As an Atheist what do you teach kids?

I can. You appear to be assuming a void comes with the lack of belief in god. Can you show this is true, and explain what this "void" is?

I can. But I'm not prepared to assume your meaning. Please explain what you mean by "irrationality" and how personal beliefs are "becoming a religion".

Really?

Your wording implies that one is a consequence of the other. If this isn't what you meant could you rephrase the point?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Again NO!

Atheism deals with faith, or lack thereof.

Agnosticism deals with knowledge.

Get this straight in your head before attempting further debate please.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

1. It's a circular argument, dwy. Pointless to elaborate on you'll just declare it annul but I'll make a small attempt. I dont have much time for this untill after 6 p.m. In our subjective reality, many people, if not everyone feels a "void" when it comes to understanding or placing a narration or frame of reference to our reality. If you deny this than I apologize and consider you enlightened. Or delusional for ascertaining the truth. My only point to "fill in the void ourselves" is to shew the absurdity that consiousness and reality is a simple mechanical process.

2. Based on the association "god" has with organized religion it is conduced he does not exist which is as absurd as this. "Jesus, gods only son, was sacraficed for us!" - this irrational warped perspective is what you draw your conclusions from.

3. Really. What is the fabric of morals threaded on. Let's adopt a purely scientifical standpoint with no attempt of understanding a philosophical or narrative reference what would it matter if millions died who were genetically inferior. What does life and death matter at any rate it will come and go. Your "feelings" for other people are chemical processing that does not matter. Or does it? This uncertainty is why I say people cannot "not" believe in god.

4. No I'm not going to rephrase it. That is what I mean not as a consequence as you describe it.

Phlo: So.... do you have faith in god or not ?? No faith in god is not believing god which is what an athiest is? In those regards I am most certainly an agnostic but not athiest.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Many? And this "void" is due to lack of belief in god?

What does consciousness and reality have to do with a "void" due to lack of belief in god?
And how do you know it's an absurdity to claim they're a "simple mechanical process"?

Oh okay, you're assuming again aren't you? You have decided what my lack of belief is based on, and that makes it easier(?) for you to declare it (and me) irrational. False premises lead to false conclusions.

Biology.

Because life as we live it isn't "purely scientifical".

But you're wrong.

Then I have little choice but to take as I read it.

 

No, I have no faith/belief in any god(s).

Yes, but not believing in something does not equate to believing it doesn't exist.

I don't see who you can be an agnostic theist though. If you don't think you can know the answer, you must have doubt, and merely be forcing yourself to believe akin to Pascal's wager. The position of agnostic theist isn't very sound.

 

1. Correct
2. Everything. For me anyway. I consider god the source of "reality" and consciousness. I dont have enough information to speculate further but enough to ascertain "god" must exist which does provide some closure to the void but as evidence of this interaction - not enough - and that's speaking for both of us. You can pretend you are not intrigued by your fascination of reality but you wouldent be trying so hard to discredit this and similar concepts if you werent seeking the truth. Being objective is the best way to filter but its not the same as being obstructive!

If It's a simple mechanical process we would have been able to demonstrate how to duplicate. Thus, not a simple mechanical process.

3. My assumptions are based on my observations. I want to hear a rationale argument against god besides ones constructed from organized religion.

4. Biology makes people care? That's what science/evolution states? Are you trying to infer an ultimate source of intelligence by this statement or is it a result of random mechanical processing?

5. We dont live a purely scientifical world? Judging from your posts about god one would be inclined to believe thats what you think.

 

I do have doubt as to how god exists. However I do have faith god does exist because in my opinion it is a more rationale approach to trying to understand reality than believing that we manifested from nothing or whatever because whatever for nothing. I think we are here to experience. I think this is intentional. For something to be intended, there must be a will and its beyond what we could ever understand. (My personal belief) Short of god screaming "Im here Im here" people are not going to believe and that's fine but deep down I think they do.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Ah, an assumption.

Unlike you I don't assume god exists in my search for "truth". And I am not trying to discredit anything. (except for specious claims and arguments). How can you claim to be objective when you've already decided god exists?

What arrant nonsense. Or maybe you expect us to have solved every problem in science just in time for you to decide we ought to be able to do it.

Against god? Why should I argue "against" god? I haven't been shown he exists, so what's the point in arguing against something that cannot be shown to exist?

Yes.

Yes.

Why would we even want to infer an "ultimate source of intelligence"? What does that have to do with a biological basis for morality?

Then you obviously (again) don't read my posts well enough.
If someone tells me a movie is good I ask them "Why do you think it's good?" Is that "scientifical"? Likewise if someone tells me I ought to believe in god I ask them "Why should I?"

 

deep down I think you're scared of the unknown and that's why you choose to believe in an imaginary father figure to comfort you.

 

See what I mean?

I dont believe in a father figure god or any other entity described in any organized religion. Deep down you must be a confused thiest. You have the same personality traits as one, you believe your statements are conclusive. You think you "know" something. Your god is random nothing-something that you postulate turned itself into matter.

 

You are not trying to discredit anything besides specious claims and argument? Why do you consider god specious and not your theory of origin? Please explain.

You do argue against god all the time. If you sincerely believe god does not exist why do you depict him with a gender? Why do you reply to so many threads about god in so many subforums you obviously have no interest in. When have you ever tried having a rational discussion without discourse in a religion topic?

