Atheists, smarter than religious people

I tried to post a response to rl's last. It was lost in the software failure. Needless to say, the world has never had a god, until persons with the mindset and emotions of rl and Frank invented it. They heap scorn on the ones who say the emperor's clothing is a bit transparent, with nothing to back it up; then they try to put it to the innocent bystander to do the proving. They are inventive with words and arguments, just totally devoid of facts to prove there are or may be gods.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Hungry Hippo, the agnostic in question does not claim that the chances of God's existence are equal to the chances of His non-existence. I was just arguing that his assertion that atheism and theism are equally in the dark IMPLIES the 50-50 equation. It seems to me a logical ENTAILMENT of an agnosticism that does not lean in one or the other direction.

The composition of what we refer to as "our universe"...is, for all intents and purposes, still unknown to us. Not only is matter, anti-matter, dark matter and all that crap not understood, physicists speculate that what we consider "the laws of physics" do not apply universallyand perhaps not even uniformly here in our own galaxywhich is really nothing more than a relatively unimportant speck in the supposed universe.

We are not sure about how many dimensions there are in this supposed universenor about matters basic compositionnor are we sure about alternate realitiesand about so much other stuff considered part of what we refer to as "our universe."

So we do not even know salient features of ALL THISand you want to present guesses about the REALITY of the TOTALITYas something you people knowas knowledge!!!!

How in the phuk can any of you a$$holes possibly suppose your puny, silly guesses about what is or is not a constituent of the whole of the REALITY of existenceor your puny, silly guesses about what can or cannot be part of that REALITYto be anything more than blind, unmeaningful, inappropriate, unwarranted, laughable, puny, silly, blind guesses?

How do you work up the phuking gall to present suppositions about probability estimates of these kinds of thingsand to mock or question people acknowledging that they do not know and cannot make meaningful probability estimates based on what we have to work with.

Watching you pathetic jerks trying to rationalize this guessing horseshytwatching you pretend to reason and apply logicis like watching John Cleese do his silly walk routine during a Monty Python viewing.

You ought to work on developing the sophistication and sense of integrity TO BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELVES.

(signed) The agnostic in question.

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

I tried to post a response to rl's last. It was lost in the software failure. Needless to say, the world has never had a god, until persons with the mindset and emotions of rl and Frank invented it. They heap scorn on the ones who say the emperor's clothing is a bit transparent, with nothing to back it up; then they try to put it to the innocent bystander to do the proving. They are inventive with words and arguments, just totally devoid of facts to prove there are or may be gods.

I challenged you to back up an assertion you made in a previous post...and you have avoided doing so. Now you challenging me to back up the fact that I do not know if there are gods or are no gods.

Wake the hell up!

0 Replies

Real Life has said:
"But if an atheist wants to claim that science supports or provides a basis for his atheism, then he should be willing to show the scientific evidence that 'proves there is no God'. "

RL, the ENTIRE picture so far derived by Science of the physical world is inconsistent with the thesis of a Creator. The world has "grown" (and its biological forms have evolved) according to built-in dispositions of the World (I don't like the term Nature because of its dependence on Supernature). The world is analagous to a tree that has grown and was not made. A wooden house is MADE (or created) by man but out trees that were used to provide the wood were not made--they grew! The insistence on a divine Creator totally misses this difference. The "Creator" is a projection of homo habilis, (the skilled, handy-man, or maker).

You might argue that since God is not of this physical world, Science has no access to His reality. I would agree that fundamentalist theism should then stop "explaining" the world we experience theologically.

0 Replies

Real Life has said:
"But if an atheist wants to claim that science supports or provides a basis for his atheism, then he should be willing to show the scientific evidence that 'proves there is no God'. "

RL, the ENTIRE picture so far derived by Science of the physical world is inconsistent with the thesis of a Creator. The world has "grown" (and its biological forms have evolved) according to built-in dispositions of the World (I don't like the term Nature because of its dependence on Supernature). The world is analagous to a tree that has grown and was not made. A wooden house is MADE (or created) by man but out trees that were used to provide the wood were not made--they grew! The insistence on a divine Creator totally misses this difference. The "Creator" is a projection of homo habilis, (the skilled, handy-man, or maker).

You might argue that since God is not of this physical world, Science has no access to His reality. I would agree that fundamentalist theism should then stop "explaining" the world we experience theologically.

