Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?

BaldJean wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Padraic wrote: Oh, and the answer is yes, it's settled.  You won Mike.  Please move along, nothing to see here. It's kind of ironic that you act just like the religious speakers in the video. I don't see this as a matter of me winning or not. My standpoint is reasonable, while the religious standpoint isn't. There are much more good reasons for not believing in a God, than there are reasons for believing - and if I was wrong about this, religious people would present these reasons ... they certainly had a long time to come up with any. If this seems like an arrogant stance to you - maybe you're right, but I won't sacrifice the truth just for the sake of not offending religious people. you just have the wrong concept of God, that's all. the concept you have of him (you mentioned it in other posts, so I know about it) is indeed not reasonable, but it has nothing whatever to do with what God really is

I don't have any particular concept of God - but of course I usually argue against the Monotheistic/Anthropomorphic God, so I know what you're referring to. But that doesn't mean that I agree with your concept. If one said that "God" is simply the world we live in (including ourselves), then I would agree that it exists - but I would wonder why it should be called "God".

BTW: How can you be so sure that you know what God really is?

thellama73 wrote: A person who has never experienced love might doubt that it exists.

I have experienced love and don't doubt that it exists.  I have experienced religion and don't doubt that it exists and has often been more of engine for bad things than for good.  I won't deny its good moments or ignore its bad ones.

Love on the other hand, well, I'm currently in it and should probably not comment.


Edited by Slartibartfast - July 06 2010 at 12:11

thellama73 wrote: A person who has never experienced love might doubt that it exists. This person might run all sorts of scientific experiments and conclude that there is insufficient evidence for its existence. Alternatively, that person might look at the vast body of art, literature, music and poetry devoted to the subject, and the vast number of intelligent, sober-minded people who claim to have experienced it and conclude that there must be something to it. I tend to fall into the latter category.

Sooo.... about them abducting aliens then... do you think Reg Presley knew what he was talking about when he felt it in his fingers, he felt it in his toes, love was all around him, and so the feeling grows...

Padraic wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Padraic wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Padraic wrote: Oh, and the answer is yes, it's settled.  You won Mike.  Please move along, nothing to see here. It's kind of ironic that you act just like the religious speakers in the video. I don't see this as a matter of me winning or not. My standpoint is reasonable, while the religious standpoint isn't. There are much more good reasons for not believing in a God, than there are reasons for believing - and if I was wrong about this, religious people would present these reasons ... they certainly had a long time to come up with any. If this seems like an arrogant stance to you - maybe you're right, but I won't sacrifice the truth just for the sake of not offending religious people. Funny, I never wrote the word arrogant, in fact all I did was answer the question you put forth. I also did not write anything about taking offense....lot of words being put in my mouth it seems. Are you sure you want this discussion to end? If you think that the discussion is about "me winning" then it should indeed continue, since you haven't yet understood what it's about. My understanding aside, I'm convinced you'd like nothing better than for it to continue.

VERY funny vid, Mike. 

A person who has never experienced love might doubt that it exists. This person might run all sorts of scientific experiments and conclude that there is insufficient evidence for its existence. Alternatively, that person might look at the vast body of art, literature, music and poetry devoted to the subject, and the vast number of intelligent, sober-minded people who claim to have experienced it and conclude that there must be something to it.

I tend to fall into the latter category.


Edited by thellama73 - July 06 2010 at 11:18

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Padraic wrote: Oh, and the answer is yes, it's settled.  You won Mike.  Please move along, nothing to see here. It's kind of ironic that you act just like the religious speakers in the video. I don't see this as a matter of me winning or not. My standpoint is reasonable, while the religious standpoint isn't. There are much more good reasons for not believing in a God, than there are reasons for believing - and if I was wrong about this, religious people would present these reasons ... they certainly had a long time to come up with any. If this seems like an arrogant stance to you - maybe you're right, but I won't sacrifice the truth just for the sake of not offending religious people.

you just have the wrong concept of God, that's all. the concept you have of him (you mentioned it in other posts, so I know about it) is indeed not reasonable, but it has nothing whatever to do with what God really is

Yes, it's settled.

thellama73 wrote: I think this is a rather insulting thread, and this is coming from an agnostic. Obviously theists don't believe their arguments have been thoroughly refuted. Your basic premise in your opening question is "I'm right and you're wrong so what do you think about that?" It doesn't seem like you want to have a real conversation, you just want to make fun of people you view as stupid. All the logic and science in the world is not going to convince a theist that he is wrong, but it's not an issue which is governed by logic. It is one that comes from personal experience. Why don't you let others hold their beliefs, just as you are free to hold yours, without going out of your way to mock them? If you want to make the world a better place, you might start with a little respect for others.

indeed, none of the so-called arguments against the existence of a deity has any more substance than any pro-argument. a non-believer will say "where is he? show him to me!", to which a believer will reply: "open your eyes; he is all around!"
my (and Friede's) personal definition of God, which has evolved from long discussions between the two of us, is this: the world is not made of matter and energy; if it were nothing would happen. no, it is made of processes. each wave and each particle is a process. these processes all interact with each other and form larger processes. some of these processes are self-referential, and some of these processes, like a human being, develop a consciousness. nobody has any idea where this consciousness comes from; it is THE big question of brain scientists.
Friede and I postulate that any sufficiently complex and self-referential process develops, or perhaps a better word here is constitutes, a consciousness. now the most complex process in the world is the universe as a whole, with myriads of sub-processes and lots of self-reference. hence it is only logical to assume that it constitutes a consciousness too, and this consciousness we call "God".  at first glance this appears to be a radically different view of God, but when you think the concept through you will find this is not so at all;


Edited by BaldJean - July 06 2010 at 11:01

A Person wrote: jampa17 wrote: Once the waters remain in calm and the spirit moved over it. Then Mike create a thread and chaos was created... That was very poetic.

Thanks...  I'm not that good in english but well, once in a while I say something for good...