Looking for respectfull Atheist to talk about God
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
@ Mystical Theist
"It must be from him/her/it , meaning he is the cause of all causes since if God has another cause but himself he cannot be God.
It must be for him/her/it , meaning everything must be for him, since if his purpose is to create something or take care of something, that would became the main entity."
In other words you have stolen a page from the Apologetic 101 class and defined a god that cannot be defined, identified, proven, or disproven.
I could define a god as an invisible pink giant bunny, that is also defined by the same parameters.
So here was are, at an impasse, and no way forward in any productive conversation.
But my invisible bunny is pink.
That is what you would call a straw man, my friend. You are lumping me with the Apologetic 101 and putting words in my mouth in order to make your own argument and then conclude by yourself without giving me a chance to further expand.
As you said it yourself there is no way forward in this conversation.
@ Mystical Theist
"You are lumping me with the Apologetic 101 and putting words in my mouth in order to make your own argument and then conclude by yourself without giving me a chance to further expand."
Here is your chance.
Is there any way or method one can use to identify or test for your god?
@All Re: Mystical - "That is what you would call a straw man, my friend. You are lumping me with the Apologetic 101 and putting words in my mouth in order to make your own argument and then conclude by yourself without giving me a chance to further expand.
As you said it yourself there is no way forward in this conversation."
Hmmm.... Anybody else notice the change in grammar and writing style there compared to his other posts?
"Atheist life can be fulfilling and with purpose but being a mystic is also a valid and logical choice since there are many unawnsered questions. "
How is it logical to base belief on not having an explanation for something? Quite the opposite is true, and this is the very definition of a common logical fallacy called argumentum ad ignorantiam. Nothing that is based on or uses a known logical fallacy can be asserted as rational.
It amazes me that so many religious apologists do this? make the sweeping claim their beliefs have a rational basis, then immediately prove they don't.
I don't really care what you believe to be honest, what objective evidence can you demonstrate for human consciousness existing without a functioning physical human brain? Without being pretentious, as you seem to be doing enough of that, if you could do this then it would be global news, and yet there is nothing on any major news network that suggests your claims are not complete nonsense.
Start at the beginning, what objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity? please don't prevaricate, we have seen too many theists and religious apologists come here and start with grandiose claims, and it always ends with them offering naught but subjective unevidenced opinion.
I cannot give the evidence the kind of evidence that you want, the way you wanted. If such thing were possible it would be Global new as you said.
If you want evidence for a reality beyond your senses you need to use the right tool, if you are willing to do that then is another story.
Also you have no evidence to deny anything so you just hide behind the burden of proof.
I didn't come here to convince you. I respect your choices.
@Mystical Theist: If you want evidence for a reality beyond your senses you need to use the right tool
Such tools include telescopes, microscopes, hadron colliders, cloud chambers, Geiger counters, radar, sonar, physics, quantum mechanics, mathematics, genetics....
In other words, the real world is full of fascinating and daunting mysteries on both the macro and micro scales. The human mind is the only mechanism that we know of that is capable of taking up those great challenges.
In my opinion, most people turn to mysticism and religion not because they are stupid, but because they are daunted by the enormous effort of trying to understand this world and the universe that spawned it. How much easier it is to swim the warm waters of supernaturalism.
Religion isn't a failure of intellect. It's a failure of courage and perseverance.
I half agree with you.
I dont think being theist is superior or inferior ideal. It depends.
Some people follow religion to be part of group and have an identity. Follow some dogmas ect. Many Atheist are the same, they just repeat without understanding or questioning anything by themselves.
Most religions started as mystical traditions. that aim to understand the nature of out consciousness, the meaning of life etc ( Im not stating that you have to be religious to have meaning in life, just saying they focus on that) mystical tradition teach you how to practical things, how to be happy, kind, human, open, how to question everything etc
as I said before many of those traditions are Atheist.
But they require a great amount of effort and universal understanding.
I like enjoy eastern spiritualism.
I just hope one day. we can all respect echother. i know religious people are ass-wholes to those who dont agree with their believes but why should we do the same...
(PREVIOUSLY ADDRESSED) - Mind numbing woo woo.
1. Cause of all causes. (Special Pleading fallacy. Everything has a cause but your version of god. God of the Gaps Fallacy. We have no idea what the cause of the universe is and no reason to assume it was cause. Insert your god.) Premise number one --- REJECTED. There is no discussion here unless you can provide evidence for your claim.
