Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheists & The Paradoxical Nature Of God

Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2016 6:23:09 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
Quantum Mechanics tells us that something paradoxical might be true.

Do atheists 'lack' the belief in quantum science as well since they have a problem with the paradoxical nature of God?
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2016 6:35:20 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/8/2016 6:23:09 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Quantum Mechanics tells us that something paradoxical might be true.
It's more that QM has found some ambiguities about causality that need to be resolved.

Do atheists 'lack' the belief in quantum science as well since they have a problem with the paradoxical nature of God?
Atheists have multiple reasons for rejecting theological doctrine.

One reason for me to reject it is that I believe it's silly to worship conjecture, and dishonest to represent conjecture as knowledge.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2016 6:56:46 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/8/2016 6:35:20 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/8/2016 6:23:09 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Quantum Mechanics tells us that something paradoxical might be true.
It's more that QM has found some ambiguities about causality that need to be resolved.

Do atheists 'lack' the belief in quantum science as well since they have a problem with the paradoxical nature of God?
Atheists have multiple reasons for rejecting theological doctrine.

One reason for me to reject it is that I believe it's silly to worship conjecture, and dishonest to represent conjecture as knowledge.

Read the OP. Again.

I am not discussing theological doctrine and conjectures.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2016 8:01:59 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/8/2016 6:56:46 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/8/2016 6:35:20 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/8/2016 6:23:09 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Quantum Mechanics tells us that something paradoxical might be true.
It's more that QM has found some ambiguities about causality that need to be resolved.

Do atheists 'lack' the belief in quantum science as well since they have a problem with the paradoxical nature of God?
Atheists have multiple reasons for rejecting theological doctrine.

One reason for me to reject it is that I believe it's silly to worship conjecture, and dishonest to represent conjecture as knowledge.

Read the OP. Again.

I am not discussing theological doctrine and conjectures.

What is theology, if not ignorant metaphysical conjecture? What is worship, if not to treat metaphysical ignorance as though it were knowledge? What is a god, if not a theological object of worship?
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2016 3:16:33 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/8/2016 6:23:09 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Quantum Mechanics tells us that something paradoxical might be true.

Do atheists 'lack' the belief in quantum science as well since they have a problem with the paradoxical nature of God?

I'm an atheist and I accept that there may be more than meets the eye. I don't know how anyone thinks there is enough data to assess the nature of some presumed interventionist god however.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2016 3:50:12 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/9/2016 3:16:33 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/8/2016 6:23:09 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Quantum Mechanics tells us that something paradoxical might be true.

Do atheists 'lack' the belief in quantum science as well since they have a problem with the paradoxical nature of God?

I'm an atheist and I accept that there may be more than meets the eye. I don't know how anyone thinks there is enough data to assess the nature of some presumed interventionist god however.

What about rejecting the existence itself? Why do you call yourself an atheist?

I am saying this one last time - never, ever claim that you have read Gita.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2016 4:39:39 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/9/2016 3:50:12 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/9/2016 3:16:33 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/8/2016 6:23:09 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Quantum Mechanics tells us that something paradoxical might be true.

Do atheists 'lack' the belief in quantum science as well since they have a problem with the paradoxical nature of God?

I'm an atheist and I accept that there may be more than meets the eye. I don't know how anyone thinks there is enough data to assess the nature of some presumed interventionist god however.

What about rejecting the existence itself? Why do you call yourself an atheist?

I am saying this one last time - never, ever claim that you have read Gita.

Because it appears to be an emotional subject for you, I will no longer repeat the statement that I read the Gita ;)

What I reject is the positive assertion of a god that intervenes in the daily lives of humans for lack of evidence. The evidence needed to indicate an interventionist god is intervention. By definition, a god that does not intervene is not a god. If a ruler does not intervene, he is not a ruler, even if by choice. He is merely an observer or coexister at best. At minimum, I do not think 'it' intervenes in the way theists think, such as obsessing about proper human genital use.

Before I identified myself as an atheist, I carefully researched the definition of the words 'atheist' and 'god'. I am agnostic about the idea of a intelligent consciousness as a property of the universe but that does not fit the definition of 'god'. I am agnostic because there is no way one can know for sure unless science eventually establishes that as a fact, which I don't rule out as a possibility.

When people use the word 'god', I am assuming they are using it in the context as properly defined.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2016 4:54:37 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/9/2016 4:39:39 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/9/2016 3:50:12 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/9/2016 3:16:33 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/8/2016 6:23:09 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Quantum Mechanics tells us that something paradoxical might be true.

Do atheists 'lack' the belief in quantum science as well since they have a problem with the paradoxical nature of God?

I'm an atheist and I accept that there may be more than meets the eye. I don't know how anyone thinks there is enough data to assess the nature of some presumed interventionist god however.

What about rejecting the existence itself? Why do you call yourself an atheist?

I am saying this one last time - never, ever claim that you have read Gita.

Because it appears to be an emotional subject for you, I will no longer repeat the statement that I read the Gita ;)

You can, at best, read a 'translation' of Gita.

