An experiment in Atheism

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

I am distinct from my responses when other mediums and material elements are involved.

Those resoponses are a reflection of your mind at that particular time, your mind, although not you in its
entirety, is non distinct from you.

The Mona Lisa is only NOT distinct from Da Vinci in so far as his mental image of his painting is concerned.
The painting of Mona Lisa IS DISTINCT from Da Vinci.
The painting of course can tell us much of Da Vinci - but only in so far as his technique etc is concerned - not much else. It can't tell us if he had a mole on his left cheek, for example.

The painting of Mona Lisa is a "creation" of Da Vinci, no one, or nothing else. When we think of Mona Lisa, we think of Da Vinci. Da Vinci is thus non distinct from his creation.

So you now claim that "everything" is composed of matter? This is a far cry from your previous discussions, is it not?
Please provide evidence that everything is made of matter.
I concede that you can prove that the computer is - but what about "everything"?

Proof is not necessary, everyTHING that I percieve through my senses is material.

Analogy falls.

Analogy stands.

Lack of evidence.

What would you consider evidence?

But through your definition it is mere circular reasoning...
You define God as "everything" (that which nothing greater can be conceived - and I'm sure you can't conceive of anything greater than everything?) - thus "everything" must be God (and thus evidence for God).

I suggest you re-read my responses.

Now - why would it be contradictory to imagine God as this being?

I'll let you figure that one out.

Again you miss the difference.
I think that God is possibly impossible to prove - especially if it is claimed to be "non-material".

As there is a glimmer of possibility, can you say what would constitute proof?

I certainly do NOT thus make the assumption that God is impossible. I have never made this assumption, and I challenge you to point out where I have ever said that.

I will reserve judgement untill you respond to the above respone.

Yes it is:
Your example: "the government creates prisons to house prisoners".
This is a "lack" within itself of PRISONS.

Prisons are essentially created by prisoners, ie, if everyone was law abiding there would be no need of prisons. The "lack" comes from the prisoners, not the government.

If there had already existed prisons - no creation of prisons would have been needed.
How is this not a "LACK"?

Read above.

But if God is "necessary" then he must exist in every world/universe etc.
Yet I can conceive of a world/universe where he doesn't exist - so God must be necessarily non-existent.

If you can concieve of such a world, then you can explain what evidence you would need to believe in God.

As does impossibility.

You mean if something cannot be shown to be possible, then it is impossible?

And neither actually provides proof of one position or the other.

"Impossible" is an absolute statement I would have thought.
Unless you can show that God is impossible, his existence is always possible.

I am not too au fait with the story of his life.
My point is that until you have "a belief in existence" you are atheist.

Until you're
happy, you are sad, that sort of thing?

There might be a time where he swapped moment to moment between the two - as he continually thought things through.
But you can not be atheist AND theist at the same time. They are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

Then it stands to reason that there are
shades of grey.

LOL! That is not development of belief. It is a prime example of the scientific method in action.
The baby garners experience... EVIDENCE... that if it cries it gets help.
It formulates a simple theory (subconsciously) that if everytime it needs help it starts to cry then it will get that help.
It cries - it is helped - fulfilling the prediction of the subconscious theory and reinforcing it.

Scientific Method in practice, Jan.

The baby develops trust in its loving parent, because the parent is loving toward it. The baby has no idea who or what 'parents' are, in the first week. It does garner experience, whether you wish to call it "evidence" or not, but to say it has formulated a simple theory, is, on your part, wishfull thinking, as the
baby would undoubtebly
cry whether or not the parent was loving. It would not, upon not being satisfied, go to plan B, or formulate a new theory or strategy. It relies purely upon faith and hope, because as of yet it knows nothing else,
it cannot
think for itself, which is why they have parents.
If the baby was neglected for most of its upbringing, the chances of that baby becoming a well-rounded adult individual, would be very slim.

As the baby grows up it starts to learn (through increased experience, and through memory - KNOWLEDGE) that crying doesn't always work - so it must refine its subconscious theories.

I doubt it. As they grow their awareness (consciousness) becomes more developed, and it is the responsibility of the parent to guide each developmental stage, otherwise the the person will become spoilt, hence the terminology.

How so? This is a confidence statement, Jan. Nothing more.

The terms asociated with atheism explains my statement; deny, without, lack.
These are negative terms which have to be constantly maintained.

n't say - I am not him nor do I know too much about him.

But I am not going to start appealing to authorities.

What is he an authority in, exactly?

Jan.

[Jan Ardena]

Atheism is NOT a belief.

It is if you defend it.

Jan.

[SnakeLord]

The terms asociated with atheism explains my statement; deny, without, lack.
These are negative terms which have to be constantly maintained.

Without gods. How does that have to be constantly maintained? It's the default position of every living being in existence. gods are created and are then maintained by the believer. We all start off as atheists and some, like myself, remain in their default position for the entirety of their lives.

[GhostofMaxwell.]

It is if you defend it.

Jan.

I defend my country from deranged suicide bombers, does that mean I dont believe in islamic terrorism or I believe in the god of anti-terrorism?

[GhostofMaxwell.]

