Last night I had a dream. In this dream I had reason to believe that a room in my house was inhabited by a poltergeist. I couldn’t actually see the entity but I had good reason to believe it was there because inanimate objects were constantly being moved from where I had left them. Of course I also could have been mistaken as to where I had put them. So I conducted an experiment. I left a pair of shoes in the middle of the floor and out loud, informed the poltergeist that “I have left a pair of shoes in the middle of the room and I am now going to leave the room, close the door, and return in 10 minutes. If you want me to believe in your existence I want you to move the shoes to somewhere else in the room”. Then I left. On returning, sure enough, the shoes were neatly placed on the table. In my dream I repeated the procedure several times and each time the shoes ended up on the table.
I imagine I have dreams like this because as a young teen I discovered science fiction and avidly read the entire contents of my high school library. Stalwarts such as John Wyndham, Lester Del Rey and later, the ‘new wave’ of science fiction authors such as Bradbury, Ballard and Ellison became my sustenance. From there it was an easy step into the decidely dodgy world of ESP, ley lines, the mathematical profundity of the pyramids, Erich von Daniken and Lobsang Rampa. You name it, I’ve probably read it.
Looking back on this period, now armed with a PhD in cognitive psychology, I wonder whether reading these books acted as a type of partial wish fulfillment. We all wish the world were different to how it actually is. In my case this was characterised by such thoughts as wouldn’t it be great if telepathy were real? Imagine being able to privately communicate with someone at a great distance without having to worry about dialing codes or whether the battery has enough charge. Excellent! Talking to dead relatives and close friends? Cool! Visitors from outer space in saucer shaped craft? Fantastic! Being able to move objects at a distance? Wow! Curing any emotional ill simply by talking through your feelings, guided by a simple, universal template of human psychological structure? Awesome!
An omniscient, omnipresent, omnibenevolent entity that created the universe (and us, to look just like him!) and responds to all your needs…….
But let’s be honest here. There is no such thing as ESP, telekinesis, reliably effective Freudian analysis, flying saucers etc. How do we know this? Well we’ve observed and experimented, and crunched the numbers. And observed and experimented and crunched the numbers again. And again. And not only formally, in laboratories, but informally, in the field, in our everday observations and thoughts. And as for that omnsicient, omnipresent and omnibenevolent being, or even an omniscient entity of any sort, well again, the numbers, whether from philosphical or empirical investigation, simply don’t add up.
So, in the best tradition of personality psychology in categorising human beings, I observe a psychological continuum between those who perceive the world in terms of wish-fulfillment (believers) and those who perceive the world in terms of evidence (rationalists). Or, in other words, a continuum based on an individual’s existential honesty.
Using my dream as analogy, whether the shoes had moved or not, the rationalist would simply accept the state of things as found and the scientific world-view would be amended accordingly in that the poltergeist hypothesis would gain some support. If the shoes had not moved, however, the poltergeist believer would have their world-view threatened and likely be trying to convince us that the shoes really had moved. Substitute god for poltergeist, and the shoes would have moved in the spiritual dimension, or actually would have moved, if god was willing, or their remains the possibility that the shoes will move, if only we had more faith….
That is why I am an atheist. I simply aspire to perceive the universe in as true a way as possible; which entails being honest about my psychological makeup, i.e., my own wants and wishes, no matter what the data is telling me. It’s not that I don’t believe in god. I simply have yet to see any convincing data (or philosophical argument, for that matter) that the hypothesis is true. Belief just doesn’t come into it.
Gary Hill
United Kingdom
Well, I’m only armed with an MS in telecommunications, but I think you’re correct. That’s the great thing about books, they allow us a bit of “escape” from the mundane, into an alternate world where magic is real, etc. And there’s nothing wrong with that as long as we don’t start believing that fictional world actually exists in our own.
The problem with religions is they really believe that fictional world exists in our own, and they are willing to kill you if you don’t.
Did you read “The Horla” by Maupassant… ?
Existential honesty.
New termonology. I like it.
@Christoph
No, I was unaware of this story. I’ve had a quick skim through and can see the connection. I’ll certainly read it in more detail. Thanks.
Why is there beauty if there is no God?
And why are there bad arguments for God, if there is no God?
Ha, can’t answer inane garbage, can you?
Glen Davidson
Interesting take! I think you’re right. There’s also a recent study showing that people who see agency in inanimate objects are more likely to be religious. Cause or habit, who knows?
This is also about emotional attachment to unprovable ideas: http://www.iamanatheist.com/blog/2011/10/07/things-that-never-happen/” title=”I am an atheist blog”>Things that never happen.
Arrgh! Sorry about borking the link.
Fight begging the question with begging the question: “Why is there no sense of beauty if there is no evolution? If we hadn’t evolved to perceive it, we wouldn’t be able to!”
Ha! Ley lines! I can’t count how many times I’ve tried to explain what utter bullshit that theory is. It usually comes from someone who read The Celestine Prophesy, or too much Nostradamus.
You are right. Fiction and fantasy have an important role in our lives, but we need to make it clear where our world ends and when the Land of Make-Believe begins. Unfortunately people want desperately to hold onto nonsense, no matter what, and religion and crap like Ancient Aliens are not helping.
That was excellent.
.
Theists say that they don’t believe in atheists, and they’re half-right. The term atheist would cease to exist if peddlers of religion would cease to exist. No priests, preachers, or parsons and we require no label.
.
Atheism is not really a disbelief in gods, for there is no reason to think otherwise, but it’s actually a disbelief in the snake oil (or Gerin Oil, if you prefer) sold by charlatans. It’s more of a disbelief in the hubris of humans than a disbelief in deities.
“So, in the best tradition of personality psychology in categorising human beings, I observe a psychological continuum between those who perceive the world in terms of wish-fulfillment (believers) and those who perceive the world in terms of evidence (rationalists). Or, in other words, a continuum based on an individual’s existential honesty.”
Worth hiring an embroiderer to decorate a banner with this quote to improve the outlook of that window with the unattractive view…
OK, so maybe just a T-shirt.
Really enjoyed this essay!
Delightfully crisp thinking.
Ah, the thrill of suspension of disbelief! Feels almost as rewarding as comprehension, but without the hard work, without the wait. Many among us feel hopelessness about our ability to do that hard work. We love short cuts! (“We like short shorts…” on the radio now.)
Could you plot one’s suspension of disbelief over time, or plot it on a map of the ideas one encounters?
Certainly captured a lot of my childhood, including the deep diving into scifi. My mother was into lots of woo concepts (pyramids, lost continent of Mu, ESP), and I got into it for a while as well. I had my brothers absolutely convinced I had ESP, to the point they believed I was cheating by using it during hide and seek. I could tell lots of anecdotal stories about the times my ESP “worked” really well. It took a long time to wean myself off of those ideas. It is wish fulfillment, wishing that what you can imagine in your mind can exist in the real world. But people don’t like giving up the possibility that it just might become real, if we try or believe hard enough.
I highly recommend Thomas Gilovich’s “How We Know What Isn’t So”. It goes into all the ways in which we fool ourselves into believing things, and why.
You could have your own FTBlog if you had at least one dream like that one every week.
So pathetic, it shows how odd you guys are. You deny the existence of God whiles believe in evolutionism and have dreams about poltergeists.
I think the word is irony.
Bob
Hey, whatever allows you to maintain your illusion of not being tied to an irrational belief system, Bob.
Bob Stevensson at comment number 16, I thank you for providing more evidence for the idea that people who are stupid enough and gullible enough to believe in a god fairy with unlimited magical powers are also science deniers.
By the way tard boy, evolution is called “evolution”, not “evolutionism”.
Also, tard boy, basic scientific facts are not beliefs.
This is my new favorite testimonial. I have used the term “existential honesty” privately for a couple of years, so seeing it gain traction is very nice :) You make a very good point about wish-fulfillment vs. evidence, too.
Human Ape, you believe in evolutionism all you want, just dont pretend you are intelligent or bright believing monkeys become humans.
Of course, I will accept that you think you are a monkey, but I certainly ain’t one, I am a Human Being, a creation of God Almighty.
@16
Bob, I think the word for you should be “proofread”.
@Bob
1. Why on earth wouldn’t I deny the existence of god? There’s simply no evidence for such an entity. If you have some, other than worthless faith, theological just-so stories, or philosophical sophism I’d love to hear it..
2. We’ve got something in common. I don’t believe in evolution (or even evolutionism) either. I have no particular reason to wish myself to be a member of the primate family. I just am, so I live with it.
3. I do occasionally dream about poltergeists. I wonder what you dream about? Go on, be honest…
Hey, every time some doof like Bob says “monkey,” do we get to shout “Happy Monkey!” and down a glass of champagne?
Oh. Well, I’m gonna do it anyway.
Gary;
1. Because the evidence is everywhere, you just have to open your eyes and not deny the world around you.
2. That is good, it is tragic when people believe in things like evolutionism and that the world is billions of years.
3. I dream about a wonderful world without war and thieves and murder. But that would demand a world without atheism and communism, which will probably take a while to get ;(
Hey Bob,
Maybe you could explain to us mere monkeys how you have ascertained that all the evidence around us is not proof of Satan or proof of complex space aliens, or proof that we are not living in a giant hologram? I think this kind of vital investigative work will be key to understanding the world you dream about …
And what is so wrong about believing that the world is billions of years anyway?
Inquiring minds, teach me Bob, teach me …
@ Bob
Obvious troll is obvious
@Bob Stevensson – The fact that you spend time at FTB shows that you are seeking answers outside of the ridiculous superstitions imposed on you by, if not your parents, then society in general. But the fact that you think atheism or communism has anything to do with the world’s problems shows you haven’t gotten far yet – and that you are at least 70 years behind the times. You do not have my pity. The truth is all around you of you would open up your eyes: our world is far more beautiful, awesome, and amazing than anything in your primitive religion. It is also way bigger, way older, and far more complex. Don’t fool yourself into thinking the folks around here haven’t heard BS like yours before – we have! Many times! It is unimpressed and unconvincing. And by the way, humans did not come from monkeys: monkeys and humans share a common ancestor some millions of years ago … go back a few billion years and all life shares the same oozy single-cell ancestor. It’s not a belief, it’s a fact. A demonstrable, repeatedly, consistently proven fact. Unlike the Judeo-Christian religion, the “facts” of which completely evaporates upon inspection of any contemporary sources. But hang in there! You’ll come around! Everyone one who seeks real truh eventually does!
Godbot Bob:
No.
We reject your unfounded assertion that something you haven’t properly defined which you label ‘God’ exists.
According to the bible, the earth is flat, orbited by the sun, 6,000 years old, and the stars are just lights pasted on a dome.
These days the flat earthers are almost gone, the Geocentrists are down to 20% of the population, and just about everyone knows the stars are suns like ours but very far away.
Creationism will follow the Flat Earthers and for the same reason. It’s just wrong, a wild guess by ancient middle eastern sheepherders.
Speaking of intelligence, acceptance of evolution among scientists is 99%. Even the majority of xian sects accept evolution. My large and old Protestant sect doesn’t have a problem with evolution. They say so right on their website.
Someone is wrong here and it’s not the best and brightest our society has produced. That leaves….who?
ManOutOfTime, you repeat what I say then act like you know something, yeah, I know, the Truth is all around you, just open your eyes, just like I said before.
God Bless, dont fear Truth
Bob
How sad is it that Bob, who commented snarkily on the dream in the OP, now won’t even be honest about the contents of his dreams?
Bob, why would we take anything you say seriously if you lie about that?
Also, not denying the world around us is why science is so fun. You should try it. Sense of wonder? Religion can’t begin to compete.
Well then, you should have solid and conclusive evidence available for your imaginary deity. Evidence that will pass muster with scientists, magicians, and professional debunkers, as being of divine, and not natural (scientifically explained), origin. To date, no godbot has supplied any such evidence, which requires the equivalent of an eternally burning bush. Have it in your back pocket?? Until then, your deity doesn’t exist.
Oh Bob, the universe and world is explained by science. Nothing is explained by your book of mythology/fiction known as the babble….
1. The commies are all but extinct. The USSR doesn’t even exist anymore and two of their satellite nations are members of NATO. You need to read something published after 1980. Update your demonology. The bad guys these days are Moslems.
2. US xianity is dying. Killed by people like you, the fundie xian death cults. The churches are losing several million members a year. The No Religions make up 22% of the population and growing rapidly. That is 66 million people, about the same as the fundie xians.
Really, read something written after 1980. A lot has happened in the last 30 years.
You deny the existence of Bigfoot, the Easter Bunny, Zeus, Ahura Mazda, Thor, Tinkerbell, Fairies, Brahma, UFO aliens, and a few thousand other immaterial beings.
They are very sad. You don’t write or call any more.
myers; What? I am lying about my dreams? What are you talking about? I was asked what I dream, I told him, that the world would be in peace and love, something that wont exist until people like you and muslims disappear from the world causing pain and suffering.
Nerd; Seriously, I know very well how you have to accept Lord Myers word, you followed him for years and years, his word is truth, evolutionism, Man to Ape and so on, I know you can not question this, especially here you probably get banned.
You have evidence everywhere, if you want to look for it, but it is easy to ignore and simple not accept the real world and live in your evolution world. I suggest you go to Ken Ham’s page and read up about evolution, he can give you information you probably never knew, I suspect Youtube have videos of him as well, you could get educated in a night and learn the truth about the world and get away from this stupidity you been indoctrinated.
Bless
Human Ape,
The zeal to stomp Bob godbot is exemplary, your use of the epithet ‘tard’ is not.
That’s one of the drawbacks to living in the reality-based community. For instance, I would love to be able to deny the existence of Rebecca Black’s singing, but there is ample evidence of it, dammit.
@Bob
1. The evidence is not everywhere, If it where, the very people who actually take the bother and time to actually collect data and analyse it, from myriad scientific fields, would have noticed it by now.
2. I said I didn’t believe in evolution, I emphatically did not say that evolution is not the best way in which to explain the diversity of living organisms on this planet. There are other ways of coming to conclusions about the state of things other than believing. Like hard evidence. Belief doesn’t come into it.
3. I too have dreams like yours including:
there weren’t 20 million people killed in the Taiping Rebellion by the followers of the guy who claimed he was Jesus’s younger brother
there weren’t nearly 1 million people killed in the religious genocide in Rwanda
The Sabra and Shatila massacres didn’t happen in Lebanon
priests don’t rape children
women deemed to be witches weren’t burned alive
people aren’t stoned to death for adultery
thieves don’t have their hands chopped off
planes full of people aren’t flown into buildings
bits of babies penises aren’t chopped off
bits of young girls genitals aren’t chopped off
some people would ratherv pray for their sick children than seek medical advice
people don’t strap bombs to their bodies
100,000s of people, including children and whole villages, weren’t massacred in the Algerian Civil War because they voted for a secular rather than the religious political party
albinos aren’t kidnapped and butchered for their body parts to use in religious ceremonies
etc etc etc, all done in the name of god.
1) Apparently you can’t read. I am not “myers”.
2) The OP talked about an actual while-I-was-asleep dream. Your snarky comment about it, and the return question about your own dreams, were about that sort of dream.
You knew this. And yet you chose to dodge the question in favor of indulging in the sort of wishful thinking you’ve been demonstrating consistently in here.
And when I called you on it, you repeated your dishonesty.
That’s what it is, Bob. Dishonesty. You are being dishonest. And probably a tad disingenuous as well. These are the words with a “D” this time.
So far, it seems as though you’re more interested in preaching at us heathens than in having an actual conversation. If that’s not the case, then your communication skillz are a few bricks shy of mad. If, however, you are just here to preach at us, feel free to fuck off.
Gary,
This is a great essay. I’d just be curious what role your PhD in psychology played in forming your current epistemic outlook.
As for myself, I was never satisfied and couldn’t really call myself an atheist until I knew why people believed in gods and supernatural things if the natural world is all that there is. In other words, I tentatively concluded supernatural things weren’t actually real, but I had lingering doubts about doubt because so many people believed in those things.
Of course I knew about the ad populum fallacy and such but I still couldn’t break with supernaturalism completely until I had a robust explanation as to why these beliefs existed to begin with. It took years of reading everything from Boyer, Atran, Pyysiainen, Whitehouse, Bering, etc before I was sufficiently comfortable in non-belief. I was just curious if you followed a similar path given your degree. Thanks.
Who is this Lord Myers of who you speak? I know it not. But I do know fuckwittery and godbotting when I see it, and it is all over your inane and idiotic posts.
