How many atheists can you dismiss?

a reply to: spy66to accept that God created anything at included a "singularity" one has to accept:

Supernatural spiritual beings can exist.
Spiritual beings can exist eternally without cause.
Spiritual beings can create new matter and energy from nothing.
Spiritual beings can exist outside of space and time.
Spiritual beings can store, retrieve, and creatively process information.
Spiritual beings are constantly learning, or are able to somehow have knowledge without ever being educated.
Spiritual beings have needs or emotions that lead them to create things.

I can hold a rock in one hand, and while I may not know where it came from, it’s difficult to imagine a time when each of its atoms simply did not exist. If I followed all of its atoms back in time, would I ever reach a time when all of its particles simply didn’t exist? In any form?

In the other hand, I can imagine I’m holding God. I don’t know if he’s really there, and he looks suspiciously like nothing. It’s difficult to imagine that he is there, and that he has always existed, and that he even created the rock in my other hand… out of sheer will.

What I do know is that the rock exists now. Its very existence testifies to the fact that it can exist, it does exist, and it’s possible that it has always existed. The number of variables that must be true in order for the rock to “just exist” are certainly no more than the number required for a god to “just exist.” There will always be far more variables required for an invisible, intelligent, eternal God to create something, than for that thing to have just always existed, in some form, on its own.

originally posted by: ketsuko
... Simply put, no one actually can prove anything to anyone else.

In other words and to keep it a lot shorter than before, you claim that it's impossible to prove your claim above to be true/correct, without error (to anyone else); or worthy of our consideration for that matter. And now I can quote the guy from the video directly at 14:19:

"If it's impossible to prove your claim, that does not become a license to make that claim. That is a completely irrational notion."

Then again, your claim is according to you not only itself impossible to prove, the very notion that it is supposedly impossible to prove is supposedly impossible to prove (i.e. tell whether or not that is really so). How deep the quickmire of human madness and agnostically motivated philosophy goes. Round and round we go to turn back in on ourselves again rather than merely chase our own tails (and tales). In the end it brings us back to the point made at 11:30 - 11:35. I think we have a winner for the description "loons" as used in the OP (not speaking about you specifically but agnostically motivated philosophies, claims and statements in general as expressed by a large variety of people as explained before when I elaborated on my term "agnostically motivated"; most prevalent in the circles I mentioned there). And with the caveat that I preferred the more salted* term "foolish" before (but that would really be a bit of an understatement now as I explained in my first comment in this thread).

*: “Let your utterance be always with graciousness, seasoned with salt, so as to know how you ought to give an answer to each one.”​—COLOSSIANS 4:6.

For easy reference because this is a new page again, this is the video I'm talking about, as shared on the previous page:

It's a very telling video all throughout. Key moments from 2:14 - 3:04, 3:10 - 3:24, 7:31 - 9:00* to focus on the points regarding closed-mindedness and the clues regarding what I said so far about closed-mindedness cloaked under a veil of perceived open-mindedness, or feigned open-mindedness, an act like the way T.J. Kirk does it in that video. You can watch some of the context, but it may be distracting or contain less of those clues. That closed-mindedness he's talking about experiencing from atheists, is also discussed at 2 Timothy 4:3,4. But I've said enough for now. Bonus points from 10:43 - 11:03 and of course starting onwards from 11:30 till the end (but most specifically the time frames earlier mentioned). The rest could be distracting again (the whole discussion about "burden of proof" specifically).

*: in that section from 7:31 -9:00, in his illustration starting at 7:59 you can maybe swap out the argument or claim "that's been debunked, that's not evidence", with your claim, argument and opinion that "no one actually can prove anything to anyone else", 'that's not proof/evidence, that doesn't count as having been proven' (implied as not having been proven because it's supposedly impossible to prove, so nothing supposedly counts in that sense). Compare the "doesn't count" remark with the earlier way of phrasing things at 3:10 by T.J. Kirk as he describes the closed-mindedness of your claim talking about something else that is still related and in the manner which may be noticeable if you do the swap-thingy at 7:59. You'll have to do a similar swap at 8:53 for "after already asserting that such evidence does not exist" to "after already asserting that no one actually can prove anything to anyone else". One of the reasons I recommend watching the video at least once with just the timeframes I mentioned, skipping everything else.

a reply to: spy66

I'm sorry my friend I don't understand you response.

