World Famous Atheists, Agnostics and Non Theists

Options
13

Comments

  • alissowack
    alissowack Members Posts: 1,930 ✭✭✭
    Options
    West Brooklyn wrote: »

    Generally speaking, why would anybody need to believe that you exist...in order for you to exist? Your existence is not depended on who knows you or not. Many people have lived and died not knowing who you are and you are still here. Why wouldn't ? be any different?



    Because supposedly the Bible ? wants mankind to know and accept him. If we're talking something like deism, then it's different but the Christian ? is personal.

    You are right is saying that ? (of the Bible) wants mankind to know Him and accept Him. But, does it mean that ? ceases to exist because someone doesn't want to know ? ...or doesn't believe that He exists? Does He need the approval of His believers to survive?

    Now it's possible for ? 's Existence to be a matter of relevance. I've heard it said by posters they don't need ? when it comes to matters of decisions and actions and there is a certain "truth" to it. Hey...you don't need me for matters of your life. But, just to say that ? is depended on man's brain power to have life put's ? in a position where He really doesn't have a life of His Own. He just goes wherever the wind blows and when we die, ? dies with us.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Bodhi
    Bodhi Members Posts: 7,932 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    alissowack wrote: »
    Now it's possible for ? 's Existence to be a matter of relevance. I've heard it said by posters they don't need ? when it comes to matters of decisions and actions and there is a certain "truth" to it. Hey...you don't need me for matters of your life. But, just to say that ? is depended on man's brain power to have life put's ? in a position where He really doesn't have a life of His Own. He just goes wherever the wind blows and when we die, ? dies with us.

    I think you missed the point inferred from those type of statements. The point is that man's mind created ? , not the other way around. So, ? 's "existence" is in the minds of man, and not actually real; like an imaginary friend.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • alissowack
    alissowack Members Posts: 1,930 ✭✭✭
    Options
    West Brooklyn wrote: »
    alissowack wrote: »
    Now it's possible for ? 's Existence to be a matter of relevance. I've heard it said by posters they don't need ? when it comes to matters of decisions and actions and there is a certain "truth" to it. Hey...you don't need me for matters of your life. But, just to say that ? is depended on man's brain power to have life put's ? in a position where He really doesn't have a life of His Own. He just goes wherever the wind blows and when we die, ? dies with us.

    I think you missed the point inferred from those type of statements. The point is that man's mind created ? , not the other way around. So, ? 's "existence" is in the minds of man, and not actually real; like an imaginary friend.

    But, you are not seeing the point that I am trying to make. If ? exists, the deity is not depended on what we think or what we "imagine". ? would exist apart from who we are. As far we know, the perceptions and presuppositions we have about ? are imaginary. Just because I (or anybody else for that matter) can read a Bible doesn't mean that I am an authority in saying who He is or is not. I can think you are from West Brooklyn according to your avatar name. I could be right, I could be wrong. But I can't think that means that you submit to where I think you are from. It's the other way around.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Bodhi
    Bodhi Members Posts: 7,932 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    alissowack wrote: »
    But, you are not seeing the point that I am trying to make. If ? exists, the deity is not depended on what we think or what we "imagine". ? would exist apart from who we are. As far we know, the perceptions and presuppositions we have about ? are imaginary. Just because I (or anybody else for that matter) can read a Bible doesn't mean that I am an authority in saying who He is or is not. I can think you are from West Brooklyn according to your avatar name. I could be right, I could be wrong. But I can't think that means that you submit to where I think you are from. It's the other way around.

    does anything exist apart from what we are?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Jabu_Rule
    Jabu_Rule Members Posts: 5,993 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2012
    Options
    alissowack wrote: »
    West Brooklyn wrote: »
    alissowack wrote: »
    Now it's possible for ? 's Existence to be a matter of relevance. I've heard it said by posters they don't need ? when it comes to matters of decisions and actions and there is a certain "truth" to it. Hey...you don't need me for matters of your life. But, just to say that ? is depended on man's brain power to have life put's ? in a position where He really doesn't have a life of His Own. He just goes wherever the wind blows and when we die, ? dies with us.

    I think you missed the point inferred from those type of statements. The point is that man's mind created ? , not the other way around. So, ? 's "existence" is in the minds of man, and not actually real; like an imaginary friend.

    But, you are not seeing the point that I am trying to make. If ? exists, the deity is not depended on what we think or what we "imagine". ? would exist apart from who we are. As far we know, the perceptions and presuppositions we have about ? are imaginary. Just because I (or anybody else for that matter) can read a Bible doesn't mean that I am an authority in saying who He is or is not. I can think you are from West Brooklyn according to your avatar name. I could be right, I could be wrong. But I can't think that means that you submit to where I think you are from. It's the other way around.

    I think to make such a statement, you would have to consider where ? would fit into the current universe as we know it. We don't know a lot but, we can infer much with what we do know and the concept of ? as offered as to adhere to certain laws in order to create us and interact with us. It's like dark matter being unobservable other then the fact that it affects other forces in the universe. Many thought there was a real hell below the earth at a point and described it using things that would apply to what is actually beneath the earth, fire and brimstone. Also, why does the current state of the universe require a builder? Why can the universe not be self sustaining without requiring outside factors like the eternity that is granted to ? ? Your already giving ? human persona when you use words like "He".
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • bambu
    bambu Members Posts: 3,529 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    West Brooklyn wrote: »


    This thread is to pay homage to world famous non theists who contributed to the universe and the lives of humanity. Thread will be updated daily.

    http://youtu.be/8wrm5PVMiMw
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Bodhi
    Bodhi Members Posts: 7,932 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2012
    Options
    alissowack wrote: »
    As far we know, the perceptions and presuppositions we have about ? are imaginary.

