Only a fool would say definitely "there is no god" - General Discussion Discussion

[–] Frogarama (12942) 7 years ago

Atheists who avoid the concept of professed faith, and who jump onto "burden of proof is on the one making a claim," they're just being weak, IMO.

I like to use my own term, "Nonotheist." I firmly believe there are no deities of any kind, and I am happy to make the claim that all deities are most likely creations of mankind from his imagination, projections of the human "self" into the heavens.

There is a ton of psychology and history that backs this up.

It really all comes down to this: Conscious people think that their conscious mind is the entire purpose behind the universe, because people want to believe they are super-special. So they create another living mind, that is in control of the universe, which created it all just for them.

It's the ultimate in egocentricity, and it's psychologically masked as humility by "worshiping" this imaginary entity (or entities) and acting subservient to it. Thus, it allows mankind to believe their lives are the purpose of the entire universe, while simultaneously avoiding the self-aggrandizing nature of that belief.

It's no wonder people get trapped by that line of thinking and allow it to take over their lives.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

When it comes to consciousness, existence serves no other reason or purpose without it. I do not think it is egocentricity inspired by consciousness that inclines people to believe in a god or creator, it is a need to give reality a reason for being.

Now I see the point in your position, that consciousness alone does not prove a creator was involved and that the concept of god/gods could be a construct of human reasoning desperate to make themselves to be comforted that it a loving creator made all this for them. I do however think this is another lazy position to take on the thought because it ignores the paradoxes of physics/time and infinite regression.

I think you are saying you believe that god as we understand it is a man made construct to satisfy consciousness and egos. Correct? I can agree that it is possible that the concept god is a human creation and therefore limited to human reason. But I do not agree that this by default proves something supernatural did not take place pre-big bang. I have a hard time ignoring the logic problem of natural law not being sufficient in explaining creation of natural reality.

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 7 years ago

When it comes to consciousness, existence serves no other reason or purpose without it.

Excellent example, you have literally said that existence is worthless without us seeing it.

So I question your view: What is the true difference between an observed universe (with us in it) and an unobserved universe (with no conscious life)?

What exactly makes the "observed universe" so different and special that it becomes a necessity that causes the "unobserved universe" to become worthless/pointless?

Be specific, please.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

"So I question your view: What is the true difference between an observed universe (with us in it) and an unobserved universe (with no conscious life)?"

Depends on what we mean by 'difference' or by what is true. Without consciousness the facts of being would remain the same but without something to qualify it (namely us with consciousness) than nothing would observe the facts of being and therefore the universe creating itself would have no purpose either. If the universe created itself out of a need to exist so did consciousness form out of need to allow creation itself to be observed.

I find the logic of this line of reasoning to be bad. Needs are a construct of nature not vice versa.

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 7 years ago

Okay then, ditching "needs."

But you did say PURPOSE... So, what greater purpose is gained by our observance of the universe? What purpose hinges on our presence?

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

The only purpose that is gained by observation is reason and understanding. We have a reason to exist because we can observe and our aware of our existence. Without things would be but would be without reason.

But this is shifting away from the goal post sort of speak. I am not interesting in contesting a god exists because we need reason for existing. I was pointing out that without a supernatural occurrence or singularity before the big bang is unfathomable even by scientific measuring, so anything before than is speculative at best. But if the supernatural is removed you run into an infinite regression in which no answer can ever be obtained and is itself contrary to natural law. Natural law being things come from something and something can't come from nothing.

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 7 years ago

"The only purpose that is gained by observation is reason and understanding."

And there you have it -- "Purpose" (in the greater sense) is a completely personal human value which has nothing to do with the universe and has no existence outside of our minds.

"But if the supernatural is removed you run into an infinite regression in which no answer can ever be obtained and is itself contrary to natural law."

Ah, so you simply want "an answer" (again just a personal human value).

Your statement is also odd because the supernatural itself itself is contrary to its own law. The "reasoning" behind the supernatural deity is this:

(The Great Supposition) Conscious intelligent life cannot exist without a creator. Existence itself cannot exist without a creator.

YET, the "answer" is this:

(The Great Solution) A conscious intelligent living entity is the creator. The creator "just exists" and it needs no further explanation because that would demonstrate the extreme self-contradicting layered flaws in this "logic."

This is all just human imagination. There is literally nothing about reality that suggests a creator is necessary or realistic. The concept of "a creator simply exists and can create life" is no more of a solution than "the universe exists and life can come from it."

The true difference between those two is that the universe truly does exist.

Theology is a philosophical, metaphysical, and explanatory DEAD END and it accomplishes nothing. Religions with deities are nothing more than "sticky ideas" that appeal to people and embed into their brains.

The ultimate arrogance is thinking that one can solve the questions of existence by just pointing to some invisible space ghost and saying "DONE!"

=)

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

"And there you have it -- "Purpose" (in the greater sense) is a completely personal human value which has nothing to do with the universe and has no existence outside of our minds."

In no way was purpose any part of my original supposition. You brought that up and I responded. So you are confirming your own bias with this response.

"Ah, so you simply want "an answer" (again just a personal human value)."

No again incorrect it is about assuming there is not a creator because of what we observe but than suggesting that by those same standards we need not seek answers because only those seeking god seek answers. This is so incredibly bizarre and counter intuitive. And a bit condescending. You do not believe in god and that is fine; I am not sure if I do either or to what degree I believe anything. But to suggest that the belief in god is based alone on the need for justification of existence is borderline nihilistic. And I see no greater evil than nihilism. If for no other reason it is dangerous to existence itself. A human with a consciousness rejecting the notion of importance consciousness gives them threatens existence itself even without the presents of a god or creator.

"(The Great Solution)..."

Your interpretation of the great solution is counter to cosmology and laws of relativity. I do not think you understand physics very well. But to get a grasp at understanding what you understand tell me how you think the universe/reality/nature whatever you want to call it came into being. If the big bang is pretty much accepted fact at this point than what happened before that?

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) 7 years ago

The only purpose of existence is to exist. There is no great purpose, no afterlife, you are not special. We are fancy animals.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

So existence has a need to exist? But everything about nature as we understand demonstrates that needs are a result of nature, nature is not a result of needs. again cause and effect backwards.

Also consciousness alone makes us special among animals. Even in the absence of a creator that does make us comparatively special. You are another that is to emotionally invested in your hatred of the concept of god to be objective. Your hatred for something that does not exist does not make sense. And this line of reasoning leads to nihilism which is dangerous to a civilized culture.

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) 7 years ago

God doesn't exist, nothing to hate. I also don't hate pink flying elephants on Jupiter because there is no evidence for such a thing. You are too busy ranting about disbelief and fail to understand unbelief.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

Ah this mental gymnastics game. I have played it before. There are only 3 possible assumption we can make and then base our thinking off those assumption. 1. Assume there is a creator. 2. Assume there is not a creator. 3. Assume it is unknowable definitively. The first 2 are concluded and that makes them subjective and not open to data. Because they only accept proof that confirms there assumption, this is confirmation bias. Only the 3rd group allows for a more objective approach to evidence.

for someone that does not hate the idea of god you get awfully worked up at one purposing that it is not impossible.

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) 7 years ago

Hey, you started the discussion and have yet to provide evidence that deities can exist, so if I'm worked up, you're right beside me. You wanted an argument and provoked one with your belligerent tone, and you got one, so stop whining and enjoy it.

We don't "assume" anything until there is evidence to suggest it. We don't dream up fantasies and then look for evidence, we observe and search for evidence to explain what we can see (not necessarily literally, which I'm sure you'll misunderstand and try to use as evidence for your god). And make no mistake, I am not fooled by pretend agnosticism. Agnosticism is unbelief. Science is agnostic. You are here arguing for the possibility of the supernatural.

Let me fix your post.
Assumptions we can make: 0
Unknowable is indistinguishable from 'doesn't exist.'