0 Replies

JL wrote:

Quote:

RL, the ENTIRE picture so far derived by Science of the physical world is inconsistent with the thesis of a Creator. The world has "grown" (and its biological forms have evolved) according to built-in dispositions of the World (I don't like the term Nature because of its dependence on Supernature). The world is analagous to a tree that has grown and was not made. A wooden house is MADE (or created) by man but out trees that were used to provide the wood were not made--they grew! The insistence on a divine Creator totally misses this difference. The "Creator" is a projection of homo habilis, (the skilled, handy-man, or maker).

You might argue that since God is not of this physical world, Science has no access to His reality. I would agree that fundamentalist theism should then stop "explaining" the world we experience theologically.

This post of JL's reminds of a line from the movie My Cousin Vinnie delivered by Joe Pesci to the jury: "Everything that guy just said is bullshyt!"

0 Replies

Frank, I will respond to your response not because it is nonsensical--there is a seed of sense in it--but because you present it in such a jerky manner that I do not want to acknowledge any more than I have.

RL, an additional notion: Believers say they do not need PROOF of God's existence because they have FAITH. They request proof from atheists because atheists say they rely on proof rather than faith. That form of "double standard" has its logic. I do not deny the believer his faith. My dependence, for some purposes, on INTUITION is no more rational. But I feel that "believers" should not behave as if they had a theological proof that atheists should honor.
I, for example, cannot be accused of denigrating dualists because they insist on applying a logic to the world that is unrealistic. I apply the same logic in my everyday life. But I feel--intuitively--that it is no more than a useful--indeed, essential--fiction, not an accurate picture of Reality. I'd love to share that intuition with dualists; but since they resist--for their own reasons--I should acquiesce.

0 Replies

JL wrote:

Quote:

Frank, I will respond to your response not because it is nonsensical--there is a seed of sense in it--but because you present it in such a jerky manner that I do not want to acknowledge any more than I have.

I have no idea of what the hell you were trying to say therebut I do know that you never got it said in any fathomable way.

JL wrote:

Quote:

RL, an additional notion: Believers say they do not need PROOF of God's existence because they have FAITH. They request proof from atheists because atheists say they rely on proof rather than faith. That form of "double standard" has its logic. I do not deny the believer his faith. My dependence, for some purposes, on INTUITION is no more rational. But I feel that "believers" should not behave as if they had a theological proof that atheists should honor.

Can't speak for RLbut seems to me they are not behaving as if they had "theological proof" (whatever the hell that is) that atheists should honor.

Essentially RL is saying something I, as an agnostic, have said many times. A "belief" does not incur any burden of proof. Theists recognize this for their reasonsand I for minewhich is, a "belief" is nothing more than a guess about the unknown disguised by using the word "belief" rather than "guess."

How can you ask someone to bear a burden of proof for a belief or a guess?

But theists like RL correctly point out that atheists with all their "I am reasonable and logical and rely on evidence" nonsenseare in effect saying that they KNOW by reliance on their reason, logic and evidence that there are no gods.

Any atheist presenting an assertion that there are no gods obviously incurs a burden of proof for that assertioneven though most hard-headed atheists pretend they do not. AND, although beliefs or guesses normally do not carry any burden of proofsince the atheists say they have arrived at their guesses through logic and reason and evidenceTHEY DO INCUR at least some burden to substantiate what they are guessing.

The theists all but admit their guesses are blind guesses (true, they do not do so overtly, but read between the lines)the atheist INSIST their guesses are based on evidence and reason and logic.

Can't help but mention once again: Watching atheists reason is like watching John Cleese do his silly walk routine!

Quote:

I, for example, cannot be accused of denigrating dualists because they insist on applying a logic to the world that is unrealistic.

Pot meet Kettle. Kettle, this is Pot.

0 Replies

I was thinking, -hammer meets anvil. "And so we meet again, and again and again"...

My point is merely that there is a growing amount of information accessible to anyone who might want to. In the issue of god vs no god this information doesn't directly prove anything. The information is neutral, and can be used to argue both sides, depending on the rethoric of the user.

0 Replies

Frank, my statement--"Frank, I will respond to your response not because it is nonsensical--there is a seed of sense in it--but because you present it in such a jerky manner that I do not want to acknowledge any more than I have." Omitted a key word, it should have been, "Frank, I will NOT respond to your...."

