Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Atheistic dismissiveness?

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 04:18:08 PM
Also, is thought nothing?  I thought that matter/energy couldn't be destroyed, so thought must be something.
I thought thought was simply the pattern based firing of electo-chemical signals in the brain.  In which case, it would be materially based.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 04:25:04 PM
God is the limit approached when all of existence is considered as a single entity.
That's an interesting definition, but it would at minimum suggest that God is essentially unknowable to humans, as our brains are not even capable of imagining things on the scale of a galaxy let alone the entire physical world and anything else that may encompass existence.  I'm also not sure what you would do with such a definition.  That is, you have a coherent definition, but what is the purpose of having it?  Where do you go from there?
Our brains are not even capable of imagining the totality of all the complexities inherent to a single grain of sand.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 04:29:26 PM
Also, is thought nothing?  I thought that matter/energy couldn't be destroyed, so thought must be something.
I thought thought was simply the pattern based firing of electo-chemical signals in the brain.  In which case, it would be materially based.

Thus, those goofy ass contrived abstracts about the face of God are based literally on matter.  Thanks, JewBob.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 05:34:40 PM
Also, is thought nothing?  I thought that matter/energy couldn't be destroyed, so thought must be something.
I thought thought was simply the pattern based firing of electo-chemical signals in the brain.  In which case, it would be materially based.

Thus, those goofy ass contrived abstracts about the face of God are based literally on matter.  Thanks, JewBob.

The great lengths people go to defend their "higher power". Like the computer program you mentioned, the energy that comprised the signals inside the structure dissipates into the environment as heat energy. The death of a human would be like unplugging a computer's powersource(since we create our energy internally) and destroying the circuits at the same time. The energy that once came across your screen is gone and hasn't passed into an after life has it?

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 05:57:04 PM
Also, is thought nothing?  I thought that matter/energy couldn't be destroyed, so thought must be something.
I thought thought was simply the pattern based firing of electo-chemical signals in the brain.  In which case, it would be materially based.

Thus, those goofy ass contrived abstracts about the face of God are based literally on matter.  Thanks, JewBob.

The great lengths people go to defend their "higher power". Like the computer program you mentioned, the energy that comprised the signals inside the structure dissipates into the environment as heat energy. The death of a human would be like unplugging a computer's powersource(since we create our energy internally) and destroying the circuits at the same time. The energy that once came across your screen is gone and hasn't passed into an after life has it?

I don't believe in an "after life".  What on earth gave you that idea?  Also, why so serious?  This is hardly a serious topic.  We're discussing religion, for God's sake, one of the least important aspects of the life of any individual.

Also, you'll have to explain your analogy to me, since I don't quite get its relevance.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 06:30:37 PM
I thought that is where you were heading with ;

 Also, is thought nothing?  I thought that matter/energy couldn't be destroyed, so thought must be something.



I assumed you were leading into human thought must represent a soul that is disconnected from the human body there. I must have read too much into that.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 08:21:04 PM
the creator of all bit is just make-believe

Nice contradiction with your earlier statements.  Furthermore, I'd very much like to see your empirical proof for this claim.

You took what I said out of context, and if you would read the rest of my post you'd understand that.
Arguing definitions is pointless though; the point is that the creator of all bit is just make-believe.  It's simply anthropromorphizing the beginning of the universe due to humanity's lack of a decent perception.  We, as a race, like to make up stuff to merely fill in the blanks.

Humans lack knowledge, perception, and understanding to conceive any accurate depiction of a creator.  And even then it's simply anthropomorphizing.  Humans create, and so does any other intelligent life that may exist.  Do you understand what I'm saying?  Even the "creator" shit is babble.  It's simply filling in the blanks, and that's what most humans do.  It's the easy way out that requires less effort and thinking.  By the way how do I have evidence like you want if the shit doesn't exist anyhow? Fairy tales can not be proven wrong.  The creator stuff is created by humans too!

I don't understand how a conversation like this has gotten this far here.  You would think those of you requiring some kind of belief would have the guts to admit you and everyone else lack the perception to have any fucking idea of what's "out there".

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 12, 2010, 10:41:11 PM

Humans lack knowledge, perception, and understanding to conceive any accurate depiction of a creator.  And even then it's simply anthropomorphizing.  Humans create, and so does any other intelligent life that may exist.  Do you understand what I'm saying?  Even the "creator" shit is babble.  It's simply filling in the blanks, and that's what most humans do.  It's the easy way out that requires less effort and thinking.  By the way how do I have evidence like you want if the shit doesn't exist anyhow? Fairy tales can not be proven wrong.  The creator stuff is created by humans too!