2. RE: "metaphysical reality which only now is being explored by scientist,"
A. Demonstrate anything at all metaphysical.
NOW YOU GO BACK TO #1 (PREVIOUSLY DEBUNKED AS FALLACIOUS).
2- I dont belive that matter is the root of consciousness.
Then you must demonstrate consciousness independent of matter. Please demonstrate consciousness without a physical origin. A thought without a brain.
RE: Without the the 'world of ideas' as they say, the physical real would not really exist. EXPLAIN FERAL CHILDREN.
Furthermore we can see that when one loses his consciousness for good no amount of matter can bring it back to life. Ummm... WAKE UP CALL! No amount of mystical shit will bring it back to life either. Dead is Dead!
RE: And such the origin is most likely conscious and alive. COMPLETELY UNSUBSTANTIATED CLAIM. You must demonstrate consciousness without a brain.
RE: Since the ideal of God is a metaphysical one is very hard to give sensorial evidence. ANOTHER INANE ASSERTION. DEMONSTRATE THE METAPHYSICAL. ANY GOD THAT ACTS IN ANY WAY ON THE MATERIAL REALITY OF THE WORLD IS MEASURABLE, DEFINABLE. AND ABLE TO BE DISCOVERED.
YOU REALLY THINK YOU ARE SAYING ANYTHING DIFFERENT FROM EVERY OTHER TOM, DICK AND HARRY THEIST THAT ENTERS THE SIGHT. READ MY ORIGINAL RESPONSE TO YOUR BULLSHIT CLAIMS.
RE: " And as I previously stated everyday more modern scientist are aware of this reality." BULLSHIT. There is not a scientist alive defining the "mystical" as you have described it.
1 You basically dont know any better about the cause, you just choose to belief something else.
2 Consciousness itself , what you would call luck, even natural selection and evolution are all derivated on a higher plane. We could talk more about the subject...
3 Consciousness without a brain that is easy... plans have no brains... neither do atoms, virus, bacteria etc
4 Death is Death only if you relate yourself with the body. Also you seem to confuse mysticism with some kind of magic... Body always changing but I always feel me, even scientifically 99% of the body changes with the pass of years, if you think you are the body you already died many times, you are not the baby that you were once, yet still you will always feel you. You cannot even remember when you where inside your mother still you were there. My consciousness always exited only my body changes. You might disagree but you cannot give any evidence from your side as well.
It becomes a question of logic and what is more likeable. and I respect your opinion but until now you have given me no solid bases to change my beliefs just opinions.
I dont agree that the infinite needs to be measurable in order to interact with the finite.
Im a programmer by profession I make the programs I can interact with them without being bound by their internal rules, Im the one that sets those rules. Is ok if you dont believe in God, but God by definitions cannot be measure with your ruler.
He can be define in many ways, and he can be discovered but you cannot discover God how you please, you need the proper instrument, if you want to see far away planets you need a telescope. but with a telescope you wont discover God.
Obviously is a question of perspective, many Atheist say if God lives outside of the physical world then he is not real. If you dont belief in anything that you cannot see, hear or touch ect I can see why would define reality in such a way.
The definitions stands the same.
I just stating my opinion, same as you did.
Perhaps you dont consider quantum physics real science then.
Also I can see you are not really interested in having a talk, just want to expose my "bullshit" it seems. Anyways I wont close this conversation yet
1`. 1 You basically don't know any better about the cause, you just choose to belief something else.
I SWEAR I JUST ADDRESSED THIS IN ANOTHER THREAD. Being a theist is like wearing a pair of yellow sunglasses. Everything you see is yellow. Everything you see is tinted by "BELIEF" and "FAITH. Atheism is the absence of belief and faith. You may find that many atheists are also Humanists, Skeptics, or what they call Free Thinkers, these ideas can color the way an atheist sees the world but Atheism itself is simply the rejection of God claims. YOU HAVE NOT MET YOUR BURDEN OF PROOF.
2. I have never called consciousness "luck." I do not believe in anything called "luck." I am a poker player. I believe in statistical probabilities. There are no planes. WTF are you on about? "Natural selection acts on the phenotype, the characteristics of the organism which actually interact with the environment, but the genetic (heritable) basis of any phenotype that gives that phenotype a reproductive advantage may become more common in a population. Over time, this process can result in populations that specialize for particular ecological niches and may eventually result in speciation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection
3. You misread my post. "Consciousness without a physical cause" "BRAINS" are the logical example as we are human beings. Go back and read the post again. Plants, atoms, virus, and bacteria are all physical, any rudiments of consciousness they exhibit is the result of being physical. The argument was "Consciousness without a physical source."
