Atheism the unscientific belief (part one, two, and three)

[Little Rik]

I am so sorry to hear that Des.  
You tell me who force you to read these posts and i promise you that i will fix these bullies once and for all.  

The OP is just a general example of a religious person trying to disprove atheists. I was expressing my distaste for reading it, which I think could be understandable. Why you're against me expressing my distaste for something leaves me scratching my head.

I didn't know that i am a religious person.  
You reckon that all theists follow religion?  
You see Des.
You start your analysis with the wrong foot so to speak
and then pretend that i understand you.
It just doesn't make any sense.  

[Cyberman]

Misquoting is against the forum rule Wind.

Except when done for parody and made explicitly clear:

Changing quoted text for the purpose of parody is allowed, provided that the parody is clear to members. In the case of ambiguity, staff will err on the side of preserving the author's original words rather than preserving a member's artistic license.

Stop playing moderator. You are shit at it. If you cared about any violation of the Rules, you would know to report them instead of calling them out in open thread.

And stop pretending that I give a shit what philosophy means. I'm not going to yank your dick for you.

[Ben Davis]

You clearly do not understand the human psychology...
...By not believing in something you still search in your mind for a reason not to believe.

This statement shows that it's you who has an over-simplified understanding of psychology: you do not necessarily need 'a reason not to believe'. For most people it's enough simply to not have a a reason to believe. For example, you may not believe because you have no awareness of the belief: specifically, there are plenty of gods which other people believe in that I have no clue about. In that case, I have no 'reason not to believe', I simply have an absence of belief. The same will be true for you.

Atheists always rely on science to disbelieve a possible God.

No, no, no, no, no! This is just untrue! You've been told this a hundred times! There are many reasons why people don't believe in any gods. For example most paganisms are atheistic (there are no theistic gods) however pagan atheism is based on a completely unscientific set of propositions. There are also atheists who have been raised with no religion of any kind, they simply lack the childhood indoctrination that many theisms rely on for propagation; once again, no scientific basis for the atheism. There are atheists who disbelieve on ethical or philosophical grounds: they find the concepts of worship, redemption, eternal life or any other theistic claim as unsupportable. Once again, no science needed.

There are atheists who disbelieve for scientific reasons and they may even form the majority on this board but to assume that all atheists disbelieve for that reason is a poor over-simplification that you've adopted in order to reinforce your own cognitive bias. Stop it.

Gee, i just had my dinner.

So you're sickened by Hawking's disability? That gives me insight to your personality that I think should be highlighted for our audience.

The bloke state that there is no God but where is his evidence?

Read his books, please. Start with 'A Brief History of Time' and go from there.

I didn't say that atheists are such and such.
I instead say that most of you don't care about it.

Apologies if I misrepresented your position. Let's examine your claim that with 'most don't care'. Stats show that atheists are more likely to be 'sensation seekers'. So we do smoke/drink/etc. more but that's because we're less repressed. Doesn't seem like much of religious win to me.

All this intellectual jargon to say nothing that make any sense?

By trying to blame me for your lack of comprehension, you look foolish.

If you really think that you know how the mind works why don't you tell me what is the difference between outer and inner mind?    

I did. In my response to you here, page 93, post #924.

I always said that intellectuals are losers.  

...which explains your lack of intellect. You're shooting yourself in the foot.

You just contradict yourself Ben.
First you say that science doesn't contradict atheism and then you say that science can demonstrate that claims about God are false.
Are you kidding me by telling me that science play no role in no believing?  

I've already stated why science is incapable of 'contradicting atheism' as have many others, many times. I'm not going to repeat myself again; you're not a child so stop acting like one. Also, I've never said that science can play 'no part', I've always said that it doesn't necessarily play a part. You're the one who's been making crass and erroneous generalisations.

[Homeless Nutter]

I didn't know that i am a religious person.  [...]

Of course you are - you're a hindu. Also - nuts, but that's neither here nor there, I suppose.
Now you know...