I defend my country from deranged suicide bombers, does that mean I dont believe in islamic terrorism or I believe in the god of anti-terrorism?

Actually you probably do think I believe in the god of terrorism and his immaculately concieved son the swat guy on a donkey, because you obviously have no capacity what-so-ever to imagine anyone can be outside of a blind belief system.

[Jan Ardena]

SnakeLord,

We all start off as atheists and some, like myself, remain in their default position for the entirety of their lives.

So, lack of experience, knowledge, and understanding = atheism?

Jan.

[GhostofMaxwell.]

SnakeLord,



So, lack of experience, knowledge, and understanding = atheism?

Jan.

No, lack of ignorance to real explanations, wishful thinking and brainwashing = atheism!

[SnakeLord]

So, lack of experience, knowledge, and understanding = atheism?

For a newly born child or animal, yes. One can then go on to learn about these things that they were without before knowing them and then either retain their default position but with knowledge and understanding along with it, or become a theist.

So no, ultimately "atheism" does not mean lack of experience, knowledge, and understanding, but is the default position of a new born or animal.

I didn't think you'd get confused so easily. I hope this helps.

[srikar]

Atheism is nothing but lack of self confidance.

[SnakeLord]

Uhhh... lol? Explain yourself.

If anything it's the opposite. Atheists don't need gods to solve their problems, make their wishes come true blah blah. We kinda just get up and do it ourself.

[Enmos]

Uhhh... lol? Explain yourself.

If anything it's the opposite. Atheists don't need gods to solve their problems, make their wishes come true blah blah. We kinda just get up and do it ourself.

Well said!

And Srikar.. that was one of the most stupid statements ive heard in a while.

[Sarkus]

Those resoponses are a reflection of your mind at that particular time, your mind, although not you in its entirety, is non distinct from you.
...
The painting of Mona Lisa is a "creation" of Da Vinci, no one, or nothing else. When we think of Mona Lisa, we think of Da Vinci. Da Vinci is thus non distinct from his creation.

Regardless of what we think when we see the picture - the two ARE distinct from each other.
Otherwise you need to define your usage of the term "distinct" - as it obviously has different meanings for us.

Proof is not necessary, everyTHING that I percieve through my senses is material.

Thus analogy falls - as you were claiming everything being equal to the computer.
Now you are merely saying "everything that I perceive...".
You are changing your position.

I'll let you figure that one out.

I'll let you answer when you have the decency to provide one.

As there is a glimmer of possibility, can you say what would constitute proof?

Nope. That doesn't mean I'm saying it doesn't exist or is impossible.

I will reserve judgement untill you respond to the above respone.

Please have the decency to now answer.

Prisons are essentially created by prisoners, ie, if everyone was law abiding there would be no need of prisons. The "lack" comes from the prisoners, not the government.

No - prisons are NOT created by prisoners. The prisoners create the NEED for prisons.
The NEED for a thing and the actual thing are 2 different matters.

If you can concieve of such a world, then you can explain what evidence you would need to believe in God.

Why would this follow?
I can conceive of a world that is so simple that no God is necessary nor it exists.

If you can't understand the rationale - just say so rather than respond with glib and pointless comments.

You mean if something cannot be shown to be possible, then it is impossible?

No - you again demonstrate a lcak of understanding.
A lack of evidence for the possible does not make it impossible. It makes it still either possible or impossible.
A lack of evidence for the impossible does not make it possible. It makes it still either possible or impossible.

"Impossible" is an absolute statement I would have thought.
Unless you can show that God is impossible, his existence is always possible.

Possible - of course.
So what? I have never denied the possibility of gods.
I just don't have the belief that they exist.

Why are you chasing your tail on this - just going round and round and round.

Until you're happy, you are sad, that sort of thing?

No. This is a false analogy.
You either have a belief, or you don't. It is a digital state of affairs - not the analogue of emotion.

Then it stands to reason that there are shades of grey.

No. It doesn't stand to reason at all. I have explained why.

In my hand I can either have something or I can have nothing.
There is no middle ground, no shades of grey.

The baby develops trust in its loving parent, because the parent is loving toward it.

It develops a subconscious assessment of probability based on the plethora of evidence and experience.

This "trust" you speak of is also not the same as religious "belief". The latter has no evidence - the former is built up from a plethora of evidence.

I "trust" that my brother will help me out when I am in debt - for example - is based on all the evidence I have thus far gathered that supports this assessment.

The baby has no idea who or what 'parents' are, in the first week. It does garner experience, whether you wish to call it "evidence" or not, but to say it has formulated a simple theory, is, on your part, wishfull thinking, as the baby would undoubtebly cry whether or not the parent was loving. It would not, upon not being satisfied, go to plan B, or formulate a new theory or strategy. It relies purely upon faith and hope, because as of yet it knows nothing else, it cannot think for itself, which is why they have parents.
If the baby was neglected for most of its upbringing, the chances of that baby becoming a well-rounded adult individual, would be very slim.

You are basing this on a lack of comprehension of the complexity of the human brain - or a deliberate obstinacy in taking things too simply.
Of course there isn't just one theory being subconsciously put in place - but a whole gammet of them, all inter-relational, interdependent, self-referencing etc.

