Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Atheism: Because I dislike thinking about it.

Archistrategos
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 1:27:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Thought I would take a good thread idea and start a proper conversation with you guys.

So is it that atheists find the possibility of a God unthinkable? Is that a failiure of imagination?

Of course we rail again the petty and tyrannical concepts the church's profess is God and I say rightly so. The feeling of the concepts most of them espouse grates against our innate soul. Does not fit or sit well or rightly.

So where is the middle ground?

And of course, generalizations are a fools toy. There are many flavors along the bell curve of atheists. If you label yourself as one, what is your flavor? Do you just rail against the churches definition?

Or do you rail against the concept of there being a God?

.......who's concept?

Let's talk a walk through our own minds.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 1:43:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 1:27:52 PM, Archistrategos wrote:
Thought I would take a good thread idea and start a proper conversation with you guys.

So is it that atheists find the possibility of a God unthinkable? Is that a failiure of imagination?

I would say that most Atheists just buy theist's theory that a God exists, therefore, they don't believe. It's that simple (it has nothing to do with thinking God is impossible). It would be like if I told you that a giant ape lives on one of the planets right outside our solar system...It's not unthinkable or impossible, but if you weren't convinced by the arguments for it, you wouldn't believe in it.

Of course we rail again the petty and tyrannical concepts the church's profess is God and I say rightly so. The feeling of the concepts most of them espouse grates against our innate soul. Does not fit or sit well or rightly.

So where is the middle ground?

And of course, generalizations are a fools toy. There are many flavors along the bell curve of atheists. If you label yourself as one, what is your flavor? Do you just rail against the churches definition?

Or do you rail against the concept of there being a God?

.......who's concept?

Let's talk a walk through our own minds.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 2:05:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 1:43:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I would say that most Atheists just buy theist's theory that a God exists, therefore, they don't believe. It's that simple (it has nothing to do with thinking God is impossible). It would be like if I told you that a giant ape lives on one of the planets right outside our solar system...It's not unthinkable or impossible, but if you weren't convinced by the arguments for it, you wouldn't believe in it.

Pretty much the same here. Though I prefer to use the metaphor of purple-polka dotted spiders in New Guinea.
Archistrategos
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 2:09:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 1:43:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

I would say that most Atheists just buy theist's theory that a God exists, therefore, they don't believe. It's that simple (it has nothing to do with thinking God is impossible). It would be like if I told you that a giant ape lives on one of the planets right outside our solar system...It's not unthinkable or impossible, but if you weren't convinced by the arguments for it, you wouldn't believe in it.


So most atheists are railing against the belief the theorists believe?
Why don't they put out a better argument for a better conception of God?

If all we have are the stories we are told by others (unless you come u with a better more functional one) then why not pick/make the one that works the best.

It matters some, what you mean by what you say, it matters more the words together, it matters most what you can or can't do by the words and definitions you use. If you use others definition, are you not then limiting yourself to their conception? And then of course you fight against it! *chuckle*

Seems like "most atheism" is more of a reaction than quite yet an actual response.
More like a "I don't like your response, and I don't want to have to respond!" ;)
Archistrategos
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 2:22:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 2:05:33 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 9/30/2012 1:43:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I would say that most Atheists just buy theist's theory that a God exists, therefore, they don't believe. It's that simple (it has nothing to do with thinking God is impossible). It would be like if I told you that a giant ape lives on one of the planets right outside our solar system...It's not unthinkable or impossible, but if you weren't convinced by the arguments for it, you wouldn't believe in it.

Pretty much the same here. Though I prefer to use the metaphor of purple-polka dotted spiders in New Guinea.

So you respond to perceived absurdity....with more absurdity in an effort to sound even more absurd?

Checking for purple dotted spiders in New Guinea....might be eating my shoe....
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 2:37:37 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 2:09:54 PM, Archistrategos wrote:
At 9/30/2012 1:43:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

I would say that most Atheists just buy theist's theory that a God exists, therefore, they don't believe. It's that simple (it has nothing to do with thinking God is impossible). It would be like if I told you that a giant ape lives on one of the planets right outside our solar system...It's not unthinkable or impossible, but if you weren't convinced by the arguments for it, you wouldn't believe in it.


So most atheists are railing against the belief the theorists believe?

No, they just don't believe what theists believe.

Why don't they put out a better argument for a better conception of God?

Because they don't believe there is a reason to believe any God exists.

