Athiests Obviously Believe in SOMETHING!

<(' . '<) said:
pascal's wager is one of the oldest and easily refeuted challenges. Why, I could conjure up a god that creates the universe but intentionally provides zero evidence for his existence, and then only rewards those who draw the most rational conclusion that he does not exist, based on the evidence available to them, and punishes all those ignorant humans that lack a capacity for rational thought and decided to believe in a god.
Click to expand...

Ahh, so now we have to "refute" the "challenge" of something we don't believe in? Funny, I never have to do this for UFO's, Santa, or the Easter Bunny! You even have a cute little title for the refutation, "Pascal's Wager" ....nice touch! And you've obviously read mountains of such refutation from others who remain in abject denial of the truth as well! Good for you! Is it helping you cope?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Why would we be wasted? Doesn't God Love us?
Click to expand...

You have a false concept of God. Why would an omnipotent God express the human emotion of "caring" whether or not you "worship" it? Does God have feelings like a human being? You are attempting to apply humanistic criteria to a spiritual force, completely ambivalent to human emotion and need. Granted, many "religious" believers do have faith that this entity "loves" them or has "compassion" for them, but this is simply fallible human perspectives of trying to comprehend something they are compelled to have faith in.

Let me throw you Anti-Christians a bone here to chew on... I said earlier that most Atheists are living in abject denial, but it is also true that a good many Christians live in denial as well. They just happen to mask their denial with the professions of belief in Christianity, and use the Scriptures to support their denial in a different way. Many tenants of religion are mechanisms of denial, and serve to mask what is truly in one's heart and mind.
 
Dixie said:
You have a false concept of God. Why would an omnipotent God express the human emotion of "caring" whether or not you "worship" it? Does God have feelings like a human being? You are attempting to apply humanistic criteria to a spiritual force, completely ambivalent to human emotion and need. Granted, many "religious" believers do have faith that this entity "loves" them or has "compassion" for them, but this is simply fallible human perspectives of trying to comprehend something they are compelled to have faith in.

Let me throw you Anti-Christians a bone here to chew on... I said earlier that most Atheists are living in abject denial, but it is also true that a good many Christians live in denial as well. They just happen to mask their denial with the professions of belief in Christianity, and use the Scriptures to support their denial in a different way. Many tenants of religion are mechanisms of denial, and serve to mask what is truly in one's heart and mind.
Click to expand...
Why would we be condemned then for not believing if he doesn't care?
 
Cogito ergo sum

THE METAPHYSICAL
PLANE EXISTS

...a most logical proof



So how do we know the metaphysical world exists? We can prove it. It is a simple matter to logically establish its existence. We simply use that tried and true logical proof, the Greek syllogism, as the core to establishing our thesis.

Proposition A: All things which exist can be defined in terms of the five senses, ie, taste, touch, sight, smell, sound. This is an enormously important statement as it is the foundation of all rational thought and the scientific revolution which emerged out of the so-called Age of Enlightenment in Western Europe some 300 years ago.

The entire corpus of Western scientific research and technology stands on this assumption. Any man or woman of science will immediately nod their head in agreement with this. Without this axiom of material existence, the person of science will tell you, the world would descend back into cesspool of ignorance and superstition such as the Middle Ages. Indeed, it is precisely because of this axiom that science and rational thought was able to lift Western society out of the pig stye of Medieval sorcery, fear, and ignorance.

Proposition B: The human mind exists. To be glib, if the human mind doesn't exist, then what is reading this web page? Here we have a variation of Rene Descartes' famous delineation of subjective idealism, cogito ergo sum, one of the few unchallengeable statements of existence known. Note that the existence of the human mind is a very separate proposition from an assertion that the human mind is being used wisely. I know better than to get into that one. I only state the mind exists.

We are now ready to construct our devastatingly logical syllogism:


A: All things which exist can be defined in terms of the five senses, ie, taste, touch, sight, smell, sound.

B: The human mind exists.

C: Therefore, the human mind can be defined in terms of the five senses, ie, taste, touch, sight, smell, sound.



So here we have our ice-cold logical conclusion, that the human mind is definable by the five senses. Well, since it has been proved logically (and all of us here are logical, correct?) that the mind is definable by the five senses, let's see if we can do it.



Can we define the human mind by touch?

So what does the mind feel like when you rub it between your fingers? Smooth? Rough? Slippery? Hot? Cold? Oh, my, we're trouble with touch.



Can we define the human mind by sound?

I wanna buy the CD and crank it up on the stereo until the neighbours complain. No CD? Oops, we're in trouble again.



Can we define the human mind by sight?

Kewl. Where can I rent the video? Or is this a midnight screening at the local repertory movie house? No can do? This one isn't working, so we are in trouble with seeing the mind.

Can we define the human mind by taste?

I dunno about you, but I've never seen a Mindburger for sale at McDonalds, even at regular price. We're in trouble on this taste thing with the mind.

