Thread: And the atheist movement begins...

Originally Posted by Minnekahta

You seemed very insecure in your "gods". Otherwise, why would you ask me such a question?

I was simply curious as to your opinion. There is nothing insecure about that. That is, unless, you view simply asking a question is a sign of insecurity.

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

I was simply curious as to your opinion. There is nothing insecure about that. That is, unless, you view simply asking a question is a sign of insecurity.

It was because of the way you phrased the question. I've got no issues with your little cartoon gods. And I'm sure God finds them quite entertaining.

Originally Posted by netzen2010

I have said this before, I do not discount experiences, which are powerful. The error comes in ascribing the experience to some god and then teaching that as fact. You cannot rationally get the existence of some supreme god, which imposes on reality, from a personal experience. This is born out by the fact that there are literally thousands of contradictory gods born out of human transendental experiences thoughout history. The repercussions of which number among the detrimental influences on human society and history.

Yet ... you claim no experience and say "You cannot rationally get the existence of some supreme god, which imposes on reality, from a personal experience." Break it down ... "rationally" having an experience, you cannot deny the experience it happened. The experience is not inclusive of all other experiences ... it is unique (not making a sandwich). God is sought with communication ... the seeker is answered.

Conclusion ... God answered and intervened in this reality. The difference now comes to "supreme" and how much imposing on reality". I've no idea how much God chooses to impose upon this reality ... but communication itself is an imposition. Supreme ... what is that? I can't say God performs miracles nor can I say God doesn't ... God is, and since I've never been one of faith ... I can't ascribe to good books of faith, only so much as my personal experience affirms.
I can say per dogma ... that worthiness is not an issue ... I was no Saint, that part of dogma holds true. Prayer methodology holds true. The comforter holds true to dogma. My observation is that many religious teachings should hold true.
Now to why those teachings might hold true .... I do not find myself unique, as such believe these experiences have happened to others ... I have no belief that their experience is identical, as each human is different. Whatever they can attest to is their own personal experience.

Contradictory Gods. My experience suggests that God would not leave any particular culture out of the "loop". The nature of God is one of extreme love. Rationally ... why would I assume that love is unique to the Middle East or Europe / Christianity / Judaism / Muslim? So I believe cultural interpretation to be an influence ... I believe a shaman in America hundreds of years ago, quite capable as any Christian 2000 years ago, in reaching a spiritual experience.

Repercussions ... Man is detrimental he needs no religion to be so ... any "standard" will serve to lead men in nefarious deeds against society.

Pakistani police arrest a cleric who planted evidence on a mentally challenged Christian girl to start riots in a Christian neighborhood. If this turns out well for the young lady ... it will be surprising.

Pakistani police arrest Christian girl's accuser - Yahoo! News
Pakistani police arrested a Muslim cleric who allegedly tampered with evidence submitted in the case against a Christian girl accused of desecrating a Quran, an investigating officer said Sunday, the latest twist in a religiously charged affair that has focused attention on the country's harsh blasphemy laws.

The case against the Christian girl accused of burning pages of a Quran has sparked controversy at home and abroad in large part because of her age and questions about her mental capacity. It also has triggered an exodus of hundreds of Christians from the neighborhood where the girl lived, fearful of retribution by their Muslim neighbors outraged by the alleged desecration of Islam's holy book.

The cleric, Khalid Chishti, was arrested late Saturday for allegedly planting pages of a Quran in a shopping bag containing burned papers and ash that had been carried by the Christian girl, said Munir Jaffery, an investigating officer in the case. The bag was then submitted as evidence to the police.

Originally Posted by netzen2010

Assertion #1 - God exists

Assertion #2 - God does not exist

Assertion #3 - There is no evidence god exists

Assertion #4 - There is no evidence god does not exist


#1 is irrational and improbable due to the lack of credible evidence. Positive claims require credible evidence or else the claim is nonsense.

#2 is irrational due to the the impossiblility of proving a negative, but it is probable due to the characteristics of #1.

#3 is rational.

#4 is purely an evasion of the necessary burden imposed on all positive claims, namely, the burden of proof.

