- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Baylor University Survey On Religion: 'Almost No Atheists Voted For Trump'
Posted on 9/21/17 at 8:23 am to ShortyRob
Posted on 9/21/17 at 8:23 am to ShortyRob
quote:
My post was more general. I just find that in general, my fellow atheists are insufferable pricks who falsely believe the fact they're atheists, by default, makes them smarter than anyone who isn't.
Yeah, the loud guys are. Like I said earlier in the thread, I go to a Christian church (family reasons) every week. I'm far from an anti-religious type. I'm just blown away the guy can't see the giant fallacies he's using. "Birds can't be snakes so I just showed you can prove a negative". I mean, wtf?
0
Posted on 9/21/17 at 8:25 am to AUveritas
quote:You didn't understand it.
I posted the definition.
quote:Nope
It's exactly what I'm claiming it is.
The whole discussion here revolved around the burden of proof.
You have it. We don't.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 8:27 am to ShortyRob
For some fun reading, this one appears a reasonable good laying out of the situation.
Burden of Proof and proving a negative
Burden of Proof and proving a negative
Posted on 9/21/17 at 8:45 am to BamaAtl
Would believing that the ESSENCE of Matter and Energy is Conscious Intellect/Self Awareness...be an "abandonment of logic and reason"?
As Quantum Research defines exactly how Conscious Intellect manifest, how it evolved, what it is and where it will likely go (and already has if considered in a Relative Time context) becomes more abstract...it is certainly not illogical to theorize/believe that what existed before the Big Bang was a unified version of all that can exist.
Conscious Intellect is THE most powerful Force that can exist. It is such, by the fact that Knowledge -via a Conscious Intellect - can enable the manipulation of Matter and Energy to the degree that the Conscious Intellect is knowledgeable. An infinite degree, logically so.
Einstein said that if he had to choose between "Intelligence and Imagination...he'd pick Imagination, because it is unlimited". Imagine - pre Big Bang - a totally unified compilation of Conscious Intellect which is infinitely Knowledgeable, due to the fact that there is no disunity. Kinda sounds like a what your (obviously limited) "sky fairy" imagining of what God is/could be.
As Quantum Research defines exactly how Conscious Intellect manifest, how it evolved, what it is and where it will likely go (and already has if considered in a Relative Time context) becomes more abstract...it is certainly not illogical to theorize/believe that what existed before the Big Bang was a unified version of all that can exist.
Conscious Intellect is THE most powerful Force that can exist. It is such, by the fact that Knowledge -via a Conscious Intellect - can enable the manipulation of Matter and Energy to the degree that the Conscious Intellect is knowledgeable. An infinite degree, logically so.
Einstein said that if he had to choose between "Intelligence and Imagination...he'd pick Imagination, because it is unlimited". Imagine - pre Big Bang - a totally unified compilation of Conscious Intellect which is infinitely Knowledgeable, due to the fact that there is no disunity. Kinda sounds like a what your (obviously limited
) "sky fairy" imagining of what God is/could be. Posted on 9/21/17 at 8:53 am to RCDfan1950
quote:
...it is certainly not illogical to theorize(yes)/believe(no) that what existed before the Big Bang was a unified version of all that can exist.
Theorizing something as possible absent actual evidence and believing it is true absent actual evidence are two COMPLETELY different things.
quote:This is high sounding nonsense that literally means nothing. First sentence is an assertion absent evidence. Second sentence is an assertion of mechanism where no proof of said mechanism exists.
Conscious Intellect is THE most powerful Force that can exist. It is such, by the fact that Knowledge -via a Conscious Intellect - can enable the manipulation of Matter and Energy to the degree that the Conscious Intellect is knowledgeable. An infinite degree, logically so.
The reality is. While I obviously can't prove it, it is utter silliness to think that man in 2017 has acquired enough knowledge to speak definitively on the universe. A mere 2000 years ago, we were complete rubes. It is likely that 2000 years from now, humans will see those of us in 2017 as complete rubes.
And, assuming we survive, humans 20,000 years from now are likely to not even give a shite about anything learned in 2017.
So, yeah. About that understanding of the quantum..........
Posted on 9/21/17 at 8:55 am to ShortyRob
quote:
The reality is. While I obviously can't prove it, it is utter silliness to think that man in 2017 has acquired enough knowledge to speak definitively on the universe. A mere 2000 years ago, we were complete rubes. It is likely that 2000 years from now, humans will see those of us in 2017 as complete rubes.
Sounding pretty agnostic, Rob.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 8:57 am to RCDfan1950
quote:
Would believing that the ESSENCE of Matter and Energy is Conscious Intellect/Self Awareness...be an "abandonment of logic and reason"?