Gee, I have never met this Lord Myers. My introduction to evolution was from Isaac Asimov back in the mid sixties. It made sense. Especially compared to babble which I read about the same time. That started my journey to rationality and atheism. You are lost in the fog of delusion, since your deity doesn’t exist, and your holy book is mythology fiction. You need evidence, not testament, to change that.
PZ says “question everything”. You question nothing, and sound ignorant as a result. I can easily give up atheism and evolution. Just show me the solid and conclusive evidence that I specified above for your imaginary deity, or shut the fuck up. Same for scientific (not religious) evidence refuting evolution. Science is only refuted by more science. Science has a million or so scientific papers backing evolution. Tsk, tsk, sounds like you lost before you even suited up. And your one book of religion, is mythology/fiction. Not a good start…
Oh man, I didn’t even see his “Lord Myers” rant.
Bob, Bob, Bob…
You have not the slightest germ of a clue how science works. Please take the time to learn about that before you try to preach to people who DO know how it works. I’ll even give you a BIG starting hint: Science doesn’t have sacred texts, and “authorities” are only trusted to the extent that their work holds up to scrutiny.
@Bob-
You can’t even handle the age of the Earth?
Wow… what a pitifully small box your world is. I hope enough holes were poked through the top for you.
Gosh, Bob Stevensson! I might have guessed you were a Hambot. Really, dude: you need to get out more! Really, I am embarrassed for you. Do you have any idea the depth of seriousness and levels of education of the people on this blog? I don’t think you do. We know all about Ham and Fischer and Barton and every other one of these Grifters for Jaysus who make their living sucking donations, book royalties, and speaking fees off of marks like you. Don’t be a sucker! There is no honor and no redemption in being taken by con men.
It’s also no shame to admit you were had. It happens to all of us, like the guy in the OP, me, and likely everyone else here. At some point in our lives, we were fooled, conned, misled or deluded. But it’s ok to admit that. Your reaction is to cling to it and defend the conmen just so you won’t have to admit you were fooled. A very human reaction, but if you think about it, it’s silly.
Nerd, oh sorry, I apologize, I thought I said in last post, Have a look at “YOUTUBE” and Answers in Genesis and you can learn about evolutionism, I shouldn’t even have to give you this, I AM NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR TEACHING YOU ABOUT THE REAL WORLD, TAKE SOME RESPONSIBILITY OF YOUR LIFE!
Now yet, I have found the homepage for you as well as youtube, just write “www.youtube.com” up in the browser, press enter and you will arrive and then you can search for the videos. You can also write “www.answersingenesis.org” and get to Ken Ham’s page, a Religious teacher and highly intelligent man that dedicate his life to help people like you to learn about the real world.
I assume it is better for you to watch videos as if you go to the homepage you have to Read, and this demands some intellect and understanding, may be better to watch the videos.
Now, I know you wont thank me for giving you this information, it is fine I enjoy helping people, I also suspect you wont even read up and learn but simple say you “cant see any evidence so therefor it does not exist”, the way atheists normally do it, ignore it and it goes away eh?
Bless
Bob:
Silly concept.
(I prefer ‘fuck’ — a fun activity and actually real)
@ StarScream
Thanks for the appreciation. My academic career didn’t even start until I was in my mid-30s so I had a fair bit of life experience before hitting any science texts. I had only a sparse religious upbringing. I suppose my formal studies acted to consolidate an already developed outlook rather than act to convert me. Having said that, I’m considered a little odd by some people because although I have firm atheistic, sciencey views I do enjoy religious music (from Rastafarian reggae to requiem masses)and create moody black and white photographs of religious iconography for a hobby. I think I can understand why people are attracted to religious sentiment, what I understand less is why they persevere with it in the face of massive contrary evidence. It can’t all be explained by ignorance. There has to be some psychological/emotional reward that it offers and I’m beginning to view it in the existentialist type terms I briefly outlined in the essay.
My graduate work in psychology actually didn’t directly inform these views, it wasn’t ‘conventional’ psychology and was concerned with sensitivity to global motion (extracting signal from noise) in the visual periphery and later with genetic bases for cognitive deficits.
I find it quite interesting to read about the different paths people have taken to a similar worldview.
Answers in Genesis teach evolution like the Amish teach particle physics.
In case you didn’t know it, people here already know of that silly website and have probably utterly destroyed and debunked the various arguments contained on it. You’re not bringing anything new to the table. Boring old rehashed standard apologetics.
As an asside, I noticed blag hag actually had a blog post today about admitting you’re wrong. What a coincidence. Or maybe I unconsciously caught the words in the corner of my eye while scrolling down the freethoughtblogs, who knows.
*head asplodes*
Bob,
so you claim that atheists “cant see any evidence so therefor it does not exist”
So if you go to a doctor with a pain because an unqualified friend (let’s say his name’s Ken) told you it’s cancer and she does exhaustive scans and tests and tells you she can’t see any evidence of cancer, wouldn’t you accept that? Why would you go on living your life with the delusion that you have cancer?
Take a minute or so and think about it.
You keep claiming the evidence exists. Where? Please cite evidence of your undefined Abrahamic god.
I see Bobby dipshit Stevensson is still a stupid, barely coherent, almost illiterate liar who wouldn’t know his ass from a hole in the ground.
How’s praying for a functioning brain working out for you, Bobby?
I suppose I should go to Giorgio A Tsoukalos to learn about Egypt and the Incas, too.
Not that the troll (in the original sense) hypothesis doesn’t seem persuasive with this one…
Glen Davidson
lol. Seriously Bob? Ken Ham? Ken Ham is your insightful guide to biological science? Please, just stop. You’ve embarrassed yourself so thoroughly already. If you continue, it will be like watching a toddler pick a fight with Mike Tyson. It will not be pretty. And someone might lose an ear.
Take your argument for god, replace the word god with ganesha or quetzalcoatl or pink umbrella, and it’s just as unbelievable. Your proof is no proof of anything, it’s an assertion.
Well, I guess Dipshit begins with a “D” as well, huh?
I have the same belief in evolution as I do in nuclear physics. They both exist, I have a somewhat better than rudimentary understanding of them, and they make sense to me. Just as I know how a slow-moving neutron hitting a U-238 nucleus causes the nucleus to fission, I know a population of living organisms will change due to mutation and natural selection into populations of different living organisms. No belief necessary in either case.
Fixed that for you bozo Bob. Those are religious sites. Religion cannot refute science. That requires more science, which is found in places like this, a science library at a major university. You are afraid of such places bozo Bob, as they refute your book of mythology/fiction, and show your imaginary deity doesn’t exist. Still no eternally burning Bob. Must be off your game/lies.
Come on Bozo Bob, what part of religion cannot refute science don’t you understand. Apparently every word…
No Bozo Bob, I read the babble twice cover to cover. It is a book of mythology fiction, and you have presented no evidence to convince me otherwise. But then, you don’t understand evidence. See the library link above. Evidence is found there.
Ignore what scientific evidence Bozo Bob? You didn’t present any, only religion…
Bob Stevensson @ 16;
We are not the ones who believe that an unevidenced magic man in the sky ‘poofed’ reality into existence in seven days six thousand years ago, and yet we are the odd ones?
We do not ‘deny’ the existence of god as a matter of dogma – we simply refuse to confer belief on any unevidenced phenomenon, which includes your god. If you want to convince us, all you need do is provide scientifically credible evidence, something that no theist has ever managed to do.
I fail to see what relevance the content of someone’s dreams has to this discussion. As a case in point, I have enjoyed any number of fictional works that include references to deities and other mythological creatures. My dreams have sometimes even included fictional characters from such works, but this has no impact on the actual existence of godhead, or the validity of my arguments in relation to the topic, and nor do Gary Hill’s dreams about poltergeists invalidate his arguments.
@ 21;
Modern monkeys don’t become humans – proto-human hominids evolved into humans, modern monkeys are a seperate branch on the same evolutionary ‘tree’ sharing (relatively recent, in evolutionary terms) common ancestors with us. The evidence that our species is a type of ape is clear from comparative anatomy and genetic studies.
Accepting Evolutionary Theory is not a question of belief as a blind faith equivalent to theism – the theory is supported by vast quantities of hard data. Its evidential base is so vast and well established that to ignore it is to ignore reality.
Reality is not ratified by that which you want to believe about yourself or the universe at large. The evidence supports evolutionary theory, whereas your god is a wholly unevidenced mythological belief no different to fairies and banshees. You may not like it, but this has no bearing on the evidence, and the evidence supports the theory that our species is closely related to monkeys and the great apes. Yes, that means you too, however squicky that might make you feel.
@ 25;
Your presuppositions and confirmation basis leads you to the erroneous conclusion that evidence for your god is ‘everywhere’. The facts are that there are other, better evidenced and more parsimonious, explanations for observed phenomena than ‘goddidit’.
Yahweh must be going on a serious diet. You theists keep trying to squeeze him into ever dwindling gaps…
Why? What is so ‘tragic’ about people basing their world view on scientific evidence rather than Bronze Age superstition?
For thousands of years the known world was ruled by totalitarian religious authorities. Atheism was all but unheard of, and that which did exist was brutally supressed. Communism as an ideology would not come to exist for centuries, and yet brutal wars, thievery and murder still occurred. Indeed, some of the most vicious examples of looting and warcrimes in history occurred at the hands of highly devout armies – the Crusades and the numerous European religious wars are but two well known examples, and we haven’t even gotten to the joys of the Inquisition or Witch Hunters yet…
Given these events, your contention that the elimination of atheism and Communism would somehow end such social ills is, to put it mildly, somewhat ahistorical.
Indeed, history suggests that your hypothetical theist ‘utopia’ would be a blood-drenched nightmare of religious warfare snd theocratic oppression.
@ 37;
You do realise that this is practically a word-for-word rendition of the rationale for various genocides? I am sure that the inhabitants of Rwanda and the Former Yugoslavia would recognise the sentiment:- eliminate a few ‘undesireables’, and social perfection follows supposedly naturally – or that is what the people dropping bodies into mass graves tell themselves…
Wow. Citing, of all people, Ken Ham as an authority on Evolutionary Theory? I don’t think there is anything else you could have said that would demolish the tattered shreds of your credibility quite as efficiently as that. Next you will be saying that you actually think that the Creation ‘Museum’ is something other than a show case for con artistry and perhaps the world’s most rampant expression of the Dunning-Kruger effect…
@ 48;
But you are responsible for backing up your extraordinary claims with evidence, something that you have still failed to do. YouTube videos are hardly the final arbiters on scietific matters. If that is the best you can manage, then you will receive short shrift from the rationalists here.
Creationist screeds posted in video form do not amount to evidence. We are not ‘ignoring’ evidence, we are asking that theists actually provide evidence for their claims of the existence of a deity. In all cases, the evidence is not forthcoming, and so we have no evidence for god to ignore even if we were so inclined.
Rather than attempting the world’s least convincing appeal to authority by invoking Ham, why don’t you actually put forward some of this evidence for your god that you claim is ‘all around us’ if it is so ubiquitous? That is the heart of the matter, after all. Simply asserting that there is evidence will convince no one here. Support your argument, or none here will take you seriously.
Time to put your money where your mouth is, so to speak…
I think BS here is a troll, a Poe. Stop feeding him, s’il vous plait.
The entire universe coming into existence from nothing sounds more absurd to me, and this is why I am not an atheist anymore. Any chance that PZ Myers would consider a ‘Why I Am Not An Atheist Anymore’ story from me for publication?
So you’re ignorant and stupid. Why would anyone here want to read more mindless twaddle from your sort?
As in, we know that the universe exists from the evidence. Unless you have evidence (no, not stupid fallacies) that your “God” exists, we don’t care what tortuous idiocies your “mind” endures.
Glen Davidson
Damn pathetic, the only thing you do is demand that I provide everything, even when I give you LINKS to sites with evidence, internet which have all the knowledge of the world, you simple deny to go there. Sorry, no, take some responsibility of your life.
I do not know what a “poe” is, nor a “troll”, as I must assume you do not mean a giant creature from folklore, as these do not exist and you deny the existence of God it would be strange to suddenly believe in silly folklores.
Just pathetic, stop demand others to be responsible for your life, try to use internet and learn.
Coco Jumbo:
Who makes that claim, other than theists?
You’re the one who believes a magic man in the sky poofed things into existence (though you ignore that the magic man had to somehow exist before such poofing).
You were an atheist like I was a petunia. :)
Bob:
I did not ask for a link to someone elses web site. I asked that you (as in actually write it here) cite evidence which points to the existence of god(s). And not only god(s), but, specifically, the Abrahamic god.
And yet a massively complex, sentient superconsciousness popping into existence out of nothing (or somehow having ‘always existed’) strikes you as a believable alternative?
A set of conditions that exist as emergeant properties that could, over billions of years, lead to the moden universe is ludicrous to you, but a magic creator deity just appearing with agency and power enough to create everything from scratch by waving a magic wand is just fine and dandy?
Don’t you realise that the god construct is just pushing the issue back a step? If you claim that the universe cannot be an ‘uncaused cause’, and therefore a god is required, then that god either has to be an uncaused cause (in which case why can’t the universe be one?) or that god requires its own cause. God’s god, if you will. Which then requirs another cause – god’s, god’s god – and so on ad infinitum.
Your answer of ‘godidit’ is no answer at all, it is merely a non-parsimonious assertion.
[meta]
Bob the Clown:
It is most amusing to see your baseless little rants, and the irony of your asking your imaginary audience (who has demanded that others be responsible for your life, other than you goddish fools?) to do that which you are patently incapable of doing.
Seriously — I’m finding it hard to judge whether your ignorance, your arrogance or your foolishness is paramount.
(But you have buckets of each)
I have. And I have learned you are a delusional fool, believing in imaginary deities and mythical/fictional holy books. I even gave you link to this thing called a library where books are, that refute your delusions. But will you go there???? NOPE, too delusional…And nope, couldn’t find a real eternally burning bush on Google for examination…must not exist…
Pissant Bobby Stevensson wrote:
Really? Why do think trolls don’t exist?
Another thing, Bob:
Ken Ham. Hovind, Answers in Genesis, The Discovery Institute, ICS or whatever the fuck the creationists are calling themselves…
We know who they are, and we’ve heard what they say.
Their claims have been examined. For the most part they are not just wrong but – since they are addicted to misrepresenting actual science to give the impression that the facts support them – we know those people are liars, and their claims are garbage.
Bob Stevensson says
The folks who reject your ideas more than likely have taken great responsibility in searching for answers. I would even argue atheists have taken more responsibility in finding facts than any religious person on Earth. If they did, you would certainly know it because they would be right next to you in church (whom you pay).
Also, the internet and all its “knowledge of the world” is there for you as well. I suggest taking a trip down memory lane and looking at all the great achievements of mankind. At one time perhaps religion explained many things which were not understood at the time but that time is long gone.
Also, research Copernicus. He is a great example of blowing the world away (literally) with fact not fiction.
Also, you said damn and called someone pathetic. I would mind your p’s and q’s if you want to get into heaven.
Correction:
If they DIDN’T, you would certainly know it because they would be right next to you in church.
@bob, I have something you might enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb9n4oa_Pus And this guy, you two seem to have a LOT in common ;)
^bob=donkey. just so’s we clear.
Isn’t atheism a ‘god-did-not-do-it’ point of view?
No dummy, it’s a No-God-did-anything point of view. Because there’s no god, anywhere, except in the empty space between your ears.
Atheism is a “show me some evidence” point of view. All positions are subject to revision if new evidence calls for it.
It just happens that there’s no evidence for any of the bajillion or so “gods” to exist.
This is known as the Argument from Personal Incredulity. Just because you find it hard to believe does not mean that reality has to bend to your will.
I personally find it hard to believe that Will.i.am and Nicki Minaj actually released “Check It Out” as a song, expecting people to want to hear it and be willing to pay money for it.
But they did.
Fucking universe.
No, dumbass, it’s an “fictional causes don’t count” point of view. As in, anyone can invent a fictional “cause” to “explain” any damn thing that comes along, but that’s just stupidity.
Oh I’m not denying that there are atheists who might simply deny God as a cause, while accepting idiotic alien claims or some such thing. But we’re claiming an intellectually honest atheism here, meaning that we don’t like any fictional BS being touted as an “obvious cause” when its very existence isn’t even indicated by meaningful evidence.
Glen Davidson
Why are you even bothering to argue these matters when you don’t know what meaningful evidence is?
