Atheism: The Great Nothing!

[The Neo Nerd]

When magma escapes the Earth's crust, a volcano is created.

See you've done the same thing AGAIN.

Volcanoes are not "created" volcanoes happen when magma escapes the earths crust and solidifies.

Creation denotes intent, intent denotes sentience and magma is non-sentient.

From a linguistic point of view your continued use of the word "creation" coupled with "intelligence" clearly indicates your bias.

Linguistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just because you don't understand what i'm saying here doesn't mean i'm wrong.

Just because you don't like what i'm saying here does not mean i'm wrong.

-Q

 

[mickiel]

Well just pick one evidence I listed and I will go into it.

For example Atheism is evidence of God. God obviously has a way about himself that he is not revealing himself like I know he could. He has literally blinded people to his existence , and Atheism sure proves that. Gods ways are unusual, at least they are to me. He wanted humanity to experience everything, and wanted us all to know what it is like to live without him. And that for a reason. For an eternal lesson he is literally now teaching all of humanity.

He wanted there to be Atheist, and I think a growing number of Atheist are more interested in him than they let on. When an Atheist is interested in God, that speaks volumes. And is evidence that within their Consciousness, even they suspect a great power. God is building a case, which will convince everyone when it comes to court.

Peace.

Atheism is definte proof of God, it couldnot even exist without God. God is the balance and core reason of Atheism. Because other people believe, Atheism then exist. Without the belief of others, it would be simply null and void.

Peace.

 

[PolyHedral]

But, by that argument, athiesm is also proof of the Great Green Arkleseizure.

 

[mickiel]

But, by that argument, athiesm is also proof of the Great Green Arkleseizure.

I hold no intrest in sarcasm, and its uncanny use to prove a point. No different than trying to use myths to support a real fact. Its useless to me, but I am used to others trying it out on me. Atheist love using myths and sarcasm in arguements and debates, I am accoustomed to that.

Because in many cases, its all they have.

Peace.

 

[NeoSeeker]

See you've done the same thing AGAIN.

Volcanoes are not "created" volcanoes happen when magma escapes the earths crust and solidifies.

Creation denotes intent, intent denotes sentience and magma is non-sentient.

From a linguistic point of view your continued use of the word "creation" coupled with "intelligence" clearly indicates your bias.

Linguistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just because you don't understand what i'm saying here doesn't mean i'm wrong.

Just because you don't like what i'm saying here does not mean i'm wrong.

-Q

Does not mean you are right either. I concede that many of the uses for "create" do imply intelligence, but the word can also be applied to unintelligent applications such as "this machine creates noise". Where no noise existed, when this machine was turned on it caused the noise to come into being. A synonym of create is "generate". And what exactly is wrong with using "unintelligent"?

I stand by my assertion that you should not assume my intent or my true feelings and humbleness would do you some good.

 

[PolyHedral]

I hold no intrest in sarcasm, and its uncanny use to prove a point. No different than trying to use myths to support a real fact. Its useless to me, but I am used to others trying it out on me. Atheist love using myths and sarcasm in arguements and debates, I am accoustomed to that.

Because in many cases, its all they have.

Peace.

That was not sarcastic. Your argument works just as well with either God or the Great Green Arkleseizure as the subject, and so can't be used to differentiate between them.

 

[Peacewise]

• creation - the event that occurred at the beginning of something; WordNet Search - 3.0

creation need not occur by intelligence. It's a sticker point, so I'll weigh in that the Macquarie dictionary and the Collins dictionary both state the creation is especially a product of human intelligence, yet provide definitions that do include non intelligent creation.
Creation :
Collins dictionary - 3. something that has been brought into existence or created,...
Macquarie - 1. the act of creating. ...

create:
collins : 3. to be the cause of "these circumstances created the revolution"
Macquarie 1. to bring into being : cause to exist; produce... 5. to be the cause or occasion of; give rise to...

There you have it, both right, both wrong. Most common usage is about intelligence creating, yet it does remain legitimate for creation to occur without intelligence as defined by three seperate english dictionaries.

 

[mickiel]

Good and Evil is definte proof of God. They both exist, but are not " Beings within themselves", they are principles and ways of being. Nothing like that evolves from nothing, that is absurd! These are ways of " Being that orginate only from a Being." Good and evil cannot come from an happenstance miracle explosion in some Sapce that itself just happened to be there. They are sentiments of behavior, not miracles of evolution, they are " Fingerprints that can be traced."

Good and Evil cannot come from rocks and animals of instinct, they are evidence of a God somewhere. Pure evidence.

Peace.

 

[mickiel]

That was not sarcastic. Your argument works just as well with either God or the Great Green Arkleseizure as the subject, and so can't be used to differentiate between them.

My arguements hold their own merit and power, I need no sarcasm or myths to support them in debate. They hold their own intrest, and they garner intrest from others. This I am sure of, and the evidence of it is in your face, and in your own intrest being showed.

Peace.

 

[mickiel]

Atheism has a way of needing to put belief in God down, in order to lift itself up.

They need to step on God in order to bring themselves higher.

Peace.

 

[ButTheCatCameBack]

Does not mean you are right either. I concede that many of the uses for "create" do imply intelligence, but the word can also be applied to unintelligent applications such as "this machine creates noise". Where no noise existed, when this machine was turned on it caused the noise to come into being. A synonym of create is "generate". And what exactly is wrong with using "unintelligent"?

I stand by my assertion that you should not assume my intent or my true feelings and humbleness would do you some good.

An unfortunate byproduct of discussions with IDers,etc. I think sometimes.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

I stand by my assertion that you should not assume my intent or my true feelings and humbleness would do you some good.

That's because you are either unable or unwilling to understand what I am saying.

