Zone1 I've been an atheist for 60 years and have never once been tempted to believe in any god

[Crick]

I notice you're as forthcoming with anything redeeming to this thread as you are in the envirowhacko forums.

My comments concerned your contention that it was okay because god doesn't believe in me. That looks on topic to me.

 

[Crick]

Again, your rebuttal fails to do the main thing associated with a rebuttal. It fails to rebut what I said.

Do come back when you can remember what you've just said.

 

[BackAgain]

Do come back when you can remember what you've just said.

Zzz

I used to have a modicum of respect for you.

Of course, I was probably drunk at the time.

 

[sealybobo]

except that violates your first premise. If the believers are the dumber and atheists the smarter then LOGICALLY when an atheist converts it is because he is smart and when a believer leaves it is because he is dumb. But whatever you are dumb for not seeeing that most obvious immediate deduction. Cheers

I never said any of that. That's your illogical deduction.

Let's see. Let me consult my bible on how I should respond to you

Why there is no god

Responses to common theist arguments

whynogod.wordpress.com

Number 13

1. Smart person X believes in god or ‘You are not qualified’.​

   Ad hominem + Argument from Authority.
   Invisible pink unicorns exist. You’re not an expert in them, so you can’t say they don’t.
   The validity of a claim, such as the existence of god, is not governed by the intelligence of the minds which hold it. Evidence and reason are the deciding factors.
   Sir Isaac Newton, one of history’s greatest scientists, was not only intensely religious but also believed in alchemical transmutation. Alchemy is, however, fully incorrect given our modern understanding of chemistry, the atom and nucleosynthysis.
   The fact that an intelligent person holds an irrational belief is simply evidence that our brains are able to compartmentalise world-views and models from one another, usually in order to maintain a state of ‘ignorant bliss’ and escape the discomfort of cognitive dissonance.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Did you ever see that movie "Bruce Almighty" with Jim Carrey and Morgan Freeman? Who the heck wouldn't want to be god? At least for a day or two. See the world. Meet a nice girl you can bring home to mother. Set up your retirement fund. And give my childhood dog back its sight.

My precious poodle girl was born with a bad heart. The vet declined to give her puppy shots. He said they were a waste of money. I went elsewhere. She wasn't supposed to live six months. She lived 13 years.

When she was ten, she got SARDS. Sudden Retinal Disintegration Syndrome. It took 48 hours for her to so from sighted to totally blind. She woke up one day completely in the dark. She cried. She shook. I held her telling her it would be all right. I rocked her.

They sell sticky scent pads to put on furniture corners. Fabric softener sheets of different scents stuffed in furniture gave her the ability to tell which furniture was her favorite chair. I got toys that made noise especially for blind dogs. I put rugs made from different fibers in doorways so she could tell what room she was in. It did not take very long before my girl was living much as any sighted dog.

Why didn't you help your dog? Did you need to rail against God so much that you sacrificed your dog?

My beloved companion is gone now but I thank God for every moment we had together.

Have you ever been hungry? I mean in pain from starvation. If there were really a God, wouldn't you never feel that pain? Never need to eat at all. Why do lions kill gazelles to survive? Surely a worthwhile God would have creations that never needed to eat at all.

The answer is that we are all living beings. We eat, excrete, know Joy, know suffering and die.

I am sorry for your dog though.

 

[Papageorgio]

What might you have accomplished during all the time you have spent attempting to communicate with your god?

Nothing but peace of mind, inner calmness, lots of positive meditation, time to express my gratitude for the blessings in my life, time to access life choices, it has been a huge bonus in my life, but that is my experience. It has been a joy in my life.

 

[Papageorgio]

The Golden Rule predates christianity by quite some time and appears in every religion across the planet. It is not the work of Jesus.

Believe what you need, I have no problem with you not believing in a God, it’s all good by me.

 

[toobfreak]

I've been an atheist for 60 years and have never once been tempted to believe in any god​

And you think you want to brag about that?

That is like bragging you've been eating floor scraps for 60 years and have never once been tempted to try Filet Mignon.

 

[GLASNOST]

And never will.

No one is qualified enough to know that.

Why did you change your avatar?

Now, we're getting somewhere .......

I felt like it.

.... ooooops, maybe not.

