Atheism-o-Phobia Part 3

Hey ephrem you and Mak have probably done more for Christianity on this board than any of the rest of could do. I know this will continue as long as you see yourselves as poster boys for atheism.

God uses us all in different ways.

:slight_smile:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

We may have gained understanding of eachother in light of our discussions, but neither of us has come over to the other side [as if it’s truth] just one little bit. If anything, our discussions merely enforced the opinion we already had.

It really doesn’t matter what you say T, because this isn’t about god or God. I’m perfectly fine with having a personal relationship with [a] god if he chooses to reveal himself to me, but it’s the believers i have a problem with.

I don’t want to be a part of the same religion ZEB is part of. Or Sloth’s and Chris’ religion. I don’t want to be part of your religion either. It’s any kind of religion i have a problem with; not god. Why can’t you see that?
[/quote]

Given the way religious people behave sometimes, I can’t blame you.
I am postulating several theories lately about behaviour and religious or non-religious belief.

Do you want God to reveal himself to you?[/quote]

Maybe he already has. As ZEB said, he’s supposed to work in mysterious ways, isn’t he?

The idea of a god is not incompatable with my worldview/philosophy. From my POV, reality follows fascination, and as such we’re granted an life-experience that reflects that.

Seen in that light, none of us can really help ourselves to be something other than what we are. Not you, not me, not Tiribulus, not ZEB or even mick28.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Hey ephrem you and Mak have probably done more for Christianity on this board than any of the rest of could do. I know this will continue as long as you see yourselves as poster boys for atheism.

God uses us all in different ways.

:)[/quote]

Thanks ZEB, if even one person realised that religious hatred is wrong due to what i, or another non-believer, said over the years; it’ll make me happy.

[quote]ephrem wrote:
forlife wrote:

The perceived universe is subjective, as it exists in the mind of the perceiver. But the universe itself remains objective. We can only guess at the true nature of the universe, through the lens of our subjective perception, but that doesn’t imply the true universe doesn’t exist. Clearly it does, or there would be nothing to be perceived nor anyone to perceive it.

swoleupinya answered: If you can answer the question; “When does an electron decay?” with anything objective, then you may be able to say that there is actually an objective universe.

Quantum physics are leading us to a place where subjectivity seems to be the only arbiter. [/quote]

How about answering the question: “Does the electron exist?”? There is no evidence to my knowledge that matter is created or destroyed by virtue of subjective observation, only that it behaves differently based on the observer’s perspective. Anything to the contrary would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I realize we’ve only scratched the surface on quantum mechanics, but come on. If I plant a flag on the moon and nobody stops by to see it, the absence of visitors doesn’t magically cause the flag to self-annihilate.

Tiribulus, given your belief that god creates some to be saved and some that are “spiritually stillborn”, it seems the only logical conclusion is that men have no free will. No matter what I might or might not choose, your god has already chosen for me.

That’s a pretty harsh philosophy, but at least it reconciles with my point that free will is impossible to anything that had a beginning.

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
forlife wrote:

The perceived universe is subjective, as it exists in the mind of the perceiver. But the universe itself remains objective. We can only guess at the true nature of the universe, through the lens of our subjective perception, but that doesn’t imply the true universe doesn’t exist. Clearly it does, or there would be nothing to be perceived nor anyone to perceive it.

swoleupinya answered: If you can answer the question; “When does an electron decay?” with anything objective, then you may be able to say that there is actually an objective universe.

Quantum physics are leading us to a place where subjectivity seems to be the only arbiter. [/quote]

How about answering the question: “Does the electron exist?”? There is no evidence to my knowledge that matter is created or destroyed by virtue of subjective observation, only that it behaves differently based on the observer’s perspective. Anything to the contrary would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I realize we’ve only scratched the surface on quantum mechanics, but come on. If I plant a flag on the moon and nobody stops by to see it, the absence of visitors doesn’t magically cause the flag to self-annihilate.[/quote]

There’s energy with a certain wavelength we perceive as an electron. Everything we experience as reality is energy with a certain wavelenght we perceive as either as a wave or a particle.

We learn to make sense of reality; it is not apparent at first. And everything, everything, is filtered through our subjective sensory organs.