If all we have are the stories we are told by others (unless you come u with a better more functional one) then why not pick/make the one that works the best.

It's like asking to put forward a better conception of the giant ape on the planet in my example earlier, why even think there is a giant ape?


It matters some, what you mean by what you say, it matters more the words together, it matters most what you can or can't do by the words and definitions you use. If you use others definition, are you not then limiting yourself to their conception? And then of course you fight against it! *chuckle*

Seems like "most atheism" is more of a reaction than quite yet an actual response.

More like a "I don't like your response, and I don't want to have to respond!" ;)

It's more like "Your theory that God exists is not supported sufficiently, so, I don't believe it". It's that simple.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 2:44:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 2:09:54 PM, Archistrategos wrote:
So most atheists are railing against the belief the theorists believe?
Why don't they put out a better argument for a better conception of God?

Most atheists actually are pretty quiet about the whole thing and don't 'rail' against it.

If all we have are the stories we are told by others (unless you come u with a better more functional one) then why not pick/make the one that works the best.

Why believe any of them?

For that matter, I'm literally not capable of faith in this sort of thing. My mind doesn't work that way. I can't 'make myself believe', and I don't have the faith necessary to believe in something I see no evidence or probability for.

At 9/30/2012 2:22:10 PM, Archistrategos wrote:
At 9/30/2012 2:05:33 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 9/30/2012 1:43:00 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
I would say that most Atheists just buy theist's theory that a God exists, therefore, they don't believe. It's that simple (it has nothing to do with thinking God is impossible). It would be like if I told you that a giant ape lives on one of the planets right outside our solar system...It's not unthinkable or impossible, but if you weren't convinced by the arguments for it, you wouldn't believe in it.

Pretty much the same here. Though I prefer to use the metaphor of purple-polka dotted spiders in New Guinea.

So you respond to perceived absurdity....with more absurdity in an effort to sound even more absurd?

Checking for purple dotted spiders in New Guinea....might be eating my shoe....

There could be purple dotted spiders in New Guinea. We do not know if there are or not. Belief in purple dotted spiders is orthogonal to morality. Therefore I do not care if someone believes in purple dotted spiders in New Guinea; I personally do not.
Blind-Faith
Posts: 65
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 4:09:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I guess for me it is the absurdities in the books. If they were books by god then surely it (god) could have done a better job.
The Abrahamic trinity can only reach back at max, ten thousand years, when according to their books the world began.
It"s true most but not all Christians today bend over backwards to try and prove the old testiment should not be taken literally. Yet for more than a millennia, any thought contrary the Bible was met with torture and death.
The Mayan traditions go back further than Abrahamic.

The Quran says that it brings clear proofs, yet exists in the same geocentric reality as the bible.

Even if there is something other in the universe and there may well be. There is absolutely no proof that it is intelligent or that it is god.
One thing I am absolutely sure of, is that nobody living or dead knows more or less on this subject than me. In other words nobody knows no matter how much they try to convince you or themselves.

My own instinct tells me that the multiverse is infinite.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 4:43:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 4:09:43 PM, Blind-Faith wrote:
I guess for me it is the absurdities in the books. If they were books by god then surely it (god) could have done a better job.

First, I highly doubt you have any idea what you're talking about. Second, you're assuming that the bible hasn't done exactly what i was intended to do.

The Abrahamic trinity can only reach back at max, ten thousand years, when according to their books the world began.

You mean, the 'written' record? According to scripture, people were living to be hundreds of years old; there wasn't much need or use in writing things down.

It"s true most but not all Christians today bend over backwards to try and prove the old testiment should not be taken literally. Yet for more than a millennia, any thought contrary the Bible was met with torture and death.

The OT, contains 'some' parts which are obviously metaphors, or figurative. This however, doesn't mean the message is null and void. WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY?

The Mayan traditions go back further than Abrahamic.

No they don't.

The Quran says that it brings clear proofs, yet exists in the same geocentric reality as the bible.

Hmm, how curious? All of the largest world religions are Abrahamic.

Even if there is something other in the universe and there may well be. There is absolutely no proof that it is intelligent or that it is god.
One thing I am absolutely sure of, is that nobody living or dead knows more or less on this subject than me. In other words nobody knows no matter how much they try to convince you or themselves.

My own instinct tells me that the multiverse is infinite.