    Including or excluding the idea that he exists?



    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • alissowack
    alissowack Members Posts: 1,930 ✭✭✭
    Options
    West Brooklyn wrote: »
    alissowack wrote: »
    As far we know, the perceptions and presuppositions we have about ? are imaginary.

    Including or excluding the idea that he exists?

    Including. The thing is this. There is nothing particularly wrong with having an idea about the existence of ? . I think it's harmless to say that if ? exists, that the deity is a being that transcends time and space; that is not bound by the limitations we have and this deity can chose to act however, whenever, wherever and with whoever. It is when we take it upon ourselves to think that ? would need us to assign an identity or a set of "things a deity is suppose to do" that creates the strife. And if we just happen to know who this deity is, it doesn't add or take away from the being's own sense of self. It's more of an acknowledgement we make to ourselves than reminders just in case this deity is uncertain of self.

    I think you know my "religion" and I tried my best to refrain from using "He" or "Him" (only because FuriousOne pointed out) but now in respect to Christianity I will let loose. I believe ? is who He says He is in the Bible. It doesn't necessarily mean I agree or disagree with what is said, but it is to say that if it is true...I am in no position to say that I created ? to be who He is or that ? needs my help.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • alissowack
    alissowack Members Posts: 1,930 ✭✭✭
    Options
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    alissowack wrote: »
    West Brooklyn wrote: »
    alissowack wrote: »
    Now it's possible for ? 's Existence to be a matter of relevance. I've heard it said by posters they don't need ? when it comes to matters of decisions and actions and there is a certain "truth" to it. Hey...you don't need me for matters of your life. But, just to say that ? is depended on man's brain power to have life put's ? in a position where He really doesn't have a life of His Own. He just goes wherever the wind blows and when we die, ? dies with us.

    I think you missed the point inferred from those type of statements. The point is that man's mind created ? , not the other way around. So, ? 's "existence" is in the minds of man, and not actually real; like an imaginary friend.

    But, you are not seeing the point that I am trying to make. If ? exists, the deity is not depended on what we think or what we "imagine". ? would exist apart from who we are. As far we know, the perceptions and presuppositions we have about ? are imaginary. Just because I (or anybody else for that matter) can read a Bible doesn't mean that I am an authority in saying who He is or is not. I can think you are from West Brooklyn according to your avatar name. I could be right, I could be wrong. But I can't think that means that you submit to where I think you are from. It's the other way around.

    I think to make such a statement, you would have to consider where ? would fit into the current universe as we know it. We don't know a lot but, we can infer much with what we do know and the concept of ? as offered as to adhere to certain laws in order to create us and interact with us. It's like dark matter being unobservable other then the fact that it affects other forces in the universe. Many thought there was a real hell below the earth at a point and described it using things that would apply to what is actually beneath the earth, fire and brimstone. Also, why does the current state of the universe require a builder? Why can the universe not be self sustaining without requiring outside factors like the eternity that is granted to ? ? Your already giving ? human persona when you use words like "He".

    I think that where we go wrong. We are putting ourselves in a position we are saying that ? must conform to us instead of the other way around. It's not just the non-believers, but the believers as well. I gave a harmless concept of ? in the previous post as transcending time and space, not bound to the limitations we have and can do whatever, however, whenever, wherever and with whoever. If this is true, then no one can conclude that they have done anything to stretch infinity any further for this deity. We are not in a position to question intentions...? questions ours.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Bodhi
    Bodhi Members Posts: 7,932 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2012
    Options
    alissowack wrote: »
    Including.

    Then why even entertain the idea?
    alissowack wrote: »
    I think it's harmless to say that if ? exists, that the deity is a being that transcends time and space

    How could a being outside of time interact with cause and effect in our universe? Anything outside of cause and effect would not be able to interact with it. Anything outside of time could not act in any way like a person. If he were to "act" at all, he could only "act" once and that would lead us in the direction of something like a quantum vaccuum. A being outside of time cannot do whatever, whenever, however, and with whoever for the simple fact that it is outside time.
    alissowack wrote: »
    I believe ? is who He says He is in the Bible


    On one end, you say that the presuppositions and perceptions we have of ? could be wrong and on the other, you say you completely believe the Bible. While I admit, I admire the fact that you are at least honest about the fact that you could be wrong (and I believe you are), from a Christian perspective, all we know; all the perceptions and presuppositions we have of ? come from the Bible. So, ultimately, the Bible could be wrong, and on many points, it is.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Jabu_Rule
    Jabu_Rule Members Posts: 5,993 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2012
    Options
    alissowack wrote: »
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    alissowack wrote: »
    West Brooklyn wrote: »
    alissowack wrote: »
    Now it's possible for ? 's Existence to be a matter of relevance. I've heard it said by posters they don't need ? when it comes to matters of decisions and actions and there is a certain "truth" to it. Hey...you don't need me for matters of your life. But, just to say that ? is depended on man's brain power to have life put's ? in a position where He really doesn't have a life of His Own. He just goes wherever the wind blows and when we die, ? dies with us.

    I think you missed the point inferred from those type of statements. The point is that man's mind created ? , not the other way around. So, ? 's "existence" is in the minds of man, and not actually real; like an imaginary friend.

