100% Metal Forum (Death Metal and Black Metal)

Metal => Interzone => Topic started by: Dissent on October 11, 2010, 05:01:49 PM

Title: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Dissent on October 11, 2010, 05:01:49 PM
The acknowledgement of the plethora of religious fallacies and errors seems to be the major catalyst in today's religious dissidence. While Atheists recognize the flaws in the major religions, they don't seem to consider the possibility of character assassination or slander and propaganda. Instead, they take notice of said flaws and dismiss the entire subject based primarily off of the fodder. Consequently, the notion of God is abandoned and an assertion of its absence is replaced, as opposed to a reconsideration of its principles. Essentially, God can still exist whether it has believers or not. To assert that the reality of God must be acquired through faith is absurd, because one can switch on and off their faith like a light switch. This is not an ultimate reality, because ultimate realities don't require belief or faith. They exist whether YOU do or not.

I propose a new paradigm: Maybe God is still real, but its traits and characteristics/laws have been demonized and perverted throughout time as to distort its truth. This is an elaborate, collective effort by those in power to strategically manipulate the presentation of information about racy subjects like this and purposely misrepresent it into something that fits more along the lines of their personal agendas, and to perpetuate the current left-right paradigm so they remain in power and the commonfolk are misguided via disinformation efforts.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Cargést on October 11, 2010, 05:40:39 PM
The most intelligent people I know gravitate towards some kind of Theism.  The next tier down are generally Atheists, with some Theists who are simply so because of their culture/parentage.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Wolfgang on October 11, 2010, 07:10:12 PM
Why does dissident have one post when I have seen him post other times? Cargest that is an interesting thing you say there. What do you mean by "the most intelligent?" Anyway, the leaders, elites, rulers of society are like all atheists and model religion as such to control the populace. I am sure every pope has no belief in the Catholic faith as marketed for instance.

No offense to the thread starter, but I am going to set aside the pseudo babble and boil it down to this. The only theism I'd ever accept is one that is firmly provable by science. Humans evolved from apes. Who evolved from lower primates. Who evolved from other mammals. Who evolved from reptiles. Who evolved from amphibians. Who evolved from fish. Etc. If there is a larger type of life that has had a hand in our development, we are simply unable to firmly identify it yet. It would be governed by the same laws of physics that we are. Even if it some kind of dark matter or energy, it still exists in the identifiable, observable universe. We should eventually find firm evidence of its existence and possibly even be able to destroy it.

Ignore your brain when it tries to get you all bubbly with spiritualism, leading you down this path. Just how you're wired. I've learned how to completely shut it off. No reason to continue to throw bones in a bowl anymore. How hypocritical I find my obsession with ritualistic black and death metal though. But I use it as an outlet for my inborn need for spirituality so I don't end up in church or on a message board weirding people out.

My opinion is the most boring. Sorry guys. The only spells or magic one can conjure are with a guitar, violin or flute.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Spectrum on October 11, 2010, 07:15:00 PM
The issue is that you can not prove or even verify the existence of any god.  Then how can you know of such things?  Where does knowledge of gods come from?  What if atheists like me simply think one step ahead of the  following notion: "there may be a god out there, but not an abrahamic/nordic/etc. god"?  Atheist means "without the belief in a deity or deities", and its anthropology coincides with this strain of thought.  Why worry about what's outside of the universe?  That is to assume that "outside of the universe" exists.  I don't understand how any verifiable, understood, or even acceptable knowledge concerning this data can be conceived and/or known.  Your error of judgment is to assume that atheists act like they know for sure nothing is "out there".  
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Cargést on October 12, 2010, 12:30:21 AM
Wolfgang,  the "identifiable, observable universe" is a mere fraction of the entirety of matter, let alone of everything that isn't matter.  You appear to have fallen into one of the pitfalls of modern Atheist thought, which is to assume that we've reached a level of understanding of our physical environment which is somewhere close to complete.

You should read a book by Douglas Hofstadter called "Godel Escher Bach", in which he explains everything from the general fallacy of logic, through embedded systems, to what he calls "strange loops".  There are many sections in this book which gradually show to the reader that our physical existence "system", much like any other real, imaginary, or virtual system, is confined by laws which are not defined within the system, but which are, as with all other systems, defined elsewhere ("outside the system").  I've brought up the example of a computer program before on ANUS - the program follows a set of instructions, and can do whatever it can within those sets of instructions, and with whatever inputs it's given; however, it cannot, unless it is instructed to do so, change its instructions (and, at that point, it's still operating within its original definitions).  In this way, it can't "break out" of its system.  In a similar way, we can't "break out" of our system.  I have a very strong feeling that, while humans have the ability to glimpse something of the "outside", we're programmed not to be able to recognise it properly.  Hofstadter has a story in his book about two characters finding a genie, who, when asked for more wishes, has to ask the meta-genie if that's ok, and he in turn, when asked if it's ok, has to ask the meta-meta-genie, who has to ask the meta-meta-meta-genie, and so on, infinitely, until they reach the "end", which is called "God".

As far as "the most intelligent people" go, I mean the people whose general understanding, cognitive ability, insight, intuition, capacity for introversion, and wisdom far outweigh those of other people.  In essence, I mean exactly what I say - the most intelligent people I know.

Spectrum, Atheism is the absolute denial of existence of God as being a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent being, creator of all, etc.  If there's any doubt in the mind of a so-called Atheist (i.e. "we can't know"), that's not Atheism, but, rather, Agnosticism.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Veritas on October 12, 2010, 12:50:00 AM
As I see it, it doesn't matter whether God exists, or what the "truth" of any matter is. What matters is how the belief effects how you interact with the world.

The question then becomes should we believe in God? If so, in what way; if not, then what is the best alternative? Does believing in God provide you with an inspiration which allows you to live more fully, and attain higher levels of greatness? Does the picture of God allow you to create something transcendent (e.g. medieval Christian art)? Or does it result in you shunning life, and withdrawing into worlds of delusion which do not aid in the development of life?