Then why do you spend so much time on the religion forum? It seems like a continuous reassurance is needed in order for an atheist to remain sane.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Blind-Faith
Posts: 65
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 5:18:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Paradox_7 wrote.
First, I highly doubt you have any idea what you're talking about. Second, you're assuming that the bible hasn't done exactly what i was intended to do.
Are you sure you want to go into this?

You mean, the 'written' record? According to scripture, people were living to be hundreds of years old; there wasn't much need or use in writing things down.
Yes, this is what I was writing about....Absurdities in the bible.

The OT, contains 'some' parts which are obviously metaphors, or figurative. This however, doesn't mean the message is null and void. WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY?
That it lies.

The Mayan traditions go back further than Abrahamic.

No they don't.
I"ll get back to you on that.

Hmm, how curious? All of the largest world religions are Abrahamic.
Hmm, how curious? What religion has been the most ruthless at enforcing it's ideology on others?

Then why do you spend so much time on the religion forum? It seems like a continuous reassurance is needed in order for an atheist to remain sane.
What's the point of debating people you agree with?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 6:14:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 1:27:52 PM, Archistrategos wrote:
Thought I would take a good thread idea and start a proper conversation with you guys.

So is it that atheists find the possibility of a God unthinkable? Is that a failiure of imagination?

Of course we rail again the petty and tyrannical concepts the church's profess is God and I say rightly so. The feeling of the concepts most of them espouse grates against our innate soul. Does not fit or sit well or rightly.

So where is the middle ground?

And of course, generalizations are a fools toy. There are many flavors along the bell curve of atheists. If you label yourself as one, what is your flavor? Do you just rail against the churches definition?

Or do you rail against the concept of there being a God?

.......who's concept?

Let's talk a walk through our own minds.

There are many types of God of which I have differing opinions. I can say that any proposition asserting the existence a six day creation God is "false" to the extent that I can claim the tooth fair doesn't exist.

With a deistic God, on the other hand, the only arguments against him/it would have to be a priori since all knowledge gained from experience would be equivalent regardless of the deistic God's existence. (like Brain in a vat scenario).

The line between "god" and "non-god" for me is when we would or would not assign the quality of "sentience" to it (in a Western sense). Otherwise, you might as well claim that "if the metaphysical equivalent of a rock created the universe, that rock is god." If you do that, atheism can simply be defined out of existence.

In an eastern sense, Gods are all manifestations of a single totality which has no "sentience" in our conception of the term, so it's not quite right to apply this standard to them. The same is true for any God that is equated with what "cannot be humanly conceptualized" since the epistemological concession makes it impossible to speak of an "atheist" in relation to the "theist" since both are concepts.

So, for certain gods I can say "I believe God x does not exists to the extent I believe y (ex. tooth fairy)," for others I can only produce a priori arguments against them (such as deism/pantheism), and for others I either cannot address the God's existence by definition (since the God cannot be envisioned using language or some such thing) or the theist defines atheism out of existence (almost always by denying sentience as a necessary attribute).

Which of these are you peddling today?
GenesisCreation
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 7:04:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 6:14:59 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/30/2012 1:27:52 PM, Archistrategos wrote:
Thought I would take a good thread idea and start a proper conversation with you guys.

So is it that atheists find the possibility of a God unthinkable? Is that a failiure of imagination?

Of course we rail again the petty and tyrannical concepts the church's profess is God and I say rightly so. The feeling of the concepts most of them espouse grates against our innate soul. Does not fit or sit well or rightly.

So where is the middle ground?

And of course, generalizations are a fools toy. There are many flavors along the bell curve of atheists. If you label yourself as one, what is your flavor? Do you just rail against the churches definition?

Or do you rail against the concept of there being a God?

.......who's concept?

Let's talk a walk through our own minds.

There are many types of God of which I have differing opinions. I can say that any proposition asserting the existence a six day creation God is "false" to the extent that I can claim the tooth fair doesn't exist.

With a deistic God, on the other hand, the only arguments against him/it would have to be a priori since all knowledge gained from experience would be equivalent regardless of the deistic God's existence. (like Brain in a vat scenario).

The line between "god" and "non-god" for me is when we would or would not assign the quality of "sentience" to it (in a Western sense). Otherwise, you might as well claim that "if the metaphysical equivalent of a rock created the universe, that rock is god." If you do that, atheism can simply be defined out of existence.

In an eastern sense, Gods are all manifestations of a single totality which has no "sentience" in our conception of the term, so it's not quite right to apply this standard to them. The same is true for any God that is equated with what "cannot be humanly conceptualized" since the epistemological concession makes it impossible to speak of an "atheist" in relation to the "theist" since both are concepts.

