Question for the atheist?

[Count23]

1) I think that we can more or less agree with this one

2) "The information is still there we just can't mentally access it."

^^^I was referring to this line that you typed. This is an objective statement on the human subjective experience of reality.

BTW I've just started reading this

you read it yet?

Also, just to bring this discussion full circle, is not the need for cognitive closure, what drove humans to develop religions, and the idea of god(s) to explain things that they had no explanation for?

 

[exiledking]

Yep.

 

[sean69]

1) I think that we can more or less agree with this one

2) "The information is still there we just can't mentally access it."

^^^I was referring to this line that you typed. This is an objective statement on the human subjective experience of reality.

So? This is a truism.

OK. Here's what I believe:

1) there's a human reality, a reality that we have access to by observation and cognition - naturally or through the aid of machines (microscopes, spectrometers, particle collides etc)

2) there's a reality that's beyond (typical, normal) human perception and cognition (but can be accessed through certain means) and meaning and knowledge are human constructs that can be independent of this reality.

Now, unless you want to get into shit like logical syntax of language, coherence/correspondence theory, pragmaticism, constructivism and the other gazillion theories of truth statements ... let's just agree to disagree here. I'm not really one for philosophical debates.


BTW I've just started reading this

you read it yet?

No, heard of it but haven't read it.



Also, just to bring this discussion full circle, is not the need for cognitive closure, what drove humans to develop religions, and the idea of god(s) to explain things that they had no explanation for?
Yes it was.
Same thing that drives anthropocentrism in science as well.

...

 

[exiledking]

anthropocentrism (belief that man is the most important thing and the center of the universe) is in religion, not science^^^^


so poetic once again tho.

 

[Count23]

1) "If our brains are incapable of the full nature of reality then how can be claim the existence of a complete reality??"

Remember typing that? How does that jive with

"The information is still there we just can't mentally access it."

?
(no I don't wanna get into the other ideas you brought up; maybe another time)
2) Any other books that you suggest I ought to read?

3) You sure about that? Are you suggesting that anthropocentrism is inevieatible in any field that requires observation? Not necessarily disagreeing btw just wanted your observation

 

[sean69]

anthropocentrism (belief that man is the most important thing and the center of the universe) is in religion, not science^^^^

so poetic once again tho.

Anthropocentrism is sprinkled all over science but your ignorance, arrogance and cognitive bias prevents your from acknowledging it. Equally poetic ... and pathetic. With all due respect of course.

 

[GeeZnu]

Based on the lil guidelines we are supposedly to follow, Hell will be one crowded place. See u there fuckers !!!

 

[sean69]

1) "If our brains are incapable of the full nature of reality then how can be claim the existence of a complete reality??"

Remember typing that? How does that jive with

"The information is still there we just can't mentally access it."

First of all that was a rhetorical question. Read it in context.

As for the statement:
"The information is still there we just can't mentally access it."

read my above post that I edited a few minute ago that might explain my position a little better.


?
(no I don't wanna get into the other ideas you brought up; maybe another time)
2) Any other books that you suggest I ought to read?

3) You sure about that? Are you suggesting that anthropocentrism is inevieatible in any field that requires observation?

Yes. And so is a slew of other human cognitive biases.

....

 

[Count23]

I Re-read what you wrote. I think that we may have more in common than I originally thought, however before I can say that for sure, I'll ask about your 2nd statement where you said;

2) there's a reality that's beyond (typical, normal) human perception and cognition (but can be accessed through certain means) and meaning and knowledge are human constructs that can be independent of this reality.

What are the "certain means" that you speak of and how can they be used to access this "beyond reality"?

BTW any other books?

 

[sean69]

OK Count23,
After thinking about it for a minute here's what I gather:

Your position is that there's a complete reality (which you call objective) that our brains/minds are incapable of accessing unless aided by tools.

Correct me if i'm wrong.

