Home › Forums › Philosophy › Atheism Quarterdeck: Aspiring Christian Apologists Welcome
This topic contains 158 replies, has 22 voices, and was last updated by 
Sandals 4 years, 5 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
This room is strictly for debate between atheists and theists. Agnostics and moderates need not participate since they either haven’t read enough to take a side or don’t know what the hell they are talking about. (usually liberal co-existers who are tremendously naive about the human condition. All you fence sitters can go start another room about pussy footing moderation, this is a battle room for people who actually have a back bone)
Either there is a God or there isn’t, so pick a side and bring the logic. I’m not interested in hearing any of the usual bulls~~~ like “you can’t prove there isn’t a god or you can’t prove a negative.” We can prove there is no god by deductive logic and knowledge of a wide range of topics, you just insist on continuing to believe. If you think there is room for the existence of the god of Abraham, then this debate is not for you, you are a pussy agnostic and need to go start a thread for pussies. Expect many diverse topics and be prepared to bring the legitimate citations. (Internet sources are not welcome, they better be damn good) We will plunge into various pools of fact across; anthropology, quantum fields and astrophysics, biology, history, philosophy, sociology etc… Through our combined exchanges, we will know more and educate each other; we will reach a consensus if we have the capacity to be honest.
Mathematics began where numerology ended. Chemistry began where alchemy ended. Astronomy began where astrology ended. Unfortunately, religion never began or ended, since it continues to mutate and evolve. It’s giant assumption still persists to present day. It’s anthropomorphic nature; a hideous birth defect on the evolved hominid brain, continuing to reek havoc on the species. We certainly can’t expunge it from our DNA, this ludicrous desire for superstition, fear, divine comfort etc… but we can call it out. We can flush it out for ambush.
I invite all guests to ridicule or defend, logically, the moral nature of monotheism as well as the plausibility of it’s dogma. These are distinctly different topics, both deserving discussion. However, even if religion proves to be ethically beneficial (which it won’t) it still means nothing since it’s plausibility is nil! Does god exist, is entirely different than, Is it good for humans to believe?
We may as well begin with some of the most common defenses for faith such as the ontological argument, the physical constant argument and other pitiful attempts to invoke piety in suckers. Once we bash the s~~~ out of those, we can move onto other convincing arguments against faith and dogma. We can show how immoral and demonstratively destructive, such belief reliably inflicts on our species. Then we can finally marry our conclusions to sovereign men, the progressive male who has gone his own way.
Good luck and remember, You can’t go Yahweh and Your Way at the same time.
You can’t go Yahweh and Your Way at the same time.
Says who? If God exists, then if that statement is true, then MGTOW is anti-God. At that point, you choose God or not God. It’s not a statement on God’s existence.
If God does not exist then you’re just a chemical reaction. Your thoughts and feelings have no meaning nor value. The things you say, think, dream, and do are all purely chemical reactions. Nothing you can do can escape you from this, for all your thinking, considerations, and actions are entirely chemical reactions and nothing more. Finally, the Universe ends for no purpose and it takes you and all you’ve ever done and completely erases it, just as it will with your conscious, dreams, and everything else. This includes all the going in your way.
Finally, it’s a below the belt attack and predetermines the outcome. I don’t trust your honesty. I think you’re rigging this. It’s as though you elevate MGTOW to that of deity, but MGTOW subjects itself and owes it’s creation to the current status of things, as they are found, criticized, and observed. Conclusions drawn, and decisions made. That implies that MGTOW subjects itself to the universal laws. These decisions borrow from morality, since we make decisions based on what we decide humans should do. We say, “This is bad,” and that’s a moral law. In atheism, there is no morality. Morality is purely a theological concept because mother nature has no morality. In mother nature, there are fungis that bore into c~~~roaches and take over it’s mind, and eat it from the inside. It’s creepy-fascinating.
Double-finally, you’re absolutely incorrect. Should there be a God who created the universe and judges us, then there is a moral law. Shouldn’t he expect us to examine things and judge them right and wrong? Doesn’t he expect us to grow up and be adults, deciding what we will do or what we will not do based on moral law and what we need and like to do? MGTOW can only justify it’s existence in a theological framework, because that’s an adult decision based on sober information and judging morality. That’s exactly what God wants. In other words, the work here is dirty, but it’s Godly.
Tripply-finally, you just broke a important MGTOW rule. You’re determining what another man is to do with his time. So what if he chooses to pursue fairy tales and magic water? What if he discovers what he believes is the truth and decides to live it out? You just created a way to judge men by.
Its funny how I thoroughly know Im a “chemical reaction” as you put it, yet I still feel my life is meaningful. I still say “ouch” when poked and I still pursue progress. I still cringe at the toture of others and smile at their laughs. Yet, on the other hand, you have zero proof for your claims and have somehow brainwashed yourself to think thats somehow a virtue (faith). And who is saying life is meaningless? On my realist view of my own mortality, I savor every moment. You are the one whose dreams of immortality would strike a lifetime insignificant. Even if your silly god was real, how could you pressume to know what it wants, like you just did.
You’re displaying typical ignorance about the origin of morality too. Other mammals; dolphins, mice, chimps, to name a few, display moral behavior. Religion didn’t invent ethics. Im on my phone and lack the study but mice will even starve themselves to prevent physical abuse of another mouse.