So, for certain gods I can say "I believe God x does not exists to the extent I believe y (ex. tooth fairy)," for others I can only produce a priori arguments against them (such as deism/pantheism), and for others I either cannot address the God's existence by definition (since the God cannot be envisioned using language or some such thing) or the theist defines atheism out of existence (almost always by denying sentience as a necessary attribute).

Which of these are you peddling today?

That's pretty condescending. Are you trying to humiliate or discuss?
Um....You've got a log in your eye.
"I would be suspicious of an argument without any concessions." - John Dickson
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 7:06:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 7:04:12 PM, GenesisCreation wrote:
At 9/30/2012 6:14:59 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 9/30/2012 1:27:52 PM, Archistrategos wrote:
Thought I would take a good thread idea and start a proper conversation with you guys.

So is it that atheists find the possibility of a God unthinkable? Is that a failiure of imagination?

Of course we rail again the petty and tyrannical concepts the church's profess is God and I say rightly so. The feeling of the concepts most of them espouse grates against our innate soul. Does not fit or sit well or rightly.

So where is the middle ground?

And of course, generalizations are a fools toy. There are many flavors along the bell curve of atheists. If you label yourself as one, what is your flavor? Do you just rail against the churches definition?

Or do you rail against the concept of there being a God?

.......who's concept?

Let's talk a walk through our own minds.

There are many types of God of which I have differing opinions. I can say that any proposition asserting the existence a six day creation God is "false" to the extent that I can claim the tooth fair doesn't exist.

With a deistic God, on the other hand, the only arguments against him/it would have to be a priori since all knowledge gained from experience would be equivalent regardless of the deistic God's existence. (like Brain in a vat scenario).

The line between "god" and "non-god" for me is when we would or would not assign the quality of "sentience" to it (in a Western sense). Otherwise, you might as well claim that "if the metaphysical equivalent of a rock created the universe, that rock is god." If you do that, atheism can simply be defined out of existence.

In an eastern sense, Gods are all manifestations of a single totality which has no "sentience" in our conception of the term, so it's not quite right to apply this standard to them. The same is true for any God that is equated with what "cannot be humanly conceptualized" since the epistemological concession makes it impossible to speak of an "atheist" in relation to the "theist" since both are concepts.

So, for certain gods I can say "I believe God x does not exists to the extent I believe y (ex. tooth fairy)," for others I can only produce a priori arguments against them (such as deism/pantheism), and for others I either cannot address the God's existence by definition (since the God cannot be envisioned using language or some such thing) or the theist defines atheism out of existence (almost always by denying sentience as a necessary attribute).

Which of these are you peddling today?

That's pretty condescending. Are you trying to humiliate or discuss?

Read the thread title. I'm matching tone.
Archistrategos
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 7:16:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Hindu tradition also has a "Tri-Unity" that function exactly the same as the Christian....only explained a little better IMHO....Brahma = Father God, Vishnu = Mother God or Holy Spirit. Atman = God the Son.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 7:23:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 7:16:51 PM, Archistrategos wrote:
The Hindu tradition also has a "Tri-Unity" that function exactly the same as the Christian....only explained a little better IMHO....Brahma = Father God, Vishnu = Mother God or Holy Spirit. Atman = God the Son.

That kind of comparison between western monotheistic Gods and eastern tradition simply does not work.

The "tri-unity" if anything is Brahma who creates, Vishnu who protects, and Shiva who destroys. There is a "divine mother" in Hindu tradition, and it is the universe itself outside of dualities. Atman the "self" within our body which, when liberated, is realized to be identical to the transcendent Brahma. Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva are all manifestations of the same totality.

What archeological evidence do you have of Hindu tradition being practiced 24,000 years ago?
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 7:24:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Also, if you don't mind, could you please address the actual content of my post. I took the time to answer a condescending question quite thoroughly. I hope I can expect nearly as much from you.
Archistrategos
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 7:37:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 7:06:18 PM, Wnope wrote:
Read the thread title. I'm matching tone.
In the middle of a few things, but I want to address this; I could have worded it better and was trying to, but that was the limit of word space. I'll try better next time.
No offense or belittling intended.

You guys have brought up some great points! will get back to you asap.....
Archistrategos
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 9:21:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 6:14:59 PM, Wnope wrote:

There are many types of God of which I have differing opinions. I can say that any proposition asserting the existence a six day creation God is "false" to the extent that I can claim the tooth fair doesn't exist.


