Atheism vs. God-Belief (the final debate).

OK thats easily done;
Mental Weakness can be define in any if these ways;

•If Attention is weak
•If Processing Speed is slow
•If Logic and Reasoning is weak
•If Auditory Processing is weak
•If Long-Term Memory is weak
•If Visual Processing is weak

If any one of these cognitive skills are weak it will hinder performance

Sun is currently performing very well as I am currently enjoying it's performance

Love to All
Think Out of the Box
: )

It might have just been easily done for you and your understanding
and i will add that your listed explaination does not clarify a thing for me.

Hopefully it did not go over my head.

reply to post by jiggerj


Don't fall into that argument. It's a trap to argue you down to the lowest denominator of senseless idiocy where you'll be beaten through weight of experience in a total lack of facility for reason.

"God" is stupid, because "god" was invented by stupid people:
I love this guy. He's hilarious. I recommend browsing the other videos on his channel.

reply to post by Druscilla


So Drusilla this is your intelligent
and reasoned and logical,
but most of all intelligent
input into this discussion?

A video by a guy about how violent God is?

That is emotional reasoning/argument.

reply to post by slugger9787


Don't criticize her posts when you don't even read half the thread.

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by Druscilla

 

So Drusilla this is your intelligent
and reasoned and logical,
but most of all intelligent
input into this discussion?

A video by a guy about how violent God is?

That is emotional reasoning/argument.

Go back and read my previous posts, starting at page ONE, then, if you have the intellectual facility for observation to recognize the sudden plunge off a cliff the discussion took recently, then, you might just then see the comedy behind the recent post with video.

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by jiggerj

 

Don't fall into that argument. It's a trap to argue you down to the lowest denominator of senseless idiocy where you'll be beaten through weight of experience in a total lack of facility for reason.

"God" is stupid, because "god" was invented by stupid people:
I love this guy. He's hilarious. I recommend browsing the other videos on his channel.

Woohoo! Pat Condell is my new Hitchins! Thanks for that clip. What a great speaker.

reply to post by slugger9787

So Drusilla this is your intelligent
and reasoned and logical,
but most of all intelligent
input into this discussion?

A video by a guy about how violent God is?

That is emotional reasoning/argument.

And that disqualifies it? Well, that's the whole God-Belief thing shot down...

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Druscilla

 

You keep on referring to childishness. I find that interesting...

When you have the time, please watch the video I posted in the OP, which speaks to that accusation.

Btw I intend to put forward the argument and the information supportive of intelligent design by a Creative Agency and one which given the framework and timespan involved could be nothing other than the initiating intelligent agency from a first/last cause in the creation "beginning with the end in mind" so to speak.

I ask for your patience however. Thank you.

Fair warning here: If your argument is devoid of verifiable fact and is riddled with comments laced with declarations of "I believe", "I think", "What if", "Maybe this", "Suppose that", then I will immediately stop reading.

P.S. I made it a little past 8 minutes on that clip you posted, to when he said it is obvious that there is one invisible life principle. He based it on the symbolism humans are prone to attach to things that aren't real or true.
A little boy with a mask is not evidence of an invisible life principal. He does not become imbued with the force of an invisible power. What IS highly evident, however, is the fact that an ignorant people will believe it.

This guy, Manly, also went on to claim that we are incapable of understanding abstract thought. Yet, we deal with the abstract every day. Money isn't real, but we understand the value of a dollar. Numbers aren't real, but who doesn't know what the number two represents?

Originally posted by Druscilla
"God" is stupid, because "god" was invented by stupid people:
I love this guy.

Ouch!

reply to post by jiggerj

No worries pops.

I'll try my best.

Originally posted by slugger9787
reply to post by Druscilla

 

So Drusilla this is your intelligent
and reasoned and logical,
but most of all intelligent
input into this discussion?

A video by a guy about how violent God is?

That is emotional reasoning/argument.

Are you kidding?
Druscilla is HOT today!
Her input is simply brilliant.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

But what, other than opposition to certain primitive views of God

You wrote this, NAM. So, even you accept that god was discovered (invented) in a time when people were primitive and had no scientific methods to explain their environment. Volcanoes had a god. Hurricanes had a god. The yearly harvest had a god. Fertility had a god. The ocean had a god...

