Atheist Life is Worthless

chuck010342 said:

There are references to other so called "Gods" (such as Baal) but those other Gods are just figimentations of Imagination, or just plain stupidity on the part of the people who made them up.

Click to expand...

I think that God - your God - should not be called stupid when he dictated (or gave) the commndments to Moses... i'm sure you wouldn't say that.

Am I to believe now that at least some of the words of the Bible are from stupid people? If so, I am really curious which ones and how can you tell the difference?

Bob

pah said:

I think that God - your God - should not be called stupid when he dictated (or gave) the commndments to Moses... i'm sure you wouldn't say that.

Am I to believe now that at least some of the words of the Bible are from stupid people? If so, I am really curious which ones and how can you tell the difference?

Bob

Click to expand...

I didn't call God stupid I called those who believe in other gods stupid

no don't believe that. What I was showing is that People are really stupid for believeing in Other so called gods and not the only true God.

chuck said:

nobody has asked me why creationism is true

Click to expand...

I'll ask you... please, let us know.

chuck said:

If you want proof I can give it to you.

Click to expand...

Again, lets us know, but please read this thread ( http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3260 ) so you don't post the same pointless arguments.

chuck010342 said:

I do admit it. There are other people who pray to other Gods but those Gods don't exsist. I believe that they have every right to believe what they believe but what they believe is not the truth. I don't believe in God blindly.

Click to expand...

Chuck - you truly are the Prince of Irony.

chuck010342 said:

The reason I don't ask for those things is because I don't believe mankind deserves them. and FYI there will be world peace when the end times come.

Click to expand...

Now we're getting somewhere! You don't believe that mankind deserves them? That almost sounds as if you are playing God - as though it is your job to "filter" the needs of mankind, prior to submitting requests to God. I'm sure He's glad to get the help. You must be wise - far beyond my meager ability to comprehend. Only an incredibly bright mind could possibly see the folly in ending world hunger or asking for world peace. I bow to your keen insight.

chuck010342 said:

I am not twisting the scientific method. The scientific method = the principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

Click to expand...

Using the cut and paste technique to insert the definition of the term "scientific method" demonstrates good computer skills, but it does not refute your misapplication (or misunderstanding) of the scientific method. As Meogi has pointed out in an earlier post - your total misuse and of all things scientific betrays you.

chuck010342 said:

I'll hold you to that

Click to expand...

I hope so. It should be interesting to watch you take a didactic slant for my benefit. I'm looking forward to the furthering of my education in logic.

Chuck - I must say that your tenacity in defending your vision of your God (and yes, there are others) is admirable. Unfortunately, you choose the wrong tools for the job. I can use a table saw to pound a screw into drywall, but a screwdriver would be much more effective. You insist on trying to use science (that you have twisted beyond recognition) to try to prove your revealed faith - and you fail miserably at it, because it is the wrong tool. The fact that you have to pervert the scientific method as badly as you do should show you the folly of your argument.

If you want people to buy into your particular view of reality, you are wasting your time using science (at least for anyone with a functioning brain). Either you do not understand science (on any level), or you are intentionally willing to ignore what it clearly shows you. My guess is the former.

TVOR

chuck010342 said:

I didn't call God stupid I called those who believe in other gods stupid

no don't believe that. What I was showing is that People are really stupid for believeing in Other so called gods and not the only true God.

Click to expand...

I guess that you haven't realized that the Ten Commandments shows that your God believed in other Gods. He knew they were there and he was jealous of them.

Bob

Pah, you know full well Y H V H knows there are no other gods, only idols.

Please don't confuse the masses. He said I will not have you bowing down to images, You have the definate article!

Ronald said:

Pah, you know full well Y H V H knows there are no other gods, only idols.

Please don't confuse the masses. He said I will not have you bowing down to images, You have the definate article!

Click to expand...

One man's idol is another man's God and vice versa

Bob

pah said:

One man's idol is another man's God and vice versa

Bob

Click to expand...

My response is Matthew 11:19 in the "Living Bible"!

Ronald said:

My response is Matthew 11:19 in the "Living Bible"!

Click to expand...

19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber

Click to expand...

Exactly - one man's eater is another mans' glutton.

Bob

That is not exactly all it says, keep on reading to the end of the verse.

lousyskater said:

you're not getting the point. Mr_Sprinkles is not comparing the two by power, he's trying to say that without any physical proof, it might as well be a figment of your imagination. lets say i have a pet unicorn that's undetectable by all means possible. no matter how much i say it's there, nobody will believe me because there is no proof but my word. the same thing applies to god(s). no matter how much you say there is a god, there's no physical proof of it's existance.

Click to expand...