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

Tell me where do you get your evidence for the creation of the universe? What books have read? what studying have you done? I find your demand for evidence disturbing because the source I am going over in this OP is a PhD. in nuclear physics. And combined that with previous reading I simply make an observation that the knowledge we currently have is inconclusive.

"We don't "assume" anything until there is evidence to suggest it."

Okay so we are talking about the nature of the big bang. I discussed some of the evidence that I have read and currently reading. You have offered nothing but conjecture and ridicule to counter. If you have no evidence of anything to offer why do you feel you can sufficiently make any claim on the topic whatsoever. ignorance and arrogance.

"Agnosticism is unbelief. Science is agnostic."

I did not say I was agnostic either. Why are you so desperate to label me. I am discussing but objective observations on the data at hand and what I have read.

" You are here arguing for the possibility of the supernatural."

How do you define the word supernatural? because the way it is defined in the english language is anything that is unknowable and not provable. I brought up the theory of anti-gravity during the big bang. I propose this is supernatural because there is no evidence and yet it is part of the accepted scientific model.

"Assumptions we can make: 0"

Everything about our consciousness begins with assumptions. How can we have a discussion on anything when you seemingly do not even understand the most basics of psychology?

"Unknowable is indistinguishable from 'doesn't exist.'"

unknowable is not indistinguishable from does not exist, if it was than any math or science that uses imaginary numbers to derive proofs would have be rejected.

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) 7 years ago

And still no evidence...

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence for one. And I am not claiming or trying to prove anything. You are the only one making a claim that god doesn't exist. And still no evidence.

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) 7 years ago

I am not claiming or trying to prove anything.

You are a liar. "Only a fool would say definitely "there is no god"" That's your statement. But there is no evidence that a god could exist and certainly no evidence that a god does exist. So replace "god" in your statement with any other thing for which there is no evidence.

Only a fool would say definitely "there is no peanut butter and jelly monster under the bed"
Only a fool would say definitely "there is no Easter Bunny"
Only a fool would say definitely "there is no pink flying elephant on Jupiter"
Only a fool would say definitely "the Earth is not flat"
Only a fool would say definitely "there is no Hotheaded Naked Ice Borer"

Those probably (hopefully) seem like absurd examples to you. Your statement about god is equally absurd because the amount of evidence for all those things is exactly the same: 0. So unless you have evidence, I'm done.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

Wow, how can you claim objectivity when you are so clearly emotionally invested. You have obviously made my point about Anti'theist being intellectually lazy.

"you are a liar. "Only a fool would say definitely "there is no god"" That's your statement. "

What was my second statement? it was "A intellectually honest person would say "i definitely have no idea if there is a god"."

So yeah, not a liar you are just too blind by you hate to see clearely. I don't hate the idea of god so I am open to evidence and allow my opinion to be swayed by convincing information. Or in the case of the anti-thiest like you, I allow your agenda to point me in the opposite direction.

reply

[–] Popcorn Kernel (2368) 7 years ago

agreed

reply

[–] TexasJack (12516) 7 years ago

Very well stated.

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 7 years ago

Thanks. Upon re-reading, I actually think the worship and veneration of the creator-deity concept is a completely necessary coupling with the view that human consciousness is special and that the universe was created for it.

That dichotomy seems to be fully self-supporting. Without the balance of extremes, either side of the equation is futile and just seems silly in isolation:

Deity veneration: What sense is there for a person to worship a deity if the deity didn't create that person as universally "special" and offer them things (the very least of which could even be forgiveness from a punishment that is threatened to a human for simply existing)?

Humans being special: What sense is there for a person to proclaim himself the special little center of the universe if he wasn't specifically designed by the creator of that universe?

Both concepts work best when balanced on either side of the deity concept, pivoting around it. Someone stuck in that thinking couldn't necessarily see how silly each concept is in isolation, because the concepts are not in isolation, thus they "stick" and create a mental trap.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

Your entire concept is based on the assumption that people believe in a deity out of a physiological need to justify their own consciousness. This is far too generalized and simple to be the entire case, even if the idea of god is wholly attributed to mans' imagination.

Also it in no way goes into the physical world and how it exists in the first place. As you said before even if we were not able to observe it (through consciousness) the natural universe would still exist. So (because we can see) we can ask how it exists.

I will ask this one question and it has nothing to do with belief in a god. In the absence of supernatural occurrence of some kind how did the universe/reality come to be? Because as the science goes we can only account for up to 10^-43 microseconds AFTER the big bang, and for both religious thought and scientific thought what comes before is claimed to be unknowable. So what happened before? If no supernatural fantastical entity of some kind was involved we run into a paradox of either infinite and unknowable regression or accept something came from nothing. So if we believe the universe came to be natural we have to accept the universe existence is a paradox and contrary to all known science and logic. How is that any better or worse than believing in a creator? Because from where I am sitting I can't see much of a difference in the conclusions.

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 7 years ago

"Your entire concept is based on the assumption that people believe in a deity out of a physiological need to justify their own consciousness."

Not justify -- Elevate. Also I wouldn't put in the term "entire concept" because I'm only discussing little isolated elements of a much larger whole.

"Also it in no way goes into the physical world and how it exists in the first place."

Well, the existence of your deity concept is completely unexplained, which I've already pointed out. If you don't have to explain how a deity exists, why do you demand others be able to explain how the physical world exists?

That argument is a completely dishonest one, especially considering you're literally dismissing the actual existence of the universe as "unrealistic" while postulating a magical space ghost THAT DEFIES THE ENTIRE LOGIC YOU PRESENT by being an "uncreated" living entity.

That entire line of logic is so dishonest and so self-contradictory that I really question the mental faculties of people who present it.

Theological beliefs are emotionally satisfying. Attempting to turn them into rational explanations is just setting yourself up for failure.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

"Well, the existence of your deity concept is completely unexplained, which I've already pointed out."

it is not my deity concept. And as I said science of the big bang prior to 10^43 microsecond after is equally unexplained. So i don't see a difference in either concept at this level. Explain the difference to me.

" If you don't have to explain how a deity exists, why do you demand others be able to explain how the physical world exists?"

I did already explain how, the answer is if you believe in a deity you don't explain how it exist. You are admitting to believing in something supernatural, unknowable and not provable; and admitting it as such. That is why it is hypocritical for a 'believer' to ever claim it is provable or that they know it to be fact. Now in regards to a physical world without the possibility of a deity (supernatural creator) it by the 'rules' of science needs to be explained because it not only rejects the idea of anything supernatural it ridicules it as well. That is why it is arrogant. It practices the same conclusion of eventually things being unknowable and not provable but acts as though the same conclusion is ridiculous from the religious side. You question is hypocritical going both ways.

"postulating a magical space ghost"

do you not see your own arrogance in discounting the possibility of anything supernatural (which means unknowable and not provable) in such a vicious and mocking tone while science itself is equally supernatural in explaining existence? With this one line you demonstrate my whole issue with atheism you think you are morally and intellectually superior and elite over those that believe in a deity and think their beliefs are silly.

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 7 years ago

"It is not my deity concept."

If you hold a deity concept in your mind, then it is your deity concept. If you present it, then it is your deity concept.

"And as I said science of the big bang prior to 10^43 microsecond after is equally unexplained. So i don't see a difference in either concept at this level. Explain the difference to me."

The difference is that one is a barely-understood theory in progress, and one is literally magic. Personally I think the "Big Bang" is a cyclical process, and many physicists find cyclicality to be unavoidable.

The problem here is that you start with "a deity exists" and then you try to explain the natural world from that point, meanwhile you postulate that the deity itself would never require an explanation.

It's dishonest. If a deity require no explanation for its existence, then why would the universe require an explanation for its existence?

You simply can't say that the universe requires an explanation for existence but a deity does not. You simply can't say that life requires an explanation for existence but a living deity does not. You simply can't say that intelligent consciousness requires an explanation for existence but an intelligent conscious deity does not.

Do you not see the triple-layered contradiction in that logic?

"if you believe in a deity you don't explain how it exist. You are admitting to believing in something supernatural, unknowable and not provable; and admitting it as such"

There you go. You literally believe in magic with no explanation, yet you demand explanations for everything non-magical.