On the moral nature of monotheism, I value what Sam Harris said in Letter to a Christian Nation, page 49; “You are using your own moral intuitions to decide that the Bible is the apropriate gurantor of your moral intuitions. Your own intuitions are still primary, and your reasoning is circular.”
Pretty lame beginning and fail for Crustian apology. May as well save face now and convert to atheism.
In atheism, there is no morality. Morality is purely a theological concept because mother nature has no morality.
Incorrect. The only morals that exist are the ones that came from evolution, “mother nature” as you so annoyingly anthropomorphize is it (I guess that’s to be expected since you anthropomorphize everything without ever noticing how vain and bias it is). The world has gotten by on nothing else, but the instinctive moral behaviors that were passed down and fit to each species. You may think they aren’t real but they are visible and actually protect you for being murdered outright everyday. On the contrary, your fake arbiter of morality is suspiciously absent in the cosmos. Where does your ethics come from? Outer Space?
Should there be a God who created the universe and judges us, then there is a moral law.
Who says? This doesn’t seem like a giant assumption to you? Should, would, could and if? You base your world around a giant “maybe.” Reality works without that assumption.
MGTOW can only justify it’s existence in a theological framework,
There it is, Christians, caught red handed, trying to bring bronze age myths and twisted morals into MGTOW. What part of Going Your Own Way don’t you understand? You’ve NEVER gone your own way in your entire life because your mind is locked in a theology of servitude. You haven’t gone your way because you still act as if an invisible sky monster will damn you to hell. You still navigate your life on tip toes around whether Crustian ideology permits your next desirable action. You aren’t a sovereign man. You just happen to think MGHOW are cool and want to act like you are one. Unfortunately, MGTOW and Christianity are oil and water. Mgtow is progressive; its the end game for men who know the facts, the fact is we serve no gods because none exist. Christianity is traditional: it’s the deliberate celebration of avoiding known facts, they celebrate blind obedience to a dictator that can’t be shown to exist. They carry on about plots that are impossible, that violate everything we know about the world. You are about as free a man, as animals are ‘free’ in the zoo.
This is all besides the point and elementary. You need to be brought up to speed on a lot of science. I feel like I’m talking to someone from Sunday School in the nineties. Even your position on a position is outdated by at least 20 years.
You’re determining what another man is to do with his time
Negative. I’ve only pointed out an incredibly obvious contradiction, that if MGTOW is a statement of self ownership, then you can’t own yourself and be owned by god at the same time. Somebodies authority trumps the other. If you think faith is excusable, and that ‘gawd’ has the final say in you life, you are not sovereign, period. You can be celibate and promote men your whole life but your MGTOW status will be hypocritical or at best, amateur.
Take a look at your view of life, completely dominated by wishful thinking, vanity and fear. You don’t even value the truth of life in the way that is readily observed and measured daily. The truth is what we see, not what we pretend or wish is real. Your version makes no sense and infinity isn’t real. Why the f~~~ would you want to live past death? I could understand a desire to live for a few millenniums or maybe more. But your celebration of potentially living forever is frightening! Why would you want that? Same goes for celebrating faith; why do you think betting is admirable? Wouldn’t it make sense to base your world view around indisputable facts and celebrate the only life we know for sure is real? You need to seriously re think your life.
I’m not interested in hearing any of the usual bulls~~~ like “you can’t prove there isn’t a god or you can’t prove a negative.” We can prove there is no god by deductive logic and knowledge of a wide range of topics
Well before all this begins you are stuck with one of two things. First you must post a definition of what God is, so we know what you are trying to disprove. Which in effect means you are proving a negative or only the physical universe exists. However you do not care about this contradiction nor are you trying to prove that only the physical universe exists, so it leads me to my second point/option.
If you do not give a definion of God, as to what your argument is about, then we are stuck using him as an axiom. This in effect would mean you are disproving an axiom that is required for your argument to exist.
Neither of the two make sense.
Also how much reading is required for one to be considered knowledgeable? Wouldn’t this negate all possible arguments by “fallacy of authority” if because it is written in a book it must be true? Otherwise why would one have to be well read?
Also what authors must one read and not be allowed to read in order to participate? How is the legitimacy of an author determined? Who is qualified to determine this?
If you think there is room for the existence of the god of Abraham, then this debate is not for you, you are a pussy agnostic and need to go start a thread for pussies.
So by default one is an agnostic if they believe in one of the Abrahamic traditions? So what is a Christian to “allow room for” without being an agnostic?
we will reach a consensus if we have the capacity to be honest.
So if we agree with each other then it must be true? Who holds us accountable for our honesty?
Mathematics began where numerology ended. Chemistry began where alchemy ended. Astronomy began where astrology ended. Unfortunately, religion never began or ended, since it continues to mutate and evolve. It’s giant assumption still persists to present day. It’s anthropomorphic nature; a hideous birth defect on the evolved hominid brain, continuing to reek havoc on the species. We certainly can’t expunge it from our DNA, this ludicrous desire for superstition, fear, divine comfort etc… but we can call it out. We can flush it out for ambush.