Don't worry about what is real - worry about what really is.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Cargést on October 12, 2010, 12:59:35 AM
lolokay has the best attitude.  God is only useful as far as it allows us to live a better life.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: loam on October 12, 2010, 01:35:30 AM
they take notice of said flaws and dismiss the entire subject based primarily off of the fodder. Consequently, the notion of God is abandoned and an assertion of its absence is replaced, as opposed to a reconsideration of its principles.

I've seen a lot of this lately, noticeably in the arguments and general outlooks of people who I consider otherwise moderately to very intelligent. It is as though a switch is flipped when "God" is mentioned and they just turn off their brains. Christianity and its adherents in particular seem to cause a mental block to be engaged when discussed. The metaphors in religious works and the brilliance of religious thinkers are lost. I usually encourage the reading of Emerson to alleviate such an unfortunate situation.

The subject matter of religion and its deep-seated nature (due to much of it being instilled from a very young age) make it something generally not taken lightly nor easily discarded by those who are initiated into it. This being the case, many intelligent, wise, capable people (I find) are religious. This will be unavoidable until religion ceases to be.

You appear to have fallen into one of the pitfalls of modern Atheist thought, which is to assume that we've reached a level of understanding of our physical environment which is somewhere close to complete.

Indeed. We have not even left (physically anyway) our position inside the grain of sand that is our solar system (which we've only recently become aware of). We are still young, and must at some point realize that there is much (incalculably) that we have yet to learn. Also thank you for the book recommendation, although it was not directed at me.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Wolfgang on October 12, 2010, 02:30:10 AM
Wolfgang,  the "identifiable, observable universe" is a mere fraction of the entirety of matter, let alone of everything that isn't matter.  You appear to have fallen into one of the pitfalls of modern Atheist thought, which is to assume that we've reached a level of understanding of our physical environment which is somewhere close to complete.

You should read a book by Douglas Hofstadter called "Godel Escher Bach", in which he explains everything from the general fallacy of logic, through embedded systems, to what he calls "strange loops".  There are many sections in this book which gradually show to the reader that our physical existence "system", much like any other real, imaginary, or virtual system, is confined by laws which are not defined within the system, but which are, as with all other systems, defined elsewhere ("outside the system").  I've brought up the example of a computer program before on ANUS - the program follows a set of instructions, and can do whatever it can within those sets of instructions, and with whatever inputs it's given; however, it cannot, unless it is instructed to do so, change its instructions (and, at that point, it's still operating within its original definitions).  In this way, it can't "break out" of its system.  In a similar way, we can't "break out" of our system.  I have a very strong feeling that, while humans have the ability to glimpse something of the "outside", we're programmed not to be able to recognise it properly.  Hofstadter has a story in his book about two characters finding a genie, who, when asked for more wishes, has to ask the meta-genie if that's ok, and he in turn, when asked if it's ok, has to ask the meta-meta-genie, who has to ask the meta-meta-meta-genie, and so on, infinitely, until they reach the "end", which is called "God".




Meta-meta-meta-meta-genie Gods aside, Cargest what personally do you believe?

That sounds like a book I'd like to read. But really, what you're suggesting isn't disqualified in what I said. I don't dismiss the idea that a higher life form exists completely beyond our current ability to detect or understand. I also can't dismiss the possibility that we might never be able to detect it. But then if we can't detect it, it probably doesn't interact with us enough to leave a pattern or be a "God" in the sense we know them as. Shouldn't what we're talking about is better viewed as extraterrestrial life in another dimension then? I am not going to let the possibility of this fool me into allowing religion to creep back in my consciousness. This is certainly more interesting than Creationist science though.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: nous on October 12, 2010, 05:23:33 AM
The only theism I'd ever accept is one that is firmly provable by science. Humans evolved from apes. Who evolved from lower primates. Who evolved from other mammals. Who evolved from reptiles. Who evolved from amphibians. Who evolved from fish. Etc.

Sorry to disrupt your fantasy, but that is what you (and many others--granted!) believe. It is not science in the proper sense of the word.

A piece of advice to all atheists/agnostics: before you blurt out that God were unprovable or religion stupid, at least make the effort to read up on the matter for a start. Try to understand what the authorities of knowledge understood, i.e. read Plato, Aristotle, St. Augustine, the Summa Theologica, Ibn Arabi, etc. etc intensively. Maybe you'll notice why they would never agree with evolutionism. But even if you will not, you at least made an effort. To swallow what metal lyrics, Nietzsche or ANUS satanists offer to you without giving the opposing party a chance to win you over with arguments is just silly. If you are angry with the world, why must Christianity be your scapegoat?
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: nous on October 12, 2010, 05:31:31 AM
The acknowledgement of the plethora of religious fallacies and errors seems to be the major catalyst in today's religious dissidence.

No. Ignorance is.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Cargést on October 12, 2010, 05:36:30 AM

Meta-meta-meta-meta-genie Gods aside, Cargest what personally do you believe?

Consciousness is God.

Quote
But then if we can't detect it, it probably doesn't interact with us enough to leave a pattern or be a "God" in the sense we know them as.

Two things about this: firstly, consider the programmer behind the program; secondly, consider that the term "God", while generally used in the Christian sense, nowadays, is actually a very loose term.  As far as I understand it, "God" need not even be "sentient", so long as it is "living".
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: JewishPhysics on October 12, 2010, 06:08:18 AM
The only theism I'd ever accept is one that is firmly provable by science. Humans evolved from apes. Who evolved from lower primates. Who evolved from other mammals. Who evolved from reptiles. Who evolved from amphibians. Who evolved from fish. Etc.

Sorry to disrupt your fantasy, but that is what you (and many others--granted!) believe. It is not science in the proper sense of the word.
You've brought up this semantic issue on a number of occasions.  If you have a problem with the current classification of science, then simply replace any post that contains that use with the phrase Naturalist Method of Empirical Falsifiability, or something similar.  Otherwise, pointing out that what he describes is science as he is defining it and not how you define it is simply a none statement.

