Messages

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIUBTZSmDsU

Ok, so that guy says god is everywhere?(and seems pretty excited about it at 0:18)


This guy doesn't agree(3:23) - note the patronising look on his face while he shakes his head and says "no" at 3:35 and 3:47
http://www.godtube.com/view_video.php?viewkey=f1a0169174e9a78126ee


The rest of the vid is pretty much standard "atheists are stubborn and in denial" bullshit. Just to respond to the video description:

"What is the reason Atheists are so energetic to debate God's existence? It seems like a big waste of time for a true atheist"

Again, it seems like by "true atheist" he means "strong atheist". It is indeed pointless to debate something if you have already made up your mind and are not going to change it. But there is also the kind of atheist who made an assumption based on experience but is not a 100% sure. They debate to find out whether their arguments are bulletproof. If they are not, they get abandoned. It's not about stubbornly forcing your current position on others. It's about reaching a position that's as close to the truth as possible, through challenging yours and the opposite sides claims in debates.

The way I boil it down is this:
Agnostics say "I'll believe it when I see it"
Atheists say "You'll never make me believe it."

I call myself an atheist because I'm in the latter camp.  If one day I saw something that seemed to be definitive proof of the existence of God, I would still be shaking my head and trying to come up with more plausible explanations because I'm a stubborn like that. 

Red Alert! This is the misunderstanding I'm talking about. The reason why some theists don't want to give an atheist evidence for god is because they assume an atheist won't change their mind anyway(strong atheism). Of course you don't want to waste time with someone who doesn't care what you say. But when I say "prove to me that god exists" I don't say that in a cynical way but honestly ask them to present evidence, and if it proves the existence of god, why deny it? I finally have proof, halleluyah! Unfortunately this generalization about atheists comes up quite often. Let me jumble it up a little bit:

Weak atheists say "I'll believe it when I see it"
Strong atheists say "You'll never make me believe it."

[Not an entry]

Not an entry


Don't listen to the lies! The first ever tomb raider game was made for the commodore 64!
Here is proof!


2x   

Limpingfish: i agree aswell

Any society that wants power must remain by fear, it is extremely likely the government, actually there is evidence that the government had a hand in 9/11 and the people bought it hook line and sinker.

If you have the evidence I'd love to see it.

its not fair to take concepts such as 'telepathy' and use it empirically.

Why is it not fair? Anything that somehow influences or is influenced by the physical world can be tested empirically. The procedure is very simple. You sit in one room, another person sits in a room next to yours. The person is given a sheet of paper with some pictures or text. You are supposed to tell what the person is looking at. If you succeed, your telepathic ability is proven.

It sounded like a generalization to me, but if I misunderstood you, I apologize.

Limpingfish, I would appreciate if you didn't speak on behalf of the sides you are not a part of.

Diagram time!
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/Agnostic.gif
http://scienceblogs.com/evolvingthoughts/atheist_chart.gif

[in some degree]

An atheist can appreciate reality, but not in the same conviction. Call it like you will, if you wittle everything down to the firing of neurons and into material realms and lie your thoughts of rationality I'm afraid your algebra will be caused to fail.

I don't see what's wrong with calling things by name. The text you are reading now is the result of electrical signals interacting in my brain. Sounds unromantic but it is a scientific fact.

In Quantum mechanics there really isn't so much of a law, research in the psychical has demonstrated there is phenomena which we can influence. And anyway, if you say everything is predictable and can be verified, I disagree. Just because there is material explainations for lets say falling in love does not deny the reality on another level, or if there is a material process of death does not deny that the spiritual interacts with the mental.

I didn't say anything of that so you have nothing to disagree with. I said we can control and predict nature in some degree. Also I did not say that a materialistic explanation rules out a metaphysical one. If you wanna adress the things I said make sure they are actually the things I said.

I had a remarkable experience whilst under acid once... While many people are confused about LSD (and largely ignorant) its not a case of seeing the world in a hallucinatory delusion, but rather, you see the world for what it REALLY is. The brain has a funny way of filtering information, and when a few key molecules fit into a few neurotransmittors (hallucinogens are in the same family of conciousness, very similar and sometimes identical to seretonin etc) you see the world as it REALLY IS in holographic splendor.

And there is no way I will convince you on this point, but on that day I was telepathic, and talking to plants, I had picked up a stone (everything had a living consciousness I could witness) and asked it 'So if you are God? show me a vision I won't attribute to hallucination'. At that very moment, I had a vision of a very old friend who I hadn't seen in 6 years knock on my door, and I then immediately write it down in my trip journal what I had seen in the future... The very next 2 days, the same old friend knocked round offering a business card as a landscape gardener. Needless to say, I was completely gobsmacked. I don't care if such an anecdote doesn't bode well with scientists, who will dismiss the journal page and will come up with explainations like I am self deceiving myself or wrote it after the event in question, or that it was a 'coincedence'... It's not their validity I seek because 'reality' made itself known that day, and this is partly why I lost my faith in science, I still love science, but the paradigm needs a serious change. Just like laws and politics are ruled by the ignorant, so are some of the academic foundations in the world... Especially Psychology that seeks to impose order where there should be none.

