The God Helmet

[totalnoob]

Now you have people who call themselves Atheists because they follow the basic principles, but they're not hardcore followers of what Atheism has become and are no different than Sunday Catholics as far as I'm concerned.

Pardon me, but WTF are you talking about? There is nothing to follow in atheism. There are no "basic principles" at all. It's a no answer to a single question.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

What we think we know is what we tell ourselves we know. God and sex are chemical reactions that happen in the brain. You have had one chemical reaction and not the other. From that you assume that one is real and the other likely not. The difference between the two in in your mind. Some folk know God first hand but may not have ever had sex.

People make claims to have seen/experienced many metaphysical things that I, and likely you, have not. Just because someone adamantly insists they saw a ghost does that convince you they are correct?

M: Hehehehehehe. You can't make something true just by saying it. How am I like the OP but his opposite. I am not like him at all nor am I his opposite, in my opinion. I don't know anything. And of course I had to tell you of my abilities because you were bound to overestimate your own and never see it. Here for example, you appeal to 'the reasonable person' a delusion you have that he is you and that you know what reasonable is. You always make such overestimations of your abilities. You are the living exemplar of the delusions you claim to see in me.

lol. How ironic. You ARE trying to make something true just by saying it. You proffer no proof of the existence of your god. All you have is words to insist it's true. Bring something more to the table. I have an open mind. Prove your god is a fact.

Truthfully, my mind is far more open than yours because I am willing to concede that there may in fact be a god, albeit a miniscule chance, while your mind is completely closed to the concept that one may not actually exist.

 

[Moonbeam]

TastesLikeChicken: Fern already pointed out that only 1% of those tested claimed to see God. More than likely that's based on an existing bias that would cause a person to assume that the presence that's perceived is god. The ultimate fact is, despite a presence being sensed, in reality nothing was there.

M: That would be the ultimate fact you are capable of reaching just as most sensed something but only some sensed God. Your ultimate facts are those facts you are limited to.

TLC: imo, it's a fascinating finding. It could provide a rational explanation why people believe they've seen ghosts or other non-existent beings.

M: Indeed, as if what is a rational explanation to you is of any functional value to somebody who sees a ghost. Your life life inside out. You aren't alive and you do not have being. You think and analize. Everything is an abstraction. You might come alive if you saw a ghost.


TLC: Traditionally, the kind of crap that comes out of Moonie's mouth has been proferred by either mentally unstable self-deluded types or con-artists.

M: Traditionally, such stereotyping demonetization as you describe here is the food or mobs, vigilantes and thugs.

 

[nonlnear]

People make claims to have seen/experienced many metaphysical things that I, and likely you, have not. Just because someone adamantly insists they saw a ghost does that convince you they are correct?


lol. How ironic. You ARE trying to make something true just by saying it. You proffer no proof of the existence of your god. All you have is words to insist it's true. Bring something more to the table. I have an open mind. Prove your god is a fact.

Truthfully, my mind is far more open than yours because I am willing to concede that there may in fact be a god, albeit a miniscule chance, while your mind is completely closed to the concept that one may not actually exist.

What is hilarious is that you do not understand the irony of the words in bold. There are atheists out there smart enough not to fall into the trap you just constructed for yourself, but they aren't the ones generating all the uber-kewl buzz on youtube...

 

[totalnoob]

What is hilarious is that you do not understand the irony of the words in bold. There are atheists out there smart enough not to fall into the trap you just constructed for yourself, but they aren't the ones generating all the uber-kewl buzz on youtube...

What is really hilarious is that theists can't demonstrate any rational reason why anyone should take the idea of magic beard man seriously.

 

[bfdd]

Pardon me, but WTF are you talking about? There is nothing to follow in atheism. There are no "basic principles" at all. It's a no answer to a single question.

Keep telling yourself that buddy. There sure is no organized groups of Atheists who share the same beliefs... oh wait there are. Atheism has turned into a religion, albeit hardly organized. All Atheists have faith in that they believe there is no God or gods. That's all anyone has is faith in their beliefs. Atheists allow their faith in their beliefs to shape their lives. Just because there's no bible-like book or religious leader like the Pope doesn't make what Atheism has and is further evolving into not a religion.

I take the stance and apply call myself a non-believer. I don't believe in jack shit. I don't believe there is or isn't a God or gods, but I do live my life as if there isn't. For every argument for there is one against and vice versa so why care about it?

 

[bfdd]

What is really hilarious is that theists can't demonstrate any rational reason why anyone should take the idea of magic beard man seriously.

You can't demonstrate any rational reason why there are somethings that we just don't know shit about and really shouldn't try to force our BELIEFS on others since guess what NO ONE FUCKING KNOWS. Just because your mind cannot fathom a God does not mean God(s) don't exist.



