Should Atheists Shut Up about God, since they don't believe in God?

[Troublemane]

what is possible is demonstrable in fact...
you aren't proving anything but how poor your command of the english language is

:bonk:

dude if you arent the perfect example of a complete idiot and complete arse in perfect proportion, you are doing an incredible impersonation thereof! congratz!

 

[Atheologian]

:bonk:

dude if you arent the perfect example of a complete idiot and complete arse in perfect proportion, you are doing an incredible impersonation thereof! congratz!

:troll:

Sure buddy.

 

[Troublemane]

Ok so, who's the flamebaiter here, certainly not me. Im not the one who started using personal attacks.

 

[Atheologian]

that two people will see the same object/event differently depending on their inertial frames of reference.

mystical nonsense? Nope, like I said, you're a troll.

 

[Atheologian]

Theres a huge difference i can see, in that Dianetics/Scientology views the "reactive mind" (what I would call the animal soul) as a 'BAD THING' which must be negated, or at least countered, by using the analytic mind ( the intellect). It seems almost identical to the medieval christian beliefs which lead to witchburnings.

In my experience, meditation is far more open and accepting of the animal soul, not repressive of it. You may say our society is immature in how it deals with our animal nature --either by appealing to it salaciously thru advertisement, or by trying to deny it/villify it thru a religious revival, ----but at least we dont try to erase it, as dianetics does. I mean, isnt it clear the 'reactive mind' is also responsible for very important things like: individual thought, self-preservation, etc. What happens when you try and erase that? Wont you tend to make a person more weak-minded? More easily brainswashed than not?

Meditation is more open and accepting, IMO, of the animal mind in that you allow these thoughts/feelings to arise naturally and you accept them as part of yourself, not as something alien or foreign to you.

When you start to demonize a part of yourself (especially the primal part which keeps you alive) then you are doomed to domination by those who dont have your best interest in mind. Thats my opinion. :angel2:
__________________
"All science is incorporeal, the instrument it uses being the mind, just as the mind employs the body."
---Corpus Hermeticum :ninja:

I do apologise. I didn't realise who I was dealing with. LMAO

 

[Atheologian]

nope, nope and nope. Objectivity requires demonstrable proof, facts, evidence that is objective. Not the possible. Not some strange mystical "frames of reference". Sheesh, is this the result of government-run schools?

I'd ask for a refund on your education, dude. Seriously.

and I'm the mystical weirdo here?

 

[Troublemane]

Ok, thats fine. You cant win an argument by using logic, so you resort to name-calling, personal attacks and other such immature behavior. Im outta here. Good luck to you.

 

[Atheologian]

Ok, thats fine. You cant win an argument by using logic, so you resort to name-calling, personal attacks and other such immature behavior. Im outta here. Good luck to you.

never called you name...
all i did was suggest that for someone who pretends to have the logic of Spoc, some of your posts are pretty funny. Not that, in your frame of reference, that's absolute.

You highjacked my thread a long time ago, if I can get you to leave by being a dick, well, then so be it.
Kind of dissapointing i have to resort to offending you to get my thread back, considering you're staff...

i've been careful not to call you names (other than genius) or say anything too outright offensive, but I don't think it really matters when your original intent was to cause
"Troublemane"

You are very adept at derailing a discussion, I'll give you that.

 

[Atheologian]

I believe that in any conversation where "faith" or "God" is included, concering the welfare of individuals not directly associated with or faithful to that paricular religion or belief, there should be an equal presence of the nonfaithful, and nonreligious.

 

[McBell]

Atheists claim that God does not exist. This goes against everything man has learned about his "soul", or "spirit" and the natural world around us. In a discussion of the nature of God, does an Atheist have anything useful to say? How can you comment on something you don't believe, therefore could not possibly comprehend?

If theists don't want atheists to talk about god, then perhaps the theists should not bring the topic up with atheists.

 

[Atheologian]

If theists don't want atheists to talk about god, then perhaps the theists should not bring the topic up with atheists.

lol what? they didn't hear you :ignore:

I try to tell my boss the same thing. If he doesn't want me to call Jesus a ****** then don't tell me to find him anymore. I don't generally even have a problem with conversations about God with people that do believe, but occasionally you meet the guy that won't shut up about saving your lost soul. I'm tired of the pamphlets he puts on my clipboard too.
About the first month I worked there, He would read the bible on lunch, out loud, and the lady that worked with us would listen even though she told me it bothered her. She said that belonged in church, and I agreed with her. I asked him nicely to stop, and I DO mean nicely, I even tried to make up an excuse about needing to concentrate to study. This isn't actually a problem, because as any christian theist will tell you, as an atheist I'm good at ignoring the bible. He got ****** and slammed his bible when the lady finally told him she didn't want to hear it either. Now he's on a friggen mission.


Not exactly what I meant by a discussion of God, but this is a good point. I thing MOST atheists, and probably most theists too, are pretty careful about not pushing their beliefs on others, but you'll have exceptions I'm sure.

 

[Troublemane]

Ok dude I think i can concede your point about the speed of light being considered an "absolute", as i see now from your usage of the term, when you said "People will see the same thing" you meant (i think from the context) in reference only to measurements of the speed of light. I thought, when you said "People see the same thing" you were referring to the phenomena, such as the movement of clocks or how person A will see a sequence of events the same as person B, when A and B are going different speeds relative to light, etc. But I can definitely see in hindsight that you were referring only to the speed of light measurement.

But ya gotta give me the point that relativity does not mean any sort of absolute. The whole theory of relativity is that there is no such perspective which exists independent of our observations which is itself perfect/at rest etc, from which all other frames of reference may be calculated. I mean, come on. Without any insults about my command of the english language,etc. You gotta give me that, its what the entire theory is based on. Thats what the word means, RELATIVITY.

But can you at least find the irony in that you are willing to argue til you are blue in the mouth about an "absolute idea" which is unchanging and the same for everybody, and yet you claim to be an atheist. And here i am a panentheist, arguing the side of objectivity. I hope you can at least see the humor in that! :trampo:

 

[Atheologian]

Ok dude I think i can concede your point about the speed of light being considered an "absolute", as i see now from your usage of the term, when you said "People will see the same thing" you meant (i think from the context) in reference only to measurements of the speed of light. I thought, when you said "People see the same thing" you were referring to the phenomena, such as the movement of clocks or how person A will see a sequence of events the same as person B, when A and B are going different speeds relative to light, etc. But I can definitely see in hindsight that you were referring only to the speed of light measurement.

But ya gotta give me the point that relativity does not mean any sort of absolute. The whole theory of relativity is that there is no such perspective which exists independent of our observations which is itself perfect/at rest etc, from which all other frames of reference may be calculated. I mean, come on. Without any insults about my command of the english language,etc. You gotta give me that, its what the entire theory is based on. Thats what the word means, RELATIVITY.

But can you at least find the irony in that you are willing to argue til you are blue in the mouth about an "absolute idea" which is unchanging and the same for everybody, and yet you claim to be an atheist. And here i am a panentheist, arguing the side of objectivity. I hope you can at least see the humor in that! :trampo:

Don't sweat it, I think arguing the other side is an excersize in logic. :soccerlus im stubborn...

Yeah, I have to acknowledge that the theory of realtivity does not imply that anything is absolute. I definitely should have been more specific. Looking back I was dealing more directly with time dialation. I was thinking of measuring long distances by the speed of light due to measurements of space and time being relative. Like if you traveled 10 light years away at .8 C, or 12.5 years away, the trip would only actually take you 7 and a half years, while 12.5 years would have passed on Earth. The speed of light didn't change, it's just that time and distance were measured relative to it.