So do you believe SABR42 has met Zeus? (yes/no)

Well that depends. Athesim means- when it can between beliving there is or is not a god you choose to believe option two.

IF you are intelligent you can use your assumed premise that there is no god, to make other logical deductions basid on your first asummption. These logical deductions are a system of beliefs steming from your first assumpiton. IF you are an idiot then no, Athesim does not result in any following logical conclusions because your mind fails at rational thought.

If I assume there is no god and deduce my life's belief from it, then yes - atheism would be my belief system.

Luckily I do no such thing. I also fail to see how this should be proof that my mind fails at rational thought.

Should I deduce my life's beliefs from not believing in invisible garden gnomes?

Garden gnomes has no significance compared to the question of whether there is a god or not, though maybe you were just giving an example of you self proclaimed failure or distain of rational thought.

Children are born neutral. They are not consciously aware and thus unable to develop a belief or an opinion either way. A child born into an atheist mother and father is not an atheist. The same goes for any other religion.

You fail to follow the logic. Neither have I proclaimed any failure of rational thought - those were actually your words, pay attention.

You can substitute god for anything you do not believe to exist in your logic, that is it's failure.

If you are suggesting that garden gnomes not existing should be treated differently than god not existing (as an assumption) then you are suggesting people should deduce their life's values based on the specific properties of something that does not exist.

Which is er...stupid.

atheists are entitled to practice their religion imo

And many do. That a person is an atheist does not imply the person is irreligious.

It does however, not imply much about the religion (if any) in question apart from removing a few popular options.

i believe he is a punk who makes rediculous claims in order to support his knowitall belief system

Wow, you know everything, huh

Not a belief system. But I do believe that many atheists would be likely to agree with fellow atheists about several other unrelated issues, and also likely to disagree with religious people about the same unrelated issues. Viewed in that lens, it might seem like a belief system, but if so, basically everything anyone thinks falls into a single "belief system."

It's not my wish to know as much as possible, but to understand as much as possible. I place little value on trivia and general knowledge on its own (i.e., 'as is'), as should everyone IMO. And no, I (obviously) don't know everything. I like to keep it that way. Only God has that luxury and responsibility.

That statement is 100 percent false. But then again it is true you can substitute anything for anything else if you are a hater of rational thought, so i guess your "pattern" is intacted.

Yes I won't derive my life values from the specific properties of something I don't believe to exist. The hallmark of all haters of rational thought.

I guess your life must be a ball. Every time someone presents a new and exciting phenomena (let's put it on a godlike scale if that somehow should change things) you don't believe to exist you will derive new life values.

And you seemed to avoid to address this rather good point so I'll repost it:

Can you call Newton, Mendel, Asa Grey, Polkinghorne, Blaise Pascal, St. Augustine, etc. haters of rational thought?

Or is the only rational thought you respect the type that is also anti-faith?

Mendal fixed his numbers I believe. Immoral?

I'm not in the mood to explain. You have misunderstoof the post and the term you accuse me of using wasn't even mine.

As for the last paragraph I have met intelligent religious believers, but of it's anything more than deism then I normally take that as an intellectual flaw yes.

[QUOTE=tame_deuces;8897874]Yes I won't derive my life values from the specific properties of something I don't believe to exist. The hallmark of all haters of rational thought.

QUOTE]

Yep, you hate thinking. Thinking rationally involves deductive and indective reason, you have stated plainly that you can't or are incapable of using deductive reasoning.

I have stated that I can't derive a conclusion based on the property of something that does not exist, while you claim that doing so is rational and those who do not do this are not rational. When facing a specific counter-argument all you have done is repeat the same insult four times and make claims that another poster have said things he has not instead of addressing the issue maturely.

Fwiw; I don't go away in debates like these so you might as well grow up or stop posting. High school logic antics doesn't really phase me.

It's a pretty standard quantification tool useful to decide how many experiments we need to conduct, to assign a truth value to our test results (the more tests, the "more accurate" our results become), and as an objective interpretation tool of those accurate results; not just in biology. Also: classifying species based on genes is not so uncommon any more. All I did was apply a very standard, very crude tool. Beats me why you'd want to believe the other accomplishments this tool has produced, i.e. empirical science post 1950.

