Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Atheists with Autism

Page 2 of 4 [ 56 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

aspi-rant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Sep 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,448
Location: denmark

28 Aug 2010, 10:33 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
aspi-rant wrote:
IF you know this to be a fact then SOMEBODY has manipulated god to reveal all of this


Sorry, this is invalid. You have the false assumption that God needs to be manipulated to reveal anything, but this is not the only option. God need not be manipulated whatsoever if He so chooses to reveal anything.


is it? and exactly how do you know that?

Quote:
An atheist may ask for a sign. But because the atheist lacks faith either 1) the sign will not be forthcoming because of the atheist's insincerity or 2) the sign will not be seen or believed if it IS granted.


conclusion for reason #1: atheists CAN NOT become believers... no matter how much they would love to be convinced.

conclusion for reason #2: there is no option that will could be replaced with CAN NOT? maybe a "sign" could be explained otherwise... and therefore can not be seen as a sign from a "god"...

so you HAVE to have "the faith" first... because THEN - and only then - you can believe it by "seeing" the "evidence"... that's an odd sequence.


Quote:
First, God cannot be manipulated (as I've already said) into bending and conforming to us and our standards, especially our standards of investigation. For one, how many times do you have to ask God to repeat some kind of spiritual work in the lab before you believe it? God feels no need to appear as such because it's already been done (and disbelieved).


wow.

Quote:
Second, God's wisdom and existence is too big for the human mind to comprehend.

...

The only way to know the mind of God is through prayer and by studying the text of the Bible to see how God has related to people in the past. But once again, the only way to understand this is through an act of faith.

...

I'm not saying that logic and reason have no place in relating to the existence of God. I'm just saying that logic and reason alone are bounded by the human mind.


i deliberatly made the extra space... so you can digest the first statement, before it gets contradicted.


Quote:
Demanding evidence they know good and well either has already been demonstrated or is impossible (meaning those things which violate God's nature)


this for a being who is supposed to be omnipotent? 8O


as said... it is always defied of logic.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

28 Aug 2010, 11:07 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
I didn't notice AngelRho even mention anything about "feeling the presence of God" in his reply.


AngelRho wrote:
People who do believe are different, and a lot of things about a person's life change when they come to a saving knowledge of Jesus. My opinion is that all people (not just atheists) are aware of this on some kind of subconscious level.


Christians commonly come to this conclusion when they believe that they have felt 'God's spirit' touch them through practise of their faith. I have yet to meet a Christian who did not believe that they had personally been touched by God in this manner. The suggestion that AngelRho makes is that belief will provide its own proof, which again Christians argue will lead to such a supernatural encounter.

"Feeling the presence of God" is the fallback position for all Christians who are rigid believers.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

28 Aug 2010, 11:08 am

adifferentname wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
I didn't notice AngelRho even mention anything about "feeling the presence of God" in his reply.


AngelRho wrote:
People who do believe are different, and a lot of things about a person's life change when they come to a saving knowledge of Jesus. My opinion is that all people (not just atheists) are aware of this on some kind of subconscious level.


Christians commonly come to this conclusion when they believe that they have felt 'God's spirit' touch them through practise of their faith. I have yet to meet a Christian who did not believe that they had personally been touched by God in this manner. The suggestion that AngelRho makes is that belief will provide its own proof, which again Christians argue will lead to such a supernatural encounter.

"Feeling the presence of God" is the fallback position for all Christians who are rigid believers.


A subconscious knowledge of something is not the same as a feeling.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

28 Aug 2010, 11:15 am

aspi-rant wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
aspi-rant wrote:
IF you know this to be a fact then SOMEBODY has manipulated god to reveal all of this


Sorry, this is invalid. You have the false assumption that God needs to be manipulated to reveal anything, but this is not the only option. God need not be manipulated whatsoever if He so chooses to reveal anything.


is it? and exactly how do you know that?


Your argument claimed to be based upon logic alone, not knowledge, and as such I will address it by logic alone. You claim that if God revealed something, that somebody must have forced him to reveal it. This as a hypothesis is absurd enough since the thesis of it, hopefully for your sake, is obviously false since it is not necessary to force people to revealed something in order that something, like their identity, to be reveal. My name is Ben, and you have not forced me to reveal my first name, so it is false in general at the least. And with God in specific, as per God omnipotent, force is not even an option in any sense of the word.



aspi-rant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Sep 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,448
Location: denmark

28 Aug 2010, 11:39 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
aspi-rant wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
aspi-rant wrote:
IF you know this to be a fact then SOMEBODY has manipulated god to reveal all of this


Sorry, this is invalid. You have the false assumption that God needs to be manipulated to reveal anything, but this is not the only option. God need not be manipulated whatsoever if He so chooses to reveal anything.


is it? and exactly how do you know that?


