Exposing Atheistic Myths

[Keith&Co.]

No, because your opposing theory no evidence, either, AND it violates Occam's razor. So it'has less goingbfor it than materialism. It's into negative evidence.

Keith, if "reality exists independently of minds" is a statement with no evidence whatsoever, then we know reality can not exist independently of minds.

Know? No, that is not how it works. 'Reality cannot exist independent of minds' is also a staement with no evidence.

It then logically follows that an eternal mind that is always perceiving must always exist.

somehow, i must reject the logic of someone who cannot produce a quote he madecearlier in thus very thread, who can never, ever support his assertions, and wouldn't know a cite if 9 out of 10 dentists shoved it down his throat.

You don't believe there were ANY MINDS around billions of years ago.

what an odd, odd assertion. How do you know this is my belief?

And reality can not exist independently of minds.

still haven't proven this to be true. All you have done is cast the possibility of doubt on something so you can shove your favorite conclusion in its way.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Nothing but two words put side by side. To me it's only noise.

But the question was how YOU connect "eternal mind" to God? Is it just because someone defined this "God" thing in that way many centuries ago? Is it that simple?

God is the greatest being which can be conceived.

Unless you conceive of the being that created your God.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Why is "an eternal mind" God?

What is an eternal mind to you?

Nothing but two words put side by side. To me it's only noise.

But the question was how YOU connect "eternal mind" to God? Is it just because someone defined this "God" thing in that way many centuries ago? Is it that simple?

Abaddon, were you there when Halfie tried to use 'Free Market' to identify commerce where the shopkeepers were 'free' to discriminate? To not do business with blacks, liberals, gays, jews, transexuals, and women who self-identify as a hyena? It was kind of informative about Halfie's grasp of words and their uses.
Piddle poor.

 

[abaddon]

Nothing but two words put side by side. To me it's only noise.

But the question was how YOU connect "eternal mind" to God? Is it just because someone defined this "God" thing in that way many centuries ago? Is it that simple?

God is the greatest being which can be conceived.

Is that true or just a conception?

Like I said to you just a while ago:

"Many people, both theist and atheist, wonder big questions - like "why does anything exist?" and others. Theists choose an age-old ready-made answer, God. But however well the concept "God" has been tailored by theists to serve as a ready-made answer for such ultimate questions, it's an answer that only opens up more questions."

That's all I see you doing. You found a conundrum that gave the opportunity to throw the ready-made answer out there and smite the atheists with it.

But if the question you raise is a serious problem it ought to be researched rather than quickly settled with a ready-made answer dreamed up ages ago. I don't have to prove things exist independently of my mind because even if they don't, the solution isn't to just assert "God" simply because someone defined him to be THE answer to big questions ages ago.

 

[abaddon]

Abaddon, were you there when Halfie tried to use 'Free Market' to identify commerce where the shopkeepers were 'free' to discriminate? To not do business with blacks, liberals, gays, jews, transexuals, and women who self-identify as a hyena? It was kind of informative about Halfie's grasp of words and their uses.
Piddle poor.

I want to explore my idea regardless (here it's that God's 'a noise') . Theists grasping anything is optional.

 

[atrib]

How does God solve the problem you keep asserting?

Do not give "everything exists in the mind of God" as the solution without telling HOW there's a mind of God just floating around.

Because if things existing independently of minds can't be proven, then it's only logical that there is an eternal mind which solves this problem.

You've got this backward. It is true that we cannot empirically demonstrate that reality is real, and that we are not a part of a simulation. But since we have no reason to believe that we exist in a simulation, the pragmatic thing to do is to proceed with our lives using the provisional assumption that reality is indeed real, based on the evidence that tells us so. I can see, hear, touch, smell and taste reality, and my observations are repeatable under controlled conditions. I can't do any of those things with the god you claim exists.

You have taken this core epistemological assumption that reality is real and distorted it to say: "Reality cannot exist independently of a mind". And using this premise, you have concluded: "Goddidit!". Your argument is flawed. Here's why:

In order for a logical argument to be sound, two conditions need to be satisfied. First, the premises that the argument is based on have to be demonstrated to be factual. Second, the conclusion has to logically follow from the premises. Your argument satisfies neither condition. Therefore, your argument is not valid.

It is encouraging to see that you are apparently making some effort to think. But I would suggest you leave your biases and presuppositions at the door before you venture any further, or else you are doomed to failure.

 

[atrib]

Nothing but two words put side by side. To me it's only noise.

But the question was how YOU connect "eternal mind" to God? Is it just because someone defined this "God" thing in that way many centuries ago? Is it that simple?

God is the greatest being which can be conceived.