What I reject is the positive assertion of a god that intervenes in the daily lives of humans for lack of evidence. The evidence needed to indicate an interventionist god is intervention. By definition, a god that does not intervene is not a god. If a ruler does not intervene, he is not a ruler, even if by choice. He is merely an observer or coexister at best. At minimum, I do not think 'it' intervenes in the way theists think, such as obsessing about proper human genital use.

Before I identified myself as an atheist, I carefully researched the definition of the words 'atheist' and 'god'. I am agnostic about the idea of a intelligent consciousness as a property of the universe but that does not fit the definition of 'god'. I am agnostic because there is no way one can know for sure unless science eventually establishes that as a fact, which I don't rule out as a possibility.

When people use the word 'god', I am assuming they are using it in the context as properly defined.

I couldn't care less.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2016 5:05:16 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/9/2016 4:54:37 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/9/2016 4:39:39 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/9/2016 3:50:12 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/9/2016 3:16:33 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/8/2016 6:23:09 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Quantum Mechanics tells us that something paradoxical might be true.

Do atheists 'lack' the belief in quantum science as well since they have a problem with the paradoxical nature of God?

I'm an atheist and I accept that there may be more than meets the eye. I don't know how anyone thinks there is enough data to assess the nature of some presumed interventionist god however.

What about rejecting the existence itself? Why do you call yourself an atheist?

I am saying this one last time - never, ever claim that you have read Gita.

Because it appears to be an emotional subject for you, I will no longer repeat the statement that I read the Gita ;)

You can, at best, read a 'translation' of Gita.

Correct. I do not read Sanskrit. If you are asserting that things are lost in translation, I would not dispute that.

What I reject is the positive assertion of a god that intervenes in the daily lives of humans for lack of evidence. The evidence needed to indicate an interventionist god is intervention. By definition, a god that does not intervene is not a god. If a ruler does not intervene, he is not a ruler, even if by choice. He is merely an observer or coexister at best. At minimum, I do not think 'it' intervenes in the way theists think, such as obsessing about proper human genital use.

Before I identified myself as an atheist, I carefully researched the definition of the words 'atheist' and 'god'. I am agnostic about the idea of a intelligent consciousness as a property of the universe but that does not fit the definition of 'god'. I am agnostic because there is no way one can know for sure unless science eventually establishes that as a fact, which I don't rule out as a possibility.

When people use the word 'god', I am assuming they are using it in the context as properly defined.

I couldn't care less.

You asked why I call myself an atheist and I explained.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2016 5:05:57 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/9/2016 4:54:37 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/9/2016 4:39:39 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/9/2016 3:50:12 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/9/2016 3:16:33 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/8/2016 6:23:09 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Quantum Mechanics tells us that something paradoxical might be true.

Do atheists 'lack' the belief in quantum science as well since they have a problem with the paradoxical nature of God?

I'm an atheist and I accept that there may be more than meets the eye. I don't know how anyone thinks there is enough data to assess the nature of some presumed interventionist god however.

What about rejecting the existence itself? Why do you call yourself an atheist?

I am saying this one last time - never, ever claim that you have read Gita.

Because it appears to be an emotional subject for you, I will no longer repeat the statement that I read the Gita ;)

You can, at best, read a 'translation' of Gita.

What I reject is the positive assertion of a god that intervenes in the daily lives of humans for lack of evidence. The evidence needed to indicate an interventionist god is intervention. By definition, a god that does not intervene is not a god. If a ruler does not intervene, he is not a ruler, even if by choice. He is merely an observer or coexister at best. At minimum, I do not think 'it' intervenes in the way theists think, such as obsessing about proper human genital use.

Before I identified myself as an atheist, I carefully researched the definition of the words 'atheist' and 'god'. I am agnostic about the idea of a intelligent consciousness as a property of the universe but that does not fit the definition of 'god'. I am agnostic because there is no way one can know for sure unless science eventually establishes that as a fact, which I don't rule out as a possibility.

When people use the word 'god', I am assuming they are using it in the context as properly defined.

I couldn't care less.

So why ask?
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2016 5:08:02 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/9/2016 5:05:57 PM, desmac wrote:
At 7/9/2016 4:54:37 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/9/2016 4:39:39 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/9/2016 3:50:12 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/9/2016 3:16:33 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/8/2016 6:23:09 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Quantum Mechanics tells us that something paradoxical might be true.

Do atheists 'lack' the belief in quantum science as well since they have a problem with the paradoxical nature of God?

I'm an atheist and I accept that there may be more than meets the eye. I don't know how anyone thinks there is enough data to assess the nature of some presumed interventionist god however.

What about rejecting the existence itself? Why do you call yourself an atheist?

I am saying this one last time - never, ever claim that you have read Gita.

Because it appears to be an emotional subject for you, I will no longer repeat the statement that I read the Gita ;)

You can, at best, read a 'translation' of Gita.