My position is that there are multiple dimensions of reality (like the good old layers of an onion analogy) that underlie and constitute a complete (whole) reality and that our brains/minds are limited in cognitive ability and are ONLY able to access and comprehend that reality that's within our own dimension.

To a large extent, science, philosophy and mathematics vindicate this.

What limits and prevents us from accessing other dimensions of reality or the complete reality, is thought. Thought which is fundamentally inevitably human-centered and the source of all cognitive biases that also limit knowledge.

I also believe that we have the ability to transcend thought. This is the personal experience that i've been referring to.

I can neither scientifically verify or mathematically prove this nor do I think that requirement even makes sense.

 

[exiledking]

Anthropocentrism is sprinkled all over science but your ignorance, arrogance and cognitive bias prevents your from acknowledging it. Equally poetic ... and pathetic. With all due respect of course.

Of course there will be those who may assume it but ITS WRITTEN into most religious texts. I wonder if there's ANY religion that would say different.

Plus you brought it up as if it were mutually exclusive to science and NOT in religion, all while attempting to disguise it in a word that would make the casual observer 3rd person think you had some sort of superior knowledge. You may say I'm reaching, but I'm not. I noticed you doing it with Count23 the whole time. Your debating technique is evasive but he pinned you down by decoding all the poetry and answering it. I hope you write fiction or deceptive marketing ads for a living cuz you're good at it.

 

[Count23]

OK Count23,
After thinking about it for a minute here's what I gather:

Your position is that there's a complete reality (which you call objective) that our brains/minds are incapable of accessing unless aided by tools.

Correct me if i'm wrong.

More or less I think that that's the most accurate description. However I am also willing to accept the idea that there are aspects of reality that our brains can never fully grasp no matter how we try to; but I would not stop people from trying if I could.

My position is that there are multiple dimensions of reality (like the good old layers of an onion analogy) that underlie and constitute a complete (whole) reality and that our brains/minds are limited in cognitive ability and are ONLY able to access and comprehend that reality that's within our own dimension.

How is that different from what you just said, or what I've been saying this whole time?

To a large extent, science, philosophy and mathematics vindicate this.

What limits and prevents us from accessing other dimensions of reality or the complete reality, is thought. Thought which is fundamentally inevitably human-centered and the source of all cognitive biases that also limit knowledge.

How do you figure that it can be any other way? And would you not say that our cognitive biases are based on the fact that our brains evolved to perceive reality a certain way? Also, if you believe in planes of existence where knowledge and meaning have no purpose, then what do you mean by 'limited knowledge'?

I also believe that we have the ability to transcend thought. This is the personal experience that i've been referring to.

Ok. Forgive me if I sound ignorant, but what does transcending thought even mean? Are we not always thinking,while we are alive even when we sleep?

I can neither scientifically verify or mathematically prove this nor do I think that requirement even makes sense.

Is this not what many religious people said when they experienced certain things, which were able to be scientifically explained (even if it is to a certain point) a few centuries later?

..............

 

[sean69]

BTW any other books?

Depends on what kind of books are you interested in? I'm a pretty open-minded, but a few I've read recently and really liked:

What is Life? by Erwin Schroedinger

God & the New Physics, The Edge of Infinity, The Accidental Universe all by Paul Davies

The Scientific Life by Steven Shapin

Symmetry by Marcus du Sautoy


Here's a few interesting academic journal articles i've read recently you might find interesting:

Better, Stronger, Faster Self-Serving Judgment, Affect Regulation, and the Optimal Vigilance Hypothesis
Neal J. Roese and James M. Olson, Perspect Psychol Sci. 2007 June; 2(2): 124–141.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2429993/pdf/nihms44379.pdf

Is there an "I" in "team"? The role of the self in group-serving judgments.
Sherman DK, Kim HS., J Pers Soc Psychol. 2005 Jan;88(1):108-20.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/...roller.PPMCArticlePage.PPMCPubmedRA&linkpos=3

The Brain's Breaking System: How to "use your words" to tap into it.
Mathew D. Lieberman (Dept. of Psychology, UCLA)
http://www.scn.ucla.edu/pdf/Lieberman(InPress)Neuroleadership.pdf

Interesting article on the neural basis of self-control from studies of the Right Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex (RVLPFC), a brain region that plays a role in self-control. Research shows that targeted self-control can (at times inadvertently) induce control in other domains (eg., targeted motor self-control can induce emotional self-control) due to the internal regulation between brain systems/neural networks.


