Topic: Why do Atheists Hate Religion? - page 323. (Read 901367 times)

I'll explain it again, more clearly, sometime. But, as Newton's laws are understandable, even so you can figure this thing out for yourself if you want. It isn't hard.

newton's laws can be understood reasonably well by anyone who puts his mind to them -- sure. that says absolutely nothing about whether or not they are true.

if physicists are not operating off of facts, why should we believe them? indeed. and if theists are not operating off of facts, why should we believe them? yeah. that's a good point, too.

the burden of proof is still on you to explain how the three points you've named prove the existence of god. i've explained sufficiently well why your perception of such =/= truth. you're merely talking about unproven observations.

I didn't think it was dishonest. I thought it was simply less detailed.

The only people who understand the physicists are other physicists. But things like Newton's laws can be understood reasonably well by anyone who puts his mind to them.

Now, since Sheldrake and others are showing that the physicists don't have as much fact available as they think they have, why should we believe them? Let's go back to the things that are apparent all around us, and which we can understand to some extent.

1. Cause and effect;
2. Universal complexity;
3. Universal entropy.

God.

that's a tad dishonest. if we are going to discuss "existence", don't dumb down the complexity of the issue. if we can accept mere observations as truth, then there is absolutely no reason to discuss existence at all. the earth is still flat, etc. etc.---it was observed to be true at some point, yes? thus, to define "subjective perception" as "truth" is inherently wrong. it cannot be verified as objectively true.

in your example, there is a big difference between applying practical knowledge (which is useful but not necessarily true) and establishing universal truth. the question of the existence of god(s) necessarily falls into the latter category, as it attempts to make an objective/universal statement about existence.

sure, we have practical knowledge that the universe is complex---that says nothing about why it is complex, or if that idea even hold meaning at all. complexity, after all, is merely a relative term.

here is an example: say, i write something with a pencil (and you observe me doing so). one could say---as a practical truth---that i wrote something with a pencil. HOWEVER, from a universal perspective, the pencil may not, in fact, exist. and i may, in fact, just be a figment of your imagination. i may not exist at all. so then, to say that "i wrote something with a pencil"---while you may observe this to be true---may be universally false.

subjectivity is a bitch, ain't it? too bad there is no omniscient god to whisper all universal truths in our ears. because even if we thought there was, we would never be able to tell it apart from a hallucination.

Are you sure the boss is going to pay you this week? No? Might as well quit right now.

that's the very essence of my point. for the reason that science is unprovable, so is religion, or any substantive sense of "god." if we cannot define what is sitting right in front of our eyes (we cannot---by definition---do so objectively), how can we possible attribute anything to "god?"

that's nonsense. negating science =/= proving the existence of god. it just showcases the limits of our understanding---including the subject of existence.

I read excerpts you've posted, and I've read the website about it. I know that it comes from a scribe who claims to be an alien. It was written through someone else, and that is like using a medium. The bible says not to consort with mediums, because their info comes from demonic forces. I think I, more than many other people, have read a lot of what you posted about it, and I have come to my conclusion (through the Holy Spirit) that it is not true. If you feel the same way about the bible, then so be it. It was just a suggestion. I take it there's nothing in the phoenix journals about not listening to mediums, right?

I am only a little voice that shows that God exists. Look here: Does God Exist?—Many Absolute Proofs! (Part 1) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FbxD04LWW10).

Are the absolutes of modern science really absolute? Rupert Sheldrake suggests not.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=rupert+sheldrake    
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg

Much of our laws of physics are, themselves, on shaky ground. Too often science bases its understanding on theories that have not been proven.

The definition for God http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god?s=t. Note that there are several definitions in one. Several of these will fit.

uh, the very premise i am operating on does not concede that Newton's laws are accurate. actually, it would suggest that our understanding of physical laws is quite primitive and necessarily incorrect.

how do you define god? that may shed some light on this matter. if it's something extremely general, maybe i can agree.

The only 3 times people accept proof are:
1. when they want to;
2. in extreme pain;
3. in extreme joy.

Other than that, the standard proof for cause and effect is what Newton based his 3rd law on.

The pendulum for entropy.

You didn't mention anything about complexity.

Put them together. The result regarding where this universe came from is Something that fits our definition of God.

how can you prove cause and effect? you can only prove that we can perceive an effect. this says nothing about universal truth or knowledge. similarly, human perception of "time" is inherently flawed with subjectivity---how can we ever know or prove entropy? finally, "complexity" is not prima facie evidence of anything (certainly not intelligent design or anything similar)

from an epistemological perspective, these are just buzz words.

In the science religion, there are a few real and true laws. Three of these laws that prove the existence of God when combined are:
1. Cause and effect, otherwise known as action and reaction;
2. Universal entropy, with nothing known to the opposite;
3. Universal complexity, with no known source of the complexity.

Nobody says that an atheist need follow or dig into any religion, not even the religion of science. Hopefully the atheist will live long enough and become mellow enough that he will want to find out what the truth is before it is too late for him.

Whoever enters through Jesus will be saved - John 10:7-10:

Read completely this link https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12496552.

I follow the mailman once in a while. When his brake lights go on, I get the message.


I use caution.


Thank Goodness that He followed His own instructions, since you don't follow them.


Now, now. He didn't say "follow." He said "do."


Notice that, that passage doesn't say the way in which you will be blessed. Here it is. You will be blessed because you will see that you are NOT doing the things that you meditate on perfectly as is required. When you see this, you will look for life in a different way. You will find life in the only One Who kept the Law perfectly, Jesus the Messiah/Christ. Thus you will be blessed by meditating on the Law.

See https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.12495336.


What? Now you are saying "know," when above you said "do." Make up your mind, will you?


If you break the Law, your intent isn't kind and pure enough for God.


Such a thing is only for God to determine in the final analysis.

If I say that "God" includes Jesus of the Bible, and you say that God doesn't, how can we have the same God?



Throw the Kid under the bus, if you haven't thrown the Baby out with the bath water long ago.

1. malice : they are with the devil.
2. greed : they want to impose their own religion.
3. stupidity : they are "blind" to the light.


I am becoming quite a fan of the game : finding pharisee on teevee...
and to be sure : pharisees, those that speak in lies, naturally, ie mother tongue (and no it's not a disease).

what is this "truth" you speak of? are you saying there is some kind of universal truth? how would you (or anyone) be able to recognize it as such?

generally, religions, too, make unprovable assumptions about existence and of "truth." is lashing out against them unreasonable?

my approach is to be skeptical of anything that is unprovable, unknowable. by definition, since human perception is subjective, that is virtually all knowledge.

in other words, to be either a theist or an atheist is a nonsensical position to me.

Why don't atheists use rational thinking when confronted with the evidence?
Same can be asked of fundamentalist Christians.

In other words, why do atheists prefer to explain away observations by making up stories without any evidence?
Perhaps they are unaware of truth, or they are closed-minded, so they lash out against religions, which try to teach truth, but usually fail.

The Christ way is the truth, he is our example; he is not our savior or else he would have said as much, repeatedly.

Why not read Phoenix Journals with an open mind? It is all in plain English with no allegory, including the true teachings of Jesus about karma and reincarnation, and you will not be misled by Pharisees if you ask God within for the truth. "Seek it and ye shall find".

This thread has turned into why do Atheists hate Religion? to Why don't I just convert you to my Beliefs?

If you believe you are connected to the Lord, then ask Him for the truth, (Jesus said He was the truth) and read the OT with an open mind. You may not change your mind, but give it a shot sometime.