_________________________________________________________
. . .
Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
. . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Obviously it takes faith to be a strong atheist. Are any of you who consider yourselves to be a strong atheist, unashamed to admit you have the faith that's required in order for you to be one?
QUOTE (nopEda+May 18 2009, 07:43 PM)
Obviously it takes faith to be a strong atheist.
Any statement from you which begins or contains the word 'obviously' should immediately be ignored.
nopEda
What am I if I accept as true the proposition that , "aliens do not exist".
What am I if I accept as true the proposition that , "aliens do not exist".
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 18 2009, 08:15 PM)
nopEda
What am I if I accept as true the proposition that , "aliens do not exist".
'Unrealistic'?
What am I if I accept as true the proposition that , "aliens do not exist".
'Unrealistic'?
I don't believe in faeries. I deny their existence. I guess that means I have faith that there are no faeries.
I don't believe my pecker is going to fall off tomorrow when I shower. I deny that it will happen. I guess that means I have faith in my pecker's ability to remain attached to me.
Neither of those beliefs have anything to do with the presence or lack of evidence, apparently.
So not only does this complete retard distort the meaning of the word "god" to suit his own retarded definitions, he's now distorting the meaning of the word "faith", as well.
Why, next thing you know, he'll be claiming that communism is a religion...
I don't believe my pecker is going to fall off tomorrow when I shower. I deny that it will happen. I guess that means I have faith in my pecker's ability to remain attached to me.
Neither of those beliefs have anything to do with the presence or lack of evidence, apparently.
So not only does this complete retard distort the meaning of the word "god" to suit his own retarded definitions, he's now distorting the meaning of the word "faith", as well.
Why, next thing you know, he'll be claiming that communism is a religion...
The article on wikipedia was doing word gymnastics. I do not believe that an atheist has faith because he does not believe in the existence of God or Gods. Most atheists are atheists because they do not have faith. They are skeptical about the unproven. Some atheists believe there is no such thing as God but are willing to wait till science proves what is out side our time- space continuum. This kind of atheist is willing to say all is not known in the universe. This does not mean this atheist will buy the God of the gaps thing but they are willing to see what is in the unknown. All atheists wait for things to be rigorously tested and skeptically analyzed and lab proven before coming to a solid conclusion.
Agnostics say we do not know if there is a God or Gods. The agnostic is looser in that they lean more pro-God or Gods.
MjolnirPants
I have actually heard people claim communism as a religion. There are VERY crazy people who say all sorts of things especially about communism. The craziest stuff comes from America where fighting communism is a way of life. Never mind the fact that there are for the most part no more communists around to worry about.
Agnostics say we do not know if there is a God or Gods. The agnostic is looser in that they lean more pro-God or Gods.
MjolnirPants
I have actually heard people claim communism as a religion. There are VERY crazy people who say all sorts of things especially about communism. The craziest stuff comes from America where fighting communism is a way of life. Never mind the fact that there are for the most part no more communists around to worry about.
God is an omnipotent being.
You say that there is no omnipotent being.
Therefore you are a strong Atheist in weak Agnostic's clothing.
@Horta there is a difference between not believing and believing not.
One is passive the other is active.
You say that there is no omnipotent being.
Therefore you are a strong Atheist in weak Agnostic's clothing.
@Horta there is a difference between not believing and believing not.
One is passive the other is active.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+May 19 2009, 04:01 AM)
I don't believe in faeries. I deny their existence. I guess that means I have faith that there are no faeries.
I don't believe my pecker is going to fall off tomorrow when I shower. I deny that it will happen. I guess that means I have faith in my pecker's ability to remain attached to me.
That's surprisingly realistic thinking for someone in this group. I have known of people claiming to be strong atheists who are ashamed of everything like that they have faith in, including their supposed belief that God does not exist.
I don't believe my pecker is going to fall off tomorrow when I shower. I deny that it will happen. I guess that means I have faith in my pecker's ability to remain attached to me.
That's surprisingly realistic thinking for someone in this group. I have known of people claiming to be strong atheists who are ashamed of everything like that they have faith in, including their supposed belief that God does not exist.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
Neither of those beliefs have anything to do with the presence or lack of evidence, apparently.
So not only does this complete retard distort the meaning of the word "god" to suit his own retarded definitions, he's now distorting the meaning of the word "faith", as well.
Why, next thing you know, he'll be claiming that communism is a religion...
I wonder if there are any strong atheists around who are not ashamed to admit they have the faith necessary in order for them to actually be a strong atheist.
So not only does this complete retard distort the meaning of the word "god" to suit his own retarded definitions, he's now distorting the meaning of the word "faith", as well.
Why, next thing you know, he'll be claiming that communism is a religion...
I wonder if there are any strong atheists around who are not ashamed to admit they have the faith necessary in order for them to actually be a strong atheist.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 19 2009, 06:25 PM)
That's surprisingly realistic thinking for someone in this group. I have known of people claiming to be strong atheists who are ashamed of everything like that they have faith in, including their supposed belief that God does not exist.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
Neither of those beliefs have anything to do with the presence or lack of evidence, apparently.
So not only does this complete retard distort the meaning of the word "god" to suit his own retarded definitions, he's now distorting the meaning of the word "faith", as well.
Why, next thing you know, he'll be claiming that communism is a religion...
I wonder if there are any strong atheists around who are not ashamed to admit they have the faith necessary in order for them to actually be a strong atheist.
...and you completely fail to realize that MjolnirPants is simply showing how you are misusing the word faith. You are a hopeless dumbass.
So not only does this complete retard distort the meaning of the word "god" to suit his own retarded definitions, he's now distorting the meaning of the word "faith", as well.
Why, next thing you know, he'll be claiming that communism is a religion...
I wonder if there are any strong atheists around who are not ashamed to admit they have the faith necessary in order for them to actually be a strong atheist.
...and you completely fail to realize that MjolnirPants is simply showing how you are misusing the word faith. You are a hopeless dumbass.
QUOTE (Horta+May 19 2009, 04:50 AM)
The article on wikipedia was doing word gymnastics.
It's pointing out the difference between strong and week atheism.
It's pointing out the difference between strong and week atheism.
QUOTE (Horta+)
I do not believe that an atheist has faith because he does not believe in the existence of God or Gods.
How much faith a person has that God does not exist is what determines how strong an antheist he or she is or is not.
How much faith a person has that God does not exist is what determines how strong an antheist he or she is or is not.
QUOTE (Horta+)
Most atheists are atheists because they do not have faith. They are skeptical about the unproven.
If a person doesn't have faith God does not exist then they are not a strong atheist. What's amusing is when people claiming to be strong atheists also try to deny the faith required in order for them to be one It is hilarious.
If a person doesn't have faith God does not exist then they are not a strong atheist. What's amusing is when people claiming to be strong atheists also try to deny the faith required in order for them to be one
It is hilarious.QUOTE (Horta+)
Some atheists believe there is no such thing as God but are willing to wait till science proves what is out side our time- space continuum. This kind of atheist is willing to say all is not known in the universe. This does not mean this atheist will buy the God of the gaps thing but they are willing to see what is in the unknown. All atheists wait for things to be rigorously tested and skeptically analyzed and lab proven before coming to a solid conclusion.
That can't be true. If it were there would be no strong atheists at all, either ashamed of the faith required to be one or not ashamed...
That can't be true. If it were there would be no strong atheists at all, either ashamed of the faith required to be one or not ashamed...
QUOTE (Horta+)
Agnostics say we do not know if there is a God or Gods. The agnostic is looser in that they lean more pro-God or Gods.
I'm a weak agnonstic, which gives me more freedom to consider different possibilities than atheists and believers both. It also is why some of the obvious things I point out seem like idiocy to some people, because they are outside of their little mental safety zone. When I point out aspects that are outside a peron's safety zone it kicks in cognitive dissonance, which is a basic human mental defence but it also often causes people to think and act in absurd ways when they are trying to refute something that is true. I stick pretty much to obvious and realistic aspects that some people hate, and it's often quite amusing to see people's lame attempts to refute the obvious, and things that are true.
I'm a weak agnonstic, which gives me more freedom to consider different possibilities than atheists and believers both. It also is why some of the obvious things I point out seem like idiocy to some people, because they are outside of their little mental safety zone. When I point out aspects that are outside a peron's safety zone it kicks in cognitive dissonance, which is a basic human mental defence but it also often causes people to think and act in absurd ways when they are trying to refute something that is true. I stick pretty much to obvious and realistic aspects that some people hate, and it's often quite amusing to see people's lame attempts to refute the obvious, and things that are true.
Yet you have faith that an omnipotent being does not, in fact cannot, exist. You claim it is totally unrealistic. By definition, that makes you a "strong atheist".
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
I don't believe my pecker is going to fall off tomorrow when I shower. I deny that it will happen. I guess that means I have faith in my pecker's ability to remain attached to me.
