This is my first post to this group, and I hope an interesting one.
First, let me explain what I mean by the title of the post. When I
say Atheists are "only" 97% correct, it is first and foremost an
attempt to bypass the ridiculous and frivolous topics that most
religious people promote. I'm not here to do that. I am not a
Creationist, bigot, fundamentalist, or any similar such thing. In
approximately 97% of the topics under discussion here, I will side
with the non-theist. However, I still believe that "God" can exist
(despite 10 years of Catholic education and 40 years of Catholic
upbringing). Here's why:
1) The Holistic Nature of Reality
Athiests, and most Western thinkers, as a generality, follow
reductionist reasoning. They believe the whole is no greater than the
sum of its parts. But we know this is not true. For example, a
reductionist would never deduce the reality of "consciousness" by
studying a single brain cell, or even a billion brain cells. The
interactions are just too complex. There are numerous examples of
this in the world.
Atheists tend to deny the existence of God based on reductionistic
thinking. My personal (current) belief is that, when you consider the
vast nature of reality and the holistic interactions thereof, it is
possible that God can exist. I'm not saying he or she does, I'm
saying its possible.
To me, this fits, at least to the point where I can justify calling
myself Catholic without being too hypocritical, in that God can know
we exist and care about our well-being similar to how we know and care
about the well-being of the cells in our bodies. I don't want my
brain cells to have bad things happen to them, and if I could interact
directly in some way with them, I would. But I can't, so I don't, and
by my analogy therfore, evil can exist in the world. This is also how
I justify praying. Perhaps by praying I somehow influence or
'connect' with this higher being, just as a cell in my body can, in a
very primitive and limited way, interact with my conscious self.
Plus, the more 'cells' that attempt this, the more probable the
connection - you know, the "two or more of you gathered in his name"
deal. OK, so its a stretch, and I admit it, but at least I am trying
to justify my belief in God with a rational process.
2) The Vast Complexities of our Reality
If you think, as most Atheists do, that the complexity of our universe
arose randomly by chance, I think you are not really considering the
facts. I'm not talking about the silly stuff like Intelligent
Design. I'm talking about the real challenges to the non-theist such
as the anthropic principle and to a lesser extent, abiogenesis. I
won't discuss these items in detail as I'm sure others can do the
concepts more justice. Nor am saying that God must exist because of
these observations, or that there is no scientific basis for the
creation of life or our universe. Far from it. I am very open to the
idea. However, my point is that regarding these concepts, I think it
is clear that the non-theist has the tougher side of the argument than
the theist.
3) The Santa Claus Principle
Atheists will compare belief in God to belief in Santa Claus. This
tends to drive religious people crazy. But here's the thing. It's
true. They're right. I not only do not deny this, I embrace it. But
here's the caveat. My belief in God is akin to a young child's belief
in Santa Claus. Just as I feel a childhood experience is far more
robust and enjoyable by believing in Santa Claus (especially in
December), so is my and my loved one's life experience better through
belief in God.
In other words, I know God may not exist, and perhaps probably
doesn't. But I maintain that belief in God is not only beneficial for
myself, but especially my family. Specifically, several studies have
shown that a family with a religous foundation is more stable than one
without. Religion binds a family together. That's the primary reason
I continue to promote Catholicism to my children, although it pains me
quite often to do so. And yes, I will kick and scream and vomit when
I hear the things that Catholics say and do. I strongly disagree with
many Catholic/Christian/religious principles. Many. But let's face
it, life can be hard; and in my experience, there are times when
having a religious foundation brings comfort.
Anyway, I hope the above thoughts are provoking. Thanks for
listening.
On Nov 5, 9:06 pm, Janon <janon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 1) The Holistic Nature of Reality
> Athiests, and most Western thinkers, as a generality, follow
> reductionist reasoning. They believe the whole is no greater than the
> sum of its parts.
I don't think this is true. Reductionism is a powerful investigative
tool, but I don't know of anyone who denies the existence of emergent
properties.
> But we know this is not true. For example, a
> reductionist would never deduce the reality of "consciousness" by
> studying a single brain cell, or even a billion brain cells. The
> interactions are just too complex. There are numerous examples of
> this in the world.
> Atheists tend to deny the existence of God based on reductionistic
> thinking. My personal (current) belief is that, when you consider the
> vast nature of reality and the holistic interactions thereof, it is
> possible that God can exist. I'm not saying he or she does, I'm
> saying its possible.
Along with the pink unicorns, FSMs, the fairies at the bottom of the
garden and the teapots orbiting Neptune. Why didn't you provide the
complete list?
> To me, this fits, at least to the point where I can justify calling
> myself Catholic without being too hypocritical, in that God can know
> we exist and care about our well-being similar to how we know and care
> about the well-being of the cells in our bodies. I don't want my
> brain cells to have bad things happen to them, and if I could interact
> directly in some way with them, I would. But I can't, so I don't, and
> by my analogy therfore, evil can exist in the world. This is also how
> I justify praying. Perhaps by praying I somehow influence or
> 'connect' with this higher being, just as a cell in my body can, in a
> very primitive and limited way, interact with my conscious self.
> Plus, the more 'cells' that attempt this, the more probable the
> connection - you know, the "two or more of you gathered in his name"
> deal. OK, so its a stretch, and I admit it, but at least I am trying
> to justify my belief in God with a rational process.
No, you're trying to justify your belief with a rationalizing process.
That's altogether different. You're clutching at straws.
> 2) The Vast Complexities of our Reality
> If you think, as most Atheists do, that the complexity of our universe
> arose randomly by chance, I think you are not really considering the
> facts.
Show me ONE atheist who believes the universe arose randomly by
chance. Just one will do.
> I'm not talking about the silly stuff like Intelligent
> Design. I'm talking about the real challenges to the non-theist such
> as the anthropic principle
BZZT! The anthropic principle is an anti-theistic argument.
> and to a lesser extent, abiogenesis.
Now you're talking about silly stuff. Unless you can point to the
moment in life's history when a miracle was required.
> I won't discuss these items in detail as I'm sure others can do the
> concepts more justice. Nor am saying that God must exist because of
> these observations, or that there is no scientific basis for the
> creation of life or our universe. Far from it. I am very open to the
> idea. However, my point is that regarding these concepts, I think it
> is clear that the non-theist has the tougher side of the argument than
> the theist.
Arguing from ignorance isn't tough for anybody. It's just fallacious,
that's all.
> 3) The Santa Claus Principle
> Atheists will compare belief in God to belief in Santa Claus. This
> tends to drive religious people crazy. But here's the thing. It's
> true. They're right. I not only do not deny this, I embrace it. But
> here's the caveat. My belief in God is akin to a young child's belief
> in Santa Claus. Just as I feel a childhood experience is far more
> robust and enjoyable by believing in Santa Claus (especially in
> December), so is my and my loved one's life experience better through
> belief in God.
So have you stopped believing in Santa Claus, then? Why, if it makes
you happy?
> In other words, I know God may not exist, and perhaps probably
> doesn't. But I maintain that belief in God is not only beneficial for
> myself, but especially my family. Specifically, several studies have
> shown that a family with a religous foundation is more stable than one
> without. Religion binds a family together. That's the primary reason
> I continue to promote Catholicism to my children, although it pains me
> quite often to do so. And yes, I will kick and scream and vomit when
> I hear the things that Catholics say and do. I strongly disagree with
> many Catholic/Christian/religious principles. Many. But let's face
> it, life can be hard; and in my experience, there are times when
> having a religious foundation brings comfort.
Personally, the more comfortable believers get, the more worried I
get. Any particular reason you're backing the Catholic horse?
On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 5:06 AM, Janon <janon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Greetings,
Welcome to AvC Janon.
> This is my first post to this group, and I hope an interesting one.
> First, let me explain what I mean by the title of the post. When I
> say Atheists are "only" 97% correct, it is first and foremost an
> attempt to bypass the ridiculous and frivolous topics that most
> religious people promote.
Atheists simply lack a belief in gods. That's a yes or no answer.
That is, either gods exist or they don't.
So I don't really see how we can be 97% correct....
> I'm not here to do that. I am not a
> Creationist, bigot, fundamentalist, or any similar such thing.
Good to know.
> In
> approximately 97% of the topics under discussion here, I will side
> with the non-theist.
So what you're really saying is that you hold secular beliefs as do most
atheists.
> However, I still believe that "God" can exist
> (despite 10 years of Catholic education and 40 years of Catholic
> upbringing). Here's why:
> Athiests, and most Western thinkers, as a generality, follow
> reductionist reasoning. They believe the whole is no greater than the
> sum of its parts. But we know this is not true. For example, a
> reductionist would never deduce the reality of "consciousness" by
> studying a single brain cell, or even a billion brain cells. The
> interactions are just too complex. There are numerous examples of
> this in the world.
> Atheists tend to deny the existence of God based on reductionistic
> thinking. My personal (current) belief is that, when you consider the
> vast nature of reality and the holistic interactions thereof, it is
> possible that God can exist. I'm not saying he or she does, I'm
> saying its possible.
> To me, this fits, at least to the point where I can justify calling
> myself Catholic without being too hypocritical, in that God can know
> we exist and care about our well-being similar to how we know and care
> about the well-being of the cells in our bodies. I don't want my
> brain cells to have bad things happen to them, and if I could interact
> directly in some way with them, I would. But I can't, so I don't, and
> by my analogy therfore, evil can exist in the world. This is also how
> I justify praying. Perhaps by praying I somehow influence or
> 'connect' with this higher being, just as a cell in my body can, in a
> very primitive and limited way, interact with my conscious self.
> Plus, the more 'cells' that attempt this, the more probable the
> connection - you know, the "two or more of you gathered in his name"
> deal. OK, so its a stretch, and I admit it, but at least I am trying
> to justify my belief in God with a rational process.
It looks to me like you're trying to rationalize your belief in the
Abrahamic God of the Bible rather than to justify your belief in gods with
rational processes.
> If you think, as most Atheists do, that the complexity of our universe
> arose randomly by chance, I think you are not really considering the
> facts. I'm not talking about the silly stuff like Intelligent
> Design. I'm talking about the real challenges to the non-theist such
> as the anthropic principle and to a lesser extent, abiogenesis. I
> won't discuss these items in detail as I'm sure others can do the
> concepts more justice. Nor am saying that God must exist because of
> these observations, or that there is no scientific basis for the
> creation of life or our universe. Far from it. I am very open to the
> idea. However, my point is that regarding these concepts, I think it
> is clear that the non-theist has the tougher side of the argument than
> the theist.
So, you believe in Intelligent Design but aren't a Creationist?
> Atheists will compare belief in God to belief in Santa Claus. This
> tends to drive religious people crazy. But here's the thing. It's
> true. They're right. I not only do not deny this, I embrace it. But
> here's the caveat. My belief in God is akin to a young child's belief
> in Santa Claus. Just as I feel a childhood experience is far more
> robust and enjoyable by believing in Santa Claus (especially in
> December), so is my and my loved one's life experience better through
> belief in God.
> In other words, I know God may not exist, and perhaps probably
> doesn't. But I maintain that belief in God is not only beneficial for
> myself, but especially my family. Specifically, several studies have
> shown that a family with a religous foundation is more stable than one
> without.
> Religion binds a family together.
The divorce rates don't support that claim.
In North America, Atheists have the lowest divorce compared to all of the
Abrahamic religions.
That's the primary reason
> I continue to promote Catholicism to my children, although it pains me
> quite often to do so. And yes, I will kick and scream and vomit when
> I hear the things that Catholics say and do. I strongly disagree with
> many Catholic/Christian/religious principles. Many. But let's face
> it, life can be hard; and in my experience, there are times when
> having a religious foundation brings comfort.
Many ex-religious join the UU Churches to provide themselves with that.
> Anyway, I hope the above thoughts are provoking. Thanks for
> listening.
Your comments were interesting. Thanks for sharing and enjoy your stay here.
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<atheism-vs-christianit y%2Bunsubscribe@googlegroups.com>
> .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
> This is my first post to this group, and I hope an interesting one.
> First, let me explain what I mean by the title of the post. When I
> say Atheists are "only" 97% correct, it is first and foremost an
> attempt to bypass the ridiculous and frivolous topics that most
> religious people promote. I'm not here to do that. I am not a
> Creationist, bigot, fundamentalist, or any similar such thing. In
> approximately 97% of the topics under discussion here, I will side
> with the non-theist. However, I still believe that "God" can exist
> (despite 10 years of Catholic education and 40 years of Catholic
> upbringing). Here's why:
> 1) The Holistic Nature of Reality
> Athiests, and most Western thinkers, as a generality, follow
> reductionist reasoning. They believe the whole is no greater than the
> sum of its parts. But we know this is not true. For example, a
> reductionist would never deduce the reality of "consciousness" by
> studying a single brain cell, or even a billion brain cells. The
> interactions are just too complex. There are numerous examples of
> this in the world.
We seem to be able to examine the brain at many different levels -
evolution, biology, psychology, neurology, circuitry, chemistry,
right on down to particle physics without having to resort to using
God as an explanation. Just because you're in awe of the complexity
doesn't mean the complexity is irreducible.
> Atheists tend to deny the existence of God based on reductionistic
> thinking.
Atheists tend to not believe the claims that God exists because of the
absence of valid evidence. Logical fallacies, like the several that
you're presenting in this argument, are not valid evidence that God
exists.
> My personal (current) belief is that, when you consider the
> vast nature of reality and the holistic interactions thereof, it is
> possible that God can exist. I'm not saying he or she does, I'm
> saying its possible.
And my observations have been that the universe does not run by magic.
It may be possible (it may not - I lean that way), but it simply
doesn't seem to be the case that God exists.
> To me, this fits, at least to the point where I can justify calling
> myself Catholic without being too hypocritical, in that God can know
> we exist and care about our well-being similar to how we know and care
> about the well-being of the cells in our bodies.
That isn't the same God I've been hearing about, the one who plans to
torture me for eternity for thought crimes.
> I don't want my
> brain cells to have bad things happen to them, and if I could interact
> directly in some way with them, I would.
I would think an omnipotent being could interact with humans directly
if he wished (and he did in the Bible), whereas mere mortals like us
are limited in our interations with our brain cells. Your analogy here
doesn't work for me.
> But I can't, so I don't, and
> by my analogy therfore, evil can exist in the world.
That's quite a mixed metaphor.
> This is also how
> I justify praying.
Praying = casting spells. I lack belief in magic.