No, he is comparing the two. The concept of God is philosophical. Now, if this unicorn holds the qualities that this philosophical concept of God holds then the analogy fits. In that case God=unicorn. The fact that there is no physical evidence of God would probably be due to the fact that God is not physical. Of course, I am sure you saw that reply coming. Nevertheless, we can understand the existence of God through philosophical argument because "God" is a concept, at the least. "Unicorn" can only equate to such a concept if we then say that this unicorn is the specific form of that concept. In other words, if God's form is that of a unicorn.

lousyskater said:

what proof do you have that the brain doesn't produce the mind? it' entirely possible for our brains to produce our minds.

Click to expand...

In a purely materialistic universe there is no need for a mind, for a sense of self. It is superfluous. Why wasn't Occam's Razor in affect in the first place?

pah said:

Actually Paraprakrti, there is a beleif system introduced on the internet surrounding a specific unicorn, the Invisible Pink Unicorn (IPU). The characteristics and "tenents" of this belief system have remarkable parrallels to the "whimsey" of the Bible. It meets all the standards of a religion philosophically and legally.

Click to expand...

Thats fine. In that case we can compare this specific unicorn to God because it is God, according to this following. At least we can understand the philosophical argument for God. The specifics on God's form is another thing that is accepted on faith. It is my position that we should accept what is passed down in Scripture, not what an internet group decides to concoct. The argument then becomes whether or not teachings like the Bible are concocted. That we can debate all day and all night, but that would be off topic.

Paraprakrti said:

Thats fine. In that case we can compare this specific unicorn to God because it is God, according to this following. At least we can understand the philosophical argument for God. The specifics on God's form is another thing that is accepted on faith. It is my position that we should accept what is passed down in Scripture, not what an internet group decides to concoct. The argument then becomes whether or not teachings like the Bible are concocted. That we can debate all day and all night, but that would be off topic.

Click to expand...

I understand there may be a scripture being written about IPU called a "Stable Diary" which would explain all your questions. It, of course, would have the inspiration of the the IPU and verses pulled from the Testament would be called "nuggets from the Stable"

I'll leave this post here but use it to start another thread. Join me there

Bob

Mr_Spinkles said:

Paraprakrti-- I was actually making an analogy between unicorns and your claims of an undetectable "consciousness" and the non-physical "subtle mind" but as lousyskater has pointed out the analogy can be used with God as well.

Click to expand...

I feel the philosophy of Thomas Nagel pretty much sums this up:

It is not a far stretch at all to suppose that bats are conscious. Suppose someone had perfect physiological knowledge of bats. It would follow, then, that if consciousness were merely a complex physical state, then that person would know exactly what it would be like to be a bat. However, it seems clear that all the knowledge in the world about bats could not tell someone what it is like to be a bat.

The reason is that while physiological facts are objective -- i.e. they are accessible to anyone, what it is like to be a bat is purely subjective and can only be known by the bat who is that bat. Our consciousness is not something accessible to anyone but ourselves. But if we were merely a complex physical structure, surely it would be accessible to anyone with enough knowledge. But it is not. Hence, this is evidence that the mind is not merely physical.

Mr_Spinkles said:

We don't need to assume it--clinical studies on both humans and animals speak for themselves. Drugs make you feel differently. The input your brain receives from your senses makes you think and act differently. Stimulating certain parts of the brain can cause you to feel like there's a "presence" near you, or that you are flying, or an overwhelming feeling of well-being and purpose. An advanced brain can think in very complex ways, and a heavily damaged (or heavily intoxicated) brain cannot think at all. Thus the physical brain is solely responsible for all thought, memories, imagination, decision-making, etc.

Click to expand...

Welcome to the matrix. I have already explained why we cannot know conscousness but by consciousness. All we see is effects that consciousness has on the body. You see the interaction of the senses with their objects and the result produced in the brain the produces more results observable in the body.

Mr_Spinkles said:

If there were anything else besides the physical brain responsible for these things, we would expect that a person could still think clearly even when unconscious; or that a person's decision making ability would not decrease when intoxicated. Alas, this is not the case, and no evidence for anything other than a physical brain exists that influences our thoughts, imagination, feelings, etc. If those things do not constitute "the mind" perhaps you should define this term.

Click to expand...

When I speak of consciousness I am referring to it in it's most fundamental state of being. I follow that thought. imagination, feelings and emotions are all experienced through the subtle mind. I do not follo that the subtle mind is the soul itself. I follow that the soul dwells in two bodies, the gross and the subtle. The soul's symtpom is consciousness but that consciousness inly fills the capacity of the body it indwells. The subtle mind is superior to the gross body but the soul transcends both. The soul's consciousness is constitutionally pure and uninhibited, but when we fall under this material energy we are only allowed the capacity of the body we indwell. The soul never mixes with the material energy in the same way oil doesn't mix with water. All we see is the oil that is covering the water, in this analogy. If intoxication affects the brain then it makes sense that one's capacity to be clearly conscious will be further constricted. We are conditioned entities and so all we perceive are these conditions and their symptoms.