Indeed. I have tried to make basically the same point on more than one occasion.

Humankind has existed in it's present form for, say, roughly 40K years. It's only in the last 400 years that we have started to understand how the universe/existence "works (I put works in quotes - I'm sure there's a better way of phrasing this.)

We discover the Big Bang less than 100 years ago. Likely we understand this stuff as much as an ant crossing a football field understands a false start (that's American football). To assume we are capable of any intelligent/discussion is at best futile.

What's worse is that throughout history wars have been fought to decide the outcomes of these discussions.

What's worse is that throughout history wars have been fought to decide the outcomes of these discussions. — EricH

Indeed, religion gives God a bad name. In Christianity, I don't think Jesus was big on religion...

Aside from that, extremism in all forms, is usually the culprit. Not to mention the sin of the ego/pride...

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Believe if you like. — tim wood

Believe what, in a history book? You don't believe history? If not, which accounts of history should be vetted and why?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Ok. Bible as history, and as history, to be believed — tim wood

Okay, if you say so. I rest my case. Next issue?!

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

tim wood
4.9k
...is merely sharing a blind guess.
— Frank Apisa

And that is exactly what it is not. But you don't get that. It's that lack of discernment, with your NJ persona, that makes you unreachable. At least you have company. — tim wood

If you are asserting "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...

...YOU ARE JUST MAKING A BLIND GUESS. You are doing the atheistic version of "Credo in unum Deum..."

Pure and simply. Almost joke-like.

Atheists want to think they are more than that, but they aren't.

In fact theists have a much better argument against the "blind guess" comment, because they can always contend that a god has "revealed" itself to them. (I can make a guess on that...and my guess is that it is pure bullshit.) Any of them who are asserting "There is a GOD" or "It is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are no gods"...are simply making blind guesses also.

If you are asserting those things, Tim...you are just making a blind guess...and you do not have the honestly or integrity to acknowledge it.

Too bad for you.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Atheists want to think they are more than that, but they aren't. — Frank Apisa

Yep. Both far right-wing atheists and theists (extremists) think they have it all figured out. It's kind of sad but true.

Perhaps another reason why the secular concepts of Faith, Hope and Love are alive and kickin! People either have faith or hope about something they believe in … but what's Love got to do widdit :nerd:

tim wood
4.9k
↪Frank Apisa I hope you find that gap you're hoping to find your god in. I think when you do, it will be just for you alone. And done. Do us both a favor and don't reply. — tim wood

No hope for gods...no hope for gaps.

What I wrote is correct. You should grow up and acknowledge that ANYONE asserting "there are no gods" or "there is at least one god" or that one scenario is more likely than the other...

...is just guessing.

Deal with that. Not the evasion crap.

cannot differentiate bad philosophy from good philosophy.

there exists no such thing as bad philosophy, except plato's of course

1. Jesus was known as being [ in part] God.
2. History indicated Jesus existed.
3. Therefore, history indicates the existence of God. — 3017amen

Why is this troll still here? Why do the mods permit such shite to continue?

Why is this troll still here? Why do the mods permit such shite to continue? — Banno

That's ironic, I thought the same thing concerning your lack of supporting evidence in your Atheistic belief system (existential, metaphysical, phenomenological, cognitive science, et.al.). LOL

Can you parse the logic for me? So far from history, Jesus,/God existed unless you tell me otherwise.

How about this? Instead of using the God debate as a proxy for our emotional male ego head butting agendas, we could be intellectually honest and just yell at each other in a random manner. Here, I'll go first...

You guys! ARGGHH!! Total phoney baloney bull dookey! Fake news! Your mama is a dog!!!!

See how efficient this is? We can apply such proclamations to any argument by any person on any subject, a simple copy/paste operation which could be scripted to achieve full automation.

Now THAT's rational! :-)

Looks good to me.

Last time I checked the concern in the OP relates to positions on the arguments for God.

I presented existential, metaphysical, phenomenological and other questions about consciousness for which none of the atheists on this site have been able to answer

So far the evidence suggests at atheism is an untenable position to be in...

I presented existential, metaphysical, phenomenological and other questions about consciousness for which none of the atheists on this site have been able to answer — 3017amen

:lol:

If you're scared say you're scared :chin:

If your happy and you know it, clap your hands
Clap, clap
If your happy and you know it clap your hands
Clap clap
If your happy and you know it, then your face will surely show it
If your happy and you know it, clap your hands
Clap clap
If your happy and you know it, stomp your feet
Stomp, stomp
If your happy and you know it stomp your feet
Stomp, stomp
If your happy and you know it, then your face will surely show it
If your happy and you know it, stomp your feet
Stomp, stomp
If your happy and you know it, pat your head
Pat, pat
If your happy and you know it pat your head
Pat, pat
If your happy and you know it, then your face will surely show it
If your happy and you know it, pat your head
Pat, pat

:point:

Why is this TROLL still here? Why do the mods permit such SHITE to continue? — Banno

Shitz-n-giggles.