 

[Crick]

My precious poodle girl was born with a bad heart. The vet declined to give her puppy shots. He said they were a waste of money. I went elsewhere. She wasn't supposed to live six months. She lived 13 years.

When she was ten, she got SARDS. Sudden Retinal Disintegration Syndrome. It took 48 hours for her to so from sighted to totally blind. She woke up one day completely in the dark. She cried. She shook. I held her telling her it would be all right. I rocked her.

That is awful. I feel for the two of you.

They sell sticky scent pads to put on furniture corners. Fabric softener sheets of different scents stuffed in furniture gave her the ability to tell which furniture was her favorite chair. I got toys that made noise especially for blind dogs. I put rugs made from different fibers in doorways so she could tell what room she was in. It did not take very long before my girl was living much as any sighted dog.

They didn't make those things 60 years ago. We showed him where the furniture was and tried not to move it. He learned voice commands to stop, turn left and right.

Why didn't you help your dog?

Where the **** did you get the idea that we didn't help our dog? Did you just assume it because atheists are such scum?

Did you need to rail against God so much that you sacrificed your dog?

You are a piece of shit.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

That is awful. I feel for the two of you.

They didn't make those things 60 years ago. We showed him where the furniture was and tried not to move it. He learned voice commands to stop, turn left and right.

Where the **** did you get the idea that we didn't help our dog? Did you just assume it because atheists are such scum?

You are a piece of shit.

I struck a nerve.

 

[zaangalewa]

It was in reference to a poster.

Actually, these days, natural science is thinking about multiverses

No. Natural science not thinks about multiverses. Some people love speculations in this direction. I too love such speculations because they are very plausible in my way to think but "ignoramus, ignorabimus". We do not know we never will know.

Interesting is wherein such hyothetic universes could exist - I guess this could be only a nothing - and if they would exist why we are able to think about such stuctures "outside" of our universe (which has no outside) if we are only a product of the evolution within our own universe. Indeed believes who believes in such universes that the spirit of mathematics is able to leave our universe. But what about if in the so called multiverse (which I am only able to think as a nothing full of universes - what sounds a little paradox but is indeed possible if the sum of all positive and negative energies of a universe is 0) ... if the so called mulitverse contains also universes without mathematical structure and without natural laws and so also without any form of rationality? What is this? An ultimate hell?

within which (could they be traversed) one would find a infinitude of "truths"

You insult Dr Hawking if you claim he was an atheist only because he was angry about his condition.

As far as know he was always clear in this direction. He was an atheist. And it's by the way a little difficult to insult dead people.

You're attempting to project yourself onto our better.

I've heard the same.

How gracious of you.

If your belief is wrong, you will have wasted a good portion of your life chasing fantasies.

That presumes you are wrong.

You can know the odds and the odds aren't good.

And you think christianity makes sense of it?

What makes you think a god is necessary for life and love? It has been my experience that we humans, all on our own, can create and share such things with both hands.

Okay. I read this. I am not able to say that you are interested in anything what could have to do with truth.

 

[Insaneworld]

So you believe it is correct and proper for scripture's primary thrust be improving the material interests of human beings? Makes me wonder for what or whom religion actually exists.

It's not proper at all, but it is what it is. There is still value in The Bible, but we should also recognize that The Bible was curated centuries after Jesus, by powerful people which had persecuted many other Christians before that. This is why I encourage everyone I talk to about this to think on things for themselves, openly and in good faith, and not to simply trust whatever some 'authority' says unless it resonates with them.

What if faith fails to be of material human interest? ; - ) I agree. Pascal didn't think much of his god.

I agree Pascal's wager isn't very useful (to me), but some views of it have helped others here in the thread, according to them. If God fails to be of interest as a concept, there's not much that can be done I think, it must be a genuine calling. That said for many of us, it is a genuine interest, and so here we are.

Would you merge Jahweh with the Hindu pantheon? Why not? All things are possible.

Our human conception of God and divinity is a bit varied. For me, what is important is that God exists and is good, and that God placed an inherent goodness in the physical Universe on a very large scale. I think it's necessary to emphasize this inherent goodness exists on a large scale, since locally in time and space there are many imperfections and evil which exists. In my opinion, Jesus fits perfectly into this view, and it leaves open the door for a lot of other beliefs, it's not exclusionary at all.