To respond to the original poster.  It's hard to take your post seriously when you add on a conspiratorial notion of absurd probability.  If you have some notion of God you'd like to put up for debate, then you should simply explain your notion.  People will either accept it or criticize it.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Veritas on October 12, 2010, 06:27:11 AM
God is the limit approached when all of existence is considered as a single entity.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Cargést on October 12, 2010, 06:36:42 AM
AEghwa.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: nous on October 12, 2010, 06:39:35 AM
If you have a problem with the current classification of science, then simply replace any post that contains that use with the phrase Naturalist Method of Empirical Falsifiability, or something similar.

No. I do not tolerate the misuse of language. YOU may replace it with Whatever you like.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: nous on October 12, 2010, 06:49:15 AM
Quote
God is the limit approached when all of existence is considered as a single entity.

You mean that God is the Infinite?

I like this one:

Quote
Etymology of the Word "God" (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608x.htm)

The root-meaning of the name (from Gothic root gheu; Sanskrit hub or emu, "to invoke or to sacrifice to") is either "the one invoked" or "the one sacrificed to."
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Spectrum on October 12, 2010, 07:08:45 AM
Spectrum, Atheism is the absolute denial of existence of God as being a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent being, creator of all, etc.  If there's any doubt in the mind of a so-called Atheist (i.e. "we can't know"), that's not Atheism, but, rather, Agnosticism.

Agnosticicsm means "without knowledge", and therefore means that one would claim to not know anything regarding any deities.  I often hear agnostics say "you can't dispprove christian god/allah;etc.".  Well guess what?  You can't dissprove the tooth fairy either.  I don't think agnosticism goes far enough, and no your definition of atheist is a misonception based on connotations.  I'm going by the actual dennoations and their respective anthropology.  I'm never going to run with the agnostic crowd and act like I don't know shit.  I know for sure that -for example- the abrahamic gods are fabricated beings.  Many agnostics I've heard -and rightly so, based on the definition- say you cannot know that.  I don't understand why it's all that complicated.  You don't have to believe in anything, and that's what atheism is.  You're tagging along other qualities that don't exist.  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.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Veritas on October 12, 2010, 07:12:36 AM
You can't dissprove the tooth fairy either.  

I've never before heard this analogy used, ever!

--

Agnostics are pussies. Take the fucking plunge.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Cargést on October 12, 2010, 09:38:02 AM
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.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: JewishPhysics on October 12, 2010, 09:55:37 AM
If you have a problem with the current classification of science, then simply replace any post that contains that use with the phrase Naturalist Method of Empirical Falsifiability, or something similar.

No. I do not tolerate the misuse of language. YOU may replace it with Whatever you like.

The definition of science:
Quote from: Oxford English Dictionary
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment : the world of science and technology.
• a particular area of this : veterinary science | the agricultural sciences.
• a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject : the science of criminology.
archaic knowledge of any kind.
How is the use of this term by others not in alignment with its definition?  Excuse me if I trust the Oxford English Dictionary as a greater authority on language and its use than you.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Wolfgang on October 12, 2010, 09:59:50 AM

Meta-meta-meta-meta-genie Gods aside, Cargest what personally do you believe?

Consciousness is God.

Quote
But then if we can't detect it, it probably doesn't interact with us enough to leave a pattern or be a "God" in the sense we know them as.

Two things about this: firstly, consider the programmer behind the program; secondly, consider that the term "God", while generally used in the Christian sense, nowadays, is actually a very loose term.  As far as I understand it, "God" need not even be "sentient", so long as it is "living".

While I find your opinion interesting, ultimately it seems like a lot of contrivances to justify a root generic "higher power" type belief.


"Consciousness is god"

I'm just not deep enough for all that.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: JewishPhysics on October 12, 2010, 10:01:25 AM
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?
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Cargést on October 12, 2010, 10:18:07 AM

Meta-meta-meta-meta-genie Gods aside, Cargest what personally do you believe?

Consciousness is God.

Quote
But then if we can't detect it, it probably doesn't interact with us enough to leave a pattern or be a "God" in the sense we know them as.

Two things about this: firstly, consider the programmer behind the program; secondly, consider that the term "God", while generally used in the Christian sense, nowadays, is actually a very loose term.  As far as I understand it, "God" need not even be "sentient", so long as it is "living".

While I find your opinion interesting, ultimately it seems like a lot of contrivances to justify a root generic "higher power" type belief.


"Consciousness is god"

I'm just not deep enough for all that.

Consciousness operates as the overarching system which governs all other systems, including this physical reality, other physical realities, non physical realities, non real realiities, or whatever.  Everything which can exist does exist, somewhere (probably not in the physical space of this reality, though).

If you were to ask me about the God of this reality which we inhabit, I would have to say that reality itself is God.  Brahman.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Veritas on October 12, 2010, 10:23:52 AM
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?

You mean to say that the nature of (pure) God transcends human understanding? How preposterous!

What it implies: the study of God means to try to discover ways of describing reality as a whole under a small number of principles, and thus approach a more coherent understanding of God. Such a study is to referred to as Theology or Theosophy, depending on whether the study is regarded as knowledge increasing or wisdom increasing.

Philosophically, it would imply, I think, that if we can find a single principle which underlies all existence (e.g. the Buddhist's emptiness) then we will have found God.

It should also be the case that it is good to become more God-like (i.e. more holistic in your considerations, perhaps in an objective rather than subjective sense). We may add to our definition of God a qualitative element, but I feel that by doing this that we have left the notion of Pure God, and are now considering a Platonic or Jewish notion of God. It certainly wouldn't be a Hessian God.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Veritas on October 12, 2010, 10:29:04 AM
Consciousness operates as the overarching system which governs all other systems, including this physical reality, other physical realities, non physical realities, non real realiities, or whatever.  Everything which can exist does exist, somewhere (probably not in the physical space of this reality, though).

If you were to ask me about the God of this reality which we inhabit, I would have to say that reality itself is God.  Brahman.