One by one, these gods were removed by logic and the growing understanding of nature. Throughout the history of mankind the gods have been knocked off. So, now we are faced with only the god as the creator of the universe and of life. With history showing us time and time again that things occur naturally, isn't it only logical to assume that we will go all the way and finally wipe out all of the gods?

reply to post by jiggerj

That's a good point, but I wish you wouldn't just take a tiny piece of what I said and then try to attack me on that point alone which can take things out of context and move the bar unfairly I promise not to do that in this debate, but to take a person's whole idea and intended meaning as it is.

On your point you're right in a way, but comparative mythology runs a little deeper than you give it credit. Much of it involved, yes the personification or archetypal representations of various natural processes and forces, often to encode the mythology with the annual cycles of life and the elements of life - not unlike a primitive type of science. However I don't think they, at least not at the esoteric level, understood these things so much as individual Gods (personalities) but a powerful forces of nature, at all levels from the terrestrial to the cosmic and relating to man in his quest both for greater security in the world and to undestand his place within it. Sure they were projections in an attempt to understand the natural world and the nature of the human being, but in working with these representations I think something else was at work something more significant, meaningful and profound.

For the purpose of this thread however we're not going to be referring to the primitive attempts to understand the interrelationships within nature and between man and the forces of nature and the elements of the natural world, not a "manmade God". I will however aim to show that through the creation that indeed - God speaks, where these ancient mytholgies represent the earliest and best attempts by man to understand and to recognize the creative voice of that which is speaking to man and announcing the greater Glory both of the creation and of man's true place within it. So what I'm saying is that while they may have been close but no cigar as they say, that nevertheless there may still be a cigar in the midst which these mythologies attempt to describe yet at the most estoteric level (of the priests) only represent, symbolically and at most only partially (as a mythological mask of God).

What I hear you saying is that now that all these representations of the Godhead have been blown away that there's only one God left to kill.

I encourage you however to look at it from another perspective as an ongoing process of an attempt to represent a deeper more fundamental understanding about the creation and man's place within it whereby we've intuitively known all along that by the sheer virtue of our own existence and that of the creation within which we are emersed (at it's center) that something meaningful and significant is being represented and even communicated to us through the Magesty of Creation and that it's for us to recognize and see, and appreciate.

After all what would the world be without man to appreciate it? If you know anything about some of the latest ideas of modern quantum science like the maxim that to be is to be percieved then you'll reocognize just how deep the subject-object relationship goes, and you wouldn't say what everone is templed to say ie: without man it would be a better world when without man, the very dimension of the world would not be the same at all. Man completes the world with his self awareness observation of it, and the world may even be designed with this fact in mind, just to be clear and to drive the point home.

So early man intuitively understood something of this fundamental relationship and "communication" (communion with) and attemped to give it voice and symbolic representation in the mythos he created to explain it, not like we do today as it set apart from us as a bunch of things and pieces, but within a relational frame of reference to something deep and profound and fundamental within and without and throughout all the cycle of life within which he found himself emersed. Remember to that context and meaning or framing is decisive and that therefore symbolism is also decisive, for man in understanding his place in the world at all levels.

In other words that it might not be as "primitive" and "childish" as you and as most of us according to our "modern" worldview and interpretation of life would give it credit.


What I will contend as this thread progresses is that all these are masks of God but that there is only one God, one condition and one living spirit of infinite intelligence who's many manifestations in the natural order including us, are expressions of the originating Creative Agency by intent and therefore by intelligent design.


What you and the atheist position will then be forced to take in response when I'm done is that no intent can be seen and that life as we know it in all of it's forms must occur and have arisen as a purely random happenstance without meaning, significance, or purpose ie: purely by accident and thus without any intelligence, let alone superintelligent design. You will have to show this to be true if we are to accept your argument as having any validity relative to what I'm going to bring forward, as I explained in the OP of this thread.

I still need to make the final argument, but just in case you're leaning forward in this debate with jaws clenched, teeh on edge and your knife of "reason" poised to cut and hack away at what I'm going to put forward, I would like to encourage you, at this juncture anyway, to just stop, relax and self examine in terms of where that motivation might be coming from.. let us not forget the fundamental open-mindedness and willingness lurking at the very heart of atheism based on it's true definition..

