Are there any atheists out there?

[Stained Glass]

I thought that by coming to "the Raving Atheist" that I would be able to find an atheist to talk to. I don't know many people who are.

[Tenspace]

Good choice. According to the latest studies, about 14% of Americans profess no belief in God. That means there's something like 38 million of us out there.

You should get out more. :D

Tenspace

[HMS Beagle]

Welcome, Stained Glass. I too come from a place where there were very few atheists. I moved.

[Stained Glass]

Let me clarify. I don't know many people who are atheists, and not simply agnostics. I would think that there is big gap between the one who believes that there is no God and the one who does feel there is enough information to know.

[HMS Beagle]

You must be in college, or your 20s? Most atheists start out as agnostics. It's like training wheels. No disrespect. I was an agnostic for a while, until a philosophy professor argued that I therefore did not exist(!) because I hold existentialist tenets, and he argued that one can't be both indecisive and charged to action at the same time. I think he was wrong-- agnosticism is not indecision-- but his argument was all I needed to to put my agnosticism on trial, and it didn't stand up under examination.

[Tenspace]

Keep in mind that many people labeled "atheists", simply are not believers in any of the god-myths today.

I will not discount what I don't know. But to base your life on a book written when the earth was flat and a magic man in the sky could smite at will... well, let's just say that I would rather worship Peter F Hamilton (http://www.peterfhamilton.co.uk/) than the writers of the bible.

Tenspace

[baric]

Good choice. According to the latest studies, about 14% of Americans profess no belief in God. That means there's something like 38 million of us out there.

You should get out more. :D

Tenspace
As much as I'd like to believe the 14%, I think it is an inaccurate measure of non-belief in the US.

Specifically, these are people who responded "None" to how they would describe their religion. It was not a "No" answer to a "Do you believe in God?" type of question.

There are a lot of vague theists who believe in "god" but are not associated with any religion.

[baric]

Let me clarify. I don't know many people who are atheists, and not simply agnostics. I would think that there is big gap between the one who believes that there is no God and the one who does feel there is enough information to know.
On the contrary. Atheism does not require certainty. It only requires an absence of a belief in the existance of a god.

[Stained Glass]

Keep in mind that many people labeled "atheists", simply are not believers in any of the god-myths today.

I will not discount what I don't know. But to base your life on a book written when the earth was flat and a magic man in the sky could smite at will...
I think that it is a silly idea to base one's life on flat earth theories and magic men in the sky, too. But it is trivializing the Christian faith to say that this is all that it amounts to.

[Tenspace]

38,865,604 (extrapolated from Census Bureau figures, and derived from the CUNY/ARIS (American Religious Identity Survey) of 50,000 Americans) was the number. That's 14%, roughly.

The respondents specifically chose "Nonreligious/Secular", a 110% increase since 1990. There were plenty of other choices to define themselves, including "Spiritualist", "Humanist", "Atheist", "Agnostic", etc. If you add up all the non-religious categories such as these, you end up with over 41 million Americans who don't believe in biblical gods.

By the way, that makes "Non-Religious/Secular" the second largest "Religion" in the U.S., behind Christianity, and ahead of Judiasm, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Wiccans, Native Americans, Deists, and Scientologists combined.

Tenspace

[Stained Glass]

On the contrary. Atheism does not require certainty. It only requires an absence of a belief in the existence of a god.
You are right. I don't mean to mischaracterize. Would you all say that the reason that you reject the idea of God is because of the kind of God that he is portrayed to be?

[Tenspace]

Keep in mind that many people labeled "atheists", simply are not believers in any of the god-myths today.

I will not discount what I don't know. But to base your life on a book written when the earth was flat and a magic man in the sky could smite at will...
I think that it is a silly idea to base one's life on flat earth theories and magic men in the sky, too. But it is trivializing the Christian faith to say that this is all that it amounts to.
I can understand your position, but I've yet to find anything about Christianity that isn't trivial and useless.

I used to say that religion was at one time the bootstraps that pulled us out of the mire of barbarism and gave us civilization. The more I learn, the more I am of the opinion that Christianity was created from day one as a method of controlling populations.

Tenspace

[Tenspace]

On the contrary. Atheism does not require certainty. It only requires an absence of a belief in the existence of a god.
You are right. I don't mean to mischaracterize. Would you all say that the reason that you reject the idea of God is because of the kind of God that he is portrayed to be?
That was what started me on my path of losing my religion. But now, I would say that I reject God because of His evidence, or lack thereof. When comparing religions and mythologies, I see no difference, except for the era being discussed.

Tenspace

[HMS Beagle]

If you mean the Christian god (white beard, sky throne), no, that's not why I reject the idea--although I do find that kind of god exactly as likely as Zeus. I reject the popular Christian God for two reasons. First, and primary, there's no evidence of a supernatural creator, or none I've seen that is credible and persuasive. Second, I don't need or want a creator/god. Haven't missed him in years. If I did, I suppose I'd find a way to believe.

[Stained Glass]

I can understand your position, but I've yet to find anything about Christianity that isn't trivial and useless.

I used to say that religion was at one time the bootstraps that pulled us out of the mire of barbarism and gave us civilization. The more I learn, the more I am of the opinion that Christianity was created from day one as a method of controlling populations.
What Christianity is and what people who call themselves have done are two very different things. Here, do you equate religion and Christianity? Did you think that it was religion (like that of the Greeks in the days of Socrates) or Christianity (in the first century) that "pulled us out of the mire"?

[Stained Glass]

That was what started me on my path of losing my religion. But now, I would say that I reject God because of His evidence, or lack thereof. When comparing religions and mythologies, I see no difference, except for the era being discussed.
You both, Tenspace and HMS Beagle, talk about not seeing evidence for God. What kind of evidence are you looking for?

[Tenspace]

Bible based evidence. First, the Bible (including the Pentateuch) is the only text that defines the Christian God. All others are interpretations of the original.

Therefore, my evidence would be something specific defined in the Bible, which is predictive. Such as the remains of a real bigass boat full of the remnants of millions of species coexisting within its hewn walls.

Or a video of the resurrection. That would be nice. ;)

Ten

[Tenspace]

I can understand your position, but I've yet to find anything about Christianity that isn't trivial and useless.

I used to say that religion was at one time the bootstraps that pulled us out of the mire of barbarism and gave us civilization. The more I learn, the more I am of the opinion that Christianity was created from day one as a method of controlling populations.
What Christianity is and what people who call themselves have done are two very different things. Here, do you equate religion and Christianity? Did you think that it was religion (like that of the Greeks in the days of Socrates) or Christianity (in the first century) that "pulled us out of the mire"?
I was referring more to the pre-Abrahamic religions, such as Zoroastrianism and Paganism, but I would include Judaism and Christianity, as well as Islam. All these religions had the power to unite individuals for a common goal (regardless of the good/bad of the goal).

Now I consider religion to be the chains holding us back from our natural progression.

Tenspace

[Stained Glass]

Bible based evidence. First, the Bible (including the Pentateuch) is the only text that defines the Christian God. All others are interpretations of the original.

Therefore, my evidence would be something specific defined in the Bible, which is predictive. Such as the remains of a real bigass boat full of the remnants of millions of species coexisting within its hewn walls.

Or a video of the resurrection. That would be nice. ;)

Ten
Well, while we are working on getting you a copy of that video, let's talk about predictive evidence. If I attempted to cite examples of fulfilled prophecy in Scripture, you would explain it away as alteration or as to general.

New Thought:
You and I are conversing here. All you see before you is your computer. What makes it possible for you to know that I am human and not just some high-tech AI program in your computer? Or better, how do you know that your friends are not robots, and are humans at all (saying nothing about your friends;))? In philosophy, the problem of the minds. How do we prove that other people are humans and have minds? We don't. We can't. Are there some things that we accept without evidence? Can the existence of God be one of them?

To tie it back in with the above thought, is there any amount of evidence that I could present to you that would convince you of the existence of God?

[Tenspace]

Well, while we are working on getting you a copy of that video, let's talk about predictive evidence. If I attempted to cite examples of fulfilled prophecy in Scripture, you would explain it away as alteration or as to general.
If you have something insightful, try me.

