Ever notice how atheists are virtually always on the opposite side from God on many issues?

[Secret Chief]

Maybe you're an ape, but not me.

You'd hate being in a high school science class. Which is probably why you seem to have skipped them or else kept your fingers in your ears.

 

[Mock Turtle]

The laws of science are factual, precise, predictable and have been invaluable for man to survive on this planet - because God architected it so.
My problem is not at all with science, but with myopic scientists who are incapable of drawing accurate conclusions based on the evidence before them.
It is the dilemma that exists between scientific fact and explanation, that separates the discerning mind from the blind and foolish secularist.
Both appreciate the significance of science, and employ it within their investigation. But one is limited to it and can't see beyond it, while the other understands that scientific laws and principles themselves are not random, and are derived from a greater mechanism and design.

For the 'blind and foolish secularist' one might replace this with 'blind and foolish religious believer' - given they don't all have the same concepts regarding this. But where the secularists generally have less reason to be so divisive.

Until you show some appreciation of science - and we know it isn't all true or factual - then you will be dismissed as simply having such a negative attitude so as to defend your particular religious beliefs - and which generally is known as bigotry or bias.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Maybe you're an ape, but not me. Maybe you and your cohorts are, but not myself.

You seem to find the thought offensive. That's your Abrahamic exceptionalism speaking through you. You were taught that you are a radically different kind of thing than the beasts because only man was made in God's image and imbued with a soul.

Here's a discussion of that from a blog, which includes the line, "my father-in-law found the idea of a primate ancestor thoroughly disgusting and rejected it, unwilling to believe he descended from “a monkey’s uncle.” If you saw the movie Inherit The Wind, you saw this meme coming from the prosecution.

You used to be a baby, too. You were completely self-centered, you had no empathy, no moral code, you cried whenever you didn't get what you wanted, you spit up on your clothes, you threw food, and you soiled your diapers. Does that offend you? Probably not. It's just a fact, like man being an ape is.

Being an ape isn't like being a Christian or a sports fan. It isn't something we choose or can opt out of. You're an ape because your forebears have all been apes for as long as apes have existed. And mammals. And vertebrates. And animals. So are your children and all future generations that descend from them.

 

[Father Heathen]

Maybe you're an ape, but not me.

Then you should forfeit your opposable thumbs.

 

[Windwalker]

Then you should forfeit your opposable thumbs.

That's too funny, and perfectly true. However, I think they'd only be able to manage cutting off one thumb in an effort to deny their family heritage. They wouldn't be able to hold the knife in the "non-ape" hand anymore in order to make their remaining "ape" hand ape-free.

So they'd just be stuck with a constant reminder of what a moron they were to do that to themselves because they hate the fact God made them as part of the primate family tree. Talk about ungrateful. Blaming God for the family they were born into.

 

[Windwalker]

I hear the word "transcend" used a lot. Sometimes it seems appropriate and otehr times not. I suggest that what any person experiences in a way that moves them towards a more balanced living state is transcending. A bigot having an experience where they realize they might be wrong is transcending.

When I'm using that term for the most part, the context generally means it in this dictionary definition: "being beyond ordinary or common experience, thought, or belief; supernatural." Finding balance is correcting things on a horizontal plane, whereas transcending is a vertical move to a new reality.

For the most part, if you see me use it, read the context. I probably am referring to something like Enlightenment, and not in a more mundane sense of "transcending" one's old habits. But I may use it to mean basic growth as well. For example, a 50 year old's perspective of the world transcends, moves higher than that of a 20 year old's. The entire world looks different.

That's much different than just re-arranging the furniture on the same floor of the building in order to find better balance or function or use of the space (as in your example). That's leaving that floor and moving up to a higher one, or "transcending that level". It's much more about a level-shift, than finding balance.

I don't think there is any ideal or absolute state that can be called "deep" and awakened.

My experience tells me absolutely otherwise. As does the experience of others who through practice or luck have opened to the nature of Absolute Reality. It's also obvious in smaller degrees anytime someone has a shift in consciousness that reveals to them there is so vastly, or infinitely more depth of Beauty to this world that the human mind can possibly hope to penetrate. To those who don't believe that exists, I feel sadness.