Your argument claimed to be based upon logic alone, not knowledge, and as such I will address it by logic alone. You claim that if God revealed something, that somebody must have forced him to reveal it. This as a hypothesis is absurd enough since the thesis of it, hopefully for your sake, is obviously false since it is not necessary to force people to revealed something in order that something, like their identity, to be reveal. My name is Ben, and you have not forced me to reveal my first name, so it is false in general at the least. And with God in specific, as per God omnipotent, force is not even an option in any sense of the word.


did i ever use the word "force"?

do you know the meaning of the word "manipulation"?

i just manipulated you to state something... e.g. you chose to reveal your name... and a lot of other stuff. you ar e right that i do not force you.. but i definitely manipulated you into it ("it" means in this case: a discussion).

did you just contradict yourself? (see bold and underlined marking in quote above):

ask: who would have "forced" him to reveal something? 1) a believer or 2) a non-believer?

it can't be a believer... since they already know that he can't be "forced" since he is omnipotent... (but how did they know that prior to this event??)

and a non-believer would not bother at all since he doesn't think there's anything like a god or so, so why ask, force or manipulate anything... or he would not get an answer (as someone stated earlier) or he wouldn't believe it if there even was an answer or a sign...

so the only option: god showed himself out of the blue to the humans who simply never asked for this... and he then told the story of his life and then he went away. and everybody believed and accepted him and were happy. which they already did and were before he came along... and knew all about... because you have to be a believer to understand his ways...

sorry. doesn't compute. getting dizzy running in circles defied of logic.... need food and something to drink to think clear again.... :?



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

28 Aug 2010, 11:50 am

aspi-rant wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
aspi-rant wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
aspi-rant wrote:
IF you know this to be a fact then SOMEBODY has manipulated god to reveal all of this


Sorry, this is invalid. You have the false assumption that God needs to be manipulated to reveal anything, but this is not the only option. God need not be manipulated whatsoever if He so chooses to reveal anything.


is it? and exactly how do you know that?


Your argument claimed to be based upon logic alone, not knowledge, and as such I will address it by logic alone. You claim that if God revealed something, that somebody must have forced him to reveal it. This as a hypothesis is absurd enough since the thesis of it, hopefully for your sake, is obviously false since it is not necessary to force people to revealed something in order that something, like their identity, to be reveal. My name is Ben, and you have not forced me to reveal my first name, so it is false in general at the least. And with God in specific, as per God omnipotent, force is not even an option in any sense of the word.


did i ever use the word "force"?

do you know the meaning of the word "manipulation"?

i just manipulated you to state something... e.g. you chose to reveal your name... and a lot of other stuff. you ar e right that i do not force you.. but i definitely manipulated you into it ("it" means in this case: a discussion).

did you just contradict yourself? (see bold and underlined marking in quote above):

ask: who would have "forced" him to reveal something? 1) a believer or 2) a non-believer?

it can't be a believer... since they already know that he can't be "forced" since he is omnipotent... (but how did they know that prior to this event??)

and a non-believer would not bother at all since he doesn't think there's anything like a god or so, so why ask, force or manipulate anything... or he would not get an answer (as someone stated earlier) or he wouldn't believe it if there even was an answer or a sign...

so the only option: god showed himself out of the blue to the humans who simply never asked for this... and he then told the story of his life and then he went away. and everybody believed and accepted him and were happy. which they already did and were before he came along... and knew all about... because you have to be a believer to understand his ways...

sorry. doesn't compute. getting dizzy running in circles defied of logic.... need food and something to drink to think clear again.... :?


In the same sense that you manipulated me, I have also manipulated you into spending a few moments of your life composing hyped up word salad.



Keith
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2008
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,321
Location: East Sussex, UK

28 Aug 2010, 11:54 am

ChrisVulcan wrote:
what would it take for you to change your beliefs about religion?


Sounds like you preaching. No-one likes a preacher. People do NOT want to be converted and will not take too kindly to being asked, "What will it take...?"



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

28 Aug 2010, 12:01 pm

Keith wrote:
ChrisVulcan wrote:
what would it take for you to change your beliefs about religion?


Sounds like you preaching. No-one likes a preacher. People do NOT want to be converted and will not take too kindly to being asked, "What will it take...?"


Sounds like a question, but then again it is a question for atheists about what would change one's mind about their atheism.



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

28 Aug 2010, 12:10 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:

A subconscious knowledge of something is not the same as a feeling.


I think you missed my point. I wasn't suggesting that Rho claimed to feel the presence of God explicitly in that post. I do now, however, suggest that it is very likely the case that Rho, as a believer, would make that claim.

Quote:
Just because you have convinced yourself that you can feel the presence of God does not make it so.