Please site where you read this or where you got this idea from. We will need authors, page numbers, etc. Otherwise we cannot prove you gain this knowledge through reading. And if you did not get it from reading then you are violating your first rule about having to be well read on the topic you are discussing.
so pick a side and bring the logic
otherwise it is all opinions.
You said:
I invite all guests to ridicule or defend, logically, the moral nature of monotheism as well as the plausibility of it’s dogma.
But before you said this:
This room is strictly for debate between atheists and theists. Agnostics and moderates need not participate since they either haven’t read enough to take a side or don’t know what the hell they are talking about. (usually liberal co-existers who are tremendously naive about the human condition. All you fence sitters can go start another room about pussy footing moderation, this is a battle room for people who actually have a back bone)
Which one is it?
Also which monotheistic faith are we talking about? If one is a monotheist but ascribe to no particular faith are they agnostics? But you said no agnostics are allowed. However, by default agnostics are theists. So which one is allowed?
Then we can finally marry our conclusions to sovereign men, the progressive male who has gone his own way.
Well then you would be subjecting yourselves to rules and in effect no longer be “sovereign”. However if I was sovereign, and declared myself a god though my sovereignty I would be a theist. But if I could not declare my “god-like” status, because of reason, then I would be subject to reason and therefore not sovereign.
By the way, does one get a prize for being “sovereign”. Do I get a medal, or cash prize, or maybe one of those nice little smiley face stickers? Am I better than others for being sovereign? What is in it for me exactly?
I am going to insult you. Okay? So I don’t want it to be said “John Doe” is an asshole/dick/retard/etc. I am going to tell you the insult and then I am going to explain why I am insulting you.
Okay?
You can tell that you stacked sandbags during your whole time in the marines. Between your rebellious attitude, emotional instability, and lack of critical thinking skills it is quite obvious. Your “rules” contradict themselves/are subjective/use excessive emotional language. How is anyone suppose to take this seriously? Who are you again?
“Beware the Lamiae”, it means “beware the myth” if I am correct. I guess that is a fitting name since that is how you view yourself in “mythic proportions”. Or all your arguments are based on false myths (such as religion being fundamental cause of war, Christians are murderers, etc.). Or maybe it refers best to your arguments, which like a myth, lack reason and fade with time.
Now why am I saying such things? Because if you do not make sense according to your own standards then how can you determine the truth in others?
You have a log stuck in your eye but you are pointing out the twig in others. But how can you even see if there is a twig to begin with because of the log in your own? Why don’t you rewrite the rules so they make sense. Give definitions for clarity. And stop with the shaming language directed at everyone.
You give the impression, although I may be mistaken, of being the type of personality that does not learn except through overwhelming punishment. And even after that you will continue rebelling. That is why, and I am guessing, all you did was stack sand bags.
Now is this personal? Yes. Is it an insult? In some respects yes, and in others no. It is more “rude” than anything. But you are a rude person. You demand things your way, without explanation, and insult anyone who disagrees with you. What do you expect? You only understand shaming language, how else is one to get a point across? You make us all look bad.
Anonymous42MGTOW and Christianity are oil and water.
Atheism and Christianity are oil and water, look out behind you, radicals are sneaking up disguised in religion (a religion you dare not mention), you live in fear, unlike Christians, you’re fear is knowing they’ll cut your throat…..
For starters John, glad you could make it. Lamia or Lamiae, to signify more than one, is in fact a myth as you said. But whats more is that it is a female demon who eats the children of men. Many authors through written history have mentioned them as well as paintings. A more famous one has a Lamia shedding snake skin. I think we can both appreciate a poetic license here. I use it as a metaphor for how modern women are. My name, Beware the Lamiae, is not referencing religion. It’s calling on Men to watch out for the villainous women, the man-eaters, the female hydra. I hope that’s clear now. It’s a name in support of MGTOW.
Back to business. The religions under scrutiny here are Judaism, Christianity and Islam and all their various flavors and branches. I’m calling out the easy prey here that pushes scripture. The god of Abraham. I’m not speaking about Spinoza’s god or Einstein’s. They were Pantheists. Their “god” was more or less the universe and it’s components. Their god lacked anthropomorphication. However, there are modern believers who are running out of logical ground. They are bending Pantheism to make it anthropomorphic, to make it a personal god. This isn’t surprising since we’ve seen the three monotheisms branch and divide countless times for countless reasons. Now, having lost to Evolution, and struggling to find plausibility in the modern world, it has to morph yet again into an even more vague and pointless idea that can be confused with beauty or nature itself. The modern theist has no doctrine or book to follow, no Christ to accept or Jihad to tangle with. He just thinks that energy and spacetime gives a s~~~ about him. How humble.
I should clarify and relax citation a little. I now admit, Wikipedia is a fruitful source, though not formal or trustworthy. It can be taken with a grain of salt. I also would like to say that if it’s self evident (and I know I’m giving you a huge pass here for trouble) it should stand here unchallenged as long as we’ve looked under all the rocks around it.