With some reinterpretation and a lot of study, I think all major religions can be balanced and combined. Science can be included too, but for this we have to take a critical look of religion and do so in good faith, which is not common. Most people are only interested (in good faith) in one of these, science or religion.

I couldn't find it when I went back but I thought there was a hard reference to Jesus or his teachings. But I see you wondering what christianity's role might have been in the Hellenistic period. Were you under the impression that christianity preceded the birth of Jesus?

I think you still misunderstand what I tried to add to that discussion, which is basically that morality doesn't necessarily derive from reason. The 'Hellenistic times', which I missed by 100 years (lol), are only relevant to that point in two ways: 1) Christianity and Jesus were NOT as influential since they did not exist during those times, and 2) supposedly, reason itself was highly valued.

Since the people sieging Melos (Athenians) valued reason, were not Christian and still justified highly immoral actions, missing the time period is not of much importance.

 

[Frankenstein]

If you think I've plagiarized someone, you need to clearly identify the suspect text of mine and what you believe to be its actual source. If you're having trouble finding the actual source, pass it on to management along with your suspicions and perhaps they can find it. There may also be resources on the web, particularly with those AI bots, that could help you identify the source of my texts. It's important that someone claiming something that simply didn't happed be fully exposed. Right?

And don't forget that line you heard from Rudolph's mother.

Or you could withdraw your unfounded accusation.

No need to look it up to find it I don't care, but you are a liar and did not write that!

 

[Crick]

I struck a nerve.

By baselessly accusing me of having abused my dog? Are you proud of yourself?

 

[Blues Man]

Yes!
Who is angry, why is the one that comes to the religion section to debate something he doesn't believe in thinks people angry? You prove my point by purposely coming in this forum, and saying you don't believe, like we are suppose to give you some sort of award. Congratulations you get to go to hell!

Why is it you think this thread or forum is yours?

Tell you what if you want a members only forum go create one and you can have your little echo chamber

 

[Crick]

No. Natural science not thinks about multiverses.

https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/multiverse.pdf

The Case for Parallel Universes

Why the multiverse, crazy as it sounds, is a solid scientific idea

www.scientificamerican.com

Universe

Universe, an international, peer-reviewed Open Access journal.

www.mdpi.com

Multiverse News, Research and Analysis - The Conversation

Browse Multiverse news, research and analysis from The Conversation

theconversation.com

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

iopscience.iop.org

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2665917423000995

Some people love speculations in this direction. I too love such speculations because they are very plausible in my way to think but "ignoramus, ignorabimus". We do not know we never will know.

You should be wary of projecting your limitations on the rest of humanity

Interesting is wherein such hyothetic universes could exist - I guess this could be only a nothing - and if they would exist why we are able to think about such stuctures "outside" of our universe (which has no outside) if we are only a product of the evolution within our own universe.

What makes you think evolution would create such limitations?

Indeed believes who believes in such universes that the spirit of mathematics is able to leave our universe. But what about if in the so called multiverse (which I am only able to think as a nothing full of universes - what sounds a little paradox but is indeed possible if the sum of all positive and negative energies of a universe is 0) ... if the so called mulitverse contains also universes without mathematical structure and without natural laws and so also without any form of rationality? What is this? An ultimate hell?

No, it seems to be your rambling through as many technical terms as you're able to come up with in short order.

As far as know he was always clear in this direction. He was an atheist.

You are the one that said he was an atheist because of anger at his condition.

And it's by the way a little difficult to insult dead people.

I disagree.

Okay. I read this. I am not able to say that you are interested in anything what could have to do with truth.

That's a very broad conclusion with a very narrow basis.

 

[Crick]

It's not proper at all, but it is what it is. There is still value in The Bible, but we should also recognize that The Bible was curated centuries after Jesus, by powerful people which had persecuted many other Christians before that. This is why I encourage everyone I talk to about this to think on things for themselves, openly and in good faith, and not to simply trust whatever some 'authority' says unless it resonates with them.

Bravo

I agree Pascal's wager isn't very useful (to me), but some views of it have helped others here in the thread, according to them. If God fails to be of interest as a concept, there's not much that can be done I think, it must be a genuine calling. That said for many of us, it is a genuine interest, and so here we are.

It's certainly possible for Pascal to be an entry point that later develops into sincere faith, but so could stubbing your toe.