> Perhaps by praying I somehow influence or
> 'connect' with this higher being, just as a cell in my body can, in a
> very primitive and limited way, interact with my conscious self.
Looking at the effects of praying objectively, there doesn't seem to
be any difference in the lives of those who pray vs. those who don't.
Our lives consist of pretty much the same things, more or less. I see
great things happen to atheists and tragedies strike theists. And vice
versa. I see a mixture of both for everyone. It seems like praying/
casting spells is a waste of time.
> Plus, the more 'cells' that attempt this, the more probable the
> connection - you know, the "two or more of you gathered in his name"
> deal.
History is strewn with the havoc wreaked by groups of believers,
including (and maybe especially?) groups of Catholics. I see no
qualitative difference between Catholic rule and Muslim rule. I see no
magic powers eminating from any group of believers.
> OK, so its a stretch, and I admit it, but at least I am trying
> to justify my belief in God with a rational process.
Doesn't seem very rational to me. It's good that you're trying,
though.
> 2) The Vast Complexities of our Reality
> If you think, as most Atheists do, that the complexity of our universe
> arose randomly by chance, I think you are not really considering the
> facts.
I don't think that, at all.
> I'm not talking about the silly stuff like Intelligent
> Design. I'm talking about the real challenges to the non-theist such
> as the anthropic principle and to a lesser extent, abiogenesis. I
> won't discuss these items in detail as I'm sure others can do the
> concepts more justice. Nor am saying that God must exist because of
> these observations, or that there is no scientific basis for the
> creation of life or our universe. Far from it.
On the contrary, there is lots. It is simple chemistry - some matter
replicates. Not all replications are perfect; mutation will occur.
Once a chemical mutates with heredity to take better advantage of the
matter available for replication, it is better adapted to replicate
than the first. Natural selection is born, and evolution begins. This
has a scientific basis, and there's no need to invoke magic/God.
> I am very open to the
> idea.
Then you should start studying it instead of being hesitant.
> However, my point is that regarding these concepts, I think it
> is clear that the non-theist has the tougher side of the argument than
> the theist.
It is tougher to work hard to understand the science than it is to
simply invoke magic, you're right about that. It's also lazier to
invoke God.
> 3) The Santa Claus Principle
> Atheists will compare belief in God to belief in Santa Claus. This
> tends to drive religious people crazy. But here's the thing. It's
> true. They're right. I not only do not deny this, I embrace it. But
> here's the caveat. My belief in God is akin to a young child's belief
> in Santa Claus.
How is that a caveat? What's so great about being blissfully ignorant?
> Just as I feel a childhood experience is far more
> robust and enjoyable by believing in Santa Claus (especially in
> December), so is my and my loved one's life experience better through
> belief in God.
And I know from experience that my life experience is better through
the brief glimpses I get of the profound understanding of the universe
we've reached through observation. And I was a child, so can make the
same comparison. It just keeps getting better and better the harder
you work. To me, belief in God is like giving up.
> In other words, I know God may not exist, and perhaps probably
> doesn't. But I maintain that belief in God is not only beneficial for
> myself, but especially my family. Specifically, several studies have
> shown that a family with a religous foundation is more stable than one
> without. Religion binds a family together.
That doesn't explain all the divorced religious couples and all the
miserable couples whose religions prevents them from going their
separate ways. And it doesn't explain all the happy atheist families,
either.
> That's the primary reason
> I continue to promote Catholicism to my children, although it pains me
> quite often to do so.
I think your chldren will eventually be turned off by your lack of
conviction. I say this because I know many people who were raised by
parents who approached religion like they were giving their children
Cod Liver Oil. They tell the children that it's good for them, but the
children eventually notice that the parents aren't taking the
medicine, so why should they? I think your clever plan will backfire,
and you'll just produce more disgruntled ex-Catholics. Why not cut to
the chase, and be honest with your children? Teach them to be critical
thinkers instead? Seems like a better gift to them than lukewarm
belief.
> And yes, I will kick and scream and vomit when
> I hear the things that Catholics say and do. I strongly disagree with
> many Catholic/Christian/religious principles. Many. But let's face
> it, life can be hard; and in my experience, there are times when
> having a religious foundation brings comfort.
Life can be hard for me, too, and I've remained an atheist. God does
not need to exist for you to be courageous enough to get through the
hard times.
> Anyway, I hope the above thoughts are provoking. Thanks for
> listening.
It's the upper-case G that is a problem. Please define and describe in as much detail as possible what you mean by God and "God". ALso please indicate the source of your information.
[Janon]
> Greetings,
> This is my first post to this group, and I hope an interesting one.
> First, let me explain what I mean by the title of the post. When I
> say Atheists are "only" 97% correct, it is first and foremost an
> attempt to bypass the ridiculous and frivolous topics that most
> religious people promote. I'm not here to do that. I am not a
> Creationist, bigot, fundamentalist, or any similar such thing. In
> approximately 97% of the topics under discussion here, I will side
> with the non-theist. However, I still believe that "God" can exist
> (despite 10 years of Catholic education and 40 years of Catholic
> upbringing). Here's why:
Why do you enclose the name in quotes? If you mean God why use quotes to imply that you do not?
> 1) The Holistic Nature of Reality
> Athiests, and most Western thinkers, as a generality, follow
> reductionist reasoning. They believe the whole is no greater than the
> sum of its parts. But we know this is not true. For example, a
> reductionist would never deduce the reality of "consciousness" by
> studying a single brain cell, or even a billion brain cells. The
> interactions are just too complex. There are numerous examples of
> this in the world.
> Atheists tend to deny the existence of God based on reductionistic
> thinking. My personal (current) belief is that, when you consider the
> vast nature of reality and the holistic interactions thereof, it is
> possible that God can exist. I'm not saying he or she does, I'm
> saying its possible.
> To me, this fits, at least to the point where I can justify calling
> myself Catholic without being too hypocritical, in that God can know
> we exist and care about our well-being similar to how we know and care
> about the well-being of the cells in our bodies. I don't want my
> brain cells to have bad things happen to them, and if I could interact
> directly in some way with them, I would. But I can't, so I don't, and
> by my analogy therfore, evil can exist in the world. This is also how
> I justify praying. Perhaps by praying I somehow influence or
> 'connect' with this higher being, just as a cell in my body can, in a
> very primitive and limited way, interact with my conscious self.
> Plus, the more 'cells' that attempt this, the more probable the
> connection - you know, the "two or more of you gathered in his name"
> deal. OK, so its a stretch, and I admit it, but at least I am trying
> to justify my belief in God with a rational process.
> 2) The Vast Complexities of our Reality
> If you think, as most Atheists do, that the complexity of our universe
> arose randomly by chance, I think you are not really considering the
> facts. I'm not talking about the silly stuff like Intelligent
> Design. I'm talking about the real challenges to the non-theist such
> as the anthropic principle and to a lesser extent, abiogenesis. I
> won't discuss these items in detail as I'm sure others can do the
> concepts more justice. Nor am saying that God must exist because of
> these observations, or that there is no scientific basis for the
> creation of life or our universe. Far from it. I am very open to the
> idea. However, my point is that regarding these concepts, I think it
> is clear that the non-theist has the tougher side of the argument than
> the theist.
> 3) The Santa Claus Principle
> Atheists will compare belief in God to belief in Santa Claus. This
> tends to drive religious people crazy. But here's the thing. It's
> true. They're right. I not only do not deny this, I embrace it. But
> here's the caveat. My belief in God is akin to a young child's belief
> in Santa Claus. Just as I feel a childhood experience is far more
> robust and enjoyable by believing in Santa Claus (especially in
> December), so is my and my loved one's life experience better through
> belief in God.
> In other words, I know God may not exist, and perhaps probably
> doesn't. But I maintain that belief in God is not only beneficial for
> myself, but especially my family. Specifically, several studies have
> shown that a family with a religous foundation is more stable than one
> without. Religion binds a family together. That's the primary reason
> I continue to promote Catholicism to my children, although it pains me
> quite often to do so. And yes, I will kick and scream and vomit when
> I hear the things that Catholics say and do. I strongly disagree with
> many Catholic/Christian/religious principles. Many. But let's face
> it, life can be hard; and in my experience, there are times when
> having a religious foundation brings comfort.
> Anyway, I hope the above thoughts are provoking. Thanks for
> listening.
> Janon
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
> To post to this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/atheism-vs-christianity?hl=en.
-- "However many holy words you read, however many you speak,
what good will they do you if you do not act on upon them?"
[Buddha]
On Nov 5, 5:06 am, Janon <janon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Greetings,
> This is my first post to this group, and I hope an interesting one.
> First, let me explain what I mean by the title of the post. When I
> say Atheists are "only" 97% correct, it is first and foremost an
> attempt to bypass the ridiculous and frivolous topics that most
> religious people promote. I'm not here to do that. I am not a
> Creationist, bigot, fundamentalist, or any similar such thing. In
> approximately 97% of the topics under discussion here, I will side
> with the non-theist. However, I still believe that "God" can exist
> (despite 10 years of Catholic education and 40 years of Catholic
> upbringing). Here's why:
Atheist is not about whether god "can" exist but whether or not god
"does" exist.
> 1) The Holistic Nature of Reality
> Athiests, and most Western thinkers, as a generality, follow
> reductionist reasoning.
False. Emergent properties are recognized and studied, by atheists and
us Westerners (not a bigot, eh?).
> They believe the whole is no greater than the
> sum of its parts. But we know this is not true. For example, a
> reductionist would never deduce the reality of "consciousness" by
> studying a single brain cell, or even a billion brain cells. The
> interactions are just too complex. There are numerous examples of
> this in the world.
Exactly, which is why your statement is false. We understand the
concept of emergent properties such as "consciousness".
> Atheists tend to deny the existence of God based on reductionistic
> thinking.
Atheists deny the existence of god for various reasons. My reasons?
All known non-Pantheistic god-concepts are fictional. They describe
entities that do not or cannot exist.
Other god-concepts simply have no evidence or basis in reason.
> My personal (current) belief is that, when you consider the
> vast nature of reality and the holistic interactions thereof, it is
> possible that God can exist. I'm not saying he or she does, I'm
> saying its possible.
Since you are talking about atheism then, necessarily, we are talking
about whether or not god "does" exist. If you aren't talking about
that, then you aren't talking about atheism.
> To me, this fits, at least to the point where I can justify calling
> myself Catholic without being too hypocritical, in that God can know
> we exist and care about our well-being similar to how we know and care
> about the well-being of the cells in our bodies. I don't want my
> brain cells to have bad things happen to them, and if I could interact
> directly in some way with them, I would. But I can't, so I don't, and
> by my analogy therfore, evil can exist in the world. This is also how
> I justify praying. Perhaps by praying I somehow influence or
> 'connect' with this higher being, just as a cell in my body can, in a
> very primitive and limited way, interact with my conscious self.
> Plus, the more 'cells' that attempt this, the more probable the
> connection - you know, the "two or more of you gathered in his name"
> deal. OK, so its a stretch, and I admit it, but at least I am trying
> to justify my belief in God with a rational process.
The notion that prayer can influence this higher being is stupid. If
God was going to be moved by your prayer then he would have already
done what you want him to do.
> 2) The Vast Complexities of our Reality
> If you think, as most Atheists do, that the complexity of our universe
> arose randomly by chance, I think you are not really considering the
> facts.
There is absolutely no basis, whatsoever, for these things you claim
"most Atheists" think. Outside of not believing in a god, atheists are
not bound to think or adhere to any specific philosophy. If most
atheists believed this, then it should be easy for you to produce a
single quote, from an atheist, supporting this. Can you do that?
> I'm not talking about the silly stuff like Intelligent
> Design. I'm talking about the real challenges to the non-theist such
> as the anthropic principle and to a lesser extent, abiogenesis. I
> won't discuss these items in detail as I'm sure others can do the
> concepts more justice. Nor am saying that God must exist because of
> these observations, or that there is no scientific basis for the
> creation of life or our universe. Far from it. I am very open to the
> idea. However, my point is that regarding these concepts, I think it
> is clear that the non-theist has the tougher side of the argument than
> the theist.
> Atheists will compare belief in God to belief in Santa Claus. This
> tends to drive religious people crazy. But here's the thing. It's
> true. They're right. I not only do not deny this, I embrace it. But
> here's the caveat. My belief in God is akin to a young child's belief
> in Santa Claus. Just as I feel a childhood experience is far more
> robust and enjoyable by believing in Santa Claus (especially in
> December), so is my and my loved one's life experience better through
> belief in God.
> In other words, I know God may not exist, and perhaps probably
> doesn't. But I maintain that belief in God is not only beneficial for
> myself, but especially my family. Specifically, several studies have
> shown that a family with a religous foundation is more stable than one
> without.
Do you understand what "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" is?
> Religion binds a family together. That's the primary reason
> I continue to promote Catholicism to my children, although it pains me
> quite often to do so. And yes, I will kick and scream and vomit when
> I hear the things that Catholics say and do. I strongly disagree with
> many Catholic/Christian/religious principles. Many. But let's face
> it, life can be hard; and in my experience, there are times when
> having a religious foundation brings comfort.
There is nothing religion offers that cannot be gained more honestly
through secular means.
If your wife is open to it, I second Trance Gemini's suggestion to
look into a UU (Unitarian Universalist) congregation near you. This
will give your family a moral/spiritual/philosophical community on
Sunday mornings without the Catholic stuff that makes you want to
scream.
At most congregations you will find a mix of atheists and theists.
You'll typically find quite a few ex-Catholics. Instead of weekly
repetitive ritual, you'll get thought-provoking lectures (sometimes by
guest speakers), creative expression of the emotional/spiiritual side
of human nature, and involvement in the social and environmental
issues in your community and around the world.
Unitarians in most cities are a great bunch today, and always have
been. I used to do a JAUOTD (Just Another Unitarian Of The Day)
feature on this group. Here's a link to one of the last ones, which
lists other Unitarians at the end of the page. If you are interested
you can search the names yourself, or search "JAUOTD" to bring up
others of my posts. :)
> This is my first post to this group, and I hope an interesting one.