It's all about information and wisdom... ! — 3017amen

... and tall tales and imaginary friends.

Can you cite any cases where non-believers have murdered millions of people simply because they (the murdered people) did not share the non-believer's particular brand of non-belief?

And please don't bother mentioning situations where the murdering was done communists / socialists / fascists - these are all belief systems. E.g., Stalin did not murder millions in the name of atheism - he murdered them because he was a psychopathic killer.

What I'm looking for are situations where a group of atheists / agnostics / ignostics murdered large numbers of religious people in the name of atheism / agnosticism / ignosticism.

And please don't bother mentioning situations where the murdering was done communists / socialists / fascists - these are all belief systems. E.g., Stalin did not murder millions in the name of atheism - he murdered them because he was a psychopathic killer.

What I'm looking for are situations where a group of atheists / agnostics / ignostics murdered large numbers of religious people in the name of atheism / agnosticism / ignosticism.

There aren't many people left following your exclusions, that sort of answers your question by default. On closer analysis I think you will find that most of the mass murderers were insane, so if they adopted religious views while carrying out their insanity that is not the fault of the religion.

On a more serious note what you have highlighted is the clash between the project of religion in human societies and the inevitable tribal, or nation conflict between different races, or civilisations. Religion in the distant past was always established (initially at least) to give some moral and social direction to populations, which could otherwise go down a path of feudalism, debauchery or going to war continually with its neighbour's. In more recent times when populations became larger and the spaces between them became smaller there was inevitably conflict and fundamentalist belief systems were employed as ways of turning populations against their enemies. Also religion became a means of controlling populations. By this point religion had got itself into allsorts of deep water through the application of human nature. Which was never the intention initially.

I agree with your reference to the will in a person. There is a serious discussion to be had around this, but not here as, like I said before, any arguments will be dismissed, as belief systems designed to legitimise God belief systems, in favour of biologically evolved human traits in a materialist belief system.

What is better is to point out the extent to which philosophers are complacent in simply accepting that the way life and experience, as had by people, is the normal, obvious result of certain chemical processes in physical bodies evolved in a material universe. Or as you say, that consciousness emerged from a piece of wood. This is complacent because it ignores the philosophical questions about our origins and consciousness, a conscious mind, which are unanswered. The lack of answers is dismissed as baseless, or wild speculation in areas which will be explained by science in the future.

Agreed. And the contradiction as well as the irony, is that the (metaphysical) sense of wonderment has not only contributed greatly to our quality of life in science, technology and humanities, but is absolutely essential in affecting same. Life without wonder would be... (?).

And so in turn it translates into a sense of ignorance that causes a person to dismiss that which provides a quality of life (for all people), regardless of their belief system. Thus one of the many existential paradoxes, in this case, for the atheist to resolve.

It's kind of sad, but as I've said before; pride, ignorance, ego, extremism, and other cognitive deficiencies relative to the finitude of existence (the human condition) , rears it ugly head more often than we care to admit. And too, as we know, that's certainly nothing new under the sun as it were. Those of us who appreciate all types of knowledge ( i.e., from the various domains of philosophy) also understand OT wisdom books are a good basic resource there... .

Most atheists seem to lack that simple concept associated with self-awareness. Perhaps another reason why nihilists are atheists...not sure. In any case that certainly speaks to another form of extremism.

Likely we understand this stuff as much as an ant crossing a football field understands a false start (that's American football). — EricH

Yes. And so what is the rational response to this place of ignorance (on questions of such enormous scale as gods) that we find ourselves in?

You get to the bus stop in the morning, wondering if you're late, so you ask someone already there.
In one scenario they respond "sorry, you missed it by a few minutes".
In another scenario they respond "sorry, it landed and flew off already".
Anyone with active gray matter and good sense would likely believe the former and dismiss the latter.
But, hey, given proportional and relevant evidence, you might believe that the bus is flying.
Anecdotes are both the most common and the weakest kind of evidence.
So, down here on Earth in real life, what's the difference? (@Frank Apisa? @Punshhh?)

I thought the Bible was an account of historical events that occurred in time — 3017amen

Believe if you like. That's what Christians do. — tim wood

Well, and occasionally they were just told what to believe, and forgot they were told (or never grew up).

Say, the existential proposition "there is a flying vehicle" is unfalsifiable but verifiable.
The universal proposition "no vehicles can fly" is falsifiable but not verifiable.
(... with the implicit assumption that the domain of discourse is indefinite.)
So, when should we (not) expect proof?

So, when should we (not) expect proof? — jorndoe

We shouldn't be requesting or expecting proof until such time as human reason is proven relevant to and binding upon the question at hand.