What I reject is the positive assertion of a god that intervenes in the daily lives of humans for lack of evidence. The evidence needed to indicate an interventionist god is intervention. By definition, a god that does not intervene is not a god. If a ruler does not intervene, he is not a ruler, even if by choice. He is merely an observer or coexister at best. At minimum, I do not think 'it' intervenes in the way theists think, such as obsessing about proper human genital use.

Before I identified myself as an atheist, I carefully researched the definition of the words 'atheist' and 'god'. I am agnostic about the idea of a intelligent consciousness as a property of the universe but that does not fit the definition of 'god'. I am agnostic because there is no way one can know for sure unless science eventually establishes that as a fact, which I don't rule out as a possibility.

When people use the word 'god', I am assuming they are using it in the context as properly defined.

I couldn't care less.

So why ask?

To be frank, I'm a troll.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2016 5:11:09 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/9/2016 5:08:02 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/9/2016 5:05:57 PM, desmac wrote:
At 7/9/2016 4:54:37 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/9/2016 4:39:39 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/9/2016 3:50:12 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/9/2016 3:16:33 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/8/2016 6:23:09 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Quantum Mechanics tells us that something paradoxical might be true.

Do atheists 'lack' the belief in quantum science as well since they have a problem with the paradoxical nature of God?

I'm an atheist and I accept that there may be more than meets the eye. I don't know how anyone thinks there is enough data to assess the nature of some presumed interventionist god however.

What about rejecting the existence itself? Why do you call yourself an atheist?

I am saying this one last time - never, ever claim that you have read Gita.

Because it appears to be an emotional subject for you, I will no longer repeat the statement that I read the Gita ;)

You can, at best, read a 'translation' of Gita.

What I reject is the positive assertion of a god that intervenes in the daily lives of humans for lack of evidence. The evidence needed to indicate an interventionist god is intervention. By definition, a god that does not intervene is not a god. If a ruler does not intervene, he is not a ruler, even if by choice. He is merely an observer or coexister at best. At minimum, I do not think 'it' intervenes in the way theists think, such as obsessing about proper human genital use.

Before I identified myself as an atheist, I carefully researched the definition of the words 'atheist' and 'god'. I am agnostic about the idea of a intelligent consciousness as a property of the universe but that does not fit the definition of 'god'. I am agnostic because there is no way one can know for sure unless science eventually establishes that as a fact, which I don't rule out as a possibility.

When people use the word 'god', I am assuming they are using it in the context as properly defined.

I couldn't care less.

So why ask?

To be frank, I'm a troll.

Good for you, Frank.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2016 5:12:51 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/9/2016 5:11:09 PM, desmac wrote:
At 7/9/2016 5:08:02 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/9/2016 5:05:57 PM, desmac wrote:
At 7/9/2016 4:54:37 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/9/2016 4:39:39 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/9/2016 3:50:12 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/9/2016 3:16:33 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/8/2016 6:23:09 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Quantum Mechanics tells us that something paradoxical might be true.

Do atheists 'lack' the belief in quantum science as well since they have a problem with the paradoxical nature of God?

I'm an atheist and I accept that there may be more than meets the eye. I don't know how anyone thinks there is enough data to assess the nature of some presumed interventionist god however.

What about rejecting the existence itself? Why do you call yourself an atheist?

I am saying this one last time - never, ever claim that you have read Gita.

Because it appears to be an emotional subject for you, I will no longer repeat the statement that I read the Gita ;)

You can, at best, read a 'translation' of Gita.

What I reject is the positive assertion of a god that intervenes in the daily lives of humans for lack of evidence. The evidence needed to indicate an interventionist god is intervention. By definition, a god that does not intervene is not a god. If a ruler does not intervene, he is not a ruler, even if by choice. He is merely an observer or coexister at best. At minimum, I do not think 'it' intervenes in the way theists think, such as obsessing about proper human genital use.

Before I identified myself as an atheist, I carefully researched the definition of the words 'atheist' and 'god'. I am agnostic about the idea of a intelligent consciousness as a property of the universe but that does not fit the definition of 'god'. I am agnostic because there is no way one can know for sure unless science eventually establishes that as a fact, which I don't rule out as a possibility.

When people use the word 'god', I am assuming they are using it in the context as properly defined.

I couldn't care less.

So why ask?

To be frank, I'm a troll.

Good for you, Frank.

To be riwaaz, I'm trolling you.
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2016 5:14:41 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/9/2016 5:12:51 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/9/2016 5:11:09 PM, desmac wrote:
At 7/9/2016 5:08:02 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/9/2016 5:05:57 PM, desmac wrote:
At 7/9/2016 4:54:37 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/9/2016 4:39:39 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/9/2016 3:50:12 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/9/2016 3:16:33 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/8/2016 6:23:09 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Quantum Mechanics tells us that something paradoxical might be true.

Do atheists 'lack' the belief in quantum science as well since they have a problem with the paradoxical nature of God?

I'm an atheist and I accept that there may be more than meets the eye. I don't know how anyone thinks there is enough data to assess the nature of some presumed interventionist god however.

What about rejecting the existence itself? Why do you call yourself an atheist?