Scientific evidence, obviously. Science isn’t everything, but if there is doubt about the “existence” of something, it is in the realm of science that you have a chance of coming up with meaningful evidence. Reproducible results, that is (and no, it isn’t a matter of “materialism” either, save when the latter stands in for evidence of an empirical nature–since we conceive of evidence as being physical or “material”).
Of course I don’t. God is the fiction of others, and almost infinitely malleable.
Yes, that’s actually a serious problem you have there. How would we recognize “God,” since claims about said “God” aren’t limited by observation?
But that’s not our problem, as it’s obviously fictive.
Glen Davidson
@84: and there we have it. Proof of the nonexistance of God.
Was I bad? Oooooh I was bad.
Yes, it’s limited to what is empirically knowable.
Why yes, science is required to find answers about pure fictions.
No, sorry, that’s one of the most obvious and correct limits that science has.
Why be in denial of your subpar thought processes?
Why you think you should just accept subpar thinking as your mode of being is not readily apparent.
Glen Davidson
Science has not demonstrated any god…therefore there must be god and atheists are in denial?
God in any serious way is too poorly defined (though my mental picture was the God Galaxy from Futurama) and when it is defined it is laughable.
There’s no way to recognize God manifesting from any other plethora of supernatural or super technological entities.
How do you distinguish God from Q? (and no saying one is fictional doesn’t count)
Coco Jumbo wrote:
What are these questions you have about God? Where do you come by the information upon which you base these questions?
Well garsh, Coco Jumbo, we looked and looked but never found any evidence for the Easter Bunny! How come you are in denial about the existence of the Easter Bunny?
Oh, sure. I’d recognise God right away!
He’d be big, blonde, armoured with a helmet with wings on it, wield a bloody great hammer, and speak with a hint of an Australian accent.
Easy.
I’m sure you agree.
Actually, no it isn’t. Like, even if you were right it isn’t.
Good point. Why do you believe in God? And it can’t be that there’s no evidence against it because you got the idea from somewhere and you can’t pull a specific out of a lack of evidence.
But… there IS evidence for “just happenstance.”
Lots of it.
Therefore you are in denial.
A) You are asking science to answer questions that are inherently ascientific and are created by religion.
B)You presume that those stances are invalid in light of no evidence for God, yet somehow presume that acceptance of God in light of it is valid.
No. I was right the first time.
The logical position in the face of no evidence is the null position. Ignorance is not the justification to slip in your pet theory.
Denial means that one has evidence and refuses to draw the conclusions dictated by said evidence. You can’t be in denial from a universally agreed lack of evidence.
Finding your spouse genitals deep into another person and insisting they are faithful to you is denial
Finding no evidence of the spouse’s infidelity and thus assuming that because there’s no evidence they AREN’T cheating on you therefore it’s reasonable to assume they are is insanity.
There has never been any conclusive evidence for Bigfoot…therefore those who don’t believe in Bigfoot are in denial about the existence of Bigfoot.
Nice theory of mind you’ve got there, but why insist on applying it to things which have no mind–i.e., the universe?
Classic example of agenticity and patternicity.
@Coco Jumbo
In fact, science has demonstrated that a god is at the very least unnecessary–and at the most, superfluous. This is the God of the Gaps.
Asking the purpose of the universe doesn’t make sense; the universe isn’t sentient.
Isn’t it easier to not assume anything and just admit it when we don’t know about something?
Nope. No assumptions are necessary for the no-gods position. Something’s absence in light of evidence is the default position.
Again, the not-just-happenstance position is the one that must be assumed. Just-happenstance is the default position.
Then why are you up to your eyeballs in a delusion?
Scientists ask this question all the time. So far, no evidence of god or gods.
Pretty much. “Ascientific” is a perfect word for it too. You get to decide your purpose.
Science can, has, and will continue to provide answers about the origins of the universe.
Science can’t tell you what meaning to assign to your life. No one can. That’s the scary part of living in reality: it’s all up to you. Personally, I look at life as a giant art project, with the ultimate goal to create as much beauty as possible. I include “happy people” under the rubric of beauty, which leads me to social justice activism and community volunteerism. That’s just my take on it, though. It wouldn’t work for everyone, nor would I expect it to. Do you think that “the meaning of life” is the same for everyone? Should it be?
After reading most of that, it just seems cruel to participate in conversation. Is it still called a face palm if you just lean forward, place your face in both of your hands, and take deep, calming breaths?
Wait! I’m receiving a revelation even as we type–the One True God is whispering in my ear. It says its name is Apomeitmathentu, and its attributes are completely unknown to any scientist. Since it has only just revealed itself to me and me alone. Why, it’s so unusual and unprecedented that it doesn’t even take a human gender! No wonder Apomeitmathentu has waited so long to reveal itself to humankind. Clearly the most parsimonious explanation is that Apomeitmathentu created the universe, and is the author of all our lives.
Apomeitmathentu would like you to know that the meaning of life is to design an economic system wherein labor-saving devices actually save labor, so that nobody has to work more than 2-3 days a week, and most people spend most of their time lying in hammocks drinking beer. Or sitting in front of a woodstove drinking beer, as the season may dictate. Got that? No go! Do it!
You’ve already been told this, without apparently grasping it at all, but few, if any, here are saying “no-God.” At least not as you apparently mean it, as a dogmatic position. It isn’t, it’s just denying the demonstrable existence of the fictive ghost in the attic, the fictive God in the universe, and the fictive fairy in the garden up until the point at which meaningful evidence may be presented for these.
Rather than giving us evidence and meaning for any of these fictional beings, you’re fighting your own strawman of “denial” of what we’d never rule out until the evidence was sufficient to do so. Meanwhile, we still have no reason to suspect that your favorite fiction is anything other than made-up.
Glen Davidson
On the basis that there may be some members of the lurking crowd, or even Mr. Stevensson (unlikely as that may be), who would be interested in a collection of links rebutting/mocking Ken Ham & Answers in Genesis, I present: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Ken_Ham. And it’s a wiki (although requiring human-verified registration) so if anyone feels motivated to add more links, please do! (Or just post them here, and I’ll try and remember to check for them and add them.)
Coco Jumbo wrote:
Why do you assume that, even if there is a god, it’s been defined by someone on earth?
No, you need every definition of God we have on earth, along with all that are possible, because you aren’t starting with evidence for anything at all, rather you’re claiming that fictive definitions ought to detain us.
And I still haven’t been given the slightest reason I should care more about any “god” than about Narcissus and Echo. That is, I actually do somewhat, but only as interesting fictions to be enjoyed, or possibly to understand the psychology of both the creators of the fiction and of those who cherish those fictions as something more than pretty (or, often, ugly) little stories.
Glen Davidson
@Coco Jumbo
Of course it would have to be defined (major problem for the Abrahamic god right there). If god is a star in the sky according to someone’s religious beliefs, then it exists! That doesn’t mean it has superpowers or can think like we can. Stars do create and sustain life, though, so I guess a star would make a better god than the Abrahamic one(s). (Isn’t sun worship how much of this started anyway?)
But as for taking every definition on earth, I and others could make up new definitions of a god every time you discovered an old one from somewhere on earth at some time in history and the findings would never end! Where are you going to end this madness? When are you going to say that enough is enough and that gods are not real?
What’s the point? If people want to be idiots and worship natural processes, they have every right to do that.
So when you used the word God, what in God’s name do you mean?
That, and beer. God the father is the sun, Jesus is beer.
Beer. Heh-heh. I suppose that one is worthy of the pretense of worship. :)
Gary Hill, nice post.
I too became immersed in SF during my teens, and read quite a bit of newage (I remember trying “Lobsang’s” purported meditational relaxation technique).
Nicely put.
—
[meta]
I see Coco GodBot can’t fathom nesting, and apparently either fails to note its quotation failures or cares not about being incompetent.
(Typical goddist, really)
@Coco Jumbo
God equals the unknown. Got it. God, for you, exists because you mean the unknown when you say God.
Don’t you mean the possibility that it is not without a cause? In other words, you really mean the unknown again.
Something? Anything? Again, the unknown. God, for you, doesn’t just work in mysterious ways; God is the mystery itself!
By this reasoning, God is not some happenstance either, and something — call it some intelligence – is responsible for God.
Coco Jumbo, who made God?
[meta]
Fun with the Coco Godbot, as per #118:
—
PS Is hierarchy (nesting) truly beyond its grasp?
(I think so)
@Coco Jumbo
And so you worship that aspect of yourself that you don’t understand? Wait, do you even worship your God, or is this just something you like to think about?
Because they’ve found God? ;)
Coco the universe is not without a causebot:
I know that people spew the stupidest nonsense when they’re high on goddism.
The caecum isn’t experienced consciously, either.
A
When I use the word the universe is not without a cause, it doesn’t refer to any concept of the universe is not without a cause that we are aware of.
If you’re not aware of it, how do you know it’s there?
I am just using this word to indicate that the universe is not without a cause.
But you just said you’re not aware of the cause. How can you know this to be true if you’re not aware of it?
That it is not some happenstance, and that something — call it some intelligence– is responsible for it.
But you said we’re not aware of it, even though you seem to be able to speak of it as if you are aware of it.
Are you familiar with paradox?
By the way, for every pile of bullshit you pulled out of your moronic ass?
Evidence.
Evidence.
Evidence.
Evidence.
Evidence.
Evidence.
Evidence.
Evidence.
Provide some for all the shit you’ve spewed or shut the fuck up. You’re stupid, you’re dishonest, and you’re tedious.
Fuck off.
Hey you.
By this reasoning, God is not some happenstance either, and something — call it some intelligence – is responsible for God.
Coco Jumbo, who made God?
Coco Coco the universe is not without a causebot:
Wrong.
Wrong
Tell that to Professor Dawkins, because he would be misleading the kids if I am wrong.
Coco the universe is not without a causebot: It was not Professor Dawkins to whose claim I was responding; it was to you and yours.
Your ignorance of Big Bang theory is duly noted.
(I am not surprised that you fail to even attempt to sustain your claim, O godbot :) )
Coco Jumbo
If we take this statement of yours and assume it correct, then the universe does not have a cause, since a cause would precede the universe, yet there is no time before the universe.
You have just demonstrated, to yourself, that God is not the cause of the universe, since there is no cause of the universe.
Congratulations, you’re an atheist now.
Coco the universe is not without a causebot:
I haven’t read that work, but I know Dawkins is no fool, so I strongly doubt your claim; specifically, I strongly suspect you are either quote-mining or paraphrasing.
PS http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/big-bang/
I would put it like this: Our understanding of the universe (as we know it) ends where time and space end, because we can’t ordinarily imagine a state where time and space are nonexistent. But just because we can’t imagine this state, it doesn’t mean this state doesn’t exist.
Instead of giving me a reference (after accusing me of ‘quote mining’), why don’t you tell why I am wrong? And I’ll tell you why I said what I said.
Coco, the reference is to a theoretical astrophysicist’s explanation.
(What happened to the claim that you “wanted to learn some science”?)
The claim stands. I want to learn science, but I want to learn it from you, in your own words. Shouldn’t be a problem at all for you.
Do you think I am without an Internet access? That I can’t find articles on the big bang theory?
Coco bot:
No, I think you’re a bullshit artist and that you have no credibility.
(I also think you’ve already had a quick and furtive look, and have yet to find any actual scientific site that sustains your claim)
Great. But why do you think I am wrong on space and time coming into existence with the big bang?
It doesn’t matter. You’ve argued that the universe can exist without time preceding it. Therefore you have admitted that the universe does not have a cause, since causes, definitionally, must precede.
If X causes Y, then X must precede Y in time. If nothing precedes Y in time, then Y cannot have a cause.
You are arguing for atheism, but you’re afeared to admit it.
Coco Clown:
Your sophistry is feeble; that’s not what I called wrong — what I called wrong was your claim that “According to the big bang theory, both time and space didn’t exist before the big bang.”
All you have to do to show that it’s not wrong is adduce compelling evidence that big bang theory does, in fact, make this claim.
—
PS Again, it is you who claims some magical being poofed time and space into existence, incoherent as that claim is!
(Like the godbots who accuse us atheists of being religious, the irony in this is delicious)
My sophistry? And yet I am the one who is trying to stay away from verbiage by avoiding words like “sophistry”, “feeble”, “adduce”…
Anyways, I have no references available at the moment. But I stick to what I said before. You can still tell me why I am wrong. I really do not understand what exactly is stopping you from opening the floodgates and letting me drown in your scientific wisdom.
He enjoys watching you writhe.
I find it unnecessary to correct you on science, because whatever you believe about science, I can show that God is unnecessary.
So can you, in fact; you’ve already gone so far as to posit a universe that does not need God as a cause. I realize I may have to hold your hand while we circle around your postulate a few times so you can see it from several vantage points.
You have some objection you want to make about causes, again. Go ahead.
Yes, your sophistry, in your attempt to change the claim which I noted was wrong.
That my lexicon is less puny than yours is irrelevant to issues of sophistry (something that you would know if you knew what that ‘sophistry’ meant).
I already did: big bang theory makes no such claim, hence it’s wrong to claim that it does.
Amusing you imagine that knowing that a particular theory doesn’t make a particular claim constitutes “scientific wisdom”.
Since you do, here’s some “scientific wisdom”: evolutionary theory doesn’t claim that diversity began during the Cambrian.
Have I argued that? Where did I say the universe could exist without time preceding it? I said time and space came into being with the big bang. Before the big bang, there was no universe.
Right here:
In your understanding, the universe exists, and there is no “time before” the big bang. Therefore the universe exists without time preceding it.
Then the phrase “before the big bang” is nonsensical and, as others have pointed out, the big bang cannot have had a cause.
Look, lackwit, unlike you we don’t rely on the authority of “sacred texts”. If Dawkins got something wrong (I don’t know whether he did, not having read the book), then he got something wrong. So. Fucking. What?
That it is not some happenstance, and that something — call it some intelligence– is responsible for it. – Coco the clown
Supposing it were established that “something” were responsible for the big bang, there are no grounds whatever for thinking that “something” was an intelligence. That’s just your goddist wishful thinking. The only intelligences we actually know of – ourselves and other animals – came into existence at the end of long chains of causal relationships and depend on a complex material substrate. No-one has ever come up with any remotely feasible way in which an intelligence could be immaterial, or could exist without being the result, direct or indirect, of an evolutionary process.
I am saying, “Time and space did not exist before the big bang”. Is this wrong?
No. There was nothing before the big bang. There was just a singularity. Out of which came everything. The singularity was not in space or time. Space and time came out of it, as did everything else. That’s a theory.
Therefore there was no “time before” the big bang.
Therefore the big bang cannot have a cause, since causes require time.
Therefore the universe exists without cause.
Therefore God is unnecessary to explain the universe’s existence.
These are the implications of your own argument.
1) Assuming you mean “scientism”, tell us what you mean by that word.
2) Actually, LSD tends to produce “religious” experiences. This is amply documented.
No, I mean “sciencism”. It is a variant of science. Have you ever heard of “I can’t believe it’s not butter…?”. Sciencism is, “I can’t believe it’s not science.”
Actually, I asked why people have dilated pupils when they are high on LSD. We know what happens in the body. That’s fine. But why it happens? I think the dilated pupils mean a person is literally shouting WTF… I was expecting anything but this… flabbergasted if you will.
Now, it’s time to play POP: The Forgotten Sands. Wonderful game.
It is indeed. Not the only one around – quantum mechanics indicates that singularities can’t exist, but unless and until we have a theory that unifies quantum mechanics and general relativity, I think the question remains open (I’m no expert on this). But in any case, if there was a singularity and no time before it, the singularity can’t have had a cause. As ahs says, you’ve committed yourself to a theory in which there is simply no causal role for your imaginary friend to fill.
We still have a problem. As you said, the singularity did not exist in space and time, because space and time came out it. Now, the singularity must ‘exist’ in a state which is beyond our comprehension, because we can’t imagine a state which is devoid of space and time. Our minds are not capable under normal operating mode. This is where our vivid imagination ends. You see the point? A state which we can’t imagine, but still a state nevertheless. No before, no after, no here, no there, no up, no down, no cause, no effect, but still ‘something’. A state we can’t imagine, we cannot discuss. We don’t know anything about it, except that such a state exists, or existed once.
If you’re going to invent your own definitions for words, it’s wise to tell people what you mean when you first use them. The only defintion of “sciencism” I can find through google is actually from Dawkins:
Interpreting your silly sneer as best I can, it seems that what you mean by “sciencism” is exactly the same as other goddists mean by “scientism”: that there is no way of knowing anything other than through science. No-one, of course, actually adopts this position.