"What if you have been vaxinated* to have no religious thought"


My friend I was raised Christian, and went to a Roman universal private elementary school..

I haven't turned a blind eye to my faith, I've just walked away from the institution..

In other words I don't feel as though I need to tithe..

Or stand in a designated building, on a designated day to offer my thanks for this opportunity exist..



Respectfully,
~meathead

originally posted by: Joecroft
Some things are rightly dismissed based on ones knowledge, understanding and experience…

Well said. That is why I am an Agnostic.

And also why I know the aliens are here.

a reply to: toktaylor

It is really not more complicated then you want to make it.

If you know that: before the rock existed you know that it dident always exist…. it was fomed by a prosess. Its like before the singularity was formed….. you know that there was no singularity until it was formed. The singularity must have been formed by a prosess....just like the rock you mention.

THe singularity would have all the Properties that by evolution (time) have formed Our present universe and life as we know it. It has formed Our history and everything we can observe.

If the singularity is thee finite we know of. How did it form it self from finite?

originally posted by: whereislogic
...or feigned open-mindedness, an act like the way T.J. Kirk does it in that video. ...

At 2:14 to be exact. He may do it elsewhere in the video as well and I expect he does it on a regular basis. He may have even done it so often, that he's convinced himself that he's truly open-minded regarding this subject as well (the existence of God and the evidence/proof for it, and how this fact/certainty/reality/truth has already been proven by the evidence and discovered by many by means of inductive reasoning on this evidence). But if that is the case, he couldn't be fooling/deluding himself any more.

... They very skillfully misled people “with persuasive arguments” as well as “through the philosophy and empty deception according to the tradition of men.”​—Colossians 2:4, 8.

Are things any different today? Not really, for the apostle Paul warned that things would get worse in “the last days,” the time in which we are now living. “Wicked men and impostors will advance from bad to worse,” he wrote, “misleading and being misled [or, “deluding others and deluding themselves,” Phillips].”​—2 Timothy 3:1, 13.

Source: Guard Against Being Deceived (2010)

FOR some, self-delusion may be more pleasant than facing reality, but it does not provide a living, feed loved ones, or enable one to cope with the many other requirements of life. A person who imagines things are the way he would like them to be, instead of facing them the way they really are, is not reasoning on the facts, but is building on fancy. His powers of discernment are clouded.

Those who ignore the facts and delude themselves with fancy are like the proverbial ostrich that hides his head in the sand when danger nears. However, the realist recognizes that such ostrich exists in fables only, not in fact! The ostrich of reality does not ignore the fact of danger. He does not hide his head in the sand. To the contrary, he moves away from the source of potential harm so rapidly that few animals can keep up with him when he is in full flight.

Dreamers are like that proverbial ostrich. They hide their heads in the sands of self-deception and fancy when situations arise that demand a realistic facing of the facts, and actions based on those facts. Such fancy is as profitless as believing the earth to be square in spite of the overwhelming proof against such a conclusion; or like believing two plus two equals five, when the facts of mathematics show this is not the case.

Today no more flagrant ignoring of the facts can be found than that dealing with God and his purposes. Many people conceive God to be what they want him to be, not what he really is. They ascribe qualities to him that he does not have, or take away qualities that he does have. They try to fashion God to an image that suits their fancy, while ignoring the facts that show what he actually is. [whereislogic: or deny his very existence and the evidence/proof therefor or that it even can be proven or by implication that it already has been proven (beyond a shadow of a doubt, if you want to add such colorful language)]
...
Ignoring God['s existence and the evidence/proof for it], his purposes and his will is not going to change the reality of them, any more than believing the earth to be square would make it so, or believing two plus two is five would make it five. God will accomplish his purpose toward earth regardless of the fancies or illusions of men. “Many are the plans in the heart of a man, but the counsel of Jehovah is what will stand.” (Prov. 19:21) That is a fact, not a fancy. ...