“The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom the emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand wrapped in awe, is as good as dead —his eyes are closed. The insight into the mystery of life, coupled though it be with fear, has also given rise to religion. To know what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their most primitive forms—this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.”​

​

- Albert Einstein, Living Philosophies​

Yes, it really exists, and it is a state of the most profound depth beyond imagination.

One person's journey might not be what some other's needs to be.

Very true. Though I do believe that ultimately we are drawn towards that same Source. "Many paths lead from the foot of the mountain, but at its peak we all gaze at the single bright moon", said the Zen poet monk from the 14th century.

And as far as transcending goes, I suggest atheists have transcended the need to employ the word and meanings of "god" in life, and this is due to certain natural and invested elements of their being.

What I would say is transcending for some atheists, is the shift away from mythic-literalism, to rationality as the primary mode of consciousness. That is a transcending of different levels, not simply rearranging the furniture around in the same floor.

BUT, as I've said, it's not atheism that is the indicator of that change in altitude. It's not what they believe in, but HOW they believe in whatever they believe in that shows whether they have transcended, or merely changed beliefs, but still approaching them the exact same way.

You absolutely can and do see the same black and white, fundamentalist thought in atheists as you do in religionists. They're still on the same floor. You can have both 12 year old atheists and 12 year old theists, in other words. It's not like you only become 18 by becoming an atheist. You transcend only by growing up, not by simply changing a belief.

No doubt atheists can cut off any talk of spirituality pretty fast.

Yes. And in so doing, they betray they are not actually being as rational as they suppose. "It can't be that, because we all know there is nothing to that! It's all hogwash". That sort of cynicism is not true skepticism. It's cynicism, as I've accurately pointed out many times.

I do the same myself in these debates. Believers have learned to be stealthy and tricky, moving goalposts and changing definitions, etc. I think it is OK in debate to be wary of the many, mnay dubious claims that believers make, especially when they try to assert fals ethings about non-believers.

Here's the problem, I've heard this 'rational' complaint leveled against me that I'm being unnecessarily vague, wishy-washy, moving the goalposts, changing definitions, and whatnot. But what I find is instead that the other person is simply uncomfortable with complexity and subtlety and nuance.

They are disturbed to face a reality that is looked at in any sort of abstractions, and try to make reality black and white, true or false reality, and invariably point to things like gravity, or basic math like 2+2=4, and other such oversimplifications of reality, as if that prove a point. They want talk of "God" to be clearly defined and explained, so that it can be examined objectively outside oneself as if it were an object in nature. And then when I point this out how it doesn't work this way, they start with accusing me of being all of those things, wishy-washy, and the like.

It is actually their issue with non-concrete reality that is the problem.

Even among atheists the people have different personalities and experiences. In any event they don't need to use mental images of a God to find meaning in their lives. How this threatens some believers is ironic.

I can easily say the things I say threatens both theists and atheists alike who are comfortable defining ultimate reality in their own respective ways.

If they are so tapped into some higher wisdom why aren't they acting like it?

That's the argument I use all the time with them. "Where's the beef?" I can always tell the difference between someone who has a belief, and someone who has an experience. That holds as true for the theist an it does for the atheist.

And that defines how I assess how much the person actually understands, or not, regardless of what it is the profess to believe.

Could it be they mindlessly bought into some dogma they learned in their social experience and are lost within those beliefs, and were never taught to look beyond what they were told is true?

Most likely.

I have said "I'm not a Christian, but I live like one." That was generally in response to some sort of "True Christian" who was really a shallow dogmatist.

I like that a lot. I might use that myself as it's simpler. But I don't like to say I am or am not a Christian anymore, since what does that really mean anyway? I sometimes say is as, "I'm not not-a-Christian".

In other words, I follow the attitudes and teachings that Jesus taught, but I don't care to be religious and make living that spiritual life be about that. I'd rather just be it, than name it.