Is consciousness a necessary component of reality, or is it merely a sufficient one?

What do you mean by reality? Do you roughly mean "those parts of existence which we can be affected by"?

Thanks, "żLol, okay?"
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: nous on October 12, 2010, 10:32:53 AM
How is the use of this term by others not in alignment with its definition?  Excuse me if I trust the Oxford English Dictionary as a greater authority on language and its use than you.
Quote
archaic knowledge of any kind.

This, and Plato's distinction between opinion & knowledge, is my answer. I perfectly understand that you place your trust in authority, but a contemporary English dictionary has its limits. When people speak of "science", what they ought to mean is knowledge pure and simple, without any epithet, but specifically not trial and error, of which the best result can only be opinion, never knowledge. I know your opinion on this matter, as we have discussed it already; we do not need to fight another battle in this thread. My intention was for Wolfgang to understand that what is called the "theory of evolution" is an often heterogeneous conglomerate of opinions, but it is not science ITPSOTW ;-)
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: JewishPhysics on October 12, 2010, 10:36:10 AM
If God is the entirety of existence viewed as a single element (I prefer element to entity, as entity has certain implications I'd rather not deal with), then it would certainly transcend the human capacity of understanding.  Our ability to comprehend reality is severely limited by several factors.  Therefore, the idea that we could know the entirety of existence is what is preposterous.

Also, you make the claim that it is better to be more God-like without explaining why that is the case.

Quote from: nous
but it is not science ITPSOTW ;-)
He wasn't using the philosophical sense of the word, so your objection is irrelevant.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: nous on October 12, 2010, 10:39:44 AM
Your objection is irrelevant. I said: in the proper sense of the word. Did you actually read my last answer? It explains why that should be the standard, default, normal sense.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Veritas on October 12, 2010, 10:46:20 AM
If God is the entirety of existence viewed as a single element (I prefer element to entity, as entity has certain implications I'd rather not deal with), then it would certainly transcend the human capacity of understanding.  Our ability to comprehend reality is severely limited by several factors.  Therefore, the idea that we could know the entirety of existence is what is preposterous.

Of course. Only the single element itself knows what it is, and any awareness requires the formation of duality, which is a contradiction to the notion of God.

Quote
Also, you make the claim that it is better to be more God-like without explaining why that is the case.

Perhaps it isn't. I meant should in the sense of I expect it to. Perhaps this is contradictory with the previous definition, perhaps it is a better one. I'm not sure.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Wolfgang on October 12, 2010, 10:47:53 AM
At the end of the day, nothing in this discussion would prove anything to anyone, or is based on any tangible evidence. Just a lot of meta concepts and philosophical assbabble. The only thing this type of thinking and talk does is help people rationalize the part of their brain that screams believe believe believe. My interest has already waned.



Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Dissent on October 12, 2010, 10:57:06 AM
At the end of the day, nothing in this discussion would prove anything to anyone, or is based on any tangible evidence. Just a lot of meta concepts and philosophical assbabble. The only thing this type of thinking and talk does is help people rationalize the part of their brain that screams believe believe believe. My interest has already waned.

That would be the case if we were discussing Catholicism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. all of which I think everyone on here can agree is completely fucktarded. All of these demand from their followers "belief belief belief", without any philosophical reasoning behind it. Blind compliance.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: nous on October 12, 2010, 10:58:47 AM
Do you guys actually read what others write here??
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: JewishPhysics on October 12, 2010, 11:08:49 AM
Your objection is irrelevant. I said: in the proper sense of the word. Did you actually read my last answer? It explains why that should be the standard, default, normal sense.
Yes, I read your answer.  Which is itself a debatable opinion.  You think that the word science should be used a certain way, because you prefer to use it that way.  The word science can be used to mean other things.  Words can have multiple meanings.  The meaning that Wolfgang was using was the first definition provided.  The fact that you think the last definition is superior is irrelevant, as that isn't what Wolfgang was referring to.  You can complain all you want as to how the word science should be used, but that has no bearing on how it is used.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: nous on October 12, 2010, 11:10:49 AM
Of course. Only the single element itself knows what it is, and any awareness requires the formation of duality, which is a contradiction to the notion of God.

Consider this picture: you have a train set in your room, complete with landscape and inhabitants. The inhabitants are intelligent beings. They know certain things, for example, that they can take the train to get from point A to B. Now tell me: does the existence of these inhabitants contradict the existence of your room, or does it contradict YOUR existence, you who could just take one of these little inhabitants out of his toy-world and cast judgement on his past actions?
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Veritas on October 12, 2010, 11:15:43 AM
Of course. Only the single element itself knows what it is, and any awareness requires the formation of duality, which is a contradiction to the notion of God.

Consider this picture: you have a train set in your room, complete with landscape and inhabitants. The inhabitants are intelligent beings. They know certain things, for example, that they can take the train to get from point A to B. Now tell me: does the existence of these inhabitants contradict the existence of your room, or does it contradict YOUR existence, you who could just take one of these little inhabitants out of his toy-world and cast judgement on his past actions?

Am I suggesting God is the room? Are you suggesting God is the person?
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Wolfgang on October 12, 2010, 11:23:31 AM
At the end of the day, nothing in this discussion would prove anything to anyone, or is based on any tangible evidence. Just a lot of meta concepts and philosophical assbabble. The only thing this type of thinking and talk does is help people rationalize the part of their brain that screams believe believe believe. My interest has already waned.

That would be the case if we were discussing Catholicism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. all of which I think everyone on here can agree is completely fucktarded. All of these demand from their followers "belief belief belief", without any philosophical reasoning behind it. Blind compliance.

Meh, you're all just looking to rationalize the need to believe in something. Because it's all based on doublespeak and philosophy doesn't mean it is fundamentally any different at all in the end. The brain forces the conscious mind into this trap.

