What is with all the threads attacking atheism/atheists lately?

Originally posted by defenestrator

Originally posted by AllIsOne
Actually - why are we debating this issue again?

The theist and atheist position are both faith based. Currently there is no proof either way and I suspect it will stay that way for a bit longer ...

Academic Atheism (as in, "there is no proof for the existence of God," not "There is not, nor can there be a God") is not faith based, it is based on evidence, of which there is none. It really is very simple to understand.

Yes, it is. The black swan comes to mind ... Do you understand what I mean?

Originally posted by AllIsOne

Originally posted by defenestrator

Originally posted by AllIsOne
Actually - why are we debating this issue again?

The theist and atheist position are both faith based. Currently there is no proof either way and I suspect it will stay that way for a bit longer ...

Academic Atheism (as in, "there is no proof for the existence of God," not "There is not, nor can there be a God") is not faith based, it is based on evidence, of which there is none. It really is very simple to understand.

Yes, it is. The black swan comes to mind ... Do you understand what I mean?

No, I don't, but I really enjoyed the new Aronofsky film Black Swan, and I like Swan Lake the ballet too, is this a reference to the film, or the ballet, or something else?
Your assertion is false, regardless.

Originally posted by AllIsOne

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by bogomil

 

Do you want me to U2U and show you how to quote properly? That would make your posts so much easier on the eyes.

My offer's still valid ...

Tell you what, the dude is doing pretty bloody well without it, so you want the guy with the Magnum to start carrying an M16,, sheesh

"Run away runaway " [image from Monty Python And The Holy Grail Here- - - -]

Originally posted by bogomil
Re AllisOne

Quote: ["To me God is the sum of all energy."]

Just for the record: Energy is most likely

So you don't really know ...

only a phenomenon/concept inside cosmos. An alleged 'god' wouldn't be limited to such anthropomorphic notions.

So what is left if you eliminated all energy in the universe? Here you go: E=MC2.

reply to post by The Djin




So funny, I know this post isn't very meaningful, but I saw it so clearly in my mind, I had to post the pic. Religious people should look just like Arthur in the linked image at this point, because bogomil is a real thinker.

Originally posted by defenestrator

Originally posted by AllIsOne

Originally posted by defenestrator

Originally posted by AllIsOne
Actually - why are we debating this issue again?

The theist and atheist position are both faith based. Currently there is no proof either way and I suspect it will stay that way for a bit longer ...

Academic Atheism (as in, "there is no proof for the existence of God," not "There is not, nor can there be a God") is not faith based, it is based on evidence, of which there is none. It really is very simple to understand.

Yes, it is. The black swan comes to mind ... Do you understand what I mean?

No, I don't, but I really enjoyed the new Aronofsky film Black Swan, and I like Swan Lake the ballet too, is this a reference to the film, or the ballet, or something else?
Your assertion is false, regardless.

You just showed your true face. You have no idea what I'm talking about, but you've already labelled it as wrong?

Ok, You caught me as I was headed out the door of this thread. So, let me explain before I go. If this brings up ore questions, I'll be happy to answer them either U2U or in a more appropriate thread.

Originally posted by The Djin
Yet we don't all love each other leading us to conclude a few possibilities -

A] There is no father

B) There is but you don't know what its' will is

C) It is not omnipotent if it were then its' will could not, not be done.

D) Man has free will and refuses to do Gods will. Free will is the rock that God created that he could not/would not lift. He will not move Man's will out of Love. Omnibenevolence ya know.

Even with all the scientific evidence supporting love, we still don't put aside our petty differences and love one another.

Originally posted by The Djin
I notice you don't consider your god omniscient, why so ?

Because it is redundant. Knowledge IS Power. God is all powerful, thus he is all knowing.

With Love,

Your Bro.

Originally posted by The Djin

Originally posted by AllIsOne

Originally posted by AllIsOne
reply to post by bogomil

 

Do you want me to U2U and show you how to quote properly? That would make your posts so much easier on the eyes.

My offer's still valid ...

Tell you what, the dude is doing pretty bloody well without it, so you want the guy with the Magnum to start carrying an M16,, sheesh

"Run away runaway " [image from Monty Python And The Holy Grail Here- - - -]

As I said: my offer is still valid.

Originally posted by AllIsOne

Originally posted by bogomil
Re AllisOne

Quote: ["To me God is the sum of all energy."]

Just for the record: Energy is most likely

So you don't really know ...

only a phenomenon/concept inside cosmos. An alleged 'god' wouldn't be limited to such anthropomorphic notions.

So what is left if you eliminated all energy in the universe? Here you go: E=MC2.

lol wut?
I don't think you would impress many physicists with that post.
The thing you probably need to look up, Allisone, is "The Omnipotence Paradox." It would help you understand what bogomil is driving at in the quoted post.
Oooh looky, a link!
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by defenestrator


Here you go: www.amazon.com...

reply to post by defenestrator


Sorry, but I'm also the author of a thread titled "Can God commit suicide". I've pondered these questions ...
Please explain where my knowledge went astray: E=MC2. Please eliminate E from the equation.

wicked

If you are agnostic then you don't take the atheist position, that makes you an atheist and no longer and agnostic - I didn't make the rules! The two are at odds with each other. Sorry, that's what dictionaries do for you!