When I was speaking about religious tendency being innate in our DNA. This stands on it’s own. Please don’t mystify this but take a look at our species objectively; I’m not saying Bible versus are written into our cells. When you look at the nature of belief (anthropomorphism) and the track record for life on Earth, especially the last 5000 years; it fairly obvious that our knack for anthropomorphic behavior and thinking is ingrained. We are superstitious by natural design. We see a fruit tree and think it nurtures us, the Sun moving for us, caring for us. We get angry with machines as if they have a conscious. We even name machines human names and speak to them. We are delusional, anthropomorphizing beings. It goes back well beyond spoken language and even this branch of hominid. The very act of burying someone is anthropomorphic and we’ve been doing that for millions of years. It’s safe to say that anthropomorphic tendency goes back more than 20 million years. The answer to why we are like this is obvious. Neurology. This is an exciting time because we’re understanding how and why the brain evolved the way it did. Anyway, it’s self evident that the need to anthropomorphize our world is ingrained in human instinct. We are animals. Complex ones, but animals all the same. If this isn’t self evident then I’d like to see you prove otherwise.
Have you ever heard the saying, “If triangles had a god, their god would have 3 sides?” This is anthropomorphic. This is the thing that we’ve done too. Everything about god has been anthropomorphic to the letter and it’s a red flag. He is a he, he designs, destroys, loves, hates, commands, forgives, bets, envies, punishes etc etc… To throw in the political angle, he is all powerful, all knowing and forever. The ‘omni’ triad is really about invoking fear, awe and mystery. After we made him exactly like us, we had to assign also, whatever was infinitely beyond human capability. This is a red flag. So why did we invent a god that is just like us? Wouldn’t god, if he were real, be so alien and foreign in nature that no human could understand? But the point is that god is a human concept to begin with. The answer we desperately needed to make sense of things no matter how outlandish it was. There has never been evidence for god and there never will be, because the fever we’re under, originates in us. No such ‘thing’ could exist, especially in a deterministic universe. This is why the most brilliant man to have ever lived, Einstein, completely denounced the idea of a personal god. He saw the biased logic in it, he saw the finger prints of unreasonable human psychology behind it. Back then you couldn’t outright say, “there is no god, you people are fools.” Many people across history hide from the psychopathic mobs for fear of being blamed for a tornado or drought. But they would bury their first born in a post hole or cut the genitalia off kids all the same, to fit in with the cultural memes.
The philosophical and deductive logic surrounding human anthropomorphic behavior is enough to flat line the Abrahamic god, period. I know you don’t care to believe this but the absence of freewill also flatlines Him. Why stop there? When you really begin to look at all the angles, it becomes transparent that god isn’t real. Please notice I never do it the favor by capitalizing god. To me, the abrahamic god is no different than Apollo or Hades or Thor or Krishna. You must be atheist too when they are on the table, but why? Do you not think the people who worshiped them felt the same way about them as you do for your god? It becomes pretty clear after a while that the mere premise of the idea is flawed beyond repair.
You have to admit there is a variable that’s similar across the board in humans. The need to characterize a god, almost exclusively human. But when you look at the multitude of god’s we’ve made and evaluate the opposed claims they make, it’s obvious that none of them are real. What is real, is the experiences that humans have (emotional, neurotic, contemplative, spiritual). They have these feelings and even practice maximizing them. But they all attribute these meaningful experiences to a realm of imagination. We don’t have to draw lines in the sand and kill each other. Humans will eventually explore the best ways to explore this aspect of the human condition (meditation, prayer, ‘faith’ for lack of a better word) without having to make retarded claims about the origin of life. We’ll be able to reconcile our capacity for these life changing modes of attention, present in all religions, without inflicting psychopathic moral actions on the entire population of Earth.
You of all people here picked up the literary meme of saying “feel-good” religion. Of all people here, you should understand the idea and truth of memes easily. You should be able to admit that religion is damn near exclusively in the “feel-good” emotional comfort business. Why do these people gather, but to experience the glowing aura that we feel in groups, especially when the air is pulp with mystery and awe. They don’t care if it makes sense, they just know it feels good to keep doing it. They will continue to do it despite the erosion of a moral society, despite logical consistency, despite scientific mountains of data pleading with them to stop the non-sense. They are a group of drugged hooligans, emotionally gambling for a quick Sunday high. How dishonest do you have to be to see this, and fail to admit that it’s a misstep? The first step is admitting it’s a problem.
Just like in every human discourse, medicine, economics, physics, biology–we don’t have to know the answers to begin moving in a positive direction. It’s high time we move in that positive direction which will alleviate and make secular, morality and ‘transcendental’ experiences. We just can’t afford to ignore it anymore. Plus, we can’t make progress anywhere else in humanity because this blunder persists and blocks everything.
First of all, big improvement on the presentation. I am actually impressed by the 180 you did. No shaming language, etc. +1 for this. Differences aside, I believe we can now have an actual conversation with mutual respect from both sides.
Now with that being out of the way.
What exactly do you mean by personal God? If you are referring to a God that is only personal, then I would have to agree and say one does not exist. If you are saying one that is impersonal only, then I would have to say that doesn’t exist either. Both version are limited due to being personal only or impersonal only. To have any limit, in this regard, would not allow God in essence to be God.
After we made him exactly like us, we had to assign also, whatever was infinitely beyond human capability. This is a red flag.