MIRROR NEURONS and imitation learning as the driving force behind "the great leap forward" in human evolution
By V.S. Ramachandran
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/ramachandran/ramachandran_p1.html

From a favorite website of mine: http://www.edge.org/

Your boy Stephen Pinker is a contributor on that site:
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/pinker10/pinker10_index.html

 

[sean69]

Of course there will be those who may assume it but ITS WRITTEN into most religious texts. I wonder if there's ANY religion that would say different.

Plus you brought it up as if it were mutually exclusive to science and NOT in religion, all while attempting to disguise it in a word that would make the casual observer 3rd person think you had some sort of superior knowledge. You may say I'm reaching, but I'm not. I noticed you doing it with Count23 the whole time. Your debating technique is evasive but he pinned you down by decoding all the poetry and answering it. I hope you write fiction or deceptive marketing ads for a living cuz you're good at it.

I never said it was exclusive to science anywhere in this thread. If i did, please quote me. That's a conclusion you came up with in your inernal hissy-fit. LOL.

And IT'S WRITTEN into many scientific theories and interpretations too. If you want examples I can give you as many as you want. Just ask. SMH

You seem a bit shook dude. Why, I don't know. That's your personal issue and I can't help you with that. I on the other hand, have nothing to prove here.

I'm not debating. Debate involves rhetoric and persuasion and is all about getting the other side to agree with you. I could really care less about whether folks agree with me or not. FOH with that simple shit. LOL.

I'm having a civil argument/convo with dude and i've addressed all the questions he's asked and as far as I know he hasn't said anything to suggest that i'm evading shit. You're the one that keeps coming back like you have some unfinished business. LOL.

So, how about this. Instead of lurking in this thread, masquerading as a self appointed avatar for Count23 why don't you think for yourself for a change.

 

[sean69]

My position is that there are multiple dimensions of reality (like the good old layers of an onion analogy) that underlie and constitute a complete (whole) reality and that our brains/minds are limited in cognitive ability and are ONLY able to access and comprehend that reality that's within our own dimension.

How is that different from what you just said, or what I've been saying this whole time?

It's different. My position is that we can ONLY access reality within our own dimension no matter what tools we use. You've been saying (as you just agreed) that we can access all of reality with the aid of tools in other words make objective what was otherwise subjective. Isn't this what you've been saying?

You only just now said that you're willing to accept that there is a reality we can't access no matter what. Correct me if i'm wrong though.

What limits and prevents us from accessing other dimensions of reality or the complete reality, is thought. Thought which is fundamentally inevitably human-centered and the source of all cognitive biases that also limit knowledge.

How do you figure that it can be any other way? And would you not say that our cognitive biases are based on the fact that our brains evolved to perceive reality a certain way? Also, if you believe in planes of existence where knowledge and meaning have no purpose, then what do you mean by 'limited knowledge'?

If you're asking me for a mathematical proof or scientific verification of how, like I said, I can't give it.

And yes, our cognitive biases are a consequence of the evolution of our brains and the way we think. I've been saying this from jump.

By "limited Knowledge" i'm referring to it being limited to the dimension/reality/plane, what ever you wana call it, in which we physically exist. Our knowledge of science and math are meaningless in other dimensions. Like the dimension in which religious experience exists. Again, this is only MY belief. I hope this answers your question.

I also believe that we have the ability to transcend thought. This is the personal experience that i've been referring to.

Ok. Forgive me if I sound ignorant, but what does transcending thought even mean? Are we not always thinking,while we are alive even when we sleep?

Good question.
Have you ever practiced transcendental meditation?
Other than that, I can't explain it.