Look at the title of this thread, this title doesn't suggest a believer is wise and balanced, it suggests they are frightened and feel atheists are a threat.

But let's not overlook the countless threads that atheists make showing a narrow, fearful view of theism as well. It goes both ways. Clearly many atheists feel threatened by theism, or the idea of God at least.

The threat is how reason can challenge their irrational beliefs, and they have some awareness of the dubious nature of their beliefs, as otherwise they would be reacting this way. You don't feel afraid unless you think the threat is real.

That's very true. But it is also very true for atheists as well who, as I've pointed out, knee-jerk against any hint at God belief and automatically dismiss it out of hand. That's a fear reaction too. Neither are truly being rational. Both feel threatened.

Assuming there is a "language of God" that isn't invented by fallible mortals.

What I meant was that I use the "word" God, not language in the sense of a system. Although, I do find the poetry of that as a language system to be better at speaking of the Transcendent (capitalized T, meaning Ultimate Reality), than the language of science and reason.

There is a true and valid reason the term Ineffable is used. It means it is an experience of reality that is literally beyond words, beyond languaging, beyond defining, beyond objectifying.

To my mind they are saying the ideas are beyond critique and question, which isn't true.

While that can be an excuse and an escape, it can also be because a true transcendent reality, beyond the mundane, beyond words, cannot be penetrated using the tools of logic and reason. And that is itself, entirely rational and reasonable to accept as truth.

I suggest it is necessary to question anything a religious person claims is true, especially when they try to expoit an authority via the baggage of the word "God".

I agree. I will not let any believer hide behind their own beliefs and claim, "It's not my words, but God's words!". Bull****. It is their ideas of what they think and believe about God that is what they need to be held responsible for. They don't get to excuse themselves like that.

Krishnamurti talked about humans assigning meaning to mental images and objects, and he said it is OK as long as the person is completely aware of what they are doing, because only then to they have freedom over their mind's chatter.

I like J. Krishnamurti. Nice you are familiar with him. I agree with this, but maybe might quality it a bit more.

He talked a lot about a person managing their mind and thoughts, and was critical of the robotic believing that so many learn via social experience. It's frightening to leave the security of belief, and it requires the self be accountable and responsible, and not all have that confidence.

I very much agree. That's why I've said, for many, atheism can in fact be a spiritual step forward.

 

[Ostronomos]

What makes them "axioms"? That Christopher Langan has pronounced them such?


That's just replacing "reality" with "exist" and hence "existence". Doesn't look very informative to me unless you can give some persuasive account of what 'existence' is. (I don't think you can.)

Where does your axiom leave propositions about the past (and controversially, the future)? What about modal stuff like possibilities?

'If I drop this glass, it will probably break.' What are we to make of statements like that, which seemingly can be true, even if the glass is never dropped? (That raises the issue of whether there might be 'laws of physics' that have never been manifested, since the necessary conditions for that manifestation have never pertained. Suitable energies or whatever.)

What are we to make of propositions like 'There are no scissors in my drawer'? The absence of scissors in the drawer would seem to be real even though it's the non-existence of something there rather than the existence that makes it true.



That looks like a category error. It isn't reality that's reduced to axioms, it isn't even statements about reality. Axioms would only seem to apply to deductive inferences based on some of those statements. They are just the assumptions upon which we base the inference.



Maybe. One word 'reality' encompasses everything that exists (or used to exist or might exist, or something). But why must we assume that the word 'reality' names some quasi-divine existent? Maybe reality is simply an abstract set that collects together a multitude of things.


Isn't that circular?



Maybe. I guess that it appears to behave in accordance with logic as far as we are concerned.


How does that follow? Isn't there a hidden premise in there that anything that is logical must be a mind? That's going to be hard to justify I think. You would be on a stronger footing if you just said 'Reality is therefore orderly'.


You haven't convinced me, Ostro.

Reality is dictated by logic. Otherwise, distinctions could not be made. Now do you see the obvious correspondence between reality and logic? The mind part was a bit ambiguous.