New Thought:
You and I are conversing here. All you see before you is your computer. What makes it possible for you to know that I am human and not just some high-tech AI program in your computer? Or better, how do you know that your friends are not robots, and are humans at all (saying nothing about your friends;))? In philosophy, the problem of the minds. How do we prove that other people are humans and have minds? We don't. We can't. Are there some things that we accept without evidence? Can the existence of God be one of them?
You're traipsing down the solipsist path. First, I assume that you are human; I could propose a Turing test to validate my assumption. Second, my human friends exhibit all the characteristics of being human (well, most of my friends, anyway), therefore I deduce that they are humans. Third, you can apply the Copernican principle to refute Solipsism, not to mention the extensive studies that show we humans not only have a mind, but possible many simplistic minds all wrapped up into one brain, fighting for the controls. I really don't know what could be acceptable as fact without evidentiary backing, God included.

To tie it back in with the above thought, is there any amount of evidence that I could present to you that would convince you of the existence of God?
Yes, but it would need to be factual evidence. Like I said, give me something insightful that I can consider, research and learn about.

Tenspace

[Stained Glass]

First, a question. Did you grow up with Christianity. You said that you lost religious belief. What religious belief was it that you used to embrace?

I think that it is interesting that you say you know that your friends are human because they demonstrate human characteristics. There is a difference between knowing about a person and knowing a person. For example, your best friend. I could, but I won't, find out about them--get ahold of their school transcripts, medical records, bank statements, and credit card records. I would be able to know about their diligence in school, their current health condition, and their spending habits (all of the facts), but I would not know them. You could observe that they are a common height for a human, have the ability to communicate audiblely and formulate arguments and the like, but even by observation, you would not be able to be certain that they are human.

As far as the prophetic fulfillment goes, I will cover that another night. I do not want to be hasty in my presentation.

[Tenspace]

First, a question. Did you grow up with Christianity. You said that you lost religious belief. What religious belief was it that you used to embrace?
Raised a Jew - actually I'm one of the 144,000 chosen ones.. member of the Levi Tribe.

I think that it is interesting that you say you know that your friends are human because they demonstrate human characteristics. There is a difference between knowing about a person and knowing a person. For example, your best friend. I could, but I won't, find out about them--get ahold of their school transcripts, medical records, bank statements, and credit card records. I would be able to know about their diligence in school, their current health condition, and their spending habits (all of the facts), but I would not know them. You could observe that they are a common height for a human, have the ability to communicate audiblely and formulate arguments and the like, but even by observation, you would not be able to be certain that they are human.
I base it not on their past achievements (or lack thereof), but of the biological definition of a human.

As far as the prophetic fulfillment goes, I will cover that another night. I do not want to be hasty in my presentation.
Good answer. I wouldn't want you to just throw out the first things that come to mind.

Tenspace

[Stained Glass]

A question out of ignorance, "What is the biological definition of a human?"

[Tenspace]

A question out of ignorance, "What is the biological definition of a human?"
Bipedal planform, erect body carriage, 23 chromosomes (generalized: actually 44 pairs of autosomes and 2 sex chromosomes, excluding humans afflicted with Down's Syndrome), endothermal, endoskeletal, massively-folded cerebral cortex, 270 day (average) gestation period, wide-ranging habitat, species homo sapiens, eukaryotic, evolved from proto-simians, answers to "Hey you!" ;)

Courtesy of National Geographic (through Wiki): Biologically, humans are defined as hominids of the species Homo sapiens, of which the only extant subspecies is Homo sapiens sapiens. They are usually considered the only surviving species in the genus Homo, although some argue that the two species of chimpanzees should be reclassified from Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus to Homo troglodytes and Homo paniscus, given their sharing a recent ancestor with man. [3]

That's my objective biological definintion. In no way do I infer that's all we are. If asked for my behaviorial or cultural definition, I would have responded quite differently.

[Lucretius]

You both, Tenspace and HMS Beagle, talk about not seeing evidence for God. What kind of evidence are you looking for?
I would have to argue that if there was a God who wanted everyone to believe in him, and he was omnipotent, he would be able to know how to present himself to me in a way that I could not possibly deny that it was him doing it. No misinterpretation. No doubt it is him. Yet, he has not done so for me. Until then, the lack of evidence of God allows me to logically keep my skepticism. Not to mention that the Christian God of the Bible makes absolutely no sense, and his traits are so conflicting that it is logically impossible for the Biblical God to exist.

[Choobus]

First, a question. Did you grow up with Christianity. You said that you lost religious belief. What religious belief was it that you used to embrace?
Raised a Jew - actually I'm one of the 144,000 chosen ones.. member of the Levi Tribe.

I think that it is interesting that you say you know that your friends are human because they demonstrate human characteristics. There is a difference between knowing about a person and knowing a person. For example, your best friend. I could, but I won't, find out about them--get ahold of their school transcripts, medical records, bank statements, and credit card records. I would be able to know about their diligence in school, their current health condition, and their spending habits (all of the facts), but I would not know them. You could observe that they are a common height for a human, have the ability to communicate audiblely and formulate arguments and the like, but even by observation, you would not be able to be certain that they are human.
I base it not on their past achievements (or lack thereof), but of the biological definition of a human.

As far as the prophetic fulfillment goes, I will cover that another night. I do not want to be hasty in my presentation.
Good answer. I wouldn't want you to just throw out the first things that come to mind.

Tenspace
I don't think you should get eternal bliss just because you wear the right jeans.........

It seems a bit unfair to us kulatt lovers

[niles]

Stained Glass,
why on earth would you want to talk to an atheist?
I could guess,but that would be answering the question for you,so..what's up?

[schemanista]

To tie it back in with the above thought, is there any amount of evidence that I could present to you that would convince you of the existence of God?
I'd like to see a Christian produce some of the "proof" that he keeps talking about. Jesus is supposedly a material being, or a spiritual being with control over the material, so I'd like him to drop by my house some evening, let me put my fingers in the wound in his side, let me examine the nail holes, and have him turn a bottle of Evian (which I am saving for the occasion) into a South African Merlot.

I'm not kidding. We have no evidence that the material properties of the world were different circa 37 CE, so all of this should be possible (leaving aside the whole "an omnipotent being can do anything" schtick). Thomas asked for and got exactly that kind of proof. Why was he special? I want to be special, too.

Christians keep making claims about events which defy the observable properties of the physical universe around us. Okay, show me one unequivocal example of the Christian God in action and I'll accept the rest, uncritically.

Didn't Jesus say that his believers could do all that he could do and more? Pony up.

[Spurius Furius]

On the contrary. Atheism does not require certainty. It only requires an absence of a belief in the existence of a god.
You are right. I don't mean to mischaracterize. Would you all say that the reason that you reject the idea of God is because of the kind of God that he is portrayed to be?
Which God are you referring to? There have been, and are, so many. I like to picture a fulcrum between theism and atheism. I define an atheist as someone who, in their mind, is betweeen 51% and 100% sure that there is no god. Conversely, a theist puts the same probabilities on the existence of god(s). I define an agnostic as someone who sits right on the fulcrum and is generally unsure of where to place their probability of belief (for whatever reason). I myself place a 99.999999% probability that there is no god. This is based on all of the evidence I have seen and/or perceived. This does not make me an agnostic because I lack belief in god per the appropriate definition of "atheist", although I do not ascribe 100% certainty to that belief.

[baric]

You are right. I don't mean to mischaracterize. Would you all say that the reason that you reject the idea of God is because of the kind of God that he is portrayed to be?
I can only speak for myself, but the answer would be an emphatic 'no'.

I do not reject the idea of God at all. I accept the possibility that there may very well be a God of some sort. But I certainly have not seen any convincing evidence of such a thing.

With regards to the 'kind of God' the Christian God is portrayed to be, I will say this... that the world we observe IS inconsistent with the Christian interpretation of God.

You can view reality and draw some conclusions about what a god would be like if such a god existed.

[niles]

Hi baric,

just name your criteria and perhaps your god will one day knock on your door..

"that the world we observe IS inconsistent with the Christian interpretation of God."
Could you please shed a little light on that?Do you mean that 'the world' should mirror God,if it were?

Cheers,N.N.

[schemanista]

just name your criteria and perhaps your god will one day knock on your door..
And that is what is known in the Skepticism business as "confirmation bias".

[baric]

Could you please shed a little light on that?Do you mean that 'the world' should mirror God,if it were?

Cheers,N.N.
No, that's not what I mean.

Christians assign specific attributes to their god that are inconsistent with the observed world. This is why the Problem of Suffering makes such a compelling case against their description of their god.

