(March 12, 2017 at 4:05 pm)comet Wrote: thats not the point.  The point is not "if we are alive the universe is alive."  So to keep repeating that is incorrect and not a point.

You don't actually seem to have a point, then. As illustration:

(March 12, 2017 at 4:05 pm)comet Wrote: Science is about looking to support the most reasonable claim.  "atheism", the belief statement, has no say in how the universe works.  

So, lets stick with a smaller volume for the less trained.  We can look at the biosphere before we go to the larger volume of the universe.  To make a claim we need a measurement, not an opinion.  You untrained, look up the definition.

what do the biosphere's interactions, as a whole, match?
non-life
virus
life

what we believe or what we want to believe has no bearing on repeating this compassion.  Take it to anybody, anywhere, at any time and see what most people record as the observation.

neils point is that a belief statement doesn't decide the best conclusion.  In this case, the more reasonable claim is that the biosphere matches what we classify as life better than what we classify as non life.

this is so simple and eloquent to demonstrate neil's point.  It forums people just to post a reply thinking it makes their point more real.  Neil does not approve.

now for the next part, increasing the volume.  Is there anybody here trained in the standard model and doesn't have an ax to grind? or am I dealing with "adult children of abuse" and high school-ers only?

I defy anyone here to find me an actual argument, or even a hint at a coherent conclusion, anywhere in that heaping, steaming dumpster fire of rejected word salad.

The universe is not alive. There is no coherent definition of the word "alive" that can be applied to the universe.

Demanding a measurement is pointless when you can't even define what it is that you are attempting to measure.

appeal to the group? lmao. The point is to show you what neil really means. Science is about recording observations then drawing conclusions.

"pointless" measurement means you guy don't really understand what a measurement is. To measure, we take and unknown and compare it to a standard. the standard has no meaning past "we all agree on it." If we can't agree the a cell represents what we call alive then who exactly is pointless? I also made it clear that the measurement is crude, but its better than none.

I figured you guys would run away, avoid, and dismiss so that your conclusions match your view of atheism. The word "alive" as a descriptor for the biosphere is a more valid claim than the biosphere matches non-life. When we compare the interactions of the biosphere to those objects we call life (like a cell),a virus, and non-life (from a rock to a computer) to see what the biosphere matches best the belief of the individual becomes irrelevant. It removes your set of beliefs (here atheism) like holding a twig next to a meter stick and recording the reading of 63.45 cm.

So, to neils point, we have a group of people that will not make the measurement to narrow down a range of reasonable conclusions. It doesn't matter how many of you won't make it, the fact that you didn't means you opinion is baseless. Science doesn't care. Science moves on to see if that claim will make predictions or we have to modify the claim.

I am only an atheist that does not practice atheism.
Nice church thread you guys got going on.
I wonder when they will try and force laws on other people ... oh wait ... to late.

(March 13, 2017 at 5:54 am)comet Wrote: I am only an atheist that does not practice atheism.

I have decided to ignore every other sentence in your post, but this one specifically caught my attention.

You are an atheist who does not practise atheism. Hmm. You are an atheist who does not practise atheism.

What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

(March 13, 2017 at 7:40 am)ma5t3r0fpupp3t5 Wrote:

(March 13, 2017 at 5:54 am)comet Wrote: I am only an atheist that does not practice atheism.

I have decided to ignore every other sentence in your post, but this one specifically caught my attention.

You are an atheist who does not practise atheism. Hmm. You are an atheist who does not practise atheism.

What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

It means he's a lying poe.  He is in fact NOT an atheist, because he sees atheism as a religious practice.

(March 13, 2017 at 8:08 am)bennyboy Wrote:

(March 13, 2017 at 7:40 am)ma5t3r0fpupp3t5 Wrote: I have decided to ignore every other sentence in your post, but this one specifically caught my attention.

You are an atheist who does not practise atheism. Hmm. You are an atheist who does not practise atheism.

What the fuck is that supposed to mean?

It means he's a lying poe.  He is in fact NOT an atheist, because he sees atheism as a religious practice.

Ayup. Feeps like this never seem to grasp that atheism is a religion in precisely the same sense that 'bald' is a hair colour.

Boru

irontiger Wrote:

Mister Agenda Wrote:It's very significant and valuable to me. What additional value does my existence need? What point of view am I supposed to have besides my own?

 
 If it was possible to take all your experiences that are valuable to you to continue beyond your life would you be interested or just want to have it end in this lifetime ?