 

[Ostronomos]

Construction​

Prominent among the tools of epistemology are the axiomatic method (associated with rationalism, deduction, and mathematics), and the scientific method (associated with empiricism, induction, and the physical sciences). The axiomatic method derives theorems from axioms, but if different axioms are chosen, then contrary theorems can be obtained (consider Euclidean vs. non-Euclidean geometry). The scientific method infers laws from observations, but future observations can break these laws (creating the problem of induction). Such methodological limitations seem to suggest that all knowledge is relative: to axioms which may not characterize our reality, or to observations which give only a partial view of the world.

The CTMU is an attempt to circumvent these limitations and achieve absolute knowledge. Langan writes:

Axioms​

Langan defines reality as "the perceptual aggregate including (1) all scientific observations that ever were and ever will be, and (2) the entire abstract and/or cognitive explanatory infrastructure of perception".[27] That is, reality consists of (1) our perceptions, and (2) everything relevant to explaining them. In short, reality is defined on relevance to perception.

The three metalogical principles used in the CTMU to relate logic to reality (see previous section) are:

• Metaphysical Autology Principle (associated with closure), or MAP
• Mind Equals Reality Principle (associated with comprehensiveness), or M=R
• Multiplex Unity Principle (associated with consistency), or MU

Langan calls these principles and properties the Three Ms and Three Cs. They can be viewed as axioms of the CTMU, with the caveat that they are not meant to be assumptions, but analytic truths necessarily modeled by reality as a condition of its existence.

MAP says that reality is closed with respect to all internally relevant operations.[28] In other words, everything essential to reality, including everything needed to describe or explain it, is contained in reality itself. This makes reality self-contained. MAP is implied by the definition of reality: were anything outside of reality needed to explain it, it would then be relevant to reality and therefore inside reality by definition.

M=R says that mind and reality are ultimately inseparable to the extent that they share common rules of structure and processing.[29] In particular, (a) reality is comprehensive with respect to mind (our minds are part of reality), and (b) reality conforms to the categories of mind.[30] M=R follows, argues Langan, from the definition of reality. On one hand, mind is included in reality by perceptual relevance. On the other hand, mind acts as a filter: that which does not conform to mental categories is irrelevant to perception, and therefore excluded from reality by definition.

MU says that reality is consistent by virtue of the mutually inclusive relationship between itself (unity) and its contents (multiplicity).[31] Each part of reality contains a description of the whole, in the form of a common set of structural and functional rules. These rules allow the parts to consistently interact. The consistency of reality is implied, Langan argues, by the stability of perception: a single irresolvable paradox of the form "A = not-A" would destroy the information content of reality, making it impossible to perceive.

Origins​

Questions like "why and how does reality exist?" and "why does this reality exist instead of some other reality?" are typically answered in one of two ways:

1. Reality "just exists", and no further explanation is needed or can be given.
2. Reality exists due to the influence of something outside of it, an external creator.

Langan opposes both views, arguing that were reality to lack an explanation, it would lack the structure needed to enforce its own consistency, whereas for an external creator to create reality, the creator itself would have to be real, and therefore inside reality by definition, contradicting the premise.[32]

The CTMU treats the origin of reality in the context of freedom and constraint. Concepts are defined by constraints specifying their structure, and structure requires explanation. Consequently, Langan argues, every concept requires explanation except the "terminal concept" with no constraints, and no structure to explain. In the CTMU, this terminal concept or "ontological groundstate" is called "unbound telesis" or UBT.[33]

Because UBT is a medium of pure potential, everything is possible within it. This means that anything which is able to "recognize itself" as existing, will in fact exist from its own vantage. However, the requirements for doing so are, asserts Langan, more stringent than is normally supposed. Because UBT is unstructured, the only possibilities which can actualize from it are those with sufficient internal structure to create and configure themselves. So in the CTMU, reality, rather than being uncaused or externally caused, is self-caused, and constrained by the structure it needs to create and configure itself, that of SCSPL.