When observing the world, the more direct and obvious conclusion is that there is no god -- or at least no god that takes an interest in the affairs of humans.

[nthn200]

If you mean the Christian god (white beard, sky throne), no, that's not why I reject the idea--although I do find that kind of god exactly as likely as Zeus. I reject the popular Christian God for two reasons. First, and primary, there's no evidence of a supernatural creator, or none I've seen that is credible and persuasive. Second, I don't need or want a creator/god. Haven't missed him in years. If I did, I suppose I'd find a way to believe.
That's so sad and sophomoric. I challenge you to move beyond what you realized were lies at the age of 14. Truly, can you prove to me that there is evidence that a supernatural creator does not exist? The idea of the Christian God does not exist solely within the idiosyncrasies of mainstream culture, and I think that we both know that. If you were able to think abstractly, you might see how, as Plato describes, any human emotion or expression is an indirect persuasion of God or "the good." Its not too difficult of an idea to wrap your mind around.

[HeWhoAsks]

Truly, can you prove to me that there is evidence that a supernatural creator does not exist?
Have you ever read anything about proving a negative, or do you know anything about the ins and outs of proving a negative (that is "can you prove NOT x")? That is not a rhetorical question, I would sincerely appeciate an honest answer?

[Rhinoqulous]

That's so sad and sophomoric. I challenge you to move beyond what you realized were lies at the age of 14. Truly, can you prove to me that there is evidence that a supernatural creator does not exist? The idea of the Christian God does not exist solely within the idiosyncrasies of mainstream culture, and I think that we both know that. If you were able to think abstractly, you might see how, as Plato describes, any human emotion or expression is an indirect persuasion of God or "the good." Its not too difficult of an idea to wrap your mind around.
The burden of proof lies on the person positing a claim, not on the person who disbelieves the claim. If I told you that purple big-breasted women emerge from the park across the street from my apartment every night to play bocce ball, would you believe me? Probably not. Would you have proof that this didn't happen? No. Would you need to provide evidence that this didn't happen? No, because the burden would be on me to prove the purple women play bocce ball every night. It's the same with Big Poppa G; we (atheists) don't have to prove the non-existence of God, theists have to prove that he/she/it/cheese sandwich exists.

And for pulling out Platonism and the Forms, come on. You really don't believe in the Forms, do you? The concept of the Forms falls prey to an infinite regression fairly easily. It's not too difficult of an idea to wrap your mind around, that is if you've even bothered to study Plato.


Rhinoq

[nthn200]

Truly, can you prove to me that there is evidence that a supernatural creator does not exist?
Have you ever read anything about proving a negative, or do you know anything about the ins and outs of proving a negative (that is "can you prove NOT x")? That is not a rhetorical question, I would sincerely appeciate an honest answer?
I know exactly what you mean, but saying something does not exist beacuse it has not been proven to you, and finding solice in that, is wholly and unambiguously narcissistic. How does one thing exist without one other to create it. Human experience would say that one thing cannot exist without another to create it. As does the law of conservation of matter. As far as we go with science, we probably will never figure out what came before the big bang, and therefore, the archetype of the creator exists not only as a variable in an equation, but the equation itself. That is to say, not only is the creator defined as what we cannot understand about nature, but also what we continue to comprehend in our perceptions of how we got here. Therefore, I find it extremely difficult to logically refute the existance of a creator.

[Rhinoqulous]

I know exactly what you mean, but saying something does not exist beacuse it has not been proven to you, and finding solice in that, is wholly and unambiguously narcissistic. How does one thing exist without one other to create it. Human experience would say that one thing cannot exist without another to create it. As does the law of conservation of matter. As far as we go with science, we probably will never figure out what came before the big bang, and therefore, the archetype of the creator exists not only as a variable in an equation, but the equation itself. That is to say, not only is the creator defined as what we cannot understand about nature, but also what we continue to comprehend in our perceptions of how we got here. Therefore, I find it extremely difficult to logically refute the existance of a creator.
OK, where is your evidence or proof of your God? Would you care to present it to all us fine heathens? Unless you're just going to go the "God is beyond comprehension" route, which is just weak. Hella weak.

Waiting for an answer
Rhinoq

[baric]

Truly, can you prove to me that there is evidence that a supernatural creator does not exist?
Prove that Allah doesn't exist. If you can't, then I expect you to convert to Islam.

[nthn200]

Truly, can you prove to me that there is evidence that a supernatural creator does not exist?
Prove that Allah doesn't exist. If you can't, then I expect you to convert to Islam.
Allah is another name for the same God I worship. I don't agree with their teachings, so I won't be an Islamic. Youpeople are too easy. Read a book or a newspaper or something...wow.

[nthn200]

I know exactly what you mean, but saying something does not exist beacuse it has not been proven to you, and finding solice in that, is wholly and unambiguously narcissistic. How does one thing exist without one other to create it. Human experience would say that one thing cannot exist without another to create it. As does the law of conservation of matter. As far as we go with science, we probably will never figure out what came before the big bang, and therefore, the archetype of the creator exists not only as a variable in an equation, but the equation itself. That is to say, not only is the creator defined as what we cannot understand about nature, but also what we continue to comprehend in our perceptions of how we got here. Therefore, I find it extremely difficult to logically refute the existance of a creator.
OK, where is your evidence or proof of your God? Would you care to present it to all us fine heathens? Unless you're just going to go the "God is beyond comprehension" route, which is just weak. Hella weak.

Waiting for an answer
Rhinoq
Read it again...very carefully

[nthn200]

That's so sad and sophomoric. I challenge you to move beyond what you realized were lies at the age of 14. Truly, can you prove to me that there is evidence that a supernatural creator does not exist? The idea of the Christian God does not exist solely within the idiosyncrasies of mainstream culture, and I think that we both know that. If you were able to think abstractly, you might see how, as Plato describes, any human emotion or expression is an indirect persuasion of God or "the good." Its not too difficult of an idea to wrap your mind around.
The burden of proof lies on the person positing a claim, not on the person who disbelieves the claim. If I told you that purple big-breasted women emerge from the park across the street from my apartment every night to play bocce ball, would you believe me? Probably not. Would you have proof that this didn't happen? No. Would you need to provide evidence that this didn't happen? No, because the burden would be on me to prove the purple women play bocce ball every night. It's the same with Big Poppa G; we (atheists) don't have to prove the non-existence of God, theists have to prove that he/she/it/cheese sandwich exists.

And for pulling out Platonism and the Forms, come on. You really don't believe in the Forms, do you? The concept of the Forms falls prey to an infinite regression fairly easily. It's not too difficult of an idea to wrap your mind around, that is if you've even bothered to study Plato.


Rhinoq
Theoretically, God does continue into many realms of reality that we cannot perceive. To dwell upon them is madness. We can only live for our perceptions, and the Creator is the last point on a perfect line that simulaneously ascends and descends into oblivion of which we can perceive. Call the line God. And yes, I have studied Plato.

[baric]

Truly, can you prove to me that there is evidence that a supernatural creator does not exist?
Prove that Allah doesn't exist. If you can't, then I expect you to convert to Islam.
Allah is another name for the same God I worship. I don't agree with their teachings, so I won't be an Islamic. Youpeople are too easy. Read a book or a newspaper or something...wow.
OK, is Cthulhu another name for the God you worship? Prove he doesn't exist.

[nthn200]

Prove that Allah doesn't exist. If you can't, then I expect you to convert to Islam.
Allah is another name for the same God I worship. I don't agree with their teachings, so I won't be an Islamic. Youpeople are too easy. Read a book or a newspaper or something...wow.
OK, is Cthulhu another name for the God you worship? Prove he doesn't exist.
Cthulhu is not another name for the God I worship, he is a monstrosity, and part of a pantheistic view of deities. Islam however is a conglomeration of the teachings of Christianity, Judaism, and Zoroastrianism. Do you want a history lesson, or do you want to have a discourse in theology? However, I don't necessarily discount the existance of Cthulhu, because an archetype is the shared view of a form in a greater eschelon than an individual experience. Cthulhu may exist in the same way The Great Red Dragon may exist from John's Revelation.

[HeWhoAsks]

. . . saying something does not exist beacuse it has not been proven to you, and finding solice in that, is wholly and unambiguously narcissistic.
Which shows that you don't understand the difficulties of proving a negative. Proving a negative is very difficult, so it is generally not a good idea. So the question is not proving what doesn't exist, but trying to prove what does exist. So the burden is to try to prove that God exists, not that God doesn't exist. You're asking the wrong question.

