Upgrade to enjoy this feature!
Vital MX fantasy is free to play, but Premium users receive great benefits. Premium benefits include:
- View and download rider stats
- Pick trends
- Create a private league
- And more!
Only $10 for all 2026 SX, MX, and SMX series.
You say that science is just a tool of thought or reason that is not limited to Newtonian views, and that is correct, I never said differently. What I did say was that atheists are bound to Newtonian mechanistic views. More properly, science is methodology and the scientific method states a hypothesis, conducts an experiment, looks at the results and then reaches a conclusion about the natural world. Science does not include non-testable entitles like God and so matter is what is primary, consciousness secondary.
But let's take your idea here that "...atheists deeply explore the meaning of consciousness.... I don't see how the recognition of the primacy of consciousness equals theism?"
Let me ask you this question: If consciousness is primary, that means that consciousness underlies all of reality and hence, created matter. Now if you have all-persuasive consciousness that creates, what would you call that?
I feel a lot of peace and love on the forums today
The Shop
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
That is the definition, whether you agree with it or not. It's a position on a single issue and is not contingent on anything else. There is no inherent positive claim in atheism, it's simply the rejection of a claim. Much the same way that not smoking is a habit or not playing football is a sport.
You say that science is just a tool of thought or reason that is not limited to Newtonian views, and that is correct, I never said differently. What I did say was that atheists are bound to Newtonian mechanistic views. More properly, science is methodology and the scientific method states a hypothesis, conducts an experiment, looks at the results and then reaches a conclusion about the natural world. Science does not include non-testable entitles like God and so matter is what is primary, consciousness secondary.
You are correct that science cannot confirm supernatural causes. It can, however, eliminate them as possibilities and demonstrate that the phenomenon even actually exists. James Randii is a master at this. He eliminates variables that would give incorrect results such as manipulation, lying, slight of hand, and having prior knowledge of the subject (the person getting the psychic reading.)
Other examples are prayer and miracles. You can test (and we have) for the accuracy of the claims, and they have never approached anything close to the degree that would give justification to the claim. If somebody got everything they prayed, or even 80% of what they prayed for, science can tell us that it's not a magic trick...even if it isn't capable of explaining the source. And guess what? Every single time supernatural claims are scrutinized, they fail to demonstrate that the phenomenon even exits.
Let me ask you this question: If consciousness is primary, that means that consciousness underlies all of reality and hence, created matter. Now if you have all-persuasive consciousness that creates, what would you call that?
This is speculation since consciousness does not create matter. If evidence arises that it does, I'm sure we can find a name for it. Also, this would fall under the realm of science, not theology.
Hopefully you won't go to the metaphysical crap like "what the bleep do we know," which has been thoroughly debunked. Just in case
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlPiXNlhKFo
State of matter doesn't imply that it creates matter:
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/181284-human-consciousness-is-simply…
eightbitmotocrosser wrote: You're beliefs are not based on reason and evidence, they are built on assumptions just like theists are.
Do you have examples, or do you just like to throw out baseless accusations?
The question is, is there an entity that speaks the truth and handles God word properly?
"...that which... was trusted...den of robbers..." WTH?! That's some good stuff right there! Hahaha!
You're an evil, wicked, offensive man.
20For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22Professing to be wise, they became fools.
Paul writing to the church in Rome
You've said that consciousness does not create matter, but that claim is itself only an assumption about the fundamental makeup or building blocks of the universe, so yes, I can say with certitude that your beliefs are based not on reason and evidence, but built on assumptions, and no that is not a baseless claim. Another example would be for me to ask you to prove that you are not the result of some super alien's college experiment of a brain in a vat. You can't show otherwise, but I highly doubt that you actually believe that you are a brain in a vat or even that you suspend your belief one way or the other. If you tell me that you suspend belief about being a brain in a vat, then your whole epistemic foundations would come crumbling to the ground since you would have to resort to pure skepticism in such a scenario.
If you withheld belief one way or the other in such cases like brain in vat scenarios, then you'd be admitting that you can't know anything and if you say that you're not a brain in a vat, then you are admitting that you hold to assumptions that are not proved by science or evidence.
No one has any other book, religion, or people to discuss? What about the Hindus book? Or the Buddhists book? Is there no other book or spiritual guru to discuss or talk about? It always comes back to Jesus, Christians, and Bible.