Between brackets at the end was mine.
Source: Are You Guided by Fact or by Fancy? (1963)

originally posted by: ketsuko
I suppose when you come right down to it, agnostics might be the most honest in that they allow there might be something but they freely admit they can't prove anything one way or the other.

Not even that 1+1=2? What happens to their Agnostic Code or agnostically motivated philosophy when the bank confiscates all their money arguing that it cannot be proven how much they owe them? You'd think they'd still be OK with following the Agnostic Code? I think you're confusing honesty and the potential humility you described (if you're OK with that interpretation), with utter foolishness and irrationality. I still nominate agnostically motivated philosophy and its adherents or proponents (or those speaking positively about it as you just did) as the pinnacle of closed-minded foolishness and self-delusion (dishonesty with oneself if you will, how one reasons to oneself, how one comes to that view/opinion, how one allows it to get that bad, one's mind to become so poisoned with the promotion of vagueness that is used for so many sneaky purposes by the master deceiver and god of this system of things, someone with thousands of years of experience in manipulating human thinking and promoting vagueness and casting a shadow or fog especially over the most significant facts/certainties/truths/realities), i.e. a 'winner' (the most damaging form of philosophy to the mind as well, tricky to recognize, well hidden behind the earlier mentioned cloak of perceived open-mindedness, or feigned, and you can add other positive attributes like honesty and humility; someone has to burst their bubble, might as well be me). Here's your agnostic for ye (or those following an agnostic code I would describe as general agnosticism, regarding any subject one can think of, "anything" as you put it):

Works best if you're familiar with the character Baldrick from that show (Blackadder). Remember, "deny" is the opposite of "acknowledge". Acknowledge = "accept or admit the existence or truth/certainty of." (definition from google, I added the synonym as a reminder regarding the claims in agnostically motivated philosophy)

originally posted by: Grenade
"True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing."

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
The great paradox.

Again, not even that 1+1=2? Not to mention that the way it's phrased there one is suggesting that true knowledge exists in something impossible to accomplish. If I know that I know nothing, than I know something (namely and supposedly that I know nothing), yet that defeats what I supposedly knew (which was supposed to be nothing). What kind of meaningless statement passed off as something clever is this supposed to be Grenade? Your version of an Agnostic Code and denying everything but one impossibility to accomplish to be the way to acquire "true knowledge" (even though you confusingly spoke about "exists in", whatever that may refer to)?

No, that is not an accurate description of "true knowledge".

Essentially, knowledge means familiarity with facts[/truths/certainties/realities] acquired by personal experience, observation, or study. ...
...
Source of Knowledge. Jehovah is actually the basic Source of knowledge. Life, of course, is from him and life is essential for one’s having any knowledge. (Ps 36:9; Ac 17:25, 28) Furthermore, God created all things, so human knowledge is based on a study of God’s handiwork. (Re 4:11; Ps 19:1, 2) God also inspired his written Word, from which man can learn the divine will and purposes. (2Ti 3:16, 17) Thus the focal point of all true knowledge is Jehovah, and a person seeking it ought to have a fear of God that makes him careful not to incur Jehovah’s displeasure. Such fear is the beginning of knowledge. (Pr 1:7) Such godly fear puts one in position to gain accurate knowledge, whereas those who do not consider God readily draw wrong conclusions from the things that they observe.

The Bible repeatedly links Jehovah and knowledge, calling him “a God of knowledge” and describing him as “perfect in knowledge.”​—1Sa 2:3; Job 36:4; 37:14, 16.
...

Between brackets was mine. Source: Knowledge (Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2)

The primary reason for sharing the above was the definition for "knowledge" and not the explanation regarding "the focal point of all true knowledge" (even though I bolded it because of the term "true knowledge"; but it's the type of stuff that tends to go one ear in and out the other for people like Grenade, perhaps he's more willing to consider the definition for "knowledge" and apply it to "true knowledge" instead, being the same thing after all most of the time depending on context; just remember that "familiarity with" can be swapped out with "know" as well, especially when contrasting it to Grenade's claim about "true knowledge").