I just conceived of a being that is greater than Biblegod. That would be my dad. He never cursed his children to disease and death. He never killed the firstborn children of people he disliked. He never committed genocide. He never inflicted plagues and pestilences on other humans. He never threatened others with an eternity of torment, or built an underground playground to achieve this purpose. He never had an innocent human sacrificed to himself so he could bring himself to forgive humanity and save them from said eternal torment. He was not a no-show like Biblegod, he was very much a part of our lives at all times, teaching us how to be good citizens of the world. And he never demanded that we bow down before him and beg for this mercy, or enslave our minds to singing his praises. My dad, and most other humans that I know are infinitely greater than your god.

So much for your stupid fucking assertion. That is what the disease of religion does to people; it turns otherwise good and rational human beings into mindless vectors intent only on spreading the infection.

 

[Half-Life]

Know? No, that is not how it works. 'Reality cannot exist independent of minds' is also a staement with no evidence.

It then logically follows that an eternal mind that is always perceiving must always exist.

somehow, i must reject the logic of someone who cannot produce a quote he madecearlier in thus very thread, who can never, ever support his assertions, and wouldn't know a cite if 9 out of 10 dentists shoved it down his throat.

You don't believe there were ANY MINDS around billions of years ago.

what an odd, odd assertion. How do you know this is my belief?

And reality can not exist independently of minds.

still haven't proven this to be true. All you have done is cast the possibility of doubt on something so you can shove your favorite conclusion in its way.

Kith, that is the basis of materialism atheism. No minds were around when the Big Big happened, planets were forming, stars were forming etc.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Know? No, that is not how it works. 'Reality cannot exist independent of minds' is also a staement with no evidence. somehow, i must reject the logic of someone who cannot produce a quote he madecearlier in thus very thread, who can never, ever support his assertions, and wouldn't know a cite if 9 out of 10 dentists shoved it down his throat. what an odd, odd assertion. How do you know this is my belief?[/B]

And reality can not exist independently of minds.

still haven't proven this to be true. All you have done is cast the possibility of doubt on something so you can shove your favorite conclusion in its way.

Kith, that is the basis of materialism atheism. No minds were around when the Big Big happened, planets were forming, stars were forming etc.

no. You are wrong. Quel suprise.

The basis of atheism is that i do not believe in gods.

I do not believe human minds were around more than, i dunno, 2 million years ago?

But there is still a lot of room between 'human mind' and 'god' for other minds to exist, or have existed. Do you have any evidence that there have never been any othrr minds?

 

[steve_bank]

There's also the fact that nobody has even proven man exists in an atheistic world yet. Philosophers have tried for centuries, but to no avail. Even the classic, "I think, therefore I am" is flawed because it's assuming the conclusion through the premise.

So if nobody has even proven man exists yet, how can atheists expect proof of God?

That is because language and philosophy is always in the end self referential, there is no absolute philosophical reference point. Science in contrast is based on the unambiguous definitions of the meter, kilogram, and second.

Proving man exists is like a dog chasing its tail. From what I read Descartes' saying I think therefore I am was more of a poke at those debating ridiculous philosophy. He was a pragmatists.

Why would you need to prove you exist? Do you doubt reality? Are you afraid you do not exists?

Nobody is doubting reality. Berkeley said sensations ARE reality. Any other extrapolation such as, "Reality exists independently of minds" is an assumption with no proof behind it.

Look at how nobody has even tried to prove anything exists independently of minds so far.

You are descending into the endless and pointless debates that for ages have led nowhere. What is reality and so on. They are perennial unanswerable questions. Why am I here? What is my purpose.

For the Christian religion answers all those pesky questions.

Today what physical reality is goes under physical sconce. Perceptions of reality goes under psychology and in particular cognitive psychology. Classical philosophy is pretty much obsolete. There have been decades of scientific based experiment and research into how we perceive and interpret senses.

God is the greatest being which can be conceived.

You are ignoring other gods people believe in. My god vs your god is an historical source of conflict.

I believe it is the teleological argument that goes something like 'I can not imagine a universe without a god therefore god exists'. All theists proofs about god end up being a form of bootstrapping and argument. The conclusion is presented as true based on the premise that the conclusion is true.

 

[Half-Life]

Kith, that is the basis of materialism atheism. No minds were around when the Big Big happened, planets were forming, stars were forming etc.

no. You are wrong. Quel suprise.

The basis of atheism is that i do not believe in gods.

I do not believe human minds were around more than, i dunno, 2 million years ago?

But there is still a lot of room between 'human mind' and 'god' for other minds to exist, or have existed. Do you have any evidence that there have never been any othrr minds?

Holy mother of God, Keith!!!

Please tell me how many minds existed when the Big Bang happened up until the Earth formed with life (as according to the standard leftist academia curriculum).

 

[Keith&Co.]

