Atheism: See Spot Laugh

[Meriweather]

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.

That is where spirit enters in as well...it, as much as nature, affects the brain.

 

[Ringtone]

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?

Natural and constitutional law demand universal school choice or revolution. The Warren Court gave us a cultural civil war that's pushing this nation toward revolution.

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

 

[Hollie]

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!

Your pontificating is tedious. All of the gods are cultural constructs. That is why the cultures which invented their gods assigned various culturally unique attributes to those gods. That's why you have the jeebus portrayed as a tall, caucasian looking guy with fair-hair and fair-skin. Westerners have simply created the jeebus in their own image.

I find it stereotypical that you accept a litany of human-based descriptions of your gods, add a "super" in front of them, and then accuse me of critiquing the philosophies that you admit are beyond your comprehension. I’m alluding to (and I am of course very much aware of) the difference between the varying lists of attributes of the proffered gods. I am also very much aware that to list attributes at all is to limit that which you are trying to define, which either creates limits for your infinite, omni-everything gods (a contradiction) or simply contradicts your gods. On the one hand, you want an unlimited being, and on the other hand, you want a being with specific attributes, most notably with loving and merciful qualities (for oneself; generally the assertion is anger and justice for others). Therefore, your gods either have characteristics and are limited (therefore cannot be gods) or your gods have no characteristics and thus are indistinguishable from nothingness. This is all anthropomorphic arrogance plain and simple. Everyone's concept of gods comes from various books written by men. It's so convenient that gods display all these attributes of humanity in texts we know are written by humans.

 

[diver52]

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?

Yours.

 

[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?

Yours.

State the argument!

 

[diver52]

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.

I note you took the time to remove what you wrote. Let me refresh your memory....

"In the series of decisions of the 50s and 60s that saddled us with an education system that turns out dumbed-down socialists and sexual degenerates, the leftist Warren Court failed to declare the only constitutional remedy that would have satisfied the imperatives of the First Amendment for all: either the public education system in and of itself is unconstitutional or a public education system without universal school choice is unconstitutional.

One size does not and cannot fit all."

You are, in fact, arguing for imposing an ideological regime in state schools. That is what those series of decisions (aside from Brown) were all about. But, if you prefer, I can give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[diver52]

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?

Yours.

State the argument!

We've been through this already and I see no point in repeating it.

 

[Meriweather]

That's an assertion.

I deposit those in the trash, so to speak. They have no conviction.

You noted that the brain can be artificially manipulated by another human (doctor/scientist). From this, I gathered you also knew that that the person whose brain was being manipulated to move a body part, or to talk, might say, amazed, "But I didn't do that."

No doubt that the body part moved. Everyone saw it, but "I" (the person whose brain was being manipulated) didn't do it. Gives one pause, does it not? Maybe worth considering before tossing it into the trash?

Look, I am betting we both agree that there is a humongous amount we don't know. For that reason, I do not think we should limit the field of knowledge to matter and to what can be measured by the five senses. Science itself baldly states it does not know what happens to conscience after death; that it does not know i whether the brain is the generator or if it is the receptor--there is no way of telling. (And doesn't the 'artificial' tests argue for it being a receptor of signals as well as the transmitter of signals?) In any case, because we do not know, this sends us into the field of philosophy, and both sides of the philosophy are worth considering in our educational system.

 

[Meriweather]

The Warren Court gave us a cultural civil war that's pushing this nation toward revolution.

Where I believe the Warren Court erred is in preventing any religion from entering the public square (education in particular) instead of insuring all religion gained entrance. The Bill of Rights states no law shall be made.... And then we go and make laws.

 

[Meriweather]

Theres a huge amount we dont know...we dont therefore assert things with no argument or science...such as "spirits exist."

Thats undisciplined.

Not, as in science, when even philosophically, it presented in the form of a hypothesis and are both probable and are a guide to further investigation. The reason science cannot enter into philosophy is because science is limited to matter and the five senses. Even with its own parameters, science would never insist that, due to lack of matter, philosophy does not or cannot exist.

 

[Ringtone]

I note you took the time to remove what you wrote. Let me refresh your memory....

"In the series of decisions of the 50s and 60s that saddled us with an education system that turns out dumbed-down socialists and sexual degenerates, the leftist Warren Court failed to declare the only constitutional remedy that would have satisfied the imperatives of the First Amendment for all: either the public education system in and of itself is unconstitutional or a public education system without universal school choice is unconstitutional.

One size does not and cannot fit all."

You are, in fact, arguing for imposing an ideological regime in state schools. That is what those series of decisions (aside from Brown) were all about. But, if you prefer, I can give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you don't know what you are talking about.

I did not remove what I wrote. What are you talking about?

And how in the world does an education system of universal school choice constitute the state imposing any given ideology on the people? How the hell do you figure that parents sending their children to the school of their choice is not precisely what natural and constitutional law demand? You're not making any sense at all.

 

[Ringtone]

We've been through this already and I see no point in repeating it.

Uh . . . dude, the order of posts is:

1. What argument?
2. Your cryptic waste of space and time, i.e., the "Yours post."
3. My post asking for clarification again for obvious reasons!
4. Your cryptic Orwellian clarification insinuating that freedom of choice constitutes some untoward imposition: freedom is tyranny!
5. Your non sequitur in the above.
6. My response.

Behold the muddled thought processes of lefty.

 

[diver52]

The Warren Court gave us a cultural civil war that's pushing this nation toward revolution.

Where I believe the Warren Court erred is in preventing any religion from entering the public square (education in particular) instead of insuring all religion gained entrance. The Bill of Rights states no law shall be made.... And then we go and make laws.

You didn't complete the sentence. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" When the government establishes preference of one religion over another, then it is establishing religion. When it forces people (especially school children who are required to be there) to participate in a religion they do not share, they are being prohibited their right to the free exercise of their religion.

 

[diver52]

I note you took the time to remove what you wrote. Let me refresh your memory....

"In the series of decisions of the 50s and 60s that saddled us with an education system that turns out dumbed-down socialists and sexual degenerates, the leftist Warren Court failed to declare the only constitutional remedy that would have satisfied the imperatives of the First Amendment for all: either the public education system in and of itself is unconstitutional or a public education system without universal school choice is unconstitutional.

One size does not and cannot fit all."

You are, in fact, arguing for imposing an ideological regime in state schools. That is what those series of decisions (aside from Brown) were all about. But, if you prefer, I can give you the benefit of the doubt and just assume you don't know what you are talking about.

I did not remove what I wrote. What are you talking about?

And how in the world does an education system of universal school choice constitute the state imposing any given ideology on the people? How the hell do you figure that parents sending their children to the school of their choice is not precisely what natural and constitutional law demand? You're not making any sense at all.

I get I am making no sense to you. Luckily, you are not on the Supreme Court.

 

[Meriweather]

You didn't complete the sentence. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" When the government establishes preference of one religion over another, then it is establishing religion. When it forces people (especially school children who are required to be there) to participate in a religion they do not share, they are being prohibited their right to the free exercise of their religion.

Note I addressed that in the previous sentence. The Warren Court erred by not insisting that all religion enter the public square (public schools). Preventing any is not the same as opening it to all.

 

[ding]

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

Not true. No one, including yourself, has been able to explain the definition of God they used in their analysis. This is why I say they have never made any attempt.