Fun facts about atheists #1
Some atheists really believe that the whole universe is chaotic and we, and our consciousnesses are just a random byproduct of evolution. Still, they ignore the fact that, despite what they say, there is an amazing degree of order in our universe, codified in mathematic language, that only sentient beings can understand
Fun facts about atheists #2
Some other atheists firmly believe that everything, including our minds and thoughts are deterministic. But still they waste their breath trying to convince everybody else that they are right.
Fun facts about atheists #3
A big number of nowadays atheists is composed by former, young christians/muslims who are now atheist only satisfy their teenage angst.
This means that atheism has become more and more superficial, with hordes of people who cannot argue without copypasting Dawkins everywhere, and trying to convince as many as possible of "their" ideas, in order to relieve the sense of guilt born from rejecting their previous believes (unconscious fear of hell).
>Some other atheists firmly believe that everything, including our minds and thoughts are deterministic.
It is proven that deterministic system can produce non-deterministic results.
>>57364868
>the whole universe is chaotic and we, and our consciousnesses are just a random byproduct of evolution
>Implying you can disprove this
Go ahead I'll wait
So when is it thought that Islam will be secularized like Christianity? Islam is the only real threat towards secularized society.
>>57364868
>we, and our consciousnesses are just a random byproduct of evolution
I wouldn't say random. It was design through natural selection.
>>57364868
>Still, they ignore the fact that, despite what they say, there is an amazing degree of order in our universe, codified in mathematic language, that only sentient beings can understand
problem is the theistic side also ignores the amazing degree of mathematical logic and order in the universe in regards to what we have discovered
I do agree with you that there are plenty of atheists who will take theories such as the Big Bang, misunderstand 90% of it yet will have full belief in it. It becomes frustrating when you have to clarify to them that for the earliest non-zero point both General Relativity and the Standard Model of particle physics break down in any explanatory role and we are left in the dark for the exact moment the big bang happened.
>>57364868
>there is an amazing degree of order in our universe
How so? Order is an interpretation WE OURSELVES have imposed on our surroundings. We believe it's "order" when a rock is nearly round or a boulder has straight edges, yet what do we call the 99.999% of rocks and boulders that are jagged, curved, and uneven?
How is a circle more orderly than an oval or something that isn't even classified as a shape?
>>57364868
Reading this slop leads me to believe that you're not smart enough to talk about atheism.
>>57366316
The universe does follow mathematically strict guidelines that we have expeimentally tested that prove to be true on many orders of magnitude of scale. There is a uniformity and structure to cosmological, local and subatomic level. It fits the textbook definition of "order".
>>57366596
We wrote the text book that defines order. We came up with the mathematics to describe how things occur in nature.
You're putting the cart before the horse if you think that nature in any way conforms to our description of it.
PS. I think you'd be interested in reading about the cosmological principle. Very interesting and relevant.
>>57365774
Design is the opposite of natural selection.
>>57366879
I am familiar with the cosmological principle (you really can't have a grasp of cosmology without it) and even with that principle we have to question our assumption if evidence proves to be contrary since there is evidence showing the homogeneous part may not be true.
Our description of nature by observation is all we really do and all of our observations are based on our description of these events. If you are interested you may want to look into "fine-turned universe" which is a hotly debated topic around this area.
>>57364868
There is no one more autistic and euphoric than the contrarian christfags on /pol/
Holy shit you guys really take the cake
>>57367408
It's the concept of the blind watchmaker.
Design is perhaps a poor choice of words, because natural selection has no more autonomy or intent than a mountain stream that erodes a rock and makes it smooth.
Who designed the smooth rock?
(in a nice bit of irony: captcha was 'select all the waterfalls)
>>57364868
And? Some Christians believe the earth to be flat.
Any statement beginning with "some" says exactly nothing about a group of people as a whole.
>>57366879
>We wrote the text book that defines order. We came up with the mathematics to describe how things occur in nature.
Correct. That's what happens when you try to convey ideas and information. You use commonly defined terms. The fact that we have to use commonly defined terms instead of magical books or telepathy doesn't invalidate the commonality found in the universe we call "order."
>Christians literally cant comprehend the size and age of the universe
Its actually unlikely something like this wouldnt happen a lot
You're all just small minded
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation
>>57364868
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Arguments for Deism =/= Arguments for Theism
>Nice talking snake, virgin birth, vicarious redeption...