6 literal days I agree.

Interesting to note that the creation of the heavens and the first "earth" is described as "one day" (not first day). And the subsequent days are then second, third, etc... And evening and a morning. One rotation of light. A going down of light then a rising up of light. This directionality and order is accounted for in my model, that you may be familiar with, in the downward internal flow of the primary torus formed at let there light. The first "earth" is the central point. It is the m of E=mc^2. The spherical ceiling of light is c^2 and the quantum matrice is E.

It also repeats on the galactic scale as the "rolling of the beams." We are first strafed by the downard rolling light tube wall, then after passing through/over/around us, we are exposed to the upward shear-wall that is traveling faster than the lead because of directionality. The angular momentum of it's EM travel around/through us governs our experience of time and atomic decay rates (frequency)...of everything. Stars, planets and everything on and in it.

With a deistic God, on the other hand, the only arguments against him/it would have to be a priori since all knowledge gained from experience would be equivalent regardless of the deistic God's existence. (like Brain in a vat scenario).

But all knowledge gained is not equivalent among people, it is to the amounts they have metabolized their environment. In all directions.

Explain brain in a vat?

The line between "god" and "non-god" for me is when we would or would not assign the quality of "sentience" to it (in a Western sense). Otherwise, you might as well claim that "if the metaphysical equivalent of a rock created the universe, that rock is god." If you do that, atheism can simply be defined out of existence.

So you postulate that there is no other organization of stuff (bodies beyond human) can support higher consciousnesses? That the universe or a galaxy or a star or a planet, all these that have organized bodies and active EM cores of metalic crystal or plasmic crystal or other...is not conscious?

In an eastern sense, Gods are all manifestations of a single totality which has no "sentience" in our conception of the term, so it's not quite right to apply this standard to them. The same is true for any God that is equated with what "cannot be humanly conceptualized" since the epistemological concession makes it impossible to speak of an "atheist" in relation to the "theist" since both are concepts.

You mean like Krishna was impersonal God?
They would be the origins of personality and self-hood, why would the not have them and even more so expressed than humans?

I think human conceptualizations can approach God, coming from the right direction and orientation. What is the Image were are made in? The bible even says we are the sons and daughter of God, His very temple of dwelling. And as it is said that faith is a gift from God of knowing God by God expossing you to Him. It is a blessing from wrestling down in your mind all false and petty concepts of God until Reality blesses you for demanding better beliefs and conceptions of God (Living Reality) That is the cracking of the ego seed and the growth of God from within you as you. The seed becomes the sprout becomes the tree.

It is the working of your gifts of mind and imagination. And in the action of your heart you are blessed. By Life Itself.

So, for certain gods I can say "I believe God x does not exists to the extent I believe y (ex. tooth fairy)," for others I can only produce a priori arguments against them (such as deism/pantheism), and for others I either cannot address the God's existence by definition (since the God cannot be envisioned using language or some such thing) or the theist defines atheism out of existence (almost always by denying sentience as a necessary attribute).

Which of these are you peddling today?

I peddle nothing. I share what I have found of God so that others my find as well and be enriched.

Life Is.
We come from Life we are Life, to Life we return.

This is what "belief" in God amounts to.
Of it's fundamental precipitating qualities/realities/laws is responsibility for our actions. This is the sphere of the heavens around us. Morality is the primary torus. Justice is the wheel. Love is the central point of the whole thing. Truth is the quantum field. Wisdom and compassion are the upper inner toroids and understanding and knowledge are the bottom inner toroids.

You could call the 5 fused toroids a Torah *chuckle*

The whole thing operating in proper relationship and movement within a soul is the Seal of God. It's an etheric hermetic seal. An eternal, self contained, self perpetuating 5d light body. Eternal consciousness.

So another fundamental question is, would you live forever with yourself? Can you? Will you? Can you embrace your whole self, flaws and all, and say, I love you, all of you and hold nothing against you?

If I were to peddle anything, it would be hugs, and those are free ;)
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2012 11:41:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 9:21:30 PM, Archistrategos wrote:
At 9/30/2012 6:14:59 PM, Wnope wrote:

So you postulate that there is no other organization of stuff (bodies beyond human) can support higher consciousnesses? That the universe or a galaxy or a star or a planet, all these that have organized bodies and active EM cores of metalic crystal or plasmic crystal or other...is not conscious?

