Atheism: See Spot Laugh

[G.T.]

Now define God

I would be shocked if you ever had one atheist attempt to answer that question.

The fact that they can’t proves they have never seriously considered the possibility of God existing.

Thats super goofy, and biased.

The correct approach to any belief, before being presented with a case/argument... is the null hypothesis.

Since atheists arent the ones positing Gods, i.e. the "positive" case then which party is it up to...to define the God they're asserting exists?

The one(s) making the assertion.

Thats just common sense.


YOURE saying x...exists.

YOU define x, then.

Herpaaaaderp

No. The correct approach is to identify the possible options and systematically work through each option. Something you haven’t done.

Thats what I have done, and that is the correct approach. Ive said as much.

You demand like a nance that anyone who doesnt reach your conclusion is somehow not looking.

Thats your asinine personality on the internet. Insufferable, and a complete waste

 

[Meriweather]

Since atheists arent the ones positing Gods, i.e. the "positive" case then which party is it up to...to define the God they're asserting exists?

The one(s) making the assertion.

Thats just common sense.

Isn't it true that atheists are making the assertion that we are matter--that when the brain dies, that is the end of consciousness. Isn't that similar to positing that when a TV breaks, that is the end of the signal, when in fact that while individual TVs may no longer work, the signal is going strong.

Should atheists have control of the public schools and promote solely this philosophy, when all throughout our history, and all throughout the current inhabitants of earth there is an alternate philosophy that our signal (our 'self") lives on even after the brain (the transmitter) dies. Should this be the case, then should we not be teaching our children that our thoughts, our speech, our actions matter--and matter a lot?

 

[G.T.]

Since atheists arent the ones positing Gods, i.e. the "positive" case then which party is it up to...to define the God they're asserting exists?

The one(s) making the assertion.

Thats just common sense.

Isn't it true that atheists are making the assertion that we are matter--that when the brain dies, that is the end of consciousness. Isn't that similar to positing that when a TV breaks, that is the end of the signal, when in fact that while individual TVs may no longer work, the signal is going strong.

Should atheists have control of the public schools and promote solely this philosophy, when all throughout our history, and all throughout the current inhabitants of earth there is an alternate philosophy that our signal (our 'self") lives on even after the brain (the transmitter) dies. Should this be the case, then should we not be teaching our children that our thoughts, our speech, our actions matter--and matter a lot?

K 1st, I dont speak for Atheists.
2nd, I dont believe atheists all have the same monolyth belief system

3rd. Im of the "I dont know" opinion for when we die...and I also happen to think that the desert religions are completely ridiculous, but served some sort of utility for their time.

 

[rightwinger]

Since atheists arent the ones positing Gods, i.e. the "positive" case then which party is it up to...to define the God they're asserting exists?

The one(s) making the assertion.

Thats just common sense.

Isn't it true that atheists are making the assertion that we are matter--that when the brain dies, that is the end of consciousness. Isn't that similar to positing that when a TV breaks, that is the end of the signal, when in fact that while individual TVs may no longer work, the signal is going strong.

Should atheists have control of the public schools and promote solely this philosophy, when all throughout our history, and all throughout the current inhabitants of earth there is an alternate philosophy that our signal (our 'self") lives on even after the brain (the transmitter) dies. Should this be the case, then should we not be teaching our children that our thoughts, our speech, our actions matter--and matter a lot?

It is more like a book you write your whole life. When it is done, you close it and put it on a shelf

Some books never get taken off the shelf. Others are frequently taken down and read

 

[Meriweather]

Im of the "I dont know" opinion for when we die...and I also happen to think that the desert religions are completely ridiculous, but served some sort of utility for their time.

Those "Desert Religions" address spirit and conscience. Investigating and researching that aspect of religion is much different than being critical of communication/education that were presented in the form of stories.

 

[G.T.]

Im of the "I dont know" opinion for when we die...and I also happen to think that the desert religions are completely ridiculous, but served some sort of utility for their time.

Those "Desert Religions" address spirit and conscience. Investigating and researching that aspect of religion is much different than being critical of communication/education that were presented in the form of stories.

Im not sure what you just said...but "spirit" is not an established aspect of reality...its mere speculation.

 

[Meriweather]

Im not sure what you just said...but "spirit" is not an established aspect of reality...its mere speculation.

As is the hypothesis that we are matter only. Scientists will tell you that it is speculation that conscience/spirit end with the end of brain function. As I said before, it is known that the brain no longer functions. It is unknown whether conscience/spirit is no more when the brain (matter) is no more.

There are two different philosophies in play here. That the philosophy of humans are matter only has not been proven. That being the case, shouldn't the philosophy of humans are also part conscience/spirit be part of the education system?

 

[G.T.]

Im not sure what you just said...but "spirit" is not an established aspect of reality...its mere speculation.

As is the hypothesis that we are matter only. Scientists will tell you that it is speculation that conscience/spirit end with the end of brain function. As I said before, it is known that the brain no longer functions. It is unknown whether conscience/spirit is no more when the brain (matter) is no more.