Your precedents are all flawed, to wit:

1. God could conceivably exist despite the existence (or non-existence) of credible evidence to you. There are many who have experienced God in quite credible ways, to them. That you don't consider the evidence credible (or that anyone considers the evidence incredible or non-credible) in no way invalidates the experience. It simply bars you from enjoining it, persuant to your own preferences.
2. Can ALSO not be proven and for which there is ALSO no credible evidence. So your premise is already as defeated as you believe #1 is defeated.
3. Only a statement of partial fact: There is no evidence that satisfies you that God exists. personally, I am willing to stipulate there is no evidence, to you, that God exists. There is plenty of evidence to me that God exists
4. Irrelevant: You cannot prove a negative. OF COURSE there is no evidence of Non-existence: What would such evidence look like? A void? How do you observe "nothing" (or repeat "nothing?") ...

People can go on believing #1 but it's still nonsense.

to you: I agree it is nonsense to you.

P.S. Bigorty would be stating people who believe #1 are dumb. I don't believe that. There are many brilliant theists, and many dumb atheists. There are also many nonsense beliefs that we humans have. Theism is just one, and the only one I'm dealing with in this thread.

No, bigotry is treating members of [any][a] group with intolerance.

This is science in action:

New DNA project shows us living beyond our genes - Vitals

First, they admit that their initial hypothesis was not entirely correct and then accept the new data as a basis for moving forward to greater understanding.

In matter of religion, no one admits to being wrong but would rather wage war clinging to their position in utter defiance of the new information. In some religions, a revelation like this could cause serious bloodshed.

Sadly, the religious-extreme would take the above article and use it as "proof" that science is not a viable means of explaining things and then segue into why creationism must replace evolution in public schools.

Originally Posted by TomBlaze

This is science in action:

New DNA project shows us living beyond our genes - Vitals

First, they admit that their initial hypothesis was not entirely correct and then accept the new data as a basis for moving forward to greater understanding.

In matter of religion, no one admits to being wrong but would rather wage war clinging to their position in utter defiance of the new information. In some religions, a revelation like this could cause serious bloodshed.

Sadly, the religious-extreme would take the above article and use it as "proof" that science is not a viable means of explaining things and then segue into why creationism must replace evolution in public schools.

So being wrong and finding a new "right" applies to science. Yet that is not relevant when the discussion turns to God? Awkward thinking ... yet how that suggests science is not a viable method of explaining things is beyond me.

Originally Posted by TomBlaze

This is science in action:

New DNA project shows us living beyond our genes - Vitals

First, they admit that their initial hypothesis was not entirely correct and then accept the new data as a basis for moving forward to greater understanding.

In matter of religion, no one admits to being wrong but would rather wage war clinging to their position in utter defiance of the new information. In some religions, a revelation like this could cause serious bloodshed.

Sadly, the religious-extreme would take the above article and use it as "proof" that science is not a viable means of explaining things and then segue into why creationism must replace evolution in public schools.

Genesis 1:28 - God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it."
Subdue it...use it productively.
That's why a Jewish fetus becomes viable when it gets its Medical Degree.

Well no, religion can't put out one "historical fact" such as how man was created by God, carve it in stone as gospel, then change it. Science has that advantage. To start with a theory then prove or disprove or remain a theory.

If the Bible said "In the beginning, the theory is that there was darkness...." there would be some wiggle room.

Originally Posted by Blueintheface

Well no, religion can't put out one "historical fact" such as how man was created by God, carve it in stone as gospel, then change it. Science has that advantage. To start with a theory then prove or disprove or remain a theory.

If the Bible said "In the beginning, the theory is that there was darkness...." there would be some wiggle room.

"Man" was created by God using the elements so it is to the elements we look to improve "Man".

McCreight recalls receiving unsolicited sexual invitations and, when she appeared in public, gratuitous comments about her appearance. It all made her feel that atheism was a "boys' club". It might welcome "a young, not-hideous woman who ... I made them look diverse" but "rescinds its invitation once they realize you’re a rabble-rousing feminist." A movement that claimed to be rationalistic and against prejudice was not simply replicating the sexism of wider society, she felt, but actually magnified it. Whenever she wrote or spoke about feminism she received hundreds of insulting and hateful comments. Atheism had become - perhaps it always was - a bolthole for misogyny. Worse, she wrote, "I don’t feel safe as a woman in this community – and I feel less safe than I do as a woman in science, or a woman in gaming, or hell, as a woman walking down the fucking sidewalk."