As you can see, this is a debate that has no end. You'll keep postulating a magical space-ghost and you'll never accept that there is zero foundation for that belief other than the fact that you believe it.

This is the point where a logical non-believer simply has to step away.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

"If you hold a deity concept in your mind, then it is your deity concept. If you present it, then it is your deity concept."

who said I hold one in my mind. my proposal is that anyone that hold any concept in their mind as universal fact is a fool.

"The difference is that one is a barely-understood theory in progress, and one is literally magic. "

I would not say it is literally magic. If you think that you do not understand the concept and are still ridiculing it without understanding. That is just ignorance. The concept of God as I can see it being proposed by believers is that it is unknowable and not provable. which is the same proposal by scientist prior to the big bang. the similarity of these conclusions is not deniable and if you do deny it you are not being honest.

"Personally I think the "Big Bang" is a cyclical process, and many physicists find cyclicality to be unavoidable."

There are 2 theories that work off the cyclical process, the oscillating universe and steady state theories, and they are modification of the standard model. The standard model is the widely accepted theory by most physicists. Only a few more anti-theist players, the ones that reject the idea of the supernatural propagate these theories. because both are contrary to the doppler effect and do not fit in with isotropic radiation background.

"The problem here is that you start with "a deity exists""

no you assumed that is what I started with; I was not. I proposed that stating anything definitely was foolish.

"If a deity require no explanation for its existence, then why would the universe require an explanation for its existence?"

because one is admitting to believing in something unknowable while the other mocks the first for believing. You have to admit that you have faith in your belief the same as a religious person or you are being dishonest.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

"As you can see, this is a debate that has no end. You'll keep postulating a magical space-ghost and you'll never accept that there is zero foundation for that belief other than the fact that you believe it."

I didn't say I believe it. You have lost all objectivity and now are on an emotional rant.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

"This is the point where a logical non-believer simply has to step away."

Write me off as a illogical believer if you must but understand you are doing so in both ignorance and arrogance. And I have yet to even say what I believe; but you pretend you don't believe anything and that is delusional.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

"Personally I think the "Big Bang" is a cyclical process, and many physicists find cyclicality to be unavoidable."

Given the complete lack of specification on what you "personally think" I have to ask, have you ever read any books on this subject?

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

" That entire line of logic is so dishonest and so self-contradictory that I really question the mental faculties of people who present it."

More arrogance and superiority. yes you are smarter than any modern physicist that still believes in a diety and also smarter than 6 to 8 thousand years of human reasoning. In your short 20 to 70 years you have done what 300 years of science and 10000 years of human civilization has not done. Prove the idea of god is ridiculous and untrue. How am I suppose to take you seriously when you are so obviously emotionally invested in your rejection of the idea to begin with, you are not even close to objective. I am not even talking about what I believe I am asking questions on how anyone can claim to know with certainty, proposing those that do are fools; you respond by being my definition of a fool.

"Theological beliefs are emotionally satisfying. Attempting to turn them into rational explanations is just setting yourself up for failure."

What is your rational explanation? I feel you are getting frustrated because you know science does not offer one and the explanation they do offer is as irrational as religious belief. That would frustrate me too.

reply

[–] TyranosaurusMex (87) 7 years ago

My definition of God is; an interdimensional conscious organizing force that guides the creation of the universe. Which I believe does exist. In vet tech class when studying the anatomy of the heart I realized that such a structure had to be intentional, same with the eye, digestive system and various other organs.

Living organisms are in a sense machines and machines are only created by intelligent and deliberate beings, so therefore there had to be a God. Even the chambers of the heart and parts of the eye are labeled as "valves" and "lens" which are mechanical terms and imply a creator.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

Does that mean you see God similar to that of deism? Sort of like the stoics believed god was unanimous with ultimate reason? An impersonal guide that did not have emotional investment in being but guided it through the impersonal need to satisfy reason for being itself.

I leaned toward this belief for a while until the last few years because I have a hard time grasping how something can have reason to fulfill reason with out a conscious will. What are your thought on this?

reply

[–] TyranosaurusMex (87) 7 years ago

"Does that mean you see God similar to that of deism?"

Not exactly. It would make no logical sense for a higher consciousness to help organize and create the universe if it had no investment in intervening in other affairs.

But there are so many different planets in this universe that such a higher conscious being couldn't concern itself with just earth. It this higher force does intervene it would do so in a manner that is invisible and undetectable like ultraviolet light.

For atheists the following structures could not have evolved by chance:

The Heart: http://anatomybody101.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/human-heart-anatomy-valves-heart-anatomy1320107439104.jpg

The Eye: http://pugetsoundeyecare.com/images/conditions/eye_anatomy.jpg

The Vestibular System: http://image.slidesharecdn.com/ll5wa7ioshashhmgqegd-signature-5967dd0451739e2af475d635299752bfdaf370c5b5350b71f63bc5acce8dc46d-poli-150110162313-conversion-gate02/95/the-vestibular-system-4-638.jpg

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

Yes, I agree more along this line of reasoning. If a higher consciousness did not exist than it there would still be a problem of reason without a will.

And actually most scientist now contest that many of these developments could have happened by chance but it would take longer than any calculable time. For example since the 1980's it has been accepted by the scientific community that in order for Amino Acids to form on earth the way originally proposed by Darwinian evolution than the world would have to be older than the universe itself. Which obviously is not possible, so some kind of guide had to be present. The nature of what or 'who' such a guide would be is disputable though.

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 7 years ago

machines are only created by intelligent and deliberate beings

Yet anyone can tell the difference between a machine and an organism. Also your sentence is incorrect: "Human created machines" are only created by human design.

Biological machinations like organs can't just be lumped into that category, you'd be winning the argument by stacking the deck and pretending like organs are "by default" created by a living entity.

The real problem comes with consciousness itself, which is far more complex and intricate than any organ other than a brain. The "creation" argument would happily state that a conscious mind "requires" a deliberate designer.

Yet, that entire line of thought is tossed into the trash by the "creation believer" when they then posit a living conscious mind (a deity), which itself was NOT created, as the creator of other living conscious minds.

The logic can't go both ways, that's just absurd. A "creation believer" can't claim that consciousness is too complex and must be created WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY accepting an even more powerful and even more complex consciousness has existed forever without itself ever being created or designed.

It's one of the most basically self-contradictory beliefs imaginable, seriously.

=)

reply

[–] TyranosaurusMex (87) 7 years ago

"If everything needed a creator than what created God?"

Yeah I know what you mean. Here consider polytheism and the possibility of other forms of higher interdimensional consciousness involved in the universe's organization and creation.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

The belief in a supernatural consciousness in not contradictory with the development of human consciousness nor with scientific reasoning. Because it is by definition fantastical. If supernatural creator exists in any capacity that it is not and would have never been limited by the laws of nature; such as things needing to be created from something else.

For example, the belief in a self creating universe is contradictory with the laws of nature because there will be an infinite regression of "where did that come from?" and it would be infinite and paradoxical. It is much more self-contradictory to believe it is impossible for a conscious supernatural entity could not possibly exist because it did not have a creator and yet the universe itself exists without a creator.

reply

[–] TyranosaurusMex (87) 7 years ago

"If supernatural creator exists in any capacity that it is not and would have never been limited by the laws of nature; such as things needing to be created from something else."

Everything is limited by the restrictions/"laws" of nature(resources available for use).

