Atheism: The Great Nothing!

[mickiel]

Mickiel, I do not see this every day, just mainly those on which I try to engage you and other religious fundamentalists in serious discussion. And still, I entertain the hope that it is possible. I am pretty sure that you apply different rules of logic to other areas of your life. Otherwise, you probably wouldn't have made it this far to engage in these discussions. :sarcastic

I have tried to reason with Atheist, I see no reason not to try, but I have no answer to their blindness, other than a God intended move. God wants them to be as they are in my view, stuck on what they only have, a mind steeped into the great nothing. Just nothing really when it comes to serious discussion on the orgin of man. I find Atheist response as nothing on these matters, nothing relevant, nothing meaningful, nothing thought revealing.

Like a useless wind blowing, it sweeps nothing into my thought process, and I am willing to learn things you know.

And I have learned that Atheist thought, holds absolutely nothing for me.

Peace.

 

[Meow Mix]

And I have learned that ... thought, holds absolutely nothing for me.

Fixed.








Haha naw just kidding, I'm not mean enough to just leave it at that.

Mickiel, I don't disrespect you but I do accuse you of not thinking enough. Remember that conversation where you refused to think further about "where God's complexity came from?" How you are willing to question why there is complexity in the universe but not willing to question why there is complexity in God?

Have you ever considered that you're just basing your beliefs on a sheer unsupported opinion that you want a God to exist?

 

[mickiel]

Fixed.








Haha naw just kidding, I'm not mean enough to just leave it at that.

Mickiel, I don't disrespect you but I do accuse you of not thinking enough. Remember that conversation where you refused to think further about "where God's complexity came from?" How you are willing to question why there is complexity in the universe but not willing to question why there is complexity in God?

Have you ever considered that you're just basing your beliefs on a sheer unsupported opinion that you want a God to exist?

I could careless what you accuse me of.


Remember that.

Peace.

 

[Meow Mix]

I could careless what you accuse me of.


Remember that.

Peace.

Just pointing out that your position is inconsistent and disproportionate.

You decry an apparent lack of explanation for complexity in the universe...

So you invent a god to explain it.

When someone points out the complexity of said god...

You say you don't know yet but that you still believe in said god.

You're not fooling anyone. Anyone with a brain cell in their head can see this for the clearly conflicting and weak position that it is, and that's no personal disrespect to you: just an adage to your inconsistency and insincerity with discovering truth.

Clearly, as anyone can see, you want a god to exist. It doesn't matter if that thing that you want to exist has the same problem as the things that you believe can't exist without it. It doesn't matter if you have to invent this thing to explain other things, then can't explain the existence of this thing for the same reasons you can't explain the other things.

All I'm saying is you should step away from your presuppositions about gods and really think about things. Really. Think about them. You invent a god to explain complexity, but you can't explain the complexity of your god -- so what's the point of inventing the god in the first place?

 

[Zadok]

Just pointing out that your position is inconsistent and disproportionate.

You decry an apparent lack of explanation for complexity in the universe...

So you invent a god to explain it.

When someone points out the complexity of said god...

You say you don't know yet but that you still believe in said god.

You're not fooling anyone. Anyone with a brain cell in their head can see this for the clearly conflicting and weak position that it is, and that's no personal disrespect to you: just an adage to your inconsistency and insincerity with discovering truth.

Clearly, as anyone can see, you want a god to exist. It doesn't matter if that thing that you want to exist has the same problem as the things that you believe can't exist without it. It doesn't matter if you have to invent this thing to explain other things, then can't explain the existence of this thing for the same reasons you can't explain the other things.

All I'm saying is you should step away from your presuppositions about gods and really think about things. Really. Think about them. You invent a god to explain complexity, but you can't explain the complexity of your god -- so what's the point of inventing the god in the first place?

Everything someone does not understand is complex. When we understand it becomes simple. Can you step away from your presuppositions about G-d and really think about things?

