Topic: Why I'm an atheist - page 13. (Read 89022 times)

Yes, absolutely!

It's really time for the atheism religious zealots to turn and realize that science is simply another thing that God has made. This will turn them from being wrong religious zealots into being right religious zealots.

For example. Imagine that simple electrolysis of water was something that was unknown to ancient peoples thousands of years ago. Then, whenever it was that it was discovered, electrolysis became known to people/scientists.

But the thing that we have yet to figure out is, did electrolysis even exist before it was discovered. Perhaps the fact that scientists were looking for how things worked, and God was answering their request (prayer), prompted the loving God to invent electrolysis - and all the other scientific, physics operations - as they were requested by scientists.

In other words, no scientific knowledge existed until God made the particluar science, simply to satisfy scientists. How do we know that this isn't what is happening regarding all discoveries, but especially scientific ones? They weren't in existence until the scientists discovered them.

Religious zealots using the internet and computers, all based on science, to spread their anti-science bullshit. Is that hypocrisy or just plain ignorance?

Regarding your multiple choice question, it seems to be irrelevant to this discussion. Why? Because it is part of the basic questions we all ask. We don't have the answer to the question with regard to a building up from the basics. If we did, everybody would be on the same page with religion... be it God religion or atheism religion.

Since you would rather focus on our "talk" as the point, rather than on atheism, and to attempt to make the "points" and "articles" of talking into the topic, you are going off-topic regarding this thread.


I'm confused about why you have question about this. I thought I had clearly set it down, both in simple form and complex form. Let me repeat it here in simple one-word form >>> Science.

Note that each person who believes or thinks about science or God, does so at least slightly differently than every other person. So, essentially, when a person says that he believes the same as anyone else - has the same religion - if he doesn't include in his saying that he is speaking in simple, general ways, he is lying... whether he knows it or not.


God is not the simple thing that has to do with B and B₀. Such talk is getting down to the basics (sort of) which are so basic that the discussion could go on for a long time before showing the reality of God or atheism. Fun to talk, but there are other things in life than this basic kind of talk in a forum... other things that show the reality of God's existence.

However, even though God isn't the simplicity, Himself, He deals perfectly with the tiniest simplicity. Atheists - people who try to make themselves out to be God above the real God - are simple enough in themselves that they can never get down to the real B and B₀, anyway. Perhaps there is a section in the forum for math and logic experts?


Thank Goodness that we have dictionaries and encyclopedias!


I didn't know it was a theory. I thought it was a story, one that might be used as some kind of parable at times. I would ask for your source for it being a theory... if I were interested.



All religions are against some of the parts of my idea of God. It's God that holds me in my religion, so how could I understand even my own religion?

Here's what is interesting about atheists. They don't WANT to understand the parts of their idea of God, in their atheism religion... that they are setting themselves up as God when they try to believe that He doesn't exist. This is what will destroy them.

Thanks for upholding Sheldrake's info by not supplying any counter info.

As I have shown, science is partially a belief system. Most of the belief system part lies in science theories. Sheldrake shows us where there are other parts that are belief system.

The big thing that hides the belief system part of science theory, is the fact that science theory often has some science fact at its base. Some science fact(s) are used to support the theory. This hides the fact that the science theory itself is an unknown. And to believe that it is true when it is unknown, is to have a science belief system.

Science, one of the religions of man!... such a powerful religion that it tends to obscure the religion(s) that point to God. So science brings about atheism... but at least often supports it. Of course, the weakness of atheism is shown through the stronger science that shows that God exists.

Thanks for the advice for me and Sheldrake to go back to school. Now that we have, and have included factual knowledge about science in our schooling, come with us to the real school of science, rather than the brainwashing that selfish science consensus uses to promote their own selfish ends.

God exists and is in control. Please don't wait until you die to find this out. Your choice, however.

Science is not a belief system.  Rupert needs to go back to school.

However, with BADecker, you're just arguing alone against a wall of nonsense. This guy believes a book like Harry Potter is the gospel of truth.

This is for anyone, but mostly for atheists who rely on science.