I am saying this one last time - never, ever claim that you have read Gita.

Because it appears to be an emotional subject for you, I will no longer repeat the statement that I read the Gita ;)

You can, at best, read a 'translation' of Gita.

What I reject is the positive assertion of a god that intervenes in the daily lives of humans for lack of evidence. The evidence needed to indicate an interventionist god is intervention. By definition, a god that does not intervene is not a god. If a ruler does not intervene, he is not a ruler, even if by choice. He is merely an observer or coexister at best. At minimum, I do not think 'it' intervenes in the way theists think, such as obsessing about proper human genital use.

Before I identified myself as an atheist, I carefully researched the definition of the words 'atheist' and 'god'. I am agnostic about the idea of a intelligent consciousness as a property of the universe but that does not fit the definition of 'god'. I am agnostic because there is no way one can know for sure unless science eventually establishes that as a fact, which I don't rule out as a possibility.

When people use the word 'god', I am assuming they are using it in the context as properly defined.

I couldn't care less.

So why ask?

To be frank, I'm a troll.

Good for you, Frank.

To be riwaaz, I'm trolling you.

Not very well.
Riwaaz_Ras
Posts: 1,046
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2016 5:15:48 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/9/2016 5:14:41 PM, desmac wrote:
At 7/9/2016 5:12:51 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/9/2016 5:11:09 PM, desmac wrote:
At 7/9/2016 5:08:02 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/9/2016 5:05:57 PM, desmac wrote:
At 7/9/2016 4:54:37 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/9/2016 4:39:39 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/9/2016 3:50:12 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/9/2016 3:16:33 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/8/2016 6:23:09 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Quantum Mechanics tells us that something paradoxical might be true.

Do atheists 'lack' the belief in quantum science as well since they have a problem with the paradoxical nature of God?

I'm an atheist and I accept that there may be more than meets the eye. I don't know how anyone thinks there is enough data to assess the nature of some presumed interventionist god however.

What about rejecting the existence itself? Why do you call yourself an atheist?

I am saying this one last time - never, ever claim that you have read Gita.

Because it appears to be an emotional subject for you, I will no longer repeat the statement that I read the Gita ;)

You can, at best, read a 'translation' of Gita.

What I reject is the positive assertion of a god that intervenes in the daily lives of humans for lack of evidence. The evidence needed to indicate an interventionist god is intervention. By definition, a god that does not intervene is not a god. If a ruler does not intervene, he is not a ruler, even if by choice. He is merely an observer or coexister at best. At minimum, I do not think 'it' intervenes in the way theists think, such as obsessing about proper human genital use.

Before I identified myself as an atheist, I carefully researched the definition of the words 'atheist' and 'god'. I am agnostic about the idea of a intelligent consciousness as a property of the universe but that does not fit the definition of 'god'. I am agnostic because there is no way one can know for sure unless science eventually establishes that as a fact, which I don't rule out as a possibility.

When people use the word 'god', I am assuming they are using it in the context as properly defined.

I couldn't care less.

So why ask?

To be frank, I'm a troll.

Good for you, Frank.

To be riwaaz, I'm trolling you.

Not very well.

At least, I tried..
(This is not a goodbye message. I may or may not come back after ten years.)
Harikrish
Posts: 11,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2016 6:57:44 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
It has taken a few billion years for humans to discover the principles of Quantum Mechanics. It is logical to assume it will take a few more billion years before they learn to apply it to creation.
Proving or disproving God exist is obviously beyond the lifetime of many future generations and the planet may not survive human ignorance. The OP should be called the Paradoxical Nature of Man.
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2016 7:49:48 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/9/2016 3:16:33 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/8/2016 6:23:09 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Quantum Mechanics tells us that something paradoxical might be true.

Do atheists 'lack' the belief in quantum science as well since they have a problem with the paradoxical nature of God?

I'm an atheist and I accept that there may be more than meets the eye. I don't know how anyone thinks there is enough data to assess the nature of some presumed interventionist god however.

Do we have to know what God is, complete with "enough data to asses God's nature", to adopt the ideal of respecting the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of our being? Is it really that far-fetched to you that someone might 'bow to the mystery' even as it remains a mystery?

And what is the great advantage in being so skeptical as to feel nothing until you can prove to yourself that your feelings are scientifically validated?
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2016 8:16:06 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/9/2016 4:39:39 PM, matt8800 wrote:

What I reject is the positive assertion of a god that intervenes in the daily lives of humans for lack of evidence. The evidence needed to indicate an interventionist god is intervention.

What constitutes 'intervention"? And how would we know that such an intervention, occurred? Are you suggesting that an "intervention" must be miraculous? And if it's not, how would we know it when we saw it?

It seems to me that what you're demanding as 'proof' is either not possible, or not possible to recognize. Which would make it an unfair and illogical demand.

By definition, a god that does not intervene is not a god.

By who's definition? Not all god-concepts include intervention. And not all concepts of intervention require a miraculous defiance of the natural order.