Enough time has passed, and enough humans went before us, to see a tree as a tree so it’s impossible to imagine a time when reality was unknown. But sometimes one is allowed to see reality without preconceptions, and that my dear forlife, is quite something.

[quote]kamui wrote:
ephrem wrote:

What do you mean?

since Descartes, modern philosophy start with “I know I am”, before reintroducing percepts and concepts, and developing its epistemology.

i’m basically contesting this and saying we should start with “I am alive” instead.

which means that affects are anterior to percepts and concepts.

having an affect is being affected, informed ad changed by “something”.

this “something” is the world. and its existence is even more apodictic than the existence of “I”.

there is a world well before “I am” or “I know I am”.
there was already a world in utero.
there was already a world millions years ago, when we’re unicellular beings.

not because we perceived it. but because, before perceiving it, we were already informed and affected by it. (since a perception is always the perception of a change).

some consequences :
i am an object before i become a subject
i am passive before i become active
i am part of this world before i start representing it

and moral values may be more real than trees

The validity of your premiss is founded on the essence of what “I am” actually is. Before we can continue i need to know what you think/believe the self, the “I am”, consists of. [/quote]

Kamui, if you’re still reading this thread, and if you care to respond; could you?

don’t know what you want to know exactly

like i said, i am, first and foremost, a living being.

as such, i am more than what i think i am
i am more than what i feel i am
i am more than what i can tell i am.

i am the sum of my relationships with the universe
and i am what i can be.

in modern philosophy “I” = “the conscious subject”
at this point, we already forgot that we breath before we think

in post-modern philosophy, things are even worst.
“I” = “a grammatical function”
at this point, we forgot that we think before we speak.

not sure it will answer your question.

It answered it perfectly Kamui. It’s the more part i’m wondering about.

If you’re more than all that, then what is it?

i am what i can do.
but, like Spinoza said, “we never know what a body can do”.

something all bodybuilders would probably intimately understand.

That’s rather non-descript kamui, but it still doesn’t escape the realm of thinking, feeling and telling though.

i was speaking about action.

even the smallest of our actions have endless ramifications and endless consequences.
more than we can feel, think and tell.

i can feel myself breathing
i can tell “i breath”
i can think about breathing

but the feeling of a breath is not a breath
the word “breath” is not a breath
the idea of breathing is not a breath

yet i do breath.

obviously, it’s rather non-descript, precisely because we can’t descript an affect.

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
forlife wrote:

The perceived universe is subjective, as it exists in the mind of the perceiver. But the universe itself remains objective. We can only guess at the true nature of the universe, through the lens of our subjective perception, but that doesn’t imply the true universe doesn’t exist. Clearly it does, or there would be nothing to be perceived nor anyone to perceive it.

swoleupinya answered: If you can answer the question; “When does an electron decay?” with anything objective, then you may be able to say that there is actually an objective universe.

Quantum physics are leading us to a place where subjectivity seems to be the only arbiter. [/quote]

How about answering the question: “Does the electron exist?”? There is no evidence to my knowledge that matter is created or destroyed by virtue of subjective observation, only that it behaves differently based on the observer’s perspective. Anything to the contrary would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I realize we’ve only scratched the surface on quantum mechanics, but come on. If I plant a flag on the moon and nobody stops by to see it, the absence of visitors doesn’t magically cause the flag to self-annihilate.[/quote]

There’s energy with a certain wavelength we perceive as an electron. Everything we experience as reality is energy with a certain wavelenght we perceive as either as a wave or a particle.

We learn to make sense of reality; it is not apparent at first. And everything, everything, is filtered through our subjective sensory organs.

Enough time has passed, and enough humans went before us, to see a tree as a tree so it’s impossible to imagine a time when reality was unknown. But sometimes one is allowed to see reality without preconceptions, and that my dear forlife, is quite something.
[/quote]

Good point, I was just saying that the energy we perceive as an electron exists in an an objective universe independently of our perception of it. The perception is not the reality, but the perception couldn’t exist without the reality.

[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< I don’t want to be a part of the same religion ZEB is part of. Or Sloth’s and Chris’ religion. I don’t want to be part of your religion either. It’s any kind of religion i have a problem with; not god. Why can’t you see that?
[/quote]Funny how you don’t mind Pat’s religion. He may never know how I intercede on His behalf.