Our minds are not capable under normal operating mode should read Our minds are not capable of imagining such a state under normal operating mode
Coco the clown,
No, I didn’t say that; you did. My own view is that singularities cannot exist.
Yes we can: we’re discussing it now. Not very bright, are you?
We do know that if it existed, it can’t have had a cause, since causes operate in time.
I think I did misunderstand you. Sorry. But I do believe in that singularity though. Not because I am in love with that theory, but because I have been able to verify this from some very old (non-scientific) sources.
We are discussing about that state by stating what that state is ‘not’. In negatives. We can’t tell what that state is, but we can surely tell what that state is ‘not’. To start with, this state has no space and no time. Now, we know it has no space and no time, but we don’t know what it’s like to be in a state where there is no space and time. Yes, I am bright. So are you, only you don’t seem to acknowledge it…:)
Again, all talk of cause and effect, before and after, are all concepts in time and space. These things ‘should’ not exist in a state where there is no time and space. This talk of cause and effect should have no meaning at all in that state. Logic suggests.
You mean a book of myths written over some centuries by ignorant iron-age herders. A book which is full of internal contradictions, absurdities and known falsehoods, and accounts of how the most unpleasant character in all fiction committed genocide and ordered others to do so, persecuted a faithful servant and murdered his children in pursuit of a bet, set bears to tear children apart for being cheeky, demanded another faithful servant murder his own son, deliberately “hardened the heart” of a ruler so he could show off his power by slaughtering more children, and was afraid that people could build a tower that would reach heaven.
You’re a moron.
You don’t use logic. You use bullshit known as sophistry. Try a library evidenceless non-thinker.
Call it whatever you like. But don’t forget how this bullshit can cause an unexpected, and sometimes uncontrollable, rush of energy and emotions in people like you. There must be something in it…
You are the one being irrational and reflexive in your responses. Try taking time to think. A couple of years would help.
The fact that a line of argument irritates people doesn’t mean it’s true. The precise details of how the universe came to be are not particularly important to the question of whether or not fairies did it. Your argument still seems to boil down to an argument from personal incredulity. Evidence please.
@Coco Jumbo
Another thing that ‘should’ not exist when time and space do not exist is a mind of any sort because 1) there wouldn’t be anything for it to be composed of materially, 2) there would be nothing for the mind to learn about, so it couldn’t develop, and most of all 3) without time, no thinking or unconscious processing could be done. No time, no mind. No space, no mind.
But you don’t know anything about your God anyway since it is, for you, the unknown; you can’t rightly suggest it is intelligent.
OK now I am just like everyone else here, from now on I hold one of the I Do Not believe in God views just like you.
I have a strong faith that there is no God, I am behind communism and want faggots to be able to marry, because it is NATURAL for faggots to marry, atleast amongst the none God believers.
So lets put this to rest, I am one of you now, I believe just as strong as you there is no God, I am one of you.
Bob
You’re a homophobic liar, Bob. Which is completely unsurprising.
BTW Bob, you are also an extremely stupid bigot.
Hey, Bozo Bob, you aren’t funny, just pathetic and ignorant. Your deity doesn’t exist and your holy book is mythology/fiction. And you haven’t shown otherwise. You are tacitly acknowledging we are right with your every evidenceless post.
Communism is a political standpoint, atheism is not political. Learn the difference.
Whatever, I am one of you now, I hold atheist views just like you (I want faggots to marry, communism, war and do not help anyone because there is no reason to, God do not exist).
Simple as that, have a good day.
I thought there was something in your Big Book of Sky Fairy Stories telling you not to lie, Bob. But we know most of the godbots who post here are stupid, lying, bigoted scum like you, so when you tell stupid lies and demonstrate your bigotry it’s nothing new to us.
Yes, a lot of godbots take this line, revealing that they are psychopaths. I’ll let you into a secret Bob: the reason for helping others is that they will be better off if you do. If you only help them because you think your imaginary friend tells you to, that proves you don’t actually care about other people at all.
Bob, I’m going to pray for your poor damned soul.
How can you have a strong faith that there is no god (notice the lowercase lettering), fuckface? Explain what you mean by “faith”, fuckface. While you’re at it, kindly go sit on a rose bush surrounded by porcupines.
Bob continues to display a complete lack of honesty.
Isn’t that…special?
How stupid can a person be, to say that they simultaneously favor communism and do not want to help anyone because there is no reason to. You can’t have it both ways. All the various communisms come prepackaged with a set of reasons to help people.
Coco Jumbo @ 118;
So… you are admitting here that your god is the intellectual equivlalent of ancient mapmakers writing ‘here be dragons’ on the parts of maps that represented at that time unexplored regions of the globe? The difference being that they genuinely had no clue what was out there, whereas we already have a better explanation for the origins of the universe that does not require a cosmic fairy – the universe exists as an emergent property of reality. This is a whole lot more credible and logically consistent than complaining about uncaused causes and then invoking an uncaused complex creator intelligence when every intelligence ever encountered has required a physical substrate, hence the saying ‘the mind is what the brain does’. There is no reason to assume that a non-corporeal mind is even possible, still less that one was a necessary precursor to the existence of the universe.
Invoking ‘mystery’, as if ignorance makes the unevidenced credible, is even more nonsensical. You are like someone who goes to the mapmaker, looks at the maps and says – “Yeah, these are nice enough, but do have one with more blank spaces and little dragon drawings? I like my mystery…” That may be a nice enough wall ornament, but it is scant use as a navigational aid, and by the same token, enjoying ‘mystery’ may make you feel good, but it is no basis on which to pursue knowledge. The evidence is what matters.
Ignorance and personal incredulity are no basis for making truth claims. Just because you can’t imagine something doesn’t mean that it cannot exist, but equally just because something fits with your preconceptions this doesn’t mean that it is real. The only measure of that which actually exists is hard, scientifically verifiable evidence. Something that the god myth (all variants of the god myth, including your nebulous, poorly defined free-floating noncorporel intelligence) is sadly lacking.
@ Bob Stevensson;
You have revealed yourself to be not merely misguided, not only dishonest and not simply foolish. You have outed yourself as a homophobic bigot.
If homosexuality bothers you so much, then you need to have a long, hard look at why you are so sexually insecure. Other people’s sexuality harms you not a whit, yet it brings out such hatred in you.
Why, exactly, are you so fixated on what goes on in other people’s bedrooms between consenting adults, particularly if those consenting adults happen to be of the same gender?
Actually, don’t bother to answer that, I am not interested in you rationalisations. Just take your christofascist hatred and go. Your bile is not welcome here.
Dangerous consequences? I thought you, your atheism, and your so-called rationality stood on rock solid foundations. Those who deny these things are only making a fool of themselves. What are you worried about?
If the process of evolution can cause us to have intelligence, without possessing any intelligence in itself, then why can’t an unknown God be intelligent as well?
Coco Godbot:
Your dogmatic, religious mindset prevents you from understanding the concept of provisional beliefs; the foundations are not the beliefs themselves.
You don’t even get to the point of denying them — to do so would require you to first fathom them.
The effects of irrationality enshrined; for example: The resurgence of religious thinking, with all the human misery that follows.
You seem to think that it’s our beliefs and rationality that are threatened, rather our quality of life and freedom of expression.
What are we worried about? Laws are being passed seemingly every week here in the USA. Bad laws. Laws that will cause real actual harm to people. And these bad, destructive laws are being promoted by people who believe that their god wants those laws.
What are we worried about? We’re seeing it all around us.
Coco Godbot:
You have responded to a statement that was not made; the statement that was made is that you cannot know the attributes of the unknown, definitionally.
(Heh)
Have I done something to piss you off. Seriously? Just lay off this sarcasm for a while. Tell me what’s wrong.
Coco, what’s wrong?
Pretty much everything you’ve written. :)
For example, you claim “I am not a theist, and I am also not an atheist”, which is equivalent to claiming (X ∧ ¬X).
(You don’t even know what you do or don’t believe, and you find this a virtue!)
—
As for asking me to lay off, you’d be better served to address my contentions and defend yours, much as I am doing with you.
@Coco Jumbo
My point is that human-like intelligence cannot exist without materials for it to operate on and cannot exist without time over which it can operate. So if space and time do not exist, neither does intelligence.
By the way, evolution really is the deathblow to the idea that a human-like intelligent being is needed to cast a spell that forms humans (or any other creature for that matter). Which is why your god and the gods of other people have retreated into the gaps (the unknown) under close scrutiny. Intelligent things like us can arise naturally to the best of our knowledge. Positing that a deity cast a creation spell is completely pointless and baseless given our current knowledge.
What are your contentions? To start with, I don’t understand this —>>> “(X ∧ ¬X).”. Mathematics is the most weak link in my chain. I ask for a little explanation here.
How can you say that when human intelligence is well capable of operating in a timeless state? What’s more, it is usually much more intelligent in that state. It doesn’t happen during our ordinary states of consciousness. But people do experience it on LSD, dreams, NDEs and during meditations. Ask Sam Harris. How he got merged with a redwood tree in ‘an eternal (timeless) ego less communion.’
I am not talking about a human-like intelligent being. Mine is more like the idea that the whole process of evolution could be translated into some kind of intelligence.
Coco:
It’s a symbolic representation of your claim that “I am not a theist, and I am also not an atheist”.
Since ‘atheist’ simply means ‘not a theist’ (literally: ‘without theism’), this is a contradiction and therefore nonsensical; it clearly indicates you don’t know what you believe.
Good point. You are right. I don’t know who I am.
@Coco Jumbo
That would be impossible. I’m not talking about a moment in time but the actual nonexistence of time. That’s what I understood you to mean in #161.
His brain was still functioning when he hallucinated becoming a redwood tree. He was not in a literally timeless state.
I think you are doing to the word intelligence what you did to the word God–redefining it into something completely different from what it means in practice to suit your fancy. If it isn’t human-like intelligence, and it’s not animal-like intelligence, and it isn’t intelligence of any sort we recognize, then it isn’t intelligence.
Coco:
What you are and what you believe are not the same thing.
That said, this case is particularly straightforward: if you believe a god exists, you’re a theist, otherwise you’re an atheist.
It looks simple on the surface, but it is not that simple. Let me try to explain: When someone says God exists, or does not exist, he is simply using the word ‘god’ to refer to something or someone or both. In other words, he would be referring to a **definition** of God that he would have in his own mind. If the person’s an atheist, he would say: ‘This god (that I have in my mind) does not exist.’ If he is a theist, he would say: ‘this god (that I have in my mind) exists for real.’ However, in both cases, he would be merely worshiping or denying his own creation — his own definition of God. Of course, all of these are deep seated beliefs, and a person is normally not aware of how these beliefs are rooted in the mind.
So, my position on God is that anything that can be defined as God is simply not God, because any definition of God would be just a construct, an idea of God, in a person’s mind — which, in the end, is his own creation. This is why I said I am not a theist, and I am also not an atheist.
No, you are just another bad sophist philosopher, only making sense to yourself. Certainly not to us. John Morales has it right, you don’t.
I think it would all depend on how you defined time. Do you think time is some objective reality that exists in the world, or it is just a creation of the mind, or something else? If time existed only in the mind, then the mind could reach a perfect state of timelessness.
You are saying if we do not understand something, then it does not exist? Only a few decades ago humans didn’t understand computers and airplanes and a lot of other things a 5 year old can easily understand today. The supercomputers of today would become pocket calculators in only 20 years from now. Have you seen the movie Apollo 13? The computer that made all the flight calculations, it was so advanced and compact that it could fit inside a small room…:)
Please tell me something new for change. What you have said is like you have placed yourself in an infinite loop of ‘we are right, he is right, she is right, and you are wrong’.
Coco:
1. Yes, it is. Either you believe in a deity, or you don’t.
2. A theist’s belief may relate to one or multiple deity-concepts; an atheist’s status towards deity-belief relates to any possible god-concept.
3. No; as I said, atheists lack belief in any deity.
As an aside, I note that you assume that belief entails worship; this is not warranted.
4. You are being contradictory (and therefore nonsensical) again.
(You are not alone; cf. Taoism: “The Way that can be described is not the true Way.”/”The Name that can be named is not the constant Name.”)
—
Try to answer this simple question: Do you answer in the affirmative when I put it to you that you believe that at least one deity exists?
(Any answer but yes indicates you are an atheist)
@Coco Jumbo
That isn’t what I am saying. I am saying that you are using the word intelligence in a way that no one else (except perhaps a fringe group) uses it.
I guess it’s time I stop responding to you. Dualism isn’t worth considering anymore. It’s completely out of the picture. You appear to be in strong denial about reality.
Ugh. Spare me from sophists. Words have accepted meanings for a reason, Coco: to facilitate communication. If you can’t be bothered to use words in a way that other people can understand, without twisting them and redefining them to suit your whim, then you might as well just stay home. Sophistry: intellectual wanking. Worse than useless, it’s selfish and needlessly confusing for the rest of the world.
You seem to take exception with my assessment that it is an unscientific question and then go about correctly acting like it is
What is the meaning of life is unscientific, it presumes there is a meaning to life.
I have already told you why the answer is not as simple as it looks to you. This is because we need to define what we mean by a ‘deity’ first. Tell me what do you mean when you say ‘deity’.
What is the sound of one hand wanking?
Hint: fap
Which words are you talking about? Which words have I twisted and redefined?
Seriously? You are seriously posing this question as if you do not know?
-“god”
-“intelligence”
-“mind”
-“scientific”
-“time”
-“understanding”
Redefining words is the only way you can make your arguments work. It’s pretty pathetic.
Coco:
Your wriggling and your caveats are futile: I’ve already told you that, if you cannot answer ‘yes’, you are not a theist — therefore you’re an atheist, though clearly a confused one.
(Any true theist will answer ‘yes’)
@SallyStrange
And it reveals my point about the questions being unscientific and the whole process being retrorational rather than rational. He’s starting from the idea that the conclusion that God exists is good to have and going backwards to make it work, which means twisting the definitions and terms and evidence anyway need be as long as point A connects to point B.
If you’re too much of an intellectual coward to provide your own definition of the word “deity,” then you have absolutely no business chiding people for judging it unreasonable to believe that a “deity,” whatever it is, is real. If you could define it, then you’d have a reasonable case: to urge people to consider that “deity, which means X, Y, and Z, according to Coco,” might actually exist. If you can’t even say what it is that we should be considering the possibility of, you are simply wanking. Like I said before. It’s a activity best kept to yourself. When you bring it into the public sphere it becomes selfish and needlessly confusing.
People are childing themselves. It’s not fault if they can’t step out of their comfort zones. It is not my fault if the conditioning of their minds is so strong that any creativity is simply not possible. No creativity comes out, not creativity goes in. The dense filters make sure that only the conditioned and memorized stuff goes out, and comes back in. I think you want me to repeat some lines from some books, as most of you have been doing on places like this for years. By doing this on regular basis, you have rusted your minds, which are in serious need of some WD 40 now. At best, you can get credit for having good memories.
Fap fap fap fap fap.
Dang, did Marshall Segall (makes sign of crossed tentacles to avoid unintellectual evil) get a bunch of toked up disciples and sic them on us? I need hipboots to wade through some of the sophist bullshit these days.
Now you’re redefining “chide.”
Fail.
Outside their comfort zones?
From the person who shows they are incapable of asking if not what is but IF life has any meaning.
I don’t know if you noticed, Coco, but I am the person who previously, in this very thread, posted that I consider the meaning of life to be “a giant art project.” So I find it very funny that you are accusing me of lacking creativity, simply on the basis that I want YOU to define “deity,” as long as you are asking me to consider the possibility that “deity” might be a real thing rather than a fictional construct. First of all, there’s no relationship between a person’s capacity for creativity and a person’s willingness to entertain the possibility that vague undefined notions of “deity” might or might not be real, and second of all, lack of creativity is the least of my problems. If anything, I have trouble reining in my creativity and imposing some sort of organization onto it.
It just goes to show how solipsistic your entire interaction on this thread has been. Again, it shows you are an intellectual wanker, absorbed completely in the emissions of your own confused mind and completely unable to take in what anybody else has been saying.
Can’t explain that.
Gah. Try again, with added meta:
Definitely a miscommunication. Can’t parse that.
Oh lord.
Coco, I can do what you do. I did it most of my life. Grounding one’s arguments in empirical evidence is the hard part of creativity. Making up wild nonsense? I shit out streams of it, thousands of words, about every other day. There are piles of paper around here filled with mostly useless gibberish, and the piles get taller every week. I refer to them only for nostalgia and to get some insight into my own thought processes when I see some other idiot making similar claims.