MjolnirPants: That reminds me of a Rodney Dangerfield joke(I'm paraphrasing):
"I got up this morning and put on my shirt and a button fell off. I picked up my briefcase and the handle came off. I'm afraid to go to the bathroom..."
MjolnirPants: That reminds me of a Rodney Dangerfield joke(I'm paraphrasing):
"I got up this morning and put on my shirt and a button fell off. I picked up my briefcase and the handle came off. I'm afraid to go to the bathroom..."
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
Why, next thing you know, he'll be claiming that communism is a religion...
I would suggest to you(it's just a suggestion) that communism is actually a perversion of what Jesus envisioned true communion to be. A "common union", if you will, amongst men and women who genuinely cared for each other as opposed to a forced equality amongst the masses. Anyhow, I'll be back in a couple of weeks(Lord willing)...
I would suggest to you(it's just a suggestion) that communism is actually a perversion of what Jesus envisioned true communion to be. A "common union", if you will, amongst men and women who genuinely cared for each other as opposed to a forced equality amongst the masses. Anyhow, I'll be back in a couple of weeks(Lord willing)...
QUOTE (vkamath+May 19 2009, 01:13 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
I wonder if there are any strong atheists around who are not ashamed to admit they have the faith necessary in order for them to actually be a strong atheist.
...and you completely fail to realize that MjolnirPants is simply showing how you are misusing the word faith. You are a hopeless dumbass.
Faith is the degree of confidence you have that what you believe is correct, whether it's that your penis won't fall off in the shower, that there are no flying lasagna monsters, that there are no gods, that there may be gods but there is no God associated with this planet/star system/galaxy or whatever, that you really know the date you were born, that there will be enough oxygen that you can survive if you leave your home, and etc....
...and you completely fail to realize that MjolnirPants is simply showing how you are misusing the word faith. You are a hopeless dumbass.
Faith is the degree of confidence you have that what you believe is correct, whether it's that your penis won't fall off in the shower, that there are no flying lasagna monsters, that there are no gods, that there may be gods but there is no God associated with this planet/star system/galaxy or whatever, that you really know the date you were born, that there will be enough oxygen that you can survive if you leave your home, and etc....
QUOTE (newguy+)
I would suggest to you(it's just a suggestion) that communism is actually a perversion of what Jesus envisioned true communion to be. A "common union", if you will, amongst men and women who genuinely cared for each other as opposed to a forced equality amongst the masses.
While waiting for my wife to prepare for our upcoming trip, I just did a quick Google search of "communism communion" and found this interesting article which pretty much backs my "suggestion". Here it is, just for the hell of it:
http://latter-rain.com/general/commu.htm
Later...
While waiting for my wife to prepare for our upcoming trip, I just did a quick Google search of "communism communion" and found this interesting article which pretty much backs my "suggestion". Here it is, just for the hell of it:
http://latter-rain.com/general/commu.htm
Later...
QUOTE (buttershug+May 19 2009, 11:24 AM)
God is an omnipotent being.
You say that there is no omnipotent being.
Just because I disbelieve that impossible seeming attributes would apply doesn't mean I disbelieve in the possibility of God's existence. What it does mean is that I believe you who think God is truly omnipotent must be wrong.
You say that there is no omnipotent being.
Just because I disbelieve that impossible seeming attributes would apply doesn't mean I disbelieve in the possibility of God's existence. What it does mean is that I believe you who think God is truly omnipotent must be wrong.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
Therefore you are a strong Atheist in weak Agnostic's clothing.
And now I get to disbelieve you again 
since I do consider the possibility of God's existence that means you MUST be wrong
And now I get to disbelieve you again since I do consider the possibility of God's existence that means you MUST be wrong
?
You consider the possibility that you can change the definition of God into something you can believe in.
That is not the same thing.
If you called a donkey's tail a leg, how many legs would that donkey have?
And now I get to disbelieve you again since I do consider the possibility of God's existence that means you MUST be wrong QUOTE (buttershug+)
@Horta there is a difference between not believing and believing not. One is passive the other is active.
Wow...it appears you're finally right about something. Who told you, and how do you happen to believe them?
Wow...it appears you're finally right about something. Who told you, and how do you happen to believe them?
QUOTE (gmilam+May 19 2009, 01:25 PM)
Yet you have faith that an omnipotent being does not, in fact cannot, exist. You claim it is totally unrealistic. By definition, that makes you a "strong atheist".
That's not all there is to being a strong atheist. It takes more than just believing other people are incorrect about their beliefs.
That's not all there is to being a strong atheist. It takes more than just believing other people are incorrect about their beliefs.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 19 2009, 01:47 PM)
That's not all there is to being a strong atheist. It takes more than just believing other people are incorrect about their beliefs.
All there is to being a strong Athiest is to believe there can't be an Omnipotent God.
Theist doesn't mean believing in something you can call God. It is believing in the Supreme Being, an Omnipotent Being.
You believe that there is no such being.
Therefore you are a strong Atheist.
All there is to being a strong Athiest is to believe there can't be an Omnipotent God.
Theist doesn't mean believing in something you can call God. It is believing in the Supreme Being, an Omnipotent Being.
You believe that there is no such being.
Therefore you are a strong Atheist.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 19 2009, 01:44 PM)
And now I get to disbelieve you again since I do consider the possibility of God's existence that means you MUST be wrong ?
You consider the possibility that you can change the definition of God into something you can believe in.
That is not the same thing.
If you called a donkey's tail a leg, how many legs would that donkey have?
QUOTE (nopEda+May 19 2009, 08:47 AM)
That's not all there is to being a strong atheist. It takes more than just believing other people are incorrect about their beliefs.
It's the believer that defines the atheist. If there is but one god, and someone doesn't believe in your god... they are an atheist.
That's why when someone asks me if I believe in god, I ask them to define the word. How can I know if I believe, disbelieve or don't have an opinion one way or the other if I we aren't even talking about the same thing?
It's the believer that defines the atheist. If there is but one god, and someone doesn't believe in your god... they are an atheist.
That's why when someone asks me if I believe in god, I ask them to define the word. How can I know if I believe, disbelieve or don't have an opinion one way or the other if I we aren't even talking about the same thing?
QUOTE (buttershug+May 19 2009, 02:00 PM)
Theist doesn't mean believing in something you can call God. It is believing in the Supreme Being, an Omnipotent Being.
You believe that there is no such being.
A being can be supreme without being omnipotent. Do you want people to believe you're too clueless to understand that fact too?
You believe that there is no such being.
A being can be supreme without being omnipotent. Do you want people to believe you're too clueless to understand that fact too?
QUOTE (gmilam+May 19 2009, 02:23 PM)
If there is but one god, and someone doesn't believe in your god... they are an atheist.
If that were true then everyone would be an atheist so there could be no distinction between people who are and people who are not. But everyone is not an atheist and there are distinctions between those who are and those who are not, so all evidence suggests that you're wrong.
If that were true then everyone would be an atheist so there could be no distinction between people who are and people who are not. But everyone is not an atheist and there are distinctions between those who are and those who are not, so all evidence suggests that you're wrong.
QUOTE (gmilam+)
That's why when someone asks me if I believe in god, I ask them to define the word. How can I know if I believe, disbelieve or don't have an opinion one way or the other if I we aren't even talking about the same thing?
You can only consider the possible attributes you could relate toward God if you are able to consider the possibility of his existence, which would mean you are not a strong atheist. The fact that some people can do that even though they disbelieve in some beliefs other people have about God, shows the error of your first claim above.
You can only consider the possible attributes you could relate toward God if you are able to consider the possibility of his existence, which would mean you are not a strong atheist. The fact that some people can do that even though they disbelieve in some beliefs other people have about God, shows the error of your first claim above.
My concept of god is the naturalistic version Thunder Britches mentioned before - i.e. the universe.
You say by defining god as everything, I have reduced "him" to nothing.
So, am I an atheist?
You say by defining god as everything, I have reduced "him" to nothing.
So, am I an atheist?
QUOTE (newguy+May 19 2009, 08:30 AM)
MjolnirPants: That reminds me of a Rodney Dangerfield joke(I'm paraphrasing):
"I got up this morning and put on my shirt and a button fell off. I picked up my briefcase and the handle came off. I'm afraid to go to the bathroom..."
That joke is what gave me the idea for my second example, hehe...
I would suggest to you(it's just a suggestion) that communism is actually a perversion of what Jesus envisioned true communion to be. A "common union", if you will, amongst men and women who genuinely cared for each other as opposed to a forced equality amongst the masses. Anyhow, I'll be back in a couple of weeks(Lord willing)...
I'm well aware of so-called Christian Communism, and those passages in the bible which support the notion.
However, it's still not a religion. It's an economy. An economy which is supported by certain interpretations of religious texts, but an economy nonetheless.
I'm well aware of so-called Christian Communism, and those passages in the bible which support the notion.