I guess the nuance here becomes the distinction between conscious and unconscious thought.

I can neither scientifically verify or mathematically prove this nor do I think that requirement even makes sense.


Is this not what many religious people said when they experienced certain things, which were able to be scientifically explained (even if it is to a certain point) a few centuries later?

Yes. Some of the time. But so what? That only has consequences with a religious experience that hinges on the divine intervention of a demiurge supernatural type God. If my religious experience doesn't then why the fuck would I care if science claims to explain it? Shit, to me that would actually be edifying.

....

 

[exiledking]

I never said it was exclusive to science anywhere in this thread. If i did, please quote me. That's a conclusion you came up with in your inernal hissy-fit. LOL.

And IT'S WRITTEN into many scientific theories and interpretations too. If you want examples I can give you as many as you want. Just ask. SMH

You seem a bit shook dude. Why, I don't know. That's your personal issue and I can't help you with that. I on the other hand, have nothing to prove here.

I'm not debating. Debate involves rhetoric and persuasion and is all about getting the other side to agree with you. I could really care less about whether folks agree with me or not. FOH with that simple shit. LOL.

I'm having a civil argument/convo with dude and i've addressed all the questions he's asked and as far as I know he hasn't said anything to suggest that i'm evading shit. You're the one that keeps coming back like you have some unfinished business. LOL.

So, how about this. Instead of lurking in this thread, masquerading as a self appointed avatar for Count23 why don't you think for yourself for a change.

I'm speaking for myself when I say you've been countered over and over, yet you keep moving your goal posts. He doesn't seem to mind running around in circles with you though.

YOU DID say that it was exclusive to science, or at least that's what you implied in your sentence where you only mentioned SCIENCE. I'll admit that it is included in science as well, but I would rather you find me a religion that DOESN'T. That would be a harder task.

And I agree, debate involves persuasion, which is what you are attempting to do. It also involves rhetoric which your posts are FULL of.

But hey, you know what? As a reader of this, I enjoyed reading the debate for a while. I have a cue to leave now, cuz it's gone around a few times.


I have no reason to be shook, just agitated when I read unreasonable things garnished with colorful prose.

 

[sean69]

I'm speaking for myself when I say you've been countered over and over, yet you keep moving your goal posts. He doesn't seem to mind running around in circles with you though.

Man, quit the subliminal shit and say what your issue is. What's been countered? What goal posts have i moved? This is getting boring already. smh.

YOU DID say that it was exclusive to science, or at least that's what you implied in your sentence where you only mentioned SCIENCE.

Yeah, there you go, "at least that's what you implied..."
No dude. That's what YOU implied. LOL.
What sentence?
I've asked you to quote where i said that and you give me nothing.
I'm not in here arguing that religious beliefs are not anthropocentric. They obviously are!
Like i've been saying THROUGH OUT THIS ENTIRE THREAD, i'm not arguing in support of religious institution. I've said this multiple times in this thread. I'm just challenging notion of ontological primacy and infallibility of the scientific method as the only source of getting knowledge.
For some odd reason this concept is seems to be impossible for you and others people in here to grasp.
All i've been getting is lame ass ad hominem one liners. Your first post to me was that everything I wrote was bullshit and failed to address any of it.

Religion is evil, it kills people, it makes you stupid, blah blah blah, Christianity this Christianity that... No shit. WTF is the ground breaking news here? People prefer to have these simple bifurcated arguments because it's easy and makes them feel better about their beliefs but they don't wana even try to think with a little more insight.
SMFH.

I also said that it is included in science as well, but I would rather you find me a religion that DOESN'T. That would be a harder task.

Uhm. NO. You said:

anthropocentrism (belief that man is the most important thing and the center of the universe) is in religion, not science^^^^

so poetic once again tho.

... ... come on man.

And I agree, debate involves persuasion, which is what you are attempting to do. It also involves rhetoric which your posts are FULL of.