How does one thing exist without one other to create it. Human experience would say that one thing cannot exist without another to create it. As does the law of conservation of matter. As far as we go with science, we probably will never figure out what came before the big bang, and therefore, the archetype of the creator exists not only as a variable in an equation, but the equation itself. That is to say, not only is the creator defined as what we cannot understand about nature, but also what we continue to comprehend in our perceptions of how we got here. Therefore, I find it extremely difficult to logically refute the existance of a creator.
This is a pretty confused paragraph of jumbled ideas. (1) No matter what we may or may not have figured out *yet,* that can never be a justification ("therefore, the archetype. . ."). No evidence for something is not evidence for *one* of it's alternatives because it can't help dertermine which alternative to choose from. (2) You can't define the creator as what we cannot understand about nature. The creator is that which creates, and has no necessary connection, definitionally, to what we can't understand.

[HeWhoAsks]

Theoretically, God does continue into many realms of reality that we cannot perceive. To dwell upon them is madness. We can only live for our perceptions, and the Creator is the last point on a perfect line that simulaneously ascends and descends into oblivion of which we can perceive. Call the line God. And yes, I have studied Plato.
All you're doing is stringing nice-sounding ideas together, but without any relation to reality or evidence from the real world. That's not a good way to figure things out.

[Tenspace]

Theoretically, God does continue into many realms of reality that we cannot perceive. To dwell upon them is madness.
What realms might those be? How do you know that God continues into those realms? Why is it madness to dwell upon them?

We can only live for our perceptions, and the Creator is the last point on a perfect line that simulaneously ascends and descends into oblivion of which we can perceive. Call the line God. And yes, I have studied Plato.
I agree with you about perceptions, if you're referring to the sensory kind, of which we have five. Is this a two-dimensional line, or a reference of a larger configuration? Is God the Creator, and if so, why differentiate between God as one point and God as the line? We're just scaling dimensions here, right?

Damn, another intelligent theist. That's two this week. :)

It's not the conceptual God that's the problem. It is the followers of the Abrahamic god(s) who insist upon weaving their flavor of religion into the tapestry of society, encroaching on our lives and lifestyles.


Tenspace

[Little Earth Stamper]

...
I know exactly what you mean, but saying something does not exist beacuse it has not been proven to you, and finding solice in that, is wholly and unambiguously narcissistic.
Me, I take solace from the fact that gnomes are not going to tunnel up through the bottom of my house, attack my family, and steal all my stuff.

The reason I believe this is that there's no evidence for Gnome marauders. Does that make me a narcissist?

[nthn200]

...
I know exactly what you mean, but saying something does not exist beacuse it has not been proven to you, and finding solice in that, is wholly and unambiguously narcissistic.
Me, I take solace from the fact that gnomes are not going to tunnel up through the bottom of my house, attack my family, and steal all my stuff.

The reason I believe this is that there's no evidence for Gnome marauders. Does that make me a narcissist?
Huh... So there's no evidence of a force outside of your own experience. The concept of a creator is equally as logical as a Gnome marauder? I see...

[nthn200]

Theoretically, God does continue into many realms of reality that we cannot perceive. To dwell upon them is madness.
What realms might those be? How do you know that God continues into those realms? Why is it madness to dwell upon them?

We can only live for our perceptions, and the Creator is the last point on a perfect line that simulaneously ascends and descends into oblivion of which we can perceive. Call the line God. And yes, I have studied Plato.
I agree with you about perceptions, if you're referring to the sensory kind, of which we have five. Is this a two-dimensional line, or a reference of a larger configuration? Is God the Creator, and if so, why differentiate between God as one point and God as the line? We're just scaling dimensions here, right?

Damn, another intelligent theist. That's two this week. :)

It's not the conceptual God that's the problem. It is the followers of the Abrahamic god(s) who insist upon weaving their flavor of religion into the tapestry of society, encroaching on our lives and lifestyles.
Tenspace
The most important thing to understand is that these rational philosophies don't exist without our irrational perceptions. The concept is technically a paradox, but a beatiful and elaborate one. I say madness because past that point it is not a philosophy that is constructive to anything aside from the ost arbitrary of theories. They don't help with life, they confuse.

The only religion that prostlityzes is Christianity, not Judaism, and that can be blamed by it being coopted by one of the greatest imperial empire's of all time. This would never happen if it weren't popular to begin with. Many people aslo talk as though the church never did anything good for mankind...come on, that's just not true.

The church has done some foul shit but its also the last place a lot of destitude people can turn to. I challenge you to watch the Sundance Documentary: "Hoover Street Revival".

[Rhinoqulous]

Theoretically, God does continue into many realms of reality that we cannot perceive. To dwell upon them is madness. We can only live for our perceptions, and the Creator is the last point on a perfect line that simulaneously ascends and descends into oblivion of which we can perceive. Call the line God. And yes, I have studied Plato.
Uhm... what? We live our lives for perceptions? From what I understand, our lives are nothing but our perceptions. What the hell is a "perfect line"? Is it parallel to another line? Is God a geometric concept? Can you plot God on a graph?

If you've studied Plato, then you know that the concept of the eternal Forms is absurd, so 'nuff said.

You seem to be fairly condescending in all your posts. I doubt baric (or anyone else here) needs a history lesson from you. I particularly like how you "challenged" Ten to watch a movie. DAMN! You gonna take that, Ten? We need to set up a Thunderdome, two man enter, one man leave! But with movies and pompous philosophy! We can serve hotdogs and beer, and broadcast it on pay-per-view!

Rhinoq

[baric]

Cthulhu may exist in the same way The Great Red Dragon may exist from John's Revelation.
You are missing the point.

Prove that Cthulhu doesn't exist. It's just a work of fiction, so it should be easy, right?

[Mrs. Potatohead]

Damn, another intelligent theist. That's two this week.
And it's only Tuesday.

[Tenspace]

Theoretically, God does continue into many realms of reality that we cannot perceive. To dwell upon them is madness.
What realms might those be? How do you know that God continues into those realms? Why is it madness to dwell upon them?

We can only live for our perceptions, and the Creator is the last point on a perfect line that simulaneously ascends and descends into oblivion of which we can perceive. Call the line God. And yes, I have studied Plato.
I agree with you about perceptions, if you're referring to the sensory kind, of which we have five. Is this a two-dimensional line, or a reference of a larger configuration? Is God the Creator, and if so, why differentiate between God as one point and God as the line? We're just scaling dimensions here, right?

Damn, another intelligent theist. That's two this week. :)

It's not the conceptual God that's the problem. It is the followers of the Abrahamic god(s) who insist upon weaving their flavor of religion into the tapestry of society, encroaching on our lives and lifestyles.
Tenspace
The most important thing to understand is that these rational philosophies don't exist without our irrational perceptions. The concept is technically a paradox, but a beatiful and elaborate one. I say madness because past that point it is not a philosophy that is constructive to anything aside from the ost arbitrary of theories. They don't help with life, they confuse.

The only religion that prostlityzes is Christianity, not Judaism, and that can be blamed by it being coopted by one of the greatest imperial empire's of all time. This would never happen if it weren't popular to begin with. Many people aslo talk as though the church never did anything good for mankind...come on, that's just not true.

The church has done some foul shit but its also the last place a lot of destitude people can turn to. I challenge you to watch the Sundance Documentary: "Hoover Street Revival".
Interesting opinion, but it's a dodge. There's three questions in my previous post, and I'm trying to discern their answers in your reply, but I can't, so I'll ask again: 1) In which realms outside of our perceived reality does God exist? 2) What information has led you to state that God exists in those realms? 3) Why is it madness to put thought to the perception of those realms?

Once I get answers on those questions, I'll be better able to address your post above.

Tenspace

[Little Earth Stamper]

...
I know exactly what you mean, but saying something does not exist beacuse it has not been proven to you, and finding solice in that, is wholly and unambiguously narcissistic.
Me, I take solace from the fact that gnomes are not going to tunnel up through the bottom of my house, attack my family, and steal all my stuff.

The reason I believe this is that there's no evidence for Gnome marauders. Does that make me a narcissist?
Huh... So there's no evidence of a force outside of your own experience. The concept of a creator is equally as logical as a Gnome marauder? I see...
A gnome is a tiny person who lives underground. Such a creature doesn't particularly violate any known laws of nature, so the entire argument that believing in them is absurd is based on the fact that there isn't a single scrap of evidence that they exist.