In an eastern sense, Gods are all manifestations of a single totality which has no "sentience" in our conception of the term, so it's not quite right to apply this standard to them. The same is true for any God that is equated with what "cannot be humanly conceptualized" since the epistemological concession makes it impossible to speak of an "atheist" in relation to the "theist" since both are concepts.

You mean like Krishna was impersonal God?
They would be the origins of personality and self-hood, why would the not have them and even more so expressed than humans?

I think human conceptualizations can approach God, coming from the right direction and orientation. What is the Image were are made in? The bible even says we are the sons and daughter of God, His very temple of dwelling. And as it is said that faith is a gift from God of knowing God by God expossing you to Him. It is a blessing from wrestling down in your mind all false and petty concepts of God until Reality blesses you for demanding better beliefs and conceptions of God (Living Reality) That is the cracking of the ego seed and the growth of God from within you as you. The seed becomes the sprout becomes the tree.

It is the working of your gifts of mind and imagination. And in the action of your heart you are blessed. By Life Itself.

So, for certain gods I can say "I believe God x does not exists to the extent I believe y (ex. tooth fairy)," for others I can only produce a priori arguments against them (such as deism/pantheism), and for others I either cannot address the God's existence by definition (since the God cannot be envisioned using language or some such thing) or the theist defines atheism out of existence (almost always by denying sentience as a necessary attribute).

Which of these are you peddling today?

I peddle nothing. I share what I have found of God so that others my find as well and be enriched.

Life Is.
We come from Life we are Life, to Life we return.

This is what "belief" in God amounts to.
Of it's fundamental precipitating qualities/realities/laws is responsibility for our actions. This is the sphere of the heavens around us. Morality is the primary torus. Justice is the wheel. Love is the central point of the whole thing. Truth is the quantum field. Wisdom and compassion are the upper inner toroids and understanding and knowledge are the bottom inner toroids.

You could call the 5 fused toroids a Torah *chuckle*

The whole thing operating in proper relationship and movement within a soul is the Seal of God. It's an etheric hermetic seal. An eternal, self contained, self perpetuating 5d light body. Eternal consciousness.

So another fundamental question is, would you live forever with yourself? Can you? Will you? Can you embrace your whole self, flaws and all, and say, I love you, all of you and hold nothing against you?

If I were to peddle anything, it would be hugs, and those are free ;)

I have no idea what a downward internal flow of primary torus is. What's a spherical ceiling of light? Is it anything other than the speed of light?

"We are first strafed by the downard rolling light tube wall, then after passing through/over/around us, we are exposed to the upward shear-wall that is traveling faster than the lead because of directionality. The angular momentum of it's EM travel around/through us governs our experience of time and atomic decay rates (frequency)...of everything.:

Do you have any, any physics paper or source whatsoever which even hints that you're saying something coherent? Because excuse my ignorance, but this makes absolutely no sense.

I've noticed the physicists you posted your proof to didn't take too well with the posters there either.

"But all knowledge gained is not equivalent among people, it is to the amounts they have metabolized their environment. In all directions."

Even with an "ideal observer" we can say that there would be no experiential difference between an atheist, deistic, or pantheistic worldviews (which is why the three are commonly lumped together as "Freethought Movement".

"Explain brain in a vat."

It's a modernized reference to Descartes "Evil Demon" which can completely replicate what we think as "reality." We are thus unable to say right now whether we live in a "real" world or one generated by a mad scientist/evil demon.

The same would be true for two people arguing over Deism. They can no more answer the question than someone can distinguish between a world created by the evil demon or the "real world."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

"So you postulate that there is no other organization of stuff (bodies beyond human) can support higher consciousnesses? That the universe or a galaxy or a star or a planet, all these that have organized bodies and active EM cores of metalic crystal or plasmic crystal or other...is not conscious?"

Well, it depends on what you are calling "conscious." We could argue that a whirlwind is an organized body which could be viewed as having "behaviors" and "decision making."

However, if we say that patterned systems like a whirlwind counts as "conscious" then what is an example of a patterned system without consciousness?

"You mean like Krishna was impersonal God?
They would be the origins of personality and self-hood, why would the not have them and even more so expressed than humans?"

Actually, Krishna was an avatar of Vishnu IIRC.