But hey, you know what? As a reader of this, I enjoyed reading the debate for a while. I have a cue to leave now, cuz it's gone around a few times.

I have no reason to be shook, just agitated when I read unreasonable things garnished with colorful prose.

I'm just casually writing and you qualify it as colorful prose? I guess I appreciate the compliment?

But, yeah. You still haven't quoted or given me anything here. Until you give me something substantial that's your beef, carry on I guess.

 

[DreDee]

Good reads in here, going to have to follow up on some of these book selections.

 

[Count23]

Sean69

1a) I don't know the future, but given enough time, even if it takes 1000's of years, I don't see a real reason why we wouldn't have tools to allow us to "glimpse" more and more of "objective" reality. However...

b)I don't think that these things will necessarily give us "complete understanding" though, since our brains are wired to observe reality a certain way; take Quantum mechanics for example.

2 a) nah I wasn't asking for math proof

b)

c) I disagree

3) The Transcendental Meditation, or TM, technique is a form of mantra meditation introduced in India in 1955[1][2][3][4] by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1917–2008).[5] Taught in a standardized, seven-step course over 4 days by certified teachers for ~1,500 USD in the United States, it involves the use of a sound or mantraand is practiced for 15–20 minutes twice per day, while sitting comfortably with closed eyes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_Meditation

no I've never practiced it. @bolded, doesn't sound like beyond thought to me.



4)imo you would care if science were in time be able to explain humanity's feelings of transcendence to a significant degree especially if the conclusions drawn are vastly different to what you believe.


Also, how does your personal experience of transcendence differ in feeling from a very vivid dream, or hallucination (drug induced or not)?

 

[exiledking]

Man, quit the subliminal shit and say what your issue is. What's been countered? What goal posts have i moved? This is getting boring already. smh.

Yeah, there you go, "at least that's what you implied..."
No dude. That's what YOU implied. LOL.
What sentence?
I've asked you to quote where i said that and you give me nothing.

remember when you wrote THIS:

As for knowledge of the earth, cosmos, mind, body, etc ... neither do atheists. Even though they swear they do. Which is equally hilarious.


I'm not the one making up the fake atheist to argue with. Maybe you AND the atheist you are arguing have it wrong about what it is. The definition only describes what the person doesn't believe. After that, EVERY ONE of em's different in what they believe or act like. What's YOUR issue?

I'm not in here arguing that religious beliefs are not anthropocentric. They obviously are!
Like i've been saying THROUGH OUT THIS ENTIRE THREAD, i'm not arguing in support of religious institution. I've said this multiple times in this thread. I'm just challenging notion of ontological primacy and infallibility of the scientific method as the only source of getting knowledge.

that's kind of different from :


As for knowledge of the earth, cosmos, mind, body, etc ... neither do atheists. Even though they swear they do. Which is equally hilarious.


seems like you're arguing quite a few things...

For some odd reason this concept is seems to be impossible for you and others people in here to grasp.
All i've been getting is lame ass ad hominem one liners. Your first post to me was that everything I wrote was bullshit and failed to address any of it.

ad hominem attacks? like this one at the invisible athiest?

As for knowledge of the earth, cosmos, mind, body, etc ... neither do atheists. Even though they swear they do. Which is equally hilarious.



here's an example of your goal post moving- in THIS SAME post you go on to make up another fictitious position

Religion is evil, it kills people, it makes you stupid, blah blah blah, Christianity this Christianity that... No shit. WTF is the ground breaking news here? People prefer to have these simple bifurcated arguments because it's easy and makes them feel better about their beliefs but they don't wana even try to think with a little more insight.
SMFH.[/FONT][/COLOR]

That isn't in this thread. You should make one about it.

The OP made the assumption that all athiests must think they know it all, and even stretched it further to say that they must be OMNISCIENT... that's ridiculous, no?

I'm just casually writing and you qualify it as colorful prose? I guess I appreciate the compliment?

spare me...

I'd love to see an example of you conceding any point. Some of what you write indicates that you love healthy debate. Some of what you write makes it seem like you wanna appear to be middle of the road, all the while throwing rocks and hiding your hands.