Something might be wrong with me to have that area of my brain completely disconnected from my consciousness. Only on rare occasions, and never once since I was older than 18 have I ever believed in anything at all. Even as a child in church, it was just never "there". I used to be so horrified and I had no idea why when all the people in the room, my mother included, would be filled with the holy spirit etc during song, holding their hands in the air like a bunch of savages throwing bones.

If some sort of higher life exists beyond our ability to detect yet, it isn't a God. It's an alien. Twisting the word "God" to to mean "the universe" or "dark matter entity we can't detect" is just a way to give in to believing in something.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Veritas on October 12, 2010, 11:25:25 AM
Almost everyone believes something, not everyone has to believe God.

If only death is real then so be it.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Wolfgang on October 12, 2010, 11:27:58 AM
Of course. Only the single element itself knows what it is, and any awareness requires the formation of duality, which is a contradiction to the notion of God.

Consider this picture: you have a train set in your room, complete with landscape and inhabitants. The inhabitants are intelligent beings. They know certain things, for example, that they can take the train to get from point A to B. Now tell me: does the existence of these inhabitants contradict the existence of your room, or does it contradict YOUR existence, you who could just take one of these little inhabitants out of his toy-world and cast judgement on his past actions?

Amazing! Never thought of it that way! Or what if our galaxy is actually on the collar of a kittycat named Orion or whatever. So basically, the storyline to Men in Black had it down pat. Fascinating shit today guys, really.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: nous on October 12, 2010, 11:28:15 AM
Yes, I read your answer.  Which is itself a debatable opinion.  You think that the word science should be used a certain way, because you prefer to use it that way.  The word science can be used to mean other things.  Words can have multiple meanings.  The meaning that Wolfgang was using was the first definition provided.  The fact that you think the last definition is superior is irrelevant, as that isn't what Wolfgang was referring to.  You can complain all you want as to how the word science should be used, but that has no bearing on how it is used.

Thanks!
What one deems trustworthy essentially depends on the way one understands the word "science". If Wolfgang says that evolutionism were science, then he must remember that this so-called science is only opinion and therefore not trustworthy. If Wolfgang had said that evolutionism is only an opinion and therefore not more trustworthy than a religous relevation, this would not be an issue. But as you can see yourself, he stated the contrary.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Wolfgang on October 12, 2010, 11:29:45 AM
Almost everyone believes something, not everyone has to believe God.

If only death is real then so be it.

It's because we are built that way. The selective advantages of religion and superstition are quite obvious.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: nous on October 12, 2010, 11:32:24 AM
Am I suggesting God is the room? Are you suggesting God is the person?

You suggested, it seems to me, that as soon as there is awareness of something, the One cannot remain one.
I suggest that this is a false dilemma.
Or maybe I did not understand you correctly, in which case you could elaborate on your argument.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Wolfgang on October 12, 2010, 11:38:07 AM
Yes, I read your answer.  Which is itself a debatable opinion.  You think that the word science should be used a certain way, because you prefer to use it that way.  The word science can be used to mean other things.  Words can have multiple meanings.  The meaning that Wolfgang was using was the first definition provided.  The fact that you think the last definition is superior is irrelevant, as that isn't what Wolfgang was referring to.  You can complain all you want as to how the word science should be used, but that has no bearing on how it is used.

Thanks!
What one deems trustworthy essentially depends on the way one understands the word "science". If Wolfgang says that evolutionism were science, then he must remember that this so-called science is only opinion and therefore not trustworthy. If Wolfgang had said that evolutionism is only an opinion and therefore not more trustworthy than a religous relevation, this would not be an issue. But as you can see yourself, he stated the contrary.

Babbleism Incarnate. Where I come from you need no disclaimer that science doesn't have it all figured out yet. That is implied. You're using semantics to distort the issue. I've purposely avoided the hairsplitting over my initial comments for that reason.


Science doesn't know everything by a long shot. But it makes sense. It is supported by data and has facts that can be proven. Nothing else is supported by data. I'm gonna keep it simple here and just stick with what has been proven to work. Even if we don't know everything. It is absurd to assume we can't look to scientific theory simply because it is incomplete. We'd never be able to accept anything then if complete knowledge of the true nature of everything is our acceptance standard. You'll say that that isn't what you're saying, but it really is.

You are a primate and you exist only because chemicals randomly formed DNA in the primordial soup. I am sorry if this makes your life boring.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: radiant=ANIME WITCHES on October 12, 2010, 11:39:21 AM
I love it when internet warriors try to objectively define "god." I mean, for millennia people have wrestled with the issue, creating thousands of contradictory definitions and killing each other over them, yet no one seems to yet grasp that the word "god" has only become even more confused, meaningless and sloppy as we try to shoehorn it into a world where *edit* forgot to finish this sentence OH WELL

Quote
Consciousness operates as the overarching system which governs all other systems, including this physical reality, other physical realities, non physical realities, non real realiities, or whatever.  Everything which can exist does exist, somewhere (probably not in the physical space of this reality, though).

If you were to ask me about the God of this reality which we inhabit, I would have to say that reality itself is God.  Brahman.

I mean, this is fucking shroomspeak, trying to impose a mystical lens on a world which is real as shit. Here's an idea, instead of being a pretentious fuck who deems himself too enlightened to say what he means clearly, say what you goddamn mean. What do you gain by saying "god" instead of "reality"? Street cred with the British Pagan Association? "Spiritual" feelings?

Beware of beautiful feelings, they are without exception intoxicating. The desire to call every little thing "god" is merely a case of mass drunkenness on the part of humanity.

/realtalk
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Wolfgang on October 12, 2010, 11:41:25 AM
I love it when internet warriors try to objectively define "god." I mean, for millennia people have wrestled with the issue, creating thousands of contradictory definitions and killing each other over them, yet no one seems to yet grasp that the word "god" has only become even more confused, meaningless and sloppy as we try to shoehorn it into a world where

Quote
Consciousness operates as the overarching system which governs all other systems, including this physical reality, other physical realities, non physical realities, non real realiities, or whatever.  Everything which can exist does exist, somewhere (probably not in the physical space of this reality, though).

