Atheism or No Intelligence Allowed

[Shadow Wolf]

This is not quite right. One can prove some negatives, but not all.

Here is an example. You are in Chicago to meet a friend of yours. You get a frantic call from him saying that the Sear's building just blew up (sorry, I don't know what they call it today). You are just a block or two away and drive by it. It is still there unharmed. You just proved that an event did not happen.

In this case it is on the friend to provide the evidence. And if we move this from the Sear's Tower to 9/11 and the World Trade Towers, even with Popular Mechanics debunking about every 9/11 conspiracy there is things just keep getting added to it, to the point it becomes impossible to disprove some claims. Like when the FBI was watching people who then vanished. Last I knew there was still no account of these people, and why the FBI seemed to let them slip away. And America was warned in advanced, and that warning went unheeded. This makes it basically impossible to prove it wasn't a government inside job when stuff like this is brought up. While they have only speculations based on the evidence, there is nothing definitive to the contrary to prove them wrong.

 

[McBell]

Look at my file above.

Dr. Richard Dawkins in the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed said:
``I am atheist because there is no proof that God exists."
It is not logical, the same level of dishonesty has this sentence:
``I am atheist because the sky is blue." He would demonstrate a reason to be an atheist
if he would say: ``I am atheist, because there is proof that God does not exist."

It does not matter how many times you repeat nonsense.
It will always remain nonsense.

 

[McBell]

I proved God sufficiently at the end of the post.

For you and perhaps for the choir.
But not everyone has such low standards for evidence. let alone 'proof'.

If you are wanting those outside the choir to agree with you, you are going to have to do much better.

Identity can't exist without perfect judgment defining it,

Bold empty claim.

and that perfect judgment can only be God's.

Another bold empty claim based on the previous bold empty claim.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Proof of Theism:
1. atheism can be strong or weak. Thus, if the strong atheistic position would be proven illogical, then the weak atheism is illogical too.
2. Strong Atheism is not logical.
3. Thus, theism is proven.

My goodness. I do find myself wondering at times.

1. Theism can be in various flavours. Thus if one flavour of theism is proven illogical, then all theism is illogical.
2. Pacific Cargo Cults are demonstrably wrong in an objective sense.
3. Theism is not logical.
4. Thus atheism is proven.

To be clear, the above points are complete bollocks. But that's kinda the point.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

With all due respect. I admire your passion and persistence, but you really ought to find a good book on formal logic and critical thinking.

A basic primer would be helpful. Formal logic can be somewhat tricky, but just everyday garden variety logic would help.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

A basic primer would be helpful. Formal logic can be somewhat tricky, but just everyday garden variety logic would help.

In the case of the OP, however, it frequently appears that he is convinced that just so long as you write 3 or more statements, include the words "if," "then" and "therefore," you are by definition doing logic -- formal or garden variety. Kind of like:

If the OP had studied logic, then
He would know what a syllogism is, therefore
Henry Ford invented Rum'n'Raisin ice cream.

QED

 

[lewisnotmiller]

As you maybe know. I am not a strong believer in science or in atheism.

I'm going to assume you mean you don't like to rely on science for certain things. Given that you're typing your posts on a computer, I'm assuming you believe science is fine around material concepts and improvements, and are talking more around spirituality, God, etc. Just making sure I understand your view.

But can i prove anyone of them being wrong in one way or the other? Nope i can not.
If Atheists are correct. there is no God to be disproven or proven by science How would they prove something is not there, or how can science prove something is scientific proven if God is not possible to find or meassure

Pretty much where my head is at too. Even though our views on God are different, I think we have some commonality on this issue. I consider myself a methodological naturalist, rather than a philosophical one (or a hardcore materialist). Not sure if you're familiar with those terms, but basically science is limited to material and falsifiable concepts. That can impact on some beliefs, and it can even disprove some beliefs, but it can't disprove God.

How can a believer use science to prove something that can not be proven, except for their own belief and faith in it That is why i say by using scientific tools God can not be proven (at this point in time, it might happen in the future)

I think this is fair, too, and I would think will continue to be true in the future. As I said, some particular beliefs can be proven or disproven by science. But the broad concept of God is almost impossible to define, and includes plenty of space for immaterial and non-falsifiable beliefs.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

In the case of the OP, however, it frequently appears that he is convinced that just so long as you write 3 or more statements, include the words "if," "then" and "therefore," you are by definition doing logic -- formal or garden variety. Kind of like:

If the OP had studied logic, then
He would know what a syllogism is, therefore
Henry Ford invented Rum'n'Raisin ice cream.

QED

Meh. I've never studied logic. I have done some programming, and a stack of business process mapping. You quickly learn that what you 'want' to be true is completely beside the point. You follow the bouncing ball/s where they might lead. I've just never had them lead me off the edge of a cliff...lol

 

[McBell]

I've just never had them lead me off the edge of a cliff...lol

Give it time.

 

[Spirit of Light]

I'm going to assume you mean you don't like to rely on science for certain things. Given that you're typing your posts on a computer, I'm assuming you believe science is fine around material concepts and improvements, and are talking more around spirituality, God, etc. Just making sure I understand your view.



Pretty much where my head is at too. Even though our views on God are different, I think we have some commonality on this issue. I consider myself a methodological naturalist, rather than a philosophical one (or a hardcore materialist). Not sure if you're familiar with those terms, but basically science is limited to material and falsifiable concepts. That can impact on some beliefs, and it can even disprove some beliefs, but it can't disprove God.



I think this is fair, too, and I would think will continue to be true in the future. As I said, some particular beliefs can be proven or disproven by science. But the broad concept of God is almost impossible to define, and includes plenty of space for immaterial and non-falsifiable beliefs.