Seriously you douche bag Atheists need to stop making me defend other peoples religious beliefs. I think you're all fucking stupid for even entertaining the idea you have a clue about what you're talking about.

 

[nonlnear]

What is really hilarious is that theists can't demonstrate any rational reason why anyone should take the idea of magic beard man seriously.

I agree completely that it is hilarious that those theists who postulate a being with a face, hair on that face, and a divine penis, scrotum and testicles, would believe that such a fabrication is worthy of being "taken seriously" (whatever that means). A word of caution: you would do well not to assume that I am a theist. I don't much care for labels, but I argue a position whose rhetoric most closely resembles a particularly modest brand of atheism.

Now if you are going to go bandying about words like rational and reason, I have to ask you a question before we continue: What are your axioms?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

M: That would be the ultimate fact you are capable of reaching just as most sensed something but only some sensed God. Your ultimate facts are those facts you are limited to.

Facts are based on physical reality, not metaphysical constructs. fyi, there are a number of clinical terms for those who claim to see things for which they have zero physical proof.

M: Indeed, as if what is a rational explanation to you is of any functional value to somebody who sees a ghost. Your life life inside out. You aren't alive and you do not have being. You think and analize. Everything is an abstraction. You might come alive if you saw a ghost.

Let me guess. You watched the Matrix and thought it was a documentary? Hey, that's why everything tastes like chicken.

M: Traditionally, such stereotyping demonetization as you describe here is the food or mobs, vigilantes and thugs.

/Inigo Montoya - "I do not think it means what you think it means."

 

[WHAMPOM]

God is in the brain. As Mr. Smith said, "Thou art God!"

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

What is hilarious is that you do not understand the irony of the words in bold. There are atheists out there smart enough not to fall into the trap you just constructed for yourself, but they aren't the ones generating all the uber-kewl buzz on youtube...

Lemme guess. You're going to claim God is unprovable, or unknowable by us simple-minded humans, or some other such nonsense in order to make an end run around the fact that there is zero evidence for one?

Edit: btw, I am not an atheist. I'm agnostic. I don't claim there is no god. I claim there is no proof of a god. Besides that, if a god does exist I highly doubt it's anything like the numerous, disparate gods described in human religions.

 

[nonlnear]

Lemme guess. You're going to claim God is unprovable, or unknowable by us simple-minded humans, or some other such nonsense in order to make an end run around the fact that there is zero evidence for one?

What are your axioms?

 

[totalnoob]

All Atheists have faith in that they believe there is no God or gods.

Epic fail. Atheism is a lack of belief buddy. There are some who take it a step further and claim "There are no gods", but they are a tiny minority. Theism = with god/gods. Atheism = without god/gods.

It does not mean a claim that god/gods cannot possibly exist. It simply means you haven't bought into the theistic claims and are unconvinced that such a thing exists. It takes no "faith" to disbelieve in god, santa claus, or universe creating pixies. Without a single reason believe in these things, it takes no "faith" to say I don't believe in them. You simply haven't bought into the bullshit claims made by people claiming they exist, which makes you an atheist, aclausist, and afairyist.

I take the stance and apply call myself a non-believer. I don't believe in jack shit. I don't believe there is or isn't a God or gods, but I do live my life as if there isn't.

If you don't currently hold a belief in a god/gods, you are an atheist any way you slice it. Regardless of whether you are certain or not, if you currently hold a belief, that makes you a theist. If not, you're an atheist. Stop pretending you've discovered some sort of "middle ground" buddy. You haven't. The issue is a perfect dichotomy.

 

[totalnoob]

What are your axioms?

Why don't we go with the good ole existence, identity, consciousness.

Kindly demonstrate that something like a disembodied consciousness is capable of existing. Kindly demonstrate that ANY sort of entity is capable of existing without form, dimensions, or a reliance on some physical process (matter) within the universe. Why should anyone begin to entertain the idea?

P.S. While you're at it. Resolve the infinite regress paradox, and I'll become an instant believer that you are god.

 

[Moonbeam]

TastesLikeChicken: People make claims to have seen/experienced many metaphysical things that I, and likely you, have not. Just because someone adamantly insists they saw a ghost does that convince you they are correct?

M: No, but if it makes them more integrated folk thereafter, I'm glad they saw one.


TLC: lol. How ironic. You ARE trying to make something true just by saying it. You proffer no proof of the existence of your god. All you have is words to insist it's true. Bring something more to the table. I have an open mind. Prove your god is a fact.