That's just an account of how he conducts his psychoanalytic classes. In psychoanalysis scholars try to detect subconscious motives in different human and social environments using semiotics and semantics; the "Freudian slip" thing. While I'm not impressed with psychoanalysis' inflation of their conclusions either, the sources themselves are valid enough. He needs a secretary to proofread his papers though.

Either way still waiting for you to show me an immaterial form of atheism. I've got circles, triangles, squares and numbers for the theist camp (just google Hinduism or Ancient Egypt). While at it I'd like you to show me a science that doesn't rely on these religious symbols. I'm also waiting for you to show me that your denial of god(s) is based on an informed interpretation of holy book X, rather than on the bedtime stories of your mum. Make that "our mums".

Obviously, but the same goes for Y? He could change his mind also, and even refuse to negotiate? My case is somewhat abstract; feel free to come up with a more realistic/understandable example.

I didn't want you to respond to each case individually; but yeah, my understanding of psychology is extremely case-specific. I'm more familiar with analytical, cognitive, etc. psychological frameworks than EP. So I interpreted EP's claims as a lot more absolute and specific than the way you present them. I'm not afraid of predators (I love them), but not fond of horses or gold. Also like many others, I'm a speed junk (not the drugs).

Tagging along with your interpretation: we can find sacred masks and dance in any shamanistic society (from the Philippines over sub-Saharan Africa to the Americas). The colours [black, white, red and blue], birds of prey, trees, music and mountains are sacred pretty much everywhere, you can find closed male societies and "sacred geometry" (proportion, numbers, geometrical figures etc) everywhere too. Those are all extremely specific, while at the same time extremely widespread. You could say it's "random" chemistry which evolution didn't weed out, but that's kind of weak, isn't it? Anyway you're right, it is a young theory which does need lots of testing. Shame it's getting trainwrecked from both sides of the fence.

I guess this is our main difference. I actually compare my 12-incher, or winning the WSOP, getting a degree, job, "I love you", "doing good" etc. to absolute reality; not to my whims or whatever. For this topic I'd say reality is either a situation where spacetime somehow plies "back" unto itself, like an Ouroboros. Or it's a very tiny Big Bang, and tiny universe, somewhere randomly in the middle of infinite void. A bit like Camus' absurdity, or a point in a 4D (or 10, 12, ... D) Cartesian -Minkowskian?- coordinate system. In the latter case I wouldn't compare my 12-incher to the diameter of the milky way, but to the size of the space in which it resides. In the former case, well,... Basically I first decide where I am (orientation), then decide what my options are (logic/science), then start building (ethics); not the other way around. My conclusion, what I am, is what I call aesthetics; but I can find an aesthetic moment along the way: in "science", "doing good" or "just living life".

The argument of death isn't an appeal to emotion (cf. my mathematical equivalent earlier), unless you're afraid or eager to die. Why would you be scared to undergo something which will happen either way? It's more an appeal to concentration both on a future physical fact which will make our lives a closed unit within an open and absolute system, and an appeal to focus on an event that will reduce our joys and tribulations to dust. But since I'm a man who stands in the universe, that already happens right now, as we speak.

I do have very similar sentiments and opinions, but let's just say I try not to hate. You know, when the doorbell rings and there's a 35-50 yo couple outside, the first word that is spoken is "shalom" and off they go. Strange, they're always Christians and never Apache shamans, Muslims or atheists.

Where does Catholicism start? With a girl whose lover ran off and avoided being stoned to death (Mary)? With a coward who betrayed his best friend (Peter)? With an emperor who needed a common ideology for his crumbling empire and a bunch of persecuted bishops who would do anything to be left in peace (Nicea)? Meh, I know a Catholic scientist who's doing stem cell research atm, and another one who euthanized my dad, I know an 87 yo nun who says "screw the bible, god loves everybody but baby Jesus above all - 'cuz he's a stud" and a 74 yo priest who spends his holidays in a Buddhist monastery in Tibet 6 weeks/year (and preaches about it in church).

