Toto

Very funny. Physicists don't know enough, but you know enough to make a snap judgment.

No, it's not common sense, and it goes against all empirical evidence.

You exhibit the need to devalue atheists reasons for not believing. This is a typical Christian debate tactic.


Yes you have.

Everything you have posted sounds like a Christian projecting how an atheist would feel. You go through all the Christian arguments. You don't seem to have read any atheist discussions on the issues of morality or the origins of the universe.

We have had Christian apologists pretend to be atheists before - atheists who were upset about their lack of faith. You fit that pattern.

outhouse

there is no such a thing as a creator god.


there is nothing at all that can be attributed to any deity

TedM

Ok, last one for the night

Right. They don't know enough about the origin of the laws of the universe. They are as ignorant as everybody else on the Big Issue.


It's not common sense to seek pleasure in the absence of guilt? Wow, that's a new one. I don't care what the empirical evidence shows on this one. Many people feel weighed down by the pressures of 'righteous living'. Give them a few strong doubts about the Bible's authenticity, and some of them will have justification to let their doubts grow--getting them off the hook. I know this sounds like apologetics but I don't care. It's basic psychology: People take the easiest route, and often will not admit it to others or even themselves.


Yes it probably is. I"m a much harsher judge of atheists than I am theists. That may be an unfair prejudice.

Ok. Maybe I don't appreciate atheists much. Based on the forums it is a mixed bag. Some way out there and clearly driven by emotional factors, others are more Spock-like with little emotional flexibility. And I guess there may be a few that seem more normal Whereas I can see a basis for rejecting the Bible on the grounds that it appears to reflect mythological development, I don't see the basis for rejecting the idea that the universe we live in had a intentional origin. It is counter-intuitive, and the requirement that God's origin be explained is an unnecessary distraction from that point. I would be surprised if there is any argument regarding the origins of the universe or issues of morality that would change my mind.

Toto

I think we can agree on that. Your mind is made up. :wave:

outhouse

creation is pseudoscience


and the only reason you know about any deity, is the bible that taught you this concept, you admit its mythology.

its creation mythology has all been proven wrong, so now you let your imagination run wild creating your own personal mythology to replace what is and is not rational after being poisoned by your own faith.

MrMacSon

Well, it's a general law for physics; and applies to quntum mechanics as an hypothesis (theory) for the start of the universe and hypothesis all the matter in the present universe is ~0 (dark matter seems to negate matter as we know it)

It makes sense that ppl like you put "God is a 'special' category.

But, nothing is outside natural law -

spin

You're confused about the topic. I'm not particularly interested in your adherence to christianity, but your belief in a deity whose reality you have no way of knowing, which shapes your presuppositions when you post here, such that you are patently transparent in your religious tendencies.

And you seem to have real difficulty understanding agnosticism.

Was the irony of your comments lost on you?

You can continue to misrepresent my statements, but it won't give you any solace.

This coming from a person who rewrites other people's comments to reflect his own dialectic is merely sophistry.

It's entertaining to watch your subterfuge, TedM. You entered into the discussion because you were impelled to change the meaning of my comments in this. Now you are warning me that your rewritings of my ideas are wrong. I could have told you that. Hey, you know, I did.

Your starting point here entails the belief in a god, the elephant in the room. You don't have any way of knowing that god unless you can get the sort of confirmation that Nash got, ie external independent perspective that anyone can check. Other people who had no commitment to Nash's Parcher had to provide input. Honestly, before you start waving about that elephant you don't want to talk about but assume in all your comments here on BC&H, you need to get that confirmation that the elephant exists.

"Too many assumptions".

The trigger of one single event is sufficient to cause a self-organization of the universe. You see there is the issue you are not ready to deal with: self-organization. Let's give you the benefit and allow that god hiccuped and triggered that event. Does that say anything about the intelligence of your first cause??

We can forget about the faux statistic and your other musings.

You really have difficulties understanding analogies. The aim is not to find the dissimilarities, but to grasp what is similar. You assume too much about the cause of those who bring things into existence. It's not strange that you are having such incomprehension.

The topic involved your misguided notion of despair. I see that you are trapped by the claptrap you accept, that the alternative to what you hold is "that our lives have no greater purpose other than what we give them."

And let's face it, our lives have no greater purpose other than what we give them, be that in the acceptance of the tenets and desires of your hypothetical god, or whether you accept your status as a thinking human being with duties towards your fellows, or if you go for alienation.

I see that you can't conceive of the choice of accepting your duties to your fellows, but I've already explained that in what you are trying to dismiss.

There have always been those willing to embrace their alienation and manipulate others. If you get a chance to read carefully Wm Blake's Songs of Innocence and Experience, you'll learn that the starry eyed get manipulated and that the manipulators are crippled. Without sufficient perspective in this world you get into trouble one way or another.

I'm a strong advocate of constructive educational practices. The scope of education is to provide ourselves with the tools to deal with the world. Then we can choose to partake. If you only provide people with the skills to work and fill in forms, they are ripe for manipulation.

Your greater purpose is unknowing. You continue to miss the issue of knowing. Nash was deluded. You may also be deluded, but you have no way of knowing without disinterested confirmation. In short your are just talking incessant froth. You are saying things that you don't know anything about. You are potentially like Nash, potentially deluded. You just don't know. And everything you say that presupposes your unexamined elephant is meaningless.

TedM

I can change my mind now just as I did when I was younger and was confronted with contradictions to my beliefs. I was surprised then, having previously proclaimed that I "knew" I was going to heaven. So, I could again be surprised. Nothing is set in stone.

This is really silly outhouse. Who were the first believers in God and why? You think people without the Bible or the Koran don't believe in God. Are forest-dwellers all atheists? No, it is inherent in our nature to believe in God. It is unnatural to disbelieve. It is something that people have to de-learn because the concept of no-cause is counter-intuitive.

Then what is 'supernatural'? There could even be 'natural' laws that apply to God but we would call them supernatural because they don't conform to our laws which include cause and effect. No one knows enough to proclaim the things you are proclaiming as fact. It is simply part of your belief system, and could be wrong.

aa5874

Do you know who were the first believers in God??

Do you know when there was a God of Thunder??

Why did people Believe there was a God of Thunder??

People of antiquity were considered ATHEIST if they did NOT assume there was a God of Thunder.

Even so-called Christians were considered ATHEISTS in antiquity because they did NOT worship the ASSUMED Gods of the Greeks and Romans.

I will ASSUME that you are an ATHEIST if you do not believe in the Gods of the Greeks and Romans.

The so-called Christian Justin claimed he was considered and admitted he was an Atheist.

Justin's First Apology Will you also Confess that you are an ATHEIST??

TedM

Nope.


i guess so.




Makes no sense. I started off with pointing out that your 'speculations' were full of assumptions. You didn't like that word, nor the idea that God could be far more intelligent than you.


Really? This is what you are hung up with? Funny.



So sad that you belittle God so much. That's why I consider you to be a closet atheist instead of an agnostic. Your hypothetical 'god' is no god at all. Why don't YOU hiccup and create a self-organizing universe spin?


Again, why don't you create a universe since it is so easy to do. Just apply some electrical stimulation to your diaphragm and hiccup.


And, I see you also believe the same 'claptrap', but feel free anyway..

There is no such thing as duty in the world of atheism. No one owes anybody anything.


That's nice.

This is an unnecessary requirement. Many people are perfectly fine with trusting their own minds without independent confirmation. That can apply to an unprovable worldview also.