According to these faiths, we were made as images of God. Not the otherway around. And as and image there are many similiarities and reflections of truths, but due to the nature of an image than can be incomplete or distorted.
Everything about god has been anthropomorphic to the letter and it’s a red flag. He is a he, he designs, destroys, loves, hates, commands, forgives, bets, envies, punishes etc etc… To throw in the political angle, he is all powerful, all knowing and forever.
I don’t see how a God can be anything but anthroporphic (I don’t like the word because its states the Creator was made in our image, instead of vice versa. I will use it, though to prevent any confusion in regards to definitions.) Mathematics and the various sciences cannot spontaneously create answers or give answers to philosophical problems. To have an anthropomorphic God, is to say that there is a God who has a “will”. Math, philosophy, the various sciences, do not have a will. To say something is anthropomorphic is to say that it wills things. Destroy, love, hate, etc. are all examples of a will in action. Now, where as a man might love or hate things that are either illogical or inconsistent with reality, a true God would know what to do with these things (love, hate, etc.) correctly.
These things are not strictly emotional but fundamental forces of will, not dependent on nor excluding emotion.
The philosophical and deductive logic surrounding human anthropomorphic behavior is enough to flat line the Abrahamic god, period. I know you don’t care to believe this but the absence of freewill also flatlines Him.
In the Abrahamic religions there is exact commands to not anthroporphize God. No idols, images, etc. He is also called the unseen God or strictly “I am”. All “emotions” are just manifestations of will. In Christianity God takes the form of man, but this is not anthropomorphization (because this requires imitating attributes) but rather man becoming God and God becoming man. To imitate is one thing, to become is another.
What is real, is the experiences that humans have (emotional, neurotic, contemplative, spiritual). They have these feelings and even practice maximizing them. But they all attribute these meaningful experiences to a realm of imagination. We don’t have to draw lines in the sand and kill each other. Humans will eventually explore the best ways to explore this aspect of the human condition (meditation, prayer, ‘faith’ for lack of a better word) without having to make retarded claims about the origin of life. We’ll be able to reconcile our capacity for these life changing modes of attention, present in all religions, without inflicting psychopathic moral actions on the entire population of Earth.
They do not attribute these experiences to the realm of imagination, as least the genuine ones do not. But I am having a tough time understanding what you are trying to say here.
People kill eachother. The only time a religion gives a command to kill would be in the old testament inorder to keep order, however that was revealed as incomplete through the new testament. Also, all civilizations of the time practiced killing. Judaism and Christianity actually prevented many of these beliefs. Child sacrifice was common amongst the pagans, along with murder for various issues, persecutions are rampant, etc. Self defense and a just war (which is very rare and fundamentally defensive) are the only times in Christianity killing is allowed.
Islam is another issue. I cannot and will not argue about that. If I am correct they are allowed to lie and kill in many aspects.
You should be able to admit that religion is damn near exclusively in the “feel-good” emotional comfort business. Why do these people gather, but to experience the glowing aura that we feel in groups, especially when the air is pulp with mystery and awe. They don’t care if it makes sense, they just know it feels good to keep doing it. They will continue to do it despite the erosion of a moral society, despite logical consistency, despite scientific mountains of data pleading with them to stop the non-sense.
This is true and also false. In the mega churches this is true. In Catholic and Orthodox faiths it is not about “feel-good”. Although one is expected to worship using ones whole self, it leaves emotion as only a small part of the faith. You have to understand these “feel goods” do not even follow their own faith. As a matter of fact, these “erosions” in societ ty you point to, are a deficiency in many of these values and ethics. Can I ask what form
of Christianity you were exposed to so I can figure out where you got these impressions?In regards to the science proving religion to be non sense, what studies are you talking about? If anything human biology, expressed in the brain, points to the
necessity of religion, in some form or another, as a natural part of existence. As to which religion is correct is another problem.
In summary:
Religion is not fundamentally emotional. If you did any brief reading of a Catholic catechesis or Orthodox philosophy one would have to conclude that reason is a large portion of certain faiths.I would have to ask again, what Christian faiths you are pointing too? I am under the impression you are talking about some megachurch or something. If this is the case then I would have to agree with some of your prior points.
In short, to save everything from being long winded, can you condense your points?
This wont disprove that there is a god but what is gods name(according to the christians)? Dont tell me its i am cause i am isnt a name. Dont reply here because im posting a topic about this.
I'm married to the game,but she broke her vows.
I’m going to chime in to share my opinion on this topic.
This is a “generally” pointless topic. Here are my cents.
1.) Severe hierarchy of complexity apparent, from He, and H forming into more complex and heavier elements from the dead insides of stars.
2.) Order of nature, displays extreme purpose and niche filling.
3.) First intelligent creatures from this planet, reinforces point 1, as evolution has finally lead to us, and we are leading it to star travel and A.I.
A.I will make humans look slow and incapable by contrast.
4.) Obvious mass intelligence behind everything. Obvious. Is it Yahweh? Probably not.
How the simple, leads to the more complex– stars to humans– who still entirely rely… on stars.
Nothing is a coincidence. I firmly believe that…
5.) Clockwork universe is a fallacy. You are not a bunch of chemical reactions, you are not predestined.