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

Yes everything natural is restricted by nature. But anything outside the laws of nature would not be. This is proposed even by the anti-theist Stephen Hawking. But acknowledging that a supernatural creator was involved in some capacity fully admits that something outside the laws of nature took place. I find this line of reasoning to be more logically sound.

reply

[–] TyranosaurusMex (87) 7 years ago

Nothing is outside the "laws" of nature.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

su·per·nat·u·ral

adjective
1.
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

I do not want to be condescending by posting the definition of a word but the very word itself is suggesting something outside the laws of nature. I am not trying to argue one way or the other if I think it is correct or true or factual by any means. I am simply pointing out if you acknowledge you believe in something supernatural you are admitting to believing something outside the laws of nature.

reply

[–] TyranosaurusMex (87) 7 years ago

"su·per·nat·u·ral

adjective
1.
(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

Science by which we use to understand the world around us can only go so far. To me "natural" is a strange word since technically everything that exists would be natural. Kind of like "paranormal" as if to say something is not "normal" simply because we can't understand how it could be possible to exist.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

Ah, okay I see a bit better what you mean now. It is always important we define the words we are using to understand each other. I see what you mean by things being labeled supernatural or paranormal are just things we have not been able to sufficiently explain it yet.

I understand but disagree and that is because the way I see the laws of nature and the way I define "nature" is anything that can exist by those laws. So if I was to believe in a creator than I would say that not only do we not understand the infinity such a being but by natural law we can not explain it. For example the idea of something always existing eternally is not applicable under natural law as far as I define it. However the supernatural does not have to follow that law. If there is a god or a creator it would have to be outside the laws of nature and beyond scientific understanding.

reply

[–] TyranosaurusMex (87) 7 years ago

I actually like this little discussion.

Coming soon the Movie Chat Veganism vs Carnism debate.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

lol yeah maybe a movie discussion board is not the best place; but I don't really like reddit and there is not really a good place for just random general discussion. Most sites have specific places for specific topics. I am not a huge online presents by any means so I only participate in a few places; pretty much here and youtube.

reply

[–] MissMargoChanning (6630) 7 years ago

I am going to make this simple. You and everyone else can jump all over me. Here I go......

God/god is a very personal matter. No matter what our upbringing, we eventually work it out on our own and in our own way.
I could NEVER tell anyone that they are a fool when it comes to personal beliefs.
I am only going by the title of your thread. For me? That is all that is needed.

I have read some of what has been said in this thread. This may be an interesting subject, but I saw this sort of thing go off the charts on IMDb.
Once again, God/god is a very personal matter. No matter what our upbringing, we eventually work it out on our own and in our own way.
I could NEVER tell anyone that they are a fool when it comes to personal beliefs.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

If you went off the title of the thread alone not only did you miss the very first sentence of the actual post but also neglected the word"definitely" in the title of the post. That was a key word and very intentionally used. And if one's mind is that concluded on a subject that is as you said very personal and completely inconclusive no matter what you believe than I think that would make anyone making a DEFINITE claim one way or another a fool. maybe you think that word is too harsh but if one hasn't given careful consideration of what they actual believe or what it entails than what other word could describe such a person?

reply

[–] MissMargoChanning (6630) 7 years ago

Thank you for your reply, mxpowers. I can see that you are extremely passionate.
I never told you what my personal beliefs are. They are mine alone.
I would never call anyone a fool for what they believe......
Have a good night.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

It was not passion. And you still do not understand. It has nothing to do with what people believe individual but the degree that they claim to know it as fact and many times without proper questioning and reasoning. If one claims to say in a definite manner "there is no god" or in a definite manner "there is a god" then they have not been thorough because if they had they would know it is inconclusive.

So I to be a little less 'hostile' with my words I am trying to say we should not be antagonistic toward each other based on what we believe and realize no one knows for sure. To be honest I see more hostility coming from the atheist side than the religious side. It seems they worship science as fact and believe this makes them intellectually superior. Which I find more hypocritical than the religious person that says they are taking their belief on faith alone.

reply

[–] MissMargoChanning (6630) 7 years ago

"So I to be a little less 'hostile' with my words I am trying to say we should not be antagonistic toward each other based on what we believe and realize no one knows for sure."

I said, it is a personal thing.
Why are you being so "hostile"? I think that we should all be respectful of what one believes in.
Why are you being so argumentative?
Only a fool would make a post like this, and then criticize people who respond.
Enough, already! If you have a problem, take it elsewhere! I didn't respond in order to argue.
I assumed that I was actually agreeing with you in my own simple way.
I obviously got it wrong. Bye!

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

"Why are you being so "hostile"?"

I am not. But some take the word fool to be hostile. I do not, I think it is a word to just describe someone being intellectually lazy in some manner or not thorough in their thoughts. I saw that you took my meaning from the title alone and that would give a image of hostility; but for the word "definitely" which was important to what I was discussing.

"Why are you being so argumentative? "

I am not I am discussing things in detail but you neglected certain aspects of my Original post that were essential and made a judgement and commentated without full scope of what was previously discussed. I was trying to explain to keep the discussion going and allow you to participate with full disclosure.

"Only a fool would make a post like this, and then criticize people who respond."

Only a fool would respond to a title alone and not read the actual post. You always judge books by titles or covers? I was not criticizing those that responded but I suppose I was criticizing you for responding to the title but neglecting the body. You were being lazy as I see it and that is actually the very thing that I have a problem with on both sides of the argument.

"I assumed that I was actually agreeing with you in my own simple way."

To a degree you were but as you said you did not read the full post and therefore you missed some of the more important points about people portraying their personal beliefs as definite facts. That is the issue I have. I do not care what people believe, I do care about how they treat each other and respect others beliefs without being condescending. As I said too I find that the atheist secular view is hypocritically guilty of the later

reply

[–] MissMargoChanning (6630) 7 years ago

"Only a fool would respond to a title alone and not read the actual post."

"To a degree you were but as you said you did not read the full post and therefore you missed some of the more important points about people portraying their personal beliefs as definite facts."

I am quoting you.....
Now? I am quoting myself in my original post....

"I have read some of what has been said in this thread. This may be an interesting subject, but I saw this sort of thing go off the charts on IMDb"
I did read your post. I read it twice in order to understand what you were trying to convey.
Where did we go off the charts???? In any case, I don't care to argue with you.
Take care. I hope that others will respond in the manner you wish.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

I do not understand, if you read my post why did you state, and I quote you, "I am only going by the title of your thread. For me? That is all that is needed."

Than if you were being so careful in reading my post why did you misrepresent it in your reply and ignore the main thesis of my post which was one of portraying personal belief as universal fact, which is in my opinion foolish for someone to do?

If you are wondering were we went off the charts it is because your reply was unclear and made it a discussion about belief as a personal matter; which I agree with and have no problem with, when it was a discussion about the hypocrisy in suggesting 'your' belief is the definite correct one which again was the entire point of my original post.

reply

[–] MissMargoChanning (6630) 7 years ago

[–] mxpowers43 (81) a minute ago

"I do not understand, if you read my post why did you state, and I quote you, "I am only going by the title of your thread. For me? That is all that is needed." "

I said that because after reading your post, the title was really all I needed to respond to.
Are we done now? I believe that I am.
PEACE!

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

Well okay; I will leave it as miscommunication and call it a day with you. No reason to allow a misunderstanding derail a conversation or discussion.

So have a good one.

reply

[–] croft_alice (12180) 7 years ago

That depends on who is god for humanity,mate😉

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

what? sorry I do not understand your point.

To be clear on what I mean; I think it is possible there is a difference between the idea of god, as a psychological ideal for humans to focus on and to aspire for, and what or who would be the creator. The way I see it the 'gods' as humans have defined them could be all wrong but that does not discount the logic in concluding that a creator guided the first elements to into existence. given the physics as we now know it to be, considering general and special relativity and time dilation as well as the understanding of how light works across space time, it just seems incredibly arrogant for someone to claim with certainty that there is or was not a creator. However on the flip side I think it is hypocritical for those that do believe in a creator to also claim they know with certainty; given their belief is admittedly based on faith not fact. So atheist I see as being arrogant for making a judgement without conclusive evidence and 'believers' I see as hypocrites for pretending their faith is comparable with universal fact.

reply

[–] yesanything (251) 7 years ago

but it don't take a genius to know that that god from the judeo/christian bible is a load of horseshit.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

why is it a load of "horseshit"?

reply

[–] croft_alice (12180) 7 years ago

Why do you think,mate?