 

[Copernicus]

Atheism is definte proof of God, it couldnot even exist without God. God is the balance and core reason of Atheism. Because other people believe, Atheism then exist. Without the belief of others, it would be simply null and void.

This kind of argument is typical of your flawed reasoning. Atheism is rejection of belief in all gods (not just your god). If your argument made any sense, then all conceivable gods would have to exist. Atheism could not exist without the concept of "god". It exists quite happily without the actual existence of God.

 

[mickiel]

This kind of argument is typical of your flawed reasoning. Atheism is rejection of belief in all gods (not just your god). If your argument made any sense, then all conceivable gods would have to exist. Atheism could not exist without the concept of "god". It exists quite happily without the actual existence of God.

I disagree. Atheism must have belief in God by others to exist, it cannot exist without the concept of a God. If ink didnot exist, then neither would an ink pen. So it is with Atheism, if God didnot exist, then neither would Atheist. Its like yen and yang, up and down, God needed the oppisition because he had none, so he had to create it.

Atheism is a created oppisition to God.

Peace.

 

[Copernicus]

I disagree. Atheism must have belief in God by others to exist, it cannot exist without the concept of a God...

Oh, but we largely agree on this claim. Atheism could not exist without the concept of gods (note my use of the plural).

If ink did not exist, then neither would an ink pen.

Still with you on this point.

So it is with Atheism, if God did not exist, then neither would Atheist.

Whoops!!! The "concept of God" suddenly got replaced by just the word "God". Here is where your thinking gets derailed. God need not exist in order for there to be a concept of God.

Its like yen and yang, up and down, God needed the oppisition because he had none, so he had to create it.

Now you have gone completely bonkers. None of this follows from the fact that atheists reject belief in gods.

Atheism is a created oppisition to God.

No, atheism is a reaction to belief in gods, which includes your specific god. It is the rejection of that belief. Nothing more.

 

[mickiel]

No, atheism is a reaction to belief in gods, which includes your specific god. It is the rejection of that belief. Nothing more.

Well we disagree here for sure, rejection of beliefs in Gods, IS a rejection of those Gods. Its the same thing in my view. You reject the concept, your rejecting the existence, your rejecting the God. Without the concept , there would be no God, and in my view, without the rejection of the concept there would be no God. Its two sides of the same coin in my thinking, acceptance and rejection simply wouldnot exist, in this world, without each other.

Atheism and Theism are parts of the same concept. And without God, neither would exist.

Peace.

 

[OneThatGotAway]

Shabbath Shalom,

It's interesting that you say that.

The total energy of the universe is so far observed to be about zero (since potential energy is essentially "negative" and 1 + (-1) = 0).

It's also true that all of mathematics emerges from the null set, which is the set that contains nothing -- indicated by Ø.

However, there is no evidence that the universe "came from nothing" and that's not what I'm asserting. It is likely something has always existed, as implied by the First Law of Thermodynamics and various symmetries.

A God is not excluded, it just isn't necessary to explain anything and so is therefore extraneous. It may or may not be the case, but we can't test for it at this point... so therefore can't worry about it, we worry about what we can test for.

Why do some scientist find God not necessary to explain anything? :angel2:
So far we cannot test everything in the universe; yet we believe that we will someday (not in our life time, though).
We do not daily test our aircraft during flight; but we believe that someone has checked them well. And we have faith that this time they will fly us to our destination.
We as babies were helpless; but we believed and had faith that our parents would not harm us but instead protect and nurture us to healthy adults.
All people exercise their faith and beliefs in someone and something almost everyday; regardless of their religious or non-religious beliefs.

Question: What would you call an alien from outer space who was able to introduce a successfully biosphere (plants, animals, humans, etc.) to a once uninhabited planet:
A god, demi-god, super-human, a smart alien, or something else? And why that title?
:sw:

To put it another way: What is your definition of "god" and "demi-god"?
Please, no sarcasm here; only serious responses. :tsk:

Shalom,

LPH

 

[jarofthoughts]

Well we disagree here for sure, rejection of beliefs in Gods, IS a rejection of those Gods.

Again, you put the horse before the carriage.
Atheism is a rejection of BELIEF in gods, not gods themselves because that implies that said gods exist, which you have yet to show.
It would be like saying (as some theists do) that atheists just HATE god, which is ridiculous. Atheists just don't believe there is a god in the first place.

Its the same thing in my view.

Well, you are wrong.

Without the concept , there would be no God, and in my view, without the rejection of the concept there would be no God.

So, you are saying that humans invented (the concept of) god?
Gottcha.

Its two sides of the same coin in my thinking, acceptance and rejection simply wouldnot exist, in this world, without each other.

No problem there.

Atheism and Theism are parts of the same concept.

Sure.

And without God, neither would exist.

This, you have yet to show.
The one does not logically follow the other.

Look, I'll make it real simple for you.

Let's say that I believe a faerie lives in my closet.
You might reject that belief.
None of which proves neither the existence nor the non-existence of said faerie.
In other words, there is no need for faeries to exist for the concept of faeries to exist and we can freely agree or disagree on the existence of faeries whether they exist or not.

Peace.[/QUOTE]

 

[Peacewise]

God existing is not the same as the belief in God existing.

Atheism exists due to the duality of human thinking, theism exists, therefore atheism exists.

 

[mickiel]

Let's say that I believe a faerie lives in my closet.
You might reject that belief.
None of which proves neither the existence nor the non-existence of said faerie.
In other words, there is no need for faeries to exist for the concept of faeries to exist and we can freely agree or disagree on the existence of faeries whether they exist or not.

Peace.

[/quote]


I hold no intrest in the use of myths in order to support points, and Atheist do this a lot.

Peace.