6.) You are made up of atoms, who at the base levels of understanding, act as waves and have electrons that can be statistically in all places at once around the atom and inside the protons/neutrons, no possible way to be “predestined” it is chaos in a manner of speaking.
7.) This topic gets millions killed and has held mankind back for thousands of years.
8.) Double slit experiment proves, consciousness is a thing. When you measure something, you collapse a wave function. Therefore consciousness forces it into one location. I.e. particles going through both slits when watched and all slits when unobserved. Interference patterns vs no interference patterns.
9.) Space is a thing. We’re still trying to understand Dark matter and dark energy. That is actually what “most” of the universe is made up of, and we don’t understand it yet.
10.) I have no strings to hold me down, make me fret, or make me frown. I had strings but now I’m free. There are no strings on me.
Healthy debates are healthy, I just don’t see this one ending in much productivity.
4.) Obvious mass intelligence behind everything.
I liked some of what you began with but this quote I have you with above; this is speculation and anthropomorphic. When you look at the cosmos objectively or with even an iota of understanding how big it is, there is no “intelligence attached.” This is the type of anthropomorphic hogwash that begets entire religions. I’m curious to know what you mean by that. First you get me excited with Hydrogen and Helium mentions, then commit intellectual suicide by damn near saying the universe was created. What intelligence? All I see is misdesign and waste, here on Earth and up above. We can’t even see the edge of the universe. It took me a while to understand this because we can see the CMB but because of how old our Sun is compared to when the Big Bang happened. All the billions of galaxies we see are only a 3rd or less of whats even further out there, unvisible to us because of how late we arrived. Watch Dawkins and DeGrase Tyson guy.
5.) Clockwork universe is a fallacy. You are not a bunch of chemical reactions, you are not predestined. 6.) You are made up of atoms, who at the base levels of understanding, act as waves and have electrons that can be statistically in all places at once around the atom and inside the protons/neutrons, no possible way to be “predestined” it is chaos in a manner of speaking.
You are also mistaken here pal. We barely know anything about the quantum level, having barely begun studying it. In a hundred years, what you think of as “chance” or unpredictable may be entirely predictable, Einstein actually believed we would figure it out, I also agree with him. Its too early to say. In either case, It doesn’t change the fact that we do live in a Deterministic universe. Unrpedictability on the quantum level still afford you no control on a conscious level. Therefore, Freewill is still an illusion. Please don’t confuse predestinstion/fatalism with a universe that is Casual in total. John Doe and I disagree tremendously here. See the thread Freewill vs Destiny.
To sum it up, we do live in a clockwork universe. We can’t see what we’ll do tomorrow but we are poor calculators. If enough variables were known, a machine could predict exactly what will happen 2 centuries from now. That’s cause and effect, that’s physical law. This is not a debate about Freewill, go to the other thread for that. John and I disagree, but I know Im right and have already typed why in the other thread, Freewill is illusory.
Double slit experiment proves, consciousness is a thing.
Just because you watched the History channel or are able to grasp a few physcial concepts, doesn’t make you a physicist or give you cause to make wild speculations like this one above. Consciousness is not a topic for this room, period. Go start a thread about it. You spoke your peace and we can see you view lacked backbone. You tried to hold on to both sides, misunderstood science and then said that this debate wont help anyone. Well, that just not true. Go read Destiny vs Freewill thread or better yet, read Freewill by Sam Harris. Then come back and join in.
To John. I feel like it’s only a matter of time before you are a full blown atheist like me. It may happen 1 week from now or 10 years but its coming. The way you speak. If you stay hungry for knowledge and keep looking, sooner or later, its going to dawn on you. Especially the more you think about that anthropomorphic concept.
Have a good day guys, I gotta get to work fixing machines.
With that aside, you seemed a little “obsessed” (not correct word, but it will do) with this anthropomorphic issue. Its as if anything with human characteristics or similarities to human characteristics is by default false because it is human. If something is untrue because it is anthropomorphic in nature, then by effect we as human beings are false and have no truth in us. If that is the case, then one cannot come to terms with truth.
All I see is misdesign and waste, here on Earth and up above.
Actually, according to your philosophy you cannot say that. If everything is subject to the laws of physics (because only the physical world exists) then there can be no waste or misdesign. There can be no misdesign because that would imply somebody designed it to begin with. So we are stuck with the problem of “waste” with leaves us the options of:
-physics is inefficient
-what exactly constitutes “waste” and why? Who determines this? It is a very subjective question to an objective ideology.
-this violates the laws of thermodynamics, in that there can be no wasted energy. Just transferred energy. So from a physicists point of view there can be no waste.
– to have waste implies a directed aim which as not been met. It is implies a purpose or potential that has not been met. But purpose requires a design by intelligence. However, according to the Athiest there can be no greater purpose because there is no greater intelligence.
In either case, It doesn’t change the fact that we do live in a Deterministic universe.
This is not a fact, but a theory. As you said about quantum mechanics:
Unrpedictability on the quantum level still afford you no control on a conscious level.
