I don't think you are mentally ill Joe, just a little confused about 'what it's all about.' — universeness

You got a laugh out of me with that twist. Well done, sir.

There are non-believers in a god/s and there are atheists, those that challenge theists. — Gregory A

That's not how the word is used by most. If you make up your own usages, you'll likely be misunderstood, especially if you are demonizing/misrepresenting folks. Here's what I got from googling 'atheist,' just to be sure of myself before pointing it out.

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

I've been an atheist for about 20 years, so I feel pretty neutral on this issue. Maybe there was such a guy. Maybe not. Some of the words in the book are nice. Others not. I consider myself influenced by some Christian ideas, but I guess many of us must be — lll

Sounds like a pretty well-balanced approach to me, although I think the influences are from more ancient storytelling as all the Christian stories are rehashed from earlier ones.

Bruno Bauer is one of the people like this that interests me. He was a left Hegelian, and he was part of the attempt to transform Christianity into something modern and rational. David Strauss has some great passages too. — lll

I don't know those guys but they sound interesting. So much I would like to read, Just not enough time.
Come on you wonderful science geeks, get that transhuman stuff moving a lot faster. We need a lot more than this max of around 100 years to work stuff out properly!!

We need a lot more than this max of around 100 years to work stuff out properly!! — universeness

Yes indeed. I'd like 1000 years, maybe a million. I want to know some languages, all of them maybe. Oh the list goes on and on. Don't get me started.

Sounds like a pretty well-balanced approach to me, although I think the influences are from more ancient storytelling as all the Christian stories are rehashed from earlier ones. — universeness

I'll just drop one link, 'cause it's well written and suggests what some might call an atheistic mysticism, though it's not mysticism in my book but just insight into language in the jargon of its time. I pretty much agree with Feuerbach as presented below, though the last line pushes it.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ludwig-feuerbach/

A sample, which others on this thread might weave into their thoughts on God even.

It is by means of Empfindung or sense experience that sentient beings are able to distinguish individuals from one another, including, in some instances, individuals that share the same essence. The form of experience is temporality, which is to say that whatever is directly experienced occurs “now”, or at the moment in time to which we refer as “the present”. Experience, in other words, is essentially fleeting and transitory, and its contents are incommunicable. What we experience are the perceivable features of individual objects. It is through the act of thinking that we are able to identify those features through the possession of which different individuals belong to the same species, with the other members of which they share these essential features in common.

Unlike sense experience, thought is essentially communicable. Thinking is not an activity performed by the individual person qua individual. It is the activity of spirit, to which Hegel famously referred in the Phenomenology as “‘I’ that is ‘We’ and ‘We’ that is ‘I’” (Hegel [1807] 1977: 110). Pure spirit is nothing but this thinking activity, in which the individual thinker participates without himself (or herself) being the principal thinking agent. That thoughts present themselves to the consciousness of individual thinking subjects in temporal succession is due, not to the nature of thought itself, but to the nature of individuality, and to the fact that individual thinking subjects, while able to participate in the life of spirit, do not cease in doing so to exist as corporeally distinct entities who remain part of nature, and are thus not pure spirit.

A biological species is both identical with and distinct from the individual organisms that make it up. The species has no existence apart form these individual organisms, and yet the perpetuation of the species involves the perpetual generation and destruction of the particular individuals of which it is composed. Similarly, Spirit has no existence apart from the existence of individual self-conscious persons in whom Spirit becomes conscious of itself (i.e., constitutes itself as Spirit). Just as the life of a biological species only appears in the generation and destruction of individual organisms, so the life of Spirit involves the generation and destruction of these individual persons. Viewed in this light, the death of the individual is necessitated by the life of infinite Spirit.

And I do accept the magic bullet theory — Gregory A

Even though physics shows that such a bullet path is impossible, hence the use of the word magic?

Your stupidity is (an effect) brought on by a zealous nature intellectual arrogance allows — Gregory A

Now there's a good example of the boiling pot calling out the frothing kettle!