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

I don't know. That is why I asked, mate.

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) 7 years ago

First clue is the total absence of a deity. Since when do you take anyone's word when they say, 'just trust me and give me your money.'

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

what does organized religion and institutional corruption have anything to do with cosmological theory? You are committing a very silly fallacy in attributing mans' ideas or conception of god as being definitive proof that a creator does not exist.

Just because people are wrong about the nature of a creator does not by default prove there is or was not one. In cosmological theory there is just as much absence of evidence when discussing anti-gravity that forced the one time rapid expansion right after the big bang. One could call this one time unobserved expansion a creator force and not be logically incorrect.

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) 7 years ago

That's absurd. All our ideas about gods come from organized religion, they are inseparable. At least be intellectually honest. If you have some evidence for god that doesn't come from religion, offer it up.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

You obviously are not paying attention. I am specifically not arguing either way if I think there is a god. And again even if every man made concept of god is wrong does not by default prove there isn't one. That is a logical fallacy.

And no, the ideas and concept of god/gods did not come from organized religion. you have the cause and effect backwards. All archaeological evidence and psychological developments suggest that the concept of god came from consciousness itself to which man formed organized religion on that concept. It very well could have been a made up concept but not by organized religion.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] ShogunofYonkers (77364) 7 years ago

My thoughts exactly!!
Am i allowed to agree more than %100???

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) 7 years ago

Well I can see that you're going to keep pretending that I'm somehow 'not getting it' rather than provide evidence that it's possible for a god to exist. (Because there isn't any) and if you can't start with a basis for god then your little rant about atheists goes poof.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

Do you think I believe in god?

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) 7 years ago

Focus. You keep trying to discuss everything but the topic you posted. Present your evidence that it's possible for a god-like being to exist. The only reason god even enters your mind is because you live in a culture where organized religion brainwashes people into believing ancient fairy tales and then asks for money. They are selling god and business is good. If civilization ended tomorrow, the first businesses back in action would be religion and prostitution.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

Pay Attention. this was not about proving one way or the other, since it is something not provable that would be an exercise in futility. This was about an acceptance that it is unknowable with certainty. And because it is uncertain no objective person can try to claim definitely one way or the other. If they do they are intellectually lazy; as you have demonstrated to be. This will be my last reply to you because this is about as pointless as trying to prove god's existence.

reply

[–] Kazak (2187) 7 years ago

Horseshit. You’re attempting to instill enough doubt in smart people’s minds in hopes that they will, like you, accept Pascal’s wager, and then you won’t feel so alone in your simple mindedness. I wonder if it will work (no)?

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

"You’re attempting to instill enough doubt in smart people’s minds"

Okay. So are you just actually trying to prove me right about anti-theist not being objective and believing themselves superior? because if you are, then i must say well played.

I mean just the fact you put the words doubt and smart people's minds at odds with each other is pretty telling. So in your mind what is currently accepted science should not be doubted because only someone that is not smart would be filled with doubt. I think you are just angry so that is why you are arguing irrationally. But let me ask you this, if you don't think there is a god why get so upset about even the possibility of being wrong. I don't believe in god but the concept does not anger me and I am open to being wrong.

"hat they will, like you, accept Pascal’s wager,"

I don't accept Pascal's Wage and that is not and was not the point. I don't think people should believe in god because it is a low risk result. I just think atheist should not act like you, self important and pompous for no reason.

"you won’t feel so alone in your simple mindedness"

I am simple minded now too. Wow still proving nothing but you have an irrational hate of god. It is actually kind of hilarious at this point, this is sort similar to how I get made at Santa Clause for taking credit for the presents I buy. lol

"I wonder if it will work(no)? "

Funny though, the point I was actually trying to make has worked. You proved it just by being a pompous, superior, entitled, irrational and ignorant psuedo-intellectual. You proved why anti-theism is contrary to science.

reply

[–] Kazak (2187) 7 years ago

Have you listened to a thing I've said? I said I was an atheist (because there's no theism). I said I was not an adeist (because we don't know enough to make that assessment). That's not to say that I'm a deist, I'm just agnostic on that point. In short, we agree, lamebrain. I do think a deistic origin is inconsistent with known science. I think natural origin is consistent with the natural laws that emerged out of the big bang, so that's where I personally lean. Jesus Harold Christ, you want to bring a knife to a gunfight and then cry mercy when someone pulls a gun on you. Go back and build a solid foundation. Don't bring your charlatan "scientists" and try to have a serious conversation.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

Apparently there is a break down somewhere. Because seemingly you have not listened to a thing I said and kept moving the goal posts around and then you became irrationally anger about the subject. So yes you have demonstrated a lack of objectivity. I don't think I have but I might be wrong.

"I think natural origin is consistent with the natural laws that emerged out of the big bang, so that's where I personally lean."

How much have you studied on this? Because reading from minds as different as Kraus and Schroeder demonstrates both agree that natural law CANNOT explain natural creation. Your thinking is literally contrasting all known evidence.

"In short, we agree, lamebrain"

if we agreed you would not be hostile or irrational. See some of the people I have agreed with within this discussion to see an example of rational disagreement.

"Jesus Harold Christ, you want to bring a knife to a gunfight and then cry mercy when someone pulls a gun on you."

1. What does this cliche have to do with anything. 2. what gun did you bring to this fight. I saw nothing but empty reasoning that did not hold up to the slightest scrutiny.

"Don't bring your charlatan "scientists" "

who is a "charlatan "scientists"" that I mentioned and whom do you think are authority scientists?

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) 7 years ago

So where is your evidence?

If you weren't brainwashed from birth by organized religion into believing the God myth, it would never occur to you.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

I assume you read only the title of the discussion and not the discussion itself?

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) 7 years ago

You assume wrong. Before you can even consider whether a god exists, you need to tackle the question of whether it's possible for god to exist. So where is your evidence?

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

Why demand evidence of supernatural occurrence? Where is your evidence of rapid expansion caused by a one time unobserved anti gravity force that occurred 10^32 microseconds after the big bang. the problem with cosmological theory is there are holes all over the place in which unobserved forces needed to act to allow the formation to occur as we know it did. I am not disputing evidence for or against god but pointing out it is not illogical to fill these holes with a concept called god, it is every bit as not provable as antigravity during the big bang. I am proposing that there are no definite answers and only a fool would think otherwise.

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) 7 years ago

Believing in anything without evidence is illogical. It's easier to be belligerent than to accept there is no evidence for god that doesn't originate from people who ask for your money and obedience.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

So how to you think the universe was formed? provide physical evidence and demonstrate an understanding of cosmology. Because if you reject the notion of a creator without careful consideration, meaning by default you don't believe in god because there is no proof it means 2 things. 1. You are not well read in nuclear physics 2. You have an emotional reason for hating the even possibility of a creator contrary to your thinking which makes you intellectually lazy.

As I said the only reasonably intellectually honest response to the proposal of was the universe created is "i have no idea." Therefore you leave yourself open to any and all evidence and interpretation of data and allow your beliefs to change in the presents of new information. Sticking to a strict conclusion that there is no god until proof is provided leaves one far too closed minded.

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) 7 years ago

You have yet to provide evidence suggesting a god-like being can or does exist. God comes from organized religion, all evidence suggests their version of creation is false. You are trying to argue there can be some other version of god that we don't yet know about but why would you do that if you don't have any evidence? You've created a fantasy and are angry because others won't join you in it. There is no evidence for god, a god-like being, or a god driven creation; none.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

"You have yet to provide evidence suggesting a god-like being can or does exist."

Why do I have to? It has nothing to do with the point of my original proposal which is all about people like you that deal in absolutes. I call people like you fools whether religious or atheist. You can not get passed you own bias and assumption, so delusional to reject that you have even made assumption.

