Reason To be athiest?

**Crunchy Cat** · 07-12-12, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by Jan Ardena

Crunchy Cat,

Reality as a whole?
You said it yourself.

I did use that phrase, but what I am not understanding is a particular concept. You applied the word "fixed" to the word "reality". I can certainly interpret that in any number of creative ways, but I honestly cannot discern the actual meaning that you intended. That is what I am asking for clarification on.

Originally Posted by Jan Ardena

Do you think that reality = everything?

jan.

Yes.

**SciWriter** · 07-12-12, 05:09 PM

Originally Posted by Jan Ardena

I take it you agree with gmillam.
Can you please explain the gaping holes?

Already did.

**Jan Ardena** · 07-12-12, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by Crunchy Cat

Yes (relative to our universe).

I am not sure what you mean by fixed.

I *suspect* that walls are something relative to our 4d universe but don't necessarily apply (even conceptually) to reality as a whole. But to answer the question, reality *does* have points of sapient life. Humans and dolphins would be examples.

Originally Posted by Crunchy Cat

I did use that phrase, but what I am not understanding is a particular concept. You applied the word "fixed" to the word "reality". I can certainly interpret that in any number of creative ways, but I honestly cannot discern the actual meaning that you intended. That is what I am asking for clarification on.

Yes.

By fixed I meant that you implied that reality is something that is distinctive, separate, but all encompassing, and that,we may or may notchoose be part of it.
You seemed ok with the point you made about some people maybe accepting God, but place it outside of reality.

jan.

**SciWriter** · 07-12-12, 05:11 PM

Originally Posted by kx000

God can not be seen to be not there. Think you are observing him in this very moment. According to theories God would have the power to hide from All.

Since 'God' is not shown, definitions and further definitions wouldn't apply. People can imagine whatever they want.

**kx000** · 07-12-12, 05:15 PM

But if my imagination is greater?*It consumes theirs.

**SciWriter** · 07-12-12, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by kx000

But if my imagination is greater?*It consumes theirs.

No consuming, as in true, for imagination is ever just that, even if further layered on by many degrees of more imagining. I do that in my fiction.

**kx000** · 07-12-12, 05:24 PM

What?

**SciWriter** · 07-12-12, 05:28 PM

Imagining something does not automatically make for its existence.

**SciWriter** · 07-12-12, 05:31 PM

Science has holism, too, in that the universe is yet of the initial symmetry or near-symmetry of the origin, as much of this symmetry still shows up in the changed form of stuff across a whole lot of space. It's not like anything else came along to poke its nose in.

**kx000** · 07-12-12, 05:33 PM

God is part of universe, Sci. If he exist. Can you show he does not? Surly I have presented he can.

**SciWriter** · 07-12-12, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by kx000

Surly I have presented he can.

I must have missed this. Can you summarize the proof?

**kx000** · 07-12-12, 05:40 PM

There is a universe (everything down to my imagination, and yours) for him to God over. Whatever that would entail. What is his nature, could we figure?

**SciWriter** · 07-12-12, 05:44 PM

Originally Posted by kx000

There is a universe (everything down to my imagination, and yours) for him to God over. Whatever that would entail. What is his nature, could we figure?

You are going on further about an idea that has nothing shown for it. I could only offer complete fiction.

**Crunchy Cat** · 07-12-12, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by Jan Ardena

By fixed I meant that you implied that reality is something that is distinctive, separate, but all encompassing, and that,we may or may notchoose be part of it.
You seemed ok with the point you made about some people maybe accepting God, but place it outside of reality.

jan.

In that case, that wasn't the intended message. I did intend to imply that reality is all encompassing but definitely not distinctive, seperate, with any kind of choice to be or not be a part of it. The point about placing 'God' outside of reality was to exemplify what someone *might* do to try and protect the idea of 'God' from scrutiny. Basically psychological games that don't by any means have a correlation to reality.

**SciWriter** · 07-12-12, 06:13 PM

Jan and KX,

You (may) want a ‘God’—a thinking, planning, designing, and creating Being with the highest system of mind to have just been sitting around forever, somehow fully formed, as the First, being ahead of its system’s parts, who doesn’t even have any earliest memory, then making a universe, some of which has life, not even responsible in the least for its own talent, but to still be worshipped.

Then, no matter that ‘God’ has not not shown, merrily go on to declare properties and additions, coming up with more imaginations on top of that, etc., such as ‘God’ being the meanest character in all of literary fiction, which is really beside the point, ignoring and/or neglecting all science, reason, philosophy, and logic against, which would happen to people because strong belief ‘by faith’ is really ‘by unknown invisibles’ and so is not ‘by’ anything.

This is ‘invisibility disorder’, which we should put into DSM V, is is from brain wires firing together becoming wired together (being grooved), along with the comfort of the belief having a direct path into consciousness, as strong emotions do, bypassing the logical and rational parts of the brain.