1. Can we reverse engineer by using intelligence and cause anything to happen that we understand and observe to occur?

2. In all this universe there is nothing more intelligent than man? Capable of creating things we do not understand. And if something can be more intelligent than us is it not possible that something else could not be more intelligent than us both? So you are saying that there is an end beyond which intelligence cannot exist?

Yet I am not aware on even the smallest evidence of intelligence even comparable to mankind. But I believe it is possible.

Zadok

 

[Meow Mix]

Everything someone does not understand is complex. When we understand it becomes simple. Can you step away from your presuppositions about G-d and really think about things?

I'm not the one making claims about complexity. There are a few things to understand about complexity:

If something is regarded as complex, it's either agreed that the thing which created it is complex or not.

Many creationist theists look at life and say, "This is too complex to just exist, something intelligent must have created it." In that context, they are essentially asserting that complexity requires an intelligent origin. However, they're also commiting themselves to the idea that "complexity = designer." If that's true, then the designer must inherently be more complex than the created complexity. Therefore, the complexity of the designer itself is under question: whence did it come?

I of course understand that complexity doesn't necessarily require a designer at all: fairly complex states of affairs are possible through simple laws. However, someone who believes those premises finds themselves in a conundrum of explaining where the complexity of their alleged "creator" came from, and it's a bit asinine when they start saying, "Well I don't know." The whole point of them concocting a "creator" is supposedly to explain the complexity, but then they balk at the complexity of the creator itself and shut down. That's childish if you ask me! If you choose a belief you might as well stick with it!

1. Can we reverse engineer by using intelligence and cause anything to happen that we understand and observe to occur?

We can reverse engineer much of it yes; there are few things we can't replicate at this point but most of it we can indeed. I'm not sure what the point of this question is though.

2. In all this universe there is nothing more intelligent than man? Capable of creating things we do not understand. And if something can be more intelligent than us is it not possible that something else could not be more intelligent than us both? So you are saying that there is an end beyond which intelligence cannot exist?

Yet I am not aware on even the smallest evidence of intelligence even comparable to mankind. But I believe it is possible.

Zadok

Of course it's possible there are things more intelligent than humans. I'm not sure what your point is here, either. It doesn't really refute anything that I've been saying at all.

 

[mickiel]

Atheism, the great nothing. The belief that we came from nothing, and will return to the nothing, shows that nothing is what really matters to them. They claim not to believe in miracles, yet it was a miracle that created this universe. So they deny their orgin and redefine it to suit their carelessness. The cofounder of the theory of evolution saw this foolishness and recanted his theory, admitted it was wrong. The whole belief of Atheism is rooted in a one way street of going against God, at any cost. And I believe thats how God wants it, it was he who created Atheism. God had no oppisition, so he had to create it.

Atheism then has a devine purpose, it is part of Gods plan of Salvation. God wanted an oppisition, a negative charge to his positive Spirit. Atheism then is Gods power charged to the negative.

And I want to go into that.

Peace.

 

[PolyHedral]

They claim not to believe in miracles, yet it was a miracle that created this universe.

Stephen Hawking believes it was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics. Do you know more physics than him?

 

[mickiel]

Stephen Hawking believes it was an inevitable consequence of the laws of physics. Do you know more physics than him?

It was a miracle more than it was physics.

Peace.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Atheism, the great nothing. The belief that we came from nothing, and will return to the nothing, shows that nothing is what really matters to them.

Except atheists don't believe any of those things.

They claim not to believe in miracles, yet it was a miracle that created this universe.

Prove it.

And don't say "just look at how complex everything is". That's an argument from incredulity.

So they deny their orgin and redefine it to suit their carelessness. The cofounder of the theory of evolution saw this foolishness and recanted his theory, admitted it was wrong.

No he didn't, he was just afraid of objections from people in the church who had all the political power, and he didn't accrue enough supporting evidence.

The whole belief of Atheism is rooted in a one way street of going against God, at any cost. And I believe thats how God wants it, it was he who created Atheism. God had no oppisition, so he had to create it.

When are you ever going to apply logic or reason in your life?

Atheism then has a devine purpose, it is part of Gods plan of Salvation. God wanted an oppisition, a negative charge to his positive Spirit. Atheism then is Gods power charged to the negative.