    But, you are not seeing the point that I am trying to make. If ? exists, the deity is not depended on what we think or what we "imagine". ? would exist apart from who we are. As far we know, the perceptions and presuppositions we have about ? are imaginary. Just because I (or anybody else for that matter) can read a Bible doesn't mean that I am an authority in saying who He is or is not. I can think you are from West Brooklyn according to your avatar name. I could be right, I could be wrong. But I can't think that means that you submit to where I think you are from. It's the other way around.

    I think to make such a statement, you would have to consider where ? would fit into the current universe as we know it. We don't know a lot but, we can infer much with what we do know and the concept of ? as offered as to adhere to certain laws in order to create us and interact with us. It's like dark matter being unobservable other then the fact that it affects other forces in the universe. Many thought there was a real hell below the earth at a point and described it using things that would apply to what is actually beneath the earth, fire and brimstone. Also, why does the current state of the universe require a builder? Why can the universe not be self sustaining without requiring outside factors like the eternity that is granted to ? ? Your already giving ? human persona when you use words like "He".

    I think that where we go wrong. We are putting ourselves in a position we are saying that ? must conform to us instead of the other way around. It's not just the non-believers, but the believers as well. I gave a harmless concept of ? in the previous post as transcending time and space, not bound to the limitations we have and can do whatever, however, whenever, wherever and with whoever. If this is true, then no one can conclude that they have done anything to stretch infinity any further for this deity. We are not in a position to question intentions...? questions ours.

    But you giving ? these concepts without actually knowing their validity yourself, having testable reproducible proof, or verifying the words of others. We can't directly know our interactions with the universe unless we use enhanced tools to interact with substances that our eyes weren't designed to see. Everything interacts with everything, we are part of this universe made up of atoms and photons. Why do you conclude that such an entity that you describe is necessary for the universe to exist as per your description? I noticed you stopped using "He", but if ? has no need to interact with us, then why question our intentions? Why are our intentions worth so much merit for something that ? doesn't need to be concerned with?

    Seems overly narrow for a ? , but i guess i shouldn't question that. And if we are judged, and found guilty, what is your proof of gods wrath other then Natural events? All too convenient. You're telling me that ? pops in and out of this plane of a supposed Multi-verse without interaction and residual effects? Are we being groomed to be Gods? Other then that, it's a wasteful interaction if we don't hold enough value to impact ? . It's actually not a matter of questioning intent because the universe in my view has none. Our intent is to survive in it by any means.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Jabu_Rule
    Jabu_Rule Members Posts: 5,993 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2012
    Options
    Albert Einstein
    220px-Albert_Einstein_%28Nobel%29.png

    Albert Einstein was a German-born theoretical physicist who developed the general theory of relativity, effecting a revolution in physics.

    http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/04/einstein-letter-set-for-auction-shows-scientist-challenging-idea-of-? -being-chosen/?hpt=hp_c2
    The word ? is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends,” Einstein wrote in German in a 1954 letter that will be auctioned on eBay later this month. "No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
    For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions. And the Jewish people to whom I gladly belong and with whose mentality I have a deep affinity have no different quality for me than all other people. As far as my experience goes, they are also no better than other human groups … I cannot see anything ‘chosen’ about them.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • alissowack
    alissowack Members Posts: 1,930 ✭✭✭
    edited October 2012
    Options
    West Brooklyn wrote: »
    alissowack wrote: »
    Including.

    Then why even entertain the idea?
    alissowack wrote: »
    I think it's harmless to say that if ? exists, that the deity is a being that transcends time and space

    How could a being outside of time interact with cause and effect in our universe? Anything outside of cause and effect would not be able to interact with it. Anything outside of time could not act in any way like a person. If he were to "act" at all, he could only "act" once and that would lead us in the direction of something like a quantum vaccuum. A being outside of time cannot do whatever, whenever, however, and with whoever for the simple fact that it is outside time.
    alissowack wrote: »
    I believe ? is who He says He is in the Bible


    On one end, you say that the presuppositions and perceptions we have of ? could be wrong and on the other, you say you completely believe the Bible. While I admit, I admire the fact that you are at least honest about the fact that you could be wrong (and I believe you are), from a Christian perspective, all we know; all the perceptions and presuppositions we have of ? come from the Bible. So, ultimately, the Bible could be wrong, and on many points, it is.

    You think that when people think about the idea of ? , it is just something people toy with? You've been in a lot of e-forums and seen just how heated things can get when someone brings it up. People have given their lives to this whether they were mistaken or not. It's wondering if they are serving a purpose greater than themselves that hinges on the idea of ? .

    You must not have seen the other stuff I've written. ? does whatever, whenever, wherever, however and with whoever. What ? says...is. And please don't see this as a power play. I would have to take heed to it as well. I would have to consider just how much "control" I have over matters of life. It's not to say that I think I am not in control of my actions, but it is to say that my actions can't dictate how all of life was, is and will be. When it counts, you are not the only one who doesn't like the idea of someone (or something) greater than ourselves controlling everything.

    Yes, I've mention things as being right or being wrong, but I didn't particularly know how to express my points without making it a matter of debate. I believe it is a matter of life or death (and I don't mean it to sound urgent). Being right or being wrong is cool if we live to tell the tale. But, death doesn't give us the liberty of being either one for ourselves. We can't come back and tell someone whether there is nothing or something after dying. We can't have a sense of affirmation or even have regrets. Yet, the hope is to somehow make ? 's Existence a matter of something we have to be alive to confirm.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • alissowack
    alissowack Members Posts: 1,930 ✭✭✭
    Options
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    alissowack wrote: »
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    alissowack wrote: »
    West Brooklyn wrote: »
    alissowack wrote: »
    Now it's possible for ? 's Existence to be a matter of relevance. I've heard it said by posters they don't need ? when it comes to matters of decisions and actions and there is a certain "truth" to it. Hey...you don't need me for matters of your life. But, just to say that ? is depended on man's brain power to have life put's ? in a position where He really doesn't have a life of His Own. He just goes wherever the wind blows and when we die, ? dies with us.