In all fairness what would we do with these 3 Dawkins books : The Blind Watchmaker, The Selfish Gene & The God Delusion if evidence of a god were shown. How does he get away with 'The Magic of Reality' anyhow — Gregory A

Dawkins does not believe in magic! But yeah, he is allowed to reference the word, just like you reference words like 'science'.
What will we do with the bible, the quran, the torah etc if the god posit is proved false?
God would seem to have the easier route. Science may never be able to disprove god, yet all god has to do is appear and submit itself to scientific scrutiny. Should be easy for an it that manifests all the omnis.

:naughty:

I asked a simple question:

Does the scientific discovery of dark energy logically reveal an omnipotent power at work?

And so far I received a confused and sloppy hypothetical response that included dark energy may not exist and avoided the actual question about whether or not the power behind it could be logically an omnipotent power.

Why are you silly uneducated people on a philosophy forum when all you do is pull shit out of your asses and plagiarize the Internet?

Look up the word “philosophy”.

It isn’t defined as “love of bullshit”.

There are non-believers in a god/s and there are atheists, those that challenge theists.
— Gregory A

That's not how the word is used by most. If you make up your own usages, you'll likely be misunderstood, especially if you are demonizing/misrepresenting folks. Here's what I got from googling 'atheist,' just to be sure of myself before pointing it out.

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. — lll

Yours is an appeal to popular usage and if accepted why then the title of this thread 'The Invalidity of Atheism'. Why not let Google decide everything for us. We are here to present our own interpretation of what motivates the relevant groups. To me, for example, atheism is an element of the Left. Does Google agree. I don't think so. But they do at the same time take the 'Christ' out of their doodle leading up to and including Dec.25 their own atheism on display, and a show of solidarity with the Left.

Experience, in other words, is essentially fleeting and transitory, and its contents are incommunicable

A fairly accurate description of love in my opinion.

Pure spirit is nothing but this thinking activity, in which the individual thinker participates without himself (or herself) being the principal thinking agent. That thoughts present themselves to the consciousness of individual thinking subjects in temporal succession is due, not to the nature of thought itself, but to the nature of individuality, and to the fact that individual thinking subjects, while able to participate in the life of spirit, do not cease in doing so to exist as corporeally distinct entities who remain part of nature, and are thus not pure spirit......

I didn't want to waste space by quoting the whole article.

I wish the turn of phrase used by these people was a little less 'flowery' and more 'layperson' friendly.
Or perhaps I am just making excuses for my own limited comprehension of such wording.
Perhaps you can assist me @III After reading some of this, I thought it supported a panpsychist position, then I thought it was more duelist, and finally, I thought it may actually be in support of naturalism.
Is my thinking anywhere near what it is actually saying?

I had a look at the link you offered, I will add it to my ever-growing 'things I should read' list.

Does the scientific discovery of dark energy logically reveal an omnipotent power at work? — Joe Mello

No!

Why are you silly uneducated people on a philosophy forum when all you do is pull shit out of your asses and plagiarize the Internet?
Look up the word “philosophy”.
It isn’t defined as “love of bullshit”. — Joe Mello

:rofl: Stay Mello Joe. Your Mr Angry tattoo shows when your shirt sleeve rides up as you throw your old arms in the air in frustration. It's an ugly, ungodly tattoo that might earn you a place in Satan's playpen.
As gods enforcer, he also watches you and can set up a commlink. Your lucky that it doesn't exist either.

Yours is an appeal to popular usage and if accepted why then the title of this thread 'The Invalidity of Atheism'. Why not let Google decide everything for us. We are here to present our own interpretation of what motivates relevant groups. To me, for example, atheism is an element of the Left. Does Google agree. I don't think so. But they do at the same time take the 'Christ' out of their doodle leading up to and including Dec.25 their own atheism on display, and a show of solidarity with the Left. — Gregory A

Your comments about the 'political left' remind me of the world view of Maggie Thatcher.
You, like her, do a great service for 'lefties' like me. You create more of us than my best efforts ever could.

Yours is an appeal to popular usage and if accepted why then the title of this thread 'The Invalidity of Atheism'. — Gregory A

Oh, so we get to make up our own meanings ? My girl soak inky. I appreciate this weeps mail over potty. A roach beep some witch? A go sinner claws it ?

For get a boot out ! Its shelf help noses same stew me. Spore me your plops and puns and your both dump flu of has it. Go brick to pet. (But hairy back !)