I independently invented your God out of boredom while doing chores as a kid. Not until adulthood did I really come to terms with the fact that words cannot make things real.
Speaking of which, I still need to polish up a couple of emails for Mr. Fire.
It was awesomely funny the first time, Mr. Fire. At least for those who have witnessed Bill O’Reilly’s silly schtick.
!
I think you missed me when I said how God or deity cannot be defined. This is why I was asking John Morales to define what he meant by ‘deity’. I have already explained why it was not possible for me to define God or deity. Having said this, we are still left with a question about the creator of the universe. Atheism provides no answer here, because atheism is just a lack of belief in those deities that are all man-made.
And you profess no such disbelief?
Not much good it’ll do him, anyway. I’ve tried that too. The only way to win that game is to quit whenever you approach a paradox.
ahs ॐ, in my mental holding pattern I have:
– thoughts on War As A Moral Imperative
– thoughts on The Situationist
– thoughts on meaning
– thoughts of you absorbing cats into your torso
– thoughts on all the thoughts I haven’t thought of
– thoughts on all the above thoughts
but unlike your free-flowing creativity, the mental constipation is strong in this one.
So basically, you lack creativity, and want other people to imagine possible “deities” for us all to consider, but you think it’s unscientific for us to rule out the possibility of “deity” existing, even though you yourself are incapable of even imagining “deity” in a manner coherent enough to communicate to other people.
I think you are a useless, wanking, pretentious sophist, not because I missed what you said to John Morales (I didn’t) or because I haven’t understood you (I have). I think you are a useless, wanking pretentious sophist because you exhibit the traits of same. I realize it’s comforting to tell yourself that you’re misunderstood rather than stupid, but you’ll never grow as a person if you keep retreating to comforting falsehoods when confronted with your personal flaws.
Only YOU are left with that question. I myself am content with the explanation that the universe is an emergent property of reality, just as consciousness is an emergent property of life.
This atheist considers the question itself to be logically flawed, in that it assumes an erroneous premise. No creator is required.
All “deities” are man-made, because all deities are fictional. If evidence for an actual “deity” were discovered, then we could safely say it was not man-made. But no such evidence has been uncovered, despite thousands of years of searching. Therefore “man-made” is a redundant descriptor for “deity.”
Alright, Coco, you had a day to ruminate on it. Do you understand yet how by saying “both time and space didn’t exist before the big bang” you are saying the universe is causeless?
I believe Coco is unwilling to profess disbelief in deities which are not man-made, which would imply that they are real rather than fictional constructs, even though no evidence for such deities has ever been revealed. If such deities are outside time and imagination then it is theoretically possible that they exist, without evidence, so we have no way of knowing whether they exist or not. But since we can’t rule it out entirely, Coco thinks we’re unscientific for dismissing the possibility they exist. It’s just Russell’s Teapot paradox again. Boring.
Mr. Fire, in my holding pattern I have thoughts (and some written notes) on the shared motivations of an ex-leftist Jehovah’s Witness and a gaggle of Pharyngula libertarians.
It’s gonna be good shit, I promise.
The Perfect Mystery exists, and it explains all.
If you don’t know what this undefinable Perfect Mystery is, then you can’t say that I’m wrong, and I win.
Plus, I’m so much deeper and more creative than all of you because of my stance.
Pretty much what this wanker is saying.
Glen Davidson
And how comforting. I suppose I should ask Sam Harris how he merged with that redwood tree.
The word “wanker” was pretty much invented to describe pretentious fools like Coco.
I am still left with a question for you, Coco:
who created the creator the universe?
Coco:
<snicker>
But you have defined it (indirectly) in that very sentence: God is that to which you refer when you use the referent ‘God’.
(I note that @118 you claimed it was that which caused the universe, which is a much more specific definition)
of.
creater of.
+++++
I look forward to them all, if they get written down.
what is the sound of one coco jumbo sleeping furiously?
Glen, I think you have the clown down pat.
But this might be more fitting:
If a redwood fell on Sam Harris, and no-one was around to hear it, would his collapsing lungs make a sound?
Only Coco’s God would both be around and not around to answer that, I guess.
Yeah whatever. I see some of you have bought some high grade lubricant/rust remover. This is the first step. The next step is to stop showing how good your memories are. Wonders beyond your wildest comprehension await you all, and that I can say for sure.
And Sally, in your mind you might be a ‘highly creative’ person, but you will know for sure when your mind will start producing creativity for real. At the moment, you are just one the sheep in this giant herd. Maybe you say Bah Bah differently, in a high pitched sound, and call that creativity. But in the end, you are still saying Bah Bah, like every other sheep of the herd. You need to say Meow Meow.
so…
if I sound like a cat–instead of a sheep–then I will, um, like, achieve true creativity? And not just remembering shit.
Do I have this right?
my Most Important Question, from the last testimonial thread:
okay seriously though, what if there was a god [let’s say Coco’s god], and the only thing it did was answer prayers for pie? But you had to really worship the fuck out of it, and not just on the high holidays. Would you do it?
John Morales says “fuck no”. Earlier I was inclined to say yes. But I’m not so sure about Coco’s god. Would the pie be both satisfying and unsatisfying? (Is this not dukkha?)
The real reason we’re being assholes to you? You’re haven’t offered any of us the shit you’re smoking.
Oh, you idiot, I’ve already met the machine elves.
Can I send you money? I don’t want to be left out when the shit hits the fan. Also, it is a lot easier to say Jesus F’ing Christ, than Apo F’ing meitmathentu, has God considered this?
I think this needs repeating. So it will be repeated.
As much as I hate people who are not open to a discussion without name calling, I hate Bob Stevensson even more. He is a straight up liar. Probably plenty of those floating around in the blog world.
That would be ketamine, apparently.
I have some pret-ty wild comprehensions, I gotta tell you.
[meta]
Coco, when it comes to creativity, you’re akin to an infant smearing paint on a page with your hands uncomprehendingly looking at those who paint portraits, wondering why they too don’t make wonderful smeary messes. :)
PS The collective noun for sheep is ‘flock’, not ‘herd’, O ignoramus, and the anglic onomatopoeic rendition of their vocalisation is ‘baa’ or ‘baah’.
PPS Your effort at condescension is rather comical.
How about I be a Newark New Jersey mocking bird and go “Shoveitupyourass shoveitupyourass”?
My guess is truck tires
@Infinitelifer
You know it’s not a contest; you can let someone else be the dumbest person on a thread every so often.
is…
is it gone?
I felt I still had so much to learn from it.
And not only have I met God, I have been God. (It’s much more stressful than a Jim Carrey film would suggest.)
So Coco, I insist you must answer this question before I show you the next door.
Who created the creator of the universe?
John Morales
I do not understand this [meta] bit. Care to explain?
It’s what he says when he’s making a comment about the conversation itself, rather than a first-order topic of the conversation.
Quit trying to figure him out anyway. He’s a mystery.
You mock Apomeitmathentu’s One True Prophet at your peril, Coco.
Agreed.
Do all these posts end up like this? It is like the same arguments which have no answers only observations over and over and over.
Maybe the next one should be:
“Why I am writing an essay about why I am an atheist”
That would skip right to the meat of the comments in the cases I have read.
:)
Oh me-ow.
Coco Jumbo…
are we sure that isn’t a typo?
because I was thinking “MASSIVE DICK” every time I scrolled over one of their poots.
Do you know I’d never seen the first season of Mad Men before? My sweetie and I just watched the very first episode.
In terms of creativity, if this thread were Sterling Cooper, Coco would be Pete Campbell.
[meta + coy]
Naughty ahs — you’ve peeked under my enigma!
(Now I fear he might try to riddle me)
<blush>
Now he’s redefining “creativity,” too… Apparently it means doing whatever Coco Jumbo tells you to do.
Ing
Can you not let me become acquainted with the discussions, or is your god-given ability just so superior that you never had to learn them yourself? I have learned a lot from the definitions and the logic of atheist’s here. I do enjoy the details for the argument (if you can call it that) which I was not completely familiar with before.
My only previous experience with atheist’s are of those who are not aware of Occam’s Razor, sophistry, Null Hypothesis, Russell’s Teapot or any of the other pointedly sharp laws, manipulations, idea’s or analogies about the lack of gods and deity’s and the logic that comes with that specific territorial battleground. I have just recently been made aware of these arguments.
While I have been round with some folks here over some concepts, I have not been belligerently lying (like that fuck Bob, he is a liar). I simply wanted to see holes punched through my conclusions.
That was a thank you of sorts to the hardcore intelligent atheist populace here. :)
Now, before you assail me, in the spirit of conversation here: piss off. Not everyone is a retard godbot because they seek to engage in an argument they don’t currently understand. Its called learning. I know you explained that name calling is encouraged here because of the amount people who are just assholes, but come on really?
Infinite123Lifer, it looks like Coco is gone for the moment, so please, bring me up to speed. What do you believe in that
is wrongcommenters here find contentious?Your ratio of talking to listening is not evident of learning.
No, not redefining it, but just defining it. If you were (half) as creative as you said you were, then why would you need to be a part of some herd, and repeat what everyone else was repeating in that herd? Do you call that creativity? You are just as ‘indoctrinated’ as any religious fanatic could be, only you seem be in a delusion that you have been ‘freed’. You are just the flip side of the same coin. All of you.
FFS
Bingo.
@Coco Jumbo
Tell me do you think murder is fun or are you just like all those other sheeple?
@Caca
There are infinite ways of being wrong but few ways of being right, by definition. Being right or closer to rightness and removing doubt is shaving away possibilities. There’s no pride to be found in being different just for the sake of being different and bucking a trend.
I will tell you what I think if you try to be a little more clear. From what you have said, it looks like you’ve been watching some creepy movies lately
And yet you, Coco, have been reduced to begging for someone from this uncreative crowd of sheeplike group-thinkers to supply definitions of “deity” for you.
If we’re uncreative, you’re even less so.
I don’t really have much faith in your ability to accurately identify creativity.
And I invite you to identify exactly where I have repeated what someone else said. Point to the things I have written that are clearly not my ideas but were copied from someone else, please. Otherwise, shut up and acknowledge that you have no argument left. You’ve been reduced to whining and empty insults.
Coco,
Who created the creator of the universe?
Do you understand yet how by saying “both time and space didn’t exist before the big bang” you are saying the universe is causeless?
That’s not what is going on. It only looks that way to you because you are blathering around in subject areas where you are woefully ignorant and several people here are pretty well informed.
If you take ten people who have never watched an American Baseball game and put them in the stands next to ten people who are avid fans, the ten n00bs will gabble about like a flock of turkeys, using incorrect terms or using terms incorrectly, hilariously failing to understand the rules, and generally sounding silly, each in their own way. Meanwhile, each of the ten fans will tend to sound the same as the other fans, because they know the terms, the know the rules, and they know the lore of the game.
That’s not being a herd, that’s knowing what the fuck we’re talking about.
Repeating this just to highlight how many times Coco has ignored the question.
Intentionally missing a clear point and becoming insulting as a way to dodge it is not cute nor witty.
Sally
You need to separate yourself from this herd to know how much you had become a part of it. I can see you coming from the same viewpoint as everyone else, speaking the same language, using the same old recycled arguments, and defending the same beliefs. And maybe, revering the same ‘greats’ of atheism. Am I wrong? Be honest.
You need to separate yourself from the herd by shoving food up your ass to eat rather than putting it in your mouth like the other sheep.
Remember what I said before, Coco? You’ll never grow as a person if you keep retreating to comforting fantasies when confronted with your own errors. In this case, the fantasy is that there’s some groupthink virus infecting the commenters here, which is making all of our brains malfunction, such that we can’t understand how brilliant, creative, insightful, and right your arguments are.
The truth is that your arguments don’t hold up. Creativity doesn’t even enter into it. You only brought up creativity because we asked you to define “deity.” You said, “No, YOU define deity,” and I and a lot of other people informed you that we’re not interested in providing definitions for you. That’s when you started kvetching about our lack of creativity–because we refused to define a concept that YOU were insisting was coherent. That’s why I say that the truly uncreative person here is you: YOU are the one who’s attached to the concept of a creator or a deity, but you want US to define it for you.
That’s really dumb, you know? You should just admit the error and back away from the argument.
Quite wrong, yes. The arguments are similar because the arguments for the existence of a creator are always the same. Provide some fresh arguments “for” and you’ll see some novel arguments “against.” As far as sharing the viewpoints of the people here, you’re confusing cause and effect. My views were pretty much fully formed before I arrived at Pharyngula; I stay because I do agree with a great many of the commenters here. Also because we have a common agreement that we value admitting error when one is in error, and having the humility to back away from an argument that can clearly be shown to be wrong. It’s not easy to do, but it’s good to have people around who value that, so you know that you’ll be called out when you’ve fucked up.
It doesn’t seem like these are values that you share, though, so whatever. It seems like groupthink to you, that’s fine. There’s a whole wide internet out there. I’m sure you’ll be able to find another site where people appreciate your sophistry. Heck, there’s probably a “sophists.com” or something. If you don’t like being told that you’re wrong, why stick around?
Anyone heard anything the least bit creative from Coco?
All I’ve seen is the usual weaseling of an idiot who almost immediately failed, yet blithers on as if repeating BS will make it meaningful.
Glen Davidson
@Glen Davidson
Not to mention that even the “Sheep flock” bullshit was cliche.
As for the atheist greats I revere… Madalyn Murray O’Hair. Ayaan Hirsi Ali. Paula Kirby. Margaret Sanger. Emma Goldman.
Was that who you had in mind? ;)
No groupthinking? Just look at how many times you have used ‘we’, ‘us’, ‘our’ instead of using ‘I’, ‘me’, ‘mine’…
You are speaking on behalf of all your atheist friends here. You are doing groupthinking as we speak. This is why I said, you need to separate yourself from this group in order to realize how you had become a part of it.
Proper grammar is group think.
Ummm… yeah. Because I am part of this community and we share common views and values. I trust that if other people here disagree with me, they’ll speak up and let me know. I and numerous other people addressed your arguments; we addressed them similarly because we all saw the same obvious flaws in them. So if you want to get specific, I’m speaking on behalf of Ing, ahs ॐ, Ichthyic, myeckwaters, John Morales, and Aratina Cage. That’s the “we” here. Apparently at least a half-dozen people think you’re wrong, and think you’re wrong in exactly the same way. Rational people would realize that this might be a sign that they themselves are wrong, but apparently that’s beyond you.
Good night, you rebel you! Don’t forget to sleep standing up, so you can show you’re REALLY creative. Not like all those sheeple who sleep lying down.
I am using improper grammar. Breaking all the rules. Try it. It’s fun!
No we won’t. /paradox
You’re all individuals! You’re all different!
UFTFY
Shut up, you.
??
Well said, Sally. At least now you realize that there is indeed some groupthinking virus that infects this place. Do you know why a person likes to attach to a group?
______ Fixed That For You
Oh well. Anyway, to bed.
The only sheep here is you, Coco. Sheep for brains.
See what I did there?
I don’t.
Because humans are obligate social primates.
@SallyStrange
UnFixed That For You
Oh!
UN-Fixed That For You.
Okay, my brain is officially fried.
Haha, jinx.
Good night for real.
Hello, Sally! Hello!
Yes, this is one reason. But if attachment turns into ‘over attachment’, it means the person is looking for an identity.
Totes, man! How rude of Coco!
Coco, I am really just looking for your engagement with these questions:
Who created the creator of the universe?
Do you understand yet how by saying “both time and space didn’t exist before the big bang” you are saying the universe is causeless?
I have already engaged and disengaged myself from this question. You are talking about a re-engagement now. Why? I have already explained why we can’t ask the question ‘Who created the creator of the universe?’. And why we can’t discuss the state the universe was in prior to the big bang.
Coco, avoidance ≠ engagement.
(Also, you lie; not only can ‘we’* ask it, in fact it was asked)
—
* You herd-member, you!
Do you really think you explained it? That is unfortunate.
Here’s what you said before:
If you want to stick with the contention that “who made God” is a meaningless question because there was no “before the universe”, then it also follows that “who made the universe” is a meaningless question because there was no “before the universe” when any cause of the universe could have existed.
You have again admitted that the universe has no cause, and therefore there is no God.
Congratulations, you are still an atheist.
Your wording incorrectly implies that there was a state the universe was in prior to the big bang, a state which simply cannot be discussed. This is misleading wording. It’s probably not worth assuming that you actually meant anything you said, though.
