Argument against atheism

[Darwinning]

Since no definition of God is inherently correct or not correct, a belief in anything for which there is no empirical scientific evidence or data to support must necessarily stem from a belief in something that would most correctly be described as "God".

By that same convoluted logic, the exact same belief could correctly be described as a belief in something that is most definitely not "God".

If you define God as something that cannot be defined, that does not imply that everything that cannot be defined is God.

[thesummerqueen]

Give it a chance, Am. I think you'll see that what you're dancing around doesn't actually have any credible evidence.

Ep, my love, you're in a biting mood these past few weeks.

[amkerman]

No, it didn't. Nde's are scientifically recorded phenomenon which are not understood by science. There are varying hypotheses for how nde's occur, but no hypotheses have been scientifically verified. You simply are dismissive in things that are not understood.

[thesummerqueen]

NDE's are an experience they've replicated under other conditions that had nothing to do with death. Just because they don't understand them fully doesn't mean they're not understood at all. Try again.

---

And I wasn't discussing NDE's, but the points Novella made about consciousness. But I should have figured you'd also be dismissive.

[The Grand Nudger]

So, more of the "most correctly termed" bullshit? I think I know what's happened here. You have bit's and pieces from someone else's argument, an argument which you are incapable of presenting in an organized fashion. That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

You still don't have an argument against atheism. You're merely repeating your beliefs regarding atheism (and other subjects). Making claims without elaborating upon them or demonstrating their veracity. When all else fails, you just start the loop over again. It was bullshit at post#1, bullshit it remains. I believe that you believe these things, you needn't repeat them over and over. What you need to do (if you want to posess that argument you made a claim to) is demonstrate that your beliefs aren't simply of a projection of whats floating around in your head onto the cosmos. This is something I haven't even seen you attempt. It's all been playground garbage thusfar, you sticking your fingers in your ears and repeating yourself as though no one were speaking with you or addressing your claims. Calvinist by chance?

[amkerman]

summer, in the end, whether or not consciousness is emergent function of complex systems pr a primary function of the universe is open to debate. Dr. Novela holds a belief about how he thing consciousness was formed. He gives many valid points for why he believes that yo be the case, but ultimately he is simply dismissive of all evidence that goes to a contrary viewpoint of his own. His belief is completely rational. But he offers no insight as how consciousness is formed. Indeed he states outright that he doesn't know how consciousness functions 100% only that since there is a strong correlation between brain functioning and consciousness.

Again, my argument is not that consciousness is a primary function of the universe. It is an argument against objective reality, and it is still valid even if Dr. Novella is completely correct in his belief. However, any belief that Dr. Novella is objectively right is illogical from a worldview which holds that consciousness is an emergent function of complex systems rather than a primary function of the universe.

---

i wasn't talking to you when I was saying NDE's summer, I was talking to someone else.

[Darwinning]

You still don't have an argument against atheism.

He does if we allow him to define "God" as "everything that cannot be known" and "Atheism" as "the firm conviction that it is universally true that God does not exist". Both of which are bunk.

So I guess you're right.

[thesummerqueen]

summer, in the end, whether or not consciousness is emergent function of complex systems pr a primary function of the universe is open to debate. Dr. Novela holds a belief about how he thing consciousness was formed. He gives many valid points for why he believes that yo be the case, but ultimately he is simply dismissive of all evidence that goes to a contrary viewpoint of his own. His belief is completely rational. But he offers no insight as how consciousness is formed. Indeed he states outright that he doesn't know how consciousness functions 100% only that since there is a strong correlation between brain functioning and consciousness.

Again, my argument is not that consciousness is a primary function of the universe. It is an argument against objective reality, and it is still valid even if Dr. Novella is completely correct in his belief. However, any belief that Dr. Novella is objectively right is illogical from a worldview which holds that consciousness is an emergent function of complex systems rather than a primary function of the universe.

---

i wasn't talking to you when I was saying NDE's summer, I was talking to someone else.

You HAVE been reading Chopra, haven't you?

[Rhizomorph13]

You know, I've been thinking about this and this is what I've come up with:

1. Donuts are tasty
2. For something to be tasty, a tasteless taster has to exist
3. That tasteless taster is God
4. Therefore God exists

There God proven! So...

1. Atheists believe in taste
2. Atheists believe in donuts
3. Therefore Atheists have to believe in the tasteless taster
4. Atheism is wrong

There Atheism explained away.

I think I'll leave my religious views the way they are for posterity, but everyone should know that I am really a supplicant of the tasteless taster.

[Epimethean]

"... in the end, whether or not consciousness is emergent function of complex systems pr a primary function of the universe is open to debate."

Only if you are dull enough to read the National Enquirer to catch up on the news.