Argument against atheism

[downbeatplumb]

Well that counts me out mate...whom did you have in mind??

Well actually i was thinking of my wife.

She has the perfect hour glass figure that goes in and out in all the right places.

[amkerman]

Darwinning: which Is why I believe atheism is not an attack on God, but an attack on religion.

[Rhizomorph13]

I think it depends on what your definition of "is" is. Definition should be defined too but to do that would require a functional definition of definition to define what defining is and since we have failed to define is or definition then this sentence must not exist therefore God exists to make everything work.

Ahh, that felt good. I'm so happy that I can just insert God whenever it gets too tedious to actually think.

Reading this thread is like watching a person try to close a tupperware container with only one hand; it just keeps going around and around without getting anywhere. I had hopes a few pages back, but they have long since been dashed. Keep up the philosobating!

[amkerman]

dounbeatplumb: the correct answer is Scarlette Johannson.

[downbeatplumb]

Darwinning: which Is why I believe atheism is not an attack on God, but an attack on religion.

I dont believe there is a god, why is that an attack on religion? it just happens to be what i think is true.

[Darwinning]

We cannot see the forest for the trees because we cannot "see" the forst and we can not "see" the trees. Sight is the process of light entering a humans cornea and hitting the receptors on the retina which causes an electrical charge. Those receptors then fire and send a signal down the optic nerve to the occiptal lobe, where the brain processes the electrical signals. consciousness then interprets what the brain has processed into a mental image and we perceive the forest and the trees through our own consciousness. There is no reason to believe the tree or forest exist apart from consciiousness. It is illogical. to believe in the forest or the trees unless one also believes that consiousness is inherently real. If consciousness is inherently real it must exist apart from our ideas an notions of what consciousness is (definition of "real"). For that to be true it must be a property of the universe and not an emergent function of the brain (breif glossing of why- everything in the universe is created by universal forces. those things we interpret in the physical world and form ideas about through our conscious mind. The only things we exist apart from our observations of them, are forces of the univere such as magnatysm, gravity, etc.). A belief that consciousness exists as a promary force in the universe could correctly be called a belief in God (without going back over why that is, and it doesn't NEED to be called God, it can be called any infinnite number of things. (one could define it scientifically, spritually, philisohpically, etc, the actual belief remains the same, because it exists independently of our ideas for it).

And we're back where we started. Shame. You were doing so well.

It is illogical.

Yes. You are using your consciousness to do the reasoning here. What leads you to conclude that your consciousness is anything but illogical?

---

You do realize we could go on forever like this, do you?

[downbeatplumb]

dounbeatplumb: the correct answer is Scarlette Johannson.

Or whoever played the redhead in madmen.

[amkerman]

Exactly Rhizomorph. Forces in the universe interact to create everything, nothing can exist if those forces don't exist. A belief that things do exist without a belief that the forces of the universe are real is the epitome of blind faith.

[Epimethean]

I see a basement apartment, a stout matron of a mother one floor up, baking, cooking, wondering why her son tends to come up only for meals, and why he wears the same shabby, grease-stained clothing day in and day out. Many partially read books lie strewn about, the computer is always on, and the bathroom is never clean.

[amkerman]

Downbeat. You might just not believe in the idea of god which you believe to be correct.

If you believe that things exist apart from our ideas of what they are, if you believe that the world and our experiences of that world are accurate, then you believe in what I have called God. But it is not necessary anyone else calls it that. The belief exists regardless of our ideas for what that belief is.