M: Let's look again at what I said:

"Hehehehehehe. You can't make something true just by saying it. How am I like the OP but his opposite. I am not like him at all nor am I his opposite, in my opinion."

So I am not trying to make something true because I said it, because I mentioned this was just my opinion, not a truth that's self assertion. So when you express an opinion and state it's opinion you do not insist it's true. Sorry, you either do not know how to think or you do not read well.

"I don't know anything."

Great way to insist I know the truth, eh?

"And of course I had to tell you of my abilities because you were bound to overestimate your own and never see it. Here for example, you appeal to 'the reasonable person' a delusion you have that he is you and that you know what reasonable is. You always make such overestimations of your abilities. You are the living exemplar of the delusions you claim to see in me."

A simple statement of exactly what you did, assume you define reasonable.

Furthermore, I said:

"What we think we know is what we tell ourselves we know. God and sex are chemical reactions that happen in the brain. You have had one chemical reaction and not the other. From that you assume that one is real and the other likely not. The difference between the two in in your mind. Some folk know God first hand but may not have ever had sex."

So I do not say anything at all about my belief in God but that some people know God first hand via experience. I have no need to prove or disprove the existence of God. I don't believe in the God you doubt exists.


TLC: Truthfully, my mind is far more open than yours because I am willing to concede that there may in fact be a god, albeit a miniscule chance, while your mind is completely closed to the concept that one may not actually exists.

Again, I do not believe in God in any way you would recognize as religious. You are tilting at windmills.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Of course their theism motivates some to kill people. So does politics, tribalism, nationalism, most everything. What you fail to acknowledge is that while atheists may not believe in a deity, they DO believe in the superiority of their position and some are prepared to back it up with their own brand of intolerance.

To be blunt being an atheist doesn't prevent people from being assholes about it.

I'm not going to dispute that. I'm only saying that there is an important distinction between a group of people being united by a common belief and a group of people "united" by what they don't believe.

In other words, if you're going to make a "guilty by association" argument, you need to acknowledge that not believing in the same thing someone else doesn't believe in doesn't amount to much of an association. You might as well say dogs and trees belong in the same category because they're both not automobiles. It's pretty silly.

How about the other side of it? Those who travel to other lands to help people because they believe a god approves of it? What good has atheism ever positively encouraged people to do? Nothing, because it's nothing but a belief about god.

It's not a belief about god. Repeat: It's not a belief about god. It is the lack of a belief in a god's existence.

So atheism does nothing. Religion can motivate people to do good or evil or nothing at all. I can say that about people who have political sensibilities too.

That doesn't stop some atheists from being condescending asses, does it?

I suspect that when theists stop being ridiculously dense troglodytes, we atheists will no longer have to talk down to them. :awe:

 

[Moonbeam]

What is really hilarious is that theists can't demonstrate any rational reason why anyone should take the idea of magic beard man seriously.

The irony of this comment is that you have taken the beard man seriously. You took a completely stupid idea and based disbelief on it like a complete fool.

 

[nonlnear]

Why don't we go with the good ole existence, identity, consciousness.

I'll assume you ar efollowing something similar to the first few steps of Rand's system. Please correct me if that is a major error. (I rather like Rand's first few steps myself, so kudos on your first three assertions. )

Kindly demonstrate that something like a disembodied consciousness is capable of existing. Kindly demonstrate that ANY sort of entity is capable of existing without form, dimensions, or a reliance on some physical process within the universe.

You do realize you are propping up an epic straw man, correct? Even (many of) the most (IMHO) insane theists do not postulate a deity which "exists" within the universe.

Existence exists. There are various systems which derive principles for reasoned knowledge about that which exists, but to assert that something other than "existence" is false is an assertion of faith. If you want to assert that the universe (the set of entities which exist) contains of all that is knowable through reason, I am fine with that - and actually agree with you. The problem is asserting that truth (whatever that undefined term means) is completely contained within existence is itself a claim of a religious nature. I don't deride people who make that claim, but it's important to realize that making that claim puts one in a slightly more religious flavor of atheism. That's all well and good but it's disingenuous to then prop up that position as being more naked than it is.

Within the axiomatic system of existence, identity, and consciousness, there is room for transcendence and unknowable (in the sense of rationally deducible) truth. If one sloppily asserts that something transcendent "exists" then it all falls apart, but there are plenty of theistic traditions which even predate modern atheism which don't make that mistake. An optional corollary of the axiom "Existence exists" is "Transcendence transcends". What one wants to do with that is up to the user of the axioms. Many great minds choose to consider the category of transcendence as a subset of Nonsense, but some don't.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

What are your axioms?