If a ruler does not intervene, he is not a ruler, even if by choice. He is merely an observer or coexister at best. At minimum, I do not think 'it' intervenes in the way theists think, such as obsessing about proper human genital use.

Why do you assume that a god must rule over us to be a god? Why do you assume that religious people's obsession with sex is anything more than their own peccadillo?

Why do you assume that if god exists at all, it must exist in the way people claim it does? Why are you letting those crazy religionists define God for you? Why can't you define god, reasonably, for yourself?

Before I identified myself as an atheist, I carefully researched the definition of the words 'atheist' and 'god'. I am agnostic about the idea of a intelligent consciousness as a property of the universe but that does not fit the definition of 'god'. I am agnostic because there is no way one can know for sure unless science eventually establishes that as a fact, which I don't rule out as a possibility.

I am also agnostic regarding the "God" ideal. But I am also a theist when and to the degree that it serves me. Precisely because it DOES serve me on occasion, and because no one can prove the ideal wrong.

What I don't do is allow other people to define "God" for me (in the most absurd ways), so that I can then dismiss the ideal without any real thought of my own, or any real personal experience of the concept.

When people use the word 'god', I am assuming they are using it in the context as properly defined.

Properly defined by whom? Who gets to define "God"?
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2016 8:19:04 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/9/2016 7:49:48 PM, PureX wrote:
At 7/9/2016 3:16:33 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/8/2016 6:23:09 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Quantum Mechanics tells us that something paradoxical might be true.

Do atheists 'lack' the belief in quantum science as well since they have a problem with the paradoxical nature of God?

I'm an atheist and I accept that there may be more than meets the eye. I don't know how anyone thinks there is enough data to assess the nature of some presumed interventionist god however.

Do we have to know what God is, complete with "enough data to asses God's nature", to adopt the ideal of respecting the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of our being? Is it really that far-fetched to you that someone might 'bow to the mystery' even as it remains a mystery?

Not at all. If the existence of consciousness and the universe itself is not a 'miracle', I don't know what is but how does one associate a personhood with human-like desires and dislikes from that? I have no problem with a suspicion of the existence of a deistic type being but that is a far cry from an absolute claim of divine revelation along with the superstition, intolerance, ignorance and dogma that associates itself with it. How about at least starting with, "I don't know what 'it' is"?

And what is the great advantage in being so skeptical as to feel nothing until you can prove to yourself that your feelings are scientifically validated?

Who says I feel nothing? One can value logic and feel emotion at the same time. I am in awe of the universe and our existence but I also know that feelings and intuition can be deceptive. Many of the DDO members here are proof of that and I bet you would agree. The only thing that separates the members that are complete nuts and the somewhat reasonable ones is usually the degree that they rely on their gut feelings and hearsay as opposed to logic and evidence.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2016 8:36:41 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/9/2016 5:08:02 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/9/2016 5:05:57 PM, desmac wrote:
At 7/9/2016 4:54:37 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/9/2016 4:39:39 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/9/2016 3:50:12 PM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
At 7/9/2016 3:16:33 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/8/2016 6:23:09 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Quantum Mechanics tells us that something paradoxical might be true.

Do atheists 'lack' the belief in quantum science as well since they have a problem with the paradoxical nature of God?

I'm an atheist and I accept that there may be more than meets the eye. I don't know how anyone thinks there is enough data to assess the nature of some presumed interventionist god however.

What about rejecting the existence itself? Why do you call yourself an atheist?

I am saying this one last time - never, ever claim that you have read Gita.

Because it appears to be an emotional subject for you, I will no longer repeat the statement that I read the Gita ;)

You can, at best, read a 'translation' of Gita.

What I reject is the positive assertion of a god that intervenes in the daily lives of humans for lack of evidence. The evidence needed to indicate an interventionist god is intervention. By definition, a god that does not intervene is not a god. If a ruler does not intervene, he is not a ruler, even if by choice. He is merely an observer or coexister at best. At minimum, I do not think 'it' intervenes in the way theists think, such as obsessing about proper human genital use.

Before I identified myself as an atheist, I carefully researched the definition of the words 'atheist' and 'god'. I am agnostic about the idea of a intelligent consciousness as a property of the universe but that does not fit the definition of 'god'. I am agnostic because there is no way one can know for sure unless science eventually establishes that as a fact, which I don't rule out as a possibility.

When people use the word 'god', I am assuming they are using it in the context as properly defined.

I couldn't care less.

So why ask?

To be frank, I'm a troll.

Troll named Frank, I'm half troll named Bronto. I'd say it's nice to meet you but half trolls don't say crap like that...
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2016 8:43:19 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/9/2016 8:19:04 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/9/2016 7:49:48 PM, PureX wrote:
At 7/9/2016 3:16:33 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/8/2016 6:23:09 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Quantum Mechanics tells us that something paradoxical might be true.

Do atheists 'lack' the belief in quantum science as well since they have a problem with the paradoxical nature of God?

I'm an atheist and I accept that there may be more than meets the eye. I don't know how anyone thinks there is enough data to assess the nature of some presumed interventionist god however.

