SHEEPEOPLE

[Michael]

It is my understanding that we don't actually have anything written by Jesus, we only have the bible.

That doesn't seem to be a problem for Christians or Muslims.

But not necessarily the same "God".

There's only one God in "monotheism" and lots of religions. When are you going to learn about the definition of monotheism, or did you intend to misrepresent the concept for your entire life?

I was just telling Scott about how often you use the appeal to popularity fallacy.

Sure, that must explain my minority views on cosmology and my rejection of Lambda-CDM.

 

[Davian]

Oh...it's all so predictable:

More that you know.

First you challenge me to produce evidence of another world <snip straw-man>

No, I did not. In post #720, you made an appeal to popularity, to the effect that if millions of people see something that I don't, the problem must lie with me. That fallacy was challenged, and you abdicated.

I know nothing of this "other world" that you allude to, and see no reason even to speculate about it.

If you would like to introduce this "other world" as a hypothetical, and provide reasons for how this has more explanatory power for the world around us than, say, you simply imagining it, then do so.

 

[Michael]

That would be like defining Love. It can't be done.

.

I would argue that Panetheism/Pantheism offers an atheist a purely empirical and physical definition of God, one they also simply handwave at and reject out of hand, typically without understanding any of the underlying physical processes. Most atheists for instance are clueless how circuit theory might be applied to plasmas in space.

 

[bhsmte]

That would be like defining Love. It can't be done.

.

I am puzzled to how you can believe in a deity, without at least a basic concept of who this deity is?

 

[Michael]

The lack of compelling evidence for this undefined, unfalsifiable god-thing you are talking about.

Another example of your psychological need for falsification when no such thing is required in "science".

 

[Michael]

I am puzzled to how you can believe in a deity, without at least a basic concept of who this deity is?

Astronomers do not need to have a basic concept of 'dark matter' to believe it has some "effect" on the universe. Likewise they don't need to name so much as a single source of "dark energy' to believe that it too has an effect on physical things. Astronomers can't even agree upon a *single* definition of inflation either.

 

[Davian]

No spiritual glasses.

Do these "glasses" also allow you to see ghosts, goblins, devils, and demons? Does it have other paranormal features, so you can do things like dowse for water? Now, that would be useful.

 

[Davian]

...
I cried out to a God I didn't know existed...

Do you send letters to Santa?

 

[Davian]

And some atheists have a psychological need to believe that they are smarter and more intelligent than the vast majority of the planet

I would challenge you to find a statement from me here that would contradict my understanding that belief in gods (or conspiracy theories, reptilian humanoids in government, etc) as aspects of perfectly normal brains. We are story tellers, descended from story tellers, and we are story believers.

and that their *lack of* experiences of God speak for the whole of humanity.

That these experiences cannot be shown to be more than imagined speaks to how poor these are as "evidence" for gods.

They tend to be "evangelicals" too, intent on "spreading the good news" of atheism on every religious website they can find.

What is this "good news" that you allude to? Your comfort blanket is a fraud?

Sounds like wishful thinking to me since self proclaimed atheists tend to be in the single digit minority.

Should we put reality to a vote?

 

[Davian]

Already done.

No, that was where I made the suggestion. Substantiate, or retract.

 

[Davian]

Where does that definition use the term 'gods' plural or is that just your personal idiosyncrasy? I even defined God for you in a purely empirical manner, and you simply handwaved at that definition.

All you did was slap the label of "God" on the Universe. That the Universe exists is not in dispute.

 

[Davian]

False. You still have a psychological need to believe that you have "reality" figure out better than theists, and a need to 'evangelize' your cause too.

What better place to come than here, if you want to see if you should doubt an atheistic position?

 

[Michael]

I would challenge you to find a statement from me here that would contradict my understanding that belief in gods (or conspiracy theories, reptilian humanoids in government, etc) as aspects of perfectly normal brains. We are story tellers, descended from story tellers, and we are story believers.

Sure, but then you're just another single story teller, telling your subjective story about a perceived lack of any experience of God. Furthermore you're intent on stuffing it down everyone's throat based on a constant stream of ridicule of any claims that don't jive with your subjective experiences.

That these experiences cannot be shown to be more than imagined

The space expansion claim cannot be shown to be more than imagined either. Ditto for gravitons in QM theories of gravity. Ditto for dark energy and dark matter. Your personal emotional need for empirical verification is not required in science. The cause of any specific effect is often simply *assumed* in science.

speaks to how poor these are as "evidence" for gods.

Your subjective characterization of the evidence is irrelevant in the final analysis. It's just a subjective judgment call on your part, nothing more.

What is this "good news" that you allude to? Your comfort blanket is a fraud?

Is your personal comfort blanket related to a requirement for falsification and empirical justification any less of a fraud?

Should we put reality to a vote?

Why aren't you publicly whining about Lambda-CDM claims again?

 

[Davian]

That would be like defining Love. It can't be done.

Love's all in the Brain
Loving with all your... Brain
The Neural Correlates of Maternal and Romantic Love
Romantic Love: An ƒMRI study of a neural mechanism for Mate Choice
The Science of Love
ƒMRI and Hormonal Love

 

[Michael]

All you did was slap the label of "God" on the Universe. That the Universe exists is not in dispute.

All I did ultimately was embrace Panentheism. I slapped on no labels of my own. Furthermore the structures and functions of the filamentary universe certainly mirror the sorts of functions and structures found in living organisms on Earth.

http://www.exohuman.com/wordpress/2011/07/brain-structure-mirrors-the-universe/

The only question is whether or not those current carrying macroscopic structures of the universe give rise to awareness, but even "awareness" shows up in labs on Earth, unlike the invisible entities of Lambda-CDM.

 

[Michael]

Love's all in the Brain
Loving with all your... Brain
The Neural Correlates of Maternal and Romantic Love
Romantic Love: An ƒMRI study of a neural mechanism for Mate Choice
The Science of Love
ƒMRI and Hormonal Love

http://www.exohuman.com/wordpress/2011/07/brain-structure-mirrors-the-universe/

 

[Davian]

That doesn't seem to be a problem for Christians or Muslims.

They believe separate, contradictory texts to be "good authorities". Try again?

There's only one God in "monotheism" and lots of religions. When are you going to learn about the definition of monotheism, or did you intend to misrepresent the concept for your entire life?

Post #872.

Sure, that must explain my minority views on cosmology and my rejection of Lambda-CDM.

I do not see how your predilection for fallacies affects your view on cosmology, but I could work something out for you.

 

[Michael]

What better place to come than here, if you want to see if you should doubt an atheistic position?

That doesn't explain your reliance of ridicule in virtually every post. What's up with that?

 

[Davian]

Another example of your psychological need for falsification when no such thing is required in "science".

Where did I claim that?

 

[Davian]

... Likewise they don't need to name so much as a single source of "dark energy' ...

Burn the Strawmen

• Davian
• Apr 9, 2014