So basically "I reject your reality and substitute it for my own"(adam savage) Just because it felt good it must have been "more real"? Totally fallacious thinking.

About the clairvoyance thing. One case doesn't prove you right. Why do you rule out coincidence? Because you like the thought of being able to look into the future and you don't want science to get in the way? That's not skeptical thinking. I had some prophetic dreams myself(not kidding, I had some detailed dreams of what actually happened a few days later) but I'm not saying I have the power to look into the future. Coincidence is a reasonable explanation. I mean, if it was happening constantly every couple of nights there might be more behind it. But you have to look at the whole picture. The number of my prophetic dreams is minute compared to the number of my normal dreams. Ignoring the misses while only seeing the hits is called confirmation bias.

And you were telepathic you say? Nothing easier than testing that scientifically. Too bad you don't like scientists anymore.

And I've experienced Ego-death whilst on the throws of a very powerful Ayahuasca experience, yes its a 'trip' its a 'hallucinogen' surely I am just setting myself up to believe in a delusion? I don't know? It was the most REAL experience, I felt psychological dead and then reborn, pain and then unimaginable bliss (afterwards... it wasn't an MDMA bliss but spiritually loving bliss),strong ayahuasca has been compared to a pseudo-near death experience.

And read the evidence for the near death experience, there is no material explainations for why the completely blind (destroyed ocular vision due to womb conditions) are able to see colour, shapes and movement in amazingly clear detail (often describing objects they shouldn't see unconciously in hospital). My dwelling into science now confirms my suspicions.

Just like stupot said before. You can't explain it so you jump to conclusions about it being of metaphysical nature.
Again, not skeptical thinking.

Of course, I still hold my skepticism

In this post you have shown that you are not skeptical at all.

but ego-death is such a powerful, powerful experience. To feel as if you died you experience unimaginable love of the infinite, ever since those few experiences I have made it a priority to volunteer in my community every week and I would never have considered it if I was an atheist. The sad thing is my experiences are only subjective, but then Its ok for it to be so because 'being in the dark' really makes you appreciate every moment of the human condition.

Like I said before, just because it feels good or feels "realer than reality" doesn't mean it's true. It's what's happening in your brain. Your brain can deceive you especially under the influence of drugs. Reality is not based on the experiences of a single person but on a general agreement of many people who constantly test claims about reality.

This post has gotten longer than I want my posts to be but I just had to adress these things.

You're catching on... GOD!!!...

Either that or she was drunk like a fish.

So its your choice if you want to be atheist, but I will tell you this... I am 5 times happier a pantheist then I was an atheist, I'm not saying atheists are unhappy, but I'm saying they will miss out on the simple joy of acknowledging the existence of the 'well I'm here'. You don't have to pray, just act loving in every action you do, realise that the world needs more love, and that love can set you free. I don't really care for an afterlife, why should I be afraid of death when I should be afraid of not living?

Why do you assume that an atheist can't appreciate reality? I don't believe in god, but that doesn't mean that I don't value nature. Quite the opposite. I worship reality as it were. I don't think you value existence anymore than I do(and vice versa). The only significant difference between our views seems to be that you just decided to call everything "god". If that's your view, fine. I could easily do just the same, I would have a god which would be testable and all. But I don't think tacking the word "god" on everything around solves the question of whether a god exists. Reality is reality. Based on laws that let us predict and control it in some degree. When I think "god" I think of all the deities humanity has ever created. I think all of them were sentient, unpredictable and uncontrolable by humans. That's my image of a god.

It seems as absurd as making a "censored" version of the Titanic film where they put a digital corset over the actress when she's posing nude for the picture.

They did, you know. Make that censored version.

They probably just wanted to bring it closer to james camerons "original vision".

So loose interpetation means cherrypicking parts that you like while ingoring the ones that would get you in trouble with modern law? With such an approach you could just aswell use the grimm tales as the basis for your morality.

Not at all. Loose interpretation means reading the bible and formulating your own set of moral principles based on what you value in life as well as the time period. Just as with interpretation of the constitution there is many ways to look at the bible. The way I interpret the bible might be very different from the way the guy next to me does. It is a personal experience, nothing that should be generalized.

Since you base your morality on the bible, and I don't think you would kill a person who works on the weekend or kill a child that has stolen candy, I thought you could explain to me how the fragments i mentioned fit into that. I don't understand how that would fit at all and I also don't understand why someone would need an ancient scripture to tell wrong apart from right in the first place, especially a scripture as morally questionable and selfcontradicting as the christian bible. I can't say my question has been answered, but let's leave it at that.

There is also parts of the Bible that say not to eat shellfish. You can find parts in any book that you dont agree with. There are those that go with the strict interpretation and then there are those that go with a loose. I follow the latter, the bible sets moral boundaries for living and as a human I try to live within those as best I can.