All of these super intellectual people and no one reads any of these other books, or studies any of these other religions? Yawn
But if by his research he decides thru a few select verses chosen from the Hindu belief that Krishna is God, then he should follow that path.
You are starting off on hopelessly shaky ground here while simultaneously giving away your hand. First of all, it is wholly dishonest to contort definitions simply for the sake of having a better argument. I could sit here and define up to mean sideways and dog to mean elephant. The only thing this would accomplish is to make communication impossible. The fact of the matter is that I would be wrong by any standard to redefine words for that, or any, purpose. You are just wrong, and the fact that it weakens your argument is something you have to deal with; it isn't my problem. Secondly, you are defining atheism to mean "the belief that there is no god." That statement is false, and a mischaracterization of atheism. I, and any other intellectually honest humans, can say that there is simply not enough information to make a broad and absolute assertion I believe there is no god. That is not what I believe.
What I do believe is that there are certain types of gods that can be eliminated as being real, simply based on the evidence against the claim. A christian god makes assertions about reality... a reality that we can test through scientific inquiry. This god, along with the people that support this god, have not given any objectively verifiable evidence to support the belief that it does exist.
As I've said in my first post, for a type of god that creates the universe then watches nature take it's course, is impossible to verify. Hence; I cannot possibly make statements about belief. If somebody asks me if that type of god does exist or if it is even possible for that type of god to exist, my only honest answer is:" I don't know."
I simply cannot have a discussion with you about this if you are going to make up your own definitions. The fact that you are trying to do this makes the rest of your post irrelevant and not worthy of a response, at least until we can agree on the definition of atheism.
What did you think about Peelout's gif in the RV interview thread? Did you want to see the full thing? Be honest now!
Pit Row
First of all, I already stated that I am not concerned with how you define atheism other than to point out that your definition, which has been widely used by atheists, has all the advantages of theft over honest toil in that it is an attempt to avert the burden that atheism carries. Secondly, the definition that you've provided is not the only definition, so no, I am not being dishonest and I am not contorting any definitions. For example, the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy defines atheism as the "belief that there is no God." whereas you are trying to define atheism in much weaker terms. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy defines atheism as the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.
I simply cannot have a discussion with you about this if you are going to make up your own definitions. The fact that you are trying to do this makes the rest of your post irrelevant and not worthy of a response, at least until we can agree on the definition of atheism.
You're doing what a good many atheists do, muddling up a discussion with what "atheism" means when all you really want to do is take your ball and go home if everyone doesn't play by your rules. You want to set the stage with your definitions so you don't have to explain yourself. I've already shown, from credible sources nonetheless, that there are indeed other definitions of atheism.
So, you want me to give up my clarity of thought in order to give you a better argument? Okay, I'll play along. Which argument best supports the existence of a god? We will disregard the fact that I disagree with pretty much everything that the Stanford book on philosophy says about atheism. Again, there are people that define jesus as an alien. In practical terms, I'm forced to disregard that argument in favor the more widely accepted definition. But, by your rules, if I have a single example, it must be true. After all, the belief in jesus as the man is just a single definition. There are more where that came from.
http://www.jesusbelievesinevolution.com/was_jesus_a_space_alien.htm
You're doing what a good many atheists do, muddling up a discussion with what "atheism" means when all you really want to do is take your ball and go home if everyone doesn't play by your rules. You want to set the stage with your definitions so you don't have to explain yourself. I've already shown, from credible sources nonetheless, that there are indeed other definitions of atheism.
We have to agree on terms before we can have a productive discussion. I listen to everyone that claims to have an argument for the existence of god. People make claims from a multitude of sources...some say that jesus was neither the son of god, nor the embodiment of that god. That means nothing unless it can be demonstrated.... it's empty claims. It has no measurable impact on our reality.
Don't confuse clarity of thought with "muddling." I'm not here to win a blue ribbon or have praise from some random guy. I care about truth. This means that I need a methodology to determine what is likely to be true. What is the best mechanism that humans have available to determine truth? It doesn't matter whether we are brains in vats or not. If a situation arises that I need to make assumptions about reality, Occum's Razer is the only sound philosophical principle.