Can we define the human mind by smell?

"Ah, mon cheri, how I love the sweet smell of Mind Perfume wafting to my eager throbbing nostrils." M-m-m-m-m......I don't think I'll ever get laid with that line. We're in trouble with the smell of mind, too.



In fact we are in very big trouble. Our ice-cold logical syllogism just collapsed around us. We know all things which exist can be defined by the five senses. We know the mind exists. But we are unable to define the mind in terms of any of the five senses. We can show what the mind does, but showing what the mind does, unfortunately, does not define what the mind is. Our logical conclusion, then, becomes illogical, OR, one of our initial two propositions is wrong.

Maybe it's time to look at those two propositions again. No one yet has refuted cogito ergo sum, and it hasn't been for lack of effort by some very skilled mental (ironic isn't it?) activity by highly skilled philosophical and academic personnel. So we know the mind exists.

That leaves us with the logical conclusion that the other proposition is in error, the proposition about defining all existence with the five senses. It seems we have found something which exists which can NOT be defined by the five senses.

So the logical conclusion is that if we have found one thing which exists and cannot be defined by the five senses, then we must conclude there may be more than one thing which exists and cannot be defined by the five senses. Logically, it cannot be proven that there are no other things besides the mind which also exist and also cannot be defined by the five senses. Attempting to logically prove such a negation, in layperson's terms, is a mug's game.

So what we are left with here is that there seem to be two categories of existence:



1. Those things which can be defined by the five senses; and

2. Those things which cannot be defined by the five senses.



Somewhere along the line, long before I was born, these two categories were given names:


1. Physical plane: All things which exist and can be defined in terms of the five senses.

2. Metaphysical plane: All things which exist and cannot be defined in terms of the five senses.

Isn't logic wonderful?
 
Rana said:
Why would we be condemned then for not believing if he doesn't care?
Click to expand...

I don't know why you would, I didn't argue that you would. I am only making an argument that humans inherently believe in some spiritual entity or force greater than self, and this is what makes us different from chimpanzee's, whom we share 96% of our DNA with.

As for religious philosophy, you'll need to consult people of that particular faith, as to the "why's and why not's" because I don't really know the answers there. I will say this, it makes some kind of logical sense, that if you renounced a real God, it probably wouldn't be conducive with good things happening for you. Just saying.
 
You think, therefore, you have thought, but your existence could be the dream of another, so therefore, what are you?
 
Dixie said:
Or as someone called it earlier, the "human spirit" is what you believe in. That's all good and well, but belief in the spirit of humans is still belief in something greater than self, a spiritual belief, not a natural phenomenon. In fact, there is not even a scientific basis to explain why you have the inclination to believe in the human spirit, it's simply an attribute which exists in humans. There is really no evolutionary explanation for where this attribute came from, other than an obvious and profound connection to the spiritual realm. It is the only plausible or logical explanation for why the behavior is found in our species. Again, we are hard-wired to believe in something greater than self, to have spirituality. It is the distinction which differentiates us from the chimps, and has enabled us to foster civilizations, and knowledge, including the very sciences and technologies you revere.
Click to expand...

There is most certainly ample evidence of evolutionary development of the human spirit. Animals have it to. Why else would some animals grieve themselves to death after losing another of their kind?
 
Southern Man said:
McDaniel's Estimated Average IQ Score by State
1. MASSACHUSETTS........................................104.3

2. NEW HAMPSHIRE..........................................104.2

3. NORTH DAKOTA............................................103.8

4. VERMONT....................................................103.8

5. MINNESOTA.................................................103.7

6. MONTANA....................................................103.4

7. MAINE.........................................................103.4

8. IOWA..........................................................103.2

9. CONNECTICUT...............................................103.1

10. WISCONSIN.................................................102.9

11. KANSAS......................................................102.8

12. SOUTH DAKOTA............................................102.8

13. NEW JERSEY................................................102.8

14. WYOMING....................................................102.4

15. NEBRASKA....................................................102.3

16. WASHINGTON................................................101.9

17. VIRGINIA......................................................101.9

18. OHIO...........................................................101.8

19. INDIANA.......................................................101.7

20. COLORADO....................................................101.6

21. PENNSYLVANIA..............................................101.5

22. IDAHO..........................................................101.4

23. OREGON.......................................................101.2

24. UTAH...........................................................101.1

25. MISSOURI......................................................101.0

26. NEW YORK.....................................................100.7

27. MICHIGAN......................................................100.5

28. DELAWARE.....................................................100.4

29. NORTH CAROLINA.............................................100.2

30. TEXAS...........................................................100.0

31. ILLINOIS..........................................................99.9

32. MARYLAND.......................................................99.7

33. RHODE ISLAND..................................................99.5

34. KENTUCKY........................................................99.4

35. OKLAHOMA.......................................................99.3

36. ALASKA............................................................99.0

37. WEST VIRGINIA..................................................98.7

38. SOUTH CAROLINA...............................................98.4

39. FLORIDA...........................................................98.4

40. GEORGIA...........................................................98.0

41. TENNESSEE.......................................................97.7

42. ARKANSAS.........................................................97.5

43. ARIZONA...........................................................97.4

44. NEVADA............................................................96.5

45. ALABAMA...........................................................95.7

46. NEW MEXICO......................................................95.7

47. HAWAII..............................................................95.6

48. CALIFORNIA........................................................95.5

49. LOUISIANA..........................................................95.3

50. MISSISSIPPI........................................................94.2

http://www.top50states.com/average-iq-score.html
Click to expand...