But they do at the same time take the 'Christ' out of their doodle leading up to and including Dec.25 their own atheism on display, and a show of solidarity with the Left. — Gregory A

This sounds like Tucker talk, bought to your buy these sponsors, the rich that prey the poor against the poor with their bunk which deserves a snore. The real left is or could be the solidarity of folks that work for a living. The talking heads, actually rich and famous and privileged, are 'anti-elitist' because they gripe about Mexicans and Starbucks cups and pronouns and pledge the legions and skull prayer and a portion and sport the troops. Shrill whiny petty indignation, a mirror image of the participation trophy snowflake Left they obsess over. That's the Coyote's cardboard windmill. A man'll course his own shadow for a traitor, don't you know? Show me your bogey and I'll show you what you tamp down to fretlessly strut across this great strange of fools.

A fairly accurate description of love in my opinion. — universeness

I dig the humor, though I'm 25 years deep into my first real relationship. We evolved together, paid some serious dues, and now it's a fairly smooth ride.

After reading some of this, I thought it supported a panpsychist position, then I thought it was more duelist, and finally, I thought it may actually be in support of naturalism.
Is my thinking anywhere near what it is actually saying? — universeness

He was the 'you are what you eat' materialist guy, so beneath all the flowers is very much the soil of mortal flesh. When we think though, we participate in an inherited culture which is basically the operating system of our flesh. Before I can be a fascinating individual, I have to learn how to talk (welcome to the jingle!), and if I want to be 'logical' or 'rational' then I have to go 'where the thoughts lead me' and be 'coherent' and 'consistent.' The norm of rationality is understood to be universally binding. For instance, I don't get to make up a definition for 'atheist.' I can do that, but then I'm drifting away from the norm of individual-independent knowledge. To participate in philosophy is (ideally) to think without bias, to think 'from' or 'as' the point-at-infinity 'universal mind.' In my opinion, there's no need at all for the supernatural in this. It's just that language is so near us that we tend to ignore how freaky it is (ontically near is ontologically far), along with the implications of simple concepts like 'rational' and 'universal' and 'objective.' Wittgenstein's 'form of life' is (as I see it) basically the same thing. 'Spirit' is the fancy version for philosophers who were transforming a (pessimistic) Christian theology into an optimistic humanism, hoping no one who'd get mad would notice.

Grampa Joe: Does the scientific discovery of dark energy logically reveal an omnipotent power at work?

Grandchild: Can you tell me what you think dark energy is? Maybe we should start by doing some research. What are the sources of your information?

Grampa Joe: Don't be a smart aleck. The logical answer is God, goddamnit! Now go to sleep.

Mother: Dad you're frightening him.

Grampa Joe: Good! It will keep him off the damn internet.

Mother: So dad, where do you get your information on dark matter?

Grampa Joe: I don't need no damn information. The answer is God, goddamnit! Now go to sleep.

Mother: I don't think I can.

Well played.

Does the scientific discovery of dark energy logically reveal an omnipotent power at work? — Joe Mello

No Crazy Mello Joe. It logically reveals that there is a higher dimensional space, a non-simply connected space, consisting of two separated sub-spaces, connected by an ultra thin wormhole, the central source singularity. The gods created it, together with love-and-hate-loaded particles, to let two universe come into being periodically and eternally. One for each kind of god, a rough distinction into which godkind can be divided. They watch the heavenly theatre eternally now, realizing the sapiens-gods fucked up in their unified efforts to create and develop the so badly needed particles to give them two eternally repeating universes which they can watch contently relaxed. Only those strange foolish lunatic nee gods... They are looking for ways to communicate with us. I got some message recently. You wouldn't believe me! Keep on tuned, for the final revelation! You have been fooling yourself, Crazy Joe Mello!

Theism offers an explanation for our existence, atheism offers no explanations of its own, a weaker position. Naturalism is the counter-position to theism, atheism occupying a non-existent middle ground. The majority of the world's scientists, academics, etc. are not atheists accepting religion for what it is, Stephen Jay Gould's non-overlapping magisteria an example.

If atheism were valid, atheists would not be able to open their mouths. They would have nothing to talk about. — Gregory A

I've found atheism to be very aesthetically pleasing, just as much as theism

I've found atheism to be very aesthetically pleasing, just as much as theism — Gregory

It's you who should be Gregory A...