[DespondentFishdeathMasochismo]

The OP is just a general example of a religious person trying to disprove atheists. I was expressing my distaste for reading it, which I think could be understandable. Why you're against me expressing my distaste for something leaves me scratching my head.

I didn't know that i am a religious person.  
You reckon that all theists follow religion?  
You see Des.
You start your analysis with the wrong foot so to speak
and then pretend that i understand you.
It just doesn't make any sense.  

This is one of those comments that's so poorly written, it actually takes more intelligence and patience to actually decipher what it says. Btw, you type like you're talking on facebook.

[dyresand]

I didn't know that i am a religious person.  
You reckon that all theists follow religion?  
You see Des.
You start your analysis with the wrong foot so to speak
and then pretend that i understand you.
It just doesn't make any sense.  

This is one of those comments that's so poorly written, it actually takes more intelligence and patience to actually decipher what it says. Btw, you type like you're talking on facebook.

Rik has no idea  what the fuck he is talking about. But he has a point you don't have to be religious to hold a belief in god. 
Most people these days are ditching religion keeping the belief in god still.

[Little Rik]

You clearly do not understand the human psychology...
...By not believing in something you still search in your mind for a reason not to believe.

This statement shows that it's you who has an over-simplified understanding of psychology: you do not necessarily need 'a reason not to believe'. For most people it's enough simply to not have a a reason to believe. For example, you may not believe because you have no awareness of the belief: specifically, there are plenty of gods which other people believe in that I have no clue about. In that case, I have no 'reason not to believe', I simply have an absence of belief. The same will be true for you.

Mr. Confusion.  
An absence of belief is different from not believing.
By not believing you build your decision on certain grounds while your absence of believe
as you say come from not be aware of.    

Atheists always rely on science to disbelieve a possible God.

No, no, no, no, no! This is just untrue! You've been told this a hundred times! There are many reasons why people don't believe in any gods. For example most paganisms are atheistic (there are no theistic gods) however pagan atheism is based on a completely unscientific set of propositions. There are also atheists who have been raised with no religion of any kind, they simply lack the childhood indoctrination that many theisms rely on for propagation; once again, no scientific basis for the atheism. There are atheists who disbelieve on ethical or philosophical grounds: they find the concepts of worship, redemption, eternal life or any other theistic claim as unsupportable. Once again, no science needed.

[/quote]

More confusion.
You just can not disbelieve on philosophical ground.
Philosophy lead to God so it is impossible to build a disbelieve in God on this ground.
Philosophy is all about love for wisdom.
Wisdom goes well over the border of this physical reality.
Wisdom is not something physical-material or mental.
It goes a lot further into the inner self and in this place there is no question on who is who.

There are atheists who disbelieve for scientific reasons and they may even form the majority on this board but to assume that all atheists disbelieve for that reason is a poor over-simplification that you've adopted in order to reinforce your own cognitive bias. Stop it.

Let us agree that there are some atheists that disbelieve for other reason other than the scientific reasons.
I haven't find any so far but let us assume that there are some.
 

Gee, i just had my dinner.

So you're sickened by Hawking's disability? That gives me insight to your personality that I think should be highlighted for our audience.

You presume Ben, do you?
You are wrong again Ben.
I just can't stand that guy because all he says are untested theories that don't make any sense.

The bloke state that there is no God but where is his evidence?

Read his books, please. Start with 'A Brief History of Time' and go from there.

A waste of time Ben.
We have big bangs all the time.
That is not how the universe started.

I didn't say that atheists are such and such.
I instead say that most of you don't care about it.

Apologies if I misrepresented your position. Let's examine your claim that with 'most don't care'. Stats show that atheists are more likely to be 'sensation seekers'. So we do smoke/drink/etc. more but that's because we're less repressed. Doesn't seem like much of religious win to me.

Less repressed?
I would have thought that not to introduce s.hit in our body is all about wisdom?  

All this intellectual jargon to say nothing that make any sense?

By trying to blame me for your lack of comprehension, you look foolish.