Anyway, foolish statements galore on ATS, who needs any scientologists or the Amish if you've got ATS users who think they're quoting something clever or profound. Or those who prefer the term "paradox" over using the term "contradiction/mistake/error/absurdity" to make it clear what a paradox really is. Not something clever, not something intriguing or unclear enough whether or not it could be a possibility or true. I did not mean to imply that those who describe it as a "paradox" are making foolish statements, since technically it's accurate, motive and how people perceive paradoxes becomes involved (those not recognizing them for what they are but being intriguid by them, such as the paradox explained concerning Schrödinger's Cat or The Paradox of Tertullian).

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Don’t they?
You afraid you are being stopped, pretty sure all atheists look down on christains

Now I didn’t say I look down on theists, just dismiss their opinion.
We can do that krazee

Sorry, you misunderstood.
Atheists definitely have the freedom to look down on theists... I do it all the time.

But they seem to lack the freedom to look down on atheists.

You're a religious nut, but you know to laugh at the Joyce meyers of the world.

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
Well said. That is why I am an Agnostic.

No you aren't.

You're lazy. And an atheist.

originally posted by: DJMSN
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Where or why you came away with the thought that entertain the ME is an unknown to me.

I don't understand what you're saying, could you reword that?

Aa reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Still not sure I understand you
yes I find the Joyce Meyers type evangelical at the very least questionable, the fortune she has amassed, the crazy christians who follow her, she is self gratifying and sells a poor imitation of the gospel.
I don’t laugh at her, I cringe at her

Many Christians do look down on atheists but that’s not christianity.
I believe God gave people freewill, so it’s a divine right, it’s their/your choice to do as they/you wish, not my right to force.

You look at the homosexual debate, it was crazy, Christians forcing their beliefs on others, not christian, never has been.

Atheism is not illogical, it’s reasonable, just doesn’t account for everything or anything. Dumb luck has its limits.

Poor christianity, like any poor religion harms and kills people, it’s cost is very high.
Joyce Meyer, feeds of the poor, depressed and gullible.
Destroys lives based on greed, I can’t laugh at that


Or are you asking why can’t atheists look down on atheists?

a reply to: spiritualarchitect

Originally posted by Joecroft
Some things are rightly dismissed based on ones knowledge, understanding and experience…

Originally posted by spiritualarchitect
Well said. That is why I am an Agnostic.

Well, that’s the most honest position to be in…and should be the starting default postion for everyone…No one ever starts out with all the knowledge and experience…those things take time to acquire…

Either the universe and everything in it came about by chance, or it had a guiding directing force behind it…

Originally posted by spiritualarchitect
And also why I know the aliens are here

Me too. Although I do find it funny when people ask where's the hard evidence, when the whole point is that the Government has been actively covering it up for a long time imo...


- JC

a reply to: whereislogic

A few scattered pieces of a jigsaw does not paint a true picture.

Mathematics can explain observational science.

It’s doesn’t however describe or explain the tool of observation.

Until we understand consciousness it’s all just a matter of perception.

I feel the true nature of reality and an accurate model of its mechanisms are far beyond the abilities of man to describe with any kind of accuracy.

Providing your definition of knowledge and equating that to a standardised definition we should all abide by is egotistical grandstanding.

Besides I wasn’t being literal, just attempting to infer that we are still a long way from having a true understanding of nature or our place within it.

I’m a big fan of Ancient Greek philosophy, it was a quote from Socrates.

a reply to: whereislogic

1+1 = 2 in a base 10 mathematical system. You must define the set and the numbers before you can make the calculation in this case the axioms would be the peano postulates.

These are human constructs and follow defined functions and rule sets. Sure they accurately define many mechanisms however last I checked the universe wasn’t made of calculable binary interactions. Mathematics is a language but it’s by no means perfect, not until we have some kind of unified field theory.