Topic: The problem with atheism. - page 36. (Read 38463 times)

This sentence doesn't do much good, and it dismisses the fact that language CAN, in fact, provide a totally accurate (though abstract) model of reality.  You might as well be saying that the interpretation of data in science is as subjective as the words used to describe them.  Everybody is looking for the same thing - truth.  And, some call that truth different things, which is OK.  What matters is if someone's definition of truth is tautologically correct and thus a mirror of absolute truth itself.  Reality, like logic, is self-contained, for if there were something real enough (or logical enough) outside of reality (or logic) to be described as such, then it would still be included within reality (or logic).  Truthful models can exist, and there can be multiple truthful models if all of the variables are analogous to those contained in another model.

But, the most important thing to note is that the mere existence of absolute truth is actually ridiculously easy to establish, because any attempts to deny its existence only reinforces its existence.  The same can be said for a totally accurate model of absolute truth - any attempts to disprove it will only reinforce it.

Suppose you say, "All truth is relative."  Then you are actually saying, "It is the absolute truth that all truth is relative."  If you say, "There is no absolute truth," then you are really saying, "It is the absolute truth that there is no absolute truth."  If you say, "There is more than one absolute truth," you are saying, "It is the one absolute truth that there are more than one absolute truths."

A perfect model of reality functions the same way.  Religions are attempts to construct such models.

Why would a God need people to worship him?  Think about it.  If you were all-powerful, benevolent and wise and created your own little universe populated by little beings far less powerful than you, why would you worry so much about them worshipping you or worshipping false idols etc?  Doesn't that seem petty?  And petulant?  If that's the guy ruling paradise I'm not so sure I want to be there.

Of course, priests DO CARE about which God you are worshipping because it directly affects their bottom line. 

Religion.  Just another scam.  The second biggest scam in the history of the world.

DOJ Declares Atheism A 'Religious Movement'; Qualifies Leaders For Same Tax Exemptions As Clergy


http://www.ijreview.com/2013/08/75629-doj-declares-atheism-a-religious-movement-qualifies-leaders-for-same-tax-exemptions-as-clergy/


Barack Obama’s Department of Justice says in a legal filing that atheism is a “religious movement” whose leaders qualify for the same housing tax breaks received by priests, ministers, rabbis and other clergy.

According to UPI, the ruling comes in response to a lawsuit brought by the Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF), seeking to end the federal parsonage tax deduction granted to clergy by the U.S. government, which allows them to claim part of their income as a tax-free housing allowance.

As one might expect, being told that atheism is, in fact, a religion, is anathema to non-believers. As a result, Annie Laurie Gaylor, the plaintiff in the suit – who receives a $15,000 housing stipend from the Freedom from Religion Foundation – is upset because she must pay taxes on money that “ministers of the gospel” do not.

In response, the federal government, doing its best Keystone Cops impersonation, said that rather than agree to end the parsonage exemption, it would extend the deduction Gaylor because she is the leader of a religious movement — albeit one that does not believe in God.

Predictably, Gaylor was outraged by her “victory,” telling The (Nashville) Tennessean that the government missed the point of her lawsuit — not to mention the fundamental difference between her atheist group and a religious order:


    “We are not ministers. We are having to tell the government the obvious — we are not a church.”


Ah, Ms. Gaylor, but you are a “religion” – or a “faith,” as it were – like it or not. Merriam-Webster defines faith as: “firm belief in something for which there is no proof” (2): “complete trust.”

Without getting involved in a religious debate – which is not the purpose of this post – atheists can no more prove that God doesn’t exist than Christians can prove that he does. Therefore, both sides must have faith if they are to remain loyal to their respective beliefs.

At any rate, Gaylor’s response to winning the lawsuit reminds me of the spoiled child who not only doesn’t want a piece of candy; he doesn’t want anyone else to have one either.