Comprendo, comprendo mate, don't worry about that.  

If you really think that you know how the mind works why don't you tell me what is the difference between outer and inner mind?    

I did. In my response to you here, page 93, post #924.

Ehm, Ben.
I think you confuse the nervous system with the onion mind.  

I always said that intellectuals are losers.  

...which explains your lack of intellect. You're shooting yourself in the foot.

Strange Ben but i don't feel any pain in my foot.  

You just contradict yourself Ben.
First you say that science doesn't contradict atheism and then you say that science can demonstrate that claims about God are false.
Are you kidding me by telling me that science play no role in no believing?  

I've already stated why science is incapable of 'contradicting atheism' as have many others, many times. I'm not going to repeat myself again; you're not a child so stop acting like one. Also, I've never said that science can play 'no part', I've always said that it doesn't necessarily play a part. You're the one who's been making crass and erroneous generalisations.

Of course Ben.
We shouldn't generalize considering that there may be 1 or 2 % of atheists that do not rely on physical science to disbelieve in God.  

[Cyberman]

I just can't stand that guy because all he says are untested theories that don't make any sense.

Such as?

[Whateverist]

---

All this talk of low vs high forms of consciousness is based on .. what, exactly?  What makes the quality of consciousness supported by vegetarianism 'higher'?  What you call 'lower' is what I would call your humanity.  You eschew that in order to obtain what you call 'higher' consciousness.  But even if you could, why would you want to leave behind your humanity?  What urgent business requires such a sacrifice? Becoming a 'disembodied' intelligence is essentially an escapist mission.  I leave you to it.

---

Few hundred years ago there were no cars, no planes so people used to travel by foot or on carriages pulled by horses.
There was nothing wrong with that really.
In those times people never see the advent of cars and planes.
They were happy with what they had.
We are also happy the way we are.
We do not really think seriously that in the future we may get all our nourishment by swallow a tablet and we may travel from planet to planet in short time with a spacecraft.
Things change Whatever.
I don't really put down our ancestors for the way they used to live.
All i am saying is that as the time goes things must change in order to progress.
What used to work more or less in the past can not possibly work these days.
The vehicles of today run on a particular type of fuel.
The vehicles of tomorrow will need a different type of fuel.
In the same way the consciousness of today can not possibly carry on with the same type of material-physical-mental nourishment of yesterday.  

This is all very interesting except that it doesn't at all answer my point.  In the case of transportation it is easy to see how covering greater distances in less time is advantageous.  But my question to you was what precisely makes the quality of consciousness supported by vegetarianism 'higher'?  In case I haven't been clear, I think you are mistaken.  Your consciousness isn't higher, it has simply gone of the rails of your humanity.  What you call higher I would call deranged.  Can you not see that your supposed 'explanation' amounts to nothing more than a bald assertion?

If this is too hard never mind.  It must be hard to understand when you've forsaken so much of your humanity.  But go ahead and go zipping around up in the rainbows and pity poor me so far below you and confused.

[Little Rik]

I just can't stand that guy because all he says are untested theories that don't make any sense.

Such as?

The bloke was saying that there is no God (untested theory) but after some time he say something different.
He say.....Hawking's views on the existence of God have been the subject of much debate, especially since his 1988 "A Brief History of Time" in which he mused that the discovery of an overarching theory of everything would allow us to "know the mind of God", which some people have interpreted as literal and some as literary. However, in his 2010 book "The Grand Design" he states unequivocally that "spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God...to set the universe going".

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/scie...wking.html

Which is all very confusing (sort of bullshit).


Not happy with that he stated that the universe started with the big bang but again after sometime he change his story into a myriad of other stories.
If the bloke would have look inside rather then outside he would have a better idea of how the whole system works.
Matter, water, light and energy, air, space, mind and consciousness are all inside ourselves.
From here it is not difficult to know that the matter is the last transformation of pure consciousness
and therefore the creator of the matter is the super conscious mind.
But no, Hawking started from the wrong place therefore is all very confusing.