Of course you're right, but a strange coalition consisting of the dead Scottish theologian Robert Flint and some living atheists has decided on their very own meaning for agnostic.

In this new revelation, agnostic atheist fills the pressing, but heretofore overlooked, need that when someone tells me there is no god, then I might be confused whether this is some belief of theirs or whether they actually know. I am sure that just to describe this problem persuades you of the urgency of its being promptly resolved.

One last point, there is somebody here who uses a hyphen, agnostic-atheist. Apparently, he intends the hyphen as or, and just means that he is "not a theist." Which is fair enough, except one of his sister atheists nabbed him one time, and pointed out that she was "agnostic and atheist," and told him in no uncertain terms what he could with his hyphen.

I actually am an agnostic, so this bulloney might bother me. But I just go with the flow. In the new classification, I would be a gnostic agnostic. That means I know what an agnostic is, and I am one.

Re AllisOne

Quote: ["The theist and atheist position are both faith based."]

In daily-usage and up-and-until epistemology: They are both 'belief-systems' of which 'faith' is a sub-set, with a somewhat different qualitative basis. Reference: Assumptions and axioms.

PS Quote: ["My offer's still valid ..."]

Please do, and I'm very grateful for the offer. I'm aware of my sub-standard in this context. But DO consider that I'm almost an imbecile, when it comes to computer-handling. You need to go to kindergarten level, if I'm to understand it.

reply to post by AllIsOne


Yes I am claiming that your assertion is false, without knowing the reference, because you are still claiming that Atheism is faith based, right? And that claim is inherently false.
"True Face" - lol
I always show my true face, I'm the most sincere person you will ever know. To a fault, in fact.

I would still be interested to know what you mean by the "black swan," and had you posted your meaning I would consider it.
However, having spent no little time researching these subjects, including teaching myself to read Hebrew so I could make my own interpretation of the creation myths in Genesis, reading the entire Bhagavad Gita, large sections of the Koran, the Talmud and Zohar, study of Kabbalah generally, the history of Pagan Europe and Russia, as well as extensive historical research into the history of the Abrahamic religions, and epistemology and logic; I don't believe I will be persuaded.

Do I hold beliefs in things that others might deem irrational? Yes, I've seen a group of UFOs make aerial maneuvers that don't fit into our consensus reality too well, for several minutes I watched them do things that would seem impossible within the framework of modern physics and aeronautics, but I don't claim to know what they were, and had there not been a group of witnesses with me at the time I would not even believe that I saw what I saw.
This ain't my first rodeo.
Learning to think is a process.

reply to post by AllIsOne


That looks like a fascinating book. I fight the Normalcy Bias as hard as I can, but we are all victims of it. ALL OF US.

refer to my most recent post for my experience with the Highly Improbable.

Originally posted by defenestrator
reply to post by The Djin

 

So funny, I know this post isn't very meaningful, but I saw it so clearly in my mind, I had to post the pic. Religious people should look just like Arthur in the linked image at this point, because bogomil is a real thinker.

Yup that's exactly what I had in mind thanks

Re IAMIAM

Quote: ["Neither side will let go of their hatred for the choice of terminology of the other. Both sides are saying the same thing, yet neither understands the other."]

You can put a circle around your chosen terminology and decide that's what inside is functional. No objections, many do that.

But terminologies carry their own limitations with them, when applied. So for the purpose of common communication, from common platforms, some co-sensus agreements are made on formalistic grounds.

Any dissention from the co-sensus versions of terminology and communication-procedure therefore need a precise defintion, demonstration and validation, which you haven't presented to me. You have just manifested self-contained observations on both your observed 'level' and your perspective. Dig deeper.


You can even question, what's outside your chosen circle. But you still need a common communication platform to do this.

Originally posted by defenestrator

Do I hold beliefs in things that others might deem irrational? Yes, I've seen a group of UFOs make aerial maneuvers that don't fit into our consensus reality too well, for several minutes I watched them do things that would seem impossible within the framework of modern physics and aeronautics, but I don't claim to know what they were, and had there not been a group of witnesses with me at the time I would not even believe that I saw what I saw.

Given the pivotal and intimate role that the "UFO phenomenon" has played in world religion and myth since primordial shamanism, I would say you saw "gods". Or, to put it in the materialistic terms of our modern space-age mythology, you saw ET. Or, to put it in Jungian psychophysical terms, you saw manifestations of archetypes.

I recommend these books.

Wonders in the Sky: Unexplained Aerial Objects from Antiquity to Modern Times
Alien Identities : Ancient Insights into Modern UFO Phenomena
The Trickster and the Paranormal
Flying Saucers : A Modern Myth of Things Seen in the Skies

Originally posted by AllIsOne
So what is left if you eliminated all energy in the universe? Here you go: E=MC2.

So what you are saying there is that all that would be left if we eliminated the energy would be the speed of light squared?
If the energy is all gone, then there's nothing, nothing, nothing.
A more interesting question would be "if all neutrons in the universe were eliminated, what then?" (kidding)

reply to post by eight bits

gnostic agnostic

LOL'd.