'True lies of new Atheism'.

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by RevAnarchist, Aug 5, 2011.

  1. dreadpiratejaymo

    dreadpiratejaymo New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Messages:
    2,362
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The claim that God exists.

    I never asked for proof. I just wanted any evidence.
     
  2. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Now see what you just did? Right there in the red text, you, yourself have just shown evidence of the existence of God. If "God" did not exist, then you could not even make such a display on your computer screen.


    And you just provided that evidence in your opening comment shown in the first quote above. You ought to be proud of yourself for doing what so many others have failed to realize that they could do.
     
  3. dreadpiratejaymo

    dreadpiratejaymo New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Messages:
    2,362
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Now that is the height of ridiculousness. By that same rational Unicorns, dragons and and Flying Spaghetti monster exist because I can type a word that we use to describe them.

    :roll:
     
  4. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Not ridiculous at all. Just like any other thing, it must first exist in the mind before it can exist in the real world. Would the airplane exist in the real world if it first did not exist in the mind of man? Remember ,,, years ago,,,, people called others crazy when they spoke of the concept of man flying... they were laughed at, scorned, ridiculed, but they (the ones with the concept) were right... airplanes did exist.... and they brought those creatures of the mind into the real world. . . So, if you desire to see Flying Spaghettic monster(s) swarming around, then by all means,,, just keep right on nourishing those thoughts and they will become a reality to you.
     
  5. FreeWare

    FreeWare Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    7,350
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Oh that's nothing; there's a Christian fanaticist here who calls himself Neutral :-D

    There's no end to the self delusions.
     
  6. RevAnarchist

    RevAnarchist New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,848
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    YES I AGREE! Robustly so! You will not find that anywhere in scripture. Atheism, secular humanism*satanism (LeVay) all diminishes the idea that people have interestic value. Most religons, especially deity based religions such as Christanity and moderate Islam teaches in an reduntand fashion that we humans, all people are precious in the eyes of God and have internstic value, and is a compenent in spiritulism and metaphyics. For example natural law tells us that some of our most important laws and rights are natural vs postive. In other words some rights and laws are indelabile and immutable that have been with us since we became self aware or before. Oftren they are called god given. Natural is God given and Postive rigths and laws use man as thier authouity.

    So instead of lashing out at something you do not like for a reason that is not true, I would suggest you read a book that hits the high points of the bible (if you wont read the entiren thing). Something tells me that there is a deeper reason you do not like religion. Or is it just christantiy you so dislike? Why?

    * the majority of Secular humanists like moderate atheists though that I know debate me tooth and nail saying that humans have NO intrensic value.

    That people, have no intricic value is a gros fallacy IMO! Everyone from mass murderers to the pope are overflowing with intrinistic value*.

    Ha ha of course you would like to hit and run! Now if you were making correct, factual statemnts I would not insist on having the last word! Sadly that is not the case.

    Again there is no truth in that statement! Most of us think the Karma police exists, If moe hurts curlie by giving him a three stooges nose pull and a yuck yuck yuck he gets a hit in the head back! The karma police made that arrest. In the natural world there is an oppsiet and equal reaction to events, the world we can not see works that way too. Anyway this is getting too long. Let me tell you from a christians mouth abit a open theitst christian, I can tell you that most of us learn from our mistakes.

    If I hit myself in the thumb with a hammer I am going to not hit my finger again! Say I were a theif, and I do someone wrong. If I steal someones pay check I think about thier loss and if they have children its worse. A christian or non chrstian does that too! I have not always been a law abiding citizen. No I was a member of a MC club that recently changed patch to the Angels. The name of our club was the Hells Henchmen. I did some bad things that I would have never done before, anyway evuntally I left the club in good standing got to keep my tats and my other HH stuff. So I took responsabality for everything and learned from my mistakes both before and after chrsitainty. So I have no idea what you are talking about....