However, it's still not a religion. It's an economy. An economy which is supported by certain interpretations of religious texts, but an economy nonetheless.
Faith is the degree of confidence you have that what you believe is correct, whether it's that your penis won't fall off in the shower, that there are no flying lasagna monsters, that there are no gods, that there may be gods but there is no God associated with this planet/star system/galaxy or whatever, that you really know the date you were born, that there will be enough oxygen that you can survive if you leave your home, and etc....
WRONG!!!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith
WRONG!!!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supreme
The only way to realistically measure an entity's 'rank' as apposed to another entity is to consider it's ability to affect the universe. THat means any supreme being must be omnipotent.
You're still an idiot.
"I got up this morning and put on my shirt and a button fell off. I picked up my briefcase and the handle came off. I'm afraid to go to the bathroom..."
That joke is what gave me the idea for my second example, hehe...
QUOTE
I would suggest to you(it's just a suggestion) that communism is actually a perversion of what Jesus envisioned true communion to be. A "common union", if you will, amongst men and women who genuinely cared for each other as opposed to a forced equality amongst the masses. Anyhow, I'll be back in a couple of weeks(Lord willing)...
I'm well aware of so-called Christian Communism, and those passages in the bible which support the notion.
However, it's still not a religion. It's an economy. An economy which is supported by certain interpretations of religious texts, but an economy nonetheless.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I would suggest to you(it's just a suggestion) that communism is actually a perversion of what Jesus envisioned true communion to be. A "common union", if you will, amongst men and women who genuinely cared for each other as opposed to a forced equality amongst the masses. Anyhow, I'll be back in a couple of weeks(Lord willing)... |
I'm well aware of so-called Christian Communism, and those passages in the bible which support the notion.
However, it's still not a religion. It's an economy. An economy which is supported by certain interpretations of religious texts, but an economy nonetheless.
Faith is the degree of confidence you have that what you believe is correct, whether it's that your penis won't fall off in the shower, that there are no flying lasagna monsters, that there are no gods, that there may be gods but there is no God associated with this planet/star system/galaxy or whatever, that you really know the date you were born, that there will be enough oxygen that you can survive if you leave your home, and etc....
WRONG!!!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith
QUOTE
A being can be supreme without being omnipotent.
WRONG!!!
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supreme
The only way to realistically measure an entity's 'rank' as apposed to another entity is to consider it's ability to affect the universe. THat means any supreme being must be omnipotent.
You're still an idiot.
This is just another thread which consists of nopEda redefining words to suit his argument.
NopEda has his own language. It sounds like English but it isn't.
NopEda has his own language. It sounds like English but it isn't.
I was raised to believe in a specific variant of the Christian god. That variant, I specifically believe does not exist. It was disproven to me.
Other gods, technically I'm agnostic. I'm just unimpressed with their evidences to date.
Other gods, technically I'm agnostic. I'm just unimpressed with their evidences to date.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 19 2009, 10:31 AM)
A being can be supreme without being omnipotent. Do you want people to believe you're too clueless to understand that fact too?
How can a being know they are supreme if they are not omnipotent?
Edit: I just noticed MjolnirPants already pointed out the fallacy in that statement, which brings up a question.
Do gods have gods that have god that can have gods even more advanced than themselves and where does it end? Are they all supreme? If not how would they know?
How can a being know they are supreme if they are not omnipotent?
Edit: I just noticed MjolnirPants already pointed out the fallacy in that statement, which brings up a question.
Do gods have gods that have god that can have gods even more advanced than themselves and where does it end? Are they all supreme? If not how would they know?
QUOTE (gmilam+May 19 2009, 03:52 PM)
My concept of god is the naturalistic version Thunder Britches mentioned before - i.e. the universe.
You say by defining god as everything, I have reduced "him" to nothing.
If he's "everything" then he would have no individuality and no self, and therefore be reduced to nothing. If you say something more along the lines of he can become as much a part of everything as he wants to, then there is separation while at the same time giving him credit for the ability to perform deliberate acts, etc. Just that little bit of difference allows God to be the surpreme being he's said to be instead of basically nothing.
You say by defining god as everything, I have reduced "him" to nothing.
If he's "everything" then he would have no individuality and no self, and therefore be reduced to nothing. If you say something more along the lines of he can become as much a part of everything as he wants to, then there is separation while at the same time giving him credit for the ability to perform deliberate acts, etc. Just that little bit of difference allows God to be the surpreme being he's said to be instead of basically nothing.
QUOTE (gmilam+)
So, am I an atheist?
Not if you believe god exists. If you have no belief you are a weak atheist or an
agnostic.
Not if you believe god exists. If you have no belief you are a weak atheist or an
agnostic.
QUOTE (El_Machinae+May 19 2009, 07:44 PM)
I was raised to believe in a specific variant of the Christian god. That variant, I specifically believe does not exist. It was disproven to me.
Finding that some or all of your beliefs were wrong doesn't mean God does not exist. It has nothing to do with it, in fact.
Finding that some or all of your beliefs were wrong doesn't mean God does not exist. It has nothing to do with it, in fact.
QUOTE (El_Machinae+)
Other gods, technically I'm agnostic. I'm just unimpressed with their evidences to date.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
4. If God exists and wants things to be as they are, he
could not provide proof of his existence because doing
so would change things too much.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+May 19 2009, 04:49 PM)
any supreme being must be omnipotent.
I KNOW the universe exists. No "belief" required.
BTW - I usually classify myself as an agnostic.
BTW - I usually classify myself as an agnostic.
QUOTE (AlexG+May 19 2009, 04:52 PM)
This is just another thread which consists of nopEda redefining words to suit his argument.
NopEda has his own language. It sounds like English but it isn't.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
NopEda has his own language. It sounds like English but it isn't.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 20 2009, 12:31 AM)
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
We keep critizing your definitions then you talk about beliefs.
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
We keep critizing your definitions then you talk about beliefs.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
belief in aliens encouraged by nopEda--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
belief in aliens encouraged by nopEda--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 19 2009, 11:38 PM)
How can a being know they are supreme if they are not omnipotent?
If the quality of omnipotence truly is impossible as I believe it to be, and I believe you believe it to be, then I also believe a supreme being would be aware of the fact as well. Being on to the fact would not make him a bit less supreme, btw. If it is impossible as it appears to be, is it possible there could be a supreme being who is unaware of it? That doesn't seem like a realistic idea to you, does it?
PLEASE try to provide any examples that you can of you trying to think realistically about how God could exist.
That statement shows you do not think God could exist realistically
What you mean is: I believe God would have to be different than what you want remarkably desperately to believe he is. The fact that you desperately want to believe something that seems obviously impossible is quite amusing , but in a sad sort of way 
. The good part from my pov is: It's more funny than sad
It's not about me.
It's not about you.
This is at the heart of your problem.
It is not up to us to say what God is or is not.
There are established definitions.
If you can change it to suit you, why not everyone?
I have not been talking about what I believe exists or does not exist as far as the universe goes. I"m talking about definitions and meaning of words.
I don't think you answered my question.
If you called a donkey's tail a leg, how many legs would that donkey have?
AFAIK it was Abraham Lincoln that first asked that question.
I would like to hear your answer.
If the quality of omnipotence truly is impossible as I believe it to be, and I believe you believe it to be, then I also believe a supreme being would be aware of the fact as well. Being on to the fact would not make him a bit less supreme, btw. If it is impossible as it appears to be, is it possible there could be a supreme being who is unaware of it? That doesn't seem like a realistic idea to you, does it?
QUOTE (pnelson419+)
Edit: I just noticed MjolnirPants already pointed out the fallacy in that statement, which brings up a question.
Do gods have gods that have god that can have gods even more advanced than themselves and where does it end? Are they all supreme? If not how would they know?
Let's think through a possibility--one of countless!:
At some point in time when humans finally become able to mine our own neighboring planets, and asteroids etc, and can take some teeny tiny baby steps across our crib in space, we meet up with other beings who can do a little better than we can. They could say that there are rules by much more advanced beings about not having too much interference on some developing planets, but that when and if beings on them finally become able to crawl around enough then it's okay to have some contact. They could say that they themselves have significant influence on life on developing planets of their own, which would make them gods of those planets imo, but that there are more advanced beings who are gods of even more planets, and also rule over the more advanced beings in the area. If it goes on and on until there is a God who put this whole big bang process into play then that to me would be the supreme God even though it would not necessarily make him truly omnipotent.
Do gods have gods that have god that can have gods even more advanced than themselves and where does it end? Are they all supreme? If not how would they know?
Let's think through a possibility--one of countless!:
At some point in time when humans finally become able to mine our own neighboring planets, and asteroids etc, and can take some teeny tiny baby steps across our crib in space, we meet up with other beings who can do a little better than we can. They could say that there are rules by much more advanced beings about not having too much interference on some developing planets, but that when and if beings on them finally become able to crawl around enough then it's okay to have some contact. They could say that they themselves have significant influence on life on developing planets of their own, which would make them gods of those planets imo, but that there are more advanced beings who are gods of even more planets, and also rule over the more advanced beings in the area. If it goes on and on until there is a God who put this whole big bang process into play then that to me would be the supreme God even though it would not necessarily make him truly omnipotent.