But you said that, according to Sam Harris, all consciousness is fundamentally physical. But then you said consciousness is uncontrollable because of the quantum mechanics. This means there is no free will. However we live in a deterministic universe, according to you, where all things are physical and abide by the laws of physics, so they are predictable (if one was to know the variables). However to be aware of the variable would require a consciousness, which is unpredictable according to quantum mechanics disavowing free will,that should be predictable because of the laws of physics. That would means the laws of physics are clouding our understanding of the laws of physics. So in effect physics is unaware of itself and consciousness would be the illusion according to you.
If enough variables were known, a machine could predict exactly what will happen 2 centuries from now.
How exactly would all these variables be known? More microscopes and telescopes? Maybe a telescope app? Or a microscope wrist watch?
What would be the objective solution to discovering all know variables? And do not ignore this.
Just because you watched the History channel or are able to grasp a few physcial concepts, doesn’t make you a physicist or give you cause to make wild speculations like this one above. Consciousness is not a topic for this room, period.
Same for reading a few of Sam Harris’ books. In regards to consciousness not be a topic you said:
We will plunge into various pools of fact across; anthropology, quantum fields and astrophysics, biology, history, philosophy, sociology etc… Through our combined exchanges, we will know more and educate each other; we will reach a consensus if we have the capacity to be honest.
Go read Destiny vs Freewill thread or better yet, read Freewill by Sam Harris.
First point: fallacy of authority
Second point:
We will plunge into various pools of fact across; anthropology, quantum fields and astrophysics, biology, history, philosophy, sociology etc…
To John. I feel like it’s only a matter of time before you are a full blown atheist like me. It may happen 1 week from now or 10 years but its coming. The way you speak. If you stay hungry for knowledge and keep looking, sooner or later, its going to dawn on you. Especially the more you think about that anthropomorphic concept.
You’re an atheist remember? You are not allowed to feel. You have to view things objectively. You are starting to slip here. No subjectivity, remember? Remember, anything with an anthropomorphic structure is untrue and/or faulty. You have to become a machine, otherwise whatever you say is untrue.
Now let me here some BEEP BOOP BOP’s and some RRRRRR’s from grinding gears. Don’t let me down man, you are one of the few “intellectual” punching bags I have.
To sum it up, we do live in a clockwork universe.
You cannot prove that, there is no way to prove that either.
I do not get off on free will. Clockwork vs Free Will does not push my viewpoint either way. Since you cannot prove “Clockwork Universe” and claim an absolute, you ruin your own credibility.
Just because you watched the History channel or are able to grasp a few physcial concepts, doesn’t make you a physicist or give you cause to make wild speculations like this one above.
It’s funny you say that, because I am actually a scientist in real life going for my Masters in Hydrography. It’s also funny that in reprimanding my opinion and downsizing it so you can dismiss you, you incorrectly spell physical concepts.
You also said…
—-This is not a debate about Freewill, go to the other thread for that. John and I disagree, but I know I’m right and have already typed why in the other thread, Freewill is illusory.—-
Also “knowing you’re right” sounds like unfounded religious conviction.. I should know when to duck out.
It’s obvious that you belittle viewpoints that conflict with your own at this point, as given by the quote above. So I will not waste anymore time on you.
Your passion for being correct clouds your objectivity. Debating with you feels more like a battle with your ego than your intellect. You are not unique in this, you are not on the cutting edge and you certainly have as much conviction about your ideologies as any religious person I’ve ever met, which is not good for objectivity.
You belittle, claim you know you’re right when all examples you present are not in fact provable by any modern science.
Examples include. God. Chaos. Order. Time. Consciousness.
It is okay to debate these things openly, as soon as you start throwing “I know I’m right” about such grand topics you’ve lost yourself as an objective observer.
Even if the evidence which science gathers (because it deals in EVIDENCE not facts) were to prove certain behaviors of the universe on Earth, you could not apply it to all levels of the universe without a UNF.
You over reach, you under grasp and you come off as a generally insufficient and painful person to debate with….
Don’t feel bad though, you fit in with most people in this regard. Good day.
I’m an Aetheist, having chosen such a belief through logic. At risk of sounding like a special snowflake, I am more on the side of transtheism, or the belief that the existance/non-existance of a god is irrelevant to one’s life.
If a god does exist we should all be nice to each other and get along. We should live long, happy lives and when we die go to the afterlife and party for eternity. Or eternal punishment for not being nice.
If a god does not exist, we should still be nice to each other. We would be merely transient travelers in the night, our experiences much more valuable due to their finite nature.
I see why people would chose to believe a god. Being able to depend on something other than oneself for answers certainly does alleviate a lot of stress and fear of the unknown. Some people do not/cannot see logic in atheism supported by science, which is okay. If you’re well-behaved person and nice to others then what you believe is effectively moot. I consider “god” to be the desire to do good that exists in all people (for some it is more noticeable than others).
We are able to use quantum mechanics to make computers, the principle behind which is essentially “massaging” entangled aluminum atoms until they change quantum spin states, which are then interpreted. We’ve synthesized numbers with this system, even going so far as to make 512 quantum bit (qbit) chips. If chunks of aluminum are capable of performing math, it could be possible that our brains are networks of quantum computers. Why stop at just a brain? The whole universe could be a quantum intelligence, which would be a rather deist perception of a god.