[quote]ephrem wrote:<<< none of us can really help ourselves to be something other than what we are. Not you, not me, not Tiribulus, not ZEB or even mick28.[/quote] Oh you are so right about this.

[quote]forlife wrote:
Tiribulus, given your belief that god creates some to be saved and some that are “spiritually stillborn”, it seems the only logical conclusion is that men have no free will. No matter what I might or might not choose, your god has already chosen for me.

That’s a pretty harsh philosophy, but at least it reconciles with my point that free will is impossible to anything that had a beginning. [/quote]I’ll try again. ALL are spiritually still born. Some are born again. Who those are was settled in eternity in the utterly self sufficient, all righteous, all holy, all just and yes all loving, gracious, and merciful divine persons of the Holy Trinity. Conceived by the Father, accomplished by the Son and applied by the Holy Spirit. The Lamb slain from the foundation of the world to redeem those given Him by the Father who are thenceforth filled with His life and holiest of Spirits. Someone to whom this most majestic of all beatified truths has been made reality in their own resurrection in Christ will look upon his fellow men (and women) with a love and longing for them to taste such true life and freedom themselves.

Somebody claiming Christ who looks down their nose at fallen humanity knows nothing of the wholly undeserved grace of an offended and almighty God. I KNOW what I am without Him. That knowledge produces in me an a priori preclusion from ever fancying myself better or more deserving than anybody.

You are correct though. Defined as sinful fallen and sometimes even Christian men define it? Freewill is indeed impossible. Once again. I cannot improve upon the Westminster Confession of 1646: Chapter 3 section 1.

[quote] God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.[/quote]I will repeat. I have no idea how that works, but it descends upon my consciousness with a certitude the firmness of which far exceeds the soundest of syllogisms sporting universally unchallenged major premises.

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:
forlife wrote:

The perceived universe is subjective, as it exists in the mind of the perceiver. But the universe itself remains objective. We can only guess at the true nature of the universe, through the lens of our subjective perception, but that doesn’t imply the true universe doesn’t exist. Clearly it does, or there would be nothing to be perceived nor anyone to perceive it.

swoleupinya answered: If you can answer the question; “When does an electron decay?” with anything objective, then you may be able to say that there is actually an objective universe.

Quantum physics are leading us to a place where subjectivity seems to be the only arbiter. [/quote]

How about answering the question: “Does the electron exist?”? There is no evidence to my knowledge that matter is created or destroyed by virtue of subjective observation, only that it behaves differently based on the observer’s perspective. Anything to the contrary would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I realize we’ve only scratched the surface on quantum mechanics, but come on. If I plant a flag on the moon and nobody stops by to see it, the absence of visitors doesn’t magically cause the flag to self-annihilate.[/quote]

There’s energy with a certain wavelength we perceive as an electron. Everything we experience as reality is energy with a certain wavelenght we perceive as either as a wave or a particle.

We learn to make sense of reality; it is not apparent at first. And everything, everything, is filtered through our subjective sensory organs.

Enough time has passed, and enough humans went before us, to see a tree as a tree so it’s impossible to imagine a time when reality was unknown. But sometimes one is allowed to see reality without preconceptions, and that my dear forlife, is quite something.
[/quote]

Good point, I was just saying that the energy we perceive as an electron exists in an an objective universe independently of our perception of it. The perception is not the reality, but the perception couldn’t exist without the reality.[/quote]

I’m gonna’ confess: I totally fucking forgot where I was going with this train of thought… it’s been a long week at work.

Oh well… it must not have been important… carry on with your arguments :slight_smile:

Atheism-o-phobia?

How can you be afraid of atheism when you know God exists? More a like atheism-I-disregard-you.

No disrepsect to the atheists, I could care less for the most part about others beliefs, but I just don’t understand this whole phobia thing. Is it basically saying the the small majority of you believe you are right and everyone else is afraid to accept a false truth? Because I am sitting in my living room, feet on the carpet, taste of diaspartic acid on my tongue pondering the reality of it all. The reason my worn and callused hands fight, yet love on a daily basis and the simple thought she brings can spread a range of emotions all over the spectrum is the reason I know God exists. Explain that shit boys. Tell me why my intellect is that much greater than all other animals, taking a bullet for a friend, giving the shirt off my back to someone homeless not because a book told me to, but my inner soul thought it was right. That kind of stuff goes completely against ‘human nature’ where selfishness prevails, hate is abundant and many confused individuals can’t formulate opinions without the guidance of others.