According to you, dismissing Gnomes based on this criteria alone is narcissistic foolishness.

I guess the question now is, on what basis do you dismiss gnomes as illogical?

[nthn200]

Me, I take solace from the fact that gnomes are not going to tunnel up through the bottom of my house, attack my family, and steal all my stuff.

The reason I believe this is that there's no evidence for Gnome marauders. Does that make me a narcissist?
Huh... So there's no evidence of a force outside of your own experience. The concept of a creator is equally as logical as a Gnome marauder? I see...
A gnome is a tiny person who lives underground. Such a creature doesn't particularly violate any known laws of nature, so the entire argument that believing in them is absurd is based on the fact that there isn't a single scrap of evidence that they exist.

According to you, dismissing Gnomes based on this criteria alone is narcissistic foolishness.

I guess the question now is, on what basis do you dismiss gnomes as illogical?
...I crave intellectual discourse...

[nthn200]

Theoretically, God does continue into many realms of reality that we cannot perceive. To dwell upon them is madness.
What realms might those be? How do you know that God continues into those realms? Why is it madness to dwell upon them?


I agree with you about perceptions, if you're referring to the sensory kind, of which we have five. Is this a two-dimensional line, or a reference of a larger configuration? Is God the Creator, and if so, why differentiate between God as one point and God as the line? We're just scaling dimensions here, right?

Damn, another intelligent theist. That's two this week. :)

It's not the conceptual God that's the problem. It is the followers of the Abrahamic god(s) who insist upon weaving their flavor of religion into the tapestry of society, encroaching on our lives and lifestyles.
Tenspace
The most important thing to understand is that these rational philosophies don't exist without our irrational perceptions. The concept is technically a paradox, but a beatiful and elaborate one. I say madness because past that point it is not a philosophy that is constructive to anything aside from the ost arbitrary of theories. They don't help with life, they confuse.

The only religion that prostlityzes is Christianity, not Judaism, and that can be blamed by it being coopted by one of the greatest imperial empire's of all time. This would never happen if it weren't popular to begin with. Many people aslo talk as though the church never did anything good for mankind...come on, that's just not true.

The church has done some foul shit but its also the last place a lot of destitude people can turn to. I challenge you to watch the Sundance Documentary: "Hoover Street Revival".
Interesting opinion, but it's a dodge. There's three questions in my previous post, and I'm trying to discern their answers in your reply, but I can't, so I'll ask again: 1) In which realms outside of our perceived reality does God exist? 2) What information has led you to state that God exists in those realms? 3) Why is it madness to put thought to the perception of those realms?

Once I get answers on those questions, I'll be better able to address your post above.

Tenspace
If these realms are imperceptable, I can hardly define them. These are not my original theories, you merely challenged the idea of infinity juxtaposed to Plato's Republic. My contention is that God exists outside of what we know...that there is existance outside of the Universe........what else would there be? Nothingness? If you believe so, then qualify it. It is not madness to think about but madness to attempt to quantify. I beleive that there is a perfect force that moves through all realms of existance and is perceived on each perceptable plane at points of perfection/intersection. For our plane of existance, it is the messiah archetype. Even if you don't beleive in the concept of a messiah, there have been hundreds and hundreds of examples of this archetype within world religions of all kinds. For the solar system/galaxy/universe it is the Creator archetype. The line theory presumes that there are infinite realms within and without the few that we can perceive, and even though we can only perceive certain parts of this line, it does not refute its existance. I am trying to qualify reality according to the patterns that we perceive and I am sharing an idea of God that frankly, would be called hedonism by many fundamentalists.

[nthn200]

Theoretically, God does continue into many realms of reality that we cannot perceive. To dwell upon them is madness. We can only live for our perceptions, and the Creator is the last point on a perfect line that simulaneously ascends and descends into oblivion of which we can perceive. Call the line God. And yes, I have studied Plato.
Uhm... what? We live our lives for perceptions? From what I understand, our lives are nothing but our perceptions. What the hell is a "perfect line"? Is it parallel to another line? Is God a geometric concept? Can you plot God on a graph?

If you've studied Plato, then you know that the concept of the eternal Forms is absurd, so 'nuff said.

You seem to be fairly condescending in all your posts. I doubt baric (or anyone else here) needs a history lesson from you. I particularly like how you "challenged" Ten to watch a movie. DAMN! You gonna take that, Ten? We need to set up a Thunderdome, two man enter, one man leave! But with movies and pompous philosophy! We can serve hotdogs and beer, and broadcast it on pay-per-view!

Rhinoq
Well, I guess forums aren't really for people to listen to one another then, just to get pissed off when we don't know what other people are talking about and assume rancor just because I was trying to share an opinion. Let's start a forum where everyone thinks and says the same stuff. Yeah, don't even try to comprehend what I'm saying, just assume that your concept of reality is the right one. It works for fundamentalists!

By the way, its not eternal forms. No offense but it doesn't seem to me as though you know what you're talking about in that regard. I don't mean to sound condescending but no one has actually brought to me any original ideas, just attempted to deconstruct my logic. I thought I would get a little bit of discussion...i guess not.

[Tenspace]

If these realms are imperceptable, I can hardly define them. These are not my original theories, you merely challenged the idea of infinity juxtaposed to Plato's Republic. My contention is that God exists outside of what we know...that there is existance outside of the Universe........what else would there be? Nothingness?
Where is the difference between basing your worldview on a long-dead philosopher or a long-dead religious martyr?

I would be happy to discuss existence with you, but you're being so vague. First, you contend that there is a god. I contend that there is not. You contend that he lives outside of our existence. I contend, again, that there is no god. Discussing his plane of existence is irrelevant without some substantiation to his existence.

As for what's "outside" this universe, you've specified a frame of reference which requires there to be inside and outside. This doesn't really apply to our universe as we currently know it.

If you believe so, then qualify it. It is not madness to think about but madness to attempt to quantify.
I would qualify "it" to be something along the lines of M-theory, with a dash of Everett's Many Worlds theory, a slice of Beckenstein's Information theory, and quite possibly a nod to Plato's timelessness concept. And I wouldn't attempt to quantify, but to quantize. Easier that way.

I beleive that there is a perfect force that moves through all realms of existance and is perceived on each perceptable plane at points of perfection/intersection. For our plane of existance, it is the messiah archetype. Even if you don't beleive in the concept of a messiah, there have been hundreds and hundreds of examples of this archetype within world religions of all kinds. For the solar system/galaxy/universe it is the Creator archetype. The line theory presumes that there are infinite realms within and without the few that we can perceive, and even though we can only perceive certain parts of this line, it does not refute its existance. I am trying to qualify reality according to the patterns that we perceive and I am sharing an idea of God that frankly, would be called hedonism by many fundamentalists.
Okay, I'm starting to see your point. Not that I agree. But if there is a God, he would obviously be privy to knowledge we have yet to attain. Unfortunately, religions, especially Christianity, would rather limit humanity's knowledge than deal with the refutations brought about by an increased understanding of our reality.

Ten

[nthn200]

If these realms are imperceptable, I can hardly define them. These are not my original theories, you merely challenged the idea of infinity juxtaposed to Plato's Republic. My contention is that God exists outside of what we know...that there is existance outside of the Universe........what else would there be? Nothingness?
Where is the difference between basing your worldview on a long-dead philosopher or a long-dead religious martyr?

I would be happy to discuss existence with you, but you're being so vague. First, you contend that there is a god. I contend that there is not. You contend that he lives outside of our existence. I contend, again, that there is no god. Discussing his plane of existence is irrelevant without some substantiation to his existence.

As for what's "outside" this universe, you've specified a frame of reference which requires there to be inside and outside. This doesn't really apply to our universe as we currently know it.

If you believe so, then qualify it. It is not madness to think about but madness to attempt to quantify.
I would qualify "it" to be something along the lines of M-theory, with a dash of Everett's Many Worlds theory, a slice of Beckenstein's Information theory, and quite possibly a nod to Plato's timelessness concept. And I wouldn't attempt to quantify, but to quantize. Easier that way.

