Total Biscuit's - Atheism does not make you clever

originally posted by: EnPassant

originally posted by: blupblup
The facts are that there is no evidence of God.

In some people's opinion there is much evidence for God. Many people have personal experience of God.

And how does one identify an experience as being one from god?
How inflated of an ego is that, to claim god talks to someone personally?

god told George W. to blow up Iraq, do you believe an alleged god would say that?
(Well, I suppose going by the OT, the answer is yes. )

The author of the piece tries to trap atheists to take the bait which is something I see religious people do lately, the author claims to deny and ridicule both and not taking a side, being neutral, while slowly knocking one down and elevating the religious point of view as the most logical choice.
Sort of like a bait and switch type of thing.

ALL HAIL THOR, god of thunder

originally posted by: EnPassant

No, it is not simplistic. Many people insist that God is real to them. Nor is it dishonest. They are not lying.

But this is what many religious debates boil down to; what is evidence? If someone argues that the only evidence that is allowed is scientific evidence then that is their value system. But many believe that knowledge can come from consciousness. That it is not repeatable, in scientific terms, simply means that human beings do not have power over spiritual reality. There is a great difference between intellectual knowledge and direct knowledge that comes from awareness. It is pointless trying to discount one because it will not fit the other's criteria. They are different and the debate cannot hinge on the fact that one does not fit scientific creteria; the subtext here is that the only valid kind of knowledge is that which comes from the intellect. But this is patently untrue. Most of our knowledge of the world comes from intuition and awareness.

But that's the entire point, it's an utterly pointless debate.
it goes nowhere and nobody ever just says "oh well, you've convinced me... I know believe/don't believe in God, thanks"

It's why I said several posts ago "I'm out/enjoy the thread"

This has been done to death on ATS.

I've had weird unprovable things happen to me, I don't live my life scientifically measuring the world around me, I'm not some weird, cold freak who discounts anyone else's opinion in favour of scientific rationale... people can hold any belief or opinion they want.

I agree with you in terms of spirituality, consciousness etc... it's all good.


My only point is that God has not been proved and is not provable.... the default position is and should be that God does not exist.
You start from a zero point of non-existence and move forward with evidence.
If, en masse, as a species we ever get that proof then that will change, until then, God does not exist.

a reply to: blupblup

consensus reality hasn't worked all that spectacularly in the past, just ask galileo. i prefer subjective reality because at least to me, it's real.

a reply to: chr0naut

Ok, I had to laugh here. Your a help desk grunt with an IQ of a genius (haha). Dave, if you're going to make stuff up you should probably at least make it believable. You'll get farther with people when you treat them as equals regardless of what you think you know. Ok, so you found your god and that makes you happy. Don't belittle others because they don't share the same ideals. In fact I'm pretty sure as a Baptist attending a Baptist Church, the whole "Pentecostal" is just fluff too.

So tired of people throwing around their IQ like it's some sort of weapon or way to tell people that their opinion matters more than other people's opinion. I realize that you're young, but c'mon. The best way to go through life is to make it better for the people around you. You wanna reconsider calling people shallow thinkers?

a reply to: luciddream

A refusal is a counterclaim.

a reply to: HarbingerOfShadows

It's time to criticize, so let me load port and starboard cannon and fire a volley at both atheists and theists alike. Believing, or not believing, does not make you intelligent. Smart people do not come to a conclusion on the basis of insubstantial evidence. Smart people do not mindlessly attack other people's beliefs just because they don't comform to their own. Smart people do not assume that their own rigid, poorly formed definitions of logic and faith, reason and belief are mutually exclusive and that if one exists, the other cannot. Smart people think outside the box, not pick fights with those poor souls trapped in it.

What makes you intelligent, is knowing why you believe what you believe. Knowing that you are but one mind, and knowing that at any time you could be proven wrong, only for that person to be proven wrong ad infinitum as we as a race advance.

This would be what makes you wise. What makes you intelligent is the gray glop that's stuffed in there behind your eyes.

As far as faith is concerned, if your faith serves you, then have at it. Still, let's not confuse a serviceable faith construct with an accurate reality structure. For those people who really care about what's authentically real, faith is completely worthless - perhaps even worse than worthless. There is only one universal real, regardless of what sort of case you are able to make to the contrary. There are many ways to look at that real, and therein lies the priceless nature of human perception. However, that perception isn't capable of affecting the actual nature of that universal real, and it's important that this be acknowledged and promoted.

Faith imprisons as many people as it releases. It cripples as many people as it heals. Faith is a belligerent devotion to a very specific way that you've been taught to interpret whatever it is that you experience as a conscious observer. It's nothing more than that. It's a learned perception translator.

a reply to: EnPassant

Trying to use scientific empiricism to answer such questions is stupid at best, in my opinion.
But then again, if all you have is a hammer the whole world looks like nails.

originally posted by: HarbingerOfShadows
a reply to: EnPassant

Trying to use scientific empiricism to answer such questions is stupid at best, in my opinion.
But then again, if all you have is a hammer the whole world looks like nails.

Either that, or it looks like your personal hell. The one thing that is of no use is the one thing you actually have. Like a pitch fork in the middle of the ocean.

Considering science as a factor in determining the existence or non-existence of God is irrelevant. How long will it take for science to become all knowing?

As that is what it would take.

Concluding that society today should adopt a policy of disbelief is silly because it will never happen in our lifetimes.

Atheism is an opinion Theism is an opinion and there is only one way today to find out who is correct.

In simple terms the OP offers that there really is no way of knowing therefore offering in absolute. The notion that an individual by generating certain neural connections can claim an absolute is irrelevant.