This is a yes or no question, by the way. I’m still waiting:
Do you understand yet how by saying “both time and space didn’t exist before the big bang” you are saying the universe is causeless?
In a way, this is exactly what I am saying. There was no space and time before the big bang, before the universe came into existence, and concepts like ’cause and effect’, ‘before and after’, ‘left and right’, can only exist in space and time. Even saying ‘prior’ to the big bang is not correct, because there cannot be a ‘prior’ without time.
But, when we say the universe is ’causeless’, I think what we are saying is the state the universe was in ‘prior’ to the big bang was without ’cause and effect’ as we see ’cause and effect’ in space and time. So we are effectively back to the same problem: we cannot imagine that state. We can’t talk about that state unless in negative terms. To say that state had no ’cause and effect’ is pretty much like saying that state had no time and space.
If this is true, then it follows that:
the universe can begin to exist without any cause we’d recognize as a cause, and
a cause we’d recognize as a cause is the only kind of cause we can call a cause, therefore
a cause is not necessary for the universe to exist, and this includes the following:
God is not necessary for the universe to exist.
+++++
Do you accept that God is not necessary?
[meta]
LOL. Good one, ॐ!
Heh — apostrophes as deus ex machina.
(No, Coco, they don’t cover up the semantic equivalence between
beforeand'prior', and the incoherence of your conceit stands flaccidly naked before us)ahs ॐ says:
If you can, read a book called ‘I Am That’ by Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj. Read what it says about God and Space and Time, and our self. The book is available free on the internet. It’s a very interesting read.
Read also something about who Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj was.
This is just a starting point.
Then, move on to Alan Watts. There is a very good channel on youtube, which has some rare lectures of Alan Watts on God, Space/time, the universe, and all.
http://www.youtube.com/user/87SilentSpace#g/u
Don’t think though that I am trying to change your beliefs. It is just for fun. Something different for a change.
If you can, read a book called ‘I Am That’ by Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj.
you’re so full of shit, and don’t even know it.
it’s rather pathetic really.
I’ve preached The Book by Alan Watts. It’s fun stuff. You’re not a good representative for him.
I have no reason to read any book that you recommend. Thus far you seem incapable of handling logical argument.
You are incredibly full of yourself, to imagine that you have something different for me. I told you I met the machine elves. Why would you think Alan Watts is new to me?
And I’d love to think that you are capable of changing my beliefs. My beliefs are changed every day. Generally not by incompetent people like yourself, though:
I think what we are saying is the state the universe was in ‘prior’ to the big bang was without ’cause and effect’ as we see ’cause and effect’ in space and time.
If this is true, then it follows that:
the universe can begin to exist without any cause we’d recognize as a cause, and
a cause we’d recognize as a cause is the only kind of cause we can call a cause, therefore
a cause is not necessary for the universe to exist, and this includes the following:
God is not necessary for the universe to exist.
+++++
Do you accept that God is not necessary?
Coco: You’ve just descended to argumentum ad verecundiam.
Such deepeties as “All you can teach is understanding. The rest comes on its own.” are no less laughable than your incoherent ideas.
Heh. This is most amusing, coming from someone who’s already admitted they don’t even know what they believe, and though they think they do believe something, they cringe from confronting the reality.
You should not make assumptions about what other people’s exposure to other ideas has been; but then, empiricism is apparently still beyond you.
ahs ॐ
This is why I asked you to read that book and listen to Alan Watts, to broaden your very narrow concept of God. Why do you think God cannot exist ‘prior’ to the big bang? Are you saying God can only exist in space and time?
What’s the difference between prior and ‘prior’? ;)
PS “When I use the word God, it doesn’t refer to any concept of God that we are aware of. I am just using this word to indicate that the universe is not without a cause.” → “Why do you think the universe is not without a cause cannot exist ‘prior’ to the big bang?”
<snicker>
(Confused ‘thinking’ is confused)
—
[meta]
At least Coco is still amusing; so often they become tedious so quickly.
John Morales
Have you ever used language to actually express yourself emotionally + intellectually?
You haven’t the first clue what my concepts of God have been, child.
I’ve been responding only by taking your stated premises for granted.
You’ve misunderstood my question. To understand, you must make a distinction between possible and necessary. I am an agnostic atheist, as are many here, I’ll guess about 75%. I think that a god is possible, probably because I have thus far been unable to follow most arguments for the impossibility of a god, as well as noncognitivist arguments; they elude me.
I am not saying anything about what a god can or can’t do. I am asking you whether you understand that a god is not necessary. Now please, try your hardest to keep up with this:
If this is true, then it follows that:
the universe can begin to exist without any cause we’d recognize as a cause, and
a cause we’d recognize as a cause is the only kind of cause we can call a cause, therefore
a cause is not necessary for the universe to exist, and this includes the following:
God is not necessary for the universe to exist.
+++++
Do you accept that God is not necessary?
Coco:
What makes you imagine I haven’t? :)
—
[I can’t resist]
→ “Why do you think something that cannot be defined cannot exist ‘prior’ to the big bang?”
Confucius was reckoned wise; I reckon you confused.
Yes I accept that. But only when we apply the concept of ‘God’ as you see and define God. This is the point that is not getting through to you. You do not know every definition of God. Neither do I. And this is precisely why I am not making any conclusive statements about God.
Your communication style. It feels like I am talking to a ‘mindbot’, whose only concern it is to live life by some guidelines which are found in some philosophy books. Talking to you is not easy.
Coco:
Actually, you have done so: “When I use the word God, it doesn’t refer to any concept of God that we are aware of. I am just using this word to indicate that the universe is not without a cause.”
The inescapable conclusion is that you are either blatantly lying, or else so stupid that you don’t realise that you’ve just made a conclusive statement that the universe is not without a cause, which is what you mean when you use the word God.
(So, so foolish you are, that you are unaware that what you’ve earlier written is there for anyone to read!
You should’ve read Omar Khayyám)
Do you believe that some God is necessary?
Then argue your case for why some God is necessary.
You should dispense with the hubris, when I am demonstrably capable of handling every argument you’ve attempted. You haven’t earned that hubris yet.
If you had any courage, you would make this factual statement: every concept of God you’ve encountered so far has no evidence to support it and thus every God you’ve heard or seen argued for is unlikely to exist.
[meta]
Coco:
Again, you are apparently judging me by your own standards; such guidelines as I employ don’t come from books or sages or gurus (though they are informed by such), but rather from my own synthesis of ideas, life experience, knowledge and reasoning.
I suspect such difficulty arises mainly from your evident intellectual timidity; I am hardly mincing words or expounding complex ideas!
Yes, and imagine if you were actually ‘mincing words or expounding complex ideas’. By the way, don’t take it as a compliment when people say they don’t understand you. Take it as ‘constructive criticism’.
Coco Jumbo strikes me as one of the uglier examples of psychonautic bigot. I expect sneers about Vulcans soon.
No sneers about anyone. I am off to POP: The Forgotten Sands. I have got a mythical army to defeat, and a kingdom to save. By the way, did you know you could rewind ‘time’ in that game?
John Morales. Try this game. Forget everything about being rational and just immerse yourself in this world of wonder and magic…:)
Coco:
I don’t :)
(By the way, don’t take it as an insult when I tell you that I’m not surprised, after our interaction, that you lack the ability to understand me. Even ॐ, who I judge to be more intelligent than I, claims he doesn’t!)
[OT]
Coco:
I’ve been doing that since childhood; I merely don’t confuse wishful thinking with reality, not being as intellectually-cowardly and easily-satisfied as you. I don’t need an emotional security blankie!
(BTW, though there’s no evidence (or explanatory necessity for) magic* in this world, there is an abundance of wonder for those with eyes to see and minds to grasp)
—
* supernatural powers
[meta + OT]
You can do that in any game where the game-state can be saved and restored.
(I suppose I should add that I am not unaware that you’re addressing my reference to Khayyám, lest you imagine it was somehow obscure)
You’re an idiot. The dangerous consequences of theism include misogyny, homophobia, terrorist violence from both groups like Al Qaeda and states such as Iran and the USA, child abuse, religious wars, and systematic anti-science campaigns.
You can look things like that up, fuckwit. LSD, along with many other drugs, stimulates the sympathetic nervous system: this tends to dilate the pupils, while the parasympathetic nervous system tends to constrict them. It’s a purely physiological effect.
No, meow meow is mephedrone (4-methyl-N-methylcathinone), a stimulant related to amphetamines and cathionines. Ketamine ((RS)-2-(2-Chlorophenyl)-2-(methylamino)cyclohexanone) is a dissociative anesthetic. The (RS) at the beginning, by the way, means that it is a mixture of two mirror-image compounds, which apparently have distinct effects.
Ah, the well known alcoholic, fraud, and pathological liar.
KG #331
No, KG, it’s the woo inherent in the…the…the inherentness of the woo. Or something like that. Think gamboling through fields of blue flowers and stroking purring kittens and having genital warts mysteriously disappear and good stuff like that. As Deepak would tell you, you’re not being quantum.
Go read Material Goods Are A Curse, Give Them All To Me by Baba Rum Raisin and have your unenlightenment enlightened. Then you’ll understand why pupils dilate and shit like that.
Ha! Forgot about that. Years ago around here ketamine was called “meow” (never “meow meow”) due to its use as a cat tranquilizer. That was the joke I thought I was making. I guess it doesn’t work anymore.
Here you are, liar, in your own sneers:
Your hypocrisy is noted and laughed at.
Good day all, I’m just signing into the Pharyngula gestalt consciousness. Hold on a second, I just need to find my comfy chair in this corner of the hive mind…
Ah, much better. Are all our synapses in sync? Has neural integration been completed? Good…
***We are Pharyngula. Your ignorance will be enlightened. Your irrational arguments will adapt to entertain us. Resistance is futile (but funny)***
I would like to thank the members of the hive mind who gave me mental support as I raked the leaves today. And yes, Sally Strange, that rain gutter does look like it needs cleaning. Thanks for noticing.
Coco is just trolling us, right?
He’s just pretending to be the most obnoxious form of failed-thinking pseudo-intellectual spouting “You just don’t get it, dude! You’re letting the man get you down! What do time and space and god like, like, like, even mean dude? It’s like deeper than deep, and then it’s even deeper than that, dude! Take another hit and read this cool book by some yogi dude. It’ll expand your mind dude!” type of bullshit?
Right?
Even as parody, didn’t that got out several decades ago?
I dunno, Anri, which option would make you least depressed?
Ah ha! So you are telling how good your googling skills are? I tell you, I was 25ish and doing Bachelor of IT when Google started to revolutionize Internet searching. What happened when you were 25? They built the first ever home computer which was so compact that it could fit inside a small room, instead of a large room?
*yawn*
You have stopped being entertaining.
[meta]
Coco:
<snicker>
You imagined KG telling you that you could look that up implies he needed to?
(Way to miss the point)
Anyway, your projection is noted, as is your ageism.
Bob Stevenson (assuming English is his native language) has difficulty with coherence/grammar, has not offered one shred of the reasoning behind his personal beliefs nor specifically what those beliefs are. He has not offered one single fact as evidence nor has he even attempted to engage in an actual discussion. He lies about world events, situations and statistics then admits he’s filled with hate and is unafraid to spew it at his fellow man. This is an exact example of the exposure I have received from xtians. Bob Stevenson is the reason I am not a theist.
Of course. This is exactly what it implies.
By the way, I think this is how the ‘regulars’ impress each other around here. By,
1- Showing their excellent Googling skills
2- Demonstrating how large their memory bank is, and how quickly data can be accessed from there.
3- Demonstrating a complete lack of grasping anything that is already not stored in the memory bank
4- Demonstrating their strict adherence to a cult-like group by not allowing any criticism of their beliefs and their group leaders, and by speaking the same language, and by speaking it on behalf of each other from time to time.
Someone who makes such accusations ought to be able to make a compelling case for their own beliefs. I note you don’t even try:
Do you believe that some God is necessary?
Then argue your case for why some God is necessary.
If you had any courage, you would make this factual statement: every concept of God you’ve encountered so far has no evidence to support it and thus every God you’ve heard or seen argued for is unlikely to exist.
Yes I believe some God is necessary.
We already knew you’re an idiot.
Really? Which god, and what’s the evidence for it? Could it be unnecessary?
[OT]
Coco:
Your speculations are entertaining.
1. You are easily impressed by basic competence?
2. In comparison to you, one presumes.
3. So we’re like Searle’s Chinese room?
4a. How is addressing criticism equivalent to disallowing criticism?
4b. Ack! No-one told me I had group leaders! :|
4c. Such a surprise we use English — ¿Quieres que te hable en Español?
4d. That would be because we’re the Pharynguloid Collective — a form of gestalt anthology intelligence. :)
—
(Anyway, thanks for strengthening my hypothesis that you’re projecting, and for remaining amusing.)
In addition to consciousness razor’s questions, which I’d like to see answered, I’d pose one more:
Why do you believe some God is necessary?
For what?
BTW, this was a really bizarre response:
If you’re arguing intelligence could* exist independent of space and time, then it makes no sense to appeal to evolution, which requires space and time. Yet again, you completely miss the point of the argument.
*Or that it must, since you’re claiming god is necessary… which is also bizarre. Without any coherent concept of it, we have no reason to think it’s even possible.
I will pose one to you before I answer that question.
If you believe God is not necessary, why do you believe God is not necessary? Please do not tell me you got this idea from that book by Hawkings and Mlodinow, The Grand Design or something. Or, from Dawking’s famous statement ‘that God would have created a very different universe than the one we are living in’.
Sorry! Dawkins not Dawkings… These names Hawkings and Dawkins … they confuse me
Coco Jumbo #355 wrote:
Oh no, you’re the guest. You first, please.
Or maybe because you like using Pluralis Majestatis to address yourself? Like Queen Razeea from The Forgotten Sands? You sound American though. Leave that to the royal jugglers from the UK.
What a fucking moron / stupid asshat.
This question has been addressed probably a dozen times in this thread. For you to even pretend it hasn’t is beyond pathetic.
Everything on earth and off earth can be explained through natural processes (some of which we do not know yet and the theories are adjusted to meet new information). I lived at the Grand Canyon, in Arizona, for five years: natural processes explain the formation with absolutely no need for any supernatural intervention. Why inject a supernatural explanation when a natural one exists? Morality? that comes from society (which is why different societies at different times have different moral explectations). Law? our criminal and civil law (in the US) have nothing to do with biblical law (save for those insisting on denying human rights).
So why do you believe that god(s) are necessary for anything?
Astrophysics, abiogenesis, and evolution. Plus, no evidence for one, which means it is a presuppositon on your part. Compared to your unnecessary presuppositions, all evidence on our part.
It seems pretty silly to disallow references to brilliant but readable experts in the field of astrophysics and evolutionary biology when explaining why god/gods are not necessary to explain how life, the universe, and everything came into existence. Unless one is an expert in both fields (which is pretty unusual), one must perforce rely on the expertise of others. Note that this isn’t the same thing as simply referencing authority. The scientific explanation for the origin of the universe and of life is changing all the time. I am not enough of an expert to know whether the possible discovery of neutrinos that travel faster than light will affect the big bang theory, but it’s possible they could.
Coco seems very bothered that there’s more than one person saying the same thing to him. It’s a pretty transparent defense mechanism that he insists that this is evidence of some cult-like groupthink thing going on.
Coco, I am having trouble distinguishing your god hypothesis from the Russell’s Teapot hypothesis. Can you please explain how what you’re doing–asserting a god that has not yet been imagined and therefore cannot be disproved–differs substantially from the scenario described in Russell’s Teapot?
I, for one, am a devout Teapotist. Blessed upon thee, Teapot, and blessings upon the One True Cozy.
Coco:
Why do you think gods are necessary? And what are they necessary for?
Hmmm. Bit of a word choice fail there. The Preview button is my shepherd, I shall not want to click Submit before using Preview.
Because I don’t believe a god exists, or that the word means anything that isn’t absurd. So while one could pretend there may someday be a coherent idea of a god, the fact is that there is not.
In any case, believing that some-idea-we-don’t-have is necessarily true is to be incredibly confused or (for the more self-aware theist) a liar.
An American who writes “realise”? Not fucking likely, Coco.
Why do you capitalize this concept as if it were a name? your definition does not insist upon a intelligence.
Coco Jumbo:
As they should. One is only the best-known physicist in the world. The other is only the best known popularizer of evolution. Physics, evolution. Why would you not always mix those up?
I mean, unless you knew nothing of either.