I beleive that there is a perfect force that moves through all realms of existance and is perceived on each perceptable plane at points of perfection/intersection. For our plane of existance, it is the messiah archetype. Even if you don't beleive in the concept of a messiah, there have been hundreds and hundreds of examples of this archetype within world religions of all kinds. For the solar system/galaxy/universe it is the Creator archetype. The line theory presumes that there are infinite realms within and without the few that we can perceive, and even though we can only perceive certain parts of this line, it does not refute its existance. I am trying to qualify reality according to the patterns that we perceive and I am sharing an idea of God that frankly, would be called hedonism by many fundamentalists.
Okay, I'm starting to see your point. Not that I agree. But if there is a God, he would obviously be privy to knowledge we have yet to attain. Unfortunately, religions, especially Christianity, would rather limit humanity's knowledge than deal with the refutations brought about by an increased understanding of our reality.

Ten
I agree that Christianity was prey to intolerance and tyranny. I beleive that man has failed religion and not the inverse.

[HMS Beagle]

I beleive that there is a perfect force that moves through all realms of existance and is perceived on each perceptable plane at points of perfection/intersection. For our plane of existance, it is the messiah archetype. Even if you don't beleive in the concept of a messiah, there have been hundreds and hundreds of examples of this archetype within world religions of all kinds. For the solar system/galaxy/universe it is the Creator archetype. The line theory presumes that there are infinite realms within and without the few that we can perceive, and even though we can only perceive certain parts of this line, it does not refute its existance. I am trying to qualify reality according to the patterns that we perceive and I am sharing an idea of God that frankly, would be called hedonism by many fundamentalists.
In earlier posts, you said "The Creator is the last point on a perfect line" and "Call the line God." A seeming contradiction, but I understand it to mean, logically, that if God is the line, and a line is composed of points, and the last point is God, then every point is God.

Now you say "we" (all intelligent life?) can "perceive only certain parts of this line," which must mean that those of us who do not perceive god do not perceive any points on the line. The problem is, we seem to be right back to the beginning: The burden is on you to prove that God is a geometric figure. Or is the line-God merely a visual variation of the same old Old Testament God, devised because (1) bearded, white-robed sky gods are hard to take seriously, and (2) the possibilty that Time is the line, and a truly infinite one, and the universe has always existed, is an idea you reject? That unknowable idea-- no beginning, no end, just perpetually turbulent matter-- is outside the realm of human perceptions, which you said is the only thing we can live for. Well, you maybe; not me. I find easier to accept eternity of time and matter than to believe in a supernatural creator, whether it's Allah, Mangala, a million other names, or a perfect line.

[nthn200]

I beleive that there is a perfect force that moves through all realms of existance and is perceived on each perceptable plane at points of perfection/intersection. For our plane of existance, it is the messiah archetype. Even if you don't beleive in the concept of a messiah, there have been hundreds and hundreds of examples of this archetype within world religions of all kinds. For the solar system/galaxy/universe it is the Creator archetype. The line theory presumes that there are infinite realms within and without the few that we can perceive, and even though we can only perceive certain parts of this line, it does not refute its existance. I am trying to qualify reality according to the patterns that we perceive and I am sharing an idea of God that frankly, would be called hedonism by many fundamentalists.
In earlier posts, you said "The Creator is the last point on a perfect line" and "Call the line God." A seeming contradiction, but I understand it to mean, logically, that if God is the line, and a line is composed of points, and the last point is God, then every point is God.

Now you say "we" (all intelligent life?) can "perceive only certain parts of this line," which must mean that those of us who do not perceive god do not perceive any points on the line. The problem is, we seem to be right back to the beginning: The burden is on you to prove that God is a geometric figure. Or is the line-God merely a visual variation of the same old Old Testament God, devised because (1) bearded, white-robed sky gods are hard to take seriously, and (2) the possibilty that Time is the line, and a truly infinite one, and the universe has always existed, is an idea you reject? That unknowable idea-- no beginning, no end, just perpetually turbulent matter-- is outside the realm of human perceptions, which you said is the only thing we can live for. Well, you maybe; not me. I find easier to accept eternity of time and matter than to believe in a supernatural creator, whether it's Allah, Mangala, a million other names, or a perfect line.
Actually, in metaphysics there is no burdon of proof. Sorry. And you assume a lot from what I said. Don't assmue. And no matter what you try to comprehend it will always be based on your perceptions. Think about it. you can either work with them or struggle with them. The Creator is not the "last point". I said the last perceivable point.

[Rhinoqulous]

Well, I guess forums aren't really for people to listen to one another then, just to get pissed off when we don't know what other people are talking about and assume rancor just because I was trying to share an opinion. Let's start a forum where everyone thinks and says the same stuff. Yeah, don't even try to comprehend what I'm saying, just assume that your concept of reality is the right one. It works for fundamentalists!
Me make joke, funny funny, but you no laugh. INTO THE THUNDERDOME!!

By the way, its not eternal forms. No offense but it doesn't seem to me as though you know what you're talking about in that regard. I don't mean to sound condescending but no one has actually brought to me any original ideas, just attempted to deconstruct my logic. I thought I would get a little bit of discussion...i guess not.
Huh?!? What? Last time I taught Plato, I'm pretty sure the Forms were eternal; otherwise the transcendent metaphysical realm wouldn't solve problems of identity for Plato. What are you talking about?

As for original ideas... where are yours? It sounds like you dropped acid and watched What The @#&*! Do We Know?, a film de crap full of bad science and bad metaphysics. No offense, of course. :P

Rhinoq

[Rhinoqulous]

Actually, in metaphysics there is no burdon of proof.
Wow, that statement shows that you know nothing about the field of metaphysics. Well, it was fun while it lasted, come back after you get an education. And again, no offense intended. :P

Rhinoq

ps. INTO THE THUNDERDOME!!

[nthn200]

Actually, in metaphysics there is no burdon of proof.
Wow, that statement shows that you know nothing about the field of metaphysics. Well, it was fun while it lasted, come back after you get an education. And again, no offense intended. :P

Rhinoq

ps. INTO THE THUNDERDOME!!
We could discuss Aristotle Hume or McIrney, but hey have all driven this burden of proof concept into the ground. Well, you are really good at saying I don't know what I'm talking about without actually providing any proof of your own. Try next time not to take such an outrageous statement seriously.

[nthn200]

Well, I guess forums aren't really for people to listen to one another then, just to get pissed off when we don't know what other people are talking about and assume rancor just because I was trying to share an opinion. Let's start a forum where everyone thinks and says the same stuff. Yeah, don't even try to comprehend what I'm saying, just assume that your concept of reality is the right one. It works for fundamentalists!
Me make joke, funny funny, but you no laugh. INTO THE THUNDERDOME!!

By the way, its not eternal forms. No offense but it doesn't seem to me as though you know what you're talking about in that regard. I don't mean to sound condescending but no one has actually brought to me any original ideas, just attempted to deconstruct my logic. I thought I would get a little bit of discussion...i guess not.
Huh?!? What? Last time I taught Plato, I'm pretty sure the Forms were eternal; otherwise the transcendent metaphysical realm wouldn't solve problems of identity for Plato. What are you talking about?

As for original ideas... where are yours? It sounds like you dropped acid and watched What The @#&*! Do We Know?, a film de crap full of bad science and bad metaphysics. No offense, of course. :P

Rhinoq
Where to you teach? Arkansas Community College? For a professor you sure are good at sounding like a 17 year old high school student.

[Rhinoqulous]

Where to you teach? Arkansas Community College? For a professor you sure are good at sounding like a 17 year old high school student.
A few years ago I taught Plato in intro phil classes when I was a TA. Today, I work in Film Distribution (but still study philosophy). Now, how is my understanding of Plato incorrect? Wait, why do I even care?

Try next time not to take such an outrageous statement seriously.
No worries, I don't take anything seriously. While I may have oodles of higher education, I still have the humor of a 17 year old (you can make me get older, but you can never make me grow up!).

And if you feel that metaphysics doesn't require any burden of proof, then Philboid and myself are fine in espousing the dominance of The Screaming Blue Ants? Bow, or your sandwiches will be eaten! Bow, least you feel the wrath of the gavagui!!

