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. — Gregory A

Can't speak for others, but some of us are not afraid to admit we just don't fucking know. Upon a little reflection (though against the grain of attachment), the noisemark 'God' is revealed as a piece of machinery that don't even work, that don't explain shit, but only replaces a complex thing that needs explaining with a yet more complex and inscrutable entity. It's like explaining a knock knock joke with fake vomit. There is no there there, just a smily face drawn on a darkness, a transparently phony attempt to paint a daddy on the blue that we came out of and the black that we go into.

@lll

Seems you’re a man and not a boy.

Good luck to you, too.

Sorry Tom, I'm sticking different things in that hole when I don't have an answer... — EugeneW

Tell me more.

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. — Joe Mello

Clearly, gramps, you're either too illiterate or too addled with age or both, so here's a very short video of Dr. Tyson spelling out the atheistic context within which he considers the "discovery of Dark Energy" (it's actually a prediction, Joe, that's not yet been observed, or "discovered"):

If dark energy is "the best argument", as you babble, in the context of the statements above, it's certainly not a sound argument ... like your uninformed ramblings.

NB: Btw, Dr. Tyson is neither a philosopher nor a theologian, therefore you citing him but not also his "arguments about god" – notice, at the end of the video clip, Tyson considers his "beliefs irrelevant" to scientific findings (re: "the real world") – has no substance and is nothing more than a pathetic attempt at a fallacious appeal to authority. So ... you ought to take sonething for that flatulence, old man. :smirk:

:lol:
That was as solid a rebuttal as anyone could ask for. Too bad it will be dismissed out of hand.
Made me laugh though.
The level of projection at work in this thread is psychologically remarkable. One guy remarked how important this thread must be to atheists cuz its 18 pages (at the time)…from the person whose making 90% of the posts with two other of gods special children. The disingenuous and dishonest discourse doesnt seem like the way jesus would have done it.

An online dialectical rodeo-clown's work is never done but, with all the nonstop bulls*** on threads like this one, somebody (bored enough) has gotta deal with it. :sweat:

I suspect trolling is as common amongst theists as it is amongst atheists. That is, its hard to imagine they actually believe everything they are saying. My guess is they are angry because they feel insulted by atheists, which in itself is a staggering hypocrisy.

Atheism's antipathy for theists is apparent whenever an atheist opens his or her mouth.
— Gregory A

To be an atheist is usually to also be a relatively educated person with respect for science. The average theist who shoulders into an intellectual discussion comes off as 'pre-philosophical' in their apparent disregard of the norms of critical inquiry or just polite conversation. For instance, the contempt that this or that noisy atheist may have for your current beliefs is not censorship. It sounds to me like you'd like them silenced for hurting your feelings. Free speech cuts both ways, — lll

It should worry you that atheism is a product of a particular environment, the same one that gave us communism, and gives us pacifism, feminism and other left-wing ideologies.

To me the right of free speech includes being a member of the KKK, being a Nazi, a devil worshiper, a pedophile, a pacifist, an anarchist, an atheist, even a feminist. Why? Because with due respect to your godlessness, these people might just turn out to be right. There would be few rules that need respecting when it comes to Natural outcomes. We might alternatively be wiped out by nuclear war for example.

I'm here defending a right to free speech while trying to silence others?

'It sounds to me' that you are just turning my argument around to suit. An immature thing to do.