0 Replies

edgarblythe wrote:

Science shows the physical world working without divine intervention.

Not precisely, science shows no conclusive influence of divine intervention, that's not quite the same thing.

edgarblythe wrote:

You run a scientific test you get the same results every time, if you don't vary the test.

This is not necessarily true in the Quantum world.

edgarblythe wrote:

Evolution shows life changing on its own.

The theory of evolution does not preclude divine interventionism per se.

edgarblythe wrote:

Religion was made up by people like you.

I agree that for all intents and purposes religion appears to be a man made fabrication.

I suggest that in an absolute sense, you cannot wholly discount the possibly of divine interventionism, no matter how bizarre and unlikely that may be, however that is not an argument for its probability.

0 Replies

Chumly, you're right, science does not and cannot prove that the world operates without divine intervention. But do you really believe the concept of God and His intervention is necessary for an understanding of how the world operates?

The problem for me--the reason I can be called an atheist--is that the believer's doctrine is, for me, UNBELIEVABLE. Nothing more than that.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Chumly, you're right, science does not and cannot prove that the world operates without divine intervention. But do you really believe the concept of God and His intervention is necessary for an understanding of how the world operates?

Emphatically no, I take the point of view, that the chance is so vanishly small (given the present set of information available to me) as to be of no real world consequence.

JLNobody wrote:

The problem for me--the reason I can be called an atheist--is that the believer's doctrine is, for me, UNBELIEVABLE. Nothing more than that.

Very pragmatic; me I sometimes can't help kicking the tires of various poster's mode of intellectual transport (to use a flimsy mixed metaphor) for interest's sake if nothing else.

0 Replies

Cyracuz wrote:

I was thinking, -hammer meets anvil. "And so we meet again, and again and again"...

My point is merely that there is a growing amount of information accessible to anyone who might want to. In the issue of god vs no god this information doesn't directly prove anything. The information is neutral, and can be used to argue both sides, depending on the rethoric of the user.

Absolutely!

Which, of course, is why I call it useless as the basis for a meaningful guess.

The fun part comes in listening to atheists and theists pretending that the evidence favors one side or the other.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Frank, my statement--"Frank, I will respond to your response not because it is nonsensical--there is a seed of sense in it--but because you present it in such a jerky manner that I do not want to acknowledge any more than I have." Omitted a key word, it should have been, "Frank, I will NOT respond to your...."

Pretty significant omission.

I mean...if you are actually going to something as silly as posting a reply saying you are not going to reply...you shouldn't forget the "NOT."

0 Replies

Ah, Frank. You refer to a "meaningful guess". That's progress.
Let me ask you. In your judgement which is the more meaningful guess, that of theism or that of atheism? Or are they equally meaningful/meaningless?

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Chumly, you're right, science does not and cannot prove that the world operates without divine intervention. But do you really believe the concept of God and His intervention is necessary for an understanding of how the world operates?

Why would the question of whether or not the concept of a God and the God's intervention being necessary for an understanding of how the world operates...have any impact whatsoever on the question of whether or not there is a Godor influence the probability that there is or that there isn't?

Quote:

The problem for me--the reason I can be called an atheist--is that the believer's doctrine is, for me, UNBELIEVABLE. Nothing more than that.

Right! (he said sarcastically)

What a bunch of bullshyt.

Like anyone with a brain who has read your posts is going to accept that you do not believe there are no gods.

You people are such a laugh, I wonder how you can stand yourselves.

Any reasonable reading of your baloney would lead to the guess that the "nothing more" is there for one reasonand one reason aloneso that you do not have to defend an assertion, or acknowledge that your nonsense is nothing more than a belief system at work.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Ah, Frank. You refer to a "meaningful guess". That's progress.
Let me ask you. In your judgement which is the more meaningful guess, that of theism or that of atheism? Or are they equally meaningful/meaningless?

Any guess on the question is meaningless!

0 Replies

And stop pretending that this comment is something new. I have used "meaningful" and "not meaningful" throughout.

0 Replies

For clarification, Frank...
Frank, do you believe in Casper (the friendly ghost)? Yes, No or Maybe?
Do you believe in Vampires? Yes, No or Maybe?
Do you believe in Genie's? Yes, No or Maybe?
And finally, do you believe in Darth Vader? Yes, No or Maybe?

0 Replies

Atheists, smarter than religious people

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know