 

[sean69]

Sean69

1a) I don't know the future, but given enough time, even if it takes 1000's of years, I don't see a real reason why we wouldn't have tools to allow us to "glimpse" more and more of "objective" reality. However...

Fair enough. I have no problem with your FAITH in this possibility.



b)I don't think that these things will necessarily give us "complete understanding" though, since our brains are wired to observe reality a certain way; take Quantum mechanics for example.

The more we "look" the less we "see" ...


c) I disagree

I'm assuming you you're disagreeing with this statement:

By "limited Knowledge" i'm referring to it being limited to the dimension/reality/plane, what ever you wana call it, in which we physically exist. Our knowledge of science and math are meaningless in other dimensions. Like the dimension in which religious experience exists. Again, this is only MY belief. I hope this answers your question.

You disagree, cool. I respect that.

So basically, you believe that our math and science can apply in other dimensions?
But if you're saying that we can never have "complete understanding" (above) an now saying that math and science CAN apply in other dimensions, you're effectively saying math and science can NEVER give us a complete understanding of reality.
Cool.



3) The Transcendental Meditation, or TM, technique is a form of mantra meditation introduced in India in 1955[1][2][3][4] by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (1917–2008).[5] Taught in a standardized, seven-step course over 4 days by certified teachers for ~1,500 USD in the United States, it involves the use of a sound or mantraand is practiced for 15–20 minutes twice per day, while sitting comfortably with closed eyes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_Meditation

no I've never practiced it. @bolded, doesn't sound like beyond thought to me.

So?
I can have music playing in the background while solving the reaction mechanism of a very complex organic molecule and not have a single thought of the song whatsoever. Can't speak for others.



4)imo you would care if science were in time be able to explain humanity's feelings of transcendence to a significant degree especially if the conclusions drawn are vastly different to what you believe.

No I wouldn't. I'm a scientist. I learn new information that contradict to my intuitive beliefs about stuff ALL THE TIME. I still don't give a fuck. That's actually the exciting part.


Also, how does your personal experience of transcendence differ in feeling from a very vivid dream, or hallucination (drug induced or not)?

Interesting that you asked this. The neuroscience of dreams, hallucinations, optical illusions, etc. I will respond to this when I get back. Gotta go play some pick up futbol at Central Park.

...

 

[Count23]

1) I'm not terrified of the 'f' word

2) sorry I was bein sloppy and didn't clarify, I disagreed with the absoluteness of your statement that our math and science cannot apply in anyway in these new dimensions. hypothetically speaking, why couldn't it be that they can apply, but our current level of math and science simply does not go far enough? us being unable to intuitively comprehend what's going and whether or not math/science can apply, does not necessarily have to be hand in hand (quantum mechanics). unless you mean that all of the laws of nature are completely different?

3) I'll take your word for it.

4) I'll take your word for that too

5) aite peace

 

[sean69]

remember when you wrote THIS:

As for knowledge of the earth, cosmos, mind, body, etc ... neither do atheists. Even though they swear they do. Which is equally hilarious.


I'm not the one making up the fake atheist to argue with. Maybe you AND the atheist you are arguing have it wrong about what it is. The definition only describes what the person doesn't believe. After that, EVERY ONE of em's different in what they believe or act like. What's YOUR issue?

that's kind of different from :


As for knowledge of the earth, cosmos, mind, body, etc ... neither do atheists. Even though they swear they do. Which is equally hilarious.


seems like you're arguing quite a few things...

ad hominem attacks? like this one at the invisible athiest?

As for knowledge of the earth, cosmos, mind, body, etc ... neither do atheists. Even though they swear they do. Which is equally hilarious.



here's an example of your goal post moving- in THIS SAME post you go on to make up another fictitious position

That isn't in this thread. You should make one about it.

The OP made the assumption that all athiests must think they know it all, and even stretched it further to say that they must be OMNISCIENT... that's ridiculous, no?

spare me...