Have fun being emotionally manipulated by the powers at be, common class faggot.
>Or maybe think for yourself
>BTFO
>>57364868
>Some religious people actually need God to guide them on right and wrong. They couldn't just figure out for themselves that you should not do certain things on account of how it might negatively affect others
>Religious people actually believe that if God exists he loves them
>Religious people most confusingly of all actually love God despite living in a word with cancer, rape, murder, AIDS, child molestation, hurricanes when the world could have just as easily have been conceived without all that suffering and pain
>>57364868
Fun facts about atheists #3
op is an atheist
>>57364868
I hope this solar system gets instantly evaporated by those stars that fly through galaxies at light speed and destroy whole solar systems in an instant to just rid the universe of your stupidity.
>>57367794
Deism and Atheism are not the same thing
>>57367538
Right. And I completely disagree with the description of the universe as "fine-tuned." We know that there are many millions and millions of cubic kilometres of lifeless space out there. There are likely billions of uninhabited planets. Stars are uninhabitable. Space in uninhabitable.
The belief that our little corner of the galaxy in which we find our solar system with one, perhaps two, planets with life on them - not to mention the imminent demise of our and every sun - to describe that as finely-tuned is almost unfathomable.
Going back to the cosmological principle. We can describe the universe as finely-tuned only because we are living creatures capable of describing the universe that we came to exist in. If we hadn't come to exist in this universe, or if we were to describe a moment billions of years in the past or future when all of life is gone from this humble corner of the galaxy, would we still call this universe finely-tuned?
>>57367852
Obvious OP is a theist, thus the relevancy of post.
>>57364868
I would say that the double-slit experiment alone is enough to prove that there is at least some degree of chaos, of randomness in the universe
>>57367720
Let me use an analogy. The universe is as a bowl. Our definitions and concepts are a liquid poured into the bowl. Our definitions and concepts are restricted by the shape of the bowl. The bowl is not math-shaped or order-shaped. It just is. We have conceived of our mathematics and our definition of the word "order" to describe the bowl. The bowl came first and shaped our definitions.
>>57368039
>We have conceived of our mathematics and our definition of the word "order" to describe the bowl.
Are you sure? I function under the concept that the term "order" applies to far more than just the bowl as you assert. I'd even argue we used the term "order" to describe many other thing long before we ascribed it to "the bowl."
It frustrates me how that the very obvious answer to the problems that ill the world is the universal, or at least global, rejection of dogma. All this Islam shit would disappear. But we have these retarded ass Christians in the way who are 400 years behind the intelligentsia in their own culture. Please fucking grow up so the world doesn't become a nuclear waste land. kthxbai
>>57367881
We couldn't because we wouldn't be able to observe that universe. Life as we know it and can observe falls within a narrow spectrum of requirements. I love extremeophiles because it puts into doubt this assumption and if we found a non-carbon based lifeform the potential for life elsewhere would exponentially grow.
>>57368211
I'm not saying order describes the bowl. I'm saying it's restricted by the bowl.
Do you call the collision of galaxies or the collapse of the stars orderly?
Order is something we recognize. It's essentially pattern recognition. What WE call order could very well be disordered to other species or people.
A neatly stacked book case is ordered to you but a spider probably sees it as we see mountains: huge, disproportionate, etc. An autistic man might think a bookshelf is disorderly if the books aren't organized by size or subject or year of publication.
My overall point is that order is a contrived term that humans invented to describe things. The universe isn't ordered in any objective sense.
>>57364868
Fun fact about atheist #whatever
There is no set dogma for atheism, and it literally juat comes down to what ever you think.
>>57368442
>Do you call the collision of galaxies or the collapse of the stars orderly?
What does my personal opinion have to do with the facts of communication? You seem to believe we define the cosmos based upon our terminology when it is clear to anyone with half a brain that terminology we use to describe the cosmos existed before we contemplated the cosmos.
New troll copypasta?
>Facts about christfags #1
They believe in fairies
>Facts about christfags #2
They trust science only insofar as it doesn't offend their personal, emotional, baseless beliefs
>Facts about christfags #3
They're deeply insecure about their unfounded to the point of making shit up about non-believers and posting one garbage thread after another
>>57368312
The spectrum of requirements is extremely narrow. It's something of a delusion, though an understandable one, to describe the universe as finely-tuned. It results from a lack of perspective about what proportion of the universe is NOT conducive to life.