[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
Atheism-o-phobia?

How can you be afraid of atheism when you know God exists? More a like atheism-I-disregard-you.

No disrepsect to the atheists, I could care less for the most part about others beliefs, but I just don’t understand this whole phobia thing. Is it basically saying the the small majority of you believe you are right and everyone else is afraid to accept a false truth? Because I am sitting in my living room, feet on the carpet, taste of diaspartic acid on my tongue pondering the reality of it all. The reason my worn and callused hands fight, yet love on a daily basis and the simple thought she brings can spread a range of emotions all over the spectrum is the reason I know God exists. Explain that shit boys. Tell me why my intellect is that much greater than all other animals, taking a bullet for a friend, giving the shirt off my back to someone homeless not because a book told me to, but my inner soul thought it was right. That kind of stuff goes completely against ‘human nature’ where selfishness prevails, hate is abundant and many confused individuals can’t formulate opinions without the guidance of others.[/quote]

This is the part3 of atheism-o-phobia treads. The first one started out with a animation about how many religious people where atheist-o-phobic. After what I can recall( its a long time since the first tread started ) the animation informed how the religious side argued against atheism with failed-logic. as an example: Stalin was an massmurderer, stalin was an atheist ergo stalin was an massmurderer because he was an atheist. From this line of reason the religious( according the animation btw ) say that atheism is dangerous and Stalin is one example of this. This offcourse is bullshit logic, but some atheists use the same line of reasoning when they judge christians. as an example: The curch have troughout history killed and done other evil acts against humanity, the curch where christian ergo the curch did all this horrible thing against humans because they where christian. This reasoning is as stupid as the first one about atheism. The truth is that christianity and atheism are just ideas and systems of believes, no more no less. Atheism is not the reason Stalin where an massmurderer and christianity is not the reason the curch did horrible things. The reasons for this acts commited by both atheists and religious are probably found if you study the historical context this acts where commited in. My point is this: religion nor atheism will in itself lead to monstrous acts, but they can both be used as an legitimation by people who commit horrible acts, but that thus not say anything about the supposedly evil within religion or atheism.

to your question about your innermorality( if I can call it that ): Well dude I cant explain why you feel that your need to doe some altruistic and good acts has its source from within yourself. And that you fell that some moralcodes are universal and that they are older than time itself. To be honest I feel the same thing about some acts and when I hear beethoven I feel something simililar, That this things ave been forever and it feels likely that a divine being created them. In the case of beethoven I feel like he`s music have been forever and as if where only a mather of time before someone like him where able to bring it out to the human race. But is this a evidence that God exists? I think not, for me it is a evidence that we dont know it all and that part of us is still clothed in a mist we cannot not penetrate with our naked eye.

well this is my toughts about it.

“religion nor atheism will in itself lead to monstrous acts, but they can both be used as an legitimation by people who commit horrible acts, but that thus not say anything about the supposedly evil within religion or atheism.”

Well I agree with that for sure.

I am comfortable enough knowing that God exists through my emotions, my mind, my inner being and I do not need concrete evidence to find this truth. Again I don’t have any disrespect to someone with a disagreeing opinion, I just have my faith and it will always be with me. And what’s nice is that science and God go together more often than not.

[quote]austin_bicep wrote:
“religion nor atheism will in itself lead to monstrous acts, but they can both be used as an legitimation by people who commit horrible acts, but that thus not say anything about the supposedly evil within religion or atheism.”

Well I agree with that for sure.

I am comfortable enough knowing that God exists through my emotions, my mind, my inner being and I do not need concrete evidence to find this truth. Again I don’t have any disrespect to someone with a disagreeing opinion, I just have my faith and it will always be with me. And what’s nice is that science and God go together more often than not.[/quote]

Might I ask if you believe in an interfering god, or one that exists but doesn’t particularly care if you go via christ or mohammed or any of the other religions that have come and gone?

In other words, are you a god-but-not-religion type of guy? Or do you sign the dotted line of a particular belief system?