But Father, these “natural processes”, including the process of evolution, are considered God by a lot of people. This is what I was trying to explain before… When you people say ‘God’ is not necessary, you are merely referring to a particular definition of ‘God’. In the end, you are just saying ‘God as defined by me’ is not necessary. In your case, you are saying God can only be ‘supernatural’, but not ‘natural’. This is your own definition of God. This is not how Hindus see God. Hindus and Buddhist generally see the entire universe as God, which of course includes natural and supernatural and everything in between.
It’s Hawking not Hawkings
Coco Jumbo:
So, they see this god as being nothing that isn’t already there?
Seems rather trite and redundant to me. Not even worth discussing, and certainly not worth bringing up in actual intellectual conversation.
No they don’t.
Seriously. Not by ‘a lot’. By very few if any. And those few are just those who are working retrorationally because they have decided that they have to believe in God, and thus work backwards to form a definition that fits reality.
Just about every fucking person who considers natural phonomina God are trying to use rhetorical trickery on themselves to sneak in extra baggage such as benevolence or consciousness.
And Hinduism in general has used that belief to sneak in the extra assertions of the caste system that protects the rich and impoverishes the poor.
Funny how that always seems to happen
We already know the natural universe exists. Calling it “God” adds nothing to our knowledge. Useless.
Also isn’t it funny how pre-scientific religions that didn’t understand the universe invoked supernatural explanations? It’s almost as if these belief systems didn’t understand the universe around them!
Well, they’re wrong. See, I define myself to be god*. I think, therefore I am. Therefore it is necessarily true that I exist. Therefore God exists, is a necessary being, and he’s fucking tired of your dishonest bullshitting. Q.E.D.
*Hi everybody!
God is nature? Bullshit. Gods are, by definition, intelligent entities able to intervene supernaturally withing the natural world.
Absolute and total bullshit. The idea of god has almost as many conceptions as there are believers. Since you capitalize ‘God’, you presume a single god and, in context, specifically the Abrahamic god. To suddenly claim that we are quibbling about definitions is bizarre.
Bullshit. The concept of god, as elucidated by Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (the Abrahamic god) is not not necessary. I did not create these definitions. A god is a supernatural being able to intervene supernaturallly.
If it is not supernatural, why call it a god? Are you now claiming that the process of evolution is god? That is bullshit. Pure and unadulterated bullshit. A god implies an intelligent entity.
No, it is not. I did not write the Old Testament, the New Testamant, or the Q’uran. It is not my definition.
No, Hindu gods are supernatural beings (they are able to ignore things like gravity and other natural laws) and are able to intervene in the natural world.
You are full of shit. I asked a question. You replied by insisting that, before you answer your question, I must answer one from you. I did. And, rather than actuallly answering the question I asked (more than once, now), you claim that I failed to answer your question because my concept of a god and your concept of God are not the same?
Okay, Coco: here is your chance. Why do you think gods are necessary? And what are they necessary for?
“The secret is to bang the rocks together!”
Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là
Pierre-Simon, marquis de Laplace
Ah. Well. See, if all I have to do is call my favorite coffee cup “God”, then I believe in God. This is not serious communication, though. It is bullshittery.
Evolution is not intelligent. You indicated you believe there is an intelligence responsible for the creation of our universe.
That’s not an accurate summary of typical Hindu or Buddhist beliefs, but hey, whatever. I’m still taking your premises for granted.
What you just said there is that somebody believes in {the universe, plus supernatural intelligences} as God. Maybe, rather than misrepresenting Hinduism, we can just go ahead and refer to this as either pantheism or panentheism; take your pick.
Well, I believe in the universe. So far so good. But I don’t believe in those supernatural intelligences you tried to sneak in there. I don’t believe in anything supernatural at all:
Because I have never seen any evidence of anything that would be explained by the existence of a non-Earthling or non-animal agent without relying on an infinite regress.
Therefore, since I have encountered nothing that can be adequately explained by God, I contingently conclude that God is not necessary.
[meta]
Coco the perspicacious opines about me: “You sound American though”.
The point is, almost all of you are saying God can be ‘supernatural’ but not natural. This is why I referred one of you to Alan Watts yesterday. You can all broaden your concept of God, because it looks painfully narrow at the moment. No one is saying you have to believe in God after broadening your concept of God. It is just to surprise yourselves. To tell yourselves how much you didn’t know while you were pretending to know everything!
I have a book I’d like to recommend to you, Coco Jumbo:
Religion Explained, by Pascal Boyer.
Something different for a change.
If a god is not supernatural, is it a god? Natural processes cannot be god because gods are intelligent entities capable of planning (not all did, of course (which is why mythology can be so entertaining)). Evolution, and other natural processes are not intelligent and are not capable of planning. And you are evading the question. You have written that gods are necessary.
So: Why do you think gods are necessary? And what are they necessary for?
Aaaaaand we’re back to the same old game, where Coco tries to pretend that he can just redefine the word “god” without even having the courtesy to elucidate his own private, idiosyncratic definition of the word.
Personally, I’m having flashbacks to my late teens. That’s the last time I considered the hypothesis that “god” is the entire universe, and the universe is conscious somehow, to be a profound and plausible hypothesis.
From over here, it seems like the main point is to flatter your mediocre intelligence.
You are the one proposing an intelligence beyond time and space.
That is supernatural by definition. (I’m not sure you understand what natural and supernatural mean, though, at this point.)
I tell you I used to preach Alan Watts, and you keep on condescending like you didn’t fucking hear me. Why are you such a smarmy piece of shit?
Coco goddist: @383:
@118:
TSTKTS.
(Heh)
I, and others here, are profoundly aware of how much we do not know. The difference is that, when I do not know something, I go looking for a book written by someone who is closer to understanding than I am. I do not immediately assume that if I don’t unerstand, gods must be involved. Nor do I randomly redefine words, but that’s another issue.
:(
But I did get it
:(
Once again, Coco, I have already outdone you. In August I presented a non-supernatural God which is more plausible than anything you or Alan Watts have dreamed up. Here it is:
“One can hypothesize a non-interventionist Deism informed by Darwinian thought—our Creator is not supernatural, but an animal or the robotic descendent of an animal which evolved in another universe or outside of our simulation—and use Nick Bostrom’s methods to argue that this is the most likely scenario, much more likely than typical atheist scenarios. This involves no magical thinking, and thus breaks the categorical statement that religion equals magical thinking equals primitive.”
The problem with this natural God, though, is that there is no empirical evidence to suggest its actual existence. That is, there is simply no reason to believe in it. It is fucking make-believe, like visitors from Proxima Centauri.
Didn’t I give two references yesterday? I can give you a few more today:
1- Ken Wilber
2- J Krishnamurti
3- Ramna Maharishi
4- Lao Tzo
5- Meister Eckhart
7- Rumi
8- Khalil Gibran
9- Bulleh Shah
All of the above spoke of God in ways which are far beyond your comprehension at the moment. Having said this, it is not me who is trying to ‘redefine’ God. It is you who do not know what the word God really means in its many forms and definitions. You have painfully confined yourself to ‘group thinking’.
Cuckoo for cocoa puffs:
I’m going to ask this again, now that you’ve stated what we already knew (that people have different ideas about what a god is):
And again: why do you think that god, whichever it is, is necessary?
Mr. Fire: good news then! All is not lost. :)
Coco, could you please ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTIONS? I did as you asked and, in a show of good faith, answered your question. Now,
If you are incapable of elucidating, by yourself, without having me read a whole list of books, what you mean by god, then I’m under no obligation to consider that your concept of god is remotely credible.
1- Ken Wilber – check
4- Lao Tzo
5- Meister Eckhart
7- Rumi
8- Khalil Gibran
I’m familiar with all of these and I find no reason to consider the god concept to be useful or credible.
Now what? Do I have to read the rest of the books on your list before you’ll deign to personally explain what the fuck YOU mean when you say “god”, you know, aside from “the unknown” or “it’s soooooo deep you can’t even understand it, man,” or, “if you were REALLY creative you’d think of it yourself!”
Fuckwit.
The “check” there is a bit of errata. Please pretend it isn’t there.
OK. But I guess a mere ‘familiarity’ with those people is not required here. It won’t work. You need to read them, and then actually try to understand them. The latter is the harder part.
Nope, they aren’t considered god. god is considered the cause of those process. We just remove the obvious problem, since they must also prove how their imaginary deity came to be, same as you. Why aren’t you providing said mechanism…
Again, if you are incapable of at least attempting to summarize what you think it is I’m not understanding, I’m going to be quite skeptical that you understand something that I don’t. The true measure of being able to understand something is being able to explain it to someone else.
Still seems like you’re totally uninterested in anything but intellectual wankery.
Coco:
I answered your question (not to your satisfaction, but I douby anyone could satisfy you). When will you answer mine? or consciousness razor’s?
And if my understanding of Gibran differs from yours, will that mean that I didn’t really understand?
NO. A big NO. God itself is the process. Buddhists can’t imagine a God who is some being. Only you can, because maybe this was the god you believed in once. IT is just as hard for Buddhists to imagine a God who is a being as it is for you to imagine a God who is not a being. What you call science and natural processes, they call God. Only they don’t try to preach like Muslims and Christians do. This is why you don’t know anything about God from their point of view.
I mean, I pretty much grew up with Lao Tzu. For whatever reason, my parents were really into the way of the Tao, and Zen Buddhism. Khalil Gibran and Rumi, too. I still read Rumi from time to time. Interesting, lovely stuff, but nothing in there suggests that God is necessary. Ken Wilbur is a devotee of the God of the Gaps, a concept I find quite useless.
I’d love it if you could point to exactly what it is you think I’m missing. You know, what is it that makes you think that a god is necessary? Just saying, “You don’t understand those books, because if you did you’d agree with me” is not going to cut it. Unless you WANT to look like a pretentious lackwit.
You have read Gibran? Do you think he was believer? Did he believe in God?
Processes are not intelligent. They may be guided or forced by an intelligence, or they may be self-perpetutating, but they are not intelligent. How many gods of mythology (including the Bible) are not intelligent?
And would you be so kind as to answer my question since I answered yours?
What on earth are you talking about when you say nothing in Rumi and Khalil Gibran’s works says God is not necessary? Please explain.
Why should I answer your questions when you refuse the same courtesy to me?
A lot of Buddhists can, and do. They even make offerings to those gods, in the expectation that their devotion will be rewarded with favorable outcomes in whatever endeavors they are undertaking.
Then there are Buddhists who do not believe in any god at all.
Are you experiencing embarrassment yet? I mean, totally misrepresenting the diversity of Buddhism to support your God of the Vagueness is stooping pretty low.
Coco Jumbo #393 wrote:
In all the forms and definitions of God (including what I know of those from the list above), one element is present in each — a fundamental top-down “mental” aspect which can’t be reduced to the non-mental.* Thus you have forces, essences, beings, or tendencies which are mind-like. Dualism, or idealistic monism.
Do you disagree? If so, could you give a specific example.
*supernatural definition
Just because a brilliant poet believed in god doesn’t mean there is a god. I can appreciate the beauty of, for example, shape note singing (something I find quite enjoyable), without endorsing the theistic content of the songs.
Which question?
You’re barely paying any attention at all. Still a wanker.
I am done! I think I am talking to a bunch of ex-Christian, who are pretending to know everything about religions and concepts they don’t understand. None of you are making any sense. Sally, for instance, implied that Rumi and Gibran did not believe in God, after telling me she is familiar with these people. This is one heck of a statement. I don’t know what else to say.
Damn blockquote. Trying again:
Which question? Are you kidding me? The one you refused to answer at #355 (quoted above). I answered your question (though you refuse to admit that) and you have refused to answer mine. Or consciousness razor’s question.
You are hiding behind non-existent raiment.
Not to mention MY question about whether Coco’s approach differs at all from the scenario described as “Russell’s Teapot.”
You ARE familiar with Russell’s Teapot, right? I mean, I gave you a linky and everything.
Sorry, Sally, I missed yours or I would have included it.
You’re just incredibly stupid. That’s not what I said at all. What a pity that your intelligence and reading skills are so sub-par. Perhaps if you’d look up from your wanking every once in a while, you’d succeed in comprehending what other people are attempting to communicate to you.
bullshitter Coco:
Here you are claiming that all Buddhists are lacking in imagination.
+++++
You indicated that after people answered this question of yours:
you would answer “Why do you believe some God is necessary?”
Are you a liar? Or are you going to answer the question now?
OK Sorry. I think I did misunderstand you. Tell me why do you think nothing in Rumi’s or Gibran’s work suggests God is necessary? To start with, how would you define God, and yourself as a creation of God, from Rumi’s point of view.
Unless it took you more than five minutes to write the above short paragraph (which, I don’t know, perhaps you’re a very slow typist), I am forced to conclude that you are simply irretrievably dumb.
Don’t forget to stick the flounce!
CoCo Jumbo #414 wrote:
I’m an ex-Transcendentalist.
My question at #410 tried to point out the significant feature which virtually all proposed concepts of God share — even the Eastern and mystical versions. It is thus possible to disagree with yes all of them.
Keep in mind that many of the people and sources you cited on your list would hasten to agree that they don’t understand God — despite writing a great deal on the subject. Not understanding God is supposed to be a symptom of understanding God. You’ll run into problems, there.
Sorry, the “everyone dance when Coco says dance” portion of the program is over now. Time for you to start answering some of the questions that were put to you.
Coco is a liar.
*crickets*
OK. Don’t answer, but at least don’t come up with lame excuses. I think I know why you are not answering. Anyways, it is obvious that you and your friends here have flooded me with a lot of questions lately. I can’t possibly answer all of them. Some I have already answered, but the people who posed those questions probably didn’t like the answers. This is why they are asking those questions again. What can I do here? Do you want me to try to come up with answers that would please you and your friends? I can try.
How about:
-God is not necessary and we are all bio-mechanical products of evolution by natural selection, and
-Darwin was a gift presented to us humans by evolution for evolution
-Dawkins is another gift followed by A C Grayling, Christopher Hitchens, James Randi, and Sam Harris
-Atheism is the best thing that has ever happened to us humans
Does it work?
Project much, liar?
[meta]
The Coco Nut is a done, alright — done like a dinner.
—
Transparent dishonesty is transparent.
Evasive cowardice is evasive.
Contradictory nonsense is contradictory.
(The Coco Nut has so very often conveniently “forgotten” that it wrote this: When I use the word God, it doesn’t refer to any concept of God that we are aware of. I am just using this word to indicate that the universe is not without a cause.)
Prove that inane and insane allegation with hard and conclusive physical evidence? Or, shut the fuck as the loser you are. Your choice cupcake.
Since when where those poets scientists, showing conclusive physical evidence. Poets are metaphorical liars and bullshitters. You are just a liar and bullshitter.
Your whole posts are lame excuses for not looking at the evidence. Mirror, Pot, Kettle, Black.
News Cupcake, Opinion =/= evidence, and evidence is what sways us. Your inane and insane opinion is meaningless.
Nope, Darwin just elucidated what was already there, making mistakes in the process, in a logical and scientific manner.
More people, not gifts. Gifts imply something special from someone else. Who is that someone else??? Can’t be an imaginary deity…
Atheism is a logical result of being human and looking at the lack of evidence for imaginary deities. What is your excuse???
No, I haven’t forgotten that. Rumi’s God cannot be defined. This is why people like Rumi are called ‘mystics’. They use ordinary words to ‘try’ to tell us about something that cannot be defined, and in doing so, they end being extremely mysterious.
You haven’t answered this, yet you indicated you would:
“Why do you believe some God is necessary?”
Remember?
You received a lot of answers to your question. But you lied when you indicated you would answer in return.
Still waiting to hear whether Coco is even acquainted with Russell’s Teapot, and how his necessary god differs from the Teapot.
I have answered already. But you can’t understand the answer unless you understand my viewpoint first, and to understand my viewpoint, you need to broaden your definition of god by at least 10,000,000 times. At the moment, you seem to be stuck with a ‘supernatural being’ concept of god. I don’t believe in such a god either.
Coco Jumbo #431 wrote:
As I mentioned in #424, “Not understanding God is supposed to be a symptom of understanding God. You’ll run into problems, there.”
And so you have. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest that one good reason to think that God is unnecessary is that an undefinable mystery is unlikely to be a necessary part of any explanation.
That guy could use some vitamins, some sleeping pills, some natural (unpaid) sex, and some nicotine patches, as far as I am concerned.
CoCo Jumbo #434 wrote:
Yes you do. Depends on how one defines “supernatural.” I did in my post at #410. I’ll repost.