"God comes from organized religion"

So you don't even understand how humans formed civilizations in the first place? Consciousness made the first post ape humans ask questions about the nature of existence some answered it in terms of spiritual guides. Because of this people ended up formulating civilizations. Religions based on the original beliefs formed within those civilization. Your are so fundamentally flawed in you assumption about the order things came in, it does not even make logical sense. So you think that high ups in early civilization contrived a organized religion made up gods and then told people that those gods were the ones they now believed in? That is incorrect the people already believed in those gods and they formed organized religion around the belief. But that is neither here nor there on whether there was any 'truth' to the beliefs in the first place.

"all evidence suggests their version of creation is false.

Who is "their" because there is more than one religion and each has different explanation of creation narrative. I get a sense you mean specifically the bible and genesis. But please be more specific.

"You are trying to argue there can be some other version of god that we don't yet know about"

another wrong assumption that is not what I am arguing. I am proposing that no one should believe or accept anything definitely when there is no conclusive evidence and that includes the rejection of the possibility of a creator.

reply

[–] McQualude (4231) 7 years ago

You're all over the place which tells me you are parroting someone else's thoughts and haven't fully formed your own. Forget the flaky books about god and study science, learn the scientific method.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

My thoughts are not all over the place, I was following you thoughts and comments which were all over the place. Which tells me you have not studied very extensively on any single subject and are currently 'shut gunning' the information you think is valid.

"Forget the flaky books about God and study science"

The books I have previously read on the subject are: "The Grand Design" by Stephen Hawking; "A Universe from Nothing" by Lawrence Krauss; "A Different Approach to Cosmology: From a Static Universe through the Big Bang towards Reality' by Fred Hoyle, Geoffrey Burbidge, and Jayant Narklir. And the book I am currently reading again is written by Gerald Schroeder, Phd in Nuclear Physicts. Not religious flaky book about god. What books have you read on the subject of Cosmology and physics?

reply

[–] Kazak (2187) 7 years ago

Hooo boy, you opened pandora's box, didn't you? I have opinions which I don't necessarily have the energy to innumerate at the moment, but I will soon. For the moment, I will simply say that if a theistic God existed, there would be no debate. Everysingleone would know and worship it. Stand by.

reply

[–] croft_alice (12180) 7 years ago

I'll better stay out of this...this is getting nasty.

reply

[–] MissMargoChanning (6630) 7 years ago

croft, This will give you a headache after a while. I have read post after post here. I am starting to wonder if the original poster even understands what they were trying to say in the beginning.
I gave up last night.

reply

[–] Kazak (2187) 7 years ago

I will say, the type of god that the OP describes is a pre-big bang god. That is to say, a deistic god, necessarily a non-theistic type god, and certainly not Yahweh. If this is truly the type of god he suscribes belief in, then he’s as atheistic as I am. The funnest thing is talking theists into retreating to deism. They don’t even realize they’ve given up the goat. I’m an atheist because there’s no theism. I’m not adeistic because we don’t know enough to say one way or the other.

reply

[–] MissMargoChanning (6630) 7 years ago

My biggest problem in understanding, and there is much, was that the OP has an opinion. His/hers alone. Fine! Apparently the discussion is over when others put their 2 cents worth in.
I'm not talking about my thoughts on the subject. I have read other's thoughts. The OP isn't exactly receptive when it comes to many other ideas. He/She started this with an agenda. To me, it seems to be a one man/woman show!

reply

[–] Kazak (2187) 7 years ago

The OP's continual misuse of there/their and then/than are huge red flags for me. Theses are the types of mistakes that very shallow people make. We're dealing with a mental midget.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

Yes shallow people alone make spelling mistakes and do not take time to proof read thoroughly. If I was actually writing my college thesis on this topic I would take a little more time to make sure my "there/their and to/too" are correct. I was trying to get the concepts out faster than the correct spelling and was responding to a large volume of posts. Crucify me for typing too fast and not proof reading well enough.

reply

[–] Kazak (2187) 7 years ago

Those are not typos/misspellings, my dimwitted friend. It's consistent use of the wrong damn words. We learned these usage rules in elementary school, right? What other concepts were incapable of penetrating your thick skull, ahem?

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

When you are responding to 3 or 4, possibly more, posts at a single time and also being distracted by things outside the computer screen you type faster than you can think. Or at least I do. So yes sometime these typos happen. I obviously know the difference between 'their and there'. To get hung up on this and try to use typos as some sort of proof of lack of intelligence is just lazy. demonstrate the information is wrong in some way. Don't focus on a typo.

reply

[–] MissMargoChanning (6630) 7 years ago

I did see the misuses of those words. I decided to ignore it. People seem to get so defensive when I comment on these things.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

I appreciate that. Grammar nazis are annoying at times. I don't mind being corrected on a typo or even wrong information that I thought was correct. But to try to suggest that mixing up 'their' and 'there' when typing fast is proof that someone is 'shallow' is just lazy.

reply

[–] MissMargoChanning (6630) 7 years ago

I'm not concerned so much over grammar. Typos happen.
When typing, however, one should know that To, Too and Two are all words with different meanings. There, Their, and They're also have different meanings as well. When you mix those up, a sentence can be confusing for those of us who know the difference. Do you NO what I mean? That was no typo. Let's try this again.... Do you KNOW what I mean? See the difference? The words have different meanings. If using the wrong one isn't lazy, it must mean that you weren't paying attention in school.

I tried this conversation with someone else here a few months back, and it turned into a big thing. That is why I ignore this sort of thing. I just give up.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

So you have never seen examples of how you can read a sentence with only the first and last letter being correct and still be able to understand what the sentence is saying? Context is more important that correct spelling. Not to try to say that it is not important but as long as the context is fluid and structured well than the correct meaning people should be able to understand without much effort.

reply

[–] Kazak (2187) 7 years ago

Again, we are not talking about misspellings/typos here. It’s your consistently poor grammar that is the issue here, and more importantly, what it suggests about your intelligence. It ain’t good, dude. The word is “patience,” BTW, since you demonstrated that you never even noticed you were using the wrong word, as demonstrated by your continued misuse.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

"what it suggests about your intelligence. It ain’t good, dude"

you are really just being an pain now aren't you? Still ignoring the context of the argument and getting caught up on the wrong point. This obviously was not a good place to go to talk about concepts because people like you come out and try to derail it by focusing in on simple mistakes. It is easy to type fast and get mixed up with something like patience and patients considering that many times i really on spell check to point out where my typos were at, this is not at all an indication of my intelligence. I will say I am as lazy in my proof reading as you are in your belief system or more accurately your denial of your belief system.

"The word is “patience,” BTW, since you demonstrated that you never even noticed you were using the wrong word, as demonstrated by your continued misuse."

"continued misuse"? I used the word twice in this entire discussion. Not really continuous use. Second of all here I will break down my error so you understand because obviously you are being intentionally dense. 1. I type, usually replying rapidly to multiple people. 2. As I type the words are punched in faster than I can think (I can type between 70 to 80 words a minute which means I have to think and type a word in under a second). I type very fast so it is easy to make a mistake between there and their or patients and patience, that is a mistake in typing faster than I confirm word use and it indicates nothing more than maybe I should slow my typing down a bit. 3. the material I just typed is usually extensive and I also see that multiple other people replied so I do a quick check through to see if spell check hit any words and move on. So yes often times a mix up between there and their or even patience and patients will be missed.

You are not more worthy than other posters for me to reply to or give more focus to. though your form of atheism does seem to be steamed from self entitlement.

reply

[–] Kazak (2187) 7 years ago

lol, don't bring a knife to a gunfight. Go back and build a solid foundation, or live with your friends who live in brick houses.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

what are you talking about? No arguments at all so just throwing out multiple unrelated hackneyed expression?

how about this cliche: "Don't be a closed mined ignoramus."

reply

[–] Kazak (2187) 7 years ago

Haha, well buddy, a lazy approach to speaking lends itself well to a lazy criticism. You exposed your own lack of insight.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

No point in trying to discus anything with you, I don't think. You nearly ignored the entire context of the argument and focused only on a few typos, then when called out on the laziness of this approach you twist it around to suggest that you had a 'lazy criticism' because the original points, which you ignored completely, were lazy.

reply

[–] Kazak (2187) 7 years ago

Building your house out of straw makes it vulnerable to the big bad wolf. Either go back and build a solid foundation, or live with your friends in brick houses. Building your own solid foundation will have the added benefit of making the charlatans a lot easier to pick out in the texts you choose, however.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

So I have brought up Kraus, Hawkings, Hoyle and Schroeder that I have read specifically on this topic. These are the charlatans you referring to. what scientist have you READ (not listened to, not watched, not heard from others) on the topic of cosmology and nuclear physics?

reply

[–] Kazak (2187) 7 years ago

Krauss, Hawking, Sagan, Carroll, to name a few. (Is it worth mentioning that you couldn't even get the names correct?) Sigh, Davies, Tyson, Kaku, Greene, Gleiser... Getting the picture?