Sure, you go on believing that while calling us atheists the foolish ones.

 

[Zadok]

I'm not the one making claims about complexity. There are a few things to understand about complexity:

If something is regarded as complex, it's either agreed that the thing which created it is complex or not.

Many creationist theists look at life and say, "This is too complex to just exist, something intelligent must have created it." In that context, they are essentially asserting that complexity requires an intelligent origin. However, they're also commiting themselves to the idea that "complexity = designer." If that's true, then the designer must inherently be more complex than the created complexity. Therefore, the complexity of the designer itself is under question: whence did it come?

I of course understand that complexity doesn't necessarily require a designer at all: fairly complex states of affairs are possible through simple laws. However, someone who believes those premises finds themselves in a conundrum of explaining where the complexity of their alleged "creator" came from, and it's a bit asinine when they start saying, "Well I don't know." The whole point of them concocting a "creator" is supposedly to explain the complexity, but then they balk at the complexity of the creator itself and shut down. That's childish if you ask me! If you choose a belief you might as well stick with it!



We can reverse engineer much of it yes; there are few things we can't replicate at this point but most of it we can indeed. I'm not sure what the point of this question is though.



Of course it's possible there are things more intelligent than humans. I'm not sure what your point is here, either. It doesn't really refute anything that I've been saying at all.

Meow: Thank you for being civil. Perhaps we both can enjoy a stimulating discussion.

Point 1. Very complex things can be achieved through very simple things. Basic DNA is simple – so is binary code. But through combinations very simple things can become extremely complex. This principle is a basic construct of fractals and Chaos Theory. In any discussion of what is complex and what is simple I go back to my original premise. That is we only think of something as complex when we really do not understand it.
I agree that many creational theorists hinge their concept incorrectly on things that cannot be explained. That is not really about complexity but rather what we do not understand. Allow me a little example. I am a scientist and engineer and a committed believer in evolution. However, when we consider the evolution of a bat we run into problems with probabilities and permeations and we find that from what we know of bats and evolution that bats are, for lack of a better term – impossible. But bats are not impossible because they exist. The creational theorists put forth the argument that because bats exist it proves G-d. The truth is it only proves that we do not understand the processes that caused bats to evolve and we gain nothing in understanding by assuming “G-d just did it”. However, when we better understand the process, I do not doubt one bit that someday a team of scientists in a lab will be able to start with not-bat living stuff and genetically engineer a bat. Bats are not impossible.

Point 2. The above logic brings me to my next point. My assumption is that if it is possible to conceive that something or anything that can happen without intelligent intervention – that it could happen with intelligent intervention. Not only could it happen but it is a basic concept of science that it will happen each and every time – without exception, when intelligence properly applies all the necessary parameters.

Point 3. What I ask is that you (and others) consider G-d is simply intelligence more advanced than our own. Consider worship nothing more than a learning process of emulating and seeking higher intelligence. I realize that in your past this is not the definitions you have encountered. So? Is that a reasonable argument to reject learning and becoming more intelligent - able to acomplish things which for now would be thought too complex or impossible?

Zadok

 

[mickiel]

No he didn't, he was just afraid of objections from people in the church who had all the political power, and he didn't accrue enough supporting evidence.

.

This is so absurd, I won't even honor it with response. Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-founder of the theory of evolution, complettely recanted this theory as false and he admitted he was wrong about it. He said after careful study, there must have been a creative power to the Universe.

And Atheist cynicism cannot change this historical fact.

Peace.

 

[waitasec]

Atheism, the great nothing. The belief that we came from nothing, and will return to the nothing, shows that nothing is what really matters to them. They claim not to believe in miracles, yet it was a miracle that created this universe. So they deny their orgin and redefine it to suit their carelessness.

why would you say that?
how do you know nothing is what matters?
why would you say, "they deny their orgin and redefine it to suit their carelessness"?
isn't that being presumptuous?