Banned TED Talk: The Science Delusion - Rupert Sheldrake at TEDx Whitechapel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TerTgDEgUE

Big Bang is a Lie - Rupert Sheldrake | London Real

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BcE_qDkORE

It matters not: these discussions serve another benefit to my own education. Refinement of philosophical understanding comes much more easily when you have someone to discuss them with, and given BADecker's eagerness thereof, I consider him a fairly apt partner for this purpose.

actmyname don't try to argue with BADecker, it's useless. Unfortunately for him, he's not that bright up there.

I once again ask for your answer to the simple multiple-choice question. This will facilitate further understanding.

As of this current point, it is still unclear whether you are entering an infinite regress, an axiomatic claim, or in the midst of a circular argument.

Interesting. What makes you inclined to your branch of Biblical representation thereof as opposed to any other representation of God is what I'm trying to grasp, however.

That is not what I am doing and if you have made this assumption then I would be happy to elaborate on the specific passage of which you made this conclusion.

I can only assume you are referring to a concept of free will, which we have yet to define.

This is an interesting theory albeit unclear in its origin.

Are all organized religions against your idea of God? Which particular set of dogmas and beliefs is the correct one to follow?

As I wrote before, those who understand the essence of religions, faith, various spiritual practices and other things, understand that from the beginning it is always said that there is an omnipresent God. I have already drawn your attention several times to the fact that this is not a separate being. For example, you understand that in life there are such concepts as Love, as conscience, etc. And you don't question these concepts. So, initially in religions it is said precisely that these concepts are different sides of one general concept of "God." For example, you say, “I sincerely love this world,” and the other person says, “I speak with God.” These are just different words of one. The concept of "God" is everywhere in rare manifestations. This is what religions says, and not about the "man in heaven who rules us."

The proof for the Dead Sea Scrolls is God, of course. However, the odds, while they are probably low enough in this case to not be proof (as science considers proof by odds), are definitely high enough to make believers out of anybody who sees them and is honest with himself.

As we saw in the Scientific proof that God exists? thread, the system of this universe, which is based on cause-and-effect combined with entropy combined with complexity, in the way that they are combined in this universe, absolutely proves the existence of God. How? There is no other way for the universe to exist as it does without a God Being. The machine qualities of the universe are simply the evidence for folks who can't think deeply enough to understand this combining.

Of course, God doesn't have to be called "God" to be God. The word "God" - especially these days - has many connotations attached to it that are not necessarily applicable to the Being we call God. So, use a better word. The Great First Cause is a form I like somewhat. While it doesn't have much of the meaning for God that other words might, it's appeal lies in the idea that God is original, before all, made it all, and set everything into motion.

It's rather unfortunate for you that you seem to like to drag the idea of God down into all kinds of simplistic ideas and formulas where you can split Him apart. You won't ever be able to do this - split God apart. All you are doing is a placement focus. It's like government regulating drugs, cars, guns, and loads of other things. Government doesn't regulate these things - although government people might if they handle them. All that government is doing is regulating people, and taking their focus off this fact, and making it look like they are regulating other things of life. What YOU are really doing is taking your own focus off God, to focus on yourself as though you were God.

The fact that we can think and choose shows that God exists in each of us. When we set ourselves in the position of atheism, all we are really doing is attempting to set ourselves in a position of God higher than the God of the universe. BUT... what we are really doing when we do this, is setting ourselves lower than the position that God made us for.

This reminds me of a cute little story I used in the evolution thread. I'll repeat it here, between the lines, so that you can ignore it easier if you want.

---

In some galaxy far, far away, evolution proceeded much faster than in our galaxy, and here on Earth. The intelligent beings of one planet in that faraway galaxy, were exceptionally fast in their development. In fact, they were so fast, that they were bordering on becoming disembodied intelligences.

Then one day, the final mutation happened in one of them. This being evolved past the point where it needed a body to be alive. Not only this, but it also evolved to the point where it could actually control the space-time continuum.

Looking back on its fellow creatures, it felt rather sorry for them in their slow, forward, evolution advancing. It also felt sorry for the many other species of intelligence throughout its home galaxy, and even the whole universe. So, it decided to do something about the situation of all this slow evolution throughout the universe... so that creatures all over could become as wonderful as it had become.