It's you who should be Gregory A... — EugeneW

haha

:fire:

Does the scientific discovery[prediction] of dark energy logically reveal an omnipotent power at work? — Joe Mello

No, sir. :shade:

:lol: :clap:

@180 Proof
@lll
@Fooloso4

Astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson, an atheist, disagrees with you three boys, and calls the discovery of Dark Energy the best argument he's seen for the existence of an omnipotent God.

But, hey, you have each other and adolescent emojis for an argument against it.

I said to watch the responses, and you boys have not disappointed.

To an objective rational mind, and not an adolescent giggling mind, an omnipotent power would create an ever-increasing energy, while a finite power would create an ever-diminishing energy.

It's not even a philosophical debate, but a logical deduction.

You boys are on the wrong forum. Try like a video game or television forum. That way you won't keep embarrassing yourselves to actual persons who know how to think upon meanings beyond what makes an adolescent giggle.

And ...

Grandpa Joe is a foreman and owner of a painting company, can work twice as fast as any of his workers, does all the dangerous high (60' sometimes) work, and has this little game he plays with people where he offers them $100 if they can guess his age. At Sherwin Williams today, while he was checking out a large order of paint, he grabbed a can of paint from an elderly customer he was talking to and said he would pay for it if he could guess his age. The old guy said, "45". Grandpa Joe replied, "I'll be 70 this year". The old guy then said, "You're lying".

Grandpa Joe enjoys playing this game and has gotten guesses from 40 to about 55, and never in the 60s.

Grandpa Joe is a living Dúnedain Ranger. His grandsons, who have worked on his crew, call him "The Ninja".

According to Thomas Aquinas, God is in the world in his essence. So God is us, closer to us than our egos

Hey, Joe. I'm sorry if I was too rude or taunting. You did sorta ask for it, but I really don't want an ugly vibe. So good luck on your future endeavors! I'll leave you to it.

Keep on tuned, for the final revelation! — EugeneW

Beautiful sentence, friend. 'Keep on tuned' indeed.

Regardless it does look like you're downplaying atheism's actual intentions which are to take away the rights of those who believe.
— Gregory A
— lll

That's paranoid projection, brother, for which you have not made a case. I'm not sure that most people can walk without that crutch or something like it. If you take away Jesus, they'll get their fix from the child-eating lizardmen who live in tunnels or the Pleiadians come to save us from outer space. If the species makes it another few centuries, we'll probably have believers in the mutterings of a pontifical pulsar, with cryptographers interpreting its beeps and buzzes for a priesthood. I suspect that you're defending a monotheism (and not 'the Seven' or The Secret) simply because you were born among those who babbled of it and not some other fairy's tail. You've shown up late, too, for its glory days are past indeed, and the educated, if still Christian, are at least modest enough to take their theology negative (figurative or cultural at the least.)

It's 'put up or what' from Athiests? Why should theists accept this arrogance. What puts atheism on this higher ground that they may challenge the beliefs of others, that's while holding no belief in our origins themselves.

Belief is an entitlement and should not be challenged. If a theist projects their belief, then it, not themselves are open to challenge. And notice that if something should exist, then any challenge to it needs to apply absurdities/impossibilities (flying spaghetti monsters, child-eating lizardmen). An elephant is an unlikely creature, but nothing I could say would dismiss its existence. I would then need to point out its ability to fly as a way of dismissing it.

You can check out The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire to discover that Christianity was originally an offensive heresy that refused to tolerate the other religions already in place, like an only child who just would not share its toys.

That those who enjoyed watching people being eaten alive by lions should find the compassion of Christians offensive heresy makes sense.

I'm not religious, but can still say thank God for Christianity.

Astrophysicist Neil Degrasse Tyson ... — Joe Mello

Isn't he the guy that is all over the internet and youtube? Shouldn't that disqualify him? Are you a closet internet plagiarizer?

... an atheist, disagrees with you three boys, and calls the discovery of Dark Energy the best argument he's seen for the existence of an omnipotent God. — Joe Mello

And yet, he remains an atheist. The best argument but not good enough. How about a citation quoting where you read this so we can read it in context.

Grandpa Joe is a foreman and owner of a painting company — Joe Mello

Good to know if I ever want to discuss house painting. Brush or roller or spray?