I'd love to see an example of you conceding any point. Some of what you write indicates that you love healthy debate. Some of what you write makes it seem like you wanna appear to be middle of the road, all the while throwing rocks and hiding your hands.

OMG. You pick out one sentence and go with it. *sigh*

As for knowledge of the earth, cosmos, mind, body, etc ... neither do atheists. Even though they swear they do. Which is equally hilarious.

^^^^ was in response to some dude saying that he finds it hilarious that religious people don't have knowledge about that shit and I said neither atheists.
Ok, "some" atheists and "some" religious people.
There. Happy now?

And what's ad hominem about that?
How the hell did you construe that to mean that i'm arguing for religious institution? Are you serious? Or you just wana argue?

You're right, every one of 'em's different in what the believe and act like. Both atheists AND theists. Fortunately some people recognize this and exercise tolerance. You wont find that on this board i'll tell you that. I'll say it again. Christianity is an easy target. Lazy minds like easy targets.

Oh, and the OP's original question was silly and the logic was obviously flawed. So YES. It was ridiculous. Is that rocket science?

And what's so threatening about being "middle of the road"? Does it always have to be science OR religion?

And if you've actually been reading the dialog between me and Count23 instead of trying to corner me you'd see that we've both conceded each others points a few times.

One last thing. I'm not throwing rocks at anyone either. If my posts come off that way I appologize. It's not intended.

Now can we end this and have a constructive convo. Damn

 

[Tazirai]

If you dont believe in a God, any God. That means you must be all knowing or Omniscience. To be an atheist you must have absolute knowledge that there is no God in the entire universe. And if you know for a fact there is no God b/c you have that knowledge than you probably are a God and never identified yourself as one. I never ubderstood how people could be atheist. How can anyone in there right mind say that there is no such thing as a God? I dont get it.

I'm not an atheist but i don't believe in the Christian version of god, nor ANY current version. For all we know god could be

Asase Ya (or Asase Yaa also known as aberewa) is the earth goddess of fertility in the mythology of the Ashanti people of Ghana. She is the wife of Nyame the sky god. In Ashanti mythology she gave birth to two sons, Bea and Tano. However, in their folklore she is also the mother of Anansi the trickster god. Asase Yaa is very powerful, though no temples are dedicated to her, instead she is worshipped in the fields.


OR

Zeus

Or any other god.


ORRRR What I believe is a creator deity (as we call them) that made all this, set the rules in place, and lets the universe follow it's own path. But our energy is part of the universe, having always existed and will continue to do so in another form.

I dont think the universe was created from nothing. Since science proves nothing can't create anything.

 

[ScorpDiesel]

And I can state that 1 + 1 = 0

1 + 1 = 1 + sqrt(1)
= 1 + sqrt[(-1)(-1)]

= 1 + sqrt(-1) x sqrt(-1)

= 1 + [sqrt(-1)]^2

= 1 + (-1)

= 0




@ some of the shit i'm reading in this thread

What IDIOT fell for this?

-1 x -1 = 1

so sqrt(-1) x sqrt(-1) = sqrt(1) = 1

1 + 1 = 2

Fuckin' IDIOTS. Sean, you better than this bullshit.

 

[Blunt]

I dont think the universe was created from nothing. Since science proves nothing can't create anything.

No one has ever said it was created from "nothing."

 

[sean69]

I'm not an atheist but i don't believe in the Christian version of god, nor ANY current version. For all we know god could be

Asase Ya (or Asase Yaa also known as aberewa) is the earth goddess of fertility in the mythology of the Ashanti people of Ghana. She is the wife of Nyame the sky god. In Ashanti mythology she gave birth to two sons, Bea and Tano. However, in their folklore she is also the mother of Anansi the trickster god. Asase Yaa is very powerful, though no temples are dedicated to her, instead she is worshipped in the fields.


OR

Zeus

Or any other god.