QUOTE (buttershug+May 20 2009, 12:42 AM)
We keep critizing your definitions then you talk about beliefs.
As far as we know every one of you has disagreed with everything I've pointed out so far.
As far as we know every one of you has disagreed with everything I've pointed out so far.
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 20 2009, 12:51 AM)
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
belief in aliens encouraged by nopEda--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
PLEASE try to provide any examples that you can of you trying to think realistically about how God could exist.
(prediction: you can't even make an attempt)
If you do make an attempt, try to explain how you think if God exists he could possibly be anything other than a technologically advanced alien.
(prediction: you can't even make an attempt)
belief in aliens encouraged by nopEda--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
PLEASE try to provide any examples that you can of you trying to think realistically about how God could exist. (prediction: you can't even make an attempt)
If you do make an attempt, try to explain how you think if God exists he could possibly be anything other than a technologically advanced alien.
(prediction: you can't even make an attempt)
QUOTE (nopEda+May 20 2009, 01:07 AM)
As far as we know every one of you has disagreed with everything I've pointed out so far.
with your definitions mainly.
How can there be any strong Athiests if people can define God to be something they believe in?
with your definitions mainly.
How can there be any strong Athiests if people can define God to be something they believe in?
QUOTE (nopEda+May 19 2009, 08:03 PM)
If the quality of omnipotence truly is impossible as I believe it to be, and I believe you believe it to be
Well you would be wrong.
I believe in an omnipotent God.
By definition I do not think aliens qualify.
Well you would be wrong.
I believe in an omnipotent God.
By definition I do not think aliens qualify.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 19 2009, 08:13 PM)
PLEASE try to provide any examples that you can of you trying to think realistically about how God could exist. That statement shows you do not think God could exist realistically
QUOTE (nopEda+May 19 2009, 08:07 PM)
As far as we know every one of you has disagreed with everything I've pointed out so far.
And almost all of us are more respected by our peers than you.
That should tell you something, if you weren't too stupid to figure it out.
(Since I'm such a nice guy, I'll go ahead and point out what it should tell you: That you're full of ***.)
And almost all of us are more respected by our peers than you.
That should tell you something, if you weren't too stupid to figure it out.
(Since I'm such a nice guy, I'll go ahead and point out what it should tell you: That you're full of ***.)
We now have three threads started by nopEda and they're all the same, all about his redefining the language to suit his arguments and berating everyone for not agreeing with him.
A total waste of bandwidth.
A total waste of bandwidth.
There is only one valid definition of god. That is he to whom the music dances.
I am he. I am...
TechnoViking!!!
I am he. I am...
TechnoViking!!!
QUOTE (buttershug+May 20 2009, 01:13 AM)
with your definitions mainly.
How can there be any strong Athiests if people can define God to be something they believe in?
If more people think about it realistically some of them probably could figure out ways they believe God could exist, as I have done. If no one else can, that still doesn't prevent me from doing it, and it's still possible that some other people could regardless of whether you are or are not one of them.
How can there be any strong Athiests if people can define God to be something they believe in?
If more people think about it realistically some of them probably could figure out ways they believe God could exist, as I have done. If no one else can, that still doesn't prevent me from doing it, and it's still possible that some other people could regardless of whether you are or are not one of them.
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 20 2009, 01:26 AM)
Well you would be wrong.
I believe in an omnipotent God.
By definition I do not think aliens qualify.
Can you think of any examples of things God could come up with that he's unable to do? If not he's not omnipotent, but if so he's not omnipotent. To some of you apparently that's too complicated for you to comprehend, while to others of us it's obvious and easy to understand.
I believe in an omnipotent God.
By definition I do not think aliens qualify.
Can you think of any examples of things God could come up with that he's unable to do? If not he's not omnipotent, but if so he's not omnipotent. To some of you apparently that's too complicated for you to comprehend, while to others of us it's obvious and easy to understand.
By NopEda's logic
1. If God exists, he's not God.
1. If God exists, he's not God.
QUOTE (buttershug+May 20 2009, 05:09 PM)
By NopEda's logic
1. If God exists, he's not God.
What you mean is: I believe God would have to be different than what you want remarkably desperately to believe he is. The fact that you desperately want to believe something that seems obviously impossible is quite amusing , but in a sad sort of way . The good part from my pov is: It's more funny than sad
1. If God exists, he's not God.
What you mean is: I believe God would have to be different than what you want remarkably desperately to believe he is. The fact that you desperately want to believe something that seems obviously impossible is quite amusing , but in a sad sort of way . The good part from my pov is: It's more funny than sad
QUOTE (nopEda+May 20 2009, 07:45 PM)
What you mean is: I believe God would have to be different than what you want remarkably desperately to believe he is. The fact that you desperately want to believe something that seems obviously impossible is quite amusing , but in a sad sort of way . The good part from my pov is: It's more funny than sad It's not about me.
It's not about you.
This is at the heart of your problem.
It is not up to us to say what God is or is not.
There are established definitions.
If you can change it to suit you, why not everyone?
I have not been talking about what I believe exists or does not exist as far as the universe goes. I"m talking about definitions and meaning of words.
I don't think you answered my question.
If you called a donkey's tail a leg, how many legs would that donkey have?
AFAIK it was Abraham Lincoln that first asked that question.
I would like to hear your answer.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 20 2009, 12:01 PM)
Can you think of any examples of things God could come up with that he's unable to do? If not he's not omnipotent, but if so he's not omnipotent.
What????
So God is not omnipotent if there is nothing he is unable to do?
What????
So God is not omnipotent if there is nothing he is unable to do?
It's that old (stupid) "paradox"... can God create a stone so heavy that he can't lift it?
It's a logical black hole. (The last gasp of those with no argument.)
It's a logical black hole. (The last gasp of those with no argument.)
I have also heard one that went something like can God create a square circle.
QUOTE (gmilam+May 21 2009, 03:31 AM)
It's that old (stupid) "paradox"... can God create a stone so heavy that he can't lift it?
It's a logical black hole. (The last gasp of those with no argument.)
Perhaps a better question would be: Can the aliens create a stone they cannot lift?
It's a logical black hole. (The last gasp of those with no argument.)
Perhaps a better question would be: Can the aliens create a stone they cannot lift?
QUOTE (buttershug+May 20 2009, 08:50 PM)
It's not about me.
It's not about you.
This is at the heart of your problem.
It is not up to us to say what God is or is not.
There are established definitions.
If you can change it to suit you, why not everyone?
Everyone has their own definition. That includes you, and I can't accept yours.
It's not about you.
This is at the heart of your problem.
It is not up to us to say what God is or is not.
There are established definitions.
If you can change it to suit you, why not everyone?
Everyone has their own definition. That includes you, and I can't accept yours.
QUOTE (buttershug+)
I have not been talking about what I believe exists or does not exist as far as the universe goes. I"m talking about definitions and meaning of words.
Since I can't accept the idea that omnipotence it possible, I can't accept your idea that God would be omnipotent if he exists. I'm certainly not the first person to think about it that way either. Often the example people use has to do with a rock, which means to me that people were arguing against the unrealistic idea even before they knew about other planets!
_________________________________________________________
Google search:
Results 1 - 10 of about 141,000 for can god make a rock so big he can't lift it. (0.26 seconds)
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
Since I can't accept the idea that omnipotence it possible, I can't accept your idea that God would be omnipotent if he exists. I'm certainly not the first person to think about it that way either. Often the example people use has to do with a rock, which means to me that people were arguing against the unrealistic idea even before they knew about other planets!
_________________________________________________________
Google search:
Results 1 - 10 of about 141,000 for can god make a rock so big he can't lift it. (0.26 seconds)
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
QUOTE (buttershug+)
I don't think you answered my question.
If you called a donkey's tail a leg, how many legs would that donkey have?
AFAIK it was Abraham Lincoln that first asked that question.
I would like to hear your answer.
That's not similar enough to fool with. Here's one that's more like it:
If as a young child you thought your parents knew everything, did they become any less your parents when you learned that they were still capable of learning things?
If you called a donkey's tail a leg, how many legs would that donkey have?
AFAIK it was Abraham Lincoln that first asked that question.
I would like to hear your answer.
That's not similar enough to fool with. Here's one that's more like it:
If as a young child you thought your parents knew everything, did they become any less your parents when you learned that they were still capable of learning things?
QUOTE (nopEda+May 20 2009, 11:20 PM)
If as a young child you thought your parents knew everything, did they become any less your parents when you learned that they were still capable of learning things?
No, but they became much more "human".
No, but they became much more "human".