I'm here defending a right to free-speech while trying to silence others? — Gregory A

Let me clarify. You've talked as if there's a threat of theists being silenced by some gang that includes Dawkins. I've said that you haven't made a case for what just sounds like paranoia to me. In general you remind me of Tucker Carlson, who I think is a cynical manipulator of his fans. He's just so shrill. He's a bow-tie white boy mega-Karen. Whether he's influenced you or not, you've both got the same 'worm in your brain' from my perspective, except he might just be faking it. As I've said in other words before, beware the all too ordinary madness of an unrealistic boogeyman. Your cholesterol level might be more of a threat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THUFzmmKMPs

I'm here defending a right to free-speech while trying to silence others?
— Gregory A

Let me clarify. You've talked as if there's a threat of theists being silenced by some gang that includes Dawkins. I've said that you haven't made a case for what just sounds like paranoia to me. In general you remind me of Tucker Carlson, who I think is a cynical manipulator of his fans. He's just so shrill. He's a bow-tie white boy mega-Karen. Whether he's influenced you or not, you've both got the same 'worm in your brain' from my perspective, except he might just be faking it. As I've said in other words before, beware the all too ordinary madness of an unrealistic boogeyman. Your cholesterol level might be more of a threat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THUFzmmKMPs — lll

It's because I've no trouble understanding what you are saying that you should have reason to worry.

If Richard Dawkins were a non-believer in a god/s we would (mostly) not know who he is. We do know who he is because he's an atheist, someone actively opposed to theism. Yes, he has that right, but be honest about it. Dawkins personal motivations are there, but regardless atheism is an element of the Left by virtue of the fact it represents an attack on patriarchy.

The name sounds familiar, but otherwise, I've never heard of Tucker Carlson. My beliefs are pretty much my own and trace my understanding back to what I see as the foundation for Left and Right, our 'X' and our 'Y' chromosomes.

Despite predicting there will be no males left within 100 years, my real fear is being silenced well before that time. The Left has so far censored no less than the President of the USA, I'm a nobody.

Don't let a comfortable existence lull you into a false sense of security, I'm a theist yet can still foresee terrible outcomes, you, a non-believer should have no excuses.

I've never heard of Tucker Carlson. — Gregory A

No kidding? The dude is the loudest voice on the right, last I checked.

If Richard Dawkins were a non-believer in a god/s we would (mostly) not know who he is. — Gregory A

The Selfish Gene is an exciting/good book (you might like it, given your interest in chromesones), and I think he was already famous as a popularizer of evolutionary science and felt that rationality and science needed to be defended. Just as you may feel males need defending. If you read his book, you'll see why males and females automatically stay just about balanced. It's game-theoretical.

I see as the foundation for Left and Right, our 'X' and our 'Y' chromosomes. — Gregory A

There are plenty of men on the left, plenty of women on the right. A war of the sexes sounds like a fortunately unrealistic nightmare. Some of us are married and/or have great friendships with women (or at least hope to at some point.)

Don't let a comfortable existence lull you into a false sense of security, I'm a theist yet can still foresee terrible outcomes, you, a non-believer should have no excuses. — Gregory A

I'm genuinely concerned that you might be troubled in some way. From my perspective, you are worried about something that's as unlikely as aliens attacking the planet. Please seek help if you are having violent fantasies. Seriously. I know women, lots of 'em, and they aren't scheming against us ! They love us more than we love ourselves sometimes.

Also seems unfortunate that your theism isn't more of a comfort. Personally I've never been tempted to mess with beliefs that seem to be working for people. I'm only critical of others' beliefs on philosophy forums, since that's why we're here, or at least philosophy includes for many people.

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 — lll

:grin: Always glad to hear about long-lasting and in the main, 'beneficial,' and positive human relationships. I have very good friendships but I have always chosen badly when it comes to a female partner. Never been married and no kids (thankfully). I have been engaged twice but both of those long term (well, only around 4 years each actually) turned out bad. So, since I was around my late twenties, I only indulge in sporadic visits to lady land, I tend to run from anything more and the offers have reduced to close to zero as I am now closer to 60.