I don't understand how a conversation like this has gotten this far here.  You would think those of you requiring some kind of belief would have the guts to admit you and everyone else lack the perception to have any fucking idea of what's "out there".


We shouldn't reduce God to a personal entity who decides to create. We cannot know if there's a reality underlying the physical universe, whether it is parallel or causative. I agree that it is reasonable to think that since we cannot know, and we being creative creatures, we make creators to understand the universe. Nevertheless, this psychological explanation does not cancel our ignorance about the origins or any underlying reality behind the universe (since we don't know, we create creators, therefore, there's no other possible underlying reality behind the universe). But we cannot know.

Sat-Chi-Ananda, the three attributes of Brahma. It makes sense to believe/intuit them. Ultimately, there's a demarcation criteria in empirical science that makes it possible.

By the way, here's a great interview with God:

http://www.amerika.org/politics/interview-with-god/


chv

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 13, 2010, 12:08:44 AM
God cannot exist because of the multiplexical nature of our universe. To propose a singular life force or entity and try and force multi dimension into it, invalidates its nature and ours. 

Furthermore, given the nature in which other realities, and dimensions can be realized, this invalidates any argumentation on the premise of god for the human race.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 13, 2010, 12:34:18 AM
If God doesn't exist, define your subjective experiences (tought, smell, hearing, hearing music, combinations of feelings and ideals, etc.). You think that stuff just came out of nowhere? No, really, atheists: What ARE the stuff I described anyway? Who is experiencing these things, your brain? Wait a second, I tought your brain was only matter. Does matter have feelings? Does your PC has feelings? How come you have?

--

EDIT: This was only to shake the atheists a little. I am currently in doubt

chv

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 13, 2010, 12:37:53 AM
If God doesn't exist, define your subjective experiences (tought, smell, hearing, hearing music, combinations of feelings and ideals, etc.). You think that stuff just came out of nowhere? No, really, atheists: What ARE the stuff I described anyway? Who is experiencing these things, your brain? Wait a second, I tought your brain was only matter. Does matter have feelings? Does your PC has feelings? How come you have?

Atheism is a realization of the untruth of god. It is not a perpetuation of solutions to information science has not figured out, just as god is not a supplication for unexplained phenomenon. Reality cannot be subjugated to interpretation It exists independent of will.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 13, 2010, 12:57:34 AM
If God doesn't exist, define your subjective experiences (tought, smell, hearing, hearing music, combinations of feelings and ideals, etc.). You think that stuff just came out of nowhere? No, really, atheists: What ARE the stuff I described anyway? Who is experiencing these things, your brain? Wait a second, I tought your brain was only matter. Does matter have feelings? Does your PC has feelings? How come you have?
Reality cannot be subjugated to interpretation It exists independent of will.

I didn't really understand this last part.

Anyway, I guess you're right, but I think the toughts I presented are good to lead a person to think of God. Just out of fun, why don't you try meditating on those questions.

chv

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 13, 2010, 01:01:30 AM

I didn't really understand this last part.


It is exactly as it is described. The terminology is also without personal opinion but with observance of what is.

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 13, 2010, 01:07:15 AM
Oh. Well, I think saying that reality cannot be subjugated to interpretation is somehow to interpret it, as is saying it exists independent of will. And saying that it exists independent of will may or may not be true. It exists independent of who's will? As we all know, or brain creates a lot of what we perceive (a LOT). So a lot of stuff that you think is reality is existing in that exact way only in your brain, of course once in your brain it's part of reality. But maybe there is a higher will, that humans, or some humans, don't know, from wich reality derives, so in that case reality is dependent on some will (and if you agree there is order/laws in the universe, it's not hard to end up agreeing with this).

chv

Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
October 13, 2010, 01:18:40 AM
Oh. Well, I think saying that reality cannot be subjugated to interpretation is somehow to interpret it, as is saying it exists independent of will. And saying that it exists independent of will may or may not be true. It exists independent of who's will? As we all know, or brain creates a lot of what we perceive (a LOT). So a lot of stuff that you think is reality is existing in that exact way only in your brain, of course once in your brain it's part of reality. But maybe there is a higher will, that humans, or some humans, don't know, from wich reality derives, so in that case reality is dependent on some will (and if you agree there is order/laws in the universe, it's not hard to end up agreeing with this).

No. A basic general understanding of even the natural world contradicts that reality can be reduced to interpretation only. While it can be interpreted, it is not the sum of those interpretations.