If we're going to nit-pick, at no point in this sentence do I state that AngelRho explicitly mentioned feeling the presence of God. There seems little point in arguing on the basis of semantics. That said, I will make the disclaimer that the above statement was aimed at all Christians and not at AngelRho specifically.

You've latched onto the least important aspect of my post, seemingly for arguments sake.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

28 Aug 2010, 12:16 pm

adifferentname wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:

A subconscious knowledge of something is not the same as a feeling.


I think you missed my point. I wasn't suggesting that Rho claimed to feel the presence of God explicitly in that post. I do now, however, suggest that it is very likely the case that Rho, as a believer, would make that claim.

Quote:
Just because you have convinced yourself that you can feel the presence of God does not make it so.


If we're going to nit-pick, at no point in this sentence do I state that AngelRho explicitly mentioned feeling the presence of God. There seems little point in arguing on the basis of semantics. That said, I will make the disclaimer that the above statement was aimed at all Christians and not at AngelRho specifically.

You've latched onto the least important aspect of my post, seemingly for arguments sake.


Yet you were willing to argue for it even by quoting the text from which you made your interpretation. Okay though, if you wish to deny you made that claim so as not to admit you're wrong, then have fun throwing hot air around. By the way, what was the actual crux of your argument or were you just likewise nitpicking as you have now accused me of so doing?



aspi-rant
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Sep 2008
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,448
Location: denmark

28 Aug 2010, 12:35 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
In the same sense that you manipulated me, I have also manipulated you into spending a few moments of your life composing hyped up word salad.


correct :-)



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

28 Aug 2010, 1:10 pm

aspi-rant wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
In the same sense that you manipulated me, I have also manipulated you into spending a few moments of your life composing hyped up word salad.


correct :-)


How would you thereby demonstrate the necessity of God to be manipulated in order for revelation to occur?



adifferentname
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jan 2008
Age: 48
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,885

28 Aug 2010, 1:30 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Yet you were willing to argue for it even by quoting the text from which you made your interpretation. Okay though, if you wish to deny you made that claim so as not to admit you're wrong, then have fun throwing hot air around.


Willing to defend my position against what I feel is an unnecessary and pedantic attack upon it, certainly. If you would like to quote the text where I specifically state that AngelRho makes that statement then I will happily concede the meaningless point. However, no such text exists.

The suggestion that you know my mind or motivations better than I do is clearly ridiculous, so I shall say no more on that matter.

You'll find the key part of that paragraph was contained within the second sentence.

Quote:
By the way, what was the actual crux of your argument or were you just likewise nitpicking as you have now accused me of so doing?


Which argument? The one you are insistent on starting, or my repudiation of AngelRho's post?



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

28 Aug 2010, 2:31 pm

adifferentname wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Yet you were willing to argue for it even by quoting the text from which you made your interpretation. Okay though, if you wish to deny you made that claim so as not to admit you're wrong, then have fun throwing hot air around.


Willing to defend my position against what I feel is an unnecessary and pedantic attack upon it, certainly. If you would like to quote the text where I specifically state that AngelRho makes that statement then I will happily concede the meaningless point. However, no such text exists.

The suggestion that you know my mind or motivations better than I do is clearly ridiculous, so I shall say no more on that matter.

You'll find the key part of that paragraph was contained within the second sentence.

Quote:
By the way, what was the actual crux of your argument or were you just likewise nitpicking as you have now accused me of so doing?


Which argument? The one you are insistent on starting, or my repudiation of AngelRho's post?


How about for each argument in which you include your catch phrase "defied by logic"?

Edit: Oh, sorry got you confused with aspie rant.



NeantHumain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Jun 2004
Age: 46
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,837
Location: St. Louis, Missouri

28 Aug 2010, 2:51 pm

What Christians usually take to be support for their religious views falls flat for atheists, which is why they're atheists. They usually rely on a personal, subjective "revelation," and this can sound like a hallucination or flight of the imagination to a third party. The atheist is much more likely to consider a naturalistic explanation or feel comfortable not knowing; the Christian sees the "hand of God" in everything.



skafather84
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Mar 2006
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,848
Location: New Orleans, LA

28 Aug 2010, 3:03 pm

ruveyn wrote:
skafather84 wrote:
A demonstrative result that is repeatable under controlled conditions and cannot be explained any other way. Even then, proving a deity is different than proving that a certain religion is correct (which is one point that every theist fails to connect).


Quite so. Even if very advanced god-like beings existed it would not prove the correctness of any of the religions of mankind. Religion is made up out of custom and whole cloth.

ruveyn


But if theists were rational, they'd stop being religious fanatics and become more of mysticals and shamans who seek to study under a more generalized sense of spiritualism rather than ascribing to specific myths.


_________________
Wherever they burn books they will also, in the end, burn human beings. ~Heinrich Heine, Almansor, 1823

?I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs or insanity for everyone, but they've always worked for me.? - Hunter S. Thompson