    I think you missed the point inferred from those type of statements. The point is that man's mind created ? , not the other way around. So, ? 's "existence" is in the minds of man, and not actually real; like an imaginary friend.

    But, you are not seeing the point that I am trying to make. If ? exists, the deity is not depended on what we think or what we "imagine". ? would exist apart from who we are. As far we know, the perceptions and presuppositions we have about ? are imaginary. Just because I (or anybody else for that matter) can read a Bible doesn't mean that I am an authority in saying who He is or is not. I can think you are from West Brooklyn according to your avatar name. I could be right, I could be wrong. But I can't think that means that you submit to where I think you are from. It's the other way around.

    I think to make such a statement, you would have to consider where ? would fit into the current universe as we know it. We don't know a lot but, we can infer much with what we do know and the concept of ? as offered as to adhere to certain laws in order to create us and interact with us. It's like dark matter being unobservable other then the fact that it affects other forces in the universe. Many thought there was a real hell below the earth at a point and described it using things that would apply to what is actually beneath the earth, fire and brimstone. Also, why does the current state of the universe require a builder? Why can the universe not be self sustaining without requiring outside factors like the eternity that is granted to ? ? Your already giving ? human persona when you use words like "He".

    I think that where we go wrong. We are putting ourselves in a position we are saying that ? must conform to us instead of the other way around. It's not just the non-believers, but the believers as well. I gave a harmless concept of ? in the previous post as transcending time and space, not bound to the limitations we have and can do whatever, however, whenever, wherever and with whoever. If this is true, then no one can conclude that they have done anything to stretch infinity any further for this deity. We are not in a position to question intentions...? questions ours.

    But you giving ? these concepts without actually knowing their validity yourself, having testable reproducible proof, or verifying the words of others. We can't directly know our interactions with the universe unless we use enhanced tools to interact with substances that our eyes weren't designed to see. Everything interacts with everything, we are part of this universe made up of atoms and photons. Why do you conclude that such an entity that you describe is necessary for the universe to exist as per your description? I noticed you stopped using "He", but if ? has no need to interact with us, then why question our intentions? Why are our intentions worth so much merit for something that ? doesn't need to be concerned with?

    Seems overly narrow for a ? , but i guess i shouldn't question that. And if we are judged, and found guilty, what is your proof of gods wrath other then Natural events? All too convenient. You're telling me that ? pops in and out of this plane of a supposed Multi-verse without interaction and residual effects? Are we being groomed to be Gods? Other then that, it's a wasteful interaction if we don't hold enough value to impact ? . It's actually not a matter of questioning intent because the universe in my view has none. Our intent is to survive in it by any means.

    The issue to me is not about me or anybody validating ? 's Existence. It's about ? being "valid" regardless of what you or I think. It's about saying that we are in no position to say who ? is or isn't even if we have books that say so. This concept I present leaves "us" out of the picture with no authority whatsoever. ? does what ? does and there is nothing we can do about it. If I really wanted to make a concept to validate, I would have made myself a divine being in which you can test...and I promise to fail every time.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Jabu_Rule
    Jabu_Rule Members Posts: 5,993 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2012
    Options
    alissowack wrote: »
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    alissowack wrote: »
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    alissowack wrote: »
    West Brooklyn wrote: »
    alissowack wrote: »
    Now it's possible for ? 's Existence to be a matter of relevance. I've heard it said by posters they don't need ? when it comes to matters of decisions and actions and there is a certain "truth" to it. Hey...you don't need me for matters of your life. But, just to say that ? is depended on man's brain power to have life put's ? in a position where He really doesn't have a life of His Own. He just goes wherever the wind blows and when we die, ? dies with us.

    I think you missed the point inferred from those type of statements. The point is that man's mind created ? , not the other way around. So, ? 's "existence" is in the minds of man, and not actually real; like an imaginary friend.

    But, you are not seeing the point that I am trying to make. If ? exists, the deity is not depended on what we think or what we "imagine". ? would exist apart from who we are. As far we know, the perceptions and presuppositions we have about ? are imaginary. Just because I (or anybody else for that matter) can read a Bible doesn't mean that I am an authority in saying who He is or is not. I can think you are from West Brooklyn according to your avatar name. I could be right, I could be wrong. But I can't think that means that you submit to where I think you are from. It's the other way around.

    I think to make such a statement, you would have to consider where ? would fit into the current universe as we know it. We don't know a lot but, we can infer much with what we do know and the concept of ? as offered as to adhere to certain laws in order to create us and interact with us. It's like dark matter being unobservable other then the fact that it affects other forces in the universe. Many thought there was a real hell below the earth at a point and described it using things that would apply to what is actually beneath the earth, fire and brimstone. Also, why does the current state of the universe require a builder? Why can the universe not be self sustaining without requiring outside factors like the eternity that is granted to ? ? Your already giving ? human persona when you use words like "He".

    I think that where we go wrong. We are putting ourselves in a position we are saying that ? must conform to us instead of the other way around. It's not just the non-believers, but the believers as well. I gave a harmless concept of ? in the previous post as transcending time and space, not bound to the limitations we have and can do whatever, however, whenever, wherever and with whoever. If this is true, then no one can conclude that they have done anything to stretch infinity any further for this deity. We are not in a position to question intentions...? questions ours.