Do we have to know what God is, complete with "enough data to asses God's nature", to adopt the ideal of respecting the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of our being? Is it really that far-fetched to you that someone might 'bow to the mystery' even as it remains a mystery?

Not at all. If the existence of consciousness and the universe itself is not a 'miracle', I don't know what is but how does one associate a personhood with human-like desires and dislikes from that? I have no problem with a suspicion of the existence of a deistic type being but that is a far cry from an absolute claim of divine revelation along with the superstition, intolerance, ignorance and dogma that associates itself with it. How about at least starting with, "I don't know what 'it' is"?

I agree, but we are all different. We don't all experience or understand our own existence in the same way. So, of course, the way some people do it will be very different from the way you or I may do it. Their concept of "God" may be significantly different from ours. May seem crazy to us, even. And so too, their way of 'interacting' with it in their life.

But, so what? Why not take from them whatever seems sensible and functional to us, and use it to formulate our own idea of "God"? And then develop our own way of using that idea in our life, that we find yields some positive results?

And what is the great advantage in being so skeptical as to feel nothing until you can prove to yourself that your feelings are scientifically validated?

Who says I feel nothing? One can value logic and feel emotion at the same time. I am in awe of the universe and our existence but I also know that feelings and intuition can be deceptive. Many of the DDO members here are proof of that and I bet you would agree. The only thing that separates the members that are complete nuts and the somewhat reasonable ones is usually the degree that they rely on their gut feelings and hearsay as opposed to logic and evidence.

We do agree on much. I just think it's important to find way to hold onto that 'awe of being'. To practice gratitude and respect for the 'miracle' that it all is from our humble perspective. And the ideal of "God" can do that. It does do that for a great many people. (Who are not psychologically infantile religious zealots.) :)

I really like the idea of "God" because I get to define it, as I please. In a way that makes sense to me. And I get to use it in my life when and why I choose, to my own benefit. I think atheists too often throw out the 'baby with the bath water' in their rush to reject all conception of "God". And they miss out on a great and useful aspect of the human experience. Same goes for the religious zealots, in their blind rush to be 'righteous'.

But that's their problem to face.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2016 8:58:22 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/9/2016 8:16:06 PM, PureX wrote:
At 7/9/2016 4:39:39 PM, matt8800 wrote:

What I reject is the positive assertion of a god that intervenes in the daily lives of humans for lack of evidence. The evidence needed to indicate an interventionist god is intervention.

What constitutes 'intervention"? And how would we know that such an intervention, occurred? Are you suggesting that an "intervention" must be miraculous? And if it's not, how would we know it when we saw it?

It seems to me that what you're demanding as 'proof' is either not possible, or not possible to recognize. Which would make it an unfair and illogical demand.

Great question. I cant say I totally know the answer but I do know that intervention as described in religions doesn't exist. With that said, we should live our lives based on what we know; not what we don't know.

By definition, a god that does not intervene is not a god.

By who's definition? Not all god-concepts include intervention. And not all concepts of intervention require a miraculous defiance of the natural order.

Words have specific meanings associated with them. If the meanings are fuzzy or arbitrary, of what value is communication using those words?

The definition I go by is the one described by most dictionaries - https://www.google.com...

If a ruler does not intervene, he is not a ruler, even if by choice. He is merely an observer or coexister at best. At minimum, I do not think 'it' intervenes in the way theists think, such as obsessing about proper human genital use.

Why do you assume that a god must rule over us to be a god?

Because that is how the word 'god' is defined in dictionaries. Maybe there is a better word in other languages but we are using English.

Why do you assume that religious people's obsession with sex is anything more than their own peccadillo?

Yes, their obsession with sex rules is fueled by a biological predisposition to mate possession and held firmly in place by religious dogma, in my opinion. Why is sex outside of marriage wrong? Because the <insert favorite religious text> says so.

This is just more evidence of how petty and controlling religion is.

Why do you assume that if god exists at all, it must exist in the way people claim it does? Why are you letting those crazy religionists define God for you? Why can't you define god, reasonably, for yourself?

I understand what you are saying but because of the way theists define god, it attributes a small minded and reductionist meaning to the word. If there is a better word to describe 'emergent intelligent and/or conscious property of the universe', I would use that. Again, that is a different meaning than the actual definition of 'god'.

Before I identified myself as an atheist, I carefully researched the definition of the words 'atheist' and 'god'. I am agnostic about the idea of a intelligent consciousness as a property of the universe but that does not fit the definition of 'god'. I am agnostic because there is no way one can know for sure unless science eventually establishes that as a fact, which I don't rule out as a possibility.

I am also agnostic regarding the "God" ideal. But I am also a theist when and to the degree that it serves me. Precisely because it DOES serve me on occasion, and because no one can prove the ideal wrong.

What I don't do is allow other people to define "God" for me (in the most absurd ways), so that I can then dismiss the ideal without any real thought of my own, or any real personal experience of the concept.

Yes, but it is harder to make the point that religion is a delusion if you aren't precise in your usage of the word 'god'. Religion was purely a human invention.