>>57368442
Oh, and yes I do realize that our perceptions are limited but that doesn't mean we should bury our heads in the sand and not try to convey ideas or communication simply because we are imperfect beings. We cannot function without acting on imperfect information. You would never go out the door or get out of bed if you refused to do anything without perfect knowledge of your own safety and continued well-being.
>>57368509
The terminology did NOT exist before we created it to describe the universe. I'm the one saying that we create a vocabulary to describe things that occur in nature. In that regard, nature restricts our vocabulary and makes our language very specific, full of modifiers and caveats.
There were billions of years prior to there being life on earth capable of describing the universe in any meaningful way. There will be billions of years after humanity when there will be nothing on earth capable of describing the universe.
>>57367408
>design is the opposite of natural selection
how did you actually just say something that stupid
>>57368787
>The terminology did NOT exist before we created it to describe the universe.
[citation needed]
A counterexample off the top of my head. Philosophy has been going on for millennia and used the term "order" in regards to human interactions regardless of the cosmos (unless you want to equate religion and mythology with the cosmos).
>>57368695
I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.
But if someone is burying his head in the sand, it's the guy who says that life on earth is evidence of a finely-tuned universe. Perfect knowledge is impossible and we did not evolve that way. We evolved through trial and error, with the only foundational instinct being survival over non-survival.
>>57368941
>I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.
It seems to me that you are trying to construct an argument based upon limitations of our perceptions as your "stack of books is a mountain to a spider" analogy indicates.
>>57368607
I never agreed the universe was fine-tuned but it is an open question which is why I showed it as an example. Overall I assume we agree about the fundamentals of Cosmology and it just seems to be a disagreement over the word "order" and the cosmological principle having observational evidence that contradicts one of the principles putting it into question.
>>57368879
You said:
>[the] terminology we use to describe the cosmos existed before we contemplated the cosmos
That's false. Although it's all pre-history, humanity has likely been contemplating the cosmos (a fairly broad term) for its entire existence, before we had language or philosophy.
Our vocabulary is used to communicate about ourselves and the world around us.
>>57369079
>That's false.
I provided a counter-example after requesting some authoritative support for your assertion it is false. You are not going to persaude me to change by merely repeating the same assertion ESPECIALLY after you failed to even address the counter-example.
>>57364868
>Some other atheists firmly believe that everything, including our minds and thoughts are deterministic. But still they waste their breath trying to convince everybody else that they are right.
They have no choice but to try and convince others as a result of the determinism. They cannot not try
>>57364868
>Still, they ignore the fact that
Stopped reading there, you have no clue what you are talking about.
>>57369034
Okay. Here's my opinion of "order."
Order is what we use to describe something that fits a recognizable pattern. We, as living creatures in the universe, have become experts at pattern-recognition. It is what helped us survive and thrive in changing, challenging conditions.
This importance of pattern recognition is still relevant as we attempt to describe how the universe works. We use recognizable patterns to conceive and test hypotheses.
Order is a subjective term.
>>57369079
>humanity has likely been contemplating the cosmos
Oh, and I should say they likely contemplated how natural events related to cosmos occurred, such as say the sun rising. But as mythology and religion have tried to explain in the past without regards to the cosmos as a natural phenomenon but as a reflection of man's own agency. For example, ancient Greek mythology explained the sun rising as Apollo riding his flaming chariot across the sky. If you do not already understand the difference between mythology and cosmology this is going to be a farce.
>>57369247
>mythology and religion have tried to explain in the past *however not with regards to the cosmos as a natural phenomenon but as a reflection of man's own agency.
Fixed for clarity's sake.
>>57369148
>failed to address counter-example.
Me:
>humanity has likely been contemplating the cosmos (a fairly broad term) for its entire existence, before we had language or philosophy.
>>57369304
>humanity has likely been contemplating the cosmos (a fairly broad term) for its entire existence, before we had language or philosophy.
Excuse me if I do not give any validity to you trying to support your own assertion. Rewording your own assertion is not addressing the counter-example.
>>57369247
>>57369296
What the hell do you think mythology and religion are? They're primitive attempts to explain how the universe works.
Philosophy is another attempt to explain the universe, though not as primitive.
Science is another, also not as primitive and more reliant on testable hypotheses.
>>57369394
>What the hell do you think mythology and religion are?