    note;

    in·trin·sic

    in·trin·sic [in trínzik, in trínsik]
    or in·trin·si·cal [in trínzik’l, in trínsik’l]
    adj
    1. basic and essential: belonging to something as one of the basic and essential elements that make it what it is
    2. of itself: by or in itself, rather than because of its associations or consequences

    Value

    3. worth or importance: the worth, importance, or usefulness of something to somebody

    Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
     
  7. RevAnarchist

    RevAnarchist New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,848
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Speaking of good but ’queerish’ screen names; what about “I like taxes SC name? A good American would pick that name! ILT should join the army or police force, you just might be officer material ! And your SC? Ha ha! You give nothing save for attempting to verbally harm peoples, faith and or beliefs that do not agree with you, oftentimes disparagement comments etc and your atheist paradigm. Nothing serious mind you just typical usual suspect behavior. I don’t intentionally take a dig or harm people UNLESS I am angry, and I do hold a grudge forever!* In other words I never purposely belittle someone with beliefs as a first shot across the bow thing.

    * The revenge and ego

    *Queer/queerish' ; queer [kweer]

    1. not usual: not usual or expected (dated)
    2. eccentric: eccentric or unconventional (dated)

    Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

    I must like the As my last very fine put together, I haven’t had that many truly beautiful girl friends,

    anyway

    she said; “RevA YOU must like arguing and bickering too because I you are still here!!!”

    (oh yes I was getting something out of it! Making up was truly wonderful! I sure miss you Ashley (*)(*)(*)(*) …..)



    My boss tells me you are incorrect, so I too have to disagree with you concerning your comment. Truly, the end to self delusions come at different times for us, usually within 60 years we are all going to know everything, and my boss is never wrong.

    reva
     
  8. tomteapack

    tomteapack New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I am a positive atheist that says 'NO GOD OR GODS EXIST". I do this because of the fact that in the tens of thousands of years of the existence of mankind, there has been NO evidence to suggest the existence of any god or god. I consider that fact to be positive PROOF that no god or gods exist. To say or claim anything else would be for me to make myself a liar, and I prefer not to lie.
     
  9. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    More precisely stated, "there has been no evidence which I am willing to accept to suggest the existence of any god or gods". When dealing in two differing philosophies, one must recognize that the parameters of operation within those philosophies can be equally distinct and opposed to one another. Those differing parameters will oft times include the subject matter of 'evidence', the reliability of such evidence, and of course a personal set of standards which will allow the observer of such evidence the ability to over look such evidence (personal prejudices and biases). So what it all boils down to is this FACT... it is your personal opinion that there is "no evidence to suggest the existence of any god or gods."
     
  10. dreadpiratejaymo

    dreadpiratejaymo New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Messages:
    2,362
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ok. By that logic we had to think of "God" before god could become god.

    Since your logic is ... erm... malleable... to the point where it conforms to your opinion instead of defining them, you aren't ever going to be able to make a concise or clear argument for anything. You have made several statements that you claim are logical, but the directly contradict each other.
     
  11. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Absolutely,,,, in part. Before cognizance can be found within oneself regarding any matter, that subject matter must first exist in the mind. Now for that other part... before something can get into the 'mind', that something had to have a point of origin, which would mean an existence outside the individual 'mind'. Once that subject matter has been introduced into the mind, then that subject matter can be said to 'exist' within the mind. So, If God (as a concept) was introduced into the mind and recognized in the mind as 'God' then where did the concept come from.

    Are you suggesting that the philosophy used in science is NOT malleable? Are scientists not always in a state of readiness to change various aspects of a theory in order to make the theory sound when new evidence is found that would otherwise destroy the theory! Example: Einsteins theory that had to be altered in order to accommodate new found evidence? Yes, malleability does seem to be the toss of the coin for the day. Because science also incorporates a malleability factor, then it can be equally stated that scientists "aren't ever going to be able to make a concise or clear argument for anything."