New Statesman - Atheism+: the new New Atheists
_____________

Ms. McCreight is the founder of the newest iteration of the atheist movement called Atheism+. She is a self-avowed evangelical atheist and has her own blog here:

About Jen & Blag Hag | Blag Hag

At any rate, there seems to be some trouble afoot in the atheist movement. Maybe it needs to rid itself of the old sexist white guys.

Or maybe the movement is dominated by males who think misogyny is only wrong when you get caught being a misogynist.

Originally Posted by TomBlaze

This is science in action:

New DNA project shows us living beyond our genes - Vitals

First, they admit that their initial hypothesis was not entirely correct and then accept the new data as a basis for moving forward to greater understanding.

In matter of religion, no one admits to being wrong but would rather wage war clinging to their position in utter defiance of the new information. In some religions, a revelation like this could cause serious bloodshed.

Sadly, the religious-extreme would take the above article and use it as "proof" that science is not a viable means of explaining things and then segue into why creationism must replace evolution in public schools.

One has to be curious about the "information". Will they eventually discover that there is an informational field, as in the quantum, that orders the materialistic? That there exists these "possibilities" and an intelligent field orders this? If indeed there is an intelligent informational field that scientific materialism cannot plumb, because materialism is useless, how will this affect the field of biology? If it affects it in the same manner as classical physics.....LOL. How deep down the rabbit hole do we want to go?

Originally Posted by Blueintheface

Well no, religion can't put out one "historical fact" such as how man was created by God, carve it in stone as gospel, then change it. Science has that advantage. To start with a theory then prove or disprove or remain a theory.

If the Bible said "In the beginning, the theory is that there was darkness...." there would be some wiggle room.

Religion, although not orthodox religion, has already intuited what the science of quantum physics has discovered. And these mystical religions spoke of this thousands of years before the advent of quantum physics. Unlike classical physicists who based their understanding upon scientific materialism, quantum physics has negated using scientific materialism in comprehending the quantum. It simply does not work at the quantum level. And if you try to combine classical physics and quantum physics, you end up with infinity which is nonsense in classical physics. So there seem to be two separate realities in regards to existence, reality. And the two are adverse to one another. Oil and water, they do not mix.

I have no doubt this will be revealed in the field of biology over time and observation. That the universe is not materialistic, but of consciousness. And that will turn all science upside down, and show scientific materialism as nothing more than a fairy tale like orthodox religion. But a revolutionary understanding will arise from this, and once again, science has to change, but in drastic ways. And that materialistic science was just a flawed way to look and understand the universe and all that is contained in it, including life. It may have been good for predicting, but the predicting does not prove to be the way of understanding of the WHOLE.

As I have said prior, the future of humanity will not have the contention between science and religion. And the quantum will have changed it. Of course religion will change, and we will finally get rid of the fairy tales of orthodoxy, and in its place the Creator will no longer be an old bearded gent sitting on a golden throne, an anthropomorphic fairy tale, but a genuine timeless Creator of the Universe and of life. A Creator in which "thought" which is a product of time can never grasp. Sort of like the idea of entanglement at the quantum level. We know its there, but we cannot measure it. And the information shared between two electrons created together appears to move faster than the speed of light. Which is impossible in classical physics. And as we now know that an electron is everywhere, instead of inhabiting a single space, and only conscious observation places it where one looks, this will change science. We are just too early to know how it will be changed over time. But the change is inevitable. The reality of scientific materialism is doomed, and the reality of consciousness is upon us. It was a helluva mistake we made, in adopting materialism. But that defines science, over time, doesn't it? LOL. It seems to always be tentative, yet so many fools base their vision of truth upon it, when seeking to answer the BIG questions of human existence.

We still really don't know which end of our universe is up! But like the monkeys in Kiplings Jungle Book, " we all say so, so it must be true!" LOL And upon this we base our logical arguments!

Human knowledge is always limited. But only the arrogance of the ego of man will dismiss this limited knowledge and then arrogantly make assertions which we see as TRUTH while they are nothing of the sort. At least so far. This should make man humble, but he is too stupid to see it.