    But you giving ? these concepts without actually knowing their validity yourself, having testable reproducible proof, or verifying the words of others. We can't directly know our interactions with the universe unless we use enhanced tools to interact with substances that our eyes weren't designed to see. Everything interacts with everything, we are part of this universe made up of atoms and photons. Why do you conclude that such an entity that you describe is necessary for the universe to exist as per your description? I noticed you stopped using "He", but if ? has no need to interact with us, then why question our intentions? Why are our intentions worth so much merit for something that ? doesn't need to be concerned with?

    Seems overly narrow for a ? , but i guess i shouldn't question that. And if we are judged, and found guilty, what is your proof of gods wrath other then Natural events? All too convenient. You're telling me that ? pops in and out of this plane of a supposed Multi-verse without interaction and residual effects? Are we being groomed to be Gods? Other then that, it's a wasteful interaction if we don't hold enough value to impact ? . It's actually not a matter of questioning intent because the universe in my view has none. Our intent is to survive in it by any means.

    The issue to me is not about me or anybody validating ? 's Existence. It's about ? being "valid" regardless of what you or I think. It's about saying that we are in no position to say who ? is or isn't even if we have books that say so. This concept I present leaves "us" out of the picture with no authority whatsoever. ? does what ? does and there is nothing we can do about it. If I really wanted to make a concept to validate, I would have made myself a divine being in which you can test...and I promise to fail every time.

    All too convenient. We don't operate from a position of authority as humans, just one of understanding. Authority only comes with total control which we don't have on the universe that we do recognize. Seeing something or testing it doesn't even mean that you fully understand it, only that you are aware of it's presence which lends your description validity. It is your concept that required validity because you offer it as a "theory" but it doesn't fly with how other things in this universe interact. There are no blind or unaffected interactions for any force in the universe small or grand. Everything else is just speculation and grandiose reasoning that deserves investigation and argument, not just, it is and that is all.

    We are even able to postulate through current events, the possibility of past events that we know we will never be able to see, why would a ? theory be beyond that. No one settles on their theory just because they think it sounds legit and then tells everyone not to question it. A virus does what a virus does without our complete understanding of how or why, and without human input, but we know that the virus does it. At one point we couldn't see it but felt it's effects. It just is, isn't a solid enough answer for me to give my life towards worship. I actually find the ability of humans to question to be a step beyond normal universal interaction, yet we exist within this universe regardless, because we are made from it and use facets of it to survive from the water to the air.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • alissowack
    alissowack Members Posts: 1,930 ✭✭✭
    Options
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    alissowack wrote: »
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    alissowack wrote: »
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    alissowack wrote: »
    West Brooklyn wrote: »
    alissowack wrote: »
    Now it's possible for ? 's Existence to be a matter of relevance. I've heard it said by posters they don't need ? when it comes to matters of decisions and actions and there is a certain "truth" to it. Hey...you don't need me for matters of your life. But, just to say that ? is depended on man's brain power to have life put's ? in a position where He really doesn't have a life of His Own. He just goes wherever the wind blows and when we die, ? dies with us.

    I think you missed the point inferred from those type of statements. The point is that man's mind created ? , not the other way around. So, ? 's "existence" is in the minds of man, and not actually real; like an imaginary friend.

    But, you are not seeing the point that I am trying to make. If ? exists, the deity is not depended on what we think or what we "imagine". ? would exist apart from who we are. As far we know, the perceptions and presuppositions we have about ? are imaginary. Just because I (or anybody else for that matter) can read a Bible doesn't mean that I am an authority in saying who He is or is not. I can think you are from West Brooklyn according to your avatar name. I could be right, I could be wrong. But I can't think that means that you submit to where I think you are from. It's the other way around.

    I think to make such a statement, you would have to consider where ? would fit into the current universe as we know it. We don't know a lot but, we can infer much with what we do know and the concept of ? as offered as to adhere to certain laws in order to create us and interact with us. It's like dark matter being unobservable other then the fact that it affects other forces in the universe. Many thought there was a real hell below the earth at a point and described it using things that would apply to what is actually beneath the earth, fire and brimstone. Also, why does the current state of the universe require a builder? Why can the universe not be self sustaining without requiring outside factors like the eternity that is granted to ? ? Your already giving ? human persona when you use words like "He".

    I think that where we go wrong. We are putting ourselves in a position we are saying that ? must conform to us instead of the other way around. It's not just the non-believers, but the believers as well. I gave a harmless concept of ? in the previous post as transcending time and space, not bound to the limitations we have and can do whatever, however, whenever, wherever and with whoever. If this is true, then no one can conclude that they have done anything to stretch infinity any further for this deity. We are not in a position to question intentions...? questions ours.

    But you giving ? these concepts without actually knowing their validity yourself, having testable reproducible proof, or verifying the words of others. We can't directly know our interactions with the universe unless we use enhanced tools to interact with substances that our eyes weren't designed to see. Everything interacts with everything, we are part of this universe made up of atoms and photons. Why do you conclude that such an entity that you describe is necessary for the universe to exist as per your description? I noticed you stopped using "He", but if ? has no need to interact with us, then why question our intentions? Why are our intentions worth so much merit for something that ? doesn't need to be concerned with?

    Seems overly narrow for a ? , but i guess i shouldn't question that. And if we are judged, and found guilty, what is your proof of gods wrath other then Natural events? All too convenient. You're telling me that ? pops in and out of this plane of a supposed Multi-verse without interaction and residual effects? Are we being groomed to be Gods? Other then that, it's a wasteful interaction if we don't hold enough value to impact ? . It's actually not a matter of questioning intent because the universe in my view has none. Our intent is to survive in it by any means.

