The very concept of atheism can be polarizing, so there is a greater need for conversational tact.(please log in to view the image)(please log in to view the image)(please log in to view the image)(please log in to view the image)(please log in to view the image)
If you say so. You can't wish away things without making sense though.
Everything's debatable, but you misunderstand what empiricism is.
What's your favorite meal? Maybe it's lunch. And maybe mine is dinner. Subjective.
What is the reading on that instrument over their? How many kilograms do you weigh? How many beats per minute is that metronome? You, me, or anyone on the planet will arrive at the same conclusions. That's objective, empirical.
You can disagree that we have a scientific explanation for much that you attribute to the divine. It's debatable, as you say. But you're not working with facts.
So then how do you know anything either? See, there's the crux. We can't be 100% certain of anything. Fine, accepted. But if you use that to say we can know nothing, there's where we have a difference of opinion.
Second, that same fallibility applies to you and your faith. In damning anyone's beliefs, you damn your own.
You could deny it, but you'd be pretty dumb to. We have mountains of evidence that it DOES exist in the sky (or space, rather). But of course, you believe the sun is up there. But this same logic could apply to, say, evolution. Mountains of evidence, and zero against it. Or rather, the only evidence against it is about precisely how it happens, not whether or not it happens at all.
Anyway, science deals in provisional likelihoods. Not absolutes. Facts conform to the evidence, but are never unassailable. That's what no one understands about science. The power is in the adaptability.
I respect everyone's right to believe what they want. Disagreement isn't disrespect. In fact, it's very respectful, because I believe in a marketplace of ideas and the right to call other peoples' beliefs bullsh*t. I'll defend your right to have those beliefs, but I'll also defend the rights of others to say they're wrong.
Anyway, you think life is a video game? You don't believe it's real?! You're a Christian, right? Or are you trying to twist it into one of those "faith is the only true knowledge" arguments?
I'm familiar with the argument. But what's your point? That everything can be disagreed with, and some people think differently than others? Not exactly a revolutionary concept. You just spent a few posts pretending to debunk my stance with another stance you disagree with. I'm not sure we're you're trying to take this.
I'm not an absolutist either, btw, at least in the sense that I don't think our knowledge is infallible. But that doesn't mean we can't work toward the truth. That's what reason, logic, scientific inquiry, etc. are all about. We have a better understanding of the universe around us because of it. And we know that it works, because we can observe and apply what we know. If physics didn't follow some basic mathematical principles, we wouldn't have flight. Or a thousand other inventions and discoveries that require a causal, logical universe to function, which we can discover and learn as empirical truths (albeit provisional, not dogmatic) via repeated experimentation, observation, and application.
Logic—by, of, and in itself—is a phenomenon to me, just like cause and effect, mathematics, truth, scientific inquiry, and physics.
The fact that these abstract concepts, verities, or realities coexist in the same space-time construct seem indicative of design, purpose, intention, and will—as opposed to randomness or serendipity.
The very laws or principles if you will that you, me, and others use to arrive at an answer or result are predictable, reliable, sure—and work every time without fail.
Furthermore, mathematics, physics, logic, cause and effect, etc. can be applied to many things to form what we call a logical conclusion.
What I am trying to say is do you believe that logic exists of its own accord or is it the product of a source?
If so, then it follows that everything produces according to its kind (or creator).
Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, cause produces effect, mathematics produces an algorithm, logic produces reason, the scientific method produces a logical conclusion, humans produce humans, horses produce horses, trees produce trees, so it stands to reason that this universe, this earth, all that exists came from an original source, prime mover, or creator.
This is the logical conclusion based on the fact that nothing in this natural, physical world can create itself.
I did not create myself. You did not create yourself. Your parents did not create themselves. My parents did not create themselves etc.
Everything in this natural world and universe obeys the law of cause and effect, and its other concomitant laws like logic, physics, reason, and mathematics in some capacity, no matter how small.
I'm sorry I just kind of find it difficult to take a comedian's viewpoint as definitive.
Richard Dawkins did a better job. Though, he wasn't as comical. But that's not his way.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
Last edited by KillaKassara on Sep 7th, 2013 at 04:04 AM
Ah, the Watchmaker argument. Ok, now we're on the same page.
I disagree, of course. The universe suggests nothing like your God, by any rule or law. But there are others who have handled this particular argument more thoroughly and eloquently than I could. Here's the first 5-6 results of a google search, if you're interested:
I don't believe in the miracles in the Bible, Noah's arc I don't take literally, Samson I don't take literally. I do believe there was a man named Jesus who changed the world. I don't believe in the supernatural, I am very grounded in the physical laws in the universe I don't think God would directly manipulate events in that way. But I do believe in providence through nature, I believe in God.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
Last edited by KillaKassara on Sep 7th, 2013 at 10:08 PM
Not if he didn't exist.lol You're commenting on how religion and the people practicing Christianity perpetuated his change. That is very true.
Even so, to instill an idea the way he did, he must have been sup-par to a normal person. I believe he was very religious, but most of what he did was driven by him being a political cynic. Think, Libertarian. He challenged the belief structure of the wealthy and powerful, he challenged authority, hierarchy, he would have been a nightmare for Andrew Carnegie.
Without people willing to sacrifice themselves, willing to stand up for their beliefs and give up everything for them, society will remain as uncivil as it was before they decided to meddle in the affairs of the rich and powerful. An uncivilized society is not conducive of evolution. But because of our physiology, we can only be so civil. Humans have to end, I believe, but I don't believe that intelligence should end or that humanity's end should be anything less than euphoric.
See, The Technological Singularity. And the Technological Singularity will result in a Holy War to end All War. And society WILL decline as long as there are humans, Stephen Hawking says we have 90 years to get off earth before population and nations: Before people in general start getting fed up with the global economy and humanity's inability to fix things and kill all life on earth. We have the technology to end life.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
Last edited by KillaKassara on Sep 7th, 2013 at 10:20 PM
Those last two seem to contradict one another. You don't believe in the supernatural, and think the physical laws of the universe determine its course. But you believe in "providence through nature."
What is providence through nature? How is it any different than the causal laws of the universe? And if it's different than causal laws, how does it work around them or supersede them?
Basically, if you think God works outside physical laws for this providence, you do believe in the supernatural. If you don't think he does that, and maybe you think God IS nature, then there's no need for God at that point. You're adding a superfluous divinity to what can be explained without it.
I think that by understanding existence for what it is, life is never dull. There's real poetry in the real world. There's real meaning in the cosmic scheme of things. Everything is a miracle of God. People like Jesus have a divine purpose.
__________________ "Compounding these trickster aspects, the Joker ethos is verbally explicated as such by his psychiatrist, who describes his madness as "super-sanity." Where "sanity" previously suggested acquiescence with cultural codes, the addition of "super" implies that this common "sanity" has been replaced by a superior form, in which perception and processing are completely ungoverned and unconstrained"
Last edited by KillaKassara on Sep 7th, 2013 at 10:41 PM
Sep 4th, 2013 06:32 AM
