh Bearded one?

"I gave examples as to why it should not be accepted as true argument, but rejected as fallacy (false argument) "
No, you didn't. You gave a poor attempt at dismissal based on misunderstanding what was being said and implied.
[citation needed] (Don't make the claim without backing it up with explanation.) You have obviously quoted me out of context and thus I am unclear as to what you are replying to.


"As explained Clownboat, the argument you are using is shown to be false"
Still not clownboat.
As I explained to you, the argument you are using is shown to be false

"1: In this universe, it is mathematically feasible that unicorns (as in the form of a horse with a horn growing out of the middle of its forehead) likely do exist."
It is possible an as yet discovered species of animal (fossil or extant) exists, of course. But that has NEVER been what I have been talking about. I am talking about the MAGICAL and SUPERNATURAL unicorn (as claimed to exist in a variety of myths, like the bible).
As explained, claims of a supernatural GOD is something I am not arguing. Go argue that with those who are making such claims.
As explained, individuals interpret the bible as they will. Even if the majority believe that the biblical idea of GOD is 'supernatural' does not mean that this is the case.
As explained, (and as I provided the link for you to have a look into but you refused to do so) some interpret the use of the word unicorn to mean the variety of rino which has one horn. If that is the case, then using that as a metaphor for 'The LORDS strength' is easily enough understood for that, without invoking any sort of 'supernatural' into the metaphor.


"Thus 'unicorns most likely exist in this universe'."
No, this isn't true even assuming we are only talking about a horned horse. It would be correct to say that: "a horned horse-like animal may be possible to exist, or it may be possible that one once existed." You can't say "most likely" when all you have is an assumption about possibility when it references a specific scenario.
The specific scenario would be the universe itself and the math alone allows for one to conclude that yes, it is most likely that a single horned animal resembling a horse does indeed exist somewhere in the universe.
For instance, is it possible that life exists elsewhere in the universe? Yes, it is possible because we know of at least one planet that can sustain life.


Agreed.

Does that mean it is most likely that life exists in our solar system (not counting Earth)? No, we don't know what is more or less likely in our solar system. This is why when searching for habitable planets elsewhere in the solar system, we look for those most similar to Earth.
You do realize how almightily BIG the universe is do you not? I don;t get the point you are trying to make there, BeardedDude.

"The idea of GOD as being a formless self aware consciousness, is another kettle of fish.

The analogies therefore do not align and thus the demand for burden of proof is a false one.

Burden of proof is not required. "

Baloney special pleading. If you claim something exists, then you have a burden of proof to demonstrate it.
First you will have to establish WHY the idea of GOD is a question of science rather than of philosophy.
If you can do this in a logical fashion, I can then get a better understanding as to why you feel this is necessary BeardedDude.
In the mean time, it is appropriate that I at least give you a link where you can get an idea about my personal understanding of the idea of GOD. It isn't really a 'claim the GOD exists mind you, so if that is what you are looking for in relation to 'bruden of proof', I donlt 'fit; the critiria anyway...but you are free to investigate for yourself to see if indeed I AM making any claim therein. Here is the link; [linky]

Also here is a link where I explain why 'burden of proof' is a fallacy in relation to my idea of GOD. [linky]

"The subject of GOD is a question of philosophy and in that Burden of Truth is what is looked for in regard to evidence. The mind of the matter.

BoT rather than BoP. "

In order to show something is true (when it comes to something existing), it must be shown to exist.
This is in relation to science yes.
You can't make truth claims about something while simultaneously saying it is real without first showing it is real.
Philosophically - yes indeed - this can be done. That is why the subject of GOD is a question of philosophy not of science.
We can argue about what is or isn't true about Gandalf inside the Lord of the Rings universe.
In this universe the subject of GOD is not the same as the subject of Gandalf.
For example, we know what Gandalf looks like.

We do not know what GOD looks like.

Therefore, using Gandalf inside the Lord of the Rings universe is not an suitable analogy, because it is not even remotely the same thing.

It is a false analogy for that.
Therefore we can make true and false statements about Gandalf. But making true statements about Gandalf, does not make Gandalf real or possible to exist in reality.
In order for Gandalf to be discussed, something about Gandalf must be made avaiable to us.
We know at least that Gandalf is a fictional character. We do not know that GOD is even an individual in a form, let alone whether GOD is a fictional thing.

First off, one has to define 'what GOD is' and then one can decide if by the definition, GOD can be observed through scientific method.

Normally the idea of GOD is philosophical in nature and interacts with the individual subjective experience under certain favorable conditions of which the individual has influence over...yes - in that light, GOD is a philosophical subject, rather than something science can poke and prod at.



I gave a scant definition here [linky]
From the link:
"Far as I am concerned, human beings are GOD in form, making it up as we go along and finding ways to overcome obstacles the physical universe puts in our way.
It is how I would expect a GOD in human form to behave. "


This is not to say that I think GOD only exists within human consciousness, (as my other links explain) but is only focused on what can be observed through human beings, obviously related to the external world which can be measured by scientific means.