    The issue to me is not about me or anybody validating ? 's Existence. It's about ? being "valid" regardless of what you or I think. It's about saying that we are in no position to say who ? is or isn't even if we have books that say so. This concept I present leaves "us" out of the picture with no authority whatsoever. ? does what ? does and there is nothing we can do about it. If I really wanted to make a concept to validate, I would have made myself a divine being in which you can test...and I promise to fail every time.

    All too convenient. We don't operate from a position of authority as humans, just one of understanding. Authority only comes with total control which we don't have on the universe that we do recognize. Seeing something or testing it doesn't even mean that you fully understand it, only that you are aware of it's presence which lends your description validity. It is your concept that required validity because you offer it as a "theory" but it doesn't fly with how other things in this universe interact. There are no blind or unaffected interactions for any force in the universe small or grand. Everything else is just speculation and grandiose reasoning that deserves investigation and argument, not just, it is and that is all.

    We are even able to postulate through current events, the possibility of past events that we know we will never be able to see, why would a ? theory be beyond that. No one settles on their theory just because they think it sounds legit and then tells everyone not to question it. A virus does what a virus does without our complete understanding of how or why, and without human input, but we know that the virus does it. At one point we couldn't see it but felt it's effects. It just is, isn't a solid enough answer for me to give my life towards worship. I actually find the ability of humans to question to be a step beyond normal universal interaction, yet we exist within this universe regardless, because we are made from it and use facets of it to survive from the water to the air.

    Why would ? need to operate the way we operate in order to be valid? What is so "convenient" about a deity that is an authority over everything? What position would anybody be in to "test" this? If anything, people would avoid even coming up with this. It requires that we sacrifice more than just our intelligence. What I'm getting from this is you don't want to go any further. The thing about this concept is the issue isn't about right or wrong. It's about life or death (I'm not getting apocalyptic on you). It's one thing to be right or wrong and live to tell about it and another to be dead and we can be neither one. We will experience death for ourselves one day and we won't be in a position to make valid to anybody alive what we understood.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Jabu_Rule
    Jabu_Rule Members Posts: 5,993 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2012
    Options
    alissowack wrote: »
    Why would ? need to operate the way we operate in order to be valid? What is so "convenient" about a deity that is an authority over everything? What position would anybody be in to "test" this? If anything, people would avoid even coming up with this. It requires that we sacrifice more than just our intelligence. What I'm getting from this is you don't want to go any further. The thing about this concept is the issue isn't about right or wrong. It's about life or death (I'm not getting apocalyptic on you). It's one thing to be right or wrong and live to tell about it and another to be dead and we can be neither one. We will experience death for ourselves one day and we won't be in a position to make valid to anybody alive what we understood.

    Survival isn't about the individual. It's about survival of the organism. So life and death and inconsequential other then species death. What add to the specious can only be beneficial when used for benefit. If what we offer is used for benefit, then the memories of our actions are imprinted in the further actives of the species no matter how small. The continuation of working processes is proof that the accumulation of like activities by other members of the species adds overall value to general survival. You're the one thinking in individual terms. The sun acts nothing like us and doesn't require our input to exist yet it can be observed and impacts other objects such as earths rotation and gravity. It does affect us directly in way of energy and creation from previous suns. You're also telling me that we can't perceive ? until we sacrifice (death?). What evidence do you have that our multiple parts will trans-mutate into a form (other then energy consumed by other forms or broken down into elements) that's limited and contained by this universe which can interact with ? beyond intelligence (which only functions while active and preserved via glyphs and DNA matter).

    Human interaction is only in the manner of observing what is present and what causes impact through interaction on the smallest level even if it's just energy emissions rather then matter and gravity. I'm just wondering where you are getting these theories from if you haven't witnessed any presentations or been presented with any evidence others can observe. How can something live outside of space time and interact with space time with no effect other the magic? You're postulating your own sudo theories and explanation that ? exists with no need of explanation or possibility of explanation. Sounds like you've set limits on yourself. Evidence isn't about right or wrong because it stands on it's own. You're interpretation is your own but others can have input and show alternative and a more sound understanding when it's presented. I ? requiring need to "operate" implies interaction and residual effects would be left if that ? chose to "operate" in this universe. There is also the aspect that operation is still bound to the universe, and we aren't going beyond our means to do so.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Bodhi
    Bodhi Members Posts: 7,932 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2012
    Options
    alissowack wrote: »
    You think that when people think about the idea of ? , it is just something people toy with? You've been in a lot of e-forums and seen just how heated things can get when someone brings it up. People have given their lives to this whether they were mistaken or not. It's wondering if they are serving a purpose greater than themselves that hinges on the idea of ? .

    People become addicted to their beliefs. The behavior of some theists is not surprising
    alissowack wrote: »
    You must not have seen the other stuff I've written. ? does whatever, whenever, wherever, however and with whoever..

    I don't see how this is possible when he is supposedly outside time

    alissowack wrote: »
    Yes, I've mention things as being right or being wrong, but I didn't particularly know how to express my points without making it a matter of debate. I believe it is a matter of life or death (and I don't mean it to sound urgent). Being right or being wrong is cool if we live to tell the tale. But, death doesn't give us the liberty of being either one for ourselves. We can't come back and tell someone whether there is nothing or something after dying. We can't have a sense of affirmation or even have regrets. Yet, the hope is to somehow make ? 's Existence a matter of something we have to be alive to confirm.