The above reasoning, holds Langan, resolves the ex nihilo or "something-from-nothing" paradox. The paradox arises when "nothing" is taken to exclude not just "something", but the potential for "something". Because exclusion of potential is a constraint, "nothing" in this sense requires its own explanation, and cannot serve as an ontological groundstate. But when "nothing" is viewed as unconstrained potential or UBT,[34] asserts Langan, reality arises inevitably from it.

From link: Cognitive-Theoretic Model of the Universe - CTMU Wiki

 

[DNB]

Yes. Hence your subsequent post contradicted the first.

Are you getting pedantic?

 

[DNB]

You'd hate being in a high school science class. Which is probably why you seem to have skipped them or else kept your fingers in your ears.

Sounds like the sentiments of an ape.

 

[DNB]

For the 'blind and foolish secularist' one might replace this with 'blind and foolish religious believer' - given they don't all have the same concepts regarding this. But where the secularists generally have less reason to be so divisive.

Until you show some appreciation of science - and we know it isn't all true or factual - then you will be dismissed as simply having such a negative attitude so as to defend your particular religious beliefs - and which generally is known as bigotry or bias.

I don't know why I'm wasting my time with you:

All science is factual, unless God intervenes and circumvents His own laws, which He has done many times on occasion.
That is, the laws are constants, solid and reliable. Whether or not man has discerned them correctly, and ascribed incorrect principles to a particular phenomenon, then his science is flawed.
But, when one has obtained a true science, which is the endeavour of most scientists - to gain accurate knowledge, then science is at the disposal of all for their betterment of life.
But, when man divorces the Creator of science from the laws, and fails to appreciate the significance behind them, we end up with nuclear weapons, failed and expensive moon shots, a contaminated planet and atmosphere, premature disease and injury, and a misguided affection towards the material and mechanic.

Science is for man's use to survive on earth, it does not take the place of the Architect of all life and physical entities on earth - there would be nothing to investigate or conclude if it wasn't for God.

 

[DNB]

You seem to find the thought offensive. That's your Abrahamic exceptionalism speaking through you. You were taught that you are a radically different kind of thing than the beasts because only man was made in God's image and imbued with a soul.

Here's a discussion of that from a blog, which includes the line, "my father-in-law found the idea of a primate ancestor thoroughly disgusting and rejected it, unwilling to believe he descended from “a monkey’s uncle.” If you saw the movie Inherit The Wind, you saw this meme coming from the prosecution.

You used to be a baby, too. You were completely self-centered, you had no empathy, no moral code, you cried whenever you didn't get what you wanted, you spit up on your clothes, you threw food, and you soiled your diapers. Does that offend you? Probably not. It's just a fact, like man being an ape is.

Being an ape isn't like being a Christian or a sports fan. It isn't something we choose or can opt out of. You're an ape because your forebears have all been apes for as long as apes have existed. And mammals. And vertebrates. And animals. So are your children and all future generations that descend from them.

You may speak of your own ancestry, which, I agree, you sound like you are a descendent from an ape. But, you are entirely oblivious as to my genealogy.

 

[DNB]

Then you should forfeit your opposable thumbs.

There you have it, the irrefutable evidence: opposable thumbs.
Nothing else to prove the disparity in ontology that exists between humans and apes, or any other non human on the planet?
No, we're related simply because we share the same skeletal hand structure, or that this is a vestige of our previous constitution.

You don't see any differences between humans and all other creatures that necessitate the fact that we are not related?
Have you ever heard of a god-fearing monkey, a Buddhist orangutan, a Zoroastrian donkey, an eagle priest or shaman?
How about a dog with a crucifix around its neck, or a fish with a burka on its head?

 

[F1fan]

You may speak of your own ancestry, which, I agree, you sound like you are a descendent from an ape. But, you are entirely oblivious as to my genealogy.

Was it a celebrity ape?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

You seem to find the thought offensive. That's your Abrahamic exceptionalism speaking through you. You were taught that you are a radically different kind of thing than the beasts because only man was made in God's image and imbued with a soul.