QUOTE (gmilam+May 21 2009, 03:31 AM)
It's that old (stupid) "paradox"... can God create a stone so heavy that he can't lift it?
It's a logical black hole. (The last gasp of those with no argument.)
The "argument" shows that omnipotence is impossible. It's the last one because it clearly demonstrates the impossibility of the idea. Try arguing against it. Go:
It's a logical black hole. (The last gasp of those with no argument.)
The "argument" shows that omnipotence is impossible. It's the last one because it clearly demonstrates the impossibility of the idea. Try arguing against it. Go:
QUOTE (gmilam+May 21 2009, 04:24 AM)
QUOTE (nopEda asked+)
If as a young child you thought your parents knew everything, did they become any less your parents when you learned that they were still capable of learning things?
No, but they became much more "human".
No, they didn't change at all. What did change was that the child developed a more realistic interpretation of the way things are. The same would be true of a person who developed an interpretation of God that didn't try to assign impossible attributes to him. You people won't like this either, but saying God is omnipotent and omniscient in a way is really insulting to him, because it says he would not be capable of learning new things, and of learning to do new things.
The "argument" shows that omnipotence is impossible. It's the last one because it clearly demonstrates the impossibility of the idea. Try arguing against it. Go:
If God creates a stone with the intent of not being able to lift it then I would think not being able to lift the stone would show accomplishment not lack of ability.
That's not similar enough to fool with. Here's one that's more like it:
Most people answer 5.
but the answer is no it would still have 4 legs, calling it a leg does not make it a leg.
And calling aliens God, does not make them God to anyone but you and Eric.
No, but they became much more "human".
No, they didn't change at all. What did change was that the child developed a more realistic interpretation of the way things are. The same would be true of a person who developed an interpretation of God that didn't try to assign impossible attributes to him. You people won't like this either, but saying God is omnipotent and omniscient in a way is really insulting to him, because it says he would not be capable of learning new things, and of learning to do new things.
You could say the same thing of one who refuses to see that his "gods" are just other beings like him.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 20 2009, 11:20 PM)
If as a young child you thought your parents knew everything, did they become any less your parents when you learned that they were still capable of learning things?
Please show me where in the definition of "parents" it says "people who know everything."
Please show me where in the definition of "parents" it says "people who know everything."
QUOTE (nopEda+May 20 2009, 11:25 PM)
The "argument" shows that omnipotence is impossible. It's the last one because it clearly demonstrates the impossibility of the idea. Try arguing against it. Go:If God creates a stone with the intent of not being able to lift it then I would think not being able to lift the stone would show accomplishment not lack of ability.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 21 2009, 04:20 AM)
Everyone has their own definition. That includes you, and I can't accept yours.
Don't accept mine.
Accept the generally accepted one.
Otherwise you are simply wasting time.
You can't convince anyone of anything except that you can come up with your own definition.
Which generates a big "so what".
Don't accept mine.
Accept the generally accepted one.
Otherwise you are simply wasting time.
You can't convince anyone of anything except that you can come up with your own definition.
Which generates a big "so what".
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 20 2009, 11:59 PM)
If God creates a stone with the intent of not being able to lift it then I would think not being able to lift the stone would show accomplishment not lack of ability.
And then "he" just alters the values of a couple of variables, change gravity, and woosh - pick that sucker up.
It's a stupid question. It's just playing with words, which is all nopeda is doing anyway.
And then "he" just alters the values of a couple of variables, change gravity, and woosh - pick that sucker up.
It's a stupid question. It's just playing with words, which is all nopeda is doing anyway.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+May 21 2009, 10:21 AM)
Please show me where in the definition of "parents" it says "people who know everything."
bingo!
bingo!
QUOTE (gmilam+May 21 2009, 04:37 AM)
You could say the same thing of one who refuses to see that his "gods" are just other beings like him.
I do believe gods would be other beings, but probably not much like I am.
I do believe gods would be other beings, but probably not much like I am.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+May 21 2009, 04:51 AM)
Please show me where in the definition of "parents" it says "people who know everything."
If we're going to do it for my example we need to do it with yours first so let's go back and you show a definition that says a tail is a leg, then we can move on again. If you can't do it then your demand is useless and you only made it to change the subject. You changed the subject because the situation I suggested, which is much more realistic than the one you brought up, doesn't give you the result you hoped to get from the extremely unrealistic one you like better.
If we're going to do it for my example we need to do it with yours first so let's go back and you show a definition that says a tail is a leg, then we can move on again. If you can't do it then your demand is useless and you only made it to change the subject. You changed the subject because the situation I suggested, which is much more realistic than the one you brought up, doesn't give you the result you hoped to get from the extremely unrealistic one you like better.
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 21 2009, 04:59 AM)
If God creates a stone with the intent of not being able to lift it then I would think not being able to lift the stone would show accomplishment not lack of ability.
That would show both.
That would show both.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 21 2009, 04:20 AM)
That's not similar enough to fool with. Here's one that's more like it:
Most people answer 5.
but the answer is no it would still have 4 legs, calling it a leg does not make it a leg.
And calling aliens God, does not make them God to anyone but you and Eric.
QUOTE (buttershug+May 21 2009, 11:20 AM)
Don't accept mine.
Accept the generally accepted one.
Otherwise you are simply wasting time.
You can't convince anyone of anything except that you can come up with your own definition.
Which generates a big "so what".
That's all you get out of it. But it's 100% positive for me. You people all hate what I point out, which isn't something I was going for but since you do I certainly can't affor to let it bother me any.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
So your hatred of what I point out must remain meaningless to me...it's a zero. You people act as if you have some alternative possibilities in mind that would suggest I might be wrong, and in a way that could be a negative for me because it would show that I'm wrong. But if you did, then I'd most likely realise it quickly and change my thinking to accept the new information. Then I wouldn't be wrong any more and would be better off. So even if I was wrong and some of you pointed out how, I would still end up well off in the long run. But what's going on is even better than that for me. You people have NOTHING AT ALL!!! In all of these attempts to refute me there has not be a single realistic alternative to the realistic suggestion I have put forth. It's a 100% win for me, and certainly reinforces my belief that I've come to the correct conclusion. Well, I was hoping someone would suggest something else worth thinking about so it may not be 100%, but as far as reinforcing the apparent likelihood of my suggestion it certainly has been.
Accept the generally accepted one.
Otherwise you are simply wasting time.
You can't convince anyone of anything except that you can come up with your own definition.
Which generates a big "so what".
That's all you get out of it. But it's 100% positive for me. You people all hate what I point out, which isn't something I was going for but since you do I certainly can't affor to let it bother me any.
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely
beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate
and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic
realistically.
So your hatred of what I point out must remain meaningless to me...it's a zero. You people act as if you have some alternative possibilities in mind that would suggest I might be wrong, and in a way that could be a negative for me because it would show that I'm wrong. But if you did, then I'd most likely realise it quickly and change my thinking to accept the new information. Then I wouldn't be wrong any more and would be better off. So even if I was wrong and some of you pointed out how, I would still end up well off in the long run. But what's going on is even better than that for me.
You people have NOTHING AT ALL!!! In all of these attempts to refute me there has not be a single realistic alternative to the realistic suggestion I have put forth. It's a 100% win for me, and certainly reinforces my belief that I've come to the correct conclusion. Well, I was hoping someone would suggest something else worth thinking about so it may not be 100%, but as far as reinforcing the apparent likelihood of my suggestion it certainly has been.
QUOTE (buttershug+May 21 2009, 05:29 PM)
Most people answer 5.
but the answer is no it would still have 4 legs, calling it a leg does not make it a leg.
And calling aliens God, does not make them God to anyone but you and Eric.
So if you find out that there is a being who created the universe but is not native to this planet, and is technologically advanced to the point of being the supreme being in the universe but still there are things he can't do, and knows and can learn whatever he wants to but still does continue to learn things, and had great influence on what is written in the canonical books, and answers people's prayers (sometimes it's no), and will provide a wonderful afterlife for beings he chooses to do so for, you would still say he is not God because he's not omnipotent or omniscient, and because he's techonlogically advanced and not a native of this planet. I say he still would be God, while you insist he would not even if he has answered every prayer you've ever had answered.
but the answer is no it would still have 4 legs, calling it a leg does not make it a leg.
And calling aliens God, does not make them God to anyone but you and Eric.
So if you find out that there is a being who created the universe but is not native to this planet, and is technologically advanced to the point of being the supreme being in the universe but still there are things he can't do, and knows and can learn whatever he wants to but still does continue to learn things, and had great influence on what is written in the canonical books, and answers people's prayers (sometimes it's no), and will provide a wonderful afterlife for beings he chooses to do so for, you would still say he is not God because he's not omnipotent or omniscient, and because he's techonlogically advanced and not a native of this planet. I say he still would be God, while you insist he would not even if he has answered every prayer you've ever had answered.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.