If you were to ask me about the God of this reality which we inhabit, I would have to say that reality itself is God.  Brahman.

I mean, this is fucking shroomspeak, trying to impose a mystical lens on a world which is real as shit. Here's an idea, instead of being a pretentious fuck who deems himself too enlightened to say what he means clearly, say what you goddamn mean. What do you gain by saying "god" instead of "reality"? Street cred with the British Pagan Association? "Spiritual" feelings?

Beware of beautiful feelings, they are without exception intoxicating. The desire to call every little thing "god" is merely a case of mass drunkenness on the part of humanity.

/realtalk

bangarang rufio!
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Veritas on October 12, 2010, 11:48:59 AM
Am I suggesting God is the room? Are you suggesting God is the person?

You suggested, it seems to me, that as soon as there is awareness of something, the One cannot remain one.
I suggest that this is a false dilemma.
Or maybe I did not understand you correctly, in which case you could elaborate on your argument.

I meant my argument to be: to fully understand the Element, one must only be the Element: as humans, we exist in the world of duality, and this means we cannot understand God because God exists without duality.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Wolfgang on October 12, 2010, 11:51:26 AM
Am I suggesting God is the room? Are you suggesting God is the person?

You suggested, it seems to me, that as soon as there is awareness of something, the One cannot remain one.
I suggest that this is a false dilemma.
Or maybe I did not understand you correctly, in which case you could elaborate on your argument.

I meant my argument to be: to fully understand the Element, one must only be the Element: as humans, we exist in the world of duality, and this means we cannot understand God because God exists without duality.

To play the game ; if we exist in a world of duality how can you possibly understand something above that to know it exists there at all?
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Veritas on October 12, 2010, 11:57:17 AM
See my original post in this thread.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Wolfgang on October 12, 2010, 12:03:54 PM
See my original post in this thread.

That post doesn't say anything.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Cargést on October 12, 2010, 12:07:56 PM
Consciousness operates as the overarching system which governs all other systems, including this physical reality, other physical realities, non physical realities, non real realiities, or whatever.  Everything which can exist does exist, somewhere (probably not in the physical space of this reality, though).

If you were to ask me about the God of this reality which we inhabit, I would have to say that reality itself is God.  Brahman.

Is consciousness a necessary component of reality, or is it merely a sufficient one?

What do you mean by reality? Do you roughly mean "those parts of existence which we can be affected by"?

Thanks, "żLol, okay?"

You misunderstand: reality is a component of consciousness, as far as this view goes.

I love it when internet warriors try to objectively define "god." I mean, for millennia people have wrestled with the issue, creating thousands of contradictory definitions and killing each other over them, yet no one seems to yet grasp that the word "god" has only become even more confused, meaningless and sloppy as we try to shoehorn it into a world where *edit* forgot to finish this sentence OH WELL

Quote
Consciousness operates as the overarching system which governs all other systems, including this physical reality, other physical realities, non physical realities, non real realiities, or whatever.  Everything which can exist does exist, somewhere (probably not in the physical space of this reality, though).

If you were to ask me about the God of this reality which we inhabit, I would have to say that reality itself is God.  Brahman.

I mean, this is fucking shroomspeak, trying to impose a mystical lens on a world which is real as shit. Here's an idea, instead of being a pretentious fuck who deems himself too enlightened to say what he means clearly, say what you goddamn mean. What do you gain by saying "god" instead of "reality"? Street cred with the British Pagan Association? "Spiritual" feelings?

Beware of beautiful feelings, they are without exception intoxicating. The desire to call every little thing "god" is merely a case of mass drunkenness on the part of humanity.

/realtalk

I don't say God instead of Reality.  Secondly, what on earth gave you the impression that my concept of existence as a whole actually affects my daily life in any way?  Most of this is simply following logical conclusions, chosen by chance out of a myriad of possibilities, to ever further conclusions, which are also logical.  If anything, your objection is to "pointless" conjecture, whereas I would maintain that any thought which builds upon the concepts already held by the mind (which we commonly call "imagination", "creativity", etc.) is beneficial to the mind and to the individual entertaining such fantasies.  That's why we advocate Lord of the Rings instead of doing nothing.

As far as the benefits "belief" in God (or, to be more accurate, acceptance of the entirety as something which must be revered as God would be, and is, for all intrinsic purposes, definably "God") has yielded go, they're generally personal and little to write home about - the ability to flip to an entirely rational/realist way of thinking as soon as I remember that I am infinitesimal compared to the entirety of existence is probably the main thing, and has been very useful over the past couple of years or so, when it's become necessary to act in volatile and unforeseen situations.  I am now more intelligently connected to the world around me, which is a concept I could explain if I had an essay's space and enough time to write that essay.  I mean, seriously, I haven't had any biblical revelations or anything, it's simply an incredibly useful tool for someone of my disposition and character, and I intend to use it to its fullest extent.  The main point is reverence, I would say.

Also, nothing I said in the post you quoted was "mystical" in the slightest, and did nothing to what was "real" (except possibly expanding the scope of "reality").  Furthermore, I was elaborating on something which had been asked of me earlier, since, at the time, I didn't have the time to give a full answer (and, even then, I didn't have the time to give a full answer).

In conclusion, you're a bit of an arse.

I CAN BE INSULTING TOO

Have you ever read Wittgenstein?

Also, Wolfgang - have YOU ever been as far even as decided ever want to do go look more like?  No?  Well, God has.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Veritas on October 12, 2010, 12:15:57 PM
See my original post in this thread.

That post doesn't say anything.

It doesn't matter whether it really exists in any meaningful way.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Cargést on October 12, 2010, 12:17:39 PM
See my original post in this thread.

That post doesn't say anything.

It doesn't matter whether it really exists in any meaningful way.

This.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Wolfgang on October 12, 2010, 12:18:27 PM
Also, Wolfgang - have YOU ever been as far even as decided ever want to do go look more like?  No?  Well, God has.