> First, let me explain what I mean by the title of the post. When I
> say Atheists are "only" 97% correct, it is first and foremost an
> attempt to bypass the ridiculous and frivolous topics that most
> religious people promote. I'm not here to do that. I am not a
> Creationist, bigot, fundamentalist, or any similar such thing. In
> approximately 97% of the topics under discussion here, I will side
> with the non-theist. However, I still believe that "God" can exist
> (despite 10 years of Catholic education and 40 years of Catholic
> upbringing). Here's why:
> 1) The Holistic Nature of Reality
> Athiests, and most Western thinkers, as a generality, follow
> reductionist reasoning. They believe the whole is no greater than the
> sum of its parts. But we know this is not true. For example, a
> reductionist would never deduce the reality of "consciousness" by
> studying a single brain cell, or even a billion brain cells. The
> interactions are just too complex. There are numerous examples of
> this in the world.
> Atheists tend to deny the existence of God based on reductionistic
> thinking. My personal (current) belief is that, when you consider the
> vast nature of reality and the holistic interactions thereof, it is
> possible that God can exist. I'm not saying he or she does, I'm
> saying its possible.
> To me, this fits, at least to the point where I can justify calling
> myself Catholic without being too hypocritical, in that God can know
> we exist and care about our well-being similar to how we know and care
> about the well-being of the cells in our bodies. I don't want my
> brain cells to have bad things happen to them, and if I could interact
> directly in some way with them, I would. But I can't, so I don't, and
> by my analogy therfore, evil can exist in the world. This is also how
> I justify praying. Perhaps by praying I somehow influence or
> 'connect' with this higher being, just as a cell in my body can, in a
> very primitive and limited way, interact with my conscious self.
> Plus, the more 'cells' that attempt this, the more probable the
> connection - you know, the "two or more of you gathered in his name"
> deal. OK, so its a stretch, and I admit it, but at least I am trying
> to justify my belief in God with a rational process.
> 2) The Vast Complexities of our Reality
> If you think, as most Atheists do, that the complexity of our universe
> arose randomly by chance, I think you are not really considering the
> facts. I'm not talking about the silly stuff like Intelligent
> Design. I'm talking about the real challenges to the non-theist such
> as the anthropic principle and to a lesser extent, abiogenesis. I
> won't discuss these items in detail as I'm sure others can do the
> concepts more justice. Nor am saying that God must exist because of
> these observations, or that there is no scientific basis for the
> creation of life or our universe. Far from it. I am very open to the
> idea. However, my point is that regarding these concepts, I think it
> is clear that the non-theist has the tougher side of the argument than
> the theist.
> 3) The Santa Claus Principle
> Atheists will compare belief in God to belief in Santa Claus. This
> tends to drive religious people crazy. But here's the thing. It's
> true. They're right. I not only do not deny this, I embrace it. But
> here's the caveat. My belief in God is akin to a young child's belief
> in Santa Claus. Just as I feel a childhood experience is far more
> robust and enjoyable by believing in Santa Claus (especially in
> December), so is my and my loved one's life experience better through
> belief in God.
> In other words, I know God may not exist, and perhaps probably
> doesn't. But I maintain that belief in God is not only beneficial for
> myself, but especially my family. Specifically, several studies have
> shown that a family with a religous foundation is more stable than one
> without. Religion binds a family together. That's the primary reason
> I continue to promote Catholicism to my children, although it pains me
> quite often to do so. And yes, I will kick and scream and vomit when
> I hear the things that Catholics say and do. I strongly disagree with
> many Catholic/Christian/religious principles. Many. But let's face
> it, life can be hard; and in my experience, there are times when
> having a religious foundation brings comfort.
> Anyway, I hope the above thoughts are provoking. Thanks for
> listening.
> On Nov 5, 5:06 am, Janon <janon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Greetings,
> > This is my first post to this group, and I hope an interesting one.
> > First, let me explain what I mean by the title of the post. When I
> > say Atheists are "only" 97% correct, it is first and foremost an
> > attempt to bypass the ridiculous and frivolous topics that most
> > religious people promote. I'm not here to do that. I am not a
> > Creationist, bigot, fundamentalist, or any similar such thing. In
> > approximately 97% of the topics under discussion here, I will side
> > with the non-theist. However, I still believe that "God" can exist
> > (despite 10 years of Catholic education and 40 years of Catholic
> > upbringing). Here's why:
> Atheist is not about whether god "can" exist but whether or not god
> "does" exist.
> > 1) The Holistic Nature of Reality
> > Athiests, and most Western thinkers, as a generality, follow
> > reductionist reasoning.
> False. Emergent properties are recognized and studied, by atheists and
> us Westerners (not a bigot, eh?).
> > They believe the whole is no greater than the
> > sum of its parts. But we know this is not true. For example, a
> > reductionist would never deduce the reality of "consciousness" by
> > studying a single brain cell, or even a billion brain cells. The
> > interactions are just too complex. There are numerous examples of
> > this in the world.
> Exactly, which is why your statement is false. We understand the
> concept of emergent properties such as "consciousness".
> > Atheists tend to deny the existence of God based on reductionistic
> > thinking.
> Atheists deny the existence of god for various reasons. My reasons?
> All known non-Pantheistic god-concepts are fictional. They describe
> entities that do not or cannot exist.
> Other god-concepts simply have no evidence or basis in reason.
> > My personal (current) belief is that, when you consider the
> > vast nature of reality and the holistic interactions thereof, it is
> > possible that God can exist. I'm not saying he or she does, I'm
> > saying its possible.
> Since you are talking about atheism then, necessarily, we are talking
> about whether or not god "does" exist. If you aren't talking about
> that, then you aren't talking about atheism.
> > To me, this fits, at least to the point where I can justify calling
> > myself Catholic without being too hypocritical, in that God can know
> > we exist and care about our well-being similar to how we know and care
> > about the well-being of the cells in our bodies. I don't want my
> > brain cells to have bad things happen to them, and if I could interact
> > directly in some way with them, I would. But I can't, so I don't, and
> > by my analogy therfore, evil can exist in the world. This is also how
> > I justify praying. Perhaps by praying I somehow influence or
> > 'connect' with this higher being, just as a cell in my body can, in a
> > very primitive and limited way, interact with my conscious self.
> > Plus, the more 'cells' that attempt this, the more probable the
> > connection - you know, the "two or more of you gathered in his name"
> > deal. OK, so its a stretch, and I admit it, but at least I am trying
> > to justify my belief in God with a rational process.
> The notion that prayer can influence this higher being is stupid. If
> God was going to be moved by your prayer then he would have already
> done what you want him to do.
> > 2) The Vast Complexities of our Reality
> > If you think, as most Atheists do, that the complexity of our universe
> > arose randomly by chance, I think you are not really considering the
> > facts.
> There is absolutely no basis, whatsoever, for these things you claim
> "most Atheists" think. Outside of not believing in a god, atheists are
> not bound to think or adhere to any specific philosophy. If most
> atheists believed this, then it should be easy for you to produce a
> single quote, from an atheist, supporting this. Can you do that?
> > I'm not talking about the silly stuff like Intelligent
> > Design. I'm talking about the real challenges to the non-theist such
> > as the anthropic principle and to a lesser extent, abiogenesis. I
> > won't discuss these items in detail as I'm sure others can do the
> > concepts more justice. Nor am saying that God must exist because of
> > these observations, or that there is no scientific basis for the
> > creation of life or our universe. Far from it. I am very open to the
> > idea. However, my point is that regarding these concepts, I think it
> > is clear that the non-theist has the tougher side of the argument than
> > the theist.
> The theist doesn't have an argument here.
> > 3) The Santa Claus Principle
> > Atheists will compare belief in God to belief in Santa Claus. This
> > tends to drive religious people crazy. But here's the thing. It's
> > true. They're right. I not only do not deny this, I embrace it. But
> > here's the caveat. My belief in God is akin to a young child's belief
> > in Santa Claus. Just as I feel a childhood experience is far more
> > robust and enjoyable by believing in Santa Claus (especially in
> > December), so is my and my loved one's life experience better through
> > belief in God.
> > In other words, I know God may not exist, and perhaps probably
> > doesn't. But I maintain that belief in God is not only beneficial for
> > myself, but especially my family. Specifically, several studies have
> > shown that a family with a religous foundation is more stable than one
> > without.
> Do you understand what "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" is?
> > Religion binds a family together. That's the primary reason
> > I continue to promote Catholicism to my children, although it pains me
> > quite often to do so. And yes, I will kick and scream and vomit when
> > I hear the things that Catholics say and do. I strongly disagree with
> > many Catholic/Christian/religious principles. Many. But let's face
> > it, life can be hard; and in my experience, there are times when
> > having a religious foundation brings comfort.
> There is nothing religion offers that cannot be gained more honestly
> through secular means.
> > Anyway, I hope the above thoughts are provoking. Thanks for
> > listening.
> On Nov 5, 8:49 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 5, 5:06 am, Janon <janon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Greetings,
> > > This is my first post to this group, and I hope an interesting one.
> > > First, let me explain what I mean by the title of the post. When I
> > > say Atheists are "only" 97% correct, it is first and foremost an
> > > attempt to bypass the ridiculous and frivolous topics that most
> > > religious people promote. I'm not here to do that. I am not a
> > > Creationist, bigot, fundamentalist, or any similar such thing. In
> > > approximately 97% of the topics under discussion here, I will side
> > > with the non-theist. However, I still believe that "God" can exist
> > > (despite 10 years of Catholic education and 40 years of Catholic
> > > upbringing). Here's why:
> > Atheist is not about whether god "can" exist but whether or not god
> > "does" exist.
> > > 1) The Holistic Nature of Reality
> > > Athiests, and most Western thinkers, as a generality, follow
> > > reductionist reasoning.
> > False. Emergent properties are recognized and studied, by atheists and
> > us Westerners (not a bigot, eh?).
> > > They believe the whole is no greater than the
> > > sum of its parts. But we know this is not true. For example, a
> > > reductionist would never deduce the reality of "consciousness" by
> > > studying a single brain cell, or even a billion brain cells. The
> > > interactions are just too complex. There are numerous examples of
> > > this in the world.
> > Exactly, which is why your statement is false. We understand the
> > concept of emergent properties such as "consciousness".
> > > Atheists tend to deny the existence of God based on reductionistic
> > > thinking.
> > Atheists deny the existence of god for various reasons. My reasons?
> > All known non-Pantheistic god-concepts are fictional. They describe
> > entities that do not or cannot exist.
> > Other god-concepts simply have no evidence or basis in reason.
> > > My personal (current) belief is that, when you consider the
> > > vast nature of reality and the holistic interactions thereof, it is
> > > possible that God can exist. I'm not saying he or she does, I'm
> > > saying its possible.
> > Since you are talking about atheism then, necessarily, we are talking
> > about whether or not god "does" exist. If you aren't talking about
> > that, then you aren't talking about atheism.
> > > To me, this fits, at least to the point where I can justify calling
> > > myself Catholic without being too hypocritical, in that God can know
> > > we exist and care about our well-being similar to how we know and care
> > > about the well-being of the cells in our bodies. I don't want my
> > > brain cells to have bad things happen to them, and if I could interact
> > > directly in some way with them, I would. But I can't, so I don't, and
> > > by my analogy therfore, evil can exist in the world. This is also how
> > > I justify praying. Perhaps by praying I somehow influence or
> > > 'connect' with this higher being, just as a cell in my body can, in a
> > > very primitive and limited way, interact with my conscious self.
> > > Plus, the more 'cells' that attempt this, the more probable the
> > > connection - you know, the "two or more of you gathered in his name"
> > > deal. OK, so its a stretch, and I admit it, but at least I am trying
> > > to justify my belief in God with a rational process.
> > The notion that prayer can influence this higher being is stupid. If
> > God was going to be moved by your prayer then he would have already
> > done what you want him to do.
> > > 2) The Vast Complexities of our Reality
> > > If you think, as most Atheists do, that the complexity of our universe
> > > arose randomly by chance, I think you are not really considering the
> > > facts.
> > There is absolutely no basis, whatsoever, for these things you claim
> > "most Atheists" think. Outside of not believing in a god, atheists are
> > not bound to think or adhere to any specific philosophy. If most
> > atheists believed this, then it should be easy for you to produce a
> > single quote, from an atheist, supporting this. Can you do that?
> > > I'm not talking about the silly stuff like Intelligent
> > > Design. I'm talking about the real challenges to the non-theist such
> > > as the anthropic principle and to a lesser extent, abiogenesis. I
> > > won't discuss these items in detail as I'm sure others can do the
> > > concepts more justice. Nor am saying that God must exist because of
> > > these observations, or that there is no scientific basis for the
> > > creation of life or our universe. Far from it. I am very open to the
> > > idea. However, my point is that regarding these concepts, I think it
> > > is clear that the non-theist has the tougher side of the argument than
> > > the theist.
> > The theist doesn't have an argument here.
> > > 3) The Santa Claus Principle
> > > Atheists will compare belief in God to belief in Santa Claus. This
> > > tends to drive religious people crazy. But here's the thing. It's
> > > true. They're right. I not only do not deny this, I embrace it. But
> > > here's the caveat. My belief in God is akin to a young child's belief
> > > in Santa Claus. Just as I feel a childhood experience is far more
> > > robust and enjoyable by believing in Santa Claus (especially in
> > > December), so is my and my loved one's life experience better through
> > > belief in God.
> > > In other words, I know God may not exist, and perhaps probably
> > > doesn't. But I maintain that belief in God is not only beneficial for
> > > myself, but especially my family. Specifically, several studies have
> > > shown that a family with a religous foundation is more stable than one
> > > without.
> > Do you understand what "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" is?
> > > Religion binds a family together. That's the primary reason
> > > I continue to promote Catholicism to my children, although it pains me
> > > quite often to do so. And yes, I will kick and scream and vomit when
> > > I hear the things that Catholics say and do. I strongly disagree with
> > > many Catholic/Christian/religious principles. Many. But let's face
> > > it, life can be hard; and in my experience, there are times when
> > > having a religious foundation brings comfort.
> > There is nothing religion offers that cannot be gained more honestly
> > through secular means.
> > > Anyway, I hope the above thoughts are provoking. Thanks for
> > > listening.
the opposite of 'does' is 'does not'. your stance is that 'god' does
not exist. in fact, i believe you claim to have proof of this although
i have not seen it. im not sure all atheists state that 'god' does not
exist, but that they believe 'god' does not exist. if one is stating
something as fact, they are not referring to a belief, but to
knowledge. there is a MAJOR difference between the two, although i
recall you stating that knowledge can contain belief. since we are
talking about the existance of 'god', to me this does not make much
sense since NOBODY KNOWS.
wikipedia "Religious belief refers to a mental state in which faith is
placed in a creed related to the supernatural, sacred, or divine." in
other words, belief is a mental state, not a factual reality.