I already answered that question and even supported it with an example from Greek mythology. What part of:
>[not] as a natural phenomenon but as a reflection of man's own agency
You seem to give man far more credit as an objective thinker than they have ever deserved even in modern times.
>>57369350
I didn't reword it. I repeated it.
You made an assertion without any evidence. You also made an assertion that is intuitively and historically untrue.
Even if you hadn't made those assertions, I still wouldn't understand what point you're trying to make. The fact is, order is a subjective term. The universe is not finely-tuned or overly conducive to life.
Address those last points, if nothing else.
>>57364868
Not even an atheist anymore but you're retarded. Space and time are chaotic in a sense that they're direction less beyond their basic nature, the rules that we understand give us a general idea of what happens 99.999999%+ of the time. Mathematics is simply our own brains coming to terms with our surroundings. Our view of the universe and all existence is entirely subjective. Our minds and thoughts are largely deterministic, its our perception that only would seem to say otherwise. Freewill is the construct of our own minds. The last thing isn't even an argument, its just saying
>hurr durr kids these days
The reality probably lies somewhere else no in either camp. God is just what you read, a word. It's a human concept for a human mind, the universe is not human though and therefore strictly applying human ideas of morality, life, death, the soul, and big sky daddy is a futile effort.
>>57369500
>I didn't reword it. I repeated it.
Thank you for proving me right that you were trying to support your words with your own words regardless if we disagree on the specific format of your words.
>You made an assertion without any evidence.
Now you're trying to shift the burden of proof in retribution of being tasked with supporting your assertion?
Am I to understand you cannot fulfill your obligation when requested and hypocritical expecting others to support their assertions unrequested?
>>57369597
The fact is, order is a subjective term. The universe is not finely-tuned or overly conducive to life.
Address those last points, if nothing else.
>>57367881
Whether or not something can harbor or support life is a poor standard for "fine tuned".
When people say "fine tuned" in relation to the universe, they are talking about how the properties of the physics of the universe are set in stone, unchanging (I'm talking about the laws the universe it runs on itself, not our definitions of them).
That said, it's a meaningless statement as we don't have anything to compare it to. We don't actually know how much flexibility there could be in any and all the fundamental laws of the universe while still sustaining something, and if those laws are different, how could we possibly even recognize this universe as existing? Since it would have to outside our universe (or have a cross over point we haven't discovered)
>>57369630
>The fact is, order is a subjective term.
I have to disagree. Any term that functions on shared common usage is no longer "subjective." Subjectivity functions on the aspects of the specific subject. Once it passes beyond that specific subject it is no longer subjective.
>>57369741
>Once it passes beyond that specific subject it is no longer subjective.
Thus the whole point of the argument that the term order is commonly used to describe many things other than "the bowl" and has been used long in a non-subjective manner long before it was ascribed to "the bowl."
>>57369630
You might as well argue that the English language is subjective.
>>57369680
Thank-you for being reasonably articulate.
Your point is noted. My disagreement is about whether the constants of physics are such to facilitate a universe such as we have, or whether we have such a universe because the constants of physics are (arbitrarily) what they are.
Obviously the OP is arguing that those constants, conducive as they are to the life we know, are the constants BECAUSE the life we know is a good thing and a "desired result" of a universe with an intentional creator.
I disagree. Just because we came to be under these conditions does not mean these conditions exist so we can come into being.
>>57364868
go ahead and fuck some little boys francesco
>>57369861
Well, that's factual.
>>57369802
So what's your point?
>>57369861
I have argued that. And I've also argued that the realities of the universe have greatly influenced and restricted our language.
>>57369541
Good answer
Fun facts about atheists #4
They are faggots
>>57370004
You cannot invalidate ideas merely because you disagree with the terminology used to convey it nor because of the claimant's limited perceptions.
>>57370075
>I have argued that.
Why have you argued that? It seems the only plausible reason to arguing that would either a) pure pettiness; or b) an retarded notion that we should not try to linguistically function unless we can perfectly communicate.
>>57370130
I didn't invalidate the idea because of the definition of the word order. I invalidated the idea because of the overwhelming evidence against your description of the universe.
I said the universe is not overly conducive to life. I also said earlier that our descriptions are shaped by the universe, not vice versa.
>>57370190
No, you argued that we were using the word "order" well before we contemplated the cosmos. That's factually incorrect and even if it were true, it would be irrelevant.
