Reason To be athiest?

Take it from me, the spiritual master is a fraud and a con-man. Realization, Satori, or enlightenment is awareness of one's own falseness and stupidity. It's also hilarious. If the master does anything but slap some sense into you or ignore you, he's probably after your ass.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

One does not need to be false, nor stupid.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

spidergoat,

And how is the information observed and processed?

What reason would cause you think it may be possible in the first place?

"Life comes from life" is observed every single moment of existence, a logically consistent truth which cannot be dismissed.

It's effects is the creation, according to the claim, which can be detected.

Some arguments in favour of a god aren't flawed, so the default position is god.
Two can play that game.

It's easy to say that in hindsight.

Irrelevant.

Religion isn't as simple as you seem to think. Also ''religion'' is not an institute, but institutes model themselves on religion. Just like ''sex'' isn't an institute, but institutes use it to make profit.


jan.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

''Science'' just oozes out of you. Doesn't it?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

jan.

 

It's inherent to the ego, which is an illusion. And I say stupidity because of the foolishness of searching for something that could not be any more close.

 

With our senses and brain. But you're changing the parameters now. You were asserting that we are limited by our "base" senses, and I assert that we aren't due to the tools we can create which transcend our limited senses.

Because it's not impossible.

Not every moment. There was a moment in the past when life came from non-life. In fact the transition is largely one of human definition. There is no clear boundary in nature.

Since we have a natural explanation for the growth of the universe, this observation doesn't support your claim that it was due to a creator.

Go ahead and list them, then, and I will point out the flaw.

Excuse me? Of course we are looking at them in hindsight. At the time they might have been the best explanation for things around. But now we can realize they aren't.

Religion is inherently an institution. Otherwise it's just one guy and his crazy thoughts. Sociologically, it's not simple, but I know that religions try to hide their basic falseness in a complex and intricate theology.

 

What happened is that mysticism and illusion oozed out of me until there was nothing left.

 

Like the other poster noted, I think arguments about the feral child are tricky - as to what exactly is "instinct" and what is "merely learned."

It seems to me that feral children would have the same kind of "problem with God" as those people have who don't grow up in a religious family/setting and who are later (as young adults or older) preached to to believe in God.
This is simply because there are concepts which, if not internalized early enough, are next to impossible to internalize later in life. God, karma, reincarnation are such concepts, for example. There are also more prosaic concepts, such as about the acceptability of cheating and some other moral issues, that, unless a person internalizes them early on, are next to impossible to internalize later.

So I'd conclude that the feral child's absence of a faith in God that would be communicable in some usual way to other humans, is not yet proof that there is no God.

 

spidergoat,

Well done!

I asserted nothing.

And here you go again. How exactly does a microscope or telescope ''trancend our limited senses?

You miss my point.
Why would you think about it in the first place?

How do you know that life at some point, came from non life?

This explains nothing.
If you're going to address the point then give a proper answer. Here is the point again.

It's effects is the creation, according to the claim, which can be detected.

Okay big man, read above.

Religion isn't an institute, but there are religious institutes.
As for the rest of your babble........

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

jan.

 

Let me see.
Life and the universe just popped into existence out of nothing.
And out ultimate ancestor is a cell, which somehow created itself.

jan.

 

Now you're getting somewhere.

Nothing to make anything of. True and for sure.

The cell came together. Yes. (It didn't make itself, as 'itself' wasn't there before it was.)

 

"Out of nothing"? Why do you think that *nothing* is real?

It might be something akin to a virus, but it didn't "create" itself or anything for that matter.

 

The problem with life having to come from Life (God?) is that Life would then have to come from LIFE (?). So, your great template has but one usage, but therafter it is not so 'great' at all, for it is immediately thrown away. You have 'complex' and 'simple' completely reversed, Jan.

 

SciWriter,;2957126]Now you're getting somewhere.

Nothing to make anything of. True and for sure.[/QUOTE]


You mean, just believe? :m:

jan.

 

Crunchy Cat,


"Out of nothing"? Why do you think that *nothing* is real?

Nothing? Something? Either or either.
Where/what did they come from?


jan.

 

Why would Life itself need to come from something that isn't Life itself.
You're not making any sense?

jan.

 

Hmmm, you apparently don't see the gaping hole in your own logic. Why doesn't that surprise me?

 

Life coming from other life is no stretch at all. Ever heard of Octamom?

 

It has to. Otherwise, there is an endless chain, with 'God' not able to be First. Nor does it make sense to have a template and then abandon it.

Life is of organs from cells from molecules from atoms from stars from particles from inflation letting them be stable in a larger space. That's life. So, beings cannot be first, for their parts are much more so. All the more for Beings. The question has been begged, not answered.

 

And you know the genetic make up of God?