As for the DOJ ruling, it makes perfect sense. Not. Unless of course, it is viewed in the context of the progressives’ fervent desire to elevate atheism in the eyes of America.

Not all outcomes but majority of outcomes do.  God can be described as a "greater power" so like an infinite horizon point it is always beyond the current understandings.  In the past you didn't know what sun was so god was the sun.  Now you know what the sun is so god is in the quantum lattice of the suns molecules.  Etc etc ad infinitum.  You can never disprove god because by definition it is simply the rules governing the current understood rules.  The problem lies in religion.  Where discovering god is an uplifting forward motion so to speak where you go from lesser understanding to greater understanding and get empowered by it religion is the reverse.  It is how apply the "greater power" of god to rule, regulate and subjugate the mortals ei believing population.  Hard to see purpose or anything uplifting in that exercise so you get a natural rejection of evil through atheism and other anti-theism.

So I did a quick google search on Richard Dawkins today.
If I were an atheist I would start using Penn Jilette as an example instead. Just saying.
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/10/richard_dawkins_defends_mild_pedophilia_says_it_does_not_cause_lasting_harm/

Very cool thread so far.

Flip a coin.  If god exists he will make the coin land for the right choice.  If god doesn't exist it doesn't matter.

Lol.

I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you mean.  I think the wording is off? I'm trying to figure out how a belief has the capacity to express its mind.  I think you meant the individual has the capacity to do so, but not sure what you mean by "disrupt all others."

And stop it with the guy in the sky.  Here's some fun stuff from John Creaux when he was playing with voodoo & before he turned meh

Some people think they jive me
I know they must be crazy
Don't see they misfortune
Guess they just too lazy

J'suis le Grand Zombie
Got yellow belt of choison
Ain't afraid of no tom cat
He fill my brains with poison

Think you better
Come to the killing floor
Walk on gilded splinters
Kon kon, the killy kon kon
Walk on gilded splinters

Put gri gri on your doorstep
Soon you be in the gutter
Melt your hert up like butter
A a and i can make you stutter

Technology is inseparable from the human mind.  Technology is one way the mind expresses itself in order to be enhanced.

Yes and no.  This assumption is a byproduct of a memory of a direct experience of absolute truth.  So the assumption is that my memory is valid to the extent that my recollection of the experience is accurate, but the experience itself contained no assumptions.  

Fortunately, the method by which the experience was realized is replicable, so I can always refresh my memory.

All hail Eris Discordia!

Disclaimer: All statements are true in some sense, false in some sense, meaningless in some sense, true and false in some sense, true and meaningless in some sense, false and meaningless in some sense, and true and false and meaningless in some sense.

And this assumption is also a product of your mind and is probably valid for your universe. But in others universes it may work a bit differently.
Actually, it can be interpreted as "a part of your mind can be likeness of deeper part of your mind which you call God".

...because god isn't a magic guy in the sky.  If you set god=truth then theists and atheists can search for truth together.  Hint: absolute truth is directly knowable.

You grok "Thou art god".  

We have had this magic guy in the sky theory  for a few thousend years now and so far no-one have come up with a single prof. Isn't it about time someone admiteded they are wrong?

It's correct that your mind is, essentially, a 'likeness' of god's mind, sort of like how if you cut 1/4 from a piece of holographic film you aren't left with 1/4 of the image, but 100% of the image at 1/4 size.

It's half correct in the sense that it doesn't explain the relationship between the likeness of god and god, nor does it describe anything about other stratified minds, nor does it acknowledge or describe the larger system of which both life and death are a part.

Most importantly, it doesn't describe the largest system, the 'set of all sets' so to speak which contains the syntax that governs all of these things.

Is that strange?  Maybe I've been hanging around the wrong people   Why's it only halfway correct?

Really?  First time?  Wow.  Anyway, it's about half correct.

This is the first time I've heard this one; very cool way of seeing it.

Ex... p... PERIMENT?!  Blasphemy!