Yes, because there's zero evidence for that and it requires a belief in the supernatural.
quote:
As Quantum Research defines exactly how Conscious Intellect manifest, how it evolved, what it is and where it will likely go (and already has if considered in a Relative Time context) becomes more abstract...it is certainly not illogical to theorize/believe that what existed before the Big Bang was a unified version of all that can exist.
What they're talking about in terms of a unified abstract reality and what you're talking about in terms of a Christian God are in no way the same thing.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 9:17 am to BamaAtl
quote:
What they're talking about in terms of a unified abstract reality and what you're talking about in terms of a Christian God are in no way the same thing.
Nope. Different words. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God".
The "Word" is just what words are; a description...a way of defining Knowledge. Knowledge is Power. To the degree that one possesses Knowledge, one possesses Power.
The fact that at some point in the Evolutionary Process that Individual Entities become aware of the above Universal Axiom, and that they become aware of their 'Self' (as the essential, individual reservoir of their particular degree of Conscious Intellect)...to that degree they become powerful.
It is utter ludicrous to assert that there is "zero evidence" when the two of us type into the ethers and imagine from when our utilization of this miraculous Knowledge came...and likely goes. It obviously came from Matter and Energy. "Sewn in corruption...raised incorruptible". "Smallest of all seeds...into greatest of all trees, wherein all manner of life dwells" (Good Book, parable version, for them that "eyes").
If one believes today is an extraordinary perceptual manifestation of an eon-long Process culminates in a form of (Individual) self awareness that comprehends just what THIS is...the one's day will not be of the mundane sort. That is (subjective) fact; a matter of Spirit...abstraction...vision. It's only as 'weird' as one's comprehension allows.
It's all there. For those who CHOOSE to believe. William James backed up Jesus, in that there are things (Spiritual) that DO NOT EXIST...outside of the validation of Faith. And I have zero interest in affecting anyone's chosen belief...or non belief; though I do argue the rational (or Empirical a-rationality) therein. We all live within the constraints of our Belief. Fair...good enough.
I gotta work.
Later.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 9:23 am to RCDfan1950
quote:
It is utter ludicrous to assert that there is "zero evidence" when the two of us type into the ethers and imagine from when our utilization of this miraculous Knowledge came...and likely goes. It obviously came from Matter and Energy. "Sewn in corruption...raised incorruptible". "Smallest of all seeds...into greatest of all trees, wherein all manner of life dwells" (Good Book, parable version, for them that "eyes").
If one believes today is an extraordinary perceptual manifestation of an eon-long Process culminates in a form of (Individual) self awareness that comprehends just what THIS is...the one's day will not be of the mundane sort. That is (subjective) fact; a matter of Spirit...abstraction...vision. It's only as 'weird' as one's comprehension allows.
Jesus. I'm of the opinion that the harder your post is to read the more likely it is to contain bullshite. Can you dumb that down? No offense, but you just wrote " extraordinary perceptual manifestation of an eon-long Process". There has to be a better way to say that.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 9:30 am to BamaAtl
Belief that we came from nothing also defies logic and reason. That works both ways chief.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 9:33 am to FooManChoo
quote:
Fantastic. Guessing that means you don't want to continue the discussion.
Correct. I said as much earlier after commenting on your reliance on using false premises and strawman arguments. There really is no actual discussion to be had with you, and I've had many very constructive discussions on the subject with religious and atheist persons alike. You just aren't one of them. Dialogue with you is tiresome, redundant, and fruitless. IMO.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 9:39 am to CommoDawg
This thing is still going on?
Posted on 9/21/17 at 9:51 am to northshorebamaman
Sorry, ns. Off the top of my brain; to the degree that my brain remains grounded.
Einstein said that "if you can't explain something in a simple form...you don't know it well enough" (paraphrase). He's always right; though he might not be able to explain it in simple terms.
Mine and your perception are the result of a very long and complex and utterly odds-defying Process. It is miraculous that we (Humanity) has reached the levels of comprehension - and the Power therin - that we have....and even more miraculous where it can and will likely take us.
Simply put...I believe that the Feeling of Love is the Value above all Values. It is a complex Feeling, it is only limited by the comprehension of the Individual, and truly, the sky (Heaven?) is the limit. I would define the word 'Love'...as appreciation; I.e., levels of relative appreciation. Humanity can control all things (probably will, given Time)...but minus the appreciation/Love therein...what does it matter.
Again, we go back to the simplistic values/principles of Biblical 'lore'. Even that both God and Jesus (Jesus being the Human/limited version of Individual Entity/Conscious Intellect) exalted this Feeling...above all. To the degree that God identified *Itself* as essentially..."Love". "God is Love".
Good luck to your love. Back to the plow.
Einstein said that "if you can't explain something in a simple form...you don't know it well enough" (paraphrase). He's always right; though he might not be able to explain it in simple terms.
Mine and your perception are the result of a very long and complex and utterly odds-defying Process. It is miraculous that we (Humanity) has reached the levels of comprehension - and the Power therin - that we have....and even more miraculous where it can and will likely take us.