For the record if the brain were hardwired to believe in God there would be no Atheist. What is hardwired to the brain are things like eating, sleeping, drinking fluids and so on. These things either happen with regularity or the body shuts down whatever part of the brain that is interfering.

Otherwise any thought can be considered and supported by the development of neural connections.

Any thoughts?

originally posted by: blupblup

originally posted by: EnPassant


But that statement begs the question; has atheism proved that God does not exist? You say facts are facts - yes, but what facts are you talking about?

Facts are one thing but the interpretation of them is another. One person can assess the facts and conclude that God exists, another can do the opposite.

The facts are that there is no evidence of God.
A god or gods have not revealed themselves to the masses and therefore as far as we are aware, using scientific, empirical evidence, there is no God, there is no data for god.

(and yes, that's ignorant because god exists outside of time and space and cannot be diefined by "data" blah blah blah)

Someone may have a belief in a god or a desire for there to be a god, but this does not mean there is a god.

whom and how long have people been looking for God and what exactly are they using to search?

it's like science is looking for bacteria with a telescope.

a reply to: Toadmund

Um.
No the OP doesn't.

"Evangelical Fundamentalist morons, get your overly simplistic, judgmental, dogmatic Crayola God out of my face, you have about as much understanding of the universe as a wet lettuce. That does not make you holy, pure, or guaranteed a private booth at the big game in the sky, it makes you a bloody sheep hiding behind a cloak of propaganda that you only believe because you're told to"

Also, he doesn't claim to be neutral.
Just refuses to state his beliefs.
Which is why a lot of you are coming up with some pretty wild tangents to find an excuse.

originally posted by: rockn82
a reply to: chr0naut

Ok, I had to laugh here. Your a help desk grunt with an IQ of a genius (haha). Dave, if you're going to make stuff up you should probably at least make it believable. You'll get farther with people when you treat them as equals regardless of what you think you know. Ok, so you found your god and that makes you happy. Don't belittle others because they don't share the same ideals. In fact I'm pretty sure as a Baptist attending a Baptist Church, the whole "Pentecostal" is just fluff too.

So tired of people throwing around their IQ like it's some sort of weapon or way to tell people that their opinion matters more than other people's opinion. I realize that you're young, but c'mon. The best way to go through life is to make it better for the people around you. You wanna reconsider calling people shallow thinkers?

Nearly everything you seem to have surmised about me is incorrect, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate your point.

It is obvious that I should hide my light under a bushel because it offends the less endowed. Oh, damn, I did it again!!!

And what about that Einstein bloke. The hide of him proposing a scientific theory. He's just a clerk in the Patent Office!

originally posted by: luciddream
a reply to: chr0naut

To be atheist is to hold the conviction that there is no God.

Conviction would mean belief. Atheist dismiss an existence in the first place.
The place Atheist hold is (0), the default.
Not (-1), believing in the concept to god will put a person on the (+1).
People assuming god is the default when it is not.
A person would attain the (-1) when the existence of god is proven and they still reject.

It would appear that you are saying that Atheists do not believe in the belief in God and that they also don't believe in the belief that God doesn't exist, either.

This is truly a strange definition of Atheism!

Look at it this way: If someone believes in God, they are a 'Theist'. An Atheist is the opposite of that. Very simple and does not require a state diagram to explain.

Here's a little linky that may clarify the definition.

a reply to: blupblup

My only point is that God has not been proved and is not provable.... the default position is and should be that God does not exist.

But you are using the word "provable" in scientific terms, as if the only standard is scientific method. What I am saying is that there are other ways to knowledge that are valid and the real question here is whether these ways are valid. If George Bush said God told him to invade Iraq he was wrong but that does not invalidate everyone who says they can hear God. A million counterfeit dollar bills do not invalidate one real one.

a reply to: Toadmund

And how does one identify an experience as being one from god?

Only by living a moral life and developing awareness of God.

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: Toadmund

And how does one identify an experience as being one from god?

Only by living a moral life and developing awareness of God.

What is God?

harbinger of shadows still hasn't addressed the fact that if he's speaking as the voice of his avatar, that he's not even remotely an atheist - just trying to foist atheism on others because he doesn't think mortals have the need to know. lol

come on harbinger, fess up. you aren't an atheist, are ya?

originally posted by: undo
harbinger of shadows still hasn't addressed the fact that if he's speaking as the voice of his avatar, that he's not even remotely an atheist - just trying to foist atheism on others because he doesn't think mortals have the need to know. lol

come on harbinger, fess up. you aren't an atheist, are ya?

Why does it matter?

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: undo
harbinger of shadows still hasn't addressed the fact that if he's speaking as the voice of his avatar, that he's not even remotely an atheist - just trying to foist atheism on others because he doesn't think mortals have the need to know. lol

come on harbinger, fess up. you aren't an atheist, are ya?

Why does it matter?

because his avowed atheism would then be a red herring. in other words, if you are an atheist you should be aware that some that call themselves atheists, are really not atheists, they're just of the opinion that the power they believe they possess as a result of their secret knowledge, is not for the common human being (read "mortal"). and since it appears the avatar is a mimic of the dark horus of occultism, he's just letting those who are aware of the meaning know, that he's busy spreading the doctrine around amongst the "stupid peasantry." neither entering in the gate nor allowing others to.

why else would he be championing a thread that both criticizes AND upholds the principles of the supernatural. doh.

originally posted by: AfterInfinity

originally posted by: EnPassant
a reply to: Toadmund

And how does one identify an experience as being one from god?

Only by living a moral life and developing awareness of God.

What is God?

God is being, life.