Holy mother of God, Keith!!!

wow. Hyperbole, much?

Please tell me how many minds existed when the Big Bang happened

you did not say Big Bang. You said, "You don't believe there were ANY MINDS around billions of years ago."
I have had no reason to come to that conclusion, despite you telling me what i believe. There could be any numbrr of alien minds out there, now or billions ofbyears ago.
If you meant the big bang, you xhould have said so.
But then you brought BB into a definition of atheistic materialism, which is just you blowing smoke on something you know dick about.

up until the Earth formed with life (as according to the standard leftist academia curriculum).

oh, go fuck a squirrel. The most popular cosmology model right niw is not 'leftist.' Get this thru your head and you might look a little less stupid when you post.

 

[Learner]

Probably because its not Gods world any more.

He wasn’t powerful enough to keep it, eh?

Interesting to think about - who did he lose it to? (Or give it to)
Who or what was too powerful for god to resist?

A fly falls into your soup. Are you still going to eat it, when you take the fly out - being that you're powerful enough to keep it ? A fresh clean bowl is more likely preferable, I would assume.

(best I could come up with at the moment )

 

[abaddon]

Learner,

A God that's antagonistic to his creation. Doesn't that strike you as weird at all? Or is a petty, sulky god really all that you want out of believing in this mythological stuff?

Also, have you noticed that theism spends a lot of time making excuses for how the world sucks a bit?

"Why is life hard?" asks humans generally.

Atheistic response: "Nature isn't against us or for us. We can make things a little better with some human ingenuity".

Theist's response: "Because God has forsaken us, that's why! We need to propitiate the deity or he will not favor us and the world will kill us".

It's ironic. God was fabricated to explain existence and have someone looking out for the tribe's interests. But then it's noticed that the world he made has problems. So then it becomes necessary to explain why a world made by God has problems. Can't blame God, cuz you're wanting favors from him! So humans must have fucked something up. And that made God dislike the whole entire world, such that even the innocent animals suffer... So much excuse-making for the god. It's from trying to explain everything with gods. It worked ok in simpler times among tribes, because without tools to manipulate the environment more thoroughly, they were often at the mercy of the harsh world. So therefore the stories of a God that can help the tribe survive. But, now, it just cannot be more clear that it's all entirely mythological.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Probably because its not Gods world any more.

He wasn’t powerful enough to keep it, eh?

Interesting to think about - who did he lose it to? (Or give it to)
Who or what was too powerful for god to resist?

A fly falls into your soup. Are you still going to eat it, when you take the fly out - being that you're powerful enough to keep it ? A fresh clean bowl is more likely preferable, I would assume.

(best I could come up with at the moment )

But the chef also made the fly. And if the chef had the power of prophecy, then he knew the fly would be in the soup before he madebthe fly, or the soup, orvthe bowl.
....and did nothing to prevent this turn of events.
So how can it be anything but what the chef wanted? Why dump a successful effort?

 

[skepticalbip]

Monotheists created one hell of a dilemma for themselves. Considering the trials and tribulations the world presents and the human tendency to invent gods, earlier polytheists invented a much more consistent story line. If beneficial events occurred then it was credited to a god that favored the tribe but harmful or undesirable events were credited to a spiteful or trickster god. The monotheists ended up with having to settle for a schizophrenic god. It is a real bitch never knowing what the hell this god will do.

 

[Rhea]

When you "imagine" the Earth 4.5 billion years ago, you are still using your mind to imagine it. This is not the same as proving it exists independently of minds.

I swear, this is one of the silliest things I have ever heard.

 

[skepticalbip]

When you "imagine" the Earth 4.5 billion years ago, you are still using your mind to imagine it. This is not the same as proving it exists independently of minds.

I swear, this is one of the silliest things I have ever heard.

But you gotta admit that it is funny. If we take his exact same 'reasoning' about his god then we get, "When you 'imagine' god, you are still using your mind to imagine it. This is not the same as proving god exists independently of minds."

His is making damning argument against his god's existence. It works against a god's existence because the believer's mind is the only place god resides, not so much against the real world.

 

[Keith&Co.]

When you "imagine" the Earth 4.5 billion years ago, you are still using your mind to imagine it. This is not the same as proving it exists independently of minds.

I swear, this is one of the silliest things I have ever heard.

You haven't seen the ALWAYS thread, yet, i see.

 

[steve_bank]

Agnostics are fence sitters, maybe yes maybe no. I don't think there is a god but I think there may be some kind of cosmic intelligence, or maybe....

Agnostics are people whose rule is not to pretend at knowledge where none yet exists. It is a position on epistemology, not theism.

An agnostic can be any number of categories. Atheist agnostic for one.

It is avoiding the issue. God exists, does not exists, or you are unsure. Make a choice or sit on a fence.