What did it do? It turned itself from 'it' to 'It'. Using Its ability to control space-time, It got rid of evolution entirely - like evolution never existed - and replaced evolution with creation. Why creation? Because rather than the slow billions of years for advancement, advancement could come in a few thousand years.

When we see evolution, yet can't seem to find enough details to make anything out of it with certainty, it's only because there are a few dregs of the way the universe was in the past, that still remain.

---

Isn't it time that we cast aside the religion that is against God, and embrace the reality of the existence of God? Why focus on the beating down something that can't be destroyed, while only destroying ourselves instead?

Hopefully God will continue to give us enough further time to focus on Him rather than ourselves.

In lieu of the responses, I posit a simple question:

Which epistemological branch do you fall under?

Do you believe in:

If the proof for perfect Biblical replication lay with the Dead Sea Scrolls, then we have a further regression: what, then, is the proof that the Dead Sea Scrolls themselves were not falsely replicated?

The answer to this should correspond to your answer in relation to my first question.
If the scrolls are axiomatic, then we are assuming that the scrolls are an absolute truth without evidence.
If the scrolls prove themselves, then we should carry similar logic to other circular arguments which may or may not be false.
If the scrolls are proven by something else, referred-to now as object S₀, then we run into a similar, recursive argument for S₀... then S₁, S₂, all the way down.

---

Before we tackle the other points I wish to focus on simply one, as that will make the discussion more streamlined and succinct.

That's what I have been trying to tell you. The Dead Sea Scrolls show that Ancient Israel was in the habit of duplicating their God-writings virtually perfectly. The nature of the people of ancient Israel with regard to the words of God was to treat God's words as holy. Why did they do this? Three basic reasons:
1. Their punishment when they didn't obey God;
2. The national memory of the power shown by Moses;
3. The strength of the faith of Father Abraham.


In all of these things, the complexity of them is one of the things that shows the existence of God.

No matter what appears to be contradictory, the fact of the reality of it all shows the existence of God.

If the focus is on the failures and fallacies of men, one will see failure and fallacies.

Entropy doesn't produce complexity.


Yet it is the time of the creation that you chose for your Bible words, above. Creation of the universe is probably the most common of the dynamic things that God did. So, I can understand why you would not want to focus there.


How? Cause and effect.
Syllogism? See in the Off-Topic section, the thread entitled Scientific proof that God exists? - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scientific-proof-that-god-exists-737322.


Check out Scientific proof that God exists? - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/scientific-proof-that-god-exists-737322, and apply the proof for God in everything that you know exists.



Your elephant story is fun. We can design stories all day about what might possibly happen. But the way it works in reality is that we find the skeletons and footprints of the dinosaurs. Then, even though we have seen none of them, we make an educated guess as to what they looked like, and start drawing picture of them and sculpting their bodies in 3D physical form.


You sound knowledgeable. If you don't know about all the various forms of "levers," etc., found in nature, there is a science class somewhere, and there are various science encyclopedias and other science books. All the machines of man are built using the machine actions found in the universe. It's all machinery.

We aren't sure who built the Antikythera mechanism. But, it has the kind of appearance that would cause us to deduce that people built it. Also, all its movements are kinds of movements that we find in nature, even though it doesn't have the appearance of something that came about naturally.

Somebody "big" enough to create the universe machine wouldn't make the machines of mankind. But mankind is constantly trying to catch up to Him in the machines mankind is developing.



Solomon was right when he said, "The more the words, the less the meaning." The point is atheism. The search for proof for or against God is secondary. Atheism is fueled by the desire for God to not exist. But there isn't even any deductive reasoning that shows that God, for sure, doesn't exist.  In fact, just the opposite.

History, as we know, can be fabricated. Consider: if one has not independently verified with their own empirical senses the existence of some object X, then the proof they rely upon must come from others. Secondary evidence, proven only by the assertion of external sapience.

Unfortunately, through simplicity, you have strawmanned my case from that of a transformation to merely comparing two copies. Perhaps expanding the case to the entirety of the Bible creates this difference in logic, therefore I shall strip away the majority of these words and merely focus on a single line thereof:

Genesis 28, NIV: "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."