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.' — lll

I think the majority of people demonstrate such intentions. Good people do it with humility and balance,

To participate in philosophy is (ideally) to think without bias — lll

It's a very interesting word, 'bias.' in my opinion it is no less relevant in politics or in science than it is in philosophy. Your sentence is in general, good advice as a MEASURE of the difference between skewed thinking and good thinking. I have my preferred approaches to problem-solving but I will try not to merely 'hate' all that I find 'evil,' from racists to billionaires to evanhellicals to autocrats. It's really easy for me to hate each of them. I try to search for evidence of some good in each person on a case-by-case basis. I feel a strong bias against people I consider to be 'bad,' but I can get past it if they demonstrate an ability to learn how to treat others better. I am a strong advocate of the golden rule as the prime directive, 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you.'

'Spirit' is the fancy version for philosophers who were transforming a (pessimistic) Christian theology into an optimistic humanism — lll

A good goal, which I subscribe to. An old description of 'spiritual' is merely to be 'animated' or to move about. Carl Sagan often used the term in this way to pour cold water in its association with 'supernatural' but I think most people today DO still associate the term with the supernatural.

:rofl: :rofl:
That's exactly how that conversation would go down! :rofl:

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" — Joe Mello

This reminds me of a short extract from a conversation in a crematorium.

Employee 1: Wow, what a beautiful corpse!
Employee 2: Certainly is!
Employee 1: Guy must have really looked after himself.
Employee 2: Yep, well, do you want to take some final photo's (ha ha) or will we just cremate it?
Employee 1: Yeah, let's get on, lots more to do today!

I hope your personal maintenance efforts award you long long life but nothing you have said above has any relevance AT ALL, to the existence of your god.
When I read your comments above, I saw an image in my head, of the horse from the animated movie of George Orwell's Animal Farm, go figure...
You sound too 'bulky' and too much of a 'heavy lifter' to be 'Ninja like.'
I would have lost the $100 bet as well because I have read your typings about your life viewpoints so I would have guessed your age as much, much younger than 40.
I am amazed that after 70+ years living as a human. Your own (humble?) opinion of yourself and your 'in your head' life achievements have the significance to you and others that you suggest above.
A very poor, small, weak, hungry person working as a cleaner in a big tent which passes as a hospital, on the outskirts of a poor village in a 3rd world country is more significant to the human condition on this planet than you could ever EVER be!

I'm not religious, but can still say thank God for Christianity — Gregory A

I think this just about sums up your logic.
I am sure we all await more such 'pearls of wisdom' from you.

How about:
I am not religious but thank god for Islam.
I am not religious but thank god for religion.
I am not political but thank providence for Politics.
I am not scientific but thank providence for Science.
I am not a thinker but thank providence for Thinking.

I'm genuinely concerned that you might be troubled in some way. From my perspective, you are worried about something that's as unlikely as aliens attacking the planet. Please seek help if you are having violent fantasies. Seriously. I know women, lots of 'em, and they aren't scheming against us ! They love us more than we love ourselves sometimes.

Also seems unfortunate that your theism isn't more of a comfort. Personally I've never been tempted to mess with beliefs that seem to be working for people. I'm only critical of others' beliefs on philosophy forums, since that's why we're here, or at least philosophy includes for many people — lll

You have a strong imperative towards what I would consider 'humanism.'
You add to my hopes for a better future for all of us by such typings!

You have a strong imperative towards what I would consider 'humanism.'
You add to my hopes for a better future for all of us by such typings! — universeness

Thank you for your kind words!

I am a strong advocate of the golden rule as the prime directive, 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' — universeness

Pretty solid rule indeed.

An old description of 'spiritual' is merely to be 'animated' or to move about. Carl Sagan often used the term in this way to pour cold water in its association with 'supernatural' but I think most people today DO still associate the term with the supernatural. — universeness

Yes indeed. Time's change. I like reading old books. It frees my mind from being stuck in today's little vocabulary. I also notice that many (not all) problems that seem new are not new at all.