So loose interpetation means cherrypicking parts that you like while ingoring the ones that would get you in trouble with modern law? With such an approach you could just aswell use the grimm tales as the basis for your morality.

I'd also like to recommend a website
http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/

The bible illustrates a set of laws and morals for living, this is its most important contribution to modern society. The biblical text teaches basic stuff such as not to commit murder or adultery, to respect ones parents. I live my life based on the principles of what is right and what is wrong using this document as a basic outline.

What about the parts in the bible that say that you should stone your inobedient child or kill people who work on the sabbath?

Quite simply, I accept that its impossible to know if there is a supreme deity, and I'm not inclined to believe either way. I accept that it is entirely possible that there is a god, whether I believe so or not. At the moment, from my experiences in life I *think* that there isn't, but should I have experiences to the contrary, I may change that view. Calling myself an atheist would suggest I adamantly believe there is no god, and that is not the case. I am always open to changing my views should I receive new evidence or experiences that require me to.

See that's what I meant with misunderstanding. Being an atheist doesn't automatically suggest that you have made up your mind on that matter and it cannot be changed. It simply refers to your current opinion. The type of atheist you are talking about would be a strong atheist. And I'm just as critical of that stance as I am of believers. That's why you have those little words like "weak" or "strong" to specify your stance a bit more. If someone knows what a weak atheist is they know my opinion about god.

But anyway, feel free to call me a weak atheist agnostic if you like. (see, this is why I don't like labels, its too hard to make one word explain complex personal beliefs).

As far as not wanting to label yourself, names like agnostic or atheist shouldn't be seen as something that describes the whole person. These are no ideologies or ways of life but simply opinions about a specific topic. Judging the whole person because they call themselves "atheist" or "deist" or whatever is just stereotyping. These "labels" reflect your opinion towards a certain thing and not your whole personality. As an analogy, I couldn't just say i like missy elliotts music but "refuse to be labeled" as a missy elliott fan. If i like her music, that's what I am. And when I don't believe in god, I am an atheist, no matter if i like to be called that or not.

Pelican, I agree with pretty much everything you said but about this part

Disregarding the fact that I dislike labels, I would consider myself to be agnostic. I accept that its not possible to know at the moment whether or not a supreme deity of some sort exists, and generally don't think much more about it. From experiences in my life, I don't think God exists (the Christian God that is), but I don't adamantly *believe* he doesn't.

Now I don't want to tell you what you should call yourself but wouldn't such an opinion make you a weak atheist?  As far as I'm concerned an agnostic thinks god is unknowable and they refuse to make up their mind, while a weak atheist(or an agnostic atheist if you will) says what you said("I'm not sure, but from what I've experienced so far I don't think god exists"). I've seen many people who hold such an opinion but they insist on being called agnostic. I don't know, is this a fear of being misunderstood when calling yourself atheist(which frankly happens very often)? Is it because "agnostic" is more "socially acceptable" than "atheist"?

If Beyond Good and Evil was made in 1993...

38 x 66
Less than 256 colors

2x

Original:
http://www.smokingpermitted.net/images/BGE_ART_02.jpg
http://itc.ua/img/dpk/2004/3/bge4.jpg

Le making of:
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z69/space_boy_album/jadeevo2.png

Nikolas: Not exactly the same situation but I experienced something similar(I'll leave out the details). No, it did not make me ask someone for help. Rather I asked myself the question why this someone would allow something like that in the first place. For some people this might be a situation where they "turn to god" in desperation. For me it reinforces the disbelief in an all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful god. And whenever someone says to me that god loves everyone in the world I think of that situation and it fills me with anger. People who say that, are mocking everyone who has ever suffered for no reason or people who had to watch their loved ones suffer for no reason. This is one of the many reasons I am against the notion of belief without evidence.

Expressing my atheism is easy.  Someone asks "do you believe in a god?", and I say "no".  I don't understand why a lot of time needs to be devoted to that.

I don't think it's that easy for everyone. In some parts of the world your environment won't care about you being an atheist. In that case it's just as easy as you said. In other areas someone who admits they're an atheist may be rejected by their family and friends or even get harmed physically. When you're faced with consequences like that you can't simply answer "no".

The biblical text teaches basic stuff such as not to commit murder or adultery, to respect ones parents. I live my life based on the principles of what is right and what is wrong using this document as a basic outline.

What about the parts in the bible that say that you should stone your inobedient child or kill people who work on the sabbath?

Atheists that challenge the existence of God are dolts, you can challenge a religion, however challenging the existence of God without proof for the contrary is nothing more then pure madness derived from a mind that wishes for there to be no God.

Can you disprove shiva, quetzalcoatl, swarog, baal or seth? No? That means all of these gods exist.

The burden of proof is on the person making the extraordinary claim. "There is no god" is not an extraordinary claim just like saying "there are no smurfs".

Personally I'm not trying to disprove god. I'm asking believers to show me evidence for god which apparently is a great difficulty for them.

Epileptic seizures have been found to give even atheists faith experiences.

So does fever, alzheimers and marihuana.

http://skepticality.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=7539#