Can I get a translation into pidgin or ebonics or a dialect I could better understand?
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Cargést on October 12, 2010, 12:20:48 PM
Sorry, it's a meme.  It probably came from 4chan or something.  "How can you possibly understand something above that to know it exists there at all?" simply reminded me of it.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Wolfgang on October 12, 2010, 12:29:10 PM
Sorry, it's a meme.  It probably came from 4chan or something.  "How can you possibly understand something above that to know it exists there at all?" simply reminded me of it.

You know what? Fuck.


Sorry it's a meme. I heard it on metal-archives or something.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: metal on metal on October 12, 2010, 12:40:14 PM
Beware of beautiful feelings, they are without exception intoxicating.

It feels so good every time I read "Only death is real", a fear crept in: I got AIDS:
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: nether on October 12, 2010, 01:04:02 PM
Have you ever read Wittgenstein?

Wittgenstein is a true poet, but ultimately mistaken.

Science doesn't know everything by a long shot. But it makes sense. It is supported by data and has facts that can be proven. Nothing else is supported by data. I'm gonna keep it simple here and just stick with what has been proven to work. Even if we don't know everything. It is absurd to assume we can't look to scientific theory simply because it is incomplete. We'd never be able to accept anything then if complete knowledge of the true nature of everything is our acceptance standard. You'll say that that isn't what you're saying, but it really is.

You are a primate and you exist only because chemicals randomly formed DNA in the primordial soup. I am sorry if this makes your life boring.

Don't get caught up in 'keeping things simple' and 'making sense', as this will only limit your understanding.  Your knowledge of evolutionary theory is second-hand, and thereby you understand it only in the abstract.  Sure, it makes sense, but it is on the same level as most theology, which, were you willing to actually engage with what was being said, you would find 'makes sense' as well. *edit* That is to say, a major problem with professed Atheists is that they dismiss the concept of God as something that is merely 'believed', ignoring how the concept is actually defined, and not even considering the possibility that such concepts can be rooted in empirical evidence.  I agree that the word tends toward ambiguity, and often serves as a cover up for misunderstanding and, really, an unwillingness to conceive of things outside of certain embraced doctrines.  However, your Atheism, so far as you have displayed and articulated it here, falls victim to these same tendencies.

Living your life isn't about choosing a catchphrase to which you will adhere.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Wolfgang on October 12, 2010, 01:33:07 PM

"Second hand" "you don't understand any better than Theists do" "catch phrases". This is all underhanded nothingspeak.

I've studied evolution plenty enough to know it is real and it exists. There is no debate in the rational arena. All that is trying to do is use some version of relativism to assassinate science so you can then "open your mind" for superstitious nonsense to infest it again. Save it.

I don't have to know exactly how a jet engine works through first hand knowledge to know it works and why it works. I can read a book on jet engines and have enough information to not doubt its existence. I really doubt that those parroting this have spent much time really learning about evolution or the origin of life in the first place. Why would they when meta meta meta genies make them tick? That stuff registers little interest. For me, it's theories about life on extra solar planets. It is the evolution of avian birds from non-avian dinosaurs. It is Devonian life. While compared to some(those who work in the field, other nerds like myself with a head start/more free time) I've only cracked the surface here but at least this is real. Not goofy ass contrived abstracts about the true face of God based literally on nothing.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: radiant=ANIME WITCHES on October 12, 2010, 03:12:35 PM
ITT we confuse poetry with philosophy, everything with nothing

what's next, metal with ska???????

(http://www.meltybread.com/forums/Smileys/default/emotiiamld7.gif)
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Cargést on October 12, 2010, 04:10:49 PM

"Second hand" "you don't understand any better than Theists do" "catch phrases". This is all underhanded nothingspeak.

I've studied evolution plenty enough to know it is real and it exists. There is no debate in the rational arena. All that is trying to do is use some version of relativism to assassinate science so you can then "open your mind" for superstitious nonsense to infest it again. Save it.

I don't have to know exactly how a jet engine works through first hand knowledge to know it works and why it works. I can read a book on jet engines and have enough information to not doubt its existence. I really doubt that those parroting this have spent much time really learning about evolution or the origin of life in the first place. Why would they when meta meta meta genies make them tick? That stuff registers little interest. For me, it's theories about life on extra solar planets. It is the evolution of avian birds from non-avian dinosaurs. It is Devonian life. While compared to some(those who work in the field, other nerds like myself with a head start/more free time) I've only cracked the surface here but at least this is real. Not goofy ass contrived abstracts about the true face of God based literally on nothing.

The existence or non-existence of God has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of Scientific discoveries.

Also, is thought nothing?  I thought that matter/energy couldn't be destroyed, so thought must be something.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: JewishPhysics on 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.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: istaros on 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.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Cargést on 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.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Wolfgang on 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?
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Cargést on 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.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Wolfgang on 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.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Spectrum on 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".
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Nimbostratus on 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/

Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: chv on 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.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: indjaseemun on 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
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: chv on 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.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: indjaseemun on 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.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: chv on 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.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: indjaseemun on 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).
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: chv on 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.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: indjaseemun on October 13, 2010, 01:36:08 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.

I misunderstood the words: I read subjugate like to subject reality to interpretation, not reduce it. Sorry.

My views on God are a mix of belief that serious wisdom can come out of meditation and altered states, that psychedelics don't exist for nothing, that our feelings exist for a reason, that all that we perceive has two aspects, higher and lower. I believe in the theories that time does not exist, that we are everyone and God at the same time, reincarnation, we can invoke entities and talk to the dead, that all is happening at the same time and in no time including multiple universes, that we are all one but have individual spirits, that if I work hard on creating a mental being I can somehow send it at distance to another person's perception, that alchemy was real and did transmute other metals into gold and the elixir of life was real, that the hierarchy of beings and conciousness goes on a ladder to infinity (like angel, archangel, etc.), and at the same time God does not exist and reality is meaningless.

