h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Ok, I'm new, but I'm going to revert back to the more intelligent section of this discussion. A couple people were talking about how change controls existance, and one said that change itself was not an indicator of God because change was the simple balance of existance. The other replied by stating that change occured through things, like people, or God and therefor God was the base of change. Well I would like to say that change is dictated by differences. They both acknowledged this in examples, like Good/Evil and Light/Dark. But, I am pointing out that yes, change is the variance of existance, but differences only exist because we are here to acknowledge them. It all kind of relates to the old, if a tree fell in a forest with no one around would it make a sound question. Nothing is good and nothing is evil, that is merely our perception of reality. With this accepted, you come to the conclusion that we dictate change. Therefor we dictate existance, therefor we dictate God. This is not physically sound, unless you are willing to accept the next step in the equation. Our existance is a falsehood perpetuated by the illusion of conscienceness. In more simplified form, it means that everything is the way it is because that is our perception of how everything is. For Ex. if your brain believes that an object, lets say a chair, is in front of you. Whether or not the chair is actually there is irrelevent. You will see it, be able to touch it, and whatever else you want to do to it is possible. As long as your brain accepts that it exists and produces false synaptic responses to your inneractions with the chair.

thats all I have to say.

PS I am an Atheist

I found your line of reasoning interesting Nolan, and am reminded of a philosophy professor who maintained that there were no "brute facts" ie facts that exist with out conditions. While i dont think I believed him, i found it hard to beat his arguements. I would say that while the perception of things (real or imagined) does indeed equate to the existance of things to the observer, those things that are falsely percived have the potential of being realized as false (thru deduction and logic) where those things that are true should defy debunking. Your example of a percived chair shouldn't support weight (no pun intended) like a real chair (assuming we are accepting that the universe itself is somewhat real and that the mere mental acceptance of a thing doesn't summon it into existance).

Ack, i need to drink more if im going to wade into these waters.

Oh and for the record. I'm Taoist so I think it is all an illusion anyway.
D/L

And then some philosophers state that god cannot exist due to the simple fact of atheists existing.

Or something like that. Anyway, just wanted to pop by and let Colonel Sellers know that I really enjoyed his article on atheism. And to point out that, in my experience of arguing for atheism, very few fundie xians have what it takes to endure in-depth debate on the subject of religion. They kind of strike and then disappear... strange, but nothing to get worked up over.

Enjoy the freedom of not believing.

The main problem with fundamentalists (of any religion. My experience is mainly with Xians but I guess this counts with all religions not to appear racist.) is that they do not know the difference between arguing violently and arguing well. They seem to think that if you cut down one of their points, if they repeat it in different words LOUDER then they're onto a better argument. I remember once I was having an argument with a very staunch Christian and he used the typical tactic of overlong, overcomplicated arguments in an attempt to confuse me. Completely unfazed I simply pointed out that every argument he gave was circular and did not stand on any logical or sensible grounding unless you already have faith in another (just as ridiculous) theory (just because it's scientific religion doesn't mean it's fact.) He was completely thrown by the fact that I didn't give in after the (obviously purposefully) confusing ramblings and decided that there was only one way he could stop me from arguing him into the ground. The little b*s**rd punched me. It succeeded in shutting me up and both of us walked away from the argument beleiving that we had just won. Could someone give me an objective veiw and tell me that I did win that. I don't think that mindless violence counts. Especially not when the argument started because I said that religion was the major cause of war and terror in the 20th (and now 21st) century and he was trying to tell me how it promoted peace and love and wellbeing. Go figure.

Athiest Bob (all dressed up for the funeral and nowhere to go)

You're absolutely right. In my experience with the fundies (including my family, strangely enough) I've found that many of them have no idea that the very reasons why they claim to believe in the first place are full of fallacies and ambiguity. They argue from emotion and Ad Hominem attacks against non-believers. I have only met very few who can give actual, factual credibility to their claims... and if not credible then at least structurally sound enough to keep my attention while I listen or read. I usually like to tell them that my father was an ordained Baptist minister and that I practically grew up in the church--which alone was enough to make me not believe. That gets them all steamed up, and fundies are really funny when they're mad... which is usually the only reason I argue with them.

A really great site for atheism/agnosticism can be found on the About network. (I really hope the mods don't censor that.) I can't give the URL for the obvious reasons, but you're probably smart enough to figure it out. The site's host is a brilliant guy named Austin Cline and the site is crammed with all the tools needed for debating religion-- a fallacy listing, links to sites about philosophy and logic, info on specific religions, etc. If a person goes into the forum not knowing, nine times out of ten they will leave feeling fairly educated. If a misguided fundie wanders into the forum and spouts off gibberish (as happens by the occasional ignorant person who believes he or she can bring Jesus, Allah, Yahweh, David Koresh, the fuzzy grey cat around the corner, whatever, to the miserable heathens on the Atheism Forum), most of us tend to toy with them until the site host wanders in and directs whoever it is to visit the site's page on "What is an atheist" or "How to debate effectively", etc. It's a lot of fun and very empowering to be around people who know what it's like to live in this theistically steeped society while holding firm to NOT believing.