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

Yeah, I forget how to spell names off the top of my head. I think it is more important I have read some of their books and understood it. Also I think it should speak a little better that I actually was recalling their names from memory and not googling it.

The way you present it with your list I got a feeling google results were all you read. which books by them have you read? I will be taking time into consideration here, anyone can look up the books those scientist have written. I don't believe you have read them to be honest.

reply

[–] Kazak (2187) 7 years ago

Carroll and Gleiser are personal faves. I’ve read most books by all the names I listed. I could give a flying fuck if you believe it or not.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

well considering your only counter points you brought up to the specifics of Schroeder's arguments about some of the proposals by Krauss, Hoyle and Hawking was to try to point out I suck at spelling and grammar on the fly, I do not think you have given me any reason to believe you. sort of like you have no reason to believe in a god I have no reason to believe you have read what you claim you did.

pretty telling you still did not name a single book. I could do that too: 'Tyson and Hawking are my personal faves and I have read every book by every author I named. ' Don't ask me to specify I have spent 30 years straight, no sleep, no studying, no profession, no family, no life. Just read " Krauss, Hawking, Sagan, Carroll, to name a few. (Is it worth mentioning that you couldn't even get the names correct?) Sigh, Davies, Tyson, Kaku, Greene, Gleiser" Also I find it interesting that you "faves" seem to be picked at random from you list. if they were your actually "faves" because you actually read their books you likely would have listed them first.

reply

[–] Kazak (2187) 7 years ago

What would be the point of naming titles? You’d just say I googled them. This is childish. The Big Picture, From Eternity To Here, A Tear At The Edge of Creation, The Island of Knowledge. Please go learn to communicate properly.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

How was focusing on my spelling and grammar errors not childish in the first place? Given the way have acted up to this point, and the way you presented your list it demonstrated childish behavior so I would not put it past you to have just googled a list of names in Physics. When I brought up the things I have read I am specific names of authors and books. So that those that wish to comment know already where most of my information has come from. Then you suggested that the authors I presented were "charlatans" when I asked for your list of non charlatan scientist the first 2 names you listed were the first 2 that I listed. what the hell was that about. By the way I had not heard of Carroll or Gleiser, but if I have time I will look into it more and read some of their books (my list is already backed up as is). Let me ask you something, In your view what makes Gerald Schroeder a "Charlatan"?

reply

[–] Kazak (2187) 7 years ago

Oops, this is going to be awkward for you to explain away.

https://moviechat.org/general/General-Discussion/59cb7af68a7fe400124f52e4/I-had-a-ghostspirit-moment-twice-last-night?reply=59cd2eff748a0b0012772f96

Posted 15 days ago:

First off, I'm not attacking you McQualude, we're on the same "side." Learn a little bit about what is known in particle physics as "the core theory" and you will understand better why ghosts not only don't exist, but can't exist. "The core theory" in the briefest terms, essentially states that the universe is composed of particles, forces, and fields, and seeing further, that we not only have worked out how these elements interact, but how they're capable of interacting. It also explains why new particles, forces, and fields are unlikely to be discovered. It does not mean, as some short-sighted idiot will soon come along and say no doubt, that we've figured out everything there is to know. Suggested reading, The Big Picture, by Sean Carroll. Cheers.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

I have not read The Big Picture so I cannot confirm or deny you accurately represented it.

Why does bringing up an unrelated topic and suggest it creates something awkward for me to explain. You are obviously being combative for the sake of it and not really trying to come to any kind of understanding.

Why are atheist like you so dedicated to making this a fight? Why such a aggressive us (atheist perceived superior intelligence) vs them (anyone that believes in god). I Also see that only from those on the religious side that are extremely dogmatic and fundamental. I see your approach as deranged as those that performed the inquisition and witch burning.

reply

[–] Kazak (2187) 7 years ago

Because you were accusing me of simply Googling names and titles.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

If you are so well versed on the names of the 'players' why the hell did you try suggesting that the names I have read are charlatans? Win at all cost huh? even by misdirection and lies/slander. How can you fain objectivity. Shameless. This type of stuff makes me wonder why I even try to be reasonable. No one else seems to be.

reply

[–] Kazak (2187) 7 years ago

It's the "nuclear physicist" bringing the 'god did it' argument I'm calling a charlatan, not the others. I haven't read him though. A charlatan argument is a charlatan argument.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

Ah so you never read anything contrary to your belief. Nice. You are like the embodiment of confirmation bias.

Try reading his book before you judge.

reply

[–] Kazak (2187) 7 years ago

You got me, you amateur sleuth you.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

"amateur sleuth" seems like a bit of a oxymoron.

reply

[–] Kazak (2187) 7 years ago

Definitely oxymoronic.

reply

[–] Kazak (2187) 7 years ago

Carroll and Gleiser are absolutely mandatory, move those to the top of your list. Then pick up a book on basic grammar, you know, for review.

When you come in with a shaky foundation, don't cry foul when someone attacks your shaky foundation.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

"Carroll and Gleiser are absolutely mandatory, move those to the top of your list. Then pick up a book on basic grammar, you know, for review."

"mandatory" for what? that is just delusional. Because you like them they are the go to authority on the topic? wasn't you that brought up cognitive dissonance earlier? Ever here of Confirmation Bias? Jesus. No my next book is "The Quest of Cosmic Justice" by Thomas Sowell after that Milton Friedman. I read a wide range of things. Politics and Economics are next on my list. If i focused too much on any one subject I might become obsessive like you and lose objectivity.

"When you come in with a shaky foundation, don't cry foul when someone attacks your shaky foundation'

My foundation is fine. You attacked my neighbors house. I don't care if god exist, I don't care if my neighbor believes in him and you don't. I only care when You attack my neighbor and want to burn him for being a heretic. Because that is how you act.

The only thing you have suggested that is even somewhat applicable is that I touch up on my grammar. I am usually fine with it in papers or work related material. blogs and discussions I get a bit distracted a lazy.

reply

[–] Kazak (2187) 7 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

"you turd"

nice. Still proving you are everything I find despicable about agenda driven atheism. I find you more reprehensible than modern Christians. Still not as bad as Muslims but give you a little authority you'd probably be cutting heads off infidels too. Only for you infidels will be anyone that believes.

reply

[–] Kazak (2187) 7 years ago

Bad hair, don't care.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

then why reply?

reply

[–] Kazak (2187) 7 years ago

Slow on the uptake?

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

out of time. gotta go.

reply

[–] Kazak (2187) 7 years ago

Sean Carroll is a power player in the field, the world just doesn't know it yet. Marcelo Gleiser is lesser known, and will likely remain lesser known, but he is a wise man and an excellent science writer. Do you know who Chet Raymo is (no)? He writes books too, but I recommend checking out his remarkable writing on his blog at sciencemusings.com.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

I find you strange wording to be worshipful in nature. "power player" "wise man" This sounds like demagoguery to me. I stated that I respected some of Schroeder's proposals in this particular book but I would never say he is a go to "mandatory" "power player". It just makes it seem like you value these individuals too high, especially considering they share your views and opinions. Try valuing someone that does not share your opinions.