Hindu gods have personalities, but they are manifestations of the totality. Vishnu is Shiva is Brahma, Shiva's wife Parvati is Shiva, etc. These gods in practice are to effect humans (i.e. sacrifice to them and you should receive stuff), but ultimately no single God "exists" in the way we conceptualize some ultimate creator.

However, saying something like "I can prove Shiva doesn't exist" is like a westerner hearing "I can prove God doesn't use angels with three wings."

The Bible says we are the sons and daughters of God. Eastern philosophy teaches that humans are the Gods, except humans eat less (Hindu comedy).

See something like "What is the image we are made in" takes as given western monotheistic concepts of the creator separate from the created. Gods may form to represent aspects of man (i.e. have a sh!tload of arms or heads) but the east would generally argue that we are no more made "in the image of god" than rocks are made in the image of god.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 12:13:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 1:27:52 PM, Archistrategos wrote:

So is it that atheists find the possibility of a God unthinkable? Is that a failiure of imagination?

No, atheists are open to the possibility of being wrong. Atheism is not dogmatic, it will change if strong evidence and argument is presented for the existence of God/s. Imagination is good, but inventing deities so one can ignore harsh realities of the human condition is irresponsible.

Of course we rail again the petty and tyrannical concepts the church's profess is God and I say rightly so. The feeling of the concepts most of them espouse grates against our innate soul. Does not fit or sit well or rightly.

I have no clue what you just said. The first sentence is incoherent, and the second sentence is derivative of that incoherence. Try again, please.

So where is the middle ground?

Between the religious and irreligious? Practically everything except areas of philosophy and religion. I play music with Jews, Chistians, Muslims, and Hindus frequently, and the subject of religion is scarcely mentioned. Even people from the Westboro Baptist Church enjoy the same activities we enjoy. The fact is: people are people, and we shouldn't let petty differences divide us.

And of course, generalizations are a fools toy. There are many flavors along the bell curve of atheists. If you label yourself as one, what is your flavor? Do you just rail against the churches definition?

I'm a naturalist. I don't believe in anything without strong evidence and argument for it. So that means I don't believe in ghosts, fairies, gods, psychic abilities, or any other supernatural phenomenon or occult event.

Or do you rail against the concept of there being a God?

Nope, only the arrogant dogmatism with which people assert it, and the immorality of religious texts and practices.
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Archistrategos
Posts: 602
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/1/2012 1:07:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/30/2012 11:41:16 PM, Wnope wrote:

I have no idea what a downward internal flow of primary torus is. What's a spherical ceiling of light? Is it anything other than the speed of light?

Yes the ceiling of the expanded sphere is not only traveling at the speed of light but it is saturated to the highest possible concentration of light. That is c of E=mc^2. The fist step of a 3-way radial vector equilibrium. The very next vector equilibrium of lights unfoldment (implosion/explosion) within the newly formed bubble takes the shape of a torus (to remain moving at the speed of light and not run into anything and be in harmony with itself). A doughnut with a stretched column of white laser light as a central axis and the 7 colors expressed as the bottom of the torus opens up and flows back up and around the inside of the ceiling to rejoin the north polar dive. This is the origin electric motive force.

"We are first strafed by the downard rolling light tube wall, then after passing through/over/around us, we are exposed to the upward shear-wall that is traveling faster than the lead because of directionality. The angular momentum of it's EM travel around/through us governs our experience of time and atomic decay rates (frequency)...of everything.:

Do you have any, any physics paper or source whatsoever which even hints that you're saying something coherent? Because excuse my ignorance, but this makes absolutely no sense.

No there are no papers on that feature ( the beams of EM gravi-optic tubes that issue from the galactic center like spokes on a wheel, the wheel turns and the spokes roll. There is only historical anomaly and the equation point to exactly why. The 12 beams that issue radially from the gal core is the condensation of the 5 toroids, light and darkness, and equatorial balance of the original universal God Particle along a new internal vector and a whole fractal scale jump down/inwards. The billions and billions of galaxies each was a big bang and exploded into space, everywhere. The curvature of this space, what science called the universe, what i am calling the material creation within a universe is because all the physical galaxies around contained in one toroid, sourroudin by another, in counter balance of two more, in the bottom half of a surrounding primary toroid.

Look at the CMB radiation anomolies.....concentric rings. Exactly what one would expect to see looking another torus across the universal divide. They are looking at the anti-matter creation that is counter balancing this one in the top half of the Universal sphere.


Even with an "ideal observer" we can say that there would be no experiential difference between an atheist, deistic, or pantheistic worldviews (which is why the three are commonly lumped together as "Freethought Movement".