>>57364868
cool story retard
Fun facts about theists #1
They still dont have any credible evidence that their god exists
TOP KEK
A more interesting question is why didn't the energy from the big bang didn't just stay energy? Why did it form matter? Why matter differentiated? Etc. Alan Watts said that life was implied in the Big Bang.
>>57370286
>I invalidated the idea because of the overwhelming evidence against your description of the universe.
Based upon what we describe as "order?"
Let's look back at what you posted in >>57366316
>How so? Order is an interpretation WE OURSELVES have imposed on our surroundings.
Seems to me you are trying to carve out the very predicate you asserted in your first post.
>>57370374
You did not answer the question. Am I to assume you are protesting a simple pretextual negation? Either you do not know why you are arguing it or because I was accurate and you cannot or will not acknowledge it?
>>57364868
>A big number of nowadays atheists is composed by former, young christians/muslims who are now atheist only satisfy their teenage angst
I fall into this category, but I'm Agnostic now, it truly is the most logical choice.
>>57370479
Those two quotes of mine are completely consistent. They both question the integrity of describing anything in nature as "orderly". Is a smooth or rounded rock evidence of order or design? Obviously not. Is a planet that sustains intelligent life for a portion of its existence evidence of fine-tuning or design? Obviously not.
Where is the discrepancy you're trying to point out?
>>57370524
I argued it because you brought up a false and irrelevant point in an attempt to imply that order calls for a designer or intelligent first cause.
I'm just about through jumping through hoops. I'm getting very little substance from you as far as the debate goes.
Fuck all that shit, I'm just atheist because I don't believe in a God.
>>57370660
>Those two quotes of mine are completely consistent.
You have proven this to be a farce.
First you raise an issue with the use of the term "order."
>Order is an interpretation WE OURSELVES have imposed on our surroundings.
When questioned about it you then claim you did not raise an issue with the use of the term "order."
>I didn't invalidate the idea because of the definition of the word order.
And now you claim the two are consistent? Clearly you do not share the common usage of the term "consistent" as that is clearly inconsistent.
>>57370772
My issue was with you describing the universe as ordered. I don't have a problem with the word existing or even having a meaning (even if it's a highly subjective one).
Through this entire conversation my argument has been that the universe is not orderly.
>>57370743
>I argued it because you brought up a false and irrelevant point in an attempt to imply that order calls for a designer or intelligent first cause.
I only argued against your assertion on "imposing our interpretation" on the cosmos and never once referred to or inferred about any "designer" or "intelligent first cause."
You sir, have either conflated my posts with another anon with a distinctly different ID or are trying to dance around the question by putting words in my posts that were not there and cannot be reasonably imputed from them.
>>57370870
>My issue was with you describing the universe as ordered
Are you confusing me with the OP simply because I questioned your assertion even though we have distinctly different IDs let alone used distinctly different arguments?
>>57370870
Not to mention distinctly different FLAGS?
>this thread
>>57370870
>my argument has been that the universe is not orderly
That's retarded desu senpai
>>57370968
He also tried to argue that objectively definite English terms are "subjective" alongside the entire English language.
>low entropy
>therefore god
nah.
>>57370911
I don't know why any sane person would cling to the word "order" and bring up mythology and religion and philosophy to defend the word, and argue for an hour with someone who repeatedly says the universe is not orderly, and then cling to semantic bullshit that is besides the point.
I'm done here. I can't believe I didn't recognize how obtuse you have been this whole time.
After all this masturbation, I think it's time for bed. Good night.
>>57370968
>implying the universe is orderly
>when your only 'evidence' is that intelligent life is alive to describe the universe.
>Completely disregards this is circular reasoning, because if the universe wasn't capable of supporting human life human life wouldn't exist to describe it.
>>57371009
>Language
>Objective
Can you try being less retarded?
>>57364868
Fun fact:
Atheists are self-hating hipsters.
>>57371074
>I don't know why any sane person would cling to the word "order"
Then are you admitting that you are not sane as that is the predicate you "clung" your refutation on.
>>57371087
>Can you try being less retarded?
I cannot be bothered to take seriously anyone who is going to try to argue the English language is not objectively definite. That's the very root of the word definition.
>>57371242
>the English language is objectively definite.
You are LITERALLY retarded.
I'm waiting eagerly for the irony of my statement and yours to set into your mind.