Unsure of what you consider the original text, I have chosen the New International Version. If you wish to refute the authenticity thereof, we may use a line of your choice, but bear in mind that a refutation to its validity should in fact encompass the scenario I explained in my post.

We can apply a linguistic form of the Ship of Theseus puzzle onto this text, transforming it over the years:

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. (original)
God blessed them and said unto them, "be fruitful and multiply, replenish the earth and subdue it: rule over fish, over birds, and over every moving organism on Earth." (transformation #1)
God blessed them and said, "reproduce, regrow, rule." (transformation #2) -- further reduction in information results in a distortion of the text, creating vastly different interpretations and eliminating the original meaning.
Heavenly father bestowed upon them blessings and decreed, "repopulate Earth, maintain its infrastructure, control with absolution the life on Earth." (transformation #3)
Dad of the Clouds blessed our kind, proclaiming, "give birth to new life, keep the Earth alive, eliminate free will on Earth." (transformation #4)
Father Francis blessed our people, providing us three rules: "maximize homo sapien zygotes, maintain the planet's core, maximize allegiance to the Father" (transformation #5)

It appears that in our final transformation, an authoritarian ruler has modified the text for his own nefarious purposes.
Given the limit of the human lifespan, if given enough time between transformations, there will be a continuous transition in which the people are able to accept such texts as the word of God.
Despite not actually being the word of God, people who are in a closed system of communication have no way of accessing the true nature/texts of God.
Through no fault of their own, they have accepted a false reality. Through no fault of their own, they are to burn in Hell for eternity (assuming your Biblical representation of punishment is true)

Though, I didn't actually need to create these transformations: we have real-life examples revolving around Yahweh with differing texts: the Torah, Quran, and Bible in their various forms.
Moreover, even in Christianity itself there appear to be many clashing and conflicting sects.

---

I have not mentioned the Big Bang. I do not assume anything in particular about the creation of the universe.

Can you define complexity? I also don't see any clear logical progression for your assertions.

"Complexity always comes from same or greater complexity" - how?

(I'm asking for two things here: first being a definition for complexity, the second being the syllogism of which you drew your conclusion)

---

Just because you can't see, measure, comprehend, or otherwise verify something does not mean that its non-existence is certain. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, right? After all, if we were to claim such a thing, then why would the same logic not apply to your idea of God?

But let's not get ahead of ourselves here! Consider this possible case:

In all of history, humanity has not encountered an elephant.
Humanity has toyed around with the notion of such an animal but has never gathered empirical data for such an organism.
Therefore, there is no example of an elephant anywhere.
Therefore, we assert that elephants do not exist.

Now, if we change the words around in relation to what you said, we can arrive at this series of propositions and conclusions.

In all of history, humanity has not encountered an example of 'complexity coming from simplicity' anywhere.
Humanity has toyed around with the notion of such an idea but has never gathered empirical data for such an event.
Therefore, there is no example of 'complexity coming from simplicity' anywhere.
Therefore, we assert that 'complexity coming from simplicity' does not exist.

Before you balk at the comparison between elephants and ideas/concepts, note that the elephant example can be replaced with any other concept. It is merely in this form to simplify understanding.

---

Proposition 1: The universe is a machine.
Proposition 2: Machines are designed and built.
Conclusion: God exists.

If this is an inaccurate representation of your argument, then forgive my transgression for I know not the word of the Lord as well as you do.
If, however, it is an accurate representation of your argument, then I ask for validity of the propositions and the causative logic between the two and the conclusion.

---

Four different sections here to deconstruct. We should not let them intermingle since that only complicates the relevant discourse upon each subject.

And yes, I'm even not going for the infinite regress refutation... we all know to expect goalpost movement and special clause additions (despite the incomprehensible nature of the entity).

Scientific investigation shows that God exists. The universe is a machine. Machines are designed and built. Has nothing to do with religions or religious writings.

Sounds good. Let’s not confine ourselves to saying things that might have a hundred different meanings. Anybody who knows some things about God, doesn’t know everything about God. Same with science, or the car you drive. So, what in the world are you talking about?