ORRRR What I believe is a creator deity (as we call them) that made all this, set the rules in place, and lets the universe follow it's own path. But our energy is part of the universe, having always existed and will continue to do so in another form.

I dont think the universe was created from nothing. Since science proves nothing can't create anything.

rules or instructions/code like Jon von Neumann's self-replicating systems by a "universal copier and constructor" in Cellular Automaton where an initial finite state described by a set of rules or instructions can evolve complexity and specificity.

But this scenario obviously begs the question of what/who set the initial conditions and then what created them and so on leading to infinite regress. However, this is only a problem in a universe physical mechanics (physics) is deterministic. But since Quantum Mechanics teaches us that this isn't the case, that you can get something from nothing then does it even make sense asking the question what created what??

 

[sean69]

What IDIOT fell for this?

-1 x -1 = 1

so sqrt(-1) x sqrt(-1) = sqrt(1) = 1

1 + 1 = 2

Fuckin' IDIOTS. Sean, you better than this bullshit.

My ninja ScoprD.

The beauty of the mathematical proof.

You have to invalidate my proof first.

And no, that's not what you just did. What you did was attempt to solve the equation another way.

You see, this was the point I posted that in the first place

*waits...*

 

[sean69]

No one has ever said it was created from "nothing."

What's the fascination with this video clip anyway? And why did you post it as a response? There's absolutely nothing in it that says anything about what the universe was created from?

 

[kdilla]

My 2 cents...

I do believe in GOD. Not for some "just in case shit". I don't believe that if someone does the wrong thing, they will be zapped or sent str8 to hell "don't pass GO, don't collect your $200." My whole logic about this is based on emotions. If there was no GOD, then we would all be robots. Just doing what we need to do to survive. Now pin-pointing to which "GOD" to praise, is a waste of time to me. Just know that you are made in HIS image, as a "creator". Work to create your situation, instead of waiting for something to fall in your lap. Realize where your blessings are coming from, and show gratitude. Peace.

 

[Blunt]

]What's the fascination with this video clip anyway? And why did you post it as a response? There's absolutely nothing in it that says anything about what the universe was created from?

She breaks it down in simple (and entertaining) language for all the brainwashed creationist knuckleheads and for all the fools who can't conceive of a universe without the ridiculous concept of GOD at the center of it. THAT's the fascination. I'll pound it until it finally sinks in, just like you keep doing with your books on relative realities (which actually have nothing to do with why people believe blindly and lazily in GOD).

 

[sean69]

She breaks it down in simple (and entertaining) language for all the brainwashed creationist knuckleheads and for all the fools who can't conceive of a universe without the ridiculous concept of GOD at the center of it. THAT's the fascination. I'll pound it until it finally sinks in, just like you keep doing with your books on relative realities (which actually have nothing to do with why people believe blindly and lazily in GOD).

You can't bear to think about the notion of a universe that's beyond human conception can you? Not knowing. It frightens you doesn't it?

Go hug a meteor or star or something maybe you'll feel better.

 

[Rudey]

I read page 1 and that was enough.

Maybe somebody have said this already but you ever notice these so-called atheists always cry for GOD when they are in pain and trouble!

btw since atheist dispel every notions about GOD existence, can any of you explain why/how life exist on Earth?

 

[Blunt]

Maybe somebody have said this already but you ever notice these so-called atheists always cry for GOD when they are in pain and trouble!

They can cry all they want (as a trained reflex) but it still don't mean shit. Ain't no one listening but the neighbors.

btw since atheist dispel every notions about GOD existence, can any of you explain why/how life exist on Earth?

Take some science and biology classes. Ever heard of those subjects?? They deal with the actual physical world, and not fantasy.

 

[Rudey]

They can cry all they want (as a trained reflex) but it still don't mean shit. Ain't no one listening but the neighbors.



Take some science and biology classes. Ever heard of those subjects?? They deal with the actual physical world, and not fantasy.

Actually I never heard of science and biology subjects. I was hoping the knowledgeable atheists would at least be generous to give me a concise explanation.

What happen google broke down?