On Nov 6, 9:37 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 9:33 am, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > DM "Atheist is not about whether god "can" exist but whether or not
> > god "does" exist."
> > dont you mean atheism is about the "belief" of whether or not 'god'
> > exists?
> We were already operating under that premise, ergo it was unnecessary
> for me to repeat it. Please do try and keep up.
> > On Nov 5, 8:49 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 5, 5:06 am, Janon <janon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Greetings,
> > > > This is my first post to this group, and I hope an interesting one.
> > > > First, let me explain what I mean by the title of the post. When I
> > > > say Atheists are "only" 97% correct, it is first and foremost an
> > > > attempt to bypass the ridiculous and frivolous topics that most
> > > > religious people promote. I'm not here to do that. I am not a
> > > > Creationist, bigot, fundamentalist, or any similar such thing. In
> > > > approximately 97% of the topics under discussion here, I will side
> > > > with the non-theist. However, I still believe that "God" can exist
> > > > (despite 10 years of Catholic education and 40 years of Catholic
> > > > upbringing). Here's why:
> > > Atheist is not about whether god "can" exist but whether or not god
> > > "does" exist.
> > > > 1) The Holistic Nature of Reality
> > > > Athiests, and most Western thinkers, as a generality, follow
> > > > reductionist reasoning.
> > > False. Emergent properties are recognized and studied, by atheists and
> > > us Westerners (not a bigot, eh?).
> > > > They believe the whole is no greater than the
> > > > sum of its parts. But we know this is not true. For example, a
> > > > reductionist would never deduce the reality of "consciousness" by
> > > > studying a single brain cell, or even a billion brain cells. The
> > > > interactions are just too complex. There are numerous examples of
> > > > this in the world.
> > > Exactly, which is why your statement is false. We understand the
> > > concept of emergent properties such as "consciousness".
> > > > Atheists tend to deny the existence of God based on reductionistic
> > > > thinking.
> > > Atheists deny the existence of god for various reasons. My reasons?
> > > All known non-Pantheistic god-concepts are fictional. They describe
> > > entities that do not or cannot exist.
> > > Other god-concepts simply have no evidence or basis in reason.
> > > > My personal (current) belief is that, when you consider the
> > > > vast nature of reality and the holistic interactions thereof, it is
> > > > possible that God can exist. I'm not saying he or she does, I'm
> > > > saying its possible.
> > > Since you are talking about atheism then, necessarily, we are talking
> > > about whether or not god "does" exist. If you aren't talking about
> > > that, then you aren't talking about atheism.
> > > > To me, this fits, at least to the point where I can justify calling
> > > > myself Catholic without being too hypocritical, in that God can know
> > > > we exist and care about our well-being similar to how we know and care
> > > > about the well-being of the cells in our bodies. I don't want my
> > > > brain cells to have bad things happen to them, and if I could interact
> > > > directly in some way with them, I would. But I can't, so I don't, and
> > > > by my analogy therfore, evil can exist in the world. This is also how
> > > > I justify praying. Perhaps by praying I somehow influence or
> > > > 'connect' with this higher being, just as a cell in my body can, in a
> > > > very primitive and limited way, interact with my conscious self.
> > > > Plus, the more 'cells' that attempt this, the more probable the
> > > > connection - you know, the "two or more of you gathered in his name"
> > > > deal. OK, so its a stretch, and I admit it, but at least I am trying
> > > > to justify my belief in God with a rational process.
> > > The notion that prayer can influence this higher being is stupid. If
> > > God was going to be moved by your prayer then he would have already
> > > done what you want him to do.
> > > > 2) The Vast Complexities of our Reality
> > > > If you think, as most Atheists do, that the complexity of our universe
> > > > arose randomly by chance, I think you are not really considering the
> > > > facts.
> > > There is absolutely no basis, whatsoever, for these things you claim
> > > "most Atheists" think. Outside of not believing in a god, atheists are
> > > not bound to think or adhere to any specific philosophy. If most
> > > atheists believed this, then it should be easy for you to produce a
> > > single quote, from an atheist, supporting this. Can you do that?
> > > > I'm not talking about the silly stuff like Intelligent
> > > > Design. I'm talking about the real challenges to the non-theist such
> > > > as the anthropic principle and to a lesser extent, abiogenesis. I
> > > > won't discuss these items in detail as I'm sure others can do the
> > > > concepts more justice. Nor am saying that God must exist because of
> > > > these observations, or that there is no scientific basis for the
> > > > creation of life or our universe. Far from it. I am very open to the
> > > > idea. However, my point is that regarding these concepts, I think it
> > > > is clear that the non-theist has the tougher side of the argument than
> > > > the theist.
> > > The theist doesn't have an argument here.
> > > > 3) The Santa Claus Principle
> > > > Atheists will compare belief in God to belief in Santa Claus. This
> > > > tends to drive religious people crazy. But here's the thing. It's
> > > > true. They're right. I not only do not deny this, I embrace it. But
> > > > here's the caveat. My belief in God is akin to a young child's belief
> > > > in Santa Claus. Just as I feel a childhood experience is far more
> > > > robust and enjoyable by believing in Santa Claus (especially in
> > > > December), so is my and my loved one's life experience better through
> > > > belief in God.
> > > > In other words, I know God may not exist, and perhaps probably
> > > > doesn't. But I maintain that belief in God is not only beneficial for
> > > > myself, but especially my family. Specifically, several studies have
> > > > shown that a family with a religous foundation is more stable than one
> > > > without.
> > > Do you understand what "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" is?
> > > > Religion binds a family together. That's the primary reason
> > > > I continue to promote Catholicism to my children, although it pains me
> > > > quite often to do so. And yes, I will kick and scream and vomit when
> > > > I hear the things that Catholics say and do. I strongly disagree with
> > > > many Catholic/Christian/religious principles. Many. But let's face
> > > > it, life can be hard; and in my experience, there are times when
> > > > having a religious foundation brings comfort.
> > > There is nothing religion offers that cannot be gained more honestly
> > > through secular means.
> > > > Anyway, I hope the above thoughts are provoking. Thanks for
> > > > listening.
On Nov 6, 10:05 am, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> the opposite of 'does' is 'does not'. your stance is that 'god' does
> not exist. in fact, i believe you claim to have proof of this although
> i have not seen it.
This is a lie. You've seen it, you just haven't read it.
> im not sure all atheists state that 'god' does not
> exist, but that they believe 'god' does not exist. if one is stating
> something as fact, they are not referring to a belief, but to
> knowledge.
I've explained to you the error in this thinking already. Why do you
insist on repeating your mistakes?
Knowledge is a type of belief.
> there is a MAJOR difference between the two, although i
> recall you stating that knowledge can contain belief.
You recall me saying that, yet you fail to actually understand or
learn anything. Nice. Knowledge is a type of belief.
> since we are
> talking about the existance of 'god', to me this does not make much
> sense since NOBODY KNOWS.
I do.
> wikipedia "Religious belief refers to a mental state in which faith is
> placed in a creed related to the supernatural, sacred, or divine." in
> other words, belief is a mental state, not a factual reality.
It's a belief about factual reality.
In any event, your original criticism (That I was talking about
factual reality and not belief) has been refuted and shown to be a
result of nothing more than your inability or unwillingness to read
and comprehend anything going on around you. Whether you're stupid or
lazy, I really don't care.
> On Nov 6, 9:37 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 9:33 am, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > DM "Atheist is not about whether god "can" exist but whether or not
> > > god "does" exist."
> > > dont you mean atheism is about the "belief" of whether or not 'god'
> > > exists?
> > We were already operating under that premise, ergo it was unnecessary
> > for me to repeat it. Please do try and keep up.
> > > On Nov 5, 8:49 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 5, 5:06 am, Janon <janon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > Greetings,
> > > > > This is my first post to this group, and I hope an interesting one.
> > > > > First, let me explain what I mean by the title of the post. When I
> > > > > say Atheists are "only" 97% correct, it is first and foremost an
> > > > > attempt to bypass the ridiculous and frivolous topics that most
> > > > > religious people promote. I'm not here to do that. I am not a
> > > > > Creationist, bigot, fundamentalist, or any similar such thing. In
> > > > > approximately 97% of the topics under discussion here, I will side
> > > > > with the non-theist. However, I still believe that "God" can exist
> > > > > (despite 10 years of Catholic education and 40 years of Catholic
> > > > > upbringing). Here's why:
> > > > Atheist is not about whether god "can" exist but whether or not god
> > > > "does" exist.
> > > > > 1) The Holistic Nature of Reality
> > > > > Athiests, and most Western thinkers, as a generality, follow
> > > > > reductionist reasoning.
> > > > False. Emergent properties are recognized and studied, by atheists and
> > > > us Westerners (not a bigot, eh?).
> > > > > They believe the whole is no greater than the
> > > > > sum of its parts. But we know this is not true. For example, a
> > > > > reductionist would never deduce the reality of "consciousness" by
> > > > > studying a single brain cell, or even a billion brain cells. The
> > > > > interactions are just too complex. There are numerous examples of
> > > > > this in the world.
> > > > Exactly, which is why your statement is false. We understand the
> > > > concept of emergent properties such as "consciousness".
> > > > > Atheists tend to deny the existence of God based on reductionistic
> > > > > thinking.
> > > > Atheists deny the existence of god for various reasons. My reasons?
> > > > All known non-Pantheistic god-concepts are fictional. They describe
> > > > entities that do not or cannot exist.
> > > > Other god-concepts simply have no evidence or basis in reason.
> > > > > My personal (current) belief is that, when you consider the
> > > > > vast nature of reality and the holistic interactions thereof, it is
> > > > > possible that God can exist. I'm not saying he or she does, I'm
> > > > > saying its possible.
> > > > Since you are talking about atheism then, necessarily, we are talking
> > > > about whether or not god "does" exist. If you aren't talking about
> > > > that, then you aren't talking about atheism.
> > > > > To me, this fits, at least to the point where I can justify calling
> > > > > myself Catholic without being too hypocritical, in that God can know
> > > > > we exist and care about our well-being similar to how we know and care
> > > > > about the well-being of the cells in our bodies. I don't want my
> > > > > brain cells to have bad things happen to them, and if I could interact
> > > > > directly in some way with them, I would. But I can't, so I don't, and
> > > > > by my analogy therfore, evil can exist in the world. This is also how
> > > > > I justify praying. Perhaps by praying I somehow influence or
> > > > > 'connect' with this higher being, just as a cell in my body can, in a
> > > > > very primitive and limited way, interact with my conscious self.
> > > > > Plus, the more 'cells' that attempt this, the more probable the
> > > > > connection - you know, the "two or more of you gathered in his name"
> > > > > deal. OK, so its a stretch, and I admit it, but at least I am trying
> > > > > to justify my belief in God with a rational process.
> > > > The notion that prayer can influence this higher being is stupid. If
> > > > God was going to be moved by your prayer then he would have already
> > > > done what you want him to do.
> > > > > 2) The Vast Complexities of our Reality
> > > > > If you think, as most Atheists do, that the complexity of our universe
> > > > > arose randomly by chance, I think you are not really considering the
> > > > > facts.
> > > > There is absolutely no basis, whatsoever, for these things you claim
> > > > "most Atheists" think. Outside of not believing in a god, atheists are
> > > > not bound to think or adhere to any specific philosophy. If most
> > > > atheists believed this, then it should be easy for you to produce a
> > > > single quote, from an atheist, supporting this. Can you do that?
> > > > > I'm not talking about the silly stuff like Intelligent
> > > > > Design. I'm talking about the real challenges to the non-theist such
> > > > > as the anthropic principle and to a lesser extent, abiogenesis. I
> > > > > won't discuss these items in detail as I'm sure others can do the
> > > > > concepts more justice. Nor am saying that God must exist because of
> > > > > these observations, or that there is no scientific basis for the
> > > > > creation of life or our universe. Far from it. I am very open to the
> > > > > idea. However, my point is that regarding these concepts, I think it
> > > > > is clear that the non-theist has the tougher side of the argument than
> > > > > the theist.
> > > > The theist doesn't have an argument here.
> > > > > 3) The Santa Claus Principle
> > > > > Atheists will compare belief in God to belief in Santa Claus. This
> > > > > tends to drive religious people crazy. But here's the thing. It's
> > > > > true. They're right. I not only do not deny this, I embrace it. But
> > > > > here's the caveat. My belief in God is akin to a young child's belief
> > > > > in Santa Claus. Just as I feel a childhood experience is far more
> > > > > robust and enjoyable by believing in Santa Claus (especially in
> > > > > December), so is my and my loved one's life experience better through
> > > > > belief in God.
> > > > > In other words, I know God may not exist, and perhaps probably
> > > > > doesn't. But I maintain that belief in God is not only beneficial for
> > > > > myself, but especially my family. Specifically, several studies have
> > > > > shown that a family with a religous foundation is more stable than one
> > > > > without.
> > > > Do you understand what "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" is?
> > > > > Religion binds a family together. That's the primary reason
> > > > > I continue to promote Catholicism to my children, although it pains me
> > > > > quite often to do so. And yes, I will kick and scream and vomit when
> > > > > I hear the things that Catholics say and do. I strongly disagree with
> > > > > many Catholic/Christian/religious principles. Many. But let's face
> > > > > it, life can be hard; and in my experience, there are times when
> > > > > having a religious foundation brings comfort.
> > > > There is nothing religion offers that cannot be gained more honestly
> > > > through secular means.
> > > > > Anyway, I hope the above thoughts are provoking. Thanks for
> > > > > listening.
i do not recall reading your 'proof' and when i asked you to repost
it, i dont recall you doing that either. maybe im becoming senile, but
i dont lie. you can claim knowledge is a type of belief until you are
blue in the face, but that has no relevance to me. if belief and
knowledge were the same thing, one would think they would just use one
word instead of two.
so if you have factual reality, what do you believe? dont you mean you
know? please keep in mind we are talking about religious belief, so
try to apply your reason to this context.
i wasnt criticizing you monsier complex. i was stating what i consider
to be the difference between two words.
hey, do i get double points if im both stupid and lazy? ;-)
On Nov 6, 10:19 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 10:05 am, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > the opposite of 'does' is 'does not'. your stance is that 'god' does
> > not exist. in fact, i believe you claim to have proof of this although
> > i have not seen it.