>>57371371
>I'm waiting eagerly
Keep waiting as it will not come. I already told you it will not come as I cannot take you seriously but apparently the English language has not definite meaning to you so the words "I cannot take you seriously" has not definite meaning to you.
Torna a prenderlo in culo da un prete .
>>57371415
>apparently the English language has not definite meaning
You're really dense, aren't you?
I was making a point about how language has no definite meaning by joking about how so many people misused the word 'literally', causing it to have to be redefined in dictionaries.
https://www.google.com/search?q=define+literally&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
>used for emphasis or to express strong feeling while not being literally true.
>>57371087
>theoretical models accurately describe and measure observable phenomena, allowing us to test shit and make predictions
>not orderly
Chaos, or the absence of order, is just a buzzword invoked by people with insufficient scientific knowledge to explain why seemingly random events happen. Saying everything is chaotic is like saying the universe came from nothing (as in Krauss' case) when it wasn't actually nothing in the first place.
>>57371641
>I was making a point about how language has no definite meaning
Despite growing up with books and now the internet full of definite meanings in regards to the English language.
Are no naturally this egotistical that you can deny the existence of dictionaries or did you have to train for it?
>>57364868
Says 'Fun facts'; talks about subjective terms and statements. Nice bait.
>>57371641
Oh, and I love the irony of how you try to support your point of "no definite meaning" by linking do a "definite meaning."
>>57364868
There's no evidence to support that Jesus was real, and there's been no evidence of the power of prayer. There's just no reason to jump to conclusions and say that religion is true. It's not a political thing for me at all. I'll probably even raise my kids Catholic for family tradition's sake, though I'll be honest with them about not believing.
>>57371789
>>57371811
No you fucking moron, it's not a definite meaning. Holy fucking shit.
It's not definite or objective when you have to adapt your definitions to it's common usage and your definitions are inaccurate until you do so and often even when you try to do so.
If language was objective, why is there such thing as untranslatable words? If language was definite and objective, there would be words for every combination of meaning and intent even across different languages.
>>57372012
>it's not a definite meaning.
Let me see if I understand you correctly. Definition does not definitely mean:
>the act of defining, or of making something definite, distinct, or clear
as defined by Dictionary.com? That your act of pointing me to definition of "literally" was not an attempt to a specific DEFINITE MEANING of what you mean when you use the term "literally?"
>>57372012
There is no such thing as an untranslatable word, just no direct translation of certain words is what you're on about.
>>57364868
There cannot be existence without consciousness because there would be nobody to perceive its existence. The super consciousness has created the world, and has incarnated itself into all its lifeforms, the degree of their expression is limited by their biological nature, but they are all forms of the same consciousness.
A fish' memory limits its capacity for a more complex expression of consciousness, it is physically limited. If a natural environment is difficult to survive the animal has to adapt physically, sometimes it means getting a tail and sometimes it means a bigger brain capacity. As the brain is able to process more of the world around it, the more complex it's expression becomes.
Our brains have become so complex that we now have self consciousness, we are aware that we are conscious. This is the point of existence, now it is up to this consciousness to figure out itself. Many people wont figure it out, but some will, and when they become "enlightened" they suddenly realize that they are everything, and this realization makes their ego's subside, their fear of death vanishes and their whole body relaxes in the knowledge that all is well, and the universe is perfect as it is.
Those who are not seeking for this knowledge are simply actors on a stage, they interact with the physical world and they go along with its games, they get immersed in it, they strengthen their ego's and they believe themselves to be important. They are nothing but actors and they are afraid, afraid of social judgments, afraid of fitting in, afraid in the end, of death. Because they have invested their whole life into this ego, death for them is incredibly scary. They want to believe in religion because it alleviates some of those fears especially for promises of heaven and talks about the soul.
>>57372133
>There is no such thing as an untranslatable word, just no direct translation of certain words
So those words are.. untranslatable?
>>57372311
There is no soul, there is only one consciousness that is pure and when you are born like a small snowball you roll around inside the physical world and you accumulate experiences, trauma, knowledge etc... Until you become a big snowball at the end of your life, when the sun comes and melts all of the physical baggage away and what is left is nothing but the purity you started with.
You don't need to die to see this purity, you have to become that snowball which does not accumulate but instead lets go. And no matter how much you roll around in the physical world your existence will stay "light", you will stay close to the source and not let yourself get immersed in the physical world. This is what serious spiritual practitioners are after.