You decide so long as it presents realistically recognizable and undeniable evidence of the existence of a god. It has to be presented as physical reality, not metaphysical what ifs. Since a god allegedly influences this universe so thoroughly, and influences in reality leave physical traces, it should be relatively simple to produce some physical proof that's comprehensible by man.

 

[nonlnear]

You decide so long as it presents realistically recognizable and undeniable evidence of the existence of a god. It has to be presented as physical reality, not metaphysical what ifs. Since a god allegedly influences this universe so thoroughly, and influences in reality leave physical traces, it should be relatively simple to produce some physical proof that's comprehensible by man.

You don't seem to understand what an axiom is...

 

[Moonbeam]

Cerpin Taxt:

It is the lack of a belief in a god's existence.

Would that be anything like a mongropod who does not believe in Gorma?

Most mongropods do not know they are mongropods because they don't even know they don't believe in Gorma, but I have a hunch that Atheists are conscious of the concept they don't believe in which means they are conscious of what they do not believe. Would you not, therefore, have to reject the belief of others, then, to claim to be an Atheist? I know what this faith in God thing is and I do not believe it, except you do not know what that faith in God thing is because you don't have faith. You are, therefore, are you not, rejecting something about which you know nothing other than the name?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Existence exists.

Fallacy of reification.

There are various systems which derive principles for reasoned knowledge about that which exists, but to assert that something other than "existence" is false is an assertion of faith. If you want to assert that the universe (the set of entities which exist) contains of all that is knowable through reason, I am fine with that - and actually agree with you. The problem is asserting that truth (whatever that undefined term means) is completely contained within existence is itself a claim of a religious nature. I don't deride people who make that claim, but it's important to realize that making that claim puts one in a slightly more religious flavor of atheism. That's all well and good but it's disingenuous to then prop up that position as being more naked than it is.

I think you're reading WAY more into this than is necessary. It is tautological that reality is the set of all and everything that is real. Tautologies aren't really the same thing as statements of faith.

Within the axiomatic system of existence, identity, and consciousness, there is room for transcendence and unknowable (in the sense of rationally deducible) truth.

There might be if you could demonstrate first that there is such an animal as an "axiomatic system of existence, identity and consciousness."

If one sloppily asserts that something transcendent "exists" then it all falls apart, but there are plenty of theistic traditions which even predate modern atheism which don't make that mistake. An optional corollary of the axiom "Existence exists" is "Transcendence transcends". What one wants to do with that is up to the user of the axioms. Many great minds choose to consider the category of transcendence as a subset of Nonsense, but some don't.

I prefer to think about things in terms of real and unreal. You're still reifying abstractions, though, talking about transcendence and existence.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

M: No, but if it makes them more integrated folk thereafter, I'm glad they saw one.

"Integrated?" lol. In the real world, when people claim to have seen ghosts, faeries, leprechauns, cupcabras, vampires, or werefolves those people are generally considered either mistaken or somewhat mentally unstable.

M: Let's look again at what I said:

Let's not.

Despite all of your contradictory statements, you insist that god exists but cannot provide proof. It's as simple as that.

Again, I do not believe in God in any way you would recognize as religious. You are tilting at windmills.

I don't care one whit about your specific religious concepts or lack thereof and haven't spoken to that aspect of it. You insist a god exists. Prove it. It's as simple as that.

 

[totalnoob]

Within the axiomatic system of existence, identity, and consciousness, there is room for transcendence and unknowable (in the sense of rationally deducible) truth. If one sloppily asserts that something transcendent "exists" then it all falls apart, but there are plenty of theistic traditions which even predate modern atheism which don't make that mistake.

Yes..but certainly not the most prevalent religions today..and that is what most people are concerned with when discussing religious claims. The popular "western" religions all posit a god that is not only omnipresent within our universe, but one that also intervenes by answering prayers, performing miracles, and changing the physical world on a daily basis.
Victor Stenger argues well in God: The Failed Hypothesis that these claims should be open to investigation, and either verification or disproof.

It's true there will always be room for the "unknowable" and we can probably never disprove the existence of a non-intervening deistic god..or some crazy claim like reincarnation..but that isn't what most theists believe in. There may be some transcendent "thing" or realm that we are unaware of..but asserting knowledge of that realm and forming convoluted theologies around it without a shred of evidence is certainly worthy of criticism in my opinion. You don't see atheists attacking deistic or pantheistic beliefs very often.. The bottom line is that "faith" has no epistemological credentials.. It is not an alternative means of discovering truth, and those who think it is and decide to claim knowledge of the unknowable rightly deserve to be ridiculed.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

You don't seem to understand what an axiom is...

You don't understand that I'm not going to fall into the trap you were trying to set. bt, dt. I gave you my parameters. Provide your proof.