You simply call every counter argument unrealistic and unlikely. By being close minded, you will never learn anything or convince anybody of anything.
You simply call every counter argument unrealistic and unlikely. By being close minded, you will never learn anything or convince anybody of anything.
I just rewatched Star Trek V The Last Frontier last night.
Watch it.
And no you have not described God. A fake God, an imitation God. What some few people would settle for as God. But not God.
And further more you whole post breaks down to
IF something there is no evidence of, nor reason to believe then it doesn't matter because the part between the "if" and the "then" isn't really worth discussing.
Watch it.
And no you have not described God. A fake God, an imitation God. What some few people would settle for as God. But not God.
And further more you whole post breaks down to
IF something there is no evidence of, nor reason to believe then it doesn't matter because the part between the "if" and the "then" isn't really worth discussing.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 21 2009, 12:06 PM)
If we're going to do it for my example we need to do it with yours first so let's go back and you show a definition that says a tail is a leg, then we can move on again.
1. That's not my example, dumbass.
2. You're the one calling a proverbial donkey's tail a leg, not I or anyone arguing with you.
2a. Everyone arguing with you agrees on the definition of god as one which precludes your suggestion. Everyone arguing with you agrees on the definition of faith as one which precludes your suggest.
2b. Every reputable source cited for the definition of any term in contention has supported the arguments of every person arguing with you.
In short: You are making up definitions, you are defying thousands of years of philosophy and logic, and you are refusing to listen to any argument to the contrary. You're an idiot, a liar, a dishonest prick and a waste of flesh.
1. That's not my example, dumbass.
2. You're the one calling a proverbial donkey's tail a leg, not I or anyone arguing with you.
2a. Everyone arguing with you agrees on the definition of god as one which precludes your suggestion. Everyone arguing with you agrees on the definition of faith as one which precludes your suggest.
2b. Every reputable source cited for the definition of any term in contention has supported the arguments of every person arguing with you.
In short: You are making up definitions, you are defying thousands of years of philosophy and logic, and you are refusing to listen to any argument to the contrary. You're an idiot, a liar, a dishonest prick and a waste of flesh.
Quote MP:
"a dishonest prick"
Hey, that´s me - you wanna have a go at this guy, will ya come up with something original - like a self-abusing graviton !!
"a dishonest prick"
Hey, that´s me - you wanna have a go at this guy, will ya come up with something original - like a self-abusing graviton !!
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+May 21 2009, 07:15 PM)
2b. Every reputable source cited
None have been except by me afawk, and what I present supports what I point out.
None have been except by me afawk, and what I present supports what I point out.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
you are defying thousands of years of philosophy and logic,
That doesn't mean anything. It has been contested the whole time afawk. I'm just another person who doesn't buy omnipotence and other impossible seeming and unrealistic ideas.
That doesn't mean anything. It has been contested the whole time afawk. I'm just another person who doesn't buy omnipotence and other impossible seeming and unrealistic ideas.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
and you are refusing to listen to any argument to the contrary.
In contrast to that lie: I have asked people to try suggesting alternatives and no one has been able to suggest anything realistic. I challenge you to try doing it now.
In contrast to that lie: I have asked people to try suggesting alternatives and no one has been able to suggest anything realistic. I challenge you to try doing it now.
QUOTE (MjolnirPants+)
You're an idiot, a liar
You can't produce any example of me lying about anything.
You can't produce any example of me lying about anything.
QUOTE (buttershug+May 21 2009, 05:45 PM)
you have not described God. A fake God, an imitation God. What some few people would settle for as God. But not God.
If he is as I suggest then he is whether you think it's somehow fake or whatever.
If he is as I suggest then he is whether you think it's somehow fake or whatever.
QUOTE (vkamath+May 21 2009, 05:43 PM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
11. We should not allow what appear to be conflicting or unlikely beliefs encouraged by other people--however absurd--to contaminate and interfere with our own attempts to think about this topic realistically.
You simply call every counter argument unrealistic and unlikely.
Changing the condition of the entire universe, ie "time travel" is unrealistic. That's not my fault, but it is the way it is. You people supposedly having some little interest in physics should have figured it out without me having to explain it to you. So with that being the case I can't think very highly of this group for not being able to understand it even after I've explained the problem to you. Most people can relate to it right away with no problem, since it's really very obvious and easy when you think it through.
You simply call every counter argument unrealistic and unlikely.
Changing the condition of the entire universe, ie "time travel" is unrealistic. That's not my fault, but it is the way it is. You people supposedly having some little interest in physics should have figured it out without me having to explain it to you. So with that being the case I can't think very highly of this group for not being able to understand it even after I've explained the problem to you. Most people can relate to it right away with no problem, since it's really very obvious and easy when you think it through.
QUOTE (vkamath+)
By being close minded, you will never learn anything or convince anybody of anything.
Try sharing a realistic alternative to anything I've pointed out. Be the first to try...TRYYYYYYYYYY!
Try sharing a realistic alternative to anything I've pointed out. Be the first to try...TRYYYYYYYYYY!
QUOTE (nopEda+May 21 2009, 07:47 PM)
If he is as I suggest then he is whether you think it's somehow fake or whatever.
I talk about a word.
You respond about a being.
If the US had an Emporer, he would be Obama.
Is the problem with accuracy, "emporer" or "Obama".
Obama is President not Emporer.
You believe in space aliens not God.
I talk about a word.
You respond about a being.
If the US had an Emporer, he would be Obama.
Is the problem with accuracy, "emporer" or "Obama".
Obama is President not Emporer.
You believe in space aliens not God.
Why would anyone want to "try" and imagine that a unicorn is actually a rhino? I mean, what else could it be? Horses don't have horns on their head.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 19 2009, 01:19 PM)
It's pointing out the difference between strong and week atheism.
I'm a weak agnonstic, which gives me more freedom to consider different possibilities than atheists and believers both. It also is why some of the obvious things I point out seem like idiocy to some people, because they are outside of their little mental safety zone. When I point out aspects that are outside a peron's safety zone it kicks in cognitive dissonance, which is a basic human mental defence but it also often causes people to think and act in absurd ways when they are trying to refute something that is true. I stick pretty much to obvious and realistic aspects that some people hate, and it's often quite amusing to see people's lame attempts to refute the obvious, and things that are true.
nopEda
I was not out side my mental safety zone because I in no way called you or the article idiocy, or idiot. I am sorry if you thought that I insulted you. That was not my intention at all. I only gave you my definition of what an atheist is. After reading your response to my post I think I might have misunderstood you. When I gave you my definition of what an atheist is I was basing it on the best example I know, Carl Sagan. If what you mean by "Strong" atheist is one who is an atheist by knee jerk. A layman with no scientific knowledge at all that says " there is no such thing as God" because they believe it without a shred of evidence at all. This kind of atheist believes that there is no God as much as a religious fundamentalist believes that there is a God. These are flip sides of the same coin. If this is what you meant than I agree with you.
To me the best spot to be is an atheist based on scientific facts as they presented themselves. Or a religionist who also based on facts that presented themselves. This is why I believe Carl Sagan the best example of what the true spirit of atheism is all about. Sagan was most known for his quest for knowledge about how the universe worked and how this all began. Stephen Hawking is continuing this great quest. I believe the really great scientists like Hawking, Sagan, Einstein and Brian Greene ( to name a few) were so much into learning the facts that if they found facts to support the existance of God than they would change there beliefs to suit the facts. Sagan said this many times on "Cosmos".
To be fair, the best religionist to be is Albert Pike because Pike's religion was based on the scientific knowledge of his day. He merged religion and science. Faraday is another example of a good religionist because he put science and religion together without resorting to pseudo-science. If someone found God outside of our Time-Space continuum, when our instruments are improved enough to see out there, Than people like Hawking will gladly embrace the new data. If there is a God than He is NOT all POWERFUL because most people on this earth have never witnessed his power. If God were all powerful than the church would not behave as bad as it does. They would be kind instead of the usual cruelty I see in today's churches. There are many in the church that want to return to the days when the church had absolute power and could kill all who disagree with them. As a person living in Florida I hear this attitude expressed all the time. If God were all powerful than the church, even more than the world, would fear his coming judgment. The church abuses people all the time and yet shows NO FEAR. This shows that even the church does not believe in God.
Note; When I pushed the quote button I unfortunately did not get your entire quote. I meant to. Sorry I am not good with computer.