Our human conception of God and divinity is a bit varied. For me, what is important is that God exists and is good, and that God placed an inherent goodness in the physical Universe on a very large scale. I think it's necessary to emphasize this inherent goodness exists on a large scale, since locally in time and space there are many imperfections and evil which exists. In my opinion, Jesus fits perfectly into this view, and it leaves open the door for a lot of other beliefs, it's not exclusionary at all.

Don't you ever worry that your "very large scale" is just another tactic for slipping by the complete lack of caring the universe shows us on every scale in which we live and can perceive?

With some reinterpretation and a lot of study, I think all major religions can be balanced and combined.

Ever read any of the old Norse or Icelandic sagas? In the opening of Egil Skallagrimsonnar, our eponymous hero, as a young man, gets into a rough and tumble game with an older boy who cheats. Enraged by this, Egil kills the boy. The grown ups show up, listen to Egil's story and then, essentially, pat him on the back and tell him to be more careful with whom he takes up. This was fully consistent with Nordic mythology. And of course the Old Testament also passes out death sentences left and right, but the personal care found in the christianity of the New Testament will not be easily enmeshed with faiths that put almost no value on human life. And look at the strife our species has already suffered from far less significant differences. How many humans have been slain over the date of Easter? I think merger is a fantasy that will never come to pass.

Science can be included too, but for this we have to take a critical look of religion and do so in good faith, which is not common. Most people are only interested (in good faith) in one of these, science or religion.

I know many people like to say science and religion can coexist but the problem as I see it is the inability of science to coexist with the supernatural and for religion to exist at all without it.

I think you still misunderstand what I tried to add to that discussion, which is basically that morality doesn't necessarily derive from reason.

Of course. I was only pointing out the timeline issue.

The 'Hellenistic times', which I missed by 100 years (lol), are only relevant to that point in two ways: 1) Christianity and Jesus were NOT as influential since they did not exist during those times, and 2) supposedly, reason itself was highly valued.

Since the people sieging Melos (Athenians) valued reason, were not Christian and still justified highly immoral actions, missing the time period is not of much importance.

Morals are simply rules intended to allow societies to function and endure. Different societies at different times and in different places, with different characteristics, different requirements, different inputs and outputs, will all have differing morals both in content and emphases. It is only religions with gods who possess that oh-so-malleable, make-believe mouthpiece in which the author's favorite odes and homilies may be placed. The common claim that the morals of my god are absolute is the result and the most heinous of ironies. I will take morals based on objective reason any day of the week.

 

[Crick]

No need to look it up

TRANSLATION: I don't care about the truth. I am just angry at this fellow for having embarrassed me and want to hurt him back.

 

[zaangalewa]

https://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/multiverse.pdf

The Case for Parallel Universes

Why the multiverse, crazy as it sounds, is a solid scientific idea

www.scientificamerican.com

Universe

Universe, an international, peer-reviewed Open Access journal.

www.mdpi.com

Multiverse News, Research and Analysis - The Conversation

Browse Multiverse news, research and analysis from The Conversation

theconversation.com

Radware Bot Manager Captcha

iopscience.iop.org

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2665917423000995

Natural science not "thinks" at all. People think. And for a physicist for example the idea "multiverse"is exactly this: an idea. It exists nothing what a physicist is able to know about a real multiverse if it should be real in whatever form of reality.

You should be wary of projecting your limitations on the rest of humanity

No. Not in this case. Physics up to now is only able to say something about our universe here. It is astonishing enough that "here" - the only "here" which we know and where not any "there" outside of the universe exists because there is no outside - are everywhere the same natural laws which we can use - but not change.

What makes you think evolution would create such limitations?

Evolution is a process of concrete fitness. In the end everything in universe has to fit to the universe. So where from comes the spirit - very concrete here "the mathematics" - which exists outside of this universe and fits into a possible multiverse?

No, it seems to be your rambling through

What went wrong with your enculturation?

as many technical terms as you're able to come up with in short order.

?

You are the one that said he was an atheist because of anger at his condition.

No. As far as I know Stephen Hawking was an atheist. And why this statement could hurt anyone I do not know. Tell me when he said something else.

I disagree.

So what?

That's a very broad conclusion with a very narrow basis.

Which conclusion about what is using which basis?