Quote
Just kidding.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: chv on October 13, 2010, 11:01:14 AM
You are correct but only in a way. Now it is up to you to discern the nature of these words and how that way is possible.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: chv on October 13, 2010, 11:31:18 AM
Credentials only get you so far. If you lack the property to disseminate and synthesize, then "knowledge" is simply a badge of honour.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Spectrum on October 13, 2010, 12:27:18 PM
How the fuck do you even know for a fact that machines didn't create YOU?

Well in Matrix we created the machines before they created us.  You did see that movie right? o.0


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

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



I love God's honesty.

Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Spectrum on October 13, 2010, 12:51:11 PM
So that's basically the answer to the whole "where did the first proteins come from?" question?  I don't know how the hell anyone is going to figure that one out for sure.  Of course, I'm a clueless guy so what the hell...Brünhilde, I think you're a bit crazy, but you are trying much harder than I am so kudos.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: chv on October 13, 2010, 12:53:11 PM
Credentials only get you so far. If you lack the property to disseminate and synthesize, then "knowledge" is simply a badge of honour.

You are wrong. Knowledge is -NOT- a badge of honour, it is an acumulative survival skill. This is also the same regarding credentials. Band names, song names, and such, are also credentials. That doesn't mean you can improvise on the spot, be it the improvisation of a poem, of song lyrics, of law statements, of philosophical aforisms.
Modification to this Document: or even a fuckin' spoon, fork, knife, plate, or spear... or a fuckin' hermit hut, or a Mansion. Ok, Count Chivalry?

Who lacks the property to disseminate and to synthesize? Even fucking synthesizers have those properties, and they are -MACHINES-, get it? We CREATED THEM. Or do you disagree with this? Because if we are going to (like normal, everyday people) doubt the existance of God and ice-skate the fine line of agnosticism, then why the hell wouldn't you turn the perspective on the issue of industrialization as well? How the fuck do you even know for a fact that machines didn't create YOU? So what if that is paranoid fucking reasoning? You are other things besides being a paranoid fuck, you know? And so am I, and so is everyone reading this. So, instead of acting like some Chivalresque Renaissance insane "wise and holy knight", why don't you ACTUALLY BECOME ONE INSTEAD? And that means: if you take Physics seriously, then take Metaphysics EVEN MORE SERIOUSLY.
But you are entitled to do whatever the fuck you want, "you know?". And -yes-, you should defend that right with your -LIFE-, no matter fucking -WHAT-.

Why do I even reply to you, if you already know this?

Cheers.

Your replies lack one distinction involving language. Knowledge exists also independent of will and thought. Understanding of knowledge is something else entirely. Language is the foundation in which idea's are built, you cannot circumvent this. In this commonality is reached and realized, and therefor synthesis to create other fundaments and adjacent supports to allow the filling out of understanding. If you paid attention to metaphysics as well as physics then you would know this, but your statements do indicate a lack of completion.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: chv on October 13, 2010, 01:32:27 PM
Your replies lack one distinction involving language. Knowledge exists also independent of will and thought. Understanding of knowledge is something else entirely. Language is the foundation in which idea's are built, you cannot circumvent this. In this commonality is reached and realized, and therefor synthesis to create other fundaments and adjacent supports to allow the filling out of understanding. If you paid attention to metaphysics as well as physics then you would know this, but your statements do indicate a lack of completion.

"Your replies lack one distinction involving language."  <- I have no beef with the Tradition of Lingüistic Studies. I do not like Analitic Philosophy. I am a Continental Person myself, but I respect the Analitic Tradition. Their name has become very cheapened around these parts.... but I like Wittgenstein, The Circle of Viena, and such. I appreciate the work of Jacques Derrida, but I don't consider him to be a True Artist... not to the likes of someone such as Gilles Deleuze. Yeah, I'm "one of those people". . . . but I am not a yuppie. . . . I'm just a Nomad.

"Knowledge exists also independent of will and thought." <- λóγος

"Understanding of knowledge is something else entirely." <- Yes, that is correct. Please reffer to (Cf.) Immanuel Kant, "The Critique of Pure Reason". Kant agrees with you, as you already know.

"Language is the foundation in which idea's are built, you cannot circumvent this."  <- Language is divided into "speech" ("habla") and "toungue" ("lengua"). This is Saussure's distinction, not mine. I preffer Saussure's paradigm, instead of Charles Sanders Peirce's one. I do not like Umberto Eco. Not only does the toungue speak, the body also speaks. They eyes speak, the ears speak, the nose speaks, the hairs speak.... even grains of salt on a Beach, or raindrops in a Storm, speak.

"In this commonality is reached and realized, and therefor synthesis to create other fundaments and adjacent supports to allow the filling out of understanding." <- Formal request for further elaboration.

"If you paid attention to metaphysics as well as physics then you would know this, but your statements do indicate a lack of completion." <- This assumption is wrong. It is good advice for other people, though. But it is not my case. Such a premise is sincere and is well constructed.... you are simply speaking to the wrong person.


Language is not only a human trait, but can be understood in causality formula by humans. By creating the will to understand, you create the fundament for commonality, by that, through natural evolution, everything else develops as long as that will is intact.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: indjaseemun on October 13, 2010, 02:31:23 PM
Knowledge exists also independent of will and thought.

If there is no will/tought to know it, how come it is knowledge?
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: chv on October 13, 2010, 02:46:36 PM

Mr. Chivalry overthere thinks he has my absolute attention, but he/she/it forget's that I actually -don't- like Hegel, or his Works.
He is simply trying to engange in conversation with me, but in all honesty, I need a rush of nicotine.

You are incorrect about my perpetuation of Hegel, as well as assigning intent.
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: chv on October 13, 2010, 04:25:25 PM
O' To speak a flaw
a Germanics greatest
an er of form, mind and fate
his father he did uncreate

dear Brünhilde
how you know
the truth in kind
of the words I sow

lo the past is passed
in er' we seek
to look to the south
to think truth is greek
Title: Re: Atheistic dismissiveness?
Post by: Reginald Gillette on October 14, 2010, 09:06:40 AM
Brunhilde: nobody cares.