    Perhaps when using your philosophy there might appear to be a contradiction, but when viewed by the logic that is used in Christianity, then there is no contradiction. You seem to be continuously forgetting that we are viewing subject matters through the perspectives of differing forms of philosophy and subsequent logic systems.
     
  12. tomteapack

    tomteapack New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And the stupid fools that imagined a god existed, did so for so long that finally THEY BELIEVED in their own false ideas. Yep, religion including Christianity is just like believing in unicorns, and spaghetti monsters. And a Pastafarian good evening to you!
     
  13. tomteapack

    tomteapack New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2010
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    28
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No your statement is incorrect--the FACT is, there has never been any evidence of any god or gods. There has been supposition, conjecture, beliefs, myths, and superstition, not one iota of factual evidence. There is NO fact to judge either reliable or unreliable, there is NO fact.
     
  14. dreadpiratejaymo

    dreadpiratejaymo New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Messages:
    2,362
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So by that logic, humans are unable to have an original thought. I disagree with that completely. We think of things that do not exist and then we bring them into reality by designing and manufacturing them. An example would be a TV or Radio.

    Someone thought of an idea and then realized their idea through experimentation, study, and hard work.

    Where the idea of god does exist, that idea hasn't been able to be realized. Nothing exists that tells us god is there. People who have taken that viewpoint as a fact do so on faith, not on observable evidence.

    I am saying that the logic used in science does not conform to theories. It is the other way around. When a part of a theory is found to violate logical thought, we change the theory to fit logic. Religious people often change the logic to fit the theory instead of understanding that their theory (Religion, which hardly qualifies as an actual theory) is flawed.

    Every great once in a while you may see a change in religion, but it is always with great hesitation. An example would be the Catholic churches recent recognition of theistic evolution as a fact.

    That's fine. Just so long as you understand that Christian logic isn't actual logic. Calling it logic at all seems misleading when it is actually faith and not logic.

    Like I said, make up your own definitions if you like, but I don't think Merriam-Webster is going to be adding that to the new edition.
     
  15. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Two points emphasized above: What is "original thought" and what is "evidence" or even "observable evidence"? Those two points are where the conflict exists between opposing philosophies and their subsequent systems of logic.




    Again, as viewed from the perspective of your philosophy and its system of logic, anything outside that system of logic would appear to be illogical or perhaps even irrational. But who is to say that your system of philosophy and its logic system is the correct one to use in making an analysis of such subjects as religion? Is it because you FEEL more comfortable dealing with your boxed in container of toys? Is it because you are fearful of stepping outside that box that contains all of the toys you enjoy playing with? I, on the other hand, have stepped outside the box of toys which I immensely enjoy, and have delved into that system (box of toys) of logic used in the sciences and have obtained a degree in Computer Electronics. Yes! it was a fearful thing to do, because I realized it would require me to accept things as a fact, which things I could not see, touch, feel, smell, etc... You ought to try the inverse of what I have done.

    The Catholic Church is a bad example not because it is the Catholic Church, but simply because it is a member of that temporal group that is engaged in commerce as opposed to remaining in its original state. That church and any other church which have abandoned its original state and have entered into contract agreement with the state (temporal world) have 'gone a whoring'. Because of that commercial interest that the mentioned church has, it is going to behave in such a manner as to promote the furtherance of its commercial status.


    Again, your analysis above is based upon your use of a system of logic which is not suited to be the judge of another system of logic. You making such a comment only shows, as an evidence, that you are biased and will make such biased comments.

    I don't make up my own definitions,,,, I use those that are readily available from standard dictionaries... you ought to try that as well.
     
  16. dreadpiratejaymo

    dreadpiratejaymo New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Messages:
    2,362
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    "Unable to have an original thought" is my description of your statement that "before something can get into the 'mind', that something had to have a point of origin".

    If thoughts can't originate from within your mind, you are unable to have an original thought.