So that does not infer an ultimate source of intelligence? I thought you would understand the link, apparently not.

You dont have to why should you interefere in people wanting to have a rational discussion about the possibility of god. Why discourse to witty irrelevant and stupid bandwagon posts. If someone says a description of the movie I dont like I dont hang around the movie theatres calling them idiots unless I have some motive to do so.

 

Because we have evidence for one and none for the other. And note that I said "claims" not god him/ her/ itself.

Correct. Consciousness is, at the moment, poorly understood. What's your point? (PS, if you're going to argue about the word "simple" I assumed you didn't mean simple as in 2+2...)

Links please.

Two errors. I have not stated that I believe he doesn't, but I have stated that I don't believe he does. And I use "he" because that appears to be the "standard convention". What term would you rather I use?

Slight error there. I can't recall ever having replied to something I'm not interested in.

I try to be rational in all of my discussions.

No. It doesn't.

Well obviously one of us hasn't. Please quote the relevant portion where an "ultimate intelligence" is implied in that link. Or maybe you're working from your predetermined bias again...

Because I'm asking questions: WHY do they believe in god? Etc... This is a science board. If you want unconditional agreement on god's existence then go elsewhere.
How can you have a "rational" discussion about god when it's not even generally agreed what he is, let alone whether he exists or not.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

If someone in my local starts spouting off nonsense about why I should see a movie then I'll question them. In case you hadn't noticed theists pop up in most of the sun-forums and espouse "god" as reason. So I come into the religion sub-forum of this science board to discover more about their claims.

 

Evidence of what? The non-existance of god?

:shrug:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"the standard convention" remember my earlier point about organized religion and your presdisposed bias on god that you deemed assumption?

So you are interested in religious, psuedo, para, etc. concepts but create discourse in the thread? Your illustrating your dishonesty just admit that you get a kick of it via self esteem boost and thats what your interested in.

Your right. There is no underlying intelligence in biology. It's random.

I'm so tired of this cop-out!
"This is a science board" that just happens to have "Philosophy, Free Thoughts, Cess Pool, Psuedo, Para, Art, Entertainment, About the Members, etc." ??

In order words the sole purpose of having a religious subforum is for the scientific community to make fun of those who engage ? Is there some psychological motive to allow this linked with the science of the mind or something? If people believe in god they should go elsewhere!! Hahaha when even scientests believe in god? What does science have to do with god?

How can we have a rational discussion about dreams and reality if we dont know if it exists or not? Because we have enough information to conclude that it would be useful to continue investigation.

Your not trying to discover unless you mean you diss people and cover your tracks with fabrications to rationalize your behavior.

 

Projection.

I don't claim to know, nor do I feel the need to make up a story to believe in.

 

What?
You: Why do you consider god specious and not your theory of origin?
Me: Because we have evidence for one and not for the other.

Now try to address the point without introducing straw men.

If we both agree that consciousness is poorly understood at the moment then why do expect us to be able to reproduce it now?

Given the lack of any preferred term from you what else should I use?

You do know what "discourse" means, don't you?

Again you seem to be reading something I haven't written. I'll try again: I am interested in all of those. That's why I post there.

"Random" isn't exactly the term, but you're on the right track.

Correct. If you bother to check the rules for each sub-forum you WILL find that opinions are expected to be supported.

I doubt that was the reason for its introduction. And i think you'd find that isn't how it's generally used.

Very little. But when someone makes claims about god, or the attributes thereof they should expect to be asked to substantiate those claims or admit they're just blowing smoke.

We have sufficient evidence to accept dreams as existing. Reality...? that depends on how you want to define it.

And yet, in many cases, the claimed "evidence/ information" is either not provided or turns out not to hold up as such when looked at.

That's your perception, not the actuality.
Please learn the difference.

PS:
You: You do argue against god all the time.
Me: Links please.

Still waiting...

 

What you said is a projection.
I dont claim to know nor do I feel the need to make up a story to believe in either.
The problem is you just made one up.
Alternatively do you have a belief in origin we can contrast to shed light on how stupid any made up story is?

 

Faith isn't rational, that's why that call it faith.

 

No I don't.

I don't make up stories. Reality is interesting enough without them.

 

So you do not believe in any revelations from god as described in organized monotheism, but you somehow think that morals can be derived from the simple existence of god? How does that work?

 

We dont have evidence on any origin, dwy, why do you insist in making things up? We have evidence on the evolution of origin.

I dont expect us to reproduce it dwy thats what I'm saying! Can you even think of the implications that would result in us doing something like that?

So you do admit you have a predisposed bias towards god due to organized religion? as I've stated....

Yes I do.

Interested in what is my question.

How do you know that? Please support that statement, thanks.

Opinions are supported. Your criteria: PROVE IT TO ME EMPERICALLY or ACCEPT MY INSULTS in a WITTY OR STRAIGHT UP FASHION. If thats the case why even have a religion, para, psuedo, etc. section???

If it had emperical proof it wouldent be a philosophy, religion, para, or psuedo? How difficult is this to grasp, dwy?

It's not generally used that way. If you doubt that as the purpose what do you suppose its there for? Actual discussion, right? Or regress?

They do give you there reasons, dwy. You do not accept these as valid reasons and continue to insult. I see so many people debunking without resorting to your nature of posting.