The cofounder of the theory of evolution saw this foolishness and recanted his theory, admitted it was wrong. The whole belief of Atheism is rooted in a one way street of going against God, at any cost. And I believe thats how God wants it, it was he who created Atheism. God had no oppisition, so he had to create it.

why would you say that? did you do any research to back up this claim
here, if you are indeed interested in knowing what happened this will get you started...

Alfred Russel Wallace: The Co-Founder of The Theory of Natural Selection

you know, reading biased material will only reinforce your biases. what's the point in that? unless you are happy being closed minded
is that what you really want?

Atheism then has a devine purpose, it is part of Gods plan of Salvation. God wanted an oppisition, a negative charge to his positive Spirit. Atheism then is Gods power charged to the negative.

why would you say god wanted an opposition? god needed an opposition, in order to exist in order to support your argument of opposition.

the idea of a creator is both, is it not? you can't only see the creator as an exclusive positive charge. wouldn't work now would it?

 

[Copernicus]

Point 3. What I ask is that you (and others) consider G-d is simply intelligence more advanced than our own. Consider worship nothing more than a learning process of emulating and seeking higher intelligence. I realize that in your past this is not the definitions you have encountered...

Good. You realize that you have changed the definition and opened up a gaping hole in the discussion that could lead to endless equivocations and misunderstandings. Normally we think of a god as a being who holds absolute control over some aspect of reality. The Abrahamic "God" is usually defined as a being that holds absolute control over all reality. He is not just a more intelligent alien life form. Worship is the act of obeisance paid to a being, usually in the hope of influencing the behavior of that being. Will your redefinitions cause you to cease to worship God in the conventional sense of those words?

So? Is that a reasonable argument to reject learning and becoming more intelligent - able to acomplish things which for now would be thought too complex or impossible?

Nobody here seems to have argued this position, but we have just encountered your attempt to redefine basic terms in the argument.

 

[waitasec]

And Atheist cynicism cannot change this historical fact.

Peace.

In a letter to his brother-in-law in 1861, Wallace wrote:
... I remain an utter disbeliever in almost all that you consider the most sacred truths. I will pass over as utterly contemptible the oft-repeated accusation that sceptics shut out evidence because they will not be governed by the morality of Christianity ... I am thankful I can see much to admire in all religions. To the mass of mankind religion of some kind is a necessity. But whether there be a God and whatever be His nature; whether we have an immortal soul or not, or whatever may be our state after death, I can have no fear of having to suffer for the study of nature and the search for truth, or believe that those will be better off in a future state who have lived in the belief of doctrines inculcated from childhood, and which are to them rather a matter of blind faith than intelligent conviction
Alfred Russel Wallace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Zadok]

Atheism, the great nothing. The belief that we came from nothing, and will return to the nothing, shows that nothing is what really matters to them. They claim not to believe in miracles, yet it was a miracle that created this universe. So they deny their orgin and redefine it to suit their carelessness. The cofounder of the theory of evolution saw this foolishness and recanted his theory, admitted it was wrong. The whole belief of Atheism is rooted in a one way street of going against God, at any cost. And I believe thats how God wants it, it was he who created Atheism. God had no oppisition, so he had to create it.

Atheism then has a devine purpose, it is part of Gods plan of Salvation. God wanted an oppisition, a negative charge to his positive Spirit. Atheism then is Gods power charged to the negative.

And I want to go into that.

Peace.

Mickiel: One of the things I completely object to in discussions is when one party defines their opposition’s point of view. There are so many problems with this methodology I do not know where to begin. Even in scripture we encounter this notion – “Does our law judge a man before it hears him speak?”

Many arguments throughout history have over time become lost and forgotten because they ignored the basic principles of truth and rhetorical logic. I personally have never encountered someone putting forth an idea that did not think they were employing logic. I would suggest if we do not understand someone’s logic it is impossible to argue against it. Thus, I would say the problem you have with atheism is your inability to understand the logic.