    Being alive or dead doesn't confirm the existence of ? . An afterlife would confirm an afterlife but not necessarily the existence of a ? .
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Bodhi
    Bodhi Members Posts: 7,932 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2012
    Options
    You haven't answered any of my responses
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • alissowack
    alissowack Members Posts: 1,930 ✭✭✭
    Options
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    alissowack wrote: »
    Why would ? need to operate the way we operate in order to be valid? What is so "convenient" about a deity that is an authority over everything? What position would anybody be in to "test" this? If anything, people would avoid even coming up with this. It requires that we sacrifice more than just our intelligence. What I'm getting from this is you don't want to go any further. The thing about this concept is the issue isn't about right or wrong. It's about life or death (I'm not getting apocalyptic on you). It's one thing to be right or wrong and live to tell about it and another to be dead and we can be neither one. We will experience death for ourselves one day and we won't be in a position to make valid to anybody alive what we understood.

    Survival isn't about the individual. It's about survival of the organism. So life and death and inconsequential other then species death. What add to the specious can only be beneficial when used for benefit. If what we offer is used for benefit, then the memories of our actions are imprinted in the further actives of the species no matter how small. The continuation of working processes is proof that the accumulation of like activities by other members of the species adds overall value to general survival. You're the one thinking in individual terms. The sun acts nothing like us and doesn't require our input to exist yet it can be observed and impacts other objects such as earths rotation and gravity. It does affect us directly in way of energy and creation from previous suns. You're also telling me that we can't perceive ? until we sacrifice (death?). What evidence do you have that our multiple parts will trans-mutate into a form (other then energy consumed by other forms or broken down into elements) that's limited and contained by this universe which can interact with ? beyond intelligence (which only functions while active and preserved via glyphs and DNA matter).

    Human interaction is only in the manner of observing what is present and what causes impact through interaction on the smallest level even if it's just energy emissions rather then matter and gravity. I'm just wondering where you are getting these theories from if you haven't witnessed any presentations or been presented with any evidence others can observe. How can something live outside of space time and interact with space time with no effect other the magic? You're postulating your own sudo theories and explanation that ? exists with no need of explanation or possibility of explanation. Sounds like you've set limits on yourself. Evidence isn't about right or wrong because it stands on it's own. You're interpretation is your own but others can have input and show alternative and a more sound understanding when it's presented. I ? requiring need to "operate" implies interaction and residual effects would be left if that ? chose to "operate" in this universe. There is also the aspect that operation is still bound to the universe, and we aren't going beyond our means to do so.

    Well, when we die, we die alone so that would make it "individual". What we are doing to preserve life is totally different from that. You treat my approach to this as if I am offering death as a method of testing. I'm not expecting you to die just so you can find out. I'm saying that when we die, we won't have a choice whether we want to know or not. We won't even have the liberty of saying "Ha, I told you so!!!"

    The thing about questioning an individual is that we don't simply as question just so we know. We question their authority, their credibility, their integrity and such in the things we question an individual about. You could question me and find me a fraud. But, that doesn't get rid of the possibility of ? Existence. It just means you figured me out...that's all. I think people take more pride in implanting doubt in great minds (my mind is not that great however) than just whether they sincerely have any commitment to what they understand. The issue of ? 's Existence will still be on the table whether people treat it as the main course or that disposable paper napkin.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • alissowack
    alissowack Members Posts: 1,930 ✭✭✭
    Options
    West Brooklyn wrote: »
    alissowack wrote: »
    You think that when people think about the idea of ? , it is just something people toy with? You've been in a lot of e-forums and seen just how heated things can get when someone brings it up. People have given their lives to this whether they were mistaken or not. It's wondering if they are serving a purpose greater than themselves that hinges on the idea of ? .

    People become addicted to their beliefs. The behavior of some theists is not surprising
    alissowack wrote: »
    You must not have seen the other stuff I've written. ? does whatever, whenever, wherever, however and with whoever..

    I don't see how this is possible when he is supposedly outside time

    alissowack wrote: »
    Yes, I've mention things as being right or being wrong, but I didn't particularly know how to express my points without making it a matter of debate. I believe it is a matter of life or death (and I don't mean it to sound urgent). Being right or being wrong is cool if we live to tell the tale. But, death doesn't give us the liberty of being either one for ourselves. We can't come back and tell someone whether there is nothing or something after dying. We can't have a sense of affirmation or even have regrets. Yet, the hope is to somehow make ? 's Existence a matter of something we have to be alive to confirm.

    Being alive or dead doesn't confirm the existence of ? . An afterlife would confirm an afterlife but not necessarily the existence of a ? .

    Well, that statement was not meant to be a "shocker". But, you seemed convinced that people just think of the idea of ? for entertainment purposes. You don't need to see that it is possible...and I don't either...that ? transcends time. That is the problem. Whatever we don't see as possible, we see it as something that should only apply to us and our limitations. We think we need to be the authority in saying that it is possible for it to be accepted. I offer this concept that we are in a position where we can't do that. And...I'm not using death as a method of testing. I'm saying that when we die, we won't have a choice but find out.

    It doesn't matter if I don't answer your questions...and it doesn't matter if you answer mine. What you are hoping for is something to satisfy this desire to win this debate...and I can admit a little of that is going on with me. But it really doesn't make anybody "right" if we are just trying to make somebody "feel" that they are wrong.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Bodhi
    Bodhi Members Posts: 7,932 ✭✭✭✭✭
    Options
    alissowack wrote: »
    We think we need to be the authority in saying that it is possible for it to be accepted.