4. 4 Death is Death only if you relate yourself with the body. (WRONG) Death is death whether you relate yourself to your physical body or not. You have NO EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY.
RE: ( 99% of the body changes with the pass of years, if you think you are the body you already died many times,) NO you have not died many times. The statement is moronic. You have changed over time. Life is a process not a thing. Just because a fire changes moment to moment does not mean it is dead. The river that passes you by did not suddenly die and then re-emerge as a new river. Death is nothing like the process of life. Death is the cessation of the process of life as we know it.
RE: My consciousness always exited only my body changes. You are WRONG once again. Your consciousness is also changing. Are you aware of how your memory works? When you remember something you are not remembering the original event. Instead, you are remembering the last time you remembered what you are remembering. This is why we develop false memories. Memory like your body is a process. It is not a thing. It is not set in stone. Your consciousness is always in a state of change. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA .... I CAN'T GIVE EVIDENCE FROM MY SIDE ---- DAMN YOU ARE IGNORANT.
HOW MEMORY WORKS -
"What we remember changes each time we recall the event. The slightly changed memory is now embedded as “real,” only to be reconstructed with the next recall." .... "One implication of Schiller’s work is that memory isn’t like a file in our brain but more like a story that is edited every time we tell it. To each re-telling there are attached emotional details. So when the story is altered feelings are also reshaped. " ..... https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/am-i-right/201307/your-memory-is...
"You Remember That Wrong: Brain Distorts Memories Every Time It Recalls Them: Our brains are constantly betraying us, transforming our memories every time we think about them." https://www.themarysue.com/memory-distortion-in-brain/
Your Memory is like the Telephone Game
Each time you recall an event, your brain distorts it. according to a new Northwestern Medicine study.
Every time you remember an event from the past, your brain networks change in ways that can alter the later recall of the event. Thus, the next time you remember it, you might recall not the original event but what you remembered the previous time. The Northwestern study is the first to show this. https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2012/09/your-memory-is-like-the-te...
DEMONSTRABLY YOU HAVE NO IDEA AT ALL WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT --- TIME TO CHANGE YOUR BELIEFS
5. By definition the infinite is not measurable? Please don't go to infinities, you obviously have no understanding of them at all.
6. God can not be measured by my ruler. Please provide the ruler that you are using to measure your god. So far you have made assertion after assertion with no evidence what so ever and based it all on a very poor understanding of the world around you.
7. Still waiting for that magical God observation tool.
8. No atheist has ever said "God lives outside the physical world." Please demonstrate there is an outside and that anything outside is not physical.
9. "If you don't belief in anything that you cannot see, hear or touch ect I can see why would define reality in such a way." I am not the one defining my reality that way. I am not the one making idiotic assertions about things I can not sense in any way. The only person with a belief in things that can not be seen is you.
10. Quantum Physics? Really? After all this woo woo shit you want to toss out quantum physics like you understand it. GIVE ME A BREAK! Quantum physics is the study of matter and energy at its most fundamental level. A central tenet of quantum physics is that energy comes in indivisible packets called quanta. Quanta behave very differently to macroscopic matter: particles can behave like waves, and waves behave as though they are particles. WHY IN THE WORLD DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH QUANTUM PHYSICS. YOU DO UNDERSTAND THAT A "QUANTUM" IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE MEASURED. In physics, a quantum (plural quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity (physical property) involved in an interaction. The fundamental notion that a physical property may be "quantized" is referred to as "the hypothesis of quantization" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum
IF YOU WANT SOMEONE TO AGREE WITH YOUR IDIOTIC CLAIMS - GO TO CHURCH. You came onto an Atheist site spreading your bullshit. What did you think would happen. You really think you have all your beliefs tied up in a nice little irrefutable package? REFERENCE MY ORIGINAL POST - You are no different than any other THEIST that visits the site. ONE INANE ASSERTION AFTER ANOTHER.
"Perhaps you dont consider quantum physics real science then. "
It is not "real science", although a lot of science is accomplished using quantum mechanics. Just like string theory, quantum mechanics is a mathematical tool (just like trigonometry) that assists scientists achieve a better relationship and understanding between observation and theory.