SM, you should at least read your own link.

"But keep in mind that this data should not be taken too seriously. IQ testing has been widely criticized as being too generalized, and NOT a valid assessment of anything too important. A stunning example of this is the case of Richard Feynman, one of the greatest physicists of all time, whose genius was on the same level as Albert Einstein. Feynman scored 125 (a bit above average, but nothing spectacular) on an IQ test he took during childhood."
 
Dixie said:
Ahh, so now we have to "refute" the "challenge" of something we don't believe in? Funny, I never have to do this for UFO's, Santa, or the Easter Bunny! You even have a cute little title for the refutation, "Pascal's Wager" ....nice touch! And you've obviously read mountains of such refutation from others who remain in abject denial of the truth as well! Good for you! Is it helping you cope?
Click to expand...

Pascals wager is the name of the example usfreedom used. Many religious people use that argument and thus it's already been named. I did not make it up.

http://tinyurl.com/7engo

im not asking you to refute anything. I was providing a theoretical example illustrating how pascals wager is a waste of time. try and keep up. I know it must be hard to have me run intellectual circles around you. And the funny thing is, it takes so little effort.
 
<(' . '<) said:
Pascals wager is the name of the example usfreedom used. Many religious people use that argument and thus it's already been named. I did not make it up.

http://tinyurl.com/7engo

im not asking you to refute anything. I was providing a theoretical example illustrating how pascals wager is a waste of time. try and keep up. I know it must be hard to have me run intellectual circles around you. And the funny thing is, it takes so little effort.
Click to expand...

Oh, I am keeping up just fine, I didn't say you were asking me to refute anything. You are doing the refuting here, not me. You have even developed illustrations of how to justify your arguments. Going to great lengths to 'disprove' what you claim is non-existent.

Observe how Grind has slowly morphed his posting into an "intellectual" debate, calling on the philosophical works of people much more intelligent than himself, in order to denigrate me further. We've moved beyond the personal insults, we've moved past trying to plead to the audience with wild accusations about me personally, and now we're entertained by "wisdom" from people who Grind believes are more intelligent than all of us, surely we must take their word for this! These are scholars and experts, not just some schmuck on a message board! Oh, pay no attention to the fact that Grind has spent the better part of his evening contradicting and challenging, making excuses and illustrating explanations, that is irrelevant here, what is important is that he has presented "wisdom" from people smarter than us, who are better informed on this subject, and we simply can't refute that powerful evidence.


Yes, they do tend to go on and on about this thing they don't believe is real, don't they?
 
dixie no one agrees with your retarded theory. you are acting as if you have an audience but all you have is yourself and maaaybe ice dancer who isn't the brightest bulb in the box
 
WinterBorn said:
There is most certainly ample evidence of evolutionary development of the human spirit. Animals have it to. Why else would some animals grieve themselves to death after losing another of their kind?
Click to expand...

When you show me animals congregating for Sunday morning prayer services, I'll believe that animals practice spiritual beliefs. Until then, you are misinterpreting things found in nature, which do not pertain to spiritual belief.
 
Dixie said:
Yes, they do tend to go on and on about this thing they don't believe is real, don't they?
Click to expand...

If you start a thread about what atheists believe it is to be expected that atheists will come to the thread and correct all your incorrect assumptions. This is pretty common sense.
 
<(' . '<) said:
dixie no one agrees with your retarded theory. you are acting as if you have an audience but all you have is yourself and maaaybe ice dancer who isn't the brightest bulb in the box
Click to expand...

There is no "theory" presented. I stated definitive facts, and you can't refute them. You just keep on making my point for me, and actually doing so better than I could have ever done by myself.

Yes, I know, not a single Atheist here agrees with me! That should help get you through the night, until tomorrow, when you will once again, need to find some level of social support to enable your continued state of denial.
 
<(' . '<) said:
If you start a thread about what atheists believe it is to be expected that atheists will come to the thread and correct all your incorrect assumptions. This is pretty common sense.
Click to expand...

Yes, I know. People who are living in denial, are often offended that someone is exposing their lie. They can't help but to come here and put up the best defense they can! I fully expected they would. And again, this makes my point about the psychology of humans in denial, better than I could have ever done on my own. I thank you for taking your time to do that!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top