Death will come and it will be met with a smile, for there is nothing that ceases to exist when you are existence itself.
OP wasn't even making the case for a particular god. He was just pointing out how atheism requires just as much of a leap of faith as theism. From a purely rational perspective (something atheists purport to hold), the only sensible position is agnosticism.
>>57372314
Every word has a meaning, if you can decipher the meaning you have translated it. And you and your understanding of language would need one or multiple words to explain to someone else the meaning of the word.
>>57372367
>He was just pointing out how atheism requires just as much of a leap of faith as theism
Deciding to not believe is the same as believing? Isn't that like saying deciding to not drive a car but walk is the same as driving a car?
>>57372499
It gets you from point A to B does it not? Same result.
>>57372562
The ends defines the means? That argument was weak even in Socrates days.
>>57372599
It all depends on the question.
>>57372723
>It all depends on the question.
Which you refused to answer as presented. I guess your "depends" is not "depends on the context of the question" but "depends on whether or not the question slays my answer."
>>57372499
If you don't believe in God, then you believe there is no God. That's a faith-based position.
>>57372839
You're that edgy little nigger that no one wants to talk to.
>>57364868
Not all atheists are like that. I'm an atheist, yet I believe that religion (christianity, catholics) is very much needed in a healthy society. It makes less inteligent people act better if they believe in something, and they can get good moral values from it.
If there was any kind of evidence behind it, I'd be happy to believe too.
>>57372900
The truth will not bring one many friends but they will be honest friends.
>>57372876
>If you don't believe in God, then you believe there is no God.
Disbelief = Belief, huh?
Do you also define disappearance=apperance? How about disconnect=connect?
>>57372839
This is your question
>Isn't that like saying deciding to not drive a car but walk is the same as driving a car?
What's the difference between a car and walking? They both serve the same purpose, they get you from point A to point B. So in this context is walking not the same as driving?
>>57372939
pretty much this
>>57372939
>It makes less intelligent people act better
That's similar to how fedoras say "religion is a means of control" while themselves being deeply dysfunctional people who would benefit from said control
>>57373033
>What's the difference between a car and walking?
If you sincerely need to ask the difference between driving a car and walking I cannot be bothered to even start with physical differences as it will clearly be a waste of time as you evidence a complete failure of basic cognitive skills.
>>57373096
Someone doesn't see the context of the question, you sir are a moron.
>>57373028
If you don't believe in a God, then naturally you believe there is no God. It's not that hard.
>>57373200
Kek, I like you. Are you a philosophy major?
>>57373200
Why don't you try explaining the context of the question so that it would appear reasonable? Failure to do so will be deemed a pretextual argument merely presented to justify an attempt to evoke an emotional response with a personal attack.
>>57373265
Thank you for admitting your argument is exactly the irrational one of "disbelief=belief." As you prove beyond question to be irrational there is no point in bothering to respond to your posts further.
>>57373319
I really wish I were, I study mathematics.
>>57364868
Theological examination and exegesis led me to atheism, and is eternally leading me to academic revelation regarding religions and their origins.
It began with the simple realization around age 8 that fate's propensity to punish good people and reward evil ones stood in immediate contradiction to scripture and even the social bedrock built upon that scripture, then proceeded to compound upon the realization that religious moral relativity rested upon essentially tribal lines where crimes against the Other were justified.
Religions are the old tyranny that poorly made governments are the equivalent of today.
>>57364868
>Some other atheists firmly believe that everything, including our minds and thoughts are deterministic
? lol
do u believe in magic?
idiot
>>57370436
>A more interesting question is why didn't the energy from the big bang didn't just stay energy? Why did it form matter?
Because, as the universe expanded, it cooled.
>>57373466
We 're on the same boat then.
>>57373602
I'm not really acquainted with the physics of it, but even if physical laws imply what you said, the universe must have had some 'knowledge' of these laws beforehand. So the question remains, both where did the laws and the energy come from.
>>57373200
Thank you for leaving me with justification that you cannot present a reasonable explanation of the context of the question as there is no reasonable one. You presented the question with the obvious unreasonable meaning of equating two clearly different physical acts.
>>57372367
Agnosticism and atheism aren't mutually exclusive dingus
Also
>He was just pointing out how atheism requires just as much of a leap of faith as theism
Are you trying to say that taking a leap of faith requires as much faith as not leaping? Because it doesn't. That's the whole point in a leap of faith.