    We can't just go around accepting things that defy reason and logic.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • bambu
    bambu Members Posts: 3,529 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2012
    Options
    You Greeks take pride in your logic.....

    I suggest you employ it.....
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Jabu_Rule
    Jabu_Rule Members Posts: 5,993 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited October 2012
    Options
    alissowack wrote: »
    FuriousOne wrote: »
    alissowack wrote: »
    Why would ? need to operate the way we operate in order to be valid? What is so "convenient" about a deity that is an authority over everything? What position would anybody be in to "test" this? If anything, people would avoid even coming up with this. It requires that we sacrifice more than just our intelligence. What I'm getting from this is you don't want to go any further. The thing about this concept is the issue isn't about right or wrong. It's about life or death (I'm not getting apocalyptic on you). It's one thing to be right or wrong and live to tell about it and another to be dead and we can be neither one. We will experience death for ourselves one day and we won't be in a position to make valid to anybody alive what we understood.

    Survival isn't about the individual. It's about survival of the organism. So life and death and inconsequential other then species death. What add to the specious can only be beneficial when used for benefit. If what we offer is used for benefit, then the memories of our actions are imprinted in the further actives of the species no matter how small. The continuation of working processes is proof that the accumulation of like activities by other members of the species adds overall value to general survival. You're the one thinking in individual terms. The sun acts nothing like us and doesn't require our input to exist yet it can be observed and impacts other objects such as earths rotation and gravity. It does affect us directly in way of energy and creation from previous suns. You're also telling me that we can't perceive ? until we sacrifice (death?). What evidence do you have that our multiple parts will trans-mutate into a form (other then energy consumed by other forms or broken down into elements) that's limited and contained by this universe which can interact with ? beyond intelligence (which only functions while active and preserved via glyphs and DNA matter).

    Human interaction is only in the manner of observing what is present and what causes impact through interaction on the smallest level even if it's just energy emissions rather then matter and gravity. I'm just wondering where you are getting these theories from if you haven't witnessed any presentations or been presented with any evidence others can observe. How can something live outside of space time and interact with space time with no effect other the magic? You're postulating your own sudo theories and explanation that ? exists with no need of explanation or possibility of explanation. Sounds like you've set limits on yourself. Evidence isn't about right or wrong because it stands on it's own. You're interpretation is your own but others can have input and show alternative and a more sound understanding when it's presented. I ? requiring need to "operate" implies interaction and residual effects would be left if that ? chose to "operate" in this universe. There is also the aspect that operation is still bound to the universe, and we aren't going beyond our means to do so.

    Well, when we die, we die alone so that would make it "individual". What we are doing to preserve life is totally different from that. You treat my approach to this as if I am offering death as a method of testing. I'm not expecting you to die just so you can find out. I'm saying that when we die, we won't have a choice whether we want to know or not. We won't even have the liberty of saying "Ha, I told you so!!!"

    The thing about questioning an individual is that we don't simply as question just so we know. We question their authority, their credibility, their integrity and such in the things we question an individual about. You could question me and find me a fraud. But, that doesn't get rid of the possibility of ? Existence. It just means you figured me out...that's all. I think people take more pride in implanting doubt in great minds (my mind is not that great however) than just whether they sincerely have any commitment to what they understand. The issue of ? 's Existence will still be on the table whether people treat it as the main course or that disposable paper napkin.

    I only question the evidence. Scientific discoveries have come about in the most precarious manner but that evidence was still accurate and could have been discovered in more acceptable ways. Humans put a negative spin on the usage of a discoveries like creating a bomb vs self sustaining energy. My problem is, people are the ones putting forward the question of ? . The question wouldn't exist without mans input in the first place. So people can also dismiss the question of ? as a probable cause of things especially when we eliminate the examples that people use for Gods existence. We can also question the legitimate characteristics of a ? existing in this universe or the possibility of anything existing outside of it, if there is an outside. We may die alone but we spread our genes and knowledge so parts of us live on or at least our contribution whether active or passive still affected others around us. I know that animals and bacteria consume us which is the true form of reincarnation of energy (or transfer). Beyond that, our bodies break down to base elements and energy. Tell me how our conscientiousness can survive death without a functioning brain?

    You're telling me that we can't know but yet you seem to know that ? exist outside space-time and you also put forward the possibility that our bodies can do something miraculous post death. We can come to conclusions without the input of others using separate tools and interacting with evidence differently while arriving at a similar conclusion. We don't require the authority of others because what we test exist to us all. Some things depend on your capabilities and resources but it's not impossible for one to come to their own conclusions separate from others and have others test their theories with rigorous examination. Discovery doesn't exist in a bubble where know one can employ their own tests. A reproducible effect verified and tested by independent parties allows evidence to stand on it's own. The question of ? has artificially been prolonged through efforts to suppress questions using various means.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • alissowack
    alissowack Members Posts: 1,930 ✭✭✭
    Options
    West Brooklyn wrote: »
    alissowack wrote: »
    We think we need to be the authority in saying that it is possible for it to be accepted.


    We can't just go around accepting things that defy reason and logic.

    But, we can't think that everything is about reason and logic. What I've noticed is that critics of religions are afraid of commitment...then it could just as well be said that the religious are afraid of the facts or the truth. Critics present the facts and think that the "evidence" alone will do the explaining; that there is no need to be devoted to what it means in respect to the values and perspectives they have about life. The religious present "? " thinking their devotion is enough to ignore the details of what their religions really teach.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Categories