> This is a lie. You've seen it, you just haven't read it.
> > im not sure all atheists state that 'god' does not
> > exist, but that they believe 'god' does not exist. if one is stating
> > something as fact, they are not referring to a belief, but to
> > knowledge.
> I've explained to you the error in this thinking already. Why do you
> insist on repeating your mistakes?
> Knowledge is a type of belief.
> > there is a MAJOR difference between the two, although i
> > recall you stating that knowledge can contain belief.
> You recall me saying that, yet you fail to actually understand or
> learn anything. Nice. Knowledge is a type of belief.
> > since we are
> > talking about the existance of 'god', to me this does not make much
> > sense since NOBODY KNOWS.
> I do.
> > wikipedia "Religious belief refers to a mental state in which faith is
> > placed in a creed related to the supernatural, sacred, or divine." in
> > other words, belief is a mental state, not a factual reality.
> It's a belief about factual reality.
> In any event, your original criticism (That I was talking about
> factual reality and not belief) has been refuted and shown to be a
> result of nothing more than your inability or unwillingness to read
> and comprehend anything going on around you. Whether you're stupid or
> lazy, I really don't care.
> > On Nov 6, 9:37 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 9:33 am, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > DM "Atheist is not about whether god "can" exist but whether or not
> > > > god "does" exist."
> > > > dont you mean atheism is about the "belief" of whether or not 'god'
> > > > exists?
> > > We were already operating under that premise, ergo it was unnecessary
> > > for me to repeat it. Please do try and keep up.
> > > > On Nov 5, 8:49 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 5, 5:06 am, Janon <janon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > Greetings,
> > > > > > This is my first post to this group, and I hope an interesting one.
> > > > > > First, let me explain what I mean by the title of the post. When I
> > > > > > say Atheists are "only" 97% correct, it is first and foremost an
> > > > > > attempt to bypass the ridiculous and frivolous topics that most
> > > > > > religious people promote. I'm not here to do that. I am not a
> > > > > > Creationist, bigot, fundamentalist, or any similar such thing. In
> > > > > > approximately 97% of the topics under discussion here, I will side
> > > > > > with the non-theist. However, I still believe that "God" can exist
> > > > > > (despite 10 years of Catholic education and 40 years of Catholic
> > > > > > upbringing). Here's why:
> > > > > Atheist is not about whether god "can" exist but whether or not god
> > > > > "does" exist.
> > > > > > 1) The Holistic Nature of Reality
> > > > > > Athiests, and most Western thinkers, as a generality, follow
> > > > > > reductionist reasoning.
> > > > > False. Emergent properties are recognized and studied, by atheists and
> > > > > us Westerners (not a bigot, eh?).
> > > > > > They believe the whole is no greater than the
> > > > > > sum of its parts. But we know this is not true. For example, a
> > > > > > reductionist would never deduce the reality of "consciousness" by
> > > > > > studying a single brain cell, or even a billion brain cells. The
> > > > > > interactions are just too complex. There are numerous examples of
> > > > > > this in the world.
> > > > > Exactly, which is why your statement is false. We understand the
> > > > > concept of emergent properties such as "consciousness".
> > > > > > Atheists tend to deny the existence of God based on reductionistic
> > > > > > thinking.
> > > > > Atheists deny the existence of god for various reasons. My reasons?
> > > > > All known non-Pantheistic god-concepts are fictional. They describe
> > > > > entities that do not or cannot exist.
> > > > > Other god-concepts simply have no evidence or basis in reason.
> > > > > > My personal (current) belief is that, when you consider the
> > > > > > vast nature of reality and the holistic interactions thereof, it is
> > > > > > possible that God can exist. I'm not saying he or she does, I'm
> > > > > > saying its possible.
> > > > > Since you are talking about atheism then, necessarily, we are talking
> > > > > about whether or not god "does" exist. If you aren't talking about
> > > > > that, then you aren't talking about atheism.
> > > > > > To me, this fits, at least to the point where I can justify calling
> > > > > > myself Catholic without being too hypocritical, in that God can know
> > > > > > we exist and care about our well-being similar to how we know and care
> > > > > > about the well-being of the cells in our bodies. I don't want my
> > > > > > brain cells to have bad things happen to them, and if I could interact
> > > > > > directly in some way with them, I would. But I can't, so I don't, and
> > > > > > by my analogy therfore, evil can exist in the world. This is also how
> > > > > > I justify praying. Perhaps by praying I somehow influence or
> > > > > > 'connect' with this higher being, just as a cell in my body can, in a
> > > > > > very primitive and limited way, interact with my conscious self.
> > > > > > Plus, the more 'cells' that attempt this, the more probable the
> > > > > > connection - you know, the "two or more of you gathered in his name"
> > > > > > deal. OK, so its a stretch, and I admit it, but at least I am trying
> > > > > > to justify my belief in God with a rational process.
> > > > > The notion that prayer can influence this higher being is stupid. If
> > > > > God was going to be moved by your prayer then he would have already
> > > > > done what you want him to do.
> > > > > > 2) The Vast Complexities of our Reality
> > > > > > If you think, as most Atheists do, that the complexity of our universe
> > > > > > arose randomly by chance, I think you are not really considering the
> > > > > > facts.
> > > > > There is absolutely no basis, whatsoever, for these things you claim
> > > > > "most Atheists" think. Outside of not believing in a god, atheists are
> > > > > not bound to think or adhere to any specific philosophy. If most
> > > > > atheists believed this, then it should be easy for you to produce a
> > > > > single quote, from an atheist, supporting this. Can you do that?
> > > > > > I'm not talking about the silly stuff like Intelligent
> > > > > > Design. I'm talking about the real challenges to the non-theist such
> > > > > > as the anthropic principle and to a lesser extent, abiogenesis. I
> > > > > > won't discuss these items in detail as I'm sure others can do the
> > > > > > concepts more justice. Nor am saying that God must exist because of
> > > > > > these observations, or that there is no scientific basis for the
> > > > > > creation of life or our universe. Far from it. I am very open to the
> > > > > > idea. However, my point is that regarding these concepts, I think it
> > > > > > is clear that the non-theist has the tougher side of the argument than
> > > > > > the theist.
> > > > > The theist doesn't have an argument here.
> > > > > > 3) The Santa Claus Principle
> > > > > > Atheists will compare belief in God to belief in Santa Claus. This
> > > > > > tends to drive religious people crazy. But here's the thing. It's
> > > > > > true. They're right. I not only do not deny this, I embrace it. But
> > > > > > here's the caveat. My belief in God is akin to a young child's belief
> > > > > > in Santa Claus. Just as I feel a childhood experience is far more
> > > > > > robust and enjoyable by believing in Santa Claus (especially in
> > > > > > December), so is my and my loved one's life experience better through
> > > > > > belief in God.
> > > > > > In other words, I know God may not exist, and perhaps probably
> > > > > > doesn't. But I maintain that belief in God is not only beneficial for
> > > > > > myself, but especially my family. Specifically, several studies have
> > > > > > shown that a family with a religous foundation is more stable than one
> > > > > > without.
> > > > > Do you understand what "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" is?
> > > > > > Religion binds a family together. That's the primary reason
> > > > > > I continue to promote Catholicism to my children, although it pains me
> > > > > > quite often to do so. And yes, I will kick and scream and vomit when
> > > > > > I hear the things that Catholics say and do. I strongly disagree with
> > > > > > many Catholic/Christian/religious principles. Many. But let's face
On Nov 6, 12:15 pm, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> i do not recall reading your 'proof' and when i asked you to repost
> it, i dont recall you doing that either. maybe im becoming senile, but
> i dont lie. you can claim knowledge is a type of belief until you are
> blue in the face, but that has no relevance to me.
Good to know that the meaning of words are of no relevance to you.
This does explains the nature of many of your posts.
> if belief and
> knowledge were the same thing,
They are not, and Drafterman never claimed they were. Do try to keep
up.
> one would think they would just use one
> word instead of two.
When a thing is a sub-set of another thing, it is indeed appropriate,
nay, necessary, to use different labels.
Don't believe me?
Go out in the jungle of your choice and mate with the first mammal you
bump into.
It won't matter which one, since apparently sub-types are of no
relevance to you.
__________________________________________
Science means simply the aggregate of all the recipes that are always
successful. All the rest is literature.
-- Paul Valéry
we are talking about religious belief, do try to keep that in mind.
not belief that a mammal or sub-species of that mammal exist. if you
stay on topic this might become a bit more clear to you, and may even
substantiate my statement that, in regards to 'god', belief is
entirely seperate from knowledge.
On Nov 6, 1:19 pm, Answer_42 <ipu.belie...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 12:15 pm, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > i do not recall reading your 'proof' and when i asked you to repost
> > it, i dont recall you doing that either. maybe im becoming senile, but
> > i dont lie. you can claim knowledge is a type of belief until you are
> > blue in the face, but that has no relevance to me.
> Good to know that the meaning of words are of no relevance to you.
> This does explains the nature of many of your posts.
> > if belief and
> > knowledge were the same thing,
> They are not, and Drafterman never claimed they were. Do try to keep
> up.
> > one would think they would just use one
> > word instead of two.
> When a thing is a sub-set of another thing, it is indeed appropriate,
> nay, necessary, to use different labels.
> Don't believe me?
> Go out in the jungle of your choice and mate with the first mammal you
> bump into.
> It won't matter which one, since apparently sub-types are of no
> relevance to you.
> __________________________________________
> Science means simply the aggregate of all the recipes that are always
> successful. All the rest is literature.
> -- Paul Valéry
On Nov 6, 12:15 pm, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> i do not recall reading your 'proof'
I know, you admitted that you haven't read it. But you've still seen
it.
> and when i asked you to repost
> it, i dont recall you doing that either.
I've given you the link twice and it's permanently on the pages of
this group. I've led you to the water, it's up to you to drink.
> maybe im becoming senile, but
> i dont lie.
But you did.
> you can claim knowledge is a type of belief until you are
> blue in the face, but that has no relevance to me.
I'm sorry that facts don't have relevance to you.
>if belief and
> knowledge were the same thing, one would think they would just use one
> word instead of two.
I didn't say they were the same thing. I said that knowledge was a
type of belief. Camaros are a type of car. That doesn't make Camaros
and cars the same thing.
> so if you have factual reality, what do you believe? dont you mean you
> know? please keep in mind we are talking about religious belief, so
> try to apply your reason to this context.
> i wasnt criticizing you monsier complex. i was stating what i consider
> to be the difference between two words.
> hey, do i get double points if im both stupid and lazy? ;-)
> On Nov 6, 10:19 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 10:05 am, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > the opposite of 'does' is 'does not'. your stance is that 'god' does
> > > not exist. in fact, i believe you claim to have proof of this although
> > > i have not seen it.
> > This is a lie. You've seen it, you just haven't read it.
> > > im not sure all atheists state that 'god' does not
> > > exist, but that they believe 'god' does not exist. if one is stating
> > > something as fact, they are not referring to a belief, but to
> > > knowledge.
> > I've explained to you the error in this thinking already. Why do you
> > insist on repeating your mistakes?
> > Knowledge is a type of belief.
> > > there is a MAJOR difference between the two, although i
> > > recall you stating that knowledge can contain belief.
> > You recall me saying that, yet you fail to actually understand or
> > learn anything. Nice. Knowledge is a type of belief.
> > > since we are
> > > talking about the existance of 'god', to me this does not make much
> > > sense since NOBODY KNOWS.
> > I do.
> > > wikipedia "Religious belief refers to a mental state in which faith is
> > > placed in a creed related to the supernatural, sacred, or divine." in
> > > other words, belief is a mental state, not a factual reality.
> > It's a belief about factual reality.
> > In any event, your original criticism (That I was talking about
> > factual reality and not belief) has been refuted and shown to be a
> > result of nothing more than your inability or unwillingness to read
> > and comprehend anything going on around you. Whether you're stupid or
> > lazy, I really don't care.
> > > On Nov 6, 9:37 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 6, 9:33 am, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > DM "Atheist is not about whether god "can" exist but whether or not
> > > > > god "does" exist."
> > > > > dont you mean atheism is about the "belief" of whether or not 'god'
> > > > > exists?
> > > > We were already operating under that premise, ergo it was unnecessary
> > > > for me to repeat it. Please do try and keep up.
> > > > > On Nov 5, 8:49 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 5, 5:06 am, Janon <janon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > Greetings,
> > > > > > > This is my first post to this group, and I hope an interesting one.
> > > > > > > First, let me explain what I mean by the title of the post. When I
> > > > > > > say Atheists are "only" 97% correct, it is first and foremost an
> > > > > > > attempt to bypass the ridiculous and frivolous topics that most
> > > > > > > religious people promote. I'm not here to do that. I am not a
> > > > > > > Creationist, bigot, fundamentalist, or any similar such thing. In
> > > > > > > approximately 97% of the topics under discussion here, I will side
> > > > > > > with the non-theist. However, I still believe that "God" can exist
> > > > > > > (despite 10 years of Catholic education and 40 years of Catholic
> > > > > > > upbringing). Here's why:
> > > > > > Atheist is not about whether god "can" exist but whether or not god
> > > > > > "does" exist.
> > > > > > > 1) The Holistic Nature of Reality
> > > > > > > Athiests, and most Western thinkers, as a generality, follow
> > > > > > > reductionist reasoning.
> > > > > > False. Emergent properties are recognized and studied, by atheists and
> > > > > > us Westerners (not a bigot, eh?).
> > > > > > > They believe the whole is no greater than the
> > > > > > > sum of its parts. But we know this is not true. For example, a
> > > > > > > reductionist would never deduce the reality of "consciousness" by
> > > > > > > studying a single brain cell, or even a billion brain cells. The
> > > > > > > interactions are just too complex. There are numerous examples of
> > > > > > > this in the world.
> > > > > > Exactly, which is why your statement is false. We understand the
> > > > > > concept of emergent properties such as "consciousness".
> > > > > > > Atheists tend to deny the existence of God based on reductionistic
> > > > > > > thinking.
> > > > > > Atheists deny the existence of god for various reasons. My reasons?
> > > > > > All known non-Pantheistic god-concepts are fictional. They describe
> > > > > > entities that do not or cannot exist.
> > > > > > Other god-concepts simply have no evidence or basis in reason.
> > > > > > > My personal (current) belief is that, when you consider the
> > > > > > > vast nature of reality and the holistic interactions thereof, it is
> > > > > > > possible that God can exist. I'm not saying he or she does, I'm
> > > > > > > saying its possible.