You identify your religion as - Don’t need religion. Anciently the concept that we now think of as religion was expressed as a “path” or “way”. Part of the ancient wisdom is that one more knowing or experienced can assist another in their way. This assisting of others is the basic structure of what religion ought to be in our time or for that matter – any time. If it really is not needed that we help each other through “religion” – why have you appointed yourself as the means to direct others by what you think is helping?

Zadok

 

[mickiel]

. If it really is not needed that we help each other through “religion” – why have you appointed yourself as the means to direct others by what you think is helping?

Zadok

I hold no intrest in directing others, and don't try to. You see things about me that I do not. I am not after a following, and hold no intrest in swaying others to my point of view. I admit that many are attracted to my views everywhere I express them, but that is nothing of my doing, people are attracted as they wish.

I hold no intrest in " Helping others", I simply express my views. I hold no intrest in religion, and I am not interested in my reputation. My thoughts hold a power of their own, and they grow stronger each year. And one day I will grow stronger with them.

Just not today.

Peace.

 

[Zadok]

[/font][/color]
Good. You realize that you have changed the definition and opened up a gaping hole in the discussion that could lead to endless equivocations and misunderstandings. Normally we think of a god as a being who holds absolute control over some aspect of reality. The Abrahamic "God" is usually defined as a being that holds absolute control over all reality. He is not just a more intelligent alien life form. Worship is the act of obeisance paid to a being, usually in the hope of influencing the behavior of that being. Will your redefinitions cause you to cease to worship God in the conventional sense of those words?


Nobody here seems to have argued this position, but we have just encountered your attempt to redefine basic terms in the argument.

I would disagree. I do not believe that seeking intelligence "leads to endless equivocations and misunderstandings." I believe quite the opposite.

As to "absolute control" - I do not know what you mean. The word absolute appears to add little to the discussion in my mind. I would agree that any being that holds “control” over anything could only do so by intelligent means.

I would also add that it appears to me you have the whole concept of worship backwards. I purport that the reason G-d would have us worship him is that by experience we come to understand him (the concept of knowing someone by walking in their shoes) through emulation. How many times are we admonished in scripture that we come to know G-d by keeping his commandments. That through a process we become “one” with G-d. It is not for the purpose of the intelligent that such would encourage others to believe – it is for the less intelligent to become more intelligent that such a possibility is made known.

It appears to me that all this suggest intelligence and learning. What I propose is that there exists intelligence greater than what we now experience. I suggest we seek after greater intelligence than we currently possess. If you disagree – the only possible reason I can imagine is that you do not believe a greater intelligence is possible.

Zadok

 

[Zadok]

I hold no intrest in directing others, and don't try to. You see things about me that I do not. I am not after a following, and hold no intrest in swaying others to my point of view. I admit that many are attracted to my views everywhere I express them, but that is nothing of my doing, people are attracted as they wish.

I hold no intrest in " Helping others", I simply express my views. I hold no intrest in religion, and I am not interested in my reputation. My thoughts hold a power of their own, and they grow stronger each year. And one day I will grow stronger with them.

Just not today.

Peace.

If you intend or have no interest to benefit others, do you express your opinions to do others harm?

Zadok

 

[mickiel]

I often grow tired of the personal opinons of me, I am nothing to this world, nothing in Gods mix of things. I would like to one day know God for myself, I just know he is there. He is real, that he exist. My whole Consciousness can sense him. Perhaps hard to explain, but its " A Consciousness thing", a bending of my will, something tinkering with it. Adding to it and taking from it, without a personal involvement with it.

This is one of my personal proofs of God, how he deals with my Consciousness. My mind. And I am not worried about who understands this, because I do not myself. My Consciousness is the most powerful reality that I hold, and I know God deals with it. Thats the best way to understand the question of God in my view, your own Consciousness, the governor of your reality.

I cannot imagine being stripped of this, such is the Atheist experience. I don't want to do without the thought of God, and hope I never have to. It would be like living without emotion, an integral part of my being just ripped out from me.

Although I do not know God, just the thought of him is integral to me for now. Stabilizing and nutrition. Sanity on one end, while I see the insanity of his reality being contested in humanity. Humans rejecting him and thinking that to be progressive.

Peace.