I'm a weak agnonstic, which gives me more freedom to consider different possibilities than atheists and believers both. It also is why some of the obvious things I point out seem like idiocy to some people, because they are outside of their little mental safety zone. When I point out aspects that are outside a peron's safety zone it kicks in cognitive dissonance, which is a basic human mental defence but it also often causes people to think and act in absurd ways when they are trying to refute something that is true. I stick pretty much to obvious and realistic aspects that some people hate, and it's often quite amusing to see people's lame attempts to refute the obvious, and things that are true.
nopEda
I was not out side my mental safety zone because I in no way called you or the article idiocy, or idiot. I am sorry if you thought that I insulted you. That was not my intention at all. I only gave you my definition of what an atheist is. After reading your response to my post I think I might have misunderstood you. When I gave you my definition of what an atheist is I was basing it on the best example I know, Carl Sagan. If what you mean by "Strong" atheist is one who is an atheist by knee jerk. A layman with no scientific knowledge at all that says " there is no such thing as God" because they believe it without a shred of evidence at all. This kind of atheist believes that there is no God as much as a religious fundamentalist believes that there is a God. These are flip sides of the same coin. If this is what you meant than I agree with you.
To me the best spot to be is an atheist based on scientific facts as they presented themselves. Or a religionist who also based on facts that presented themselves. This is why I believe Carl Sagan the best example of what the true spirit of atheism is all about. Sagan was most known for his quest for knowledge about how the universe worked and how this all began. Stephen Hawking is continuing this great quest. I believe the really great scientists like Hawking, Sagan, Einstein and Brian Greene ( to name a few) were so much into learning the facts that if they found facts to support the existance of God than they would change there beliefs to suit the facts. Sagan said this many times on "Cosmos".
To be fair, the best religionist to be is Albert Pike because Pike's religion was based on the scientific knowledge of his day. He merged religion and science. Faraday is another example of a good religionist because he put science and religion together without resorting to pseudo-science. If someone found God outside of our Time-Space continuum, when our instruments are improved enough to see out there, Than people like Hawking will gladly embrace the new data. If there is a God than He is NOT all POWERFUL because most people on this earth have never witnessed his power. If God were all powerful than the church would not behave as bad as it does. They would be kind instead of the usual cruelty I see in today's churches. There are many in the church that want to return to the days when the church had absolute power and could kill all who disagree with them. As a person living in Florida I hear this attitude expressed all the time. If God were all powerful than the church, even more than the world, would fear his coming judgment. The church abuses people all the time and yet shows NO FEAR. This shows that even the church does not believe in God.
Note; When I pushed the quote button I unfortunately did not get your entire quote. I meant to. Sorry I am not good with computer.
Horta;
I think you might enjoy reading up on Issac Asimov.
Not quite the same as Sagan but his fiction and non-fiction are good.
(unless of course you are already familiar with him then disregard this post)
I think you might enjoy reading up on Issac Asimov.
Not quite the same as Sagan but his fiction and non-fiction are good.
(unless of course you are already familiar with him then disregard this post)
Buttershug
Thank you for the suggestion. I am not familiar with Isaac Asimov's works. Give me a few titles of his fiction and non-fiction works. I just purchased "Guide To Earth And Space" by Isaac Asimov. I have not read it yet since I just got it. I am right now just starting "Pale Blue Dot" by Carl Sagan.
Thank you for the suggestion. I am not familiar with Isaac Asimov's works. Give me a few titles of his fiction and non-fiction works. I just purchased "Guide To Earth And Space" by Isaac Asimov. I have not read it yet since I just got it. I am right now just starting "Pale Blue Dot" by Carl Sagan.
QUOTE (Horta+May 21 2009, 09:12 PM)
nopEda
I was not out side my mental safety zone because I in no way called you or the article idiocy, or idiot. I am sorry if you thought that I insulted you. That was not my intention at all. I only gave you my definition of what an atheist is. After reading your response to my post I think I might have misunderstood you. When I gave you my definition of what an atheist is I was basing it on the best example I know, Carl Sagan. If what you mean by "Strong" atheist is one who is an atheist by knee jerk. A layman with no scientific knowledge at all that says " there is no such thing as God" because they believe it without a shred of evidence at all. This kind of atheist believes that there is no God as much as a religious fundamentalist believes that there is a God. These are flip sides of the same coin. If this is what you meant than I agree with you.
There are weak atheists and strong atheists. Week atheists don't have a belief, but that being the case they are fools if they criticise others for considering the possibility of God's existence. Strong atheists believe God does NOT exist, and the degree of faith they have that he does not is what determines how strong an atheist they are. If they have no faith, they can not be a strong atheist but instead are something else. Amusingly, people claiming to be strong atheists often want to deny they have the faith required in order for them to be one.
I was not out side my mental safety zone because I in no way called you or the article idiocy, or idiot. I am sorry if you thought that I insulted you. That was not my intention at all. I only gave you my definition of what an atheist is. After reading your response to my post I think I might have misunderstood you. When I gave you my definition of what an atheist is I was basing it on the best example I know, Carl Sagan. If what you mean by "Strong" atheist is one who is an atheist by knee jerk. A layman with no scientific knowledge at all that says " there is no such thing as God" because they believe it without a shred of evidence at all. This kind of atheist believes that there is no God as much as a religious fundamentalist believes that there is a God. These are flip sides of the same coin. If this is what you meant than I agree with you.
There are weak atheists and strong atheists. Week atheists don't have a belief, but that being the case they are fools if they criticise others for considering the possibility of God's existence. Strong atheists believe God does NOT exist, and the degree of faith they have that he does not is what determines how strong an atheist they are. If they have no faith, they can not be a strong atheist but instead are something else. Amusingly, people claiming to be strong atheists often want to deny they have the faith required in order for them to be one.
QUOTE (Horta+)
If there is a God than He is NOT all POWERFUL because most people on this earth have never witnessed his power. If God were all powerful than the church would not behave as bad as it does. They would be kind instead of the usual cruelty I see in today's churches. There are many in the church that want to return to the days when the church had absolute power and could kill all who disagree with them. As a person living in Florida I hear this attitude expressed all the time. If God were all powerful than the church, even more than the world, would fear his coming judgment. The church abuses people all the time and yet shows NO FEAR. This shows that even the church does not believe in God.
If God exists and wants things to be as they are then he can't let it be proven that he does exist. If he did that then we would not have as much freedom of thought etc but would be more like his slaves, and everything would be much different.
As for the behavior of the church: Try not to let the beliefs of other people, however unrealistic and absurd, contaminate your ability to think about this realistically IF that is what you want to do. Other people in this group do NOT want to think realistically, but instead want desperately to cling to unrealistic ideas for their own personal reasons.
If God exists and wants things to be as they are then he can't let it be proven that he does exist. If he did that then we would not have as much freedom of thought etc but would be more like his slaves, and everything would be much different.
As for the behavior of the church: Try not to let the beliefs of other people, however unrealistic and absurd, contaminate your ability to think about this realistically IF that is what you want to do. Other people in this group do NOT want to think realistically, but instead want desperately to cling to unrealistic ideas for their own personal reasons.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
If God exists and wants things to be as they are then he can't let it be proven that he does exist. If he did that then we would not have as much freedom of thought etc but would be more like his slaves,
Why would Aliens care about our freedom of thought?
Why would Aliens care about our freedom of thought?
QUOTE (nopEda+)
and everything would be much different.
like what?
like what?
QUOTE (Horta+May 21 2009, 09:27 PM)
Buttershug
Thank you for the suggestion. I am not familiar with Isaac Asimov's works. Give me a few titles of his fiction and non-fiction works. I just purchased "Guide To Earth And Space" by Isaac Asimov. I have not read it yet since I just got it. I am right now just starting "Pale Blue Dot" by Carl Sagan.
To me Larry Niven is much more realistic and interesting than Asimov. If you want excellent and realistic concepts Niven is a very good way to go. Read "Ringworld" and you will see what I mean. It is a true classic, and has repeatedly been recognised as such.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ringworld&aq=f&oq=
If you don't want to waste a bunch of time but want to get right to the meat of good scifi, which is more like theoretical physics, read some Niven. Ringworld is good to start with to get a feel for his overall concepts, and his concepts branch out and tie a number of ideas together in this little area of our galaxy he refers to as "known space".
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=known+space&aq=f&oq=
Start with the best, then you'll be better able to evaluate the rest...
Thank you for the suggestion. I am not familiar with Isaac Asimov's works. Give me a few titles of his fiction and non-fiction works. I just purchased "Guide To Earth And Space" by Isaac Asimov. I have not read it yet since I just got it. I am right now just starting "Pale Blue Dot" by Carl Sagan.
To me Larry Niven is much more realistic and interesting than Asimov. If you want excellent and realistic concepts Niven is a very good way to go. Read "Ringworld" and you will see what I mean. It is a true classic, and has repeatedly been recognised as such.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ringworld&aq=f&oq=
If you don't want to waste a bunch of time but want to get right to the meat of good scifi, which is more like theoretical physics, read some Niven. Ringworld is good to start with to get a feel for his overall concepts, and his concepts branch out and tie a number of ideas together in this little area of our galaxy he refers to as "known space".
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=known+space&aq=f&oq=
Start with the best, then you'll be better able to evaluate the rest...
QUOTE (nopEda+May 22 2009, 10:12 AM)
If God exists and wants things to be as they are then he can't let it be proven that he does exist. If he did that then we would not have as much freedom of thought etc but would be more like his slaves, and everything would be much different.