There are two different philosophies in play here. That the philosophy of humans are matter only has not been proven. That being the case, shouldn't the philosophy of humans are also part conscience/spirit be part of the education system?

There's more evidence that conscience is merely a function of the brain than it isnt, or that its something separate.

We can manipulate the physical aspects of the brain and change literal behavior, emotional attitudes and the overall functionality of the person.

Adding an extra assertion(conscience is separate) makes it the less supported case - the two cases are not equal, based on what we can actually observe.

 

[BreezeWood]

Im of the "I dont know" opinion for when we die...and I also happen to think that the desert religions are completely ridiculous, but served some sort of utility for their time.

Those "Desert Religions" address spirit and conscience. Investigating and researching that aspect of religion is much different than being critical of communication/education that were presented in the form of stories.

Im not sure what you just said...but "spirit" is not an established aspect of reality...its mere speculation.

.

Im not sure what you just said...but "spirit" is not an established aspect of reality...its mere speculation.

not speculation at all, ToE is based on the spiritual metaphysical transformation that occurs to the metaphysical physiology it created.

the transformation of one being to another is physical proof of the spiritual presence in all living (physiological) beings whether an actual in time transformation or a generational one over time being the same.

 

[G.T.]

Im of the "I dont know" opinion for when we die...and I also happen to think that the desert religions are completely ridiculous, but served some sort of utility for their time.

Those "Desert Religions" address spirit and conscience. Investigating and researching that aspect of religion is much different than being critical of communication/education that were presented in the form of stories.

Im not sure what you just said...but "spirit" is not an established aspect of reality...its mere speculation.

.

Im not sure what you just said...but "spirit" is not an established aspect of reality...its mere speculation.

not speculation at all, ToE is based on the spiritual metaphysical transformation that occurs to the metaphysical physiology it created.

the transformation of one being to another is physical proof of the spiritual presence in all living (physiological) beings whether an actual in time transformation or a generational one over time being the same.

Youve posited this goofy assertion before...Its cool and all but its nothing youve convinced me of and thanks for sharing the 1st time.

 

[BreezeWood]

Im not sure what you just said...but "spirit" is not an established aspect of reality...its mere speculation.

As is the hypothesis that we are matter only. Scientists will tell you that it is speculation that conscience/spirit end with the end of brain function. As I said before, it is known that the brain no longer functions. It is unknown whether conscience/spirit is no more when the brain (matter) is no more.

There are two different philosophies in play here. That the philosophy of humans are matter only has not been proven. That being the case, shouldn't the philosophy of humans are also part conscience/spirit be part of the education system?

There's more evidence that conscience is merely a function of the brain than it isnt, or that its something separate.

We can manipulate the physical aspects of the brain and change literal behavior, emotional attitudes and the overall functionality of the person.

Adding an extra assertion(conscience is separate) makes it the less supported case - the two cases are not equal, based on what we can actually observe.

.

There's more evidence that conscience is merely a function of the brain than it isnt, or that its something separate.

flora has no CNS central nervous system, a single neurorecptor.

to deny they have consciousness is to deny life itself ...

 

[BreezeWood]

Im of the "I dont know" opinion for when we die...and I also happen to think that the desert religions are completely ridiculous, but served some sort of utility for their time.

Those "Desert Religions" address spirit and conscience. Investigating and researching that aspect of religion is much different than being critical of communication/education that were presented in the form of stories.

Im not sure what you just said...but "spirit" is not an established aspect of reality...its mere speculation.

.

Im not sure what you just said...but "spirit" is not an established aspect of reality...its mere speculation.

not speculation at all, ToE is based on the spiritual metaphysical transformation that occurs to the metaphysical physiology it created.

the transformation of one being to another is physical proof of the spiritual presence in all living (physiological) beings whether an actual in time transformation or a generational one over time being the same.

Youve posited this goofy assertion before...Its cool and all but its nothing youve convinced me of and thanks for sharing the 1st time.

.

Youve posited this goofy assertion before...

you've never refuted it is why it is reasserted ... and is the underlying mechanism for ToE whether you recognize it or not.

physiology itself is a metaphysical substance that disappears when its spiritual content is removed.

 

[G.T.]

Im of the "I dont know" opinion for when we die...and I also happen to think that the desert religions are completely ridiculous, but served some sort of utility for their time.

Those "Desert Religions" address spirit and conscience. Investigating and researching that aspect of religion is much different than being critical of communication/education that were presented in the form of stories.

Im not sure what you just said...but "spirit" is not an established aspect of reality...its mere speculation.

.

Im not sure what you just said...but "spirit" is not an established aspect of reality...its mere speculation.

not speculation at all, ToE is based on the spiritual metaphysical transformation that occurs to the metaphysical physiology it created.

the transformation of one being to another is physical proof of the spiritual presence in all living (physiological) beings whether an actual in time transformation or a generational one over time being the same.

Youve posited this goofy assertion before...Its cool and all but its nothing youve convinced me of and thanks for sharing the 1st time.

.

Youve posited this goofy assertion before...

you've never refuted it is why it is reasserted ... and is the underlying mechanism for ToE whether you recognize it or not.

physiology itself is a metaphysical substance that disappears when its spiritual content is removed.