When people use the word 'god', I am assuming they are using it in the context as properly defined.

Properly defined by whom? Who gets to define "God"?

Who should or who does? If you don't have a definition of what god means, how do you know when and how to use it in a sentence?

Nobody should define the concept of a god in the detail they do because they have no authority or foundation to do so. Theists and their books do anyway.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2016 10:24:30 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/9/2016 8:43:19 PM, PureX wrote:
At 7/9/2016 8:19:04 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/9/2016 7:49:48 PM, PureX wrote:
At 7/9/2016 3:16:33 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/8/2016 6:23:09 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Quantum Mechanics tells us that something paradoxical might be true.

Do atheists 'lack' the belief in quantum science as well since they have a problem with the paradoxical nature of God?

I'm an atheist and I accept that there may be more than meets the eye. I don't know how anyone thinks there is enough data to assess the nature of some presumed interventionist god however.

Do we have to know what God is, complete with "enough data to asses God's nature", to adopt the ideal of respecting the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of our being? Is it really that far-fetched to you that someone might 'bow to the mystery' even as it remains a mystery?

Not at all. If the existence of consciousness and the universe itself is not a 'miracle', I don't know what is but how does one associate a personhood with human-like desires and dislikes from that? I have no problem with a suspicion of the existence of a deistic type being but that is a far cry from an absolute claim of divine revelation along with the superstition, intolerance, ignorance and dogma that associates itself with it. How about at least starting with, "I don't know what 'it' is"?

I agree, but we are all different. We don't all experience or understand our own existence in the same way. So, of course, the way some people do it will be very different from the way you or I may do it. Their concept of "God" may be significantly different from ours. May seem crazy to us, even. And so too, their way of 'interacting' with it in their life.

But, so what? Why not take from them whatever seems sensible and functional to us, and use it to formulate our own idea of "God"? And then develop our own way of using that idea in our life, that we find yields some positive results?

I don't argue against anyone that has a deistic concept of god. I specifically argue against religion, claims of divine revelation and all the dogma, superstition, manipulation, ignorance, arrogance and intolerance that comes with it.

And what is the great advantage in being so skeptical as to feel nothing until you can prove to yourself that your feelings are scientifically validated?

Who says I feel nothing? One can value logic and feel emotion at the same time. I am in awe of the universe and our existence but I also know that feelings and intuition can be deceptive. Many of the DDO members here are proof of that and I bet you would agree. The only thing that separates the members that are complete nuts and the somewhat reasonable ones is usually the degree that they rely on their gut feelings and hearsay as opposed to logic and evidence.

We do agree on much. I just think it's important to find way to hold onto that 'awe of being'. To practice gratitude and respect for the 'miracle' that it all is from our humble perspective. And the ideal of "God" can do that. It does do that for a great many people. (Who are not psychologically infantile religious zealots.) :)

I agree but unfortunately it appears to be difficult to separate the gratitude and respect for the 'miracle' from the insanity of religion. I think one can still be in awe of the universe without the arrogance of assuming we know things we could not possibly know.

I really like the idea of "God" because I get to define it, as I please. In a way that makes sense to me. And I get to use it in my life when and why I choose, to my own benefit. I think atheists too often throw out the 'baby with the bath water' in their rush to reject all conception of "God". And they miss out on a great and useful aspect of the human experience. Same goes for the religious zealots, in their blind rush to be 'righteous'.

I agree with much of what you have said but I still think that religion is a cancer to the evolution of humanity. Before we can establish a proper perception of what is true, we must get rid of our misconceptions and falsehoods.

An analogy would be people that believe the earth is flat. They are completely unable to properly evaluate the universe we live in until they get rid of their silly notions and biases first. I think the debate about what god is not is more important than what 'god' is....at least until humanity can simply admit that they don't know that which they cannot know.

But that's their problem to face.
Les_Rong
Posts: 341
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 12:21:01 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/8/2016 6:23:09 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Quantum Mechanics tells us that something paradoxical might be true.

Do atheists 'lack' the belief in quantum science as well since they have a problem with the paradoxical nature of God?

Some do; some don't; and some are waiting for more evidence.
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 8:11:44 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/9/2016 8:58:22 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/9/2016 8:16:06 PM, PureX wrote:
At 7/9/2016 4:39:39 PM, matt8800 wrote:

What I reject is the positive assertion of a god that intervenes in the daily lives of humans for lack of evidence. The evidence needed to indicate an interventionist god is intervention.

What constitutes 'intervention"? And how would we know that such an intervention, occurred? Are you suggesting that an "intervention" must be miraculous? And if it's not, how would we know it when we saw it?

It seems to me that what you're demanding as 'proof' is either not possible, or not possible to recognize. Which would make it an unfair and illogical demand.

Great question. I cant say I totally know the answer but I do know that intervention as described in religions doesn't exist. With that said, we should live our lives based on what we know; not what we don't know.

But there is so much that we don't know that it's basically impossible for us to do so.