The brilliant part of science is that it is always changing, always improving itself and discovering new and wonderful things, no matter if a god is running the show or not.You over reach, you under grasp and you come off as a generally insufficient and painful person to debate with
Now its your turn to babysit him. (hands over child). Remember he only understands shaming language.
It’s funny you say that, because I am actually a scientist in real life going for my Masters in Hydrography.
All hail Exsliventxs, he’s an undergrad in a completely unrelated field. Jeez bro, as if your gloating isn’t pathetic, you of all people should grasp the causal nature of energy and matter.
As usual we have to cover the same ground again. Cause and effect is what we see in physics, governing all matter. Only what can happen, will happen. This is the indisputable and objective truth of reality. So yeah, you can prove that. Nothing happens in this universe without being completely the effect of prior causes that no one can manipulate through freewill. You call yourself a scientist and deny determinism? A potential Hydrographer and ignore the causal nature of everything? Admit where you were wrong. Theres no shame on you man. I haven’t lost respect for you at all bro, lets just find some common ground. Dont get you feelings hurt.
Subjectively, freewill makes no sense either, but Im not going to re educate people who refuse to read neurology or other threads explaining it. It looks like we have some atheists here, thats great. And John Doe maybe gave up and left, that would be great too since he is constantly lost in imagination and subjective wish thinking, superstition and psuedo christian philosophy. To him, everything is governed in heaven and starlight was made by god in route to Earth. He thinks this is scientific. God bless him.
I imagine your field has to do with water, I dont know. If thats true, you should already know that our oceans are shook and tipped by lunar gravity twice a day. Our water is controlled in total by gravity. Why wouldn’t you admit that all biology, all life including us is entirely dictated as well by forces we don’t control. Thats the logical conclusion that resembles clockwork to me unless I missed something. We don’t control the quantum arena, despite however that arena operates, we don’t control it, it controls us. This is also passed over to neurology where we dont control anything, its an illusion.
They keep saying we have to unite the quantum science with relativity. Well we know for sure one thing they both have in common. That is that we humans are entirely powerless over both.
We’re supposed to be ripping apart the immoral and irrational nature of monotheism. So please team, lets get back to that. All I hear is a bunch of watered down atheists who want to avail space for theistic non sense. Where are the “militant” atheists who actually understand sociology and half a dozen other sciences? Instead, we have a devout catholic and a premature scientist who apparently thinks the workings of the galaxies have “intelligence” behind them. Do you attend Notre Dame or some s~~~ where the professors still push Intelligent Design or some Creationist bulls~~~. Jeez. Seriously? With all due respect to your education, they seem to be missing the important parts, like Evolution and Determinism. It still baffles me that people with any 4 year degree still grant respect to anthropomorphic thinking or religious bulls~~~.
Whatever, please forgive and perceived hostility, you guys are my brothers and I mean that. MGTOW all the way bros! I’m back to listening to Sandman and MGTOW messenger at night, getting revved up on mgtow again. 🙂 Lighten up guys, we likely agree on way more that the inconsequential particulars of science we are all learning day by day.
I don’t know why you are berating him.
After all the universe created him so he has no choice, according to you. Its as if you are disagreeing with the universe itself.
Wait, let me save you the trouble of replying and do it for you:
“Free will is an illusion!!! Sam Harris says so!!! The universe is governed by cause and effect!!! All of this is true because I say so!!!”
See? I am all for teamwork… I just saved you a bunch of trouble.
@john Doe
I don’t know why you are berating him. After all the universe created him so he has no choice, according to you. Its as if you are disagreeing with the universe itself.
Ha, very nice logic loop. That made me laugh. I got as far into his response as
Jeez bro, as if your gloating isn’t pathetic, you of all people should grasp the causal nature of energy and matter.
Never was I gloating, I was pointing out the foolishness of assuming everyone gets their information from a History Channel documentary. I actually go to school for science and while the field may be unrelated the objective concept of the scientific method is firmly ingrained. It was with this scientific method that I realized his claims were extremely similar to debating with a fundamental Christian, because “They just know.”
So combine the objective failures, the comparable religious conviction, the belittling commentary and I’d rather listen to a woman talk about her relations~~~, because at least with women I’ve learned to tune them out. I keep coming back expecting to see an improvement and yet his bashing continues.
I don’t put people down for not going into science, just like I don’t expect people to put me down when I pay for them to do my taxes because I didn’t major in accounting.
The projecting is real.
Ha, very nice logic loop. That made me laugh. I got as far into his response as
If you look deep enough, almost everything he says is a logic loop and/or projection.
So combine the objective failures, the comparable religious conviction, the belittling commentary and I’d rather listen to a woman talk about her relations~~~, because at least with women I’ve learned to tune them out. I keep coming back expecting to see an improvement and yet his bashing continues.
I view him as a philosophical punching bag. He keeps repeating the same things over and over, so instead of proving him wrong on one thing I get to go into several dimensions of proving him wrong. I gain a deeper understanding of my own beliefs. It is very difficult to find an intellectual opponent that keeps going after being proven wrong.
I prefer a good enemy rather than an average friend, so in that respect I kind of hope he continues “hating” on me/others.
His complete lack of critical thinking is actually impressive and, although annoying at times, can be useful if one learns how to tap into it. It takes effort to be that stupid, and that effort is commendable because it is not easy.
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