The Bible is the Word of God. If there are alterations, the alterations aren’t the Word of God. Even the Book of Mormon has some Bible wording in it. The Dead Sea Scrolls show that changes to the true Bible are only cosmetic.


The one thing that you are forgetting is that God is maintaining His Word. If this has suddenly become some kind of a test for the authenticity of the Bible, there is a lot more that shows that the Bible is real and that we can see that God is real because of what the Bible is. You need to look at the whole history of Israel, and the kind of people they are to understand this.

The thing you are talking about in its simplicity is, if you hold up two apples, and they both are essentially the same, this doesn’t tell us which tree or trees they come from. But this is irrelevant to the existence of God.

The difference with the Word of God is this. The history displayed by the Bible is destruction for people who do not follow God, but well being for those who follow Him. When you study who Israel is, you find that they don’t lie in their Bible writing.



Now you are talking about science theory. Big Bang Theory destroys Big Bang at the same time it develops it. So, where did this whole universe come from, since it obviously didn't come from BB?

Complexity always comes from same or greater complexity. When simplicity brings about complexity, there was a far greater complexity that “programmed” the simplicity to do this. The fact of entropy shows that there is always a decline of complexity.

Apply complexity to everything... not only lab chemicals and pharmaceuticals. Apply it to mind as well. The Mind that made the setting up and the coming into being of the minds of all human beings, has to be greater than the minds of all human beings. We never see complexity coming from simplicity except that there is greater complexity behind the whole thing making it to happen that way. There is no example of complexity coming from simplicity anywhere.

God’s mind made our minds... but at least set things up so that our minds would exist. If you don’t like the word “God,” find other words that show His greatness to describe Him.

I wish to simplify the argument by creating instances in which the religious doctrines are as protected as possible. Introducing further variables allows for the possibility of strawman accusations, of which would further skew the conversation.

Thus the omission thereof allows us to tackle one instrumental part of the belief at a time, reducing the probability of fallacious deflections or altered representations of the topic.

---

Meaningless trivia: yeah, I believe in the concept of God, though my definition and implications thereof are almost certainly different from every other individual on this planet. What are they, you might ask? Not telling!

Add to it, Bijkl variations and you get the whole picture.

j - for the time-domain (the dogma 'transformations' over time due to societal/political pressures)
k - for legislated interpretations (major 'releases', B based religions/churches/denominations) at any particular point in time (j)
l - for personal interpretations or omissions (for any given i, j, and k)

The 'B' (B458.756.89890) BADecker 'believes' is different from the one anyone in his church, this forum, his city or country believes in.
 

Assuming that your idea of God is partially comprehensible, how can you be sure of anything in absolution? Let us not confine ourselves to those known unknowns, but expand our horizons to search for the unknown unknowns.

I do wonder, however, why the bible is a beacon or anchor of absolute information.
Considering the fact that there doesn't seem to be any divine intervention against the possibility of alterations thereof, it seems odd to place such a degree of power upon such a piece of literature.

Let us observe this case:

Let the original bible in its purest form be decreed B.
Early civilizations happen upon B and transcribe the contents onto a copy: B₀.
Apart from having been man-made, B₀ is indistinguishable from B.
Through circumstance, the original text B is lost and irrecoverable.
Future transcriptions are fitted to a variety of languages, of which differ in semantics and syntax.
Due to these differences, increased variation in interpretation between B₀ and its successors is inevitable.
Unfortunately, through passage of time, B₀ and successors continually decay and are eventually unreadable.
Despite best efforts, human error occurs, reducing accuracy between transcriptions by up to 1% for each iteration.
As B_i approaches infinity (where i := iteration #) we note that the probability of having B_i representative of the original text B approaches 0 in response.

---

One final remark: if we cannot pragmatically distinguish the empirical relevance of an object X's existence as opposed to its non-existence, then whether it exists or whether it does not exist is of no relevance to our lives.

That is, if you can't consistently measure any result derived from a belief in a proposition P, then its truth value is of no pragmatic significance.
Example: toilet demons exist and will eat your flesh, but only in the year 3000.