You have one source that I don't support....It's like me saying that a christian doesn't believe in jesus. I can simply use the name as a place holder. Yes, you have a source, but you have to demonstrate that source reflects reality. If you can't demonstrate that claim, and misrepresent another position, you are strawmanning them. I can, and have, demonstrated to you that I'm not using the stanford definition to form my beliefs.
Go ahead and "set the stage." What arguments do you have? Better yet, what perspective are you arguing from?
Secondly, what burden does atheism carry?
The traditional response to these questions contain only logical fallacy.
While I would not call it, "clarity of thought" I have not asked you to give up anything. What I've said is that there is more than one definition of atheism and I then showed you two other definitions from reliable sources. If you'll remember, I also said that I'm not overly concerned with how you define atheism because I am well aware that you, along with many other atheists, define atheism is much weaker terms than other definitions do so I have no "rules" about any one example being true. However you define atheism, I can still draw out some of the implications of your view of atheism. I'm just telling you that your definition is much weaker and it allows you the comfort to avert justifying your atheism.
We have to agree on terms before we can have a productive discussion. I listen to everyone that claims to have an argument for the existence of god. People make claims from a multitude of sources...some say that jesus was neither the son of god, nor the embodiment of that god. That means nothing unless it can be demonstrated.... it's empty claims. It has no measurable impact on our reality.
We don't have to agree on our terms at all and will probably not agree. That doesn't mean that there cannot be a productive discussion.
Don't confuse clarity of thought with "muddling." I'm not here to win a blue ribbon or have praise from some random guy. I care about truth. This means that I need a methodology to determine what is likely to be true. What is the best mechanism that humans have available to determine truth? It doesn't matter whether we are brains in vats or not. If a situation arises that I need to make assumptions about reality, Occum's Razer is the only sound philosophical principle.
Unfortunately, the principle of parsimony has been used and abused but it is interesting that it is used so much by skeptics because Ockham thought that the only necessary entity was God. And that's the thing with Ockham's Razor, how do you know what entities are necessary and which are not? In the brain in a vat example, you can't use Ockham's Razor since your experiences of being a brain in a vat and not being a brain in a vat would exactly mimic each other. Ockham's Razor would be of no use in eliminating unnecessary entities since you would not know which one's are necessary and which one's are not.
You have one source that I don't support....It's like me saying that a christian doesn't believe in jesus. I can simply use the name as a place holder. Yes, you have a source, but you have to demonstrate that source reflects reality. If you can't demonstrate that claim, and misrepresent another position, you are strawmanning them. I can, and have, demonstrated to you that I'm not using the stanford definition to form my beliefs.
You don't know what reality is! You only think you do and that's your assumption and that's also your problem here.
Go ahead and "set the stage." What arguments do you have? Better yet, what perspective are you arguing from?
Secondly, what burden does atheism carry?
The traditional response to these questions contain only logical fallacy.
What do you mean what arguments do I have? I don't use arguments to prove the existence of God, I take belief in God to be a basic belief, not a belief that is derived from other beliefs. Like you, I have certain assumptions (though my assumptions are different), and like you, I have faith. Only I place my faith in God whereas you place your faith in something else.
As for what burden atheism carries, I would suggest it carries a lot. Atheists should be able to explain why atheism is a reasonable position to hold. So far, I've not been too impressed. All I see are weak atheists like yourself who want to sit back and tell theists that they have no evidence for the existence of God.
Who hates on Jesus?
So full of hate you are!
Religious debates are always the same old shit from both sides, not even worth typing anything out anymore.
pretty evil to me i'd say. i would have said its not right to own another person as property. therefore i'm morally superior to your god.
I believe it was because Jesus (and Paul) were trying to change the people and not the institutions. I would even say that Jesus taught that when you try to change the institutions you end up getting crushed by them. On the other hand, when you change the people, they change the institutions on their own.
As for ancient slavery, it could be good or bad. There were some slaves who ended up better off than their masters. At other times, there were plenty that got treated very horribly. Slavery was (in many cases) more like working for minimum wage or as a waiter is today; better than the alternative of starvation and destitution. There was usually only two outcomes of no longer a slave if you were one. The best was becoming rich (many actually earned profits helping with their master’s industry. Eventually they could buy their freedom, yet often remained with the master’s house). The worst was destitution and starvation. Very few found a middle ground.
Post a reply to: Tell me, Is one a bad person for having no faith in god(s)?