The whole idea of ‘God’ is a simple one that just goes one imaginary level up and then halts, with all thinking stopped, or never begun, either wanting life to always be from Life, then instantly and unreasonably abandoning the template, or, simpler yet, such as in basing the idea on the old family structure—that of a strict father figure ruling the family, but this is merely a conception of our world, one that is extended upwards, which ‘upwards’ is yet another error, for to the simpler is the basis, as complexity comes from that.

**kx000** · 07-12-12, 10:38 PM

Originally Posted by SciWriter

Jan and KX,

You (may) want a ‘God’—a thinking, planning, designing, and creating Being with the highest system of mind to have just been sitting around forever,

Define forever, surly he would have been born to evolve, always.

somehow fully formed, as the First, being ahead of its system’s parts, who doesn’t even have any earliest memory, then making a universe, some of which has life, not even responsible in the least for its own talent, but to still be worshipped.

Speculation.

Then, no matter that ‘God’ has not not shown, merrily go on to declare properties and additions, coming up with more imaginations on top of that, etc., such as ‘God’ being the meanest character in all of literary fiction, which is really beside the point, ignoring and/or neglecting all science, reason, philosophy, and logic against, which would happen to people because strong belief ‘by faith’ is really ‘by unknown invisibles’ and so is not ‘by’ anything.

Ramble on. We do not support any given organized religion, more than good morality. Faith drives us all. Religion will always be there for us, we like religion. Its fun.

This is ‘invisibility disorder’, which we should put into DSM V, is is from brain wires firing together becoming wired together (being grooved), along with the comfort of the belief having a direct path into consciousness, as strong emotions do, bypassing the logical and rational parts of the brain.

I understand faith, and reason. One does not clash with another.

**SciWriter** · 07-12-12, 11:28 PM

Originally Posted by kx000

Define forever, surly he would have been born to evolve, always.

Then he is not First and Fundamental, but proposed to be an alien life form. Forever things can't exist because they have no definition points for how they are.

Originally Posted by kx000

Speculation.

Yes, by the theists claiming such things.

Originally Posted by kx000

Ramble on.

That's your way of 'neglecting'.

Originally Posted by kx000

We do not support any given organized religion, more than good morality. Faith drives us all. Religion will always be there for us, we like religion. Its fun.

Yes, it can be fun.

Originally Posted by kx000

I understand faith, and reason. One does not clash with another.

'Faith' has no reason. Opposites often clash.

**Hoatzin** · 07-13-12, 02:16 AM

my last post should go here - link?

**Jan Ardena** · 07-13-12, 03:29 AM

SciWriter,

Jan and KX,

You (may) want a ‘God’—a thinking, planning, designing, and creating Being with the highest system of mind to have just been sitting around forever, somehow fully formed, as the First, being ahead of its system’s parts, who doesn’t even have any earliest memory, then making a universe, some of which has life, not even responsible in the least for its own talent, but to still be worshipped.

''Want'' doesn't come into it.

Then, no matter that ‘God’ has not not shown, merrily go on to declare properties and additions, coming up with more imaginations on top of that, etc., such as ‘God’ being the meanest character in all of literary fiction, which is really beside the point, ignoring and/or neglecting all science, reason, philosophy, and logic against, which would happen to people because strong belief ‘by faith’ is really ‘by unknown invisibles’ and so is not ‘by’ anything.

This is nonsense.

The whole idea of ‘God’ is a simple one that just goes one imaginary level up and then halts, ...

It is a simple one because it is for every person, including yourself. But as you have found out on a number of occasions, it can be extremely complex for those who prefer that.

...with all thinking stopped, or never begun, either wanting life to always be from Life, then instantly and unreasonably abandoning the template, or, simpler yet, such as in basing the idea on the old family structure—that of a strict father figure ruling the family, but this is merely a conception of our world, one that is extended upwards, which ‘upwards’ is yet another error, for to the simpler is the basis, as complexity comes from that.

''All thinking stopped'', or never even begun?
Is that what you think about every human who believes or believed in God? Has it ever occurred to you that you are
just plain bitter and angry, and your letting it off on theists?

jan.

**Jan Ardena** · 07-13-12, 03:35 AM

Originally Posted by Crunchy Cat

In that case, that wasn't the intended message. I did intend to imply that reality is all encompassing but definitely not distinctive, seperate, with any kind of choice to be or not be a part of it. The point about placing 'God' outside of reality was to exemplify what someone *might* do to try and protect the idea of 'God' from scrutiny. Basically psychological games that don't by any means have a correlation to reality.

I'm quite aware that you didn't intend to say that, but, that is written into the language you use.
For example, here you say.. ''Basically psychological games that don't by any means have a correlation to reality.

If as you agreed, reality = everything, how is it possible not to corelate with reality, unless it is separate.
If reality is everything, then reality must also be a person. Does this make sense to you?

jan.