And I think there are different kinds of divine supplication, just as there are different ideas of divine intervention. They range from asking for divine, super-natural intervention from a god that we perceive to be "listening" to our words, to a simple verbal expression of our own hope for a change in our circumstances, directed at the inexplicable flow of existence. The former being significantly more irrational then the latter.

I understand what you are saying but because of the way theists define god, it attributes a small minded and reductionist meaning to the word. If there is a better word to describe 'emergent intelligent and/or conscious property of the universe', I would use that. Again, that is a different meaning than the actual definition of 'god'.

There are many "God" concepts among we humans. Most of them share some basic traits, however. Most "God" concepts, for example, include the idea of God being the creative source, sustenance, and purpose of all that exists. And many, but not all "God" concepts include the idea of God having some sort of conscious awareness that humans can interact with. The idea of supplication and divine response is common, but not universal.

What I don't do is allow other people to define "God" for me (in the most absurd ways), so that I can then dismiss the ideal without any real thought of my own, or any real personal experience of the concept.

Yes, but it is harder to make the point that religion is a delusion if you aren't precise in your usage of the word 'god'. Religion was purely a human invention.

Religion (theology) is a way of understanding our experience of being human. It's not innately delusional even though it can certainly become delusional for some people.

When people use the word 'god', I am assuming they are using it in the context as properly defined.

Properly defined by whom? Who gets to define "God"?

I think we each get to do that for ourselves.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,633
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 9:03:53 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/8/2016 6:23:09 AM, Riwaaz_Ras wrote:
Quantum Mechanics tells us that something paradoxical might be true.

Hmmm... has Riwaaz simple strung a few words together or can he explain in detail these alleged true paradoxes?

Of course, he can't.

Do atheists 'lack' the belief in quantum science as well since they have a problem with the paradoxical nature of God?

What you obviously don't understand is that quantum field theory, electromagnetic radiation, for example, is well understood and is one of most successful theories scientists have discovered. There is no reason for any beliefs or problems.

To compare these theories to the myths and superstitions of ignorant, uneducated believers is like betting on leprechauns riding unicorns in the Kentucky Derby.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
Looncall
Posts: 459
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 10:26:03 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/9/2016 6:57:44 PM, Harikrish wrote:
It has taken a few billion years for humans to discover the principles of Quantum Mechanics. It is logical to assume it will take a few more billion years before they learn to apply it to creation.
Proving or disproving God exist is obviously beyond the lifetime of many future generations and the planet may not survive human ignorance. The OP should be called the Paradoxical Nature of Man.

Most of what is known about the universe was discovered over the last (very) few hundred years. Your assertion is inane.
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
Harikrish
Posts: 11,010
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/10/2016 10:39:37 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/10/2016 10:26:03 PM, Looncall wrote:
At 7/9/2016 6:57:44 PM, Harikrish wrote:
It has taken a few billion years for humans to discover the principles of Quantum Mechanics. It is logical to assume it will take a few more billion years before they learn to apply it to creation.
Proving or disproving God exist is obviously beyond the lifetime of many future generations and the planet may not survive human ignorance. The OP should be called the Paradoxical Nature of Man.

Most of what is known about the universe was discovered over the last (very) few hundred years. Your assertion is inane.

Exactly my point. It has taken billions of years to get where we are. Of the millions of species that died only one specie developed a modicum of intelligence. One would have expected a faster rate of progress. But we are only 200,000 years removed from our common ancestor who were monkeys.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 2:40:51 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/10/2016 8:11:44 PM, PureX wrote:

Religion (theology) is a way of understanding our experience of being human.

Would you say that is true for both Scientology and Mormonism that it helps believers understand the human experience better than if they did not belong to their religion?

What would Scientology and Mormonism teach people that they could not learn if they had not belonged to the religion?

It's not innately delusional even though it can certainly become delusional for some people.

If a religion teaches its believers that human sacrifice allows them to be innocent when they do bad things, would you classify that as delusional? Why or why not?
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 6:33:56 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/9/2016 10:24:30 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/9/2016 8:43:19 PM, PureX wrote:

I agree with much of what you have said but I still think that religion is a cancer to the evolution of humanity.

There are lots cancers to the evolution of humanity. Greed, vengeance, and the desire to exploit others would be at the top of the list, for me. Embracing the willful absurdity of religion would probably be in the top ten, but the latter half. And embracing willful absurdity doesn't only apply to religion (though it's the biggie), it can also apply to political a sociological views,

Before we can establish a proper perception of what is true, we must get rid of our misconceptions and falsehoods.

A lot of people don't care what is true, so long as what they believe is true makes them feel happy, safe, righteous, or whatever. You may not agree with their goals, but you aren't in charge of them. They are.

An analogy would be people that believe the earth is flat. They are completely unable to properly evaluate the universe we live in until they get rid of their silly notions and biases first. I think the debate about what god is not is more important than what 'god' is....at least until humanity can simply admit that they don't know that which they cannot know.

But I don't think that many people care about properly evaluating the universe. I don't think they care that they are biased. They just don't want to look bad