"Also I can see you are not really interested in having a talk, just want to expose my "bullshit" it seems. Anyways I wont close this conversation yet"
Unless you can come up with something more tangible and move forward in this conversation, please exit stage left. Your bla bla is wearisome and I have heard the same drivel spouted by many attempting to use bullshit to convince a skeptical crowd.
You do not offer anything novel or new. You laid out a definition that is pure crap because you can easily describe the properties of your god, yet you claim this god is ouside of time and space, yadda yadda yadda.
Hello Mystii (can I call you this? i am too lazy to write your entire pseudonym)
Well..Hum... Your ideals are not to be respected, on the contrary, You are. You just have to learn to differentiate yourself from your beliefs.
Well... Do you think your "god" is omnipotent and omniscient? If true why would that be the case? This is all I am asking to you for the moment.
Yes I agree, I wouldn't be here otherwise hehe I know my ideals are not very appreciated around here.
If there is God there is God not your God or my God.
I dont know if this is your case but many Atheist dont fully understand the idea of being Omnipotent and Omniscient.
But im happy to hear the apparent contradictions that you will present me.
Also before talking about the qualities of God we should discuss if is his/her existence is likely.
For now I will just argue that is likely that there is an origin who is conscious.
Well this is an atheist site, but do you even know why those unevidenced ideals are unappreciated? I will give you a clue it has to do with objective evidence.
You don't help yourself with such obvious lies, as these words are adequately defied in any dictionary definition, if you have a definition that differs from the commonly used definition it is you who must accurately define what you believe, but making sweepingly dishonest claims about all atheist is asinine.
How likely are invisible garden fairies? You can't present broad sweeping unevidenced and unfalsifiable claims and then blithely ask if they are likely, you'll need to demonstrate objective evidence they are even possible first.
Yup in the dictionary is very clear, yet many fail to understand its meaning.
Invisible Garden Fairies is a very weak argument.
God by definitions is the cause of everything, exist outside time and matter. Therefore if he were to exist is very likely that you wont get to see him with your material senses.
Invisible Garden of Faries by definition live in this world, have superpowers meaning they interact with the world, they are invisible but many things are invisible like the wind, yet we know it exist.
If Garden fairies existed then by definition we would of encountered them. Thus is not likely that they exist.
Modern science doesn't even understand very well what lies beyond space and time. So by Definition God could happily exist without you ever getting your physical prove.
This are the facts, that why it comes to logic and amongst highly intellectual person you will find. Agnostics, Atheist and Theist.
All are valid intellectual opinions.
@Mystical Theist: many Atheist dont fully understand the idea of being Omnipotent and Omniscient.
I know that they're mutually exclusive.
Why because perfect foreknowledge and free will are inconsistent to you?
Other Theist had debunked that claim.
It just depends and how you understand the function on it.
In any case although we can theorise all you want. But true Omnipotent and true Omniscient are things beyond comparison.
@Mystical Theist: Why because perfect foreknowledge and free will are inconsistent to you?
Of course. If you know what's going to happen, you can't change it. And since you know everything already, you're not going to encounter new knowledge that will require you to change your actions. Either way, you're buried in cement.
Other Theist had debunked that claim.
Correction: Other theists have tried to debunk that claim. The logic is inescapable.
@Mystical Theist: NOW YOU ARE LYING.
1. If there is God there is God not your God or my God.
You do not get to come on here and claim you have a special view of god and religion and then turn around and claim it is not special. FACT! You walked in here with YOUR GOD. So far it is really un-impressive. Now you want to pretend that it is "A GOD." NO! You do not get to go there unless you are admitting YOUR GOD IS A REALLY STUPID IDEA.
Omnipotence and Omnipresence are simple. If these are attributes of your god, he is a fucking asshole.
If god is willing to prevent evil but unable, then he is not omnipotent.
If he is able but not willing, then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then why is there evil?
Is he neither able no willing? Then why call him God?
You can not have Omnipotence and Free Will. They are contradictory attributes.
If there is a god it can still not my god. Omniscience means you have the totality of the knowledge (or information) that exist.
You are not arguing anything but merely asserting your personal belief.
Well MT, welcome to AR, I always ask theists the same opening question, what objective evidence can you demonstrate for any deity or deities?
As an atheist this is my benchmark for believing any claim, and I have never heard any reasonable or rational argument why deities should be the exception. You will be respected from the start, as long as you reciprocate, and accept that respecting someone does not mean one must respect what they choose to believe.