I would like to live longer, but not forever. I can't think of anything that would cheapen the time I have more than for it to be a mere prelude to an endless existence. I wouldn't want to try to watch a movie or read a book that never ended. Without an ending, a story is incomplete; and if it literally goes on forever; unreadable. I'm not the same person I was 25 years ago. In a trillion times infinity years, the me I am now would be long gone even if my consciousness was still floating around somewhere. Why should I care now about the fate of that hypothetically potential alien being that will barely be aware I ever existed?

---

irontiger Wrote:What if it just a being that we live in?  Is this something you don't want to accept?
 

It's something I would need convincing evidence of proportionate to the claim to accept, just like any other claim.

---

comet Wrote:

Jesster Wrote:You're backing up claims with more claims. Until you back up any of your claims with any evidence-based arguments, I'm not going to accept them. Now show that this is actually possible without just saying "because I said so".

it doesn't matter what you accept or not, that's what Neil means.  You can believe what you want, it doesn't affect the science.  the science points to this planet being part of the universe and not separated in any way.  that means, what traits we have the universe must have.  I can go into levels and levels of "facts", but if your anti-religion then they don't matter and will be dismissed.  What you (or possibly me and neil) don't know, doesn't effect that.

Oh, come on! Can the universe be a single mother on food stamps? Orphaned at an early age? Cheating on its spouse? Have a neurological disorder?

Look up fallacy of composition. What is true of the whole is not necessarily true of the parts, and vice versa.

---

comet Wrote:

Jesster Wrote:My sandwich contains a slice of pickle. That does not make my sandwich a slice a pickle.

But it does mean your sandwich has, in parts, traits of a pickle.  the pickle is part of a larger system that we classify as a sandwich.  the pickle is part of something 'more" and may not "believe" its part of a more complex "sandwich".  

again, as per neil, it doesn't matter what the pickle believes, it is part of what we classify as a sandwich.  That's "how the universe works".

So the pickle is part of the sandwich. It is not itself, a sandwich, nor is the sandwich a pickle. We are part of the universe, we are not ourselves, the universe, nor is the universe us. A wall may be made entirely of bricks, but that doesn't make the wall a brick, or a brick a wall.

---

comet Wrote:No, you missed the point.  it doesn't matter what the pickle believes.  Its part of a more complex system that is the sandwich.  If the pickle is 'alive" the sandwich" is more "alive".  We classify that system (the sandwich) as more complex then the pickle.   unless you don't understand that, then back to Neil's point we go.

did you make the comparison yet?  the measurement is the best way to form an opinion.   So lets not be baseless.

A sandwich is more complex than the pickle, but it is not more 'picklish' than the pickle. The whole is more complex than the parts, but that's not the measure in question. There's more to being alive than complexity.

(March 10, 2017 at 5:33 pm)irontiger Wrote:  So you are not seeing anything around you or you do want to accept what you see around you is part of God?  Again that something you position yourself in. 

 If you can not see past your own ego, you will never understand the deeper philosophies.  You will see past your own lifetime.  Sounds like you are waiting for miracle to help you prove there is a God, when all you to do is accept the evidence around you is part of God.

---

Shouldn't I have to have a reason for accepting that all I see around me is part of a god?  Is that the only choice, to not see anything or to see god?

It seem it's you with the ego problems.  You just have to be right, no matter how ridiculous the reasons why.

(March 13, 2017 at 2:37 pm)Harry Nevis Wrote:

(March 10, 2017 at 5:33 pm)irontiger Wrote:  So you are not seeing anything around you or you do want to accept what you see around you is part of God?  Again that something you position yourself in. 

 If you can not see past your own ego, you will never understand the deeper philosophies.  You will see past your own lifetime.  Sounds like you are waiting for miracle to help you prove there is a God, when all you to do is accept the evidence around you is part of God.

---

Shouldn't I have to have a reason for accepting that all I see around me is part of a god?  Is that the only choice, to not see anything or to see god?

It seem it's you with the ego problems.  You just have to be right, no matter how ridiculous the reasons why.

This is why out of all gods, the Biblical God is probably one of the least likely of gods to be true.

Belief in such a god entails that reason, evidence and logic all get tossed out the window. Theist's justification? Because He is "special". Why is he special? Because he's God. It's all a bunch of circular logic and special pleading.

When a belief is relentlessly instilled into someone from the moment they are born, he/she perceives, what are demonstrably the best tools (reason, evidence, logic) in acquiring knowledge about our universe, as being enemies of God. Out of fear and social pressure, theists simply lean on the side of God. A god whose basic existence hasn't been demonstrated.

Belief in the Biblical God is not knowledge. It limits knowledge.