Oh, and INTO THE THUNDERDOME! (this is never going to get old)

Rhinoq

[HMS Beagle]

Actually, in metaphysics there is no burdon of proof. Sorry. And you assume a lot from what I said. Don't assmue. And no matter what you try to comprehend it will always be based on your perceptions. Think about it. you can either work with them or struggle with them. The Creator is not the "last point". I said the last perceivable point.
All I assumed was that a line consists of a series of points, which is elementary geometry. Then I tried to make sense of your line-God, something you resist doing. My mistake. I should have responded to your "Theoretically, God does continue into many realms of reality that we cannot perceive. To dwell upon them is madness." There we agree. If I want to find out about "realms of reality we cannot perceive," it's best to go straight to a madhouse. Israel might be the place to start. The Jerusalem Syndrome deposits deluded John the Baptists into its psych wards. Even zonked on clozapine, they are bound (not to mention straightjacketed) to be more articulate about "realms of reality" than you are.

[fortytwo]

Would you all say that the reason that you reject the idea of God is because of the kind of God that he is portrayed to be?
I reject the idea of God because he's extraneous and completely unnecessary. I have yet to come across a single thing that can't be explained by logical, scientific reasons. I would rather not resort to the highly improbable idea of God (any god, really, not just the Christian or Biblical one), especially when there's no need to do so, and when he comes with so many many strings attached.

That's not why I originally rejected him, though. I have a feeling that my original reasons had a lot to do with teenage rebellion - but once I was already over here, I realized I didn't want or need to go back.

[Just Add Fire]

Would you all say that the reason that you reject the idea of God is because of the kind of God that he is portrayed to be?
i was sitting in my human geography class two years ago, when we started learning about religion and the various beliefs throughout the world...and my friend commented to me that some of the stuff that people believe in (like the people in south africa that thinks god is a chicken...not scared but literally a chicken) and i replied that they probably thought what we believed in was wierd and stupid...and at that moment i realized that what i believed in (catholicism) was nothing different then the "chicken worshipers" and from that moment i was an atheist,

(if this was monopoly, i would have picked up a card that said "go straight to Atheism, do not stop at Agnostic, do not just question religion, if you are not already at atheism...denounce all gods and any form of religion)....

[HeWhoAsks]

. . . some of the stuff that people believe in (like the people in south africa that thinks god is a chicken...not scared but literally a chicken) and i replied that they probably thought what we believed in was wierd and stupid...and at that moment i realized that what i believed in (catholicism) was nothing different then the "chicken worshipers" and from that moment i was an atheist
Yes, well said, and it is only arrogance (very similar to the cultural/religious arrogance of the West that allowed it to conquer and destroy other cultures/religions) that lets someone, in light of the understanding you describe above, to insist "But *my* way is the only right way and yours must be wrong."

[HMS Beagle]

We can only live for our perceptions, and the Creator is the last point on a perfect line that simulaneously ascends and descends into oblivion of which we can perceive. Call the line God.
The Creator is not the "last point". I said the last perceivable point.
I quoted you accurately (see?), but I can see how it's easy for you to misremember your own words. Your theory changes shape with every question thrown at it, even the easy ones. Anyway, you leave a stronger impression of spewing invective than of articulating an idea about the nature of god.

[nthn200]

We can only live for our perceptions, and the Creator is the last point on a perfect line that simulaneously ascends and descends into oblivion of which we can perceive. Call the line God.
The Creator is not the "last point". I said the last perceivable point.
I quoted you accurately (see?), but I can see how it's easy for you to misremember your own words. Your theory changes shape with every question thrown at it, even the easy ones. Anyway, you leave a stronger impression of spewing invective than of articulating an idea about the nature of god.
Yeah. Well, it's what I meant. Its kind of hard to keep track when everyone jumps on my nuts. I'm sorry that you think that I have an amorphous theory. It's tricky to do when one is undermined even if there is not a plausible reason to argue aside from spite.

[fortytwo]

If these realms are imperceptable, I can hardly define them. These are not my original theories, you merely challenged the idea of infinity juxtaposed to Plato's Republic. My contention is that God exists outside of what we know...that there is existance outside of the Universe........what else would there be? Nothingness? If you believe so, then qualify it. It is not madness to think about but madness to attempt to quantify. I beleive that there is a perfect force that moves through all realms of existance and is perceived on each perceptable plane at points of perfection/intersection. For our plane of existance, it is the messiah archetype. Even if you don't beleive in the concept of a messiah, there have been hundreds and hundreds of examples of this archetype within world religions of all kinds. For the solar system/galaxy/universe it is the Creator archetype. The line theory presumes that there are infinite realms within and without the few that we can perceive, and even though we can only perceive certain parts of this line, it does not refute its existance. I am trying to qualify reality according to the patterns that we perceive and I am sharing an idea of God that frankly, would be called hedonism by many fundamentalists.
There are a few things in this that I'd like to respond to, but first I want to make sure I understand what you're trying to say. Some of that went by a little too fast for me.

I beleive that there is a perfect force that moves through all realms of existance and is perceived on each perceptable plane at points of perfection/intersection.
So you're saying that there are several realms of existence, of which our observable universe is only one, and that this "perfect force" (God, maybe?) can be thought of as a line intersecting a stack of parallel planes (the realms)?

For our plane of existance, it is the messiah archetype. Even if you don't beleive in the concept of a messiah, there have been hundreds and hundreds of examples of this archetype within world religions of all kinds. For the solar system/galaxy/universe it is the Creator archetype.
Whoa, wait a minute. You're talking about both a "messiah archetype" and a "Creator archetype." Are you saying "our plane of existance" (with the messiah) is a separate realm from "the solar system/galaxy/universe" (with the Creator)? (Which doesn't make any sense, because we are part of the solar system/etc.)

Or are there two separate archetypes within this realm, one for our planet and the other for the solar system/etc? (In which case you need to change the name of your theory, because a line can only intersect a plane at one point. That, or stop changing the meanings of simple geometric terms.)

Or are the messiah and Creator archetypes one and the same? (So why did you give the archetype two different names within a few sentences?)

Please clarify what you meant with this quote.

The line theory presumes that there are infinite realms within and without the few that we can perceive, and even though we can only perceive certain parts of this line, it does not refute its existance.
As far as I know, we can only perceive the parts of the line that intersect with the observable universe. Is that enough of the line to be able to say with any certainty that it is, in fact, a line? It could be some other shape entirely. Or, it could be that the only parts of it that exist at all are the ones that we perceive. On what basis are you extrapolating outside of the observable universe and describing something that is impossible to perceive?

And finally...

These are not my original theories, you merely challenged the idea of infinity juxtaposed to Plato's Republic.
What? I've read Plato's Republic. What in the world does this have to do with Plato's Republic??

[HMS Beagle]

There's three questions.... I'm trying to discern their answers in your reply, but I can't, so I'll ask again: 1) In which realms outside of our perceived reality does God exist? 2) What information has led you to state that God exists in those realms? 3) Why is it madness to put thought to the perception of those realms?
Once I get answers on those questions, I'll be better able to address your post above.
If these realms are imperceptable, I can hardly define them.... My contention is that God exists outside of what we know...that there is existance outside of the Universe........what else would there be? Nothingness? If you believe so, then qualify it. It is not madness to think about but madness to attempt to quantify.
Your theory changes shape with every question thrown at it, even the easy ones.
I'm sorry that you think that I have an amorphous theory. It's tricky to do when one is undermined even if there is not a plausible reason to argue aside from spite.
I appreciate how difficult it is, but I think Tenspace asked reasonable questions, and your answers do seem amorphous. You ask, if there is no existence outside the universe, what would there be? Nothingness? I say yes. To reiterate an earlier point, I find harder to believe in a god (whatever form it takes) than to accept the possiblity that time and matter are eternal, and if the universe has edges, then beyond those edges is a void into which the universe may yet expand. Both the possiblities-- god vs. nothingness-- are unknowable and impossible to wrap my mind around. But I can accept nothingess before I can accept your "perfect line" or any of mankind's other arbitrary definitions of "god."