"Untrue! The individual can indeed know something of the nature of their idea of GOD through that subjective interaction. "
They can BELIEVE they know something about their god, but that doesn't mean that what they "know" about their god is true.
That would depend entirely on the nature of their experience in congruity. Certainly their experiences give them opportunity to learn to know.
I can agree though that they can and likely would get a few things 'wrong' but if they preserver there is no reason why their belief cannot transform into knowledge.
Specifically though I was pointing out the subjective nature of the process, which points to GOD (and personal subjective experience) being the domain of philosophy rather than - as you continue to argue, the domain of science.
I can know all sorts of things about Gandalf and write fan-fiction so that I can have subjective experiences with Gandalf. That doesn't make him real.
As pointed out, the analogy is false. I appreciate that you BELIEVE it is true, but it is false.

Good luck trying to persuade theists with such false analogy Bearded One. Perhaps think about adapting your approach to better suit truthfulness.

I see there is more, but I have other things to do. I haven't read your replies past this point. I might continue with this, or just leave things as they are at present.

Thanks for your feedback.

User avatar
Hector Barbosa
Apprentice
Posts: 238
Joined: Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:19 am
Location: Scandinavia/UK

Re: Theists don't ask questions

Post #179

Post by Hector Barbosa »

[Replying to post 177 by Clownboat]
No one, but at some point it would sure be nice if you would learn that which you attempt to debate against.
I have spend all of my life trying to learn what I debate against and have read both the Bible, Quaran, Book of Mormon, Buddhism, Hinduism, Scientology, Hellenism, Taoism, Psychology, Kemistry, Quantum Physics, Philosophy, Biology, Astronomy etc....

Do I know everything no? Is it realistic for me to know what everyone might debate against me? No!

I have only been on this site for about a week now, give me a break. You are the one who debated against me, not vice versa. So you are the one who should attempt to understand what you are debating against with me. I don't even know who you are or what you believe though my guess is that you are a fairly common atheist.
The facts betray this statement.
That is not even a proper statement.

And why should it? because it is not possible to understand evolution? If you want to debate me you have to give better arguments than that and explain why you disagree otherwise I will not spend more time trying to "educate you". I have spend a lot of time explaining myself to you, the least you can do is to pay the respect back, otherwise we are done!
We are members of the great ape family. More accurately Homo sapiens sapiens.


Speak for yourself! I am not, and just like we are innocent until proven guilty I am not factually of the ape family until someone proves the connection.

My mom has tracked my ancestors back to kings, pirates and vikings all the way back to year 0, and though some of the were a bit wild and crazy, not a single one of them was a ape or had any ape herritage.
Your denial does not affect the facts, sorry.
Nor does your denial and stubborness make anything factual. You have given 0 evidence in fact you have needed to be taught some of the most basic things about evolution when it comes to the human drive, and you think you have the autority on what is factual?

You have got to be joking, clownboat may fit your name and the picture your argument but there is 0 evidence of any of your claims here, in fact there is a lot of scientific evidence against it. But until you start giving evidence of your many fallacious claims, I will not spend more of my prescious time teaching you some of the most basic things most people I know half your age knows. It's a waste of my time.

So if you have no desire to give proof of your claims and is not open to other arguments, then there is no point in us debating for all we get is my word against your word, and that is NOT scienfic evidence.

So time to get the boot out of the beak and put your actions where your mouth is, or we are done for your argumentation is starting to remind me of Monty Pythons argument clinic, and though that is funny as hell when they perform it, it is anything but in a serious debate site like this one.
I looked up devolution, and what I found had nothing to do with Evolution.
Honestly that is one of the most ridiculous things I have read since coming here.
Please tell me English is not your first language and that you are still just trying to learn to communicate, for this is really bad mate.
Do you even know what devolution is? You are not aware that the words are opposite to eachother and has the same root? It's not obvious to you that there is a connection by the fact that every letter but one in both words are the same?

You are not even trying....what are you here for?

I think we should stop our debate and ignore each other in the future, for I can not see how I can take you or what you write serious.

I can't make up my mind if this is English as a second language, ignorance or a really bad joke.
Perhaps your lack of understanding about the theory you attempt to dismiss by calling it 'grossly misunderstood' is at play? That and what bearing does who he was married to have to do with anything?
You are talking to me about lack of understanding, when I have had to educate you about some of the most simple things 3 times now?

Maybe it has no connection to a clownboat who think he is a ape trying to speak english, but to most others there is a connection between what people do and who they are, especially when it comes to what we love and who we choose to be with.

Would Darwin marry a Christian if he believed this christian was deluded, crazy, lying or too stupid to understand even the most basic truths he did?

Not likely, especially not for his time which was far more conservative than ours, and he was English and well educated too suggesting conservative tendencies.
England is a country I know considerable about for obvious reasons.

Its amazing how you can continually fail to connect the dots.
I think we should stop debating, for debating you is not likely to go anywhere. I feel its a total waste of time.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 17816
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 63 times
Been thanked: 85 times
Contact:

Post #180

Post by otseng »

Hector Barbosa wrote: Nor does your denial and stubborness make anything factual.

But until you start giving evidence of your many fallacious claims, I will not spend more of my prescious time teaching you some of the most basic things most people I know half your age knows. It's a waste of my time.

Please tell me English is not your first language and that you are still just trying to learn to communicate, for this is really bad mate.

I think we should stop our debate and ignore each other in the future, for I can not see how I can take you or what you write serious.

I can't make up my mind if this is English as a second language, ignorance or a really bad joke.

Its amazing how you can continually fail to connect the dots.
I think we should stop debating, for debating you is not likely to go anywhere. I feel its a total waste of time.
:warning: Moderator Warning


Please avoid making any personal comments about another. Just stick to your facts and arguments.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Post Reply