To answer the first part.
I know science work when it comes to things we use in our human life but my personal view as you assumed correctly is that science does not work in spirirual ways. Science only work in physical realm.

I might have said earlier that i reject all form of science, that would be a wrong statement by me.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

It does not matter how many times you repeat nonsense.
It will always remain nonsense.

Whilst there is some objective truth in what you say, there is also human psychology to consider.
As the saying goes, 'A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.'

Demagogues live in this space, and there have been enough of them running around of late.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

To answer the first part.
I know science work when it comes to things we use in our human life but my personal view as you assumed correctly is that science does not work in spirirual ways. Science only work in physical realm.

I might have said earlier that i reject all form of science, that would be a wrong statement by me.

Cool. That's what I figured you mean. Thanks for clarifying!

 

[McBell]

Whilst there is some objective truth in what you say, there is also human psychology to consider.
As the saying goes, 'A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.'

Demagogues live in this space, and there have been enough of them running around of late.

I completely agree.
Trump fully demonstrates it every time he opens his mouth.

Now if someone wants to believe nonsense, that is their right, I guess.
And it seems to me that the number of times it is repeated will make little difference.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I completely agree.
Trump fully demonstrates it every time he opens his mouth.

Now if someone wants to believe nonsense, that is their right, I guess.
And it seems to me that the number of times it is repeated will make little difference.

I was a psych major at college. Just got in it because it seemed cool, and would play well with the ladies.
(err..okay, so it was the only major I could access that had nothing specifically to do with kids)

In any case, I think the amount of times a lie is repeated makes a MAJOR difference. Not to the truth of the lie, but to it's impact, and effect.
At the risk of posting serious links in a thread which is more about half-baked theories, I've put a couple here to provide further information on what I mean. Fully okay with you choosing not to read them. Whilst I know psych is sexy, it's not everyone's cup of tea. Not to mention that my opinion of how scientific the science is vacillates depending on my mood, varying between 'not very' to 'complete bald-arsed guesswork'.

CogBlog – A Cognitive Psychology Blog » Unraveling the mechanism behind “a lie repeated a thousand times becomes truth”: A cognitive account (colby.edu)

When Correcting a Lie, Don't Repeat It. Do This Instead. | Psychology Today

 

[Twilight Hue]

When an atheist says: "I am atheist because there is no proof that God exists", he says a lie.
The same illogical level: "I am atheist because the sky is blue."

It's a factual observation there is no presentable God save for what people have in their heads.

So I suppose one could say it's technically a lie in terms that God certainly exists in the realm of one's imagination.

 

[QuestioningMind]

His vision and who we are are intertwined, it's impossible for who we are to have an accurate existence other then in his vision.

You've demonstrated that you know how to make lots of unverified claims, but we've yet to hear a single bit of verifiable evidence for your claims. FIRST you need to provide verifiable evidence that this god being even exists THEN you can try and provide evidence 'his vision and who we are are intertwined'.

So what's your evidence that this god being of yours even exists?

 

[sun rise]

Science does not deal in proofs at all. It deals in evidence and in models of nature. Not proofs.

Well, there are proofs in math.

I proved God sufficiently at the end of the post.

God cannot be proven by the intellect. The heart's proof of God is beyond logic.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Here is it:

You know, I thought it might be instructive to just take a quick look through what you've written -- just to see if you are doing anything like real philosophy, or real theology, or real science -- or even real literature.

So, I stopped at just one paragraph, chosen almost at random, to see what you are actually saying, and here it is:

"An angel is made of living invisible matter. His motives and aspirations are his spiritual side: the angel is either fallen or real. God is Spirit. There are two spirits: the evil spirit and the Holy Spirit. Spirit is not Matter, and Matter is not Spirit. So, there are two spirits, and God is Spirit. The impossibility to convince the Scientific Community of God proof is this: there are two of them. The first step of convincing is to make people think, that there are two of them: Goodness Vs Evil."

For the record -- this is totally meaningless. I understand that you are having some difficulty getting published. I rather suspect that I know why.

 

[sun rise]

Meh. I've never studied logic. I have done some programming, and a stack of business process mapping. You quickly learn that what you 'want' to be true is completely beside the point. You follow the bouncing ball/s where they might lead. I've just never had them lead me off the edge of a cliff...lol

Programmers need a working knowledge of logic even if it's not formally presented:

If wishes were horses
then God is a tree
else God is a giraffe
end if

 

[gnostic]

Dr. Richard Dawkins in a religious movie [Expelled: No Intelligence
Allowed] said something like this: ``I am atheist because there is no
proof that God exists." I believe it is incomplete, so, let me try to read
between the lines: ``I am atheist because there is no [globally accepted]
proof that God exists and I want to be atheist." Many respectful and valid
theists say: ``I am the theist because I want so, however, there is no
scientific proof for God yet." Richard would demonstrate an un-emotional
reason to be an atheist if he would say: ``I am atheist because there
is [non-debunked] proof that God does not exist."

Neither theism, nor atheism, have to do with science, so talk of proof and evidence, is silly and irrelevant.

God and belief in God are not falsifiable, therefore are no evidence to support God’s existence or nonexistence.

And the scriptures (eg Bible, Quran) are filled with myths (eg miracles, creation, angels, demons, jinns, chimeras, phoenixes, etc), fables (talking serpent, donkey or ants) and folklore, hence not reliable sources of information.

Both atheism and theism, and all other -ism, have nothing to do with science. And the only thing with “no intelligence” required, is this OP.