God is never quite so “mysterious” or Other as to lack an irreducible non-material mental component — whether this is a mind-like aspect like consciousness or willpower, or a mind-dependent value such as love or “progress.” I don’t care if your understanding of God is “personal” or not. It will still fall under the “supernatural” category.
Lying again. Shameful.
For example. Evasion and non-answers. You can’t even clearly state whether you’re familiar with the concept. What a weasel you are.
That is a lie. You are a liar.
You indicated at comment 355 that you would answer the question “Why do you believe some God is necessary?” soon, after receiving at least one answer to your question. You received many questions.
You then commented at 356 358 370 383 393 399 403 405 407 412 415 422 428 431 434 and 436 but you never answered the question.
You are a liar.
If you are not a liar, then just prove me wrong: copy and paste your answer to the question “Why do you believe some God is necessary?”
Surely you can copy and paste the answer if you did in fact answer.
[meta]
That’d be you, since that’s the only person mentioned in that which you quoted, O Coco Nut. ;)
You received many answers, that is. Answers to your question.
You also received many questions. I understand you may not have time for all of them but I do expect you to deal seriously with as many as you can.
Begin by answering the question: “Why do you believe some God is necessary?”
Is there something unnatural about paid sex? Also, Bertrand Russell died in 1970 so it’s hard to see how either natural or unnatural sex, vitamins, sleeping pills, or nicotine patches could have any benefit for him.
This is also a lie. You are a liar.
I have already demonstrated this to be false. Because I have already demonstrated this, it will be trivial for me to copy and paste the demonstration. Observe!
+++++
Once again, Coco, I have already outdone you. In August I presented a non-supernatural God which is more plausible than anything you or Alan Watts have dreamed up. Here it is:
“One can hypothesize a non-interventionist Deism informed by Darwinian thought—our Creator is not supernatural, but an animal or the robotic descendent of an animal which evolved in another universe or outside of our simulation—and use Nick Bostrom’s methods to argue that this is the most likely scenario, much more likely than typical atheist scenarios. This involves no magical thinking, and thus breaks the categorical statement that religion equals magical thinking equals primitive.”
The problem with this natural God, though, is that there is no empirical evidence to suggest its actual existence. That is, there is simply no reason to believe in it. It is fucking make-believe, like visitors from Proxima Centauri.
I am not familiar with this concept, except that I have heard Richard Dawkins using it in his arguments over and over again. He is a rather an unimportant philosopher to me, and a bad example for kids if we want kids to grow into healthy tobacco-free adults.
Ash:
I have said this before: You need to clearly define what you mean by God when you ask a question about God.
Why don’t you define God as clearly as possible in a few lines, and then I will tell you if that God is necessary or not necessary.
Jumbo Liar, answer the fucking question already.
“Why do you believe some God is necessary?”
My, you really are an idiot. “Russell’s Teapot” is used by more people than Dawkins, but because you don’t like Dawkins, you allowed your emotional distaste for him to become an obstacle between you and taking in genuinely new information. It apparently never occurred to you to wonder who this Russell character might be. Lazy, pretentious wanker that you are. I mean, I even put a link into the original post. It’s not a difficult concept at all. It should be a snap for someone as allegedly full of understanding and creativity to take in the concept and find the points where your “necessary god” diverges from Russell’s famous teapot. But you can’t be bothered. You’re not just lazy and pretentious, you’re incredibly rude.
Your God, Coco. I’m asking about your God, not my notion of it.
Remember how the conversation went?
ahs: Do you accept that God is not necessary?
coco: Yes I accept that. But only when we apply the concept of ‘God’ as you see and define God.
ahs: Do you believe that some God is necessary?
coco: Yes I believe some God is necessary.
ahs: Why do you believe some God is necessary?
coco: I will pose one to you before I answer that question. If you believe God is not necessary, why do you believe God is not necessary?
horde: [many answers to your question]
+++++
Now we’re at the point where you explain why you believe some God is necessary. Which God? Whichever one you were thinking of when you said “Yes I believe some God is necessary.”
And this is the part where several people point out that if you think god is necessary, you must perforce have some sort of definition in mind for “god,” otherwise why would it be necessary? Then people ask you to provide the definition, and you decline and demand that your interlocutors provide a definition for you. Then your interlocutors decline, because they’re not the ones positing the necessity of god, and you accuse them of a lack of creativity, and the whole cycle starts again.
*more crickets*
God: a goalpost on wheels which is forever beyond the atheist’s ability to understand properly.
Oh, wait, that’s not my definition. I don’t have a definition: I have many. And they all contain that irreducible non-material mental element and an inflated sense of grandeur.
You don’t get the point, Sally. My creativity means I stay away from recycled garbage, in order to remain creative. He might be a genius to you and Dawkins, but he is utterly unimportant to me, precisely because he has already been discussed so many times by so many people.
I am not rude. I am just a little too quick to express my true emotions. I know, I have to tone down a bit here. I am trying.
Says the Jumbo Liar who cited Khalil Gibran.
Wikipedia: “Research on sales figures is difficult to come by, but sources in the publishing world report that behind Shakespeare and Lao-Tzu, Khalil Gibran is the third most widely read poet in history, having been translated into well over 40 languages.[3] The Prophet is in its 163rd printing and has sold over 100 million copies[4] since its original publication in 1923.[5] The Prophet is consistently in the best selling category (overall) at Amazon.[6]”
This really is an astounding admission of ignorance. How is it possible to listen to/read a person talking about a well-known concept “over and over” and yet remain in ignorance of it? It takes a concerted, willful effort to avoid gaining that knowledge. Truly you are a theist at heart, Jumbo Liar.
In other words, you have no idea what you’re talking about and are too much of a confused, dishonest coward to say anything. Just pick the god(s) you actually believe in and tell us, dipshit. Fuck, this is tedious.
What’s the point? I doubt you can make a single intelligible statement about the god(s) you believe in, not one. I predict you’ll continue to evade questions and invent slippery nonsense definitions of god like “the universe” or “evolution.” No thanks.
If you deliberately avoid absorbing knowledge, how will you ever know if you are being truly creative? Your posited necessary god fulfills all the criteria of Russell’s Teapot. Bertrand Russell identified the concept nearly a century ago. Ergo, you are not as creative as you think you are, and if you weren’t so fucking lazy, you’d have realized that by now.
So, after Trey Parker and Matt Stone recycled Alan Watts into cartoons, you should have stopped reading Alan Watts.
ahs: Do you accept that God is not necessary?
coco: Yes I accept that. But only when we apply the concept of ‘God’ as you see and define God.
ahs: Do you believe that some God is necessary?
coco: Yes I believe some God is necessary.
ahs: Why do you believe some God is necessary?
coco: I will pose one to you before I answer that question. If you believe God is not necessary, why do you believe God is not necessary?
horde: [many answers to your question]
+++++
Now we’re at the point where you explain why you believe some God is necessary. Which God? Whichever one you were thinking of when you said “Yes I believe some God is necessary.”
+++++
If you do not answer the question, then you implicitly admit you were lying when you indicated earlier that you would answer it.
Oh mine. Did they stop you from listening to and reading Richard Dawkins when they recycled him into cartoons?
Oh for fuck’s sake. And here I am, out of wine.
Lao Tzu never said anything about god one way or another. Rumi and Gibran talk about experiencing god as part of a transcendent ecstatic loss of self, a union with the universe. Rumi in particular compares humans to water droplets and god to the ocean, and also talks about god as a friend or a lover. The thing is, you don’t need to believe in any god to experience this sort of transcendent union with the universe or other people. It’s just another cognitive state that emerges from a particular arrangement of synapses and neurotransmitters. I have experienced states like this, both with and without chemical aides, and it hasn’t convinced me that the universe is conscious, that there’s an intelligence that created the universe, or anything like that. It sure is nice, and I wish more people could experience it, but it’s not evidence of a deity.
Look, there I go, answering your questions again, because unlike you, I am an honest debater and actually care about the truth. You, again, are simply wanking to puff up your ego. And you don’t care if you have to lie in the process. You disgust me.
Here we go again ladies and gents…
http://www.google.com at its best. I am really done now.
Coco Jumbo #458 wrote:
As far as I know all the people on your list — including Rumi and Gibran — had some concept of what they were talking about when they invoked the idea of God. They may have wrapped their ideas up in mystical talk about mysterious mysteries, but they weren’t just shrugging and admitting ignorance: they had a basic concept.
A definition is simply putting this concept into words. No matter how numinous and transcendent and Other God is, if people keep talking about God they can’t help but start putting attributes and characteristics onto it. Then they’ll play the mystery card again — but too late. They were vague, but not vague enough. We glimpsed content.
We can wait.
Idiot. Unlike you, ahs ॐ has not made the error of correlating popularity to truth. According to YOUR standards, you had better stop watching Watts, since he’s been recycled. ahs ॐ never said he agreed with that standard, so you’re a complete fool for trying to turn it around on him this way.
You were done a long time ago. You were just in denial.
Odds he stick the flounce this time?
I’m not the stupid fuck who said “My creativity means I stay away from recycled garbage, in order to remain creative.”
You are a hypocrite for not holding yourself to your own stated standards. But I am not expected to hold myself to your own stated standards.
+++++
You are a liar.
You indicated you would answer the question, and you did not answer it.
+++++
ahs: Do you accept that God is not necessary?
coco: Yes I accept that. But only when we apply the concept of ‘God’ as you see and define God.
ahs: Do you believe that some God is necessary?
coco: Yes I believe some God is necessary.
ahs: Why do you believe some God is necessary?
coco: I will pose one to you before I answer that question. If you believe God is not necessary, why do you believe God is not necessary?
horde: [many answers to your question]
+++++
Now we’re at the point where you explain why you believe some God is necessary. Which God? Whichever one you were thinking of when you said “Yes I believe some God is necessary.”
+++++
If you do not answer the question, then you implicitly admit you were lying when you indicated earlier that you would answer it.
Coco Jumbo wrote:
Then I’ll stick a fork in you and get myself to bed. Not that you’d notice.
Not creative enough to formulate a coherent sentence, I guess.
In fairness to him, it’s hard to type when one’s pants are on fire.
Actual thinkers, creators, learn from others in order to be able to reference concepts and to share ideas.
This buffoon is just a New Agey boob making his ignorance out to be a great strength in much the same way as the IDiots have tried to do. The difference is that he’s more likely to be able to parlay it into a kind of hipster image. A sort of herd, of course, but one which tries to conceal the carefully-crafted affectations copied from each other.
Nothing matters to him (?) more than his ego, which is why he became a bore almost immediately.
Glen Davidson
Epilogue.
+++++
I will now do what Coco Jumbo was unable to do: prove the existence of God.
(via Internet Infidels, brought to my attention by, if I remember correctly, consciousness razor)
+++++
META-PROOF
(1) This is a proof of God’s existence.
(2) If the reader finishes reading this proof, the existence of God will be proven to him/her.
(3) If the existence of God is proven, then God exists.
(4) Therefore, God exists.
ahs:
It had me with the first premise. Truly, that is a powerful proof.
[meta]
So, I come back and see this dribble from the Coco Nut:
Wow. Just, wow!
So, not only has this specimen not even heard of Bertrand Russell in the context of philosophy of religion, but further imagines his work is “recycled garbage” and dismisses him as “utterly unimportant”?
(Such arrogance based on such ignorance is truly breath-taking)
if you think one must have a definition of god in mind in order to believe in God?
“I believe in flying unicorns.”
“What’s a unicorn?”
“Must I define what a unicorn is to believe in it? We don’t need your pathetic level of detail!”
fucking.
inane.
I know, I have to tone down a bit here.
Is that even possible?
I thought it was already scraping the bottom of the barrel?
*sigh*
the trolls have become inane and boring.
I deserve better on my birthday, damnit.
Sally, I have heard all of this many times before, and I have seen all of this happening over and over again. I know you love speaking for other people, but you should really avoid this habit of yours. Interpreting another person’s mind through words alone, and with such confidence, is rather un-scientific and a bit wooish by your own community standards.
He wasn’t recycled garbage before Richard Dawkins chose his teapot example to explain his position on God. Dawkins and his followers have now used him so many times, that he has, quite literally, become a recycled garbage.
Coco, stop embarrassing yourself. I wasn’t speaking FOR ahs ॐ, I was simply noting that he never volunteered to accept your standards for himself. And that it was stupid to try to paint him as a hypocrite for not acting according to YOUR standards that you set for yourself.
And indeed, his own take on the subject was remarkably similar to mine. Unsurprising, since we are both employing reasons and facts, unlike you.
Please, explain the difference between
and
Of course, you won’t. Because you’re a weaselly new agey lying narcissistic asshole with delusions of grandeur.
Coco Nut tries to patronise SallyStrange:
Coco Nut: She’s speaking for herself about someone else, you dolt. Speaking for him would involve telling us what he thinks or putting words in his mouth.
Wow, but you’re thick — Russell’s teapot illustrates the philosophic burden of proof, and that it’s employed by Dawkins doesn’t make it either recycled or garbage.
(Way to employ the genetic fallacy, though)
You and your lame excuses. Don’t you ever get sick and tired of yourself for doing this all the time? You are saying you were speaking for AHS, as if you haven’t spoken for anyone before. What’s wrong if you are just repeating yourself again, and without even knowing it? Old habits die hard, you know. He/She hasn’t even thanked you…
And I guess it is now you who has fallen in the trap. You are speaking for her. It happens automatically I think.
In other words, I was 100% correct when I said
There’s a difference between genuine creativity and just making shit up. Creativity is defined by the act of creation. It must result in something new appearing in the real world. Simply making shit up, with no reference to what exists in reality, can never result in something truly creative emerging, precisely because it has no grounding in reality.
[meta]
SallyStrange: “I wasn’t speaking FOR ahs ॐ”
The Idiot, after quoting the above: “You are saying you were speaking for AHS”
—
Having failed to even keep up the pretence of honesty, the Nut now descends to naked trolling.
Sorry:
You are saying you weren’t speaking for AHS
Every heard of ‘typo’. It was a mistake
You’re just jealous because I have a theory of mind that actually works.
Hint: it’s because I’m not a raging narcissist.
Coco:
No proof of that yet.
It’s not the first time he’s done it.
It must be reflexive for him. He’s so completely self-absorbed that he’s genuinely incapable of correctly perceiving what other people are saying to him. He only sees what he wants to see. Handy trait for a theist, whether of the hipster Rumi-loving new-agey variety or the more traditional kind.
[meta]
What the FUCK is wrong with FreeThoughtBlogs???? I got locked out for a good 5-10 minutes there, just as I was trying to post this comment.
Coco Nut:
What part of “Speaking for him would involve telling us what he thinks or putting words in his mouth.” was unclear to you, O dolt? :)
(Apparently, the difference between propositions and adverbs is beyond you)
I think it’s attracting lots of traffic. Congratulations. You are all stars now! :)
[OT]
SallyStrange, the server has been down numerous times today.
Upgrade teething problems, hopefully.
(When it’s up, it goes well, though)
Apparently, making any sort of observation or reference to another person’s words constitutes “speaking for” that person.
Like I said, Coco must be baffled and envious that there are people in the world whose theory of mind actually works.
$10 says he never clicks on the link above.
[erratum @489]
Prepositions and adverbs.
Yes, and you’ve shown your ass in a most embarrassing way to all those people. You’re another Dunning-Kruger poster child (there are so many, sadly).
The clock says it is 2:34 am somewhere in North America. Sleep is important, you know.
Coco:
Are you going to answer the question you promised to answer? Or was that also a lie?
Talk about a way of avoiding saying anything cogent with such idiocy. Try silence. That makes you sound much smarter than crap like that.
This has been a long thread, so let me see if I have understood correctly. Coco is of the opinion that because there is no evidence against a nebulously defined concept that he is calling ‘God’ then in spite of there being no evidence for this nebulous thing, he is arguing that this proves that this thing exists? That neither he nor anyone else knows what it is, is irrelevant?
Yep. Complete Teapot. And Coco’s arguments are about as much use as a chocolate one.
If there is no evidence that something exists, then it can be safely ignored, at least until such time as evidence eventuates. I am not holding my breath for evidence of any supernatural deity (and if something isn’t supernatural, it isn’t, pretty much by definition, a deity).
Note that this does not mean that it is safe to ignore the machinations of those deluded into thinking there is a magic sky fairy telling them to control everyone else’s lives.
It’s used because it’s an effective counter to certain types of religious garbage. Only an idiot (such as yourself) thinks that there’s anything wrong with reusing an effective argument.