> > > > > > Since you are talking about atheism then, necessarily, we are talking
> > > > > > about whether or not god "does" exist. If you aren't talking about
> > > > > > that, then you aren't talking about atheism.
> > > > > > > To me, this fits, at least to the point where I can justify calling
> > > > > > > myself Catholic without being too hypocritical, in that God can know
> > > > > > > we exist and care about our well-being similar to how we know and care
> > > > > > > about the well-being of the cells in our bodies. I don't want my
> > > > > > > brain cells to have bad things happen to them, and if I could interact
> > > > > > > directly in some way with them, I would. But I can't, so I don't, and
> > > > > > > by my analogy therfore, evil can exist in the world. This is also how
> > > > > > > I justify praying. Perhaps by praying I somehow influence or
> > > > > > > 'connect' with this higher being, just as a cell in my body can, in a
> > > > > > > very primitive and limited way, interact with my conscious self.
> > > > > > > Plus, the more 'cells' that attempt this, the more probable the
> > > > > > > connection - you know, the "two or more of you gathered in his name"
> > > > > > > deal. OK, so its a stretch, and I admit it, but at least I am trying
> > > > > > > to justify my belief in God with a rational process.
> > > > > > The notion that prayer can influence this higher being is stupid. If
> > > > > > God was going to be moved by your prayer then he would have already
> > > > > > done what you want him to do.
> > > > > > > 2) The Vast Complexities of our Reality
> > > > > > > If you think, as most Atheists do, that the complexity of our universe
> > > > > > > arose randomly by chance, I think you are not really considering the
> > > > > > > facts.
> > > > > > There is absolutely no basis, whatsoever, for these things you claim
> > > > > > "most Atheists" think. Outside of not believing in a god, atheists are
> > > > > > not bound to think or adhere to any specific philosophy. If most
> > > > > > atheists believed this, then it should be easy for you to produce a
> > > > > > single quote, from an atheist, supporting this. Can you do that?
> > > > > > > I'm not talking about the silly stuff like Intelligent
> > > > > > > Design. I'm talking about the real challenges to the non-theist such
> > > > > > > as the anthropic principle and to a lesser extent, abiogenesis. I
> > > > > > > won't discuss these items in detail as I'm sure others can do the
> > > > > > > concepts more justice. Nor am saying that God must exist because of
> > > > > > > these observations, or that there is no scientific basis for the
> > > > > > > creation of life or our universe. Far from it. I am very open to the
> > > > > > > idea. However, my point is that regarding these concepts, I think it
> > > > > > > is clear that the non-theist has the tougher side of the argument than
> > > > > > > the theist.
> > > > > > The theist doesn't have an argument here.
> > > > > > > 3) The Santa Claus Principle
> > > > > > > Atheists will compare belief in God to belief in Santa Claus. This
> > > > > > > tends to drive religious people crazy. But here's the thing. It's
> > > > > > > true. They're right. I not only do not deny this, I embrace it. But
> > > > > > > here's the caveat. My belief in God is akin to a young child's belief
> > > > > > > in Santa Claus. Just as I feel a childhood experience is far more
> > > > > > > robust and enjoyable by believing in Santa Claus (especially in
> > > > > > > December), so is my and my loved one's life experience better through
> > > > > > > belief in God.
we are talking about religious belief, which i think even you may
agree, has nothing to do with knowledge. why dont you lead me to water
one more time. i would like to bemuse myself over your attempt to
prove there is not 'god'.
On Nov 6, 9:33 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 12:15 pm, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > i do not recall reading your 'proof'
> I know, you admitted that you haven't read it. But you've still seen
> it.
> > and when i asked you to repost
> > it, i dont recall you doing that either.
> I've given you the link twice and it's permanently on the pages of
> this group. I've led you to the water, it's up to you to drink.
> > maybe im becoming senile, but
> > i dont lie.
> But you did.
> > you can claim knowledge is a type of belief until you are
> > blue in the face, but that has no relevance to me.
> I'm sorry that facts don't have relevance to you.
> >if belief and
> > knowledge were the same thing, one would think they would just use one
> > word instead of two.
> I didn't say they were the same thing. I said that knowledge was a
> type of belief. Camaros are a type of car. That doesn't make Camaros
> and cars the same thing.
> > so if you have factual reality, what do you believe? dont you mean you
> > know? please keep in mind we are talking about religious belief, so
> > try to apply your reason to this context.
> > i wasnt criticizing you monsier complex. i was stating what i consider
> > to be the difference between two words.
> > hey, do i get double points if im both stupid and lazy? ;-)
> > On Nov 6, 10:19 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 10:05 am, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > the opposite of 'does' is 'does not'. your stance is that 'god' does
> > > > not exist. in fact, i believe you claim to have proof of this although
> > > > i have not seen it.
> > > This is a lie. You've seen it, you just haven't read it.
> > > > im not sure all atheists state that 'god' does not
> > > > exist, but that they believe 'god' does not exist. if one is stating
> > > > something as fact, they are not referring to a belief, but to
> > > > knowledge.
> > > I've explained to you the error in this thinking already. Why do you
> > > insist on repeating your mistakes?
> > > Knowledge is a type of belief.
> > > > there is a MAJOR difference between the two, although i
> > > > recall you stating that knowledge can contain belief.
> > > You recall me saying that, yet you fail to actually understand or
> > > learn anything. Nice. Knowledge is a type of belief.
> > > > since we are
> > > > talking about the existance of 'god', to me this does not make much
> > > > sense since NOBODY KNOWS.
> > > I do.
> > > > wikipedia "Religious belief refers to a mental state in which faith is
> > > > placed in a creed related to the supernatural, sacred, or divine." in
> > > > other words, belief is a mental state, not a factual reality.
> > > It's a belief about factual reality.
> > > In any event, your original criticism (That I was talking about
> > > factual reality and not belief) has been refuted and shown to be a
> > > result of nothing more than your inability or unwillingness to read
> > > and comprehend anything going on around you. Whether you're stupid or
> > > lazy, I really don't care.
> > > > On Nov 6, 9:37 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 6, 9:33 am, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > DM "Atheist is not about whether god "can" exist but whether or not
> > > > > > god "does" exist."
> > > > > > dont you mean atheism is about the "belief" of whether or not 'god'
> > > > > > exists?
> > > > > We were already operating under that premise, ergo it was unnecessary
> > > > > for me to repeat it. Please do try and keep up.
> > > > > > On Nov 5, 8:49 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Nov 5, 5:06 am, Janon <janon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > Greetings,
> > > > > > > > This is my first post to this group, and I hope an interesting one.
> > > > > > > > First, let me explain what I mean by the title of the post. When I
> > > > > > > > say Atheists are "only" 97% correct, it is first and foremost an
> > > > > > > > attempt to bypass the ridiculous and frivolous topics that most
> > > > > > > > religious people promote. I'm not here to do that. I am not a
> > > > > > > > Creationist, bigot, fundamentalist, or any similar such thing. In
> > > > > > > > approximately 97% of the topics under discussion here, I will side
> > > > > > > > with the non-theist. However, I still believe that "God" can exist
> > > > > > > > (despite 10 years of Catholic education and 40 years of Catholic
> > > > > > > > upbringing). Here's why:
> > > > > > > Atheist is not about whether god "can" exist but whether or not god
> > > > > > > "does" exist.
> > > > > > > > 1) The Holistic Nature of Reality
> > > > > > > > Athiests, and most Western thinkers, as a generality, follow
> > > > > > > > reductionist reasoning.
> > > > > > > False. Emergent properties are recognized and studied, by atheists and
> > > > > > > us Westerners (not a bigot, eh?).
> > > > > > > > They believe the whole is no greater than the
> > > > > > > > sum of its parts. But we know this is not true. For example, a
> > > > > > > > reductionist would never deduce the reality of "consciousness" by
> > > > > > > > studying a single brain cell, or even a billion brain cells. The
> > > > > > > > interactions are just too complex. There are numerous examples of
> > > > > > > > this in the world.
> > > > > > > Exactly, which is why your statement is false. We understand the
> > > > > > > concept of emergent properties such as "consciousness".
> > > > > > > > Atheists tend to deny the existence of God based on reductionistic
> > > > > > > > thinking.
> > > > > > > Atheists deny the existence of god for various reasons. My reasons?
> > > > > > > All known non-Pantheistic god-concepts are fictional. They describe
> > > > > > > entities that do not or cannot exist.
> > > > > > > Other god-concepts simply have no evidence or basis in reason.
> > > > > > > > My personal (current) belief is that, when you consider the
> > > > > > > > vast nature of reality and the holistic interactions thereof, it is
> > > > > > > > possible that God can exist. I'm not saying he or she does, I'm
> > > > > > > > saying its possible.
> > > > > > > Since you are talking about atheism then, necessarily, we are talking
> > > > > > > about whether or not god "does" exist. If you aren't talking about
> > > > > > > that, then you aren't talking about atheism.
> > > > > > > > To me, this fits, at least to the point where I can justify calling
> > > > > > > > myself Catholic without being too hypocritical, in that God can know
> > > > > > > > we exist and care about our well-being similar to how we know and care
> > > > > > > > about the well-being of the cells in our bodies. I don't want my
> > > > > > > > brain cells to have bad things happen to them, and if I could interact
> > > > > > > > directly in some way with them, I would. But I can't, so I don't, and
> > > > > > > > by my analogy therfore, evil can exist in the world. This is also how
> > > > > > > > I justify praying. Perhaps by praying I somehow influence or
> > > > > > > > 'connect' with this higher being, just as a cell in my body can, in a
> > > > > > > > very primitive and limited way, interact with my conscious self.
> > > > > > > > Plus, the more 'cells' that attempt this, the more probable the
> > > > > > > > connection - you know, the "two or more of you gathered in his name"
> > > > > > > > deal. OK, so its a stretch, and I admit it, but at least I am trying
> > > > > > > > to justify my belief in God with a rational process.
> > > > > > > The notion that prayer can influence this higher being is stupid. If
> > > > > > > God was going to be moved by your prayer then he would have already
> > > > > > > done what you want him to do.
> > > > > > > > 2) The Vast Complexities of our Reality
> > > > > > > > If you think, as most Atheists do, that the complexity of our universe
> > > > > > > > arose randomly by chance, I think you are not really considering the
> > > > > > > > facts.
> > > > > > > There is absolutely no basis, whatsoever, for these things you claim
> > > > > > > "most Atheists" think. Outside of not believing in a god, atheists are
> > > > > > > not bound to think or adhere to any specific philosophy. If most
> > > > > > > atheists believed this, then it should be easy for you to produce a
> > > > > > > single quote, from an atheist, supporting this. Can you do that?
> > > > > > > > I'm not talking about the silly stuff like Intelligent
> > > > > > > > Design. I'm talking about the real challenges to the non-theist such
> > > > > > > > as the anthropic principle and to a lesser extent, abiogenesis. I
> > > > > > > > won't discuss these items in detail as I'm sure others can do the
> > > > > > > > concepts more justice. Nor am saying that God must exist because of
> > > > > > > > these observations, or that there is no scientific basis for the
> > > > > > > > creation of life or our universe. Far from it. I am very open to the
> > > > > > > > idea. However, my point is that regarding these concepts, I think it
> > > > > > > > is clear that the non-theist has the tougher side of the argument than
> > > > > > > > the theist.
> > > > > > > The theist doesn't have an argument here.
> > > > > > > > 3) The Santa Claus Principle
> > > > > > > > Atheists will compare belief in God
On Nov 7, 7:02 am, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> we are talking about religious belief, which i think even you may
> agree, has nothing to do with knowledge.
All belief can have something to do with knowledge.
> why dont you lead me to water
> one more time. i would like to bemuse myself over your attempt to
> prove there is not 'god'.
If that was true, you would have already read it.
So, no. I don't think you're interested in having any sort of serious
conversation whatsoever. You're just here to act like an ass under the
guise of "humor". So, if you're serious, then it should be no small
effort for you to look back through your posts and find where I gave
you the link.
> On Nov 6, 9:33 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 12:15 pm, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > i do not recall reading your 'proof'
> > I know, you admitted that you haven't read it. But you've still seen
> > it.
> > > and when i asked you to repost
> > > it, i dont recall you doing that either.
> > I've given you the link twice and it's permanently on the pages of
> > this group. I've led you to the water, it's up to you to drink.
> > > maybe im becoming senile, but
> > > i dont lie.
> > But you did.
> > > you can claim knowledge is a type of belief until you are
> > > blue in the face, but that has no relevance to me.
> > I'm sorry that facts don't have relevance to you.
> > >if belief and
> > > knowledge were the same thing, one would think they would just use one
> > > word instead of two.
> > I didn't say they were the same thing. I said that knowledge was a
> > type of belief. Camaros are a type of car. That doesn't make Camaros
> > and cars the same thing.
> > > so if you have factual reality, what do you believe? dont you mean you
> > > know? please keep in mind we are talking about religious belief, so
> > > try to apply your reason to this context.
> > > i wasnt criticizing you monsier complex. i was stating what i consider
> > > to be the difference between two words.
> > > hey, do i get double points if im both stupid and lazy? ;-)
> > > On Nov 6, 10:19 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 6, 10:05 am, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > the opposite of 'does' is 'does not'. your stance is that 'god' does
> > > > > not exist. in fact, i believe you claim to have proof of this although
> > > > > i have not seen it.
> > > > This is a lie. You've seen it, you just haven't read it.
> > > > > im not sure all atheists state that 'god' does not
> > > > > exist, but that they believe 'god' does not exist. if one is stating
> > > > > something as fact, they are not referring to a belief, but to
> > > > > knowledge.
> > > > I've explained to you the error in this thinking already. Why do you
> > > > insist on repeating your mistakes?
> > > > Knowledge is a type of belief.
> > > > > there is a MAJOR difference between the two, although i
> > > > > recall you stating that knowledge can contain belief.
> > > > You recall me saying that, yet you fail to actually understand or
> > > > learn anything. Nice. Knowledge is a type of belief.
> > > > > since we are
> > > > > talking about the existance of 'god', to me this does not make much
> > > > > sense since NOBODY KNOWS.
> > > > I do.
> > > > > wikipedia "Religious belief refers to a mental state in which faith is
> > > > > placed in a creed related to the supernatural, sacred, or divine." in
> > > > > other words, belief is a mental state, not a factual reality.