I have not read Carrol or Gleiser (yet), and no I have not heard of Chit Raymo but I like that you condescendingly put the emphatic "(no)?" Right because I am less intelligent if I had not heard of everyone that you have heard of.

reply

[–] Kazak (2187) 7 years ago

You're going to try your hand at psychoanalysis now? This should be good. Anyway, read those guys, then come back and tell me I'm wrong about what I said about them. Listen, you're the one who chose to enter into a dick measuring contest over who'd read more of this stuff. You might just want to go ahead and concede on this one. There's no shame in it. No human should read as much of this stuff as I have.

reply

[–] Kazak (2187) 7 years ago

Oops.

https://moviechat.org/tt4093826/Twin-Peaks/59cf818792dd7300122994c9/If-there-is-a-season-4?reply=59d262b9802eb000125d2399

Posted 12 days ago:

I’m reading a terrific book right now called, The Vital Question, by Nick Lane. It’s commanding my full attention and exciting my imagination like select others have done. Pop science is my thing (evolutionary biology, cosmology, and neuroscience, primarily). Like most others, I reckon, I want to know what it’s all about, despite knowing we’ll never really know. That’s beside the point, it’s the pursuit that’s thrilling to me. Unlike, ahem, too many others, I don’t find, erm, that other explanation terribly satisfactory, if you get my drift...

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

You so misunderstood the point. I never even discussed what I believe. It was a criticism of any that claimed to know with certainty one way or another.

reply

[–] Kazak (2187) 7 years ago

I will say though, I find folks who are able to sustain the level of cognitive dissonance required to conclude that belief in theism is justified utterly fascinating! They're a bit of a hobby of mine. 'Fun to poke and prod. =)

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

I would have thought that we could all agree at least that in the lack of sufficient conclusive evidence it is wrong to ridicule theist beliefs even if we find it personally nonsensical. Seems there are more secular philistines than I thought.

reply

[–] db20db (17235) 7 years ago

I understood the OP's original point but the thread has devolved into ostentatious psychobabble.

reply

[–] MissMargoChanning (6630) 7 years ago

ostentatious psychobabble.
I second that emotion.....

reply

[–] db20db (17235) 7 years ago

As a fellow oldster with some wisdom, I'm not surprised at your response.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

Sorry it delved into ostentatious pychobabble. That was not my intent and I do not think I was the one to lead some of the conversations there. I was talking about the inconclusiveness of physic and cosmological theories and why it is wrong to dis those that fill these gaps with a concept of god. Even if I don't believe it or do, I think having a conclusion is hypocritical. Others turned it into a discussion on "proof god can exist" which wasn't the point.

reply

[–] Kazak (2187) 7 years ago

Science has not, will not, can not, and will never answer all of our biggest questions. What science has done is tell us a whole lot about the kind of answers we can expect to find. Gods and gods are not terribly consistent with what we think we know.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

But that is dependent on how one sees god. This book I am reading now Genesis and the big demonstrates a 'possible' harmony with standard big bang model and the genesis story and the evidence in this interpretation is pretty compelling. Not that I am 100% convinced. I would like to read some peer responses on it. We all can't be experts on everything but we can see how the experts review each other.

My OP was just a to serve as a reminder that nothing is conclusive so discounting other's beliefs, especially without full consideration, is intellectually lazy. I can not fathom this is seen to be untrue.

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 7 years ago

My OP was just a to serve as a reminder that nothing is conclusive so discounting other's beliefs, especially without full consideration, is intellectually lazy. I can not fathom this is seen to be untrue.

People only say this in defense OF THEIR OWN BELIEFS.

Just by being a Bible believer, you discount the beliefs of millions of people. It's unavoidable.

If you want to actually consider every belief that has ever existed, you will waste your life doing so.

Good luck with your delusions. In the future, I recommend paying attention to reality.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

"Just by being a Bible believer, you discount the beliefs of millions of people. It's unavoidable"

I am not a "Bible believer" I try to leave myself open to any information I come across. This particular book is demonstrating (quite convincingly) that the biblical genesis, if interpreted a certain way, is actually harmonious with the standard model of cosmology. Now before I believe it or accept it I will try to find and read some kind of countering opinion towards Gerald Schroeder (just as I am reading him in counter to Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Kraus) I will say this Schroeder is making a much stronger case then those 2.

"Good luck with your delusions. In the future, I recommend paying attention to reality."

You started out respectful but now delve again into insults. How can i consider you an objective thinker when you believe all religious people are more delusional than you and that I share their beliefs?

reply

[–] croft_alice (12180) 7 years ago

MissMargo...instead of saying my opinion in this matter,i'll say again...i'll stay away from this.Anyway,i do have better things to do.

reply

[–] MissMargoChanning (6630) 7 years ago

Excuse me. I wasn't aware that I was stating anyone's opinion but my own.
I do realize that you are a big boy. You certainly don't need little old me to defend you or say anything, so I won't do it again if that is your wish.
Are we good now?

reply

[–] croft_alice (12180) 7 years ago

I never said that,MissMargo...i didn't had the chance to thank you for defending me in another thread...thank you very much for that,i always appreciate a little help...and yes,it always will be "good"between us.

reply

[–] Martoto (5024) 7 years ago

God is a made up concept. Its existence is subject to interpretation of reality.

Since we cannot say definitely what reality is or what it's for, it is foolish to say it doesn't exist, in that context.

But what people who want you to recognize that there is a god are talking about is that the god they were told to believe in is, unequivocally, that. Even when that changes to suit their attitudes towards what they cannot ignore in their daily lives, "i.e." reality.

It's likes saying that you cannot disprove the existence of an imaginary something that isn't real because we cannot define what is real.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

This is a good argument to why belief in a god as a concept is silly of its own. But in the lack of conclusive evidence for or against existence of such a supernatural (of some kind anyway) it is wrong (in simplistic terms) to reject the possibility. Especially considering that without some kind of supernatural catalyst the reality we now experience, by scientific theory, is not possible. So we live in an impossible reality but the belief in god is the only thing we reject? It seems to me that rejecting the possibility in light of what we now know about the big bang on how everything evolved is not an objective conclusion. Keeping oneself open to the possibility and constantly reading contrasting information and deciding for yourself which is more likely seems the only rational approach. Or simply not caring one way or the other at all. But for those of the latter approach would not have even clicked on this title.

reply

[–] mplo (2356) 7 years ago

If various conflicts around the globe are any indication, religious beliefs, such as belief in a god or goddess, can be extremely dangerous, especially if they're carried too far. Unfortunately, however, that's all too often the case, and it's made for extreme amounts of bloodshed, not only here in the United States, but throughout the world, generally.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

War is a caused by territoriality. That is why chimps go to war with each other too, and brutally at that they have no inhibitions and literally tear the rival groups apart limb from limb including female and young chimps. Now people do become territorial over their beliefs and this does lead to war but it would be happening none the less. Everything in our existence is based on conflict. Religious belief in the history of culture evolved to try to teach these inhibited chimps some values that have lead to a current moral standard. Seems to me we should be thankful to religions for helping play a role in us having higher order of existence. Even if god/gods don't exist, the belief in them helped us a lot more than it hurt us, I would say especially for Judeo-christian beliefs in western civilization.

reply

[–] mplo (2356) 7 years ago

The trouble is, mxpowers43, is that far too many people here in the United States and throughout the world use and have used religion for their own interests and agendas...inotherwords, used in the wrong ways, if one gets the drift.

reply

[–] mxpowers43 (367) 7 years ago

I can see people having a problem with religious institutions for that reason. Also it is important that throughout history certain people have used any and all institutions (government, politics, sports, entertainment etc) for their own interests and agendas (even sometimes with full malicious intent). So to ostracize religions for the evils of a few bad players seems disingenuous.

But even if the religious institutions are guilty, that does not justify animosity towards those that believe or practice in that doctrine or beliefs of that institution. I don't blame people for believing in something and I don't blame people for not believing in anything. As long as their reasoning for such is solid and they treat those that differ with the respect that reasoning deserves. That is my ultimate wish.

reply