Experiential differences are in the questions they can conceive of to ask.

The same would be true for two people arguing over Deism. They can no more answer the question than someone can distinguish between a world created by the evil demon or the "real world."

http://en.wikipedia.org...

And where will that get you? Postulate reality is illusion...and watch it all pass you by.

"So you postulate that there is no other organization of stuff (bodies beyond human) can support higher consciousnesses? That the universe or a galaxy or a star or a planet, all these that have organized bodies and active EM cores of metalic crystal or plasmic crystal or other...is not conscious?"

Well, it depends on what you are calling "conscious." We could argue that a whirlwind is an organized body which could be viewed as having "behaviors" and "decision making."

However, if we say that patterned systems like a whirlwind counts as "conscious" then what is an example of a patterned system without consciousness?

A whirlwind is a patterned system without consciousness. A tree is one with consciouness, an animal is another, so is human, so is a planet and a star and a galaxy and beyond material creation as real forces Living Expression in and as the patterning and matrice agents of universal genesis. Growth.

"You mean like Krishna was impersonal God?
They would be the origins of personality and self-hood, why would the not have them and even more so expressed than humans?"

Actually, Krishna was an avatar of Vishnu IIRC.

Yes, Vishnu the Preserver. Who returns at this time incarnated as Kalki, the destroyer of ignorance.

However, saying something like "I can prove Shiva doesn't exist" is like a westerner hearing "I can prove God doesn't use angels with three wings."

The Bible says we are the sons and daughters of God. Eastern philosophy teaches that humans are the Gods, except humans eat less (Hindu comedy).
The bible also says "Ye are Gods" . Look at the axial view of a DNA molecule, a rotating 10 point crystal on the outside and 10 points on inside along another spiral vector, an 11th. This antennae allows an 11 vector eternal being (God) to project through the 10 vector heavenly ceiling directly into your cells as the consciousness that is You. Look up biophoton. So now that you know where you come from, the next question , what are you going to do with yourself now that you know? 12v is the Omniverse.

See something like "What is the image we are made in" takes as given western monotheistic concepts of the creator separate from the created. Gods may form to represent aspects of man (i.e. have a sh!tload of arms or heads) but the east would generally argue that we are no more made "in the image of god" than rocks are made in the image of god.

We are made in the image (of the image), in the image we are made (within the image), Male and Female is that image.

12v = the 12 major human body organ systems. 12 Omniverse = Self, environment and motion of that environment (God and You and you, the 10, the One, and the 1), 11 God = reproductive organs (the ability to produce Life from Life), 10 sphere = skin/face/body (your unique Heavenly Image), 9 void = alimentary canal (1 mouth, 2 pharynx, 3 esophagus, 4 stomach, 5 duodenum, 6 jejunum, 7 ileum, 8 large intestine, 9 rectum), 8 white light = skeleton ( feet, legs, pelvis, thorax, arms, hands, neck, head) 7 colors = the 7 renal pyramids in the kidneys, 6 man= endocrine system (the pituitary gland, pancreas, ovaries/testes, thymus, thyroid gland, and adrenal glands), 5 life/galaxy = the inward outward spherical breathe motion of the lungs, 4 toroids, the chambers in the heart and the; superior and inferior venae cavae, the pulmonary trunk with left and right branches, the pulmonary veins (usually 4 in number), and the ascending aorta, 3 = muscles, two points of contact and axial expansion at contraction, 2 lobes in the liver and finally the union of two from the kidneys into 1 vector flow of water through our body, the bladder.

The quantum matrice and void-space, you interpersonal space of introspection and "happenings"
The central point, your unity and uniqueness as an individuate being.
The main torus, your body with it's alimentary canal.
The upper toroids, your shoulders.
The five fuses toroids are expressed in your 4 fingers/toes, 1 thumb/big toe limb arrangement. They are also expressed in your 5 fused sacral vertebrae (white toroids) and they in turn support the step above them, the 24 elders that sit on the wheel of light that divides the universal hemisphere of the heavenly creations from the material creations...your 24 main spinal vertebrae.

The nested 3 parts of your brain the cerebrum the cerebellum and the brain stem, the first vector equilibrium. E-mc^2 The Four main lobes are the four inner toroids. Your spinal nerve column is the path of the primary torus or morality, your innate conscience. Your decisions and actions and your reflection on them are how you feel about yourself and what determines y