Here's a discussion of that from a blog, which includes the line, "my father-in-law found the idea of a primate ancestor thoroughly disgusting and rejected it, unwilling to believe he descended from “a monkey’s uncle.” If you saw the movie Inherit The Wind, you saw this meme coming from the prosecution.

You used to be a baby, too. You were completely self-centered, you had no empathy, no moral code, you cried whenever you didn't get what you wanted, you spit up on your clothes, you threw food, and you soiled your diapers. Does that offend you? Probably not. It's just a fact, like man being an ape is.

Being an ape isn't like being a Christian or a sports fan. It isn't something we choose or can opt out of. You're an ape because your forebears have all been apes for as long as apes have existed. And mammals. And vertebrates. And animals. So are your children and all future generations that descend from them.

In my opinion, believing in evolution is more reasonable than believing that a god created a man from dirt, breathed air into him and made him alive, created a woman from this man's rib, and that a talking serpent deceived both the man and the woman into disobeying the god by taking a bite of a forbidden fruit from a magical tree of life. That's not to mention the part of the creation story in which the rest of humanity is claimed to be descended from these two individuals. In comparison, believing that human beings evolved from an ancient primate ancestor doesn't seem so unreasonable to me.

 

[F1fan]

In my opinion, believing in evolution is more reasonable than believing that a god created a man from dirt, breathed air into him and made him alive, created a woman from this man's rib, and that a talking serpent deceived both the man and the woman into disobeying the god by taking a bite of a forbidden fruit from a magical tree of life. That's not to mention the part of the creation story in which the rest of humanity is claimed to be descended from these two individuals. In comparison, believing that human beings evolved from an ancient primate ancestor doesn't seem so unreasonable to me.

And then a Fall that resulted in genetic defects and cancers that even affect children. How fair is Downs Syndrome to a child and parents? Bang up job there God.

 

[Valjean]

I would never for a second convert to the evils of atheism. *Staff Edit*

What are these evils of atheism? What constitutes evil, to you?

It only further proves that you have a hidden agenda of evil, which leads me to ask, are you part of the AF cult of evil atheists who tried to prove materialism until they were defeated in argument?

Material reality is pretty well evidenced, but how do you support this immaterial, spiritual realty? What makes it real if it's undetectable and based only on feelings of incredulity?

Another example of your attempt to undermine the fact that God is real, in spite of my noble attempt to prove it in the caps lock above.

My belief in God does not rest on mere faith, but logic and empiricism. Your belief in atheism rests on faith, not logic. If you tell me otherwise, then I would know your intent is malicious. Of this I am 100% certain.

No, your five supports either don't follow or have repeatedly been debunked. If they any were really valid they'd be accepted universally, would they not?
We've explained dozens of times why atheism is reasonable and theism unfounded. How do you refute our points?

You appear to be targeting me because you know I am a threat to the false worldview of atheism. *Staff Edit*

I doubt it. Your reasoning is so clearly flawed that it's a threat to no reasonable person.

And how is atheism a worldview?

 

[Valjean]

Well, there you have it - the comprehension between those that believe that we came from monkeys, and those whose thoughts are able to transcend the secular and physical realms.

To a mythological realm?
What actual evidence is there for this mythology?

 

[Valjean]

Maybe you're an ape, but not me.

In what way do you differ from the taxonomic definition of "ape?"

The laws of science are factual, precise, predictable and have been invaluable for man to survive on this planet - because God architected it so.

You have no valid evidence of this. It's a mere claim.

My problem is not at all with science, but with myopic scientists who are incapable of drawing accurate conclusions based on the evidence before them.
It is the dilemma that exists between scientific fact and explanation, that separates the discerning mind from the blind and foolish secularist.
Both appreciate the significance of science, and employ it within their investigation. But one is limited to it and can't see beyond it, while the other understands that scientific laws and principles themselves are not random, and are derived from a greater mechanism and design.

How are scientists myopic? You claim goddidit, but offer no evidence.
If there were evidence it would be accepted by scientists.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sounds like the sentiments of an ape.

Of a human? Yes. I do wish that you would state what you think that you are since you deny being a human.