Of course I can't stand the Roman Curia's populism and politics, the Bank of the Holy Spirit, the Vatican Archives, private archaeological sites in Israel etc... But Catholicism and Christianity will be gone soon enough (and in a way they already are food for history books and private clubs); fundamentalism however, is here to stay. You could even find it in soccer, if only it had a common ideology. Religion does exactly that: it offers simple themes (bible quotes) which divide between "us" and "them", thinks in absolutes, and promises a better future where "we 'll be more important" (whatever that means). You know, I don't think Nazism is a German problem, we all struggle with it at one time or another. Sure, it could be EP, like any of the other common stupidities.

How do you fight or hate something which feeds on conflict and hate? How do you condemn it while speaking of tolerance, equality and liberty? I think you can't, since you're giving up those very values by doing so. By debating them you give them an air of importance ("I survived the temptation of the devil" & proselytism on tv), by calling yourself an atheist you create the "us vs them".

I'm not saying you shouldn't call yourself an atheist, I don't mind. Just that it may not be such a good idea if you do it for this specific reason. I'm not suggesting you should just be nice or chicken out either, but there's a middle way between "nice" and "judgemental" which helps you to grow individually as well. You could call it friendship, measure, fraternity.

Gnosticism. Meh. I could call myself an alchemist but that's not going to help me express myself better, is it? Gnosticism is less contaminated and naughty enough: I don't have to believe, because I know. And what I know is food for evolutionary curiosity, you know, one of the more positive aspects we all seem to have in common. And I don't even have to lie.

Christianity is fine too, I have a fair understanding of the symbolic language involved, and the pieces of the puzzle are still there. But that's the only reason why I'd call myself a Christian: because it works best for me individually. If I take these 2 aspects, and my response to your previous paragraph into account, I'd say I'm pretty sure there's someone near you.

Well this is a thread for atheists but start with Matt 7:7-8. As for "trinity" there's a very simple answer: just google Giza. Good luck with your endeavours.

Hmmmm.......puzzlelicious. Thanks Fulcanelli!

Rate these statements in terms of truth or acceptability:

1) I share some genes with an ape, therefore apes and I are of the same species.

2) My laptop is composed largely of materials also found in my microwave, therefore there is no difference between my laptop and a microwave.

3) 'Species' is a human concept that DNA does not 'recognise', therefore it is of very limited use in discussions of this kind.

Classifying species cladistically based on genes is indeed common, and useful for many purposes. The fact that only you appear to think that commonality of some genes between species 'should' somehow mean that I, as someone who accepts the ToE, should classify apes and humans as the same species should tell you something about the limitations of those purposes. Even cladistic gene-based models are based on differences, not similarities. My point is that 'statistical insignificance' != 'biological insignificance', and that the biological significance of the genetic distinctions that do exist needs no additional input to be recognised as significant.


Keep waiting. The false dichotomy of 'metaphysics or EP' does not impress me.

No idea what this means.

If I could, what would it mean? If I couldn't, what would that mean? Are you maybe confusing the signifier with the signified here?

This makes no sense at all. In order to base a rejection of a god on a holy book, I would have to recognise that book as authoritative, which I can't do if I'm rejecting a god. I'll be charitable and assume you've worded this poorly? Remember also that 'denial of a god' is what's generally called 'strong' or 'hard' or 'gnostic' atheism, which doesn't describe my position.

Atheism is no belief system, it's a no-belief system.

Sure, he could refuse to negotiate. Can't he do that regardless?

I don't think it's random.

That sounds tough.

Fear ain't rational. Never was, never will be.

quote]It's more an appeal to concentration both on a future physical fact which will make our lives a closed unit within an open and absolute system, and an appeal to focus on an event that will reduce our joys and tribulations to dust. But since I'm a man who stands in the universe, that already happens right now, as we speak.[/quote]

"Absolute system" is the part I take the most issue with.

Those are good points. Then again, I wouldn't hate religion if it didn't remind me of conflicts within myself in the first place. In some sense it's a way to externalize those, do battle with something more concrete than my inability to accept myself wholeheartedly.

That sounds like a good approach. Sometimes I don't feel light enough on my feet for it; "atheist" is better for the ham-fisted.