    Observable evidence would be given if you said something exists and then show it to me.

    What did a degree in computer electronics make you accept for fact that could not be demonstrated as fact in any way?

    The catholic church is a good example because over 1 billion people identify as catholic. A great many of them believe what the church tells them to believe. So in 1996, many catholics started believing in evolution for the first time.

    Why am I bias? Because I disagree with you?

    Bias implies that I have chosen a side concerning religion. I am on the outside, looking in. I have also seen the situation from the inside, looking out. If either of us is bias, it's you.

    So what is your definition of logic then?
     
  17. RevAnarchist

    RevAnarchist New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,848
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I too have an issue with your statements and how you define words. There is as much evidence to support Gods existence is there is to support the idea that virtual (sub atomic) particles exist as described by science. Most people that consider themselves scientifically literate would claim that those particles are 'real' that they indeed exist. Well they may or they may not! VP's are theoretical entities and its not even a sure thing that they exist as opposed to being merely theoretical constructs.

    I think that most cutting edge science points to a GID (God Intelligent Designer, my word). I do understand you being honest with yourself I too am like that. If I have to force myself to believe something I am fooling myself. I began life as an atheist and denied the new evidences of science and the powerful arguments that the new Christian philosophers were making for the existence of God. I finally decided to stop fighting and began reading about the worlds major religions. Ten years later I settled on Christianity, I feel it has the evidences from the big bang to well not today but tomorrow when Jesus returns to save us from our fool selves. By the time he returns there will only be one third of the worlds population alive...Not too good!

    Rev A
     
  18. RevAnarchist

    RevAnarchist New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,848
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think IC may also be saying that to be able to think of something; building a skyscraper for example, then it happens (it is built) is a form of mind over matter.

    Additionally I do not see where Incorporeal statements contradict, logically or otherwise. Of course if you were less general and precise exactly specifying the type of logic IC was supposedly violating, then perhaps you have a case. Nevertheless, you statement/claim was so genereal as to be vague, so IC’s words were logical and true. Maybe you would like to specify exactly the logic etc that IC violated? And. can you direct us to the offending statements?

    Rev A
     
  19. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Like I said before, your choice of philosophy will not allow you to accept the various pieces of evidence that have been presented throughout the ages. Those pieces of evidence are in FACT ,,,,, FACTUAL.... but there again, your perception of evidence is not the same as my perception of evidence.

    You need to wake up and smell the various types of philosophy that circulates around the globe ... then pay attention to the subsequent forms of logic that are dictated by those philosophies.

    The philosophy of science is not the 'end all' of philosophy.
     
  20. dreadpiratejaymo

    dreadpiratejaymo New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Messages:
    2,362
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Oh, he tagged.

    Very well.

    The idea that a god exists defies logic. No one sane has ever claimed to have seen god. No one can describe god. No one has any physical evidence that a god ever existed. The only reason anyone can give for believing in a god is "Faith".

    Faith is believing something without reason. So really your reason for believing is "I don't have a reason, therefore I believe it anyway."

    Faith is a logical fallacy. Any reason that could be given for believing in a god could be correctly described as a logical fallacy.

    Is this like round 3 or something?
     
  21. Incorporeal

    Incorporeal Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2009
    Messages:
    27,731
    Likes Received:
    62
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The idea of God is a defiance to the form of logic that you choose to utilize. Unfortunately for you, you don't seem to realize that the form of logic you elect to use is not the only form of logic that exists. That logic you use keeps you locked in a tiny little box with so many restrictions that you cannot begin to grapple with the God of Creation.


    Almost right. All except for the evidence part. Tons of evidence have been provided, but the logic you use will not allow you to consider such evidence... That is right ,,, your logic will not allow you.... you are a slave to that logic.

    Thousands of 'reasons' have been provided through the centuries but again, the logic you elect to use will not allow you to consider any of those 'reasons'. You are a blind slave.