Best Regards,

NAM

reply to post by Druscilla


Neither of you can support arguments for or against "God" this is absurd. Utter faith in science is the same fallacy as utter faith in God. As they are both faith based. Surely you know science cannot apply the same macro psychics to the micro. So the testable and accurate macro psychics break down when we try to measure the tiniest building blocks of the universe. Until we have a unified law i will supend my irrational desire to fall into that trap. I personally do not belive in organized religion but it's apparent to me that a degree of spirituality is not only healthy but functional. I find it very hard to BELIEVE that inanimate matter give's rise to consciousness. How can this be? Can you show me one example of inanimate matter becomeing consiouss? Can you,I or even science fathom the years we are talking about developement here? Religion dumbs down the people it's easy but so is science. Neither answer in full the deepest mysterys of life. Who am I, Why am i here. Which leads to further thought junctions like, what is the nature of meaning;Is it subjective or objective, and when a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it, dose it make a soud?

reply to post by NewAgeMan

That's a good point, but I wish you wouldn't just take a tiny piece of what I said and then try to attack me

Hey, I was just enjoying the chat. I'm sorry you feel attacked.

I would say that I can base a theory of foundation that the God of the Jews is the true God.

This brings a small amount of room for open discussion - because Jesus was a Jew. Up to that point there was no such thing as a Christian.

Please Christians realize, what is your most favorite and meaningful quote of Jesus? If you have read the whole bible you would know there are a few contradictions between the old testament and the new testament. The most important shift in the change of the holy teaching was the simple quote of Jesus 'Turn your cheek.' What did Christians do within a couple hundered years? Go to war again. I do not know the details of that history but I can say that the meaning of the most important quote of Jesus has not been remember for many Christians, and it not been remembered that the father of Jesus had to be th God of the Jews because there was no such thing as a Christian in the day of Jesus.

reply to post by greyer

We'll get to Jesus yet, but first we have to come to see and recognize the foundation and basis of his logic and reason in relating himself (his reborn from above true self) as a reflection of the absolute eternal Godhead yet also within the context of a parent/child beloved/beloved intimate participatory relationship whereby "God is spirit and truth" (Jesus, to the woman at the well).

Originally posted by jiggerj
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

That's a good point, but I wish you wouldn't just take a tiny piece of what I said and then try to attack me

Hey, I was just enjoying the chat. I'm sorry you feel attacked.

No worries "Pops" it's all good as they say.

But that technique for isolating tiny segments of a persons post, or pulling apart it's context by isolating each frame of reference and addressing it individually, is a very lame debating tactic that I abhor, and I realize of course that that wasn't your intention, but I see it done all the time around here and it always tees me off, while the one who slices and dices the other persons presentation they always seem so smug while they presume to have effectively rebuted each little line, even though such reframing of the intended meaning and context of the original author's overall idea is really nothing more than a type of cheat that these people think they can get away with. They always tend to make it a habit also of forever remaining on the side of asking a question, another pathetic debate tactic intended to trick your opposition and put them on their heals.

I did that when I asked the question - "What knowledge specifically does atheism claim?"

However I really and truly wanted to get to the root of this notion that atheism makes no negative proclamation (there is no God) and professes no knowledge but is simply non-knowledge, not belief, non recognition, which implies, inherently, absolutely no bias whatsoever (no axe to grind) and thus represents an entirely open mind in relation to all new information, something I find quite fascinating, particularly when it comes to the matter of exploring the possibility of the existence of God.

Just a little pet peeve of mine and since this is "the final debate" ; ) it's only appropriate that we have a type of dialogue and free and fair exchange worthy of the topic and the issue at hand.

Being peppered with questions only or having my ideas cut to shreds represents unfair debate tactic imho, that's all and the only reason I felt "attacked" with you snippet and apparent accusation ("you said this NAM".. na na na na..).

It's all good no worries as I said Pops, just communicating clearly, nothing more.


Best Regards,

NAM

P.S. Overall I'm enjoying our discussion and exchange also. Thanks to you also.

If I'm quoting myself OTOH, it's another matter.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan

I still need to make the final argument, but just in case you're leaning forward in this debate with jaws clenched, teeh on edge and your knife of "reason" poised to cut and hack away at what I'm going to put forward, I would like to encourage you..[snip]

I would like to hereby propose that because atheism claims no knowledge it has no such knife and in the final analysis when all is said and done even if it did it wouldn't know as a position or from what position or where precisely to make the cut or incision or where to draw the line of distinction..


Coming soon .. Alpha and Omega - The first/last cause (the first and the last), the Creative Agency of Super-intelligent Design.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Atheism makes no claims at all, it is simply at statement of belief. Therefore the only knowledge involved in the atheist position is the fact that they (the atheist) profess to not believe in a god.

Any atheist who proclaims that a god does not exist is operating under the same level of ignorance that a theist is operating under when they claim that a god does exist.

There is a difference between belief and knowledge.