Leaping requires faith. Not leaping, doesn't.
>>57374063
Oops! I missed a trick.
>You presented the question with the obvious unreasonable meaning of equating two *unquestionably different physical acts.
Fixed!
>>57373340
See
>>57373096
You should follow your own advice.
Lets get straight to it, you are arguing for our universe to be a creation from a conscious being and not a reaction to fluctuations of higher dimensions (one possible theory). Both of these could be entirely correct and both would lead us to this exact point. So why do you indoctrinate yourself and close off all the other fields of research other than scripture. Would it not be better to try and live your life trying to disprove everything you know so that you know you aren't living a lie. I personally believe there could be a God but not how any ancient religious text describes it.
>>57373265
This reasoning is correct in a number of things (if you don't believe in climate change, then most definately believe there is no climate change) but since the supernatural belief is a seperate part of our brain in an evolutionary sense I think in this regard it's not that simple to say that disbelief is the same as belief. We have to developed over thousands of years to look out to something supernatural. So I say that given that we have that tendency as a species, disbelief in a particular religion or in the logical argument for god, still doesn't completely close the door. This is why atheism is so try-hard, they have to build an ideological foundation to believe in, with which they replace God, since the believing part of our brains can't be easily switched off completely so they redirect that instinct to atheism instead. I'd say that it's possible for a rational person to not believe in God and not be an atheist at the same time, since he would just have suspended belief in all of it's forms.
fun fact about religious people #1
they like being kucked by faggot priests who fuck their children
>>57374422
>You should follow your own advice.
Quoting me to myself does not explain your context.
>you are arguing for our universe to be a creation from a conscious being
Please quote me anywhere in this text that a reasonable person can read what I wrote and infer such meaning to it. As noted previously the to the other poster who tried to assert:
>you are arguing for our universe to be a creation from a conscious being
I gave him the same task and he failed as well. Can you do any better?
>>57374669
>Please quote me anywhere in this *thread that a reasonable person can read what I wrote and infer such meaning to it.
Fixed for clarity's sake.
>>57364868
Shit, did I click /b/ by mistake?
>>57374422
Yeah. That's what I thought.
How do atheists expect us to move forward without a moral guide, a belief system, while we get divided and conquered by scientists. Im not that religious but Christianity is needed if the west is to be saved
>>57376626
Move forward to where? We are on a space rock dude. If there is peace to be found here we have to make it ourselves. "Existentialism is just another humanism".
>>57377323
P l e a s e h e r e m e o u t
>>57377323
Jean Paul Sartre?
>>57376626
>How do atheists expect us to move forward without a moral guide, a belief system
I don't know about atheists but we have a moral guide. Starts with the emphatic rule: Do unto others as you want others to do unto you. That leads to other moral and ethical standards. Before long you have a practicable and reasonable moral guide.
Why do you need a belief system to go forward? In fact, it is arguable that a belief system will lead to stagnation or even worse going backward.
>>57378099
Idk how no one noticed your flag. Nice, dude.
>>57364995
Wrong. I think you mean a deterministic system can produce unpredictable and complex behavior. Any deterministic system produces the same outcome given the same initial conditions. The reason why results are unpredictable is due to a lack of precision in measurements, but unpredictability does not imply nondeterministic.
From a review of GEB:
Hofstadter does explore the unpredictability and complexity of emergent behavior manifested in ant colonies, intracellular enzymatic processes, and neurons in the human brain. It is only through the interactions of a multitude of ants, no single one of which possesses an internal plan for the often complex design of the anthill, that such vast and intricate structures are eventually built. The neuronal example of unforeseeable complexity arising from simple parallel agents is also fascinating.
Hofstadter points out the difficulty of localizing higher cognitive processes due to the fact that any individual neuron may interact with thousands of others, which in turn interact with thousands of others, all in parallel, to produce complex mental behavior.
Finally, Hofstadter relates this emergent complexity to creativity, making the point that determinism does not rule out creativity because there is more than enough pseudorandomness in any sufficiently large deterministic system to give rise to unpredictable, "creative" results.
>>57365483
You can't have strong religious beliefs and function in modern society. The morals and ethics are antagonistic.
Strong Islam only exists in less developed societies and poor neighbourhoods. Normal progress will kill religion because progress and religion are incompatible.
>>57364868
shouldn't you be getting some altar boy drunk on communion wine so you can diddle him, father?