This is going to be a very difficult time for atheists, in America anyway. (But when HASN'T it? ) All around us now are "Multi-faith prayer services for the victims" and Dubya visiting his local mosque (all of which is highly ironic considering that religion is at the foundation of this, and many other, wars and acts of hate and violence). It makes those who don't believe look like bad guys who don't care simply because we don't agree that prayer is a way to help those in need. And in my opinion it's going to get even more troubling.

Truth is not a term to be used
lightly in that it is to be used
at all it can only be used to point
to the abserdity inherent with in it's
self. Logic is self defeeting.
(eg this is a lie-is it true?)
but non-logic is just plain sillyness
Solution= Imbrase the abserd
Cahos is salvation.
There is no Goddess but Goddess and
SHE is our Goddess
Open your eyes and see the patterns
(NB Drugs though not in any way reckomended
by me can help you reach Eris)
so read the scripture and find happyness and
peace and stuff plus if you join now
you dont have to go to no Cristion hell or
no atheists non existance when you are dead!
Go here http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A258608

What you call god, I call Astrophysics.
Ever heard of Cosmology and the laws of thermodynamics?
(No offence meant, though it does sound that way).

Shaunak.

what you call Astrophysics, I call Bob
Ever herd of skulldugery and the laws of neomonoism?
(no offel meat, though I do like whay)

It's your life and your choice buddy.
Enjoy both

S.

I AM BOB!

What you call religion, I call a mirror.

Awww! (basks in own glory)

What you call a mirror I call
a TV.
How can we estaplish a univercil
language on with we all agree
some times I dispare!
ASIDE:basking in own glory may cause canser

There's a short, sweet 'n simple method for proving that a any force cannot be omnipotent:

Can God create a stone he cannot lift?

If he can, he is not omnipotent because he cannot lift it.
If he can't, he is not omnipotent because he can't create it.

Therefore God is not omnipotent.

That God can not do some thing that results in the
supersetion of him self dose not prove he dose not
exist.
Positive infinity is at the same time smaller then
real number infinity yet and a thing of which there
can be no larger.
Yet people except the consept of infinity with
the previso that it can not be understood as a number
in the normall sence in the same way the consept of
God can cercumvent the problem of infinate perfection
by reference to the fact that one should not consider
the terms with in a normal reference frame.
Eris is more mad then Eris (and more sexy)

I'm sillier than everyone in this forum put together (including myself.)
Haha, explain that one!

No your not
Your sillness is limited by your
self afferming reference to the
matirail state which comprises
you

I'm a bit late here..... but truth in christ?

How can you know? Faith? then why do quote supposedly history? Surely that explodes your faith - how can you have true faith with any facts?

And if you have no facts how can you have any idea it is what you believe?

And how is it that your faith has come through the teachings of others - who also have faith.

I can stand in the middle of a crowd - say nothing but look towards the sky. Its amazing how many will look skywards, some will glance some will linger.

What is your faith based on? How does it work?

Christianity is all based on self destroying theories....


I need no faith for I am pure, applying Pascal how can I lose? For if I lose - faith is destroyed and christiainity also.

Becky{L}

Well put Researcher.

Are you joining the h2 Athiest society. (if there isn't one, there should be.)

Try the Freedom From Faith Foundation - A665101

Though, if you scientifically analyse any religion it will fall apart. If you analyse science with the thought-systems of religion that also fails.

My opinion: the two don't mix. It's silly and you end up going round in circles.

As long as you realise that scientific thought is not the only logic and type of reasoning that there is, religion becomes more understandable. Saying that I'm still an atheist...



Ste

True... but an *awfully* high level of reasoning and logic needs to be suspended in order for religious faith to become understandable. I would argue that scientific reasoning actually mixes better with religious thought than vice-versa-- for example, I know many religious persons who also agree with the theories of evolution, Big Bang, etc. They can incorporate these scientific theories into their belief systems on the premise of "god(s) can do anything, including create life through evolution and the material universe though Big Bang". It is more difficult, in my opinion, for one who bases their logic in scientific reasoning to accept the theories of supernatural force on the universe, "intelligent design" and whatnot. Perhaps the reason is that scientific thought is steeped in facts and laws while religious reasoning is founded in historical texts and verbal accounts which have not been proven.

But your point that the two don't mix is right on. Arguing with believers is still fun, though.

*runs off to join the Freedom From Faith Foundation*