> > > > It's a belief about factual reality.
> > > > In any event, your original criticism (That I was talking about
> > > > factual reality and not belief) has been refuted and shown to be a
> > > > result of nothing more than your inability or unwillingness to read
> > > > and comprehend anything going on around you. Whether you're stupid or
> > > > lazy, I really don't care.
> > > > > On Nov 6, 9:37 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 6, 9:33 am, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > DM "Atheist is not about whether god "can" exist but whether or not
> > > > > > > god "does" exist."
> > > > > > > dont you mean atheism is about the "belief" of whether or not 'god'
> > > > > > > exists?
> > > > > > We were already operating under that premise, ergo it was unnecessary
> > > > > > for me to repeat it. Please do try and keep up.
> > > > > > > On Nov 5, 8:49 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Nov 5, 5:06 am, Janon <janon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Greetings,
> > > > > > > > > This is my first post to this group, and I hope an interesting one.
> > > > > > > > > First, let me explain what I mean by the title of the post. When I
> > > > > > > > > say Atheists are "only" 97% correct, it is first and foremost an
> > > > > > > > > attempt to bypass the ridiculous and frivolous topics that most
> > > > > > > > > religious people promote. I'm not here to do that. I am not a
> > > > > > > > > Creationist, bigot, fundamentalist, or any similar such thing. In
> > > > > > > > > approximately 97% of the topics under discussion here, I will side
> > > > > > > > > with the non-theist. However, I still believe that "God" can exist
> > > > > > > > > (despite 10 years of Catholic education and 40 years of Catholic
> > > > > > > > > upbringing). Here's why:
> > > > > > > > Atheist is not about whether god "can" exist but whether or not god
> > > > > > > > "does" exist.
> > > > > > > > > 1) The Holistic Nature of Reality
> > > > > > > > > Athiests, and most Western thinkers, as a generality, follow
> > > > > > > > > reductionist reasoning.
> > > > > > > > False. Emergent properties are recognized and studied, by atheists and
> > > > > > > > us Westerners (not a bigot, eh?).
> > > > > > > > > They believe the whole is no greater than the
> > > > > > > > > sum of its parts. But we know this is not true. For example, a
> > > > > > > > > reductionist would never deduce the reality of "consciousness" by
> > > > > > > > > studying a single brain cell, or even a billion brain cells. The
> > > > > > > > > interactions are just too complex. There are numerous examples of
> > > > > > > > > this in the world.
> > > > > > > > Exactly, which is why your statement is false. We understand the
> > > > > > > > concept of emergent properties such as "consciousness".
> > > > > > > > > Atheists tend to deny the existence of God based on reductionistic
> > > > > > > > > thinking.
> > > > > > > > Atheists deny the existence of god for various reasons. My reasons?
> > > > > > > > All known non-Pantheistic god-concepts are fictional. They describe
> > > > > > > > entities that do not or cannot exist.
> > > > > > > > Other god-concepts simply have no evidence or basis in reason.
> > > > > > > > > My personal (current) belief is that, when you consider the
> > > > > > > > > vast nature of reality and the holistic interactions thereof, it is
> > > > > > > > > possible that God can exist. I'm not saying he or she does, I'm
> > > > > > > > > saying its possible.
> > > > > > > > Since you are talking about atheism then, necessarily, we are talking
> > > > > > > > about whether or not god "does" exist. If you aren't talking about
> > > > > > > > that, then you aren't talking about atheism.
> > > > > > > > > To me, this fits, at least to the point where I can justify calling
> > > > > > > > > myself Catholic without being too hypocritical, in that God can know
> > > > > > > > > we exist and care about our well-being similar to how we know and care
> > > > > > > > > about the well-being of the cells in our bodies. I don't want my
> > > > > > > > > brain cells to have bad things happen to them, and if I could interact
> > > > > > > > > directly in some way with them, I would. But I can't, so I don't, and
> > > > > > > > > by my analogy therfore, evil can exist in the world. This is also how
> > > > > > > > > I justify praying. Perhaps by praying I somehow influence or
> > > > > > > > > 'connect' with this higher being, just as a cell in my body can, in a
> > > > > > > > > very primitive and limited way, interact with my conscious self.
> > > > > > > > > Plus, the more 'cells' that attempt this, the more probable the
> > > > > > > > > connection - you know, the "two or more of you gathered in his name"
> > > > > > > > > deal. OK, so its a stretch, and I admit it, but at least I am trying
> > > > > > > > > to justify my belief in God with a rational process.
> > > > > > > > The notion that prayer can influence this higher being is stupid. If
> > > > > > > > God was going to be moved by your prayer then he would have already
> > > > > > > > done what you want him to do.
> > > > > > > > > 2) The Vast Complexities of our Reality
> > > > > > > > > If you think, as most Atheists do, that the complexity of our universe
> > > > > > > > > arose randomly by chance, I think you are not really considering the
> > > > > > > > > facts.
> > > > > > > > There is absolutely no basis, whatsoever, for these things you claim
> > > > > > > > "most Atheists" think. Outside of not believing in a god, atheists are
> > > > > > > > not bound to think or adhere to any specific philosophy. If most
> > > > > > > > atheists believed this, then it should be easy for you to produce a
> > > > > > > > single quote, from an atheist, supporting this. Can you do that?
> > > > > > > > > I'm not talking about the silly stuff like Intelligent
> > > > > > > > > Design. I'm talking about the real challenges to the non-theist such
i guess id probably have to go back about 50 pages by now with all the
junk threads, so i wont waste my time. im sure reading your 'proof'
would not prove anything to me anyway. your name calling skills could
use a bit of humor, dont you think?
On Nov 7, 7:30 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 7:02 am, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > we are talking about religious belief, which i think even you may
> > agree, has nothing to do with knowledge.
> All belief can have something to do with knowledge.
> > why dont you lead me to water
> > one more time. i would like to bemuse myself over your attempt to
> > prove there is not 'god'.
> If that was true, you would have already read it.
> So, no. I don't think you're interested in having any sort of serious
> conversation whatsoever. You're just here to act like an ass under the
> guise of "humor". So, if you're serious, then it should be no small
> effort for you to look back through your posts and find where I gave
> you the link.
> Consider it a show of good faith.
> > On Nov 6, 9:33 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 12:15 pm, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > i do not recall reading your 'proof'
> > > I know, you admitted that you haven't read it. But you've still seen
> > > it.
> > > > and when i asked you to repost
> > > > it, i dont recall you doing that either.
> > > I've given you the link twice and it's permanently on the pages of
> > > this group. I've led you to the water, it's up to you to drink.
> > > > maybe im becoming senile, but
> > > > i dont lie.
> > > But you did.
> > > > you can claim knowledge is a type of belief until you are
> > > > blue in the face, but that has no relevance to me.
> > > I'm sorry that facts don't have relevance to you.
> > > >if belief and
> > > > knowledge were the same thing, one would think they would just use one
> > > > word instead of two.
> > > I didn't say they were the same thing. I said that knowledge was a
> > > type of belief. Camaros are a type of car. That doesn't make Camaros
> > > and cars the same thing.
> > > > so if you have factual reality, what do you believe? dont you mean you
> > > > know? please keep in mind we are talking about religious belief, so
> > > > try to apply your reason to this context.
> > > > i wasnt criticizing you monsier complex. i was stating what i consider
> > > > to be the difference between two words.
> > > > hey, do i get double points if im both stupid and lazy? ;-)
> > > > On Nov 6, 10:19 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 6, 10:05 am, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > the opposite of 'does' is 'does not'. your stance is that 'god' does
> > > > > > not exist. in fact, i believe you claim to have proof of this although
> > > > > > i have not seen it.
> > > > > This is a lie. You've seen it, you just haven't read it.
> > > > > > im not sure all atheists state that 'god' does not
> > > > > > exist, but that they believe 'god' does not exist. if one is stating
> > > > > > something as fact, they are not referring to a belief, but to
> > > > > > knowledge.
> > > > > I've explained to you the error in this thinking already. Why do you
> > > > > insist on repeating your mistakes?
> > > > > Knowledge is a type of belief.
> > > > > > there is a MAJOR difference between the two, although i
> > > > > > recall you stating that knowledge can contain belief.
> > > > > You recall me saying that, yet you fail to actually understand or
> > > > > learn anything. Nice. Knowledge is a type of belief.
> > > > > > since we are
> > > > > > talking about the existance of 'god', to me this does not make much
> > > > > > sense since NOBODY KNOWS.
> > > > > I do.
> > > > > > wikipedia "Religious belief refers to a mental state in which faith is
> > > > > > placed in a creed related to the supernatural, sacred, or divine." in
> > > > > > other words, belief is a mental state, not a factual reality.
> > > > > It's a belief about factual reality.
> > > > > In any event, your original criticism (That I was talking about
> > > > > factual reality and not belief) has been refuted and shown to be a
> > > > > result of nothing more than your inability or unwillingness to read
> > > > > and comprehend anything going on around you. Whether you're stupid or
> > > > > lazy, I really don't care.
> > > > > > On Nov 6, 9:37 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > On Nov 6, 9:33 am, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > DM "Atheist is not about whether god "can" exist but whether or not
> > > > > > > > god "does" exist."
> > > > > > > > dont you mean atheism is about the "belief" of whether or not 'god'
> > > > > > > > exists?
> > > > > > > We were already operating under that premise, ergo it was unnecessary
> > > > > > > for me to repeat it. Please do try and keep up.
> > > > > > > > On Nov 5, 8:49 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 5, 5:06 am, Janon <janon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Greetings,
> > > > > > > > > > This is my first post to this group, and I hope an interesting one.
> > > > > > > > > > First, let me explain what I mean by the title of the post. When I
> > > > > > > > > > say Atheists are "only" 97% correct, it is first and foremost an
> > > > > > > > > > attempt to bypass the ridiculous and frivolous topics that most
> > > > > > > > > > religious people promote. I'm not here to do that. I am not a
> > > > > > > > > > Creationist, bigot, fundamentalist, or any similar such thing. In
> > > > > > > > > > approximately 97% of the topics under discussion here, I will side
> > > > > > > > > > with the non-theist. However, I still believe that "God" can exist
> > > > > > > > > > (despite 10 years of Catholic education and 40 years of Catholic
> > > > > > > > > > upbringing). Here's why:
> > > > > > > > > Atheist is not about whether god "can" exist but whether or not god
> > > > > > > > > "does" exist.
> > > > > > > > > > 1) The Holistic Nature of Reality
> > > > > > > > > > Athiests, and most Western thinkers, as a generality, follow
> > > > > > > > > > reductionist reasoning.
> > > > > > > > > False. Emergent properties are recognized and studied, by atheists and
> > > > > > > > > us Westerners (not a bigot, eh?).
> > > > > > > > > > They believe the whole is no greater than the
> > > > > > > > > > sum of its parts. But we know this is not true. For example, a
> > > > > > > > > > reductionist would never deduce the reality of "consciousness" by
> > > > > > > > > > studying a single brain cell, or even a billion brain cells. The
> > > > > > > > > > interactions are just too complex. There are numerous examples of
> > > > > > > > > > this in the world.
> > > > > > > > > Exactly, which is why your statement is false. We understand the
> > > > > > > > > concept of emergent properties such as "consciousness".
> > > > > > > > > > Atheists tend to deny the existence of God based on reductionistic
> > > > > > > > > > thinking.
> > > > > > > > > Atheists deny the existence of god for various reasons. My reasons?
> > > > > > > > > All known non-Pantheistic god-concepts are fictional. They describe
> > > > > > > > > entities that do not or cannot exist.
> > > > > > > > > Other god-concepts simply have no evidence or basis in reason.
> > > > > > > > > > My personal (current) belief is that, when you consider the
> > > > > > > > > > vast nature of reality and the holistic interactions thereof, it is
> > > > > > > > > > possible that God can exist. I'm not saying he or she does, I'm
> > > > > > > > > > saying its possible.
> > > > > > > > > Since you are talking about atheism then, necessarily, we are talking
> > > > > > > > > about whether or not god "does" exist. If you aren't talking about
> > > > > > > > > that, then you aren't talking about atheism.
> > > > > > > > > > To me, this fits, at least to the point where I can justify calling
> > > > > > > > > > myself Catholic without being too hypocritical, in that God can know
> > > > > > > > > > we exist and care about our well-being similar to how we know and care
> > > > > > > > > > about the well-being of the cells in our bodies. I don't want my
> > > > > > > > > > brain cells to have bad things happen to them, and if I could interact
> > > > > > > > > > directly in some way with them, I would. But I can't, so I don't, and
> > > > > > > > > > by my analogy therfore, evil can exist in the world. This is also how
> > > > > > > > > > I justify praying. Perhaps by praying I somehow influence or
> > > > > > > > > > 'connect' with this higher being, just as a cell in my body can, in a
> > > > > > > > > > very primitive and limited way, interact with my conscious self.
> > > > > > > > > > Plus, the more 'cells' that attempt this, the more probable the
> > > > > > > > > > connection - you know, the "two or more of you gathered in his name"
> > > > > > > > > > deal. OK, so its a stretch, and I admit it, but at least I am trying
> > > > > > > > > > to justify my belief in God with a rational process.
> > > > > > > > > The notion that prayer can influence this higher being is stupid. If
> > > > > > > > > God was going to be moved by your prayer then he would have already
> > > > > > > > > done what you want him to do.
> > > > > > > > > > 2) The Vast Complexities of our Reality
> > > > > > > > > > If you think, as most Atheists do, that the complexity of our universe
> > > > > > > > > > arose randomly by chance, I think you are not really considering the
> On Nov 7, 7:30 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 7, 7:02 am, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > we are talking about religious belief, which i think even you may
> > > agree, has nothing to do with knowledge.
> > All belief can have something to do with knowledge.
> > > why dont you lead me to water
> > > one more time. i would like to bemuse myself over your attempt to
> > > prove there is not 'god'.
> > If that was true, you would have already read it.
> > So, no. I don't think you're interested in having any sort of serious
> > conversation whatsoever. You're just here to act like an ass under the
> > guise of "humor". So, if you're serious, then it should be no small
> > effort for you to look back through your posts and find where I gave
> > you the link.
> > Consider it a show of good faith.
> > > On Nov 6, 9:33 pm, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 6, 12:15 pm, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > i do not recall reading your 'proof'
> > > > I know, you admitted that you haven't read it. But you've still seen
> > > > it.