I often find a lot of your typing to be rather cryptic and you have to toil a little to follow your meaning but that's just down to my own preference for 'plain talk'. I do however fully accept that plain language often lacks the emotive power needed when discussing significant issues or the 'big questions.'
I do glaze over when reading the 'in-house' terminology or turn of phrase associated with subject-specific publishings but I have necessarily done so myself in the past when writing computing science educational materials for use in schools. I also think storytelling would lose its 'heart' if the choice of language was restricted in any way. I suppose I will just have to persevere, regardless of my perceived frustration with the language approach of others.
So, carry on my cryptic friend! Your good heart seems to shine through anyway.

@180 Proof

I said he’s an atheist and told you what he said about Dark Energy, in other words, I juxtaposed his atheism alongside his view of Dark Energy as the best argument he has seen for an omnipotent God.

And you gave me a rebuttal by searching for a video that shows me he’s an atheist and doesn’t show me his comment on Dark Energy.

And you gave me talking points attacking religious people.

See, this is what happens when a person is uneducated in higher education and hasn’t taken courses such as Logic and Rhetorical Theory, which I did when getting a Philosophy degree and Graduate degree in Professional Writing.

You had to show me where he didn’t say what I said he said about Dark Energy, and actually said that it wasn’t a good argument for an omnipotent power, not what his poor philosophical mind says about God when equating God with religion and faith. The point I made was that even with his poor philosophical mind he still logically deduced that Dark Energy displays the characteristics of an omnipotent power.

I get it. You sat on the toilet one day reading a book by Dawkins and had an epiphany about God. Good for you, you circumvented getting the proper education for thinking upon God beyond what you heard from religious people, like Neil’s lopsided education in science did to him.

But his education at least gave to him a moment of logical deduction when he thought upon the mystery of our universe expanding at an ever-increasing speed through the power of an even more mysterious Dark Energy.

You think poorly, write poorly, and are simply a face in a crowd of others like you with very big mouths attached to very small minds.

And to you and them, no Google machine was used in the writing of this actual very good rebuttal.

Stop embarrassing yourselves. It’s ugly to watch.

I often find a lot of your typing to be rather cryptic and you have to toil a little to follow your meaning but that's just down to my own preference for 'plain talk'. — universeness

I try to adjust my talk to the conversation, but sometimes I can't help having too much fun. There is a beauty to the simple style a person can find in Hemingway, for example. The Sun Also Rises is great. The Feuerbach stuff can be summed up by saying that 'God' is just the good stuff in us, our thoughts and feelings, and that that is enough. We participate in something bigger than us when we plug in to the rest of the species through thinking and music and art and so on. The great geniuses leave a stain in the 'tribal memory.' I also like the idea of a flame that leaps from melting candle to melting candle. Our bodies are the candles, and the flame ,which we think of as ourselves, is just as much made of all the people who came before. After all, who invented the very language we think in ? It was developed over time, with individuals leaving little 'stains' of their minds to become parts of the minds of those not yet born. To me this helps us feel less alone and less afraid to die. We're not really little ghosts trapped in a box. We are linked through language and feeling. The box is something like an illusion. To me there is nothing supernatural in all of this. It all boils down to thought and feeling. It doesn't big us the big answers. It doesn't save us from death. But it connects us in life.

I suppose I will just have to persevere, regardless of my perceived frustration with the language approach of others.
So, carry on my cryptic friend! Your good heart seems to shine through anyway. — universeness

Thanks ! Your good heart is also apparent, my friend.

:wink:

Updated the post, added something I hope you'll like.