I will have to go again with my programming analogy.
In this analogy this world and its physical laws are the program. the programmer is not affected by such laws. The only way the program can interact with the programmer is thorough the interfaces he himself has programmed.
You can argue that since the programmer exist in other reality he is not real. Or that other reality is not real as well.
The hard part is that there is no many religious ideas so many dogmas, so many traditions that mixed mystical ideals with as you call imagination. That is hard to make sense of this all.
You want physical evidence for a reality that exist beyond space and time. So obviously is a hard thing we cannot even physically prove everything in out own universe.
On the other hand there is not any physical evidence against the idea.
So it comes to question of logic and what is more likely.
I don't want anything, you came to me don't forget, and your assumption in that sentence is yet gain a common logical fallacy. When you make assumption about something you are arguing for, in the argument, then it is called a begging the question fallacy. Again the irony of you opening by claiming your beliefs are rational, then immediately using the two most cliched logical fallacies that religious apologists use, is palpable.
That's an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy again, dear oh dear. let me try and analogy, there is no physical evidence against invisible garden fairies, do you believe they exist?
Yet we have seen you use known logical fallacies, and yet seem unaware of it,, almost as if you have swallowed religious apologetics you don't yourself understand, but choose to find compelling. Also you again talk of what is likely, do you even know there is a scientific theory of probability? Probability theory, is a branch of mathematics concerned with the analysis of random phenomena. Can you cite peer reviewed research to support your bizarre claim? If you can then I'm aghast as to how the scientific world and every major news network has missed this paradigm shifting event.
Given I have had this very conversation on here and elsewhere with religious apologists literally hundreds if not thousands of times, then I can tel you the reasons is a combination of ignorance on your part, and blind belief with a desire to share it that means you are not being objective and your hubris is sorely misplaced.
Without wishing to offend you haven't even a basic grasp of what common logic is if you think you can claim to be using it and simultaneously using known common logical fallacies, but don't take my word for it, Google it and look at argumentum ad ignorantiam and begging the question fallacies.So many theists keep doing this here, and most refuse to even acknowledge these facts abut logic, whilst continuing to claim their beliefs are rational.
Please look at any posts by Jo for an example of such relentless dishonesty, and this kind of duplicity has the opposite effect of making a compelling argument for their beliefs.
You made this into a wild debate...
I dont fully agree with your argumentum ad ignorantiam claims. and your analogy it weak, because then again by definition such creature would not exist otherwise we would know it exist.
The rest is just a personal attack, you want me to be a religious apologist, when the only thing we have in common is that we belief in God.
Is very easy to argue vs a tag. you said yourself you done it thousand times before.
I can clearly see im an ignorant in your eyes. I dont want to waste your time. I respect your opinion but you are really tunnelled.
@ Mystical Theist
Did you understand that as a theist coming in here and preaching you painted a big bullseye on your back? With no ammunition to backup your assertions? And as far as perceived personal attacks, you defined your god, you laid out your personal definition of your god. Everything you expressed was YOUR opinion. So if your opinion comes under attack, that is expected.
"I can clearly see im an ignorant in your eyes. I dont want to waste your time. I respect your opinion but you are really tunnelled."
I saw this coming, the way of the coward. One thing I look for is when a theist prepares an exit strategy. And you laid out your exit strategy from your very first post. Now you can run to the comfort of your fellow theists and not have to deal with us nasty atheists, because we ask hard questions.
RE: God is a programmer
1. The programmer is not necessary when natural causes are more explanatory.
2. You do not get to "THINK" a programmer into existence, you must demonstrate it.
3. You are engaged in a "PROGRAMMER OF THE GAPS" fallacy. We don't know therefore "programmer."
RE: On the other hand there is not any physical evidence against the idea.
This demonstrates that you do not understand science. The person making the claim has the burden of proof. It is not the atheists job to run about disproving every stupid claim you make. It is your job to provide facts and evidence supporting your claim
Your programmer analogy fails because no matter how you define your god, it did interact with this universe. Thus your god is part of the program, it is not the programmer.
I'm sorry but that is a lie, and I have to call you on it. please link the peer reviewed research evidencing this, and then link the Nobel prize winner who demonstrated objective evidence for your claim. The Templeton foundation have for decades been offering a million dollars to anyone who can remotely evidence the supernatural, and even by the woefully biased standards set by the superstitious, no one has claimed this prize.
Please, stop making claims, and demonstrate objective evidence.