Simply put...I believe that the Feeling of Love is the Value above all Values. It is a complex Feeling, it is only limited by the comprehension of the Individual, and truly, the sky (Heaven?) is the limit. I would define the word 'Love'...as appreciation; I.e., levels of relative appreciation. Humanity can control all things (probably will, given Time)...but minus the appreciation/Love therein...what does it matter.
Again, we go back to the simplistic values/principles of Biblical 'lore'. Even that both God and Jesus (Jesus being the Human/limited version of Individual Entity/Conscious Intellect) exalted this Feeling...above all. To the degree that God identified *Itself* as essentially..."Love". "God is Love".
Good luck to your love. Back to the plow.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 9:52 am to Brazos
quote:
Belief that we came from nothing
Who says we came from nothing?
We didn't have to come from anything, we were always here.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 9:52 am to mindbreaker
quote:I've studied Buddhism somewhat and my understanding is that Buddhism doesn't require any sort of belief in God or gods but not because Buddha didn't know, but because he thought such beliefs were not necessary to achieve Nirvana and end suffering, so theism just didn't matter. In that sense, the religion is atheistic, at least in a practical sense, and it allows for individuals to believe in God or gods as they wish since such beliefs aren't necessary to achieve Nirvana. So, within Buddhism, you can have atheists, theists, and agnostics. Correct me if my understanding is wrong.
I'm Buddhist. Buddhism is an agnostic religion. We follow a path or teaching not a God. So yes you are painting with a very broad brush considering people of my religion represent 9% of the world's population
Posted on 9/21/17 at 9:53 am to RCDfan1950
quote:
It is utter ludicrous to assert that there is "zero evidence"
There is zero evidence for the Christian God.
Zero. If you believe in it, it's because you believe in it. it's in no way because there's any evidence for its existence.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 9:54 am to BamaAtl
quote:Okay
There is zero evidence for the Christian God.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 10:05 am to Wolfhound45
quote:
Okay
Go on...
Posted on 9/21/17 at 10:19 am to northshorebamaman
quote:
Sounding pretty agnostic, Rob.
STFU
Posted on 9/21/17 at 10:21 am to northshorebamaman
quote:My comment was qualified with my interactions with atheists and agnostics. Perhaps I went too far by saying they don't argue because they would have to take a stand. I think it would be more accurate in that they don't have a stance and therefore they struggle in such an argument and discussion because they don't have much to add to the discussion other than "we don't/can't know for sure".
You have an extremely flawed understanding of agnostic thought. Agnostics aren't agnostic because they're trying to avoid an argument or fear taking a stand.
quote:You used the word "conclusive" to qualify both of your reasons and that's really what I was getting at. The concept of God as a supernatural being flies in the face of the natural world we see every day. Therefore, belief in God is just that, belief. You have to have faith that God exists or that He does not exist. Agnostics are trying to avoid faith one way or the other and want conclusive proof ("conclusive" is different for each person as each person has their own threshold on what convinces them) before they will take a stand on the topic. It's why I asked someone else if they, personally, believe there is a God and what I would ask you, as well: do you, personally, believe that God (or gods, I suppose) exists? If not.
If you really believe that than there is no point in having a conversation with you. I'm agnostic for two simple reasons: -I've yet to see conclusive evidence in support of a creator. -I've yet to see conclusive evidence that there isn't one. Seems logical enough to me.
quote:Like I said, the discussion about God does rely on faith and belief and agnostics don't want to go down that road. You, yourself, qualified your statements with "conclusive" and "direct", which if past experience is true, is because you don't want to rely on faith but you want to know for certain that there is a God or there is not a God; you want to avoid the discussion in terms of faith all together.
Identifying as an agnostic has nothing to do with wanting to ride the fence. I'm happy to read and consider both sides, and until one or the other presents direct evidence, I can't fool my brain into knowing that one is true. Wish I could because from my vantage point your method of dealing with death is far more comforting. In my mind it's you that is taking the easy way out.
I can understand why you think it's easier to believe in a God, and I would agree in one sense but not in another. In one sense, I think the universe, itself, is evidence of the existence of God. The complexity of life, the existence of a universal sense of morality (even if not all moral standards are the same), and laws of logic are some of many examples of what I believe are evidences of the existence of God and therefore it's "easy" for me to be a Christian. The social stigma that exists these days for believing specific Christian principles, especially in regards to the Christian view of God as holy and man as sinful, puts pressure on me to either keep silent about my beliefs or abandon them completely.
My point, though, was that the agnostics I've encountered personally haven't looked at all the evidence and thoughtfully considered it. They start with the premise that God is unknowable and therefore any evidence provided would be insufficient to change that axiom and they, then, live their lives as practical atheists without much concern for God out of practical necessity, as they see it.
Page 13 of 21
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News