I couldn't spot anything marked 'EDIT' in your last few posts but I did 'like' all you have typed in your last few posts. :smile:

Oh, I see it now:

The Feuerbach stuff can be summed up by saying that 'God' is just the good stuff in us, our thoughts and feelings, and that that is enough. We participate in something bigger than us when we plug in to the rest of the species through thinking and music and art and so on. The great geniuses leave a stain in the 'tribal memory.' I also like the idea of a flame that leaps from melting candle to melting candle. Our bodies are the candles, and the flame ,which we think of as ourselves, is just as much made of all the people who came before. After all, who invented the very language we think in ? It was developed over time, with individuals leaving little 'stains' of their minds to become parts of the minds of those not yet born. To me this helps us feel less alone and less afraid to die. We're not really little ghosts trapped in a box. We are linked through language and feeling. The box is something like an illusion. To me there is nothing supernatural in all of this. It all boils down to thought and feeling. It doesn't big us the big answers. It doesn't save us from death. But it connects us in life. — lll

The Feuerbach stuff can be summed up by saying that 'God' is just the good stuff in us, our thoughts and feelings, and that that is enough. We participate in something bigger than us when we plug in to the rest of the species through thinking and music and art and so on. The great geniuses leave a stain in the 'tribal memory.' I also like the idea of a flame that leaps from melting candle to melting candle. Our bodies are the candles, and the flame ,which we think of as ourselves, is just as much made of all the people who came before. After all, who invented the very language we think in ? It was developed over time, with individuals leaving little 'stains' of their minds to become parts of the minds of those not yet born. To me this helps us feel less alone and less afraid to die. We're not really little ghosts trapped in a box. We are linked through language and feeling. The box is something like an illusion. To me there is nothing supernatural in all of this. It all boils down to thought and feeling. It doesn't big us the big answers. It doesn't save us from death. But it connects us in life. — lll

Thanks for your translation, I appreciate your time and effort, spent on my behalf.
I don't agree with crediting that which I am convinced does not exist as the source of any personal good I may be judged by others as possessing or as something I regularly or sporadically demonstrate.
I think he aids the theist posit of associating 'good' with 'god,' and he ignores the many storytelling traditions which also assign such words as evil/jealous/vengeful/angry etc to god(s).

We participate in something bigger than us when we plug in to the rest of the species through thinking and music and art and so on.

For you, what is this 'something bigger,' is sounds like panpsychism to me. I have posted before that I don't utterly reject the posit of some kind of emergent panpsychism but I would need much more evidence of such before I could give more credence to it than 'yeah, well.....but.....'

To me this helps us feel less alone and less afraid to die. We're not really little ghosts trapped in a box. We are linked through language and feeling.

I agree, the term ghost has no significance for me as a 'physicalist,' and I agree that we are not 'trapped in a box' due to any limitation of our existence within the Universe, I do think that our species is currently trapped on this glorious planet but we have the potential to leave the nest. I certainly feel and almost 'know' the 'linkage,' between all of us that you infer.

To me there is nothing supernatural in all of this.
I soooooooo agree, supernatural is nothing more than a theistic plug for a human gap in knowledge as is god.

For you, what is this 'something bigger,' is sounds like panpsychism to me. — universeness

It really as something as simple as science or literature or music or philosophy. To do these things are to interact with something bigger than the individual. For Feuerbach, there's nothing 'bigger' than the human species. God, for him, was just a projection of the best parts of ourselves (a giant nice daddy with infinite knowledge), and humanism is just us reeling that projection back in and building Heaven on earth.

I agree, the term ghost has no significance for me as a 'physicalist, — universeness

My metaphor is misleading, I see. The 'ghost' just refers to the popular idea of a solitary consciousness. One philosopher (Ryle) called this 'the ghost in the machine.' The far out version would be : how do you know that you are a singular person? Why are you an 'I' and not a 'we' or a 'this' ? We inherit ways of talking and thinking, and we take them as if they are more than that.

Take a field trip to a monastery nearby to speak to a person who spends their day dedicated to a “spiritual” life.

Then your judgement of “spiritual” will include actual research into what it is, rather than a one-sided trip into your own head.

I certainly feel and almost 'know' the 'linkage,' between all of us that you infer. — universeness

Nice ! We using the ordinary 'magic' of language for that right now. Amazing ability we've evolved biologically, culturally, and technologically (given the help of the screens and wires.)