If aliens make us aware of their existence why would everything be much different?
Why would we have less freedom of thought?
Why would we be their slaves unless that was their intent?
I could be wrong but I think we may have progressed enough that we would accept them as advanced aliens and not mistake them for gods.
Don't you?
If aliens make us aware of their existence why would everything be much different?
Why would we have less freedom of thought?
Why would we be their slaves unless that was their intent?
I could be wrong but I think we may have progressed enough that we would accept them as advanced aliens and not mistake them for gods.
Don't you?
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 22 2009, 11:29 PM)
If aliens make us aware of their existence why would everything be much different?
Why would we have less freedom of thought?
Why would we be their slaves unless that was their intent?
I could be wrong but I think we may have progressed enough that we would accept them as advanced aliens and not mistake them for gods.
Don't you?
If the alien was God it would make those changes. But you can't think as far as the first thing on the list so anything beyond that is more than you can take into consideration. You can try though...try to imagine how it would change things for God to prove his existence, whether you think of him as an alien or whatever your interpretation is. If you can't think of how it would change anything, then ask somebody you think you might be able to believe.
Why would we have less freedom of thought?
Why would we be their slaves unless that was their intent?
I could be wrong but I think we may have progressed enough that we would accept them as advanced aliens and not mistake them for gods.
Don't you?
If the alien was God it would make those changes. But you can't think as far as the first thing on the list so anything beyond that is more than you can take into consideration. You can try though...try to imagine how it would change things for God to prove his existence, whether you think of him as an alien or whatever your interpretation is. If you can't think of how it would change anything, then ask somebody you think you might be able to believe.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 23 2009, 05:52 AM)
If the alien was God it would make those changes. But you can't think as far as the first thing on the list so anything beyond that is more than you can take into consideration. You can try though...try to imagine how it would change things for God to prove his existence, whether you think of him as an alien or whatever your interpretation is. If you can't think of how it would change anything, then ask somebody you think you might be able to believe.
Does that mean you can't answer the question
Does that mean you can't answer the question
QUOTE (vkamath+May 22 2009, 03:21 PM)
Why would Aliens care about our freedom of thought?
For whatever reason(s). People seem to enjoy having that freedom, often as they amusingly complain that God doesn't prove his existence...but if he did then they wouldn't have the freedom to question or disbelieve...arguing against the system that makes what they're enjoying possible...
For whatever reason(s). People seem to enjoy having that freedom, often as they amusingly complain that God doesn't prove his existence...but if he did then they wouldn't have the freedom to question or disbelieve...arguing against the system that makes what they're enjoying possible...
QUOTE (vkamath+)
ike what?
All the ways people would behave differently if they knew God exists.
All the ways people would behave differently if they knew God exists.
QUOTE (nopEda+)
For whatever reason(s). People seem to enjoy having that freedom, often as they amusingly complain that God doesn't prove his existence...but if he did then they wouldn't have the freedom to question or disbelieve...arguing against the system that makes what they're enjoying possible...
Why would Aliens care about this?
Why would Aliens care about this?
QUOTE (nopEda+)
All the ways people would behave differently if they knew God exists.
Why would Aliens care about people behaving differently?
Why would Aliens care about people behaving differently?
QUOTE (vkamath+May 23 2009, 12:28 AM)
Does that mean you can't answer the question
It means you won't believe me. One way is that people who disbelieve, would believe. It could be some of the most stupid ones would not, but maybe that's why we're told he has plans to thin the herd.
It means you won't believe me. One way is that people who disbelieve, would believe. It could be some of the most stupid ones would not, but maybe that's why we're told he has plans to thin the herd.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 22 2009, 07:22 PM)
If the alien was God it would make those changes. But you can't think as far as the first thing on the list so anything beyond that is more than you can take into consideration. You can try though...try to imagine how it would change things for God to prove his existence, whether you think of him as an alien or whatever your interpretation is. If you can't think of how it would change anything, then ask somebody you think you might be able to believe.
I didn't say it would not make any difference but the only real difference is we would be aware of the existence of advanced aliens.
Would you call them gods?
I didn't say it would not make any difference but the only real difference is we would be aware of the existence of advanced aliens.
Would you call them gods?
QUOTE (nopEda+May 23 2009, 06:09 AM)
It means you won't believe me. One way is that people who disbelieve, would believe. It could be some of the most stupid ones would not, but maybe that's why we're told he has plans to thin the herd.
How do you know about Aliens plan? Now you seem to be psychotic and not just stupid.
How do you know about Aliens plan? Now you seem to be psychotic and not just stupid.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 23 2009, 12:33 AM)
All the ways people would behave differently if they knew God exists.
Do you mean God or what you call God?
BTW have you found any low fat mayonaise yet?
Do you mean God or what you call God?
BTW have you found any low fat mayonaise yet?
There must've been a policy change in the council. 'Cuz they sure didn't mind making themselves known in the old testament days.
Or they cut development of Earth out of the budget and closed the local offices down. That seems more probable.
Or they cut development of Earth out of the budget and closed the local offices down. That seems more probable.
QUOTE (buttershug+May 23 2009, 01:02 AM)
Do you mean God
Yes, God is what I mean by God.
Yes, God is what I mean by God.
QUOTE (gmilam+May 23 2009, 01:03 AM)
There must've been a policy change in the council. 'Cuz they sure didn't mind making themselves known in the old testament days.
Or they cut development of Earth out of the budget and closed the local offices down. That seems more probable.
It's hard to tell what that council bunch is talking about, since we can't jump high enough to hear what they're saying. Maybe we're just in a different phase of the project than people were then.
Or they cut development of Earth out of the budget and closed the local offices down. That seems more probable.
It's hard to tell what that council bunch is talking about, since we can't jump high enough to hear what they're saying. Maybe we're just in a different phase of the project than people were then.
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 23 2009, 12:40 AM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
...try to imagine how it would change things for God to prove his existence, whether you think of him as an alien or whatever your interpretation is. If you can't think of how it would change anything, then ask somebody you think you might be able to believe.
I didn't say it would not make any difference but the only real difference is we would be aware of the existence of advanced aliens.
Would you call them gods?
If God presented himself--which is absurd to even contemplate--I feel sure I'd still believe he was an alien unless he told me differently. It certainly wouldn't prevent him from being God if he is one though, that's for sure.
Would you call them gods?
If God presented himself--which is absurd to even contemplate--I feel sure I'd still believe he was an alien unless he told me differently. It certainly wouldn't prevent him from being God if he is one though, that's for sure.
QUOTE (vkamath+May 23 2009, 12:41 AM)
QUOTE (nopEda+)
It means you won't believe me. One way is that people who disbelieve, would believe. It could be some of the most stupid ones would not, but maybe that's why we're told he has plans to thin the herd.
How do you know about Aliens plan?
For the Bible tells us so...
How do you know about Aliens plan?
For the Bible tells us so...
QUOTE (nopEda+May 23 2009, 12:16 PM)
If God presented himself--which is absurd to even contemplate--I feel sure I'd still believe he was an alien unless he told me differently. It certainly wouldn't prevent him from being God if he is one though, that's for sure.
If aliens exist and have reached our planet what is so absurd about them making contact with us?
So you would automatically consider them to be gods?
That would be absurd.
If aliens exist and have reached our planet what is so absurd about them making contact with us?
So you would automatically consider them to be gods?
That would be absurd.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 23 2009, 05:00 PM)
Yes, God is what I mean by God.
Oh so this time you meant The Supreme Being, who is Omnipotent.
That is confusing, usually you refuse to talk about God, usually you use the word but mean space aliens.
Please make it clear when you mean God and when you mean space aliens.
it gets confusing when you use the same word for two different concepts.
Oh so this time you meant The Supreme Being, who is Omnipotent.
That is confusing, usually you refuse to talk about God, usually you use the word but mean space aliens.
Please make it clear when you mean God and when you mean space aliens.
it gets confusing when you use the same word for two different concepts.
QUOTE (nopEda+May 23 2009, 11:00 PM)
For the Bible tells us so...
Can you quote the paragraph from the bible which is about Aliens?
I thought you want to think realistically about god. Do you think the Bible is realistic?
How about the resurrection of Jesus? Realistic?
Can you quote the paragraph from the bible which is about Aliens?
I thought you want to think realistically about god. Do you think the Bible is realistic?
How about the resurrection of Jesus? Realistic?
QUOTE (pnelson419+May 23 2009, 05:38 PM)
If aliens exist and have reached our planet what is so absurd about them making contact with us?
If they did, then apparently they decided not to make contact in as many ways as they've decided not to, and for whatever reasons.
If they did, then apparently they decided not to make contact in as many ways as they've decided not to, and for whatever reasons.
QUOTE (pnelson+)
So you would automatically consider them to be gods?
No.
No.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here youll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.