> > > > > and when i asked you to repost
> > > > > it, i dont recall you doing that either.
> > > > I've given you the link twice and it's permanently on the pages of
> > > > this group. I've led you to the water, it's up to you to drink.
> > > > > maybe im becoming senile, but
> > > > > i dont lie.
> > > > But you did.
> > > > > you can claim knowledge is a type of belief until you are
> > > > > blue in the face, but that has no relevance to me.
> > > > I'm sorry that facts don't have relevance to you.
> > > > >if belief and
> > > > > knowledge were the same thing, one would think they would just use one
> > > > > word instead of two.
> > > > I didn't say they were the same thing. I said that knowledge was a
> > > > type of belief. Camaros are a type of car. That doesn't make Camaros
> > > > and cars the same thing.
> > > > > so if you have factual reality, what do you believe? dont you mean you
> > > > > know? please keep in mind we are talking about religious belief, so
> > > > > try to apply your reason to this context.
> > > > > i wasnt criticizing you monsier complex. i was stating what i consider
> > > > > to be the difference between two words.
> > > > > hey, do i get double points if im both stupid and lazy? ;-)
> > > > > On Nov 6, 10:19 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > On Nov 6, 10:05 am, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > the opposite of 'does' is 'does not'. your stance is that 'god' does
> > > > > > > not exist. in fact, i believe you claim to have proof of this although
> > > > > > > i have not seen it.
> > > > > > This is a lie. You've seen it, you just haven't read it.
> > > > > > > im not sure all atheists state that 'god' does not
> > > > > > > exist, but that they believe 'god' does not exist. if one is stating
> > > > > > > something as fact, they are not referring to a belief, but to
> > > > > > > knowledge.
> > > > > > I've explained to you the error in this thinking already. Why do you
> > > > > > insist on repeating your mistakes?
> > > > > > Knowledge is a type of belief.
> > > > > > > there is a MAJOR difference between the two, although i
> > > > > > > recall you stating that knowledge can contain belief.
> > > > > > You recall me saying that, yet you fail to actually understand or
> > > > > > learn anything. Nice. Knowledge is a type of belief.
> > > > > > > since we are
> > > > > > > talking about the existance of 'god', to me this does not make much
> > > > > > > sense since NOBODY KNOWS.
> > > > > > I do.
> > > > > > > wikipedia "Religious belief refers to a mental state in which faith is
> > > > > > > placed in a creed related to the supernatural, sacred, or divine." in
> > > > > > > other words, belief is a mental state, not a factual reality.
> > > > > > It's a belief about factual reality.
> > > > > > In any event, your original criticism (That I was talking about
> > > > > > factual reality and not belief) has been refuted and shown to be a
> > > > > > result of nothing more than your inability or unwillingness to read
> > > > > > and comprehend anything going on around you. Whether you're stupid or
> > > > > > lazy, I really don't care.
> > > > > > > On Nov 6, 9:37 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Nov 6, 9:33 am, showmethehoney <alenasha...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > DM "Atheist is not about whether god "can" exist but whether or not
> > > > > > > > > god "does" exist."
> > > > > > > > > dont you mean atheism is about the "belief" of whether or not 'god'
> > > > > > > > > exists?
> > > > > > > > We were already operating under that premise, ergo it was unnecessary
> > > > > > > > for me to repeat it. Please do try and keep up.
> > > > > > > > > On Nov 5, 8:49 am, Drafterman <drafter...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Nov 5, 5:06 am, Janon <janon...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Greetings,
> > > > > > > > > > > This is my first post to this group, and I hope an interesting one.
> > > > > > > > > > > First, let me explain what I mean by the title of the post. When I
> > > > > > > > > > > say Atheists are "only" 97% correct, it is first and foremost an
> > > > > > > > > > > attempt to bypass the ridiculous and frivolous topics that most
> > > > > > > > > > > religious people promote. I'm not here to do that. I am not a
> > > > > > > > > > > Creationist, bigot, fundamentalist, or any similar such thing. In
> > > > > > > > > > > approximately 97% of the topics under discussion here, I will side
> > > > > > > > > > > with the non-theist. However, I still believe that "God" can exist
> > > > > > > > > > > (despite 10 years of Catholic education and 40 years of Catholic
> > > > > > > > > > > upbringing). Here's why:
> > > > > > > > > > Atheist is not about whether god "can" exist but whether or not god
> > > > > > > > > > "does" exist.
> > > > > > > > > > > 1) The Holistic Nature of Reality
> > > > > > > > > > > Athiests, and most Western thinkers, as a generality, follow
> > > > > > > > > > > reductionist reasoning.
> > > > > > > > > > False. Emergent properties are recognized and studied, by atheists and
> > > > > > > > > > us Westerners (not a bigot, eh?).
> > > > > > > > > > > They believe the whole is no greater than the
> > > > > > > > > > > sum of its parts. But we know this is not true. For example, a
> > > > > > > > > > > reductionist would never deduce the reality of "consciousness" by
> > > > > > > > > > > studying a single brain cell, or even a billion brain cells. The
> > > > > > > > > > > interactions are just too complex. There are numerous examples of
> > > > > > > > > > > this in the world.
> > > > > > > > > > Exactly, which is why your statement is false. We understand the
> > > > > > > > > > concept of emergent properties such as "consciousness".
> > > > > > > > > > > Atheists tend to deny the existence of God based on reductionistic
> > > > > > > > > > > thinking.
> > > > > > > > > > Atheists deny the existence of god for various reasons. My reasons?
> > > > > > > > > > All known non-Pantheistic god-concepts are fictional. They describe
> > > > > > > > > > entities that do not or cannot exist.
> > > > > > > > > > Other god-concepts simply have no evidence or basis in reason.
> > > > > > > > > > > My personal (current) belief is that, when you consider the
> > > > > > > > > > > vast nature of reality and the holistic interactions thereof, it is
> > > > > > > > > > > possible that God can exist. I'm not saying he or she does, I'm
> > > > > > > > > > > saying its possible.
> > > > > > > > > > Since you are talking about atheism then, necessarily, we are talking
> > > > > > > > > > about whether or not god "does" exist. If you aren't talking about
> > > > > > > > > > that, then you aren't talking about atheism.
> > > > > > > > > > > To me, this fits, at least to the point where I can justify calling
> > > > > > > > > > > myself Catholic without being too hypocritical, in that God can know
> > > > > > > > > > > we exist and care about our well-being similar to how we know and care
> > > > > > > > > > > about the well-being of the cells in our bodies. I don't want my
> > > > > > > > > > > brain cells to have bad things happen to them, and if I could interact
> > > > > > > > > > > directly in some way with them, I would. But I can't, so I don't, and
> > > > > > > > > > > by my analogy therfore, evil can exist in the world. This is also how
> > > > > > > > > > > I justify praying. Perhaps by praying I somehow influence or
> > > > > > > > > > > 'connect' with this higher being, just as a cell in my body can, in a
> > > > > > > > > > > very primitive and limited way, interact with my conscious self.
> > > > > > > > > > > Plus, the more 'cells' that attempt this, the more probable the
> This is my first post to this group, and I hope an interesting one.
> First, let me explain what I mean by the title of the post. When I
> say Atheists are "only" 97% correct, it is first and foremost an
> attempt to bypass the ridiculous and frivolous topics that most
> religious people promote. I'm not here to do that. I am not a
> Creationist, bigot, fundamentalist, or any similar such thing. In
> approximately 97% of the topics under discussion here, I will side
> with the non-theist. However, I still believe that "God" can exist
> (despite 10 years of Catholic education and 40 years of Catholic
> upbringing). Here's why:
> 1) The Holistic Nature of Reality
> Athiests, and most Western thinkers, as a generality, follow
> reductionist reasoning. They believe the whole is no greater than the
> sum of its parts. But we know this is not true. For example, a
> reductionist would never deduce the reality of "consciousness" by
> studying a single brain cell, or even a billion brain cells. The
> interactions are just too complex. There are numerous examples of
> this in the world.
Observer
Complex yes , not available to study or learn the final secrets
thereof , nonsense!
Health
Single Brain Cell Can Hold a Memory
By LiveScience Staff
posted: 25 January 2009 02:25 pm ET
Buzz up!
Add to delicious del.icio.us
Digg It! Digg It!
Save to Newsvine Newsvine
Add to reddit reddit
Comments (18) | Recommend (7)
A neuron receives and processes information through a network of
branches called dendrites. Once it processes the signal, the brain
cell relays it along an axon to a terminal linking to another cell's
dendrites. When millions of brain cells communicate with each other at
once, cognition occurs. Credit: L. Kibiuk for Society for Neuroscience
Full Size
Previous Image Next Image
1 of 1
A neuron receives and processes information through a network of
branches called dendrites. Once it processes the signal, the brain
cell relays it along an axon to a terminal linking to another cell's
dendrites. When millions of brain cells communicate with each other at
once, cognition occurs. Credit: L. Kibiuk for Society for Neuroscience
Memory has long been described as a function of brain cells getting
together and forming connections. A new study finds single cells can
remember things.
Individual nerve cells (called neurons) in the front part of the brain
can hold traces of memories by themselves for up to a minute, perhaps
longer.
The fleeting memories, which the researchers found in mice brains, are
held in the most highly evolved part of the brain in a manner akin to
the nonpermanent working memory of a computer.
"It's more like RAM [random access memory] on a computer than memory
stored on a disk," said Don Cooper, assistant professor of psychiatry
at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. "The memory on
the disk is more permanent and you can go back and access the same
information repeatedly. RAM memory is rewritable temporary storage
that allows multitasking."
Mice brains are thought to function much like human brains, so the
finding could help scientists better understand how our brains store
rapidly changing information. Cooper likened the temporary one-cell
memory storage to the sort of thing a card shark does when counting
cards in a game of Black Jack. As casinos know, this is the memory
that is most sensitive to the disruptive effects of alcohol and noisy
distractions, Cooper points out. Hence, perhaps, the free drinks
casinos offer up.
The discovery, detailed in the February issue of the journal Nature
Neuroscience, could also lead to improved understanding of addictions,
attention disorders and stress-related memory loss.
About the study
Researchers have known that permanent memories are stored when nerve
cells in the brain reorganize and connections with one another are
strengthened. "But this process takes minutes to hours to turn on and
off and is too slow to buffer, or temporarily hold, rapidly incoming
information," according to a statement today from the university.
As an example, studies find naps improve memory.
The new study found rapid-fire inputs less than a second long initiate
a cellular memory process in single cells lasting as long as minute, a
process called metabotropic glutamate transmission. The researchers
identified in mice a specific metabotropic glutamate receptor called
mGluR5 that, when turned on, starts a signaling cascade using calcium
to hold a memory trace. This fast, short-term memory process happens
inside individual cells; with long-term memory, additional proteins
cause slow reorganization between cells in a network to establish a
permanent memory.
Researchers examined brain cells from mice using nanoscale electrodes
to measure the memory formation process.
To further understand how this short-term memory process relates to
addiction, researchers applied the neurochemical dopamine to the
memory buffer nerve cells. Dopamine is normally needed at an optimal
level for an individual to focus attention and engage in fast decision-
making memory, but drugs of abuse overload the brain with a surge of
dopamine.
In the study, researchers found that an experimental drug that
activates a specific type of dopamine receptor "focused" the nerve
cells, making the memory trace less susceptible to distraction.
When researchers employed an animal model of drug addiction using
cocaine, they also found that repeated exposure to addictive levels of
cocaine reduced memory trace activation in the memory buffer cells.
When researchers then activated dopamine signaling in the "addicted"
animals, essentially adding more dopamine to their systems, no
focusing effect was observed.
"This makes sense because we know from human and animal models of
addiction, when a decision using working memory has to be made, brain
imaging shows a deficit in the same area of the brain we looked at,"
Dr. Cooper said. "It all fits together."
Real-world application
Next, Cooper's team aims to develop drugs and genetic tools to
manipulate and perhaps expand memory capacity and allow people prone
to addiction to make smarter decisions.
"If we can identify and manipulate the molecular components of memory,
we can develop drugs that boost the ability to maintain this memory
trace to hopefully allow a person to complete tasks without being
distracted," Cooper said. "For the person addicted to drugs, we could
strengthen this part of the brain involved with decision-making,
allowing them to ignore impulses and weigh negative consequences of
their behavior before they abuse drugs."
The study was funded by several organizations: the National Institute
on Drug Abuse; National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and
Depression; the Alexander S. Onassis Public Benefit Foundation; and
the Department of Veterans Affairs.
> Atheists tend to deny the existence of God based on reductionistic
> thinking.
Observer
I deny the existence of any god based on the fact that that there is
not the smallest bit of verifiable scientific data for the existence
or any act thereof.
Further That which can not be studied by scientific method and from
such study no verifiable substantiating data can be collected by which
to produce accurate prognostications is irrelevant to human kind non
existent or both.
My personal (current) belief is that, when you consider the
> vast nature of reality and the holistic interactions thereof, it is
> possible that God can exist.
Observer
There is no reason to postulate the existence of a god ,as science is
quite capable of accounting for the existence of the universe without
resorting to this fetishistic , sadomasochistic, form of belief in
magic believed is as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam.
I'm not saying he or she does, I'm
> saying its possible.
Good as there is no reason for such a leap of faith . What is needed
is a study of science and nothing more.
> To me, this fits, at least to the point where I can justify calling
> myself Catholic without being too hypocritical, in that God can know
> we exist and care about our well-being similar to how we know and care
> about the well-being of the cells in our bodies.
Observer
What God?
I don't want my
> brain cells to have bad things happen to them, and if I could interact
> directly in some way with them, I would. But I can't, so I don't, and
> by my analogy therfore, evil can exist in the world.
Observer
Oh please ! Good and evil are not things that exist but are opinions
held by the observer as relates to his/her judgments in relation to
behaviors. As close as we get to objective good and evil is a
consensus opinion which evolves into ideals .
This is also how
> I justify praying.
Observer
You can in no way justify praying till you provide scientifically
verifiable substantiating data proving the existence of a god or any
action there of ,and that such has the power, the interest in
rearranging the process of cause and effect ( and that at the whim of
a human who whats something for nothing and by magic), and is able to
simultaneously apprehend what the prayers of billions of people are
all at once.
It is indeed a stupid concept and entirely with out merit.
Perhaps by praying I somehow influence or
> 'connect' with this higher being, just as a cell in my body can, in a
> very primitive and limited way, interact with my conscious self.
|