    Faith is only a fallacy in the perspective of that form of logic that you use. But that logic is in itself a fallacy, because it bars the consideration of religion without any substantive evidence to show that Religion and its logic can be refuted.

    Still round 1.... and I haven't even began to work up a sweat. Wanna keep going?
     
  22. RevAnarchist

    RevAnarchist New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,848
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Many sane people claim to have seen God.


    Wrong there are descriptions, anyone can describe God.

    God is intangible so what do you want ? Jesus was partly God. However God has no physical form IMO, however some Christians will disagree. Its not important anyway. As far as faith being all there is, its all a truly devout person needs. And I am very envious of that kind of faith. IT takes a disciplined mind to achieve a high level of faith. Most malicious seculars haven’t the ability to muster the faith of a mustard seed cut a million times. Ha ha just kidding!

    Really your claim is dim and lacks credibility. It reeks of a double standard. Science has faith that black holes exist, or that the higgs Boson exists, although there is ZERO physical evidence that a those things or many other scientific theory and such ever existed. So why believe any theory of science? In addition many science theories of old sound ridiculous today. Guess what, I would bet that in a thousand years most of today’s cutting edge science will be quaint myth. However if you pick up the dead sea scrolls and read a biblical book it will be very close to the original.




    Wrong. Faith can be to believe in something without tangible evidence etc. However pure faith, ie faith that is 100% is impossible to achieve.

    If you believe that you know nothing of logic. Logic can not be applied to pure faith, that statement does not make sense. It's like saying that water is a logical fallacy. Do you believe the sun will 'rise' in the morning? Why? Do you believe the stars you see in the sky are real? Or the sun hasn’t supernova? Why?

    No you were KO in round 1.

    Rev A
     
  23. FreeWare

    FreeWare Active Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 12, 2009
    Messages:
    7,350
    Likes Received:
    25
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Hey RevAnarchist, I can't make out your avatar. Maybe because it doesn't seem to be the usual statement of aggression towards others you employ as your avatar or maybe just because my eyes are catching up to my age. What's in the picture?
     
  24. dreadpiratejaymo

    dreadpiratejaymo New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Messages:
    2,362
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    0


    You skipped a post.
     
  25. RevAnarchist

    RevAnarchist New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 22, 2010
    Messages:
    9,848
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ahhh’ I don’t use avatars for any type of projected aggression. I suppose the one before this was kind of brutally intimidating eh? I do take artistic license by switching my avatars at specific times, that and to dull boredom. If my stuff can scare you they are more powerful than I thought! Or maybe you are a bit timid and/or paranoid? That is the first time in tens of thousands of posts that I have had a complaint like that!

    Note to mod resize if needed its still a fraction of the original 25 Megs….eeek!


    IT’S ME AS THE UNDEAD REV, SILLY!

    That particular rendering was one of many of me morphing into a ‘zombie/batman joker thing’. It was a commissioned piece for a 2009 Halloween promotion by a retail business. I make a few extra bucks on the side as a photographer and starving artist /Illustrator. I also write in the AP style for the local paper. Coming soon; Revs 3-D Animation! ha ha, next hollywood...BTW, My art/illustration and marketing began as a hobby but now it’s making more money than the non profits.

    Here is the full sized thing, one out of a series of ten originals, fifty in total (the others were copies with slight changes). Why so many renderings? it’s an animation of me morphing from my handsome self to a joker-zombie like character inspired by the bat man movie and the cult classic horror flick, the return of the living dead. Sorry you asked?

    [​IMG]

    Rev A

    Ha ha I didn’t know this until I posted it full size, its an unedited version not used in the animation! (by edit when working in layers and cloning tools etc most artists clean up the rendering with lines and such things) If it’s a photorealistic rendering it will be inspected for digital artifacts which are unwanted alterations in the raw photo data aka the original photo. I will sell you this one cheap...ummmm for you...ahhh...500 bucks would be fair!
     

Share This Page