Refuted it? Its mere assertion. You jump from "I cant explain this" to "therefore it proves a spirit."

Its stupid, and baseless, which is why science does not say that "spirit" is the mechanism...it doesnt speculate and then assert as truth without confirmation, like you have.

You whackos need to be taught how rational thought is done... at all, and want to have discussions. Its so sloooooooooow

Also, no fuckin offense...but Ive seen your "arguments" around here and I think youre plainly nuts. So save it, argue it with someone else...do what you gotta do to get your rocks off but dont bug me with it youll be wasting your time.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Isn't it true that atheists are making the assertion that we are matter--that when the brain dies, that is the end of consciousness.

Which, of course, is a safe assumption. Your brain functions cease. After death, your liver and lungs arent functioning, either.

 

[Ringtone]

Now define God

I would be shocked if you ever had one atheist attempt to answer that question.

The fact that they can’t proves they have never seriously considered the possibility of God existing.

Precisely! And that's the whole point of the OP, but, of course, you follow that as you know as well as I that to define God is to not only outline his fundamental attributes, but to concede what the immediate empirical and rational evidence for God's existence is. These things are readily self-evident to anyone who seriously regards the problem of existence per the first principles of ontology. There's nothing mysterious about these things. The idea of God is a universally objective apprehension. But of the hundreds of atheists I've encountered, maybe two have seriously regarded the problem of existence and remain unconvinced that there is an actual substance behind the idea. Fair enough. But the others are just spouting slogans. As for those who claim to have seriously regarded the problem and yet still claim there is no evidence for God's existence, they're lying.

Of course, the other issue in the OP goes to natural and constitutional law. That too is a matter of first principles: Revisions and Divisions: the subversion of the principle of the separation of church and state

 

[Ringtone]

Which of the hundreds of gods should anyone attempt to define?

The gods have come and gone as various civilizations which created their gods have come and gone.

With enough weapons and ammo, you religious extremists should be able to settled the matter among yourselves.

Just define the universally objective idea of God per the first principles of ontology! The idea of God is not a cultural construct nor that of a materially contingent being, you nincompoop. Zoom! Right over your head.

THINK for once in your unexamined life!

 

[Meriweather]

There's more evidence that conscience is merely a function of the brain than it isnt, or that its something separate.

We can manipulate the physical aspects of the brain and change literal behavior, emotional attitudes and the overall functionality of the person.

Adding an extra assertion(conscience is separate) makes it the less supported case - the two cases are not equal, based on what we can actually observe.

Then we agree that the brain can be manipulated manually...which come to think about it, might be an argument for free will. Ask, if a brain can be stimulated manually, how is it stimulated when left to normal human growth? Could natural stimulation be by the individual's spirit?

Science has limitations, it only deals with matter, and what can be measured by the five senses.

 

[Ringtone]

Having been one of the students in those classes in the 50's, I can tell you that the problem wasn't that an ideology was being taught, but that only one ideology was being taught. When you say you want this brought back, what you mean is you want your ideology. Not mine, or a Hindu's, or a Muslim, etc. You want Genesis taught, not the Vedas or the Sutras. You call for school prayer, but when the teacher starts handing out prayer mats for the kiddies to bow down to Mecca, that will be an entirely different story.

If you want this ideology taught to your kids, then teach them.

I never said any such thing!

Hello! knock knock Anybody home? I am totally AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST AGAINST the state exclusively imposing any ideological regime in the state schools!

Project much or do you just lack the imagination it takes to grasp what natural and constitutional law actually require?

Pay attention: Revisions and Divisions: the subversion of the principle of the separation of church and state

Discuss the political issue on that thread.

 

[G.T.]

There's more evidence that conscience is merely a function of the brain than it isnt, or that its something separate.

We can manipulate the physical aspects of the brain and change literal behavior, emotional attitudes and the overall functionality of the person.

Adding an extra assertion(conscience is separate) makes it the less supported case - the two cases are not equal, based on what we can actually observe.

Then we agree that the brain can be manipulated manually...which come to think about it, might be an argument for free will. Ask, if a brain can be stimulated manually, how is it stimulated when left to normal human growth? Could natural stimulation be by the individual's spirit?

Science has limitations, it only deals with matter, and what can be measured by the five senses.

Normal human growth is stimulation being done via nature...and if determinism were true, there'd be no free will.

Thats why arises such things as Libertarian free will, and concepts like that...because actual free will is hard to defend due to cause and effect.

I dont really have a position on free will...except to say that the "null" hypothesis is that the brain is effected by everything its ever encountered seems most plausible.

 

[Ringtone]

While I certainly agree the other argument has no validity, neither does yours. There is no evidence. You can't apply common sense, probabilities, rationality or logic when there is no evidence. I can't see the air between me and the wall, but that doesn't mean it isn't there. I can test for the presence of air because I have information as to the properties of air. I have no information of any kind to make any sort of determination as to the existence or non-existence of any deity. In the absence of evidence the only rational response is "I don't know". Otherwise, it is just an expression of faith.

What other argument are you talking about exactly?