I doubt it. As they grow their awareness (consciousness) becomes more developed, and it is the responsibility of the parent to guide each developmental stage, otherwise the the person will become spoilt, hence the terminology.

All of that is taken into account in the person's experience and evidence. It is unavoidable. How the parent reacts etc is key in weighing up risk/reward of scenarios. Scientific method at work. No "belief" at all.

The terms asociated with atheism explains my statement; deny, without, lack. These are negative terms which have to be constantly maintained.

Drivel. This has been discussed by others below.

What is he an authority in, exactly?

Whatever it is you would use him in an argument for without supporting evidence.

[Jan Ardena]

SnakeLord,

For a newly born child or animal, yes. One can then go on to learn about these things that they were without before knowing them and then either retain their default position but with knowledge and understanding along with it, or become a theist.

This sounds like you're making it up as you go along, but it is fascinating.
So you can learn how to become ignorant again, but this time you arm yourself with knowledge and understanding?
So a person goes on to be a theist, or goes back to become an atheist?

I didn't think you'd get confused so easily. I hope this helps.

Confused?
I think you're who is confused.

Jan.

[GhostofMaxwell.]

Hmmm I wonder why Jan is completely ignoring me? Am I hitting rather sensity nerves here?

[SnakeLord]

So you can learn how to become ignorant again, but this time you arm yourself with knowledge and understanding?

You are right, I am confused. Confused as to whether you're being purposefully stupid or genuinely so.

When you were born you knew nothing about zeus. You were "without" that god - ergo: atheist.

Later on in life you learnt all about zeus but didn't believe the stories of zeus were true - ergo: still atheist, (without gods), but this time knowledgeable of the subject matter.

How hard can it be? Want me to draw pictures?

So a person goes on to be a theist, or goes back to become an atheist?

No. Sheesh. One goes on to believe in these things, (theist), or remains as they have always been, (without gods - atheist).

[Jan Ardena]

Sarkus,

Regardless of what we think when we see the picture - the two ARE distinct from each other.
Otherwise you need to define your usage of the term "distinct" - as it obviously has different meanings for us.

I believe my previous explanation is adequate to answer these questions.

Thus analogy falls - as you were claiming everything being equal to the computer.
Now you are merely saying "everything that I perceive...".
You are changing your position.

When I talk of "everything" it can only be from my perspective, right?
But we both understand that the computer is material, and therefore must contain, at some level, the same components as all other materials.

Nope. That doesn't mean I'm saying it doesn't exist or is impossible.

Er..no! If you can imagine a world in which God does not exist, then you must have an idea as to what would make God exist, or not, hence, you should be able to relay the type of evidence you would need to be convinced of existence.

Please have the decency to now answer.

I have stated my understanding of the term God more than once, in this discussion, and see no need to keep repeating myself.

No - prisons are NOT created by prisoners. The prisoners create the NEED for prisons.
The NEED for a thing and the actual thing are 2 different matters.

The NEED precedes the institute. It is purely for that reason prisons are created.

Why would this follow?
I can conceive of a world that is so simple that no God is necessary nor it exists.

Then "simplicity" (your understanding) would be the reason.
But how would you know in your conception, that God wouldn't exist?

If you can't understand the rationale - just say so rather than respond with glib and pointless comments.

You can't answer this point can you?

Possible - of course.
So what? I have never denied the possibility of gods.
I just don't have the belief that they exist.

You won't deny the possibility of God, because you would be seen as irrational, but you assume the impossibility of God by asking for the impossible, physical evidence of a spiritual being.

Why are you chasing your tail on this - just going round and round and round.

I'm happy to cut it if you are.

No. This is a false analogy.
You either have a belief, or you don't. It is a digital state of affairs - not the analogue of emotion.

So there is no such thing as a "lack of belief" then, all believers just suddenly arrive at "i believe" and stay there until they suddenly become atheist?
Are you taking the piss?

In my hand I can either have something or I can have nothing.
There is no middle ground, no shades of grey.

LOL!!! Stop it, you're cracking me up!

Jan.

[Jan Ardena]

You are right, I am confused. Confused as to whether you're being purposefully stupid or genuinely so.

When you were born you knew nothing about zeus. You were "without" that god - ergo: atheist.

Later on in life you learnt all about zeus but didn't believe the stories of zeus were true - ergo: still atheist, (without gods), but this time knowledgeable of the subject matter.

How hard can it be? Want me to draw pictures?



No. Sheesh. One goes on to believe in these things, (theist), or remains as they have always been, (without gods - atheist).

SnakeLord,

LOL!!!
There is absolutely no point in arguing with this nonsense.

P.S. some pictures would be nice though.

Jan.

[Repo Man]

SnakeLord,

LOL!!!
There is absolutely no point in arguing with this nonsense.

P.S. some pictures would be nice though.

Jan.

Snakelord's post seems quite clear and to the point to me. Not at all nonsense.

[GhostofMaxwell.]

Jan???

[Medicine*Woman]

Atheism is nothing but lack of self confidance.

*************
M*W: Just the opposite.