[nthn200]

There's three questions.... I'm trying to discern their answers in your reply, but I can't, so I'll ask again: 1) In which realms outside of our perceived reality does God exist? 2) What information has led you to state that God exists in those realms? 3) Why is it madness to put thought to the perception of those realms?
Once I get answers on those questions, I'll be better able to address your post above.
If these realms are imperceptable, I can hardly define them.... My contention is that God exists outside of what we know...that there is existance outside of the Universe........what else would there be? Nothingness? If you believe so, then qualify it. It is not madness to think about but madness to attempt to quantify.
Your theory changes shape with every question thrown at it, even the easy ones.
I'm sorry that you think that I have an amorphous theory. It's tricky to do when one is undermined even if there is not a plausible reason to argue aside from spite.
I appreciate how difficult it is, but I think Tenspace asked reasonable questions, and your answers do seem amorphous. You ask, if there is no existence outside the universe, what would there be? Nothingness? I say yes. To reiterate an earlier point, I find harder to believe in a god (whatever form it takes) than to accept the possiblity that time and matter are eternal, and if the universe has edges, then beyond those edges is a void into which the universe may yet expand. Both the possiblities-- god vs. nothingness-- are unknowable and impossible to wrap my mind around. But I can accept nothingess before I can accept your "perfect line" or any of mankind's other arbitrary definitions of "god."
That's fair. I just want to feel as though people actually consider what I'm saying and not just trying to get at me because i'm not an atheist.

[nthn200]

If these realms are imperceptable, I can hardly define them. These are not my original theories, you merely challenged the idea of infinity juxtaposed to Plato's Republic. My contention is that God exists outside of what we know...that there is existance outside of the Universe........what else would there be? Nothingness? If you believe so, then qualify it. It is not madness to think about but madness to attempt to quantify. I beleive that there is a perfect force that moves through all realms of existance and is perceived on each perceptable plane at points of perfection/intersection. For our plane of existance, it is the messiah archetype. Even if you don't beleive in the concept of a messiah, there have been hundreds and hundreds of examples of this archetype within world religions of all kinds. For the solar system/galaxy/universe it is the Creator archetype. The line theory presumes that there are infinite realms within and without the few that we can perceive, and even though we can only perceive certain parts of this line, it does not refute its existance. I am trying to qualify reality according to the patterns that we perceive and I am sharing an idea of God that frankly, would be called hedonism by many fundamentalists.
There are a few things in this that I'd like to respond to, but first I want to make sure I understand what you're trying to say. Some of that went by a little too fast for me.

I beleive that there is a perfect force that moves through all realms of existance and is perceived on each perceptable plane at points of perfection/intersection.
So you're saying that there are several realms of existence, of which our observable universe is only one, and that this "perfect force" (God, maybe?) can be thought of as a line intersecting a stack of parallel planes (the realms)?

For our plane of existance, it is the messiah archetype. Even if you don't beleive in the concept of a messiah, there have been hundreds and hundreds of examples of this archetype within world religions of all kinds. For the solar system/galaxy/universe it is the Creator archetype.
Whoa, wait a minute. You're talking about both a "messiah archetype" and a "Creator archetype." Are you saying "our plane of existance" (with the messiah) is a separate realm from "the solar system/galaxy/universe" (with the Creator)? (Which doesn't make any sense, because we are part of the solar system/etc.)

Or are there two separate archetypes within this realm, one for our planet and the other for the solar system/etc? (In which case you need to change the name of your theory, because a line can only intersect a plane at one point. That, or stop changing the meanings of simple geometric terms.)

Or are the messiah and Creator archetypes one and the same? (So why did you give the archetype two different names within a few sentences?)

Please clarify what you meant with this quote.

The line theory presumes that there are infinite realms within and without the few that we can perceive, and even though we can only perceive certain parts of this line, it does not refute its existance.
As far as I know, we can only perceive the parts of the line that intersect with the observable universe. Is that enough of the line to be able to say with any certainty that it is, in fact, a line? It could be some other shape entirely. Or, it could be that the only parts of it that exist at all are the ones that we perceive. On what basis are you extrapolating outside of the observable universe and describing something that is impossible to perceive?

And finally...

These are not my original theories, you merely challenged the idea of infinity juxtaposed to Plato's Republic.
What? I've read Plato's Republic. What in the world does this have to do with Plato's Republic??
Im working a little off of Madeline L'Engle. She posed that humans play out the same basic blueprint as the planets and stars, and also the microscopic organisms that live in our bodies. It's from A Wind In The Door. I pose that perhaps the creator is thought of as a father in the sense that he is the male in a sexual relationship with the Earth. The Egyptians (and many many others) had the Sun as their "head God". The Jews were revolutionary because it was not as though they did not beleive in the existance of these Gods, but they beleived that they served this "line" as I like to think of it. Pretty democratic in value systems if you think about the direction they were moving from. Because all Gods serve this line, that is the reason for losing the pantheistic point of view. if you worshipped one deity more than another, who knows what kind of rationalization of values that might lead to. Murder, tyranny, sexual depravity...all sanctioned by state religions and unambiguously accepted. The Sumerians were pretty bad about that stuff (according to Cahill). Our little human bubble is in another realm of existance because we don't live in the same realm as stars and galaxies. However, there are similarities. Perhaps computers or AI is in another realm and mankind is the creator God of them. That would be a continuity in the line. I also like to think of the realms not as parallel but as shells within shells as you expand outward(/inward).

By the way, The Messiah and Creator are the same, just different expressions. I feel that that is the rationalization of the holy trinity (the "holy ghost" being the line itself).


As to your last question...I suppose you could say that about any theory. But the rationalization that it is a line I suppose takes a little romanticization of what one would consider an omnipotent all powerful force to be. I guess thats an assumption one has to make.

(The Plato thing was mixed up from something someone else was saying to me).

[Little Earth Stamper]

Huh... So there's no evidence of a force outside of your own experience. The concept of a creator is equally as logical as a Gnome marauder? I see...
A gnome is a tiny person who lives underground. Such a creature doesn't particularly violate any known laws of nature, so the entire argument that believing in them is absurd is based on the fact that there isn't a single scrap of evidence that they exist.

According to you, dismissing Gnomes based on this criteria alone is narcissistic foolishness.

I guess the question now is, on what basis do you dismiss gnomes as illogical?
...I crave intellectual discourse...
I do too, which is why I asked the question.

Let's define Gnomes as a race of pygmy-sized homo sapiens whose culture includes the practice of building dwellings that are entierly underground.

This strikes me as an entirely logical concept. Why, then, do we dismiss it?

[Another brick in the wall]

Same reason rational people dismiss UFOs, astrology, ghosts, Bigfoot, Loch Ness, etc: Beacuse there's no evidence for it. Ooh! Do I get a prize for saying it first?!

[HMS Beagle]

I just want to feel as though people actually consider what I'm saying and not just trying to get at me because i'm not an atheist.
We're all struggling with the same questions. And we've all arrived at separate conclusions-- theist, atheist, agnostic-- based on what we've read, seen, felt. I admire you for having the fortitude to enter a forum where you are the minority; usually it's us.

[nthn200]

A gnome is a tiny person who lives underground. Such a creature doesn't particularly violate any known laws of nature, so the entire argument that believing in them is absurd is based on the fact that there isn't a single scrap of evidence that they exist.

According to you, dismissing Gnomes based on this criteria alone is narcissistic foolishness.

I guess the question now is, on what basis do you dismiss gnomes as illogical?
...I crave intellectual discourse...
I do too, which is why I asked the question.

Let's define Gnomes as a race of pygmy-sized homo sapiens whose culture includes the practice of building dwellings that are entierly underground.

This strikes me as an entirely logical concept. Why, then, do we dismiss it?
I suppose the major difference is anthropological. Name how many ancient tribes beleived in the concept of gnomes. What purpose do they serve as an icon or functional equation in the lives of ancient civilizations. Seriously though, look up the statistics on how many cultures, independent from each other, thought up very similar archetypes of life that allowed them to come to the conclusion that there was a God (and sometimes one, in the sense that he is democratic and serves all values equally). Joseph Campbell describes this as the collective subconscious.

[Little Earth Stamper]

...I crave intellectual discourse...
I do too, which is why I asked the question.

Let's define Gnomes as a race of pygmy-sized homo sapiens whose culture includes the practice of building dwellings that are entierly underground.

This strikes me as an entirely logical concept. Why, then, do we dismiss it?
I suppose the major difference is anthropological. Name how many ancient tribes beleived in the concept of gnomes. What purpose do they serve as an icon or functional equation in the lives of ancient civilizations. Seriously though, look up the statistics on how many cultures, independent from each other, thought up very similar archetypes of life that allowed them to come to the conclusion that there was a God (and sometimes one, in the sense that he is democratic and serves all values equally). Joseph Campbell describes this as the collective subconscious.
Oh, I bet more societies believe in tiny cave sprites then you might think. I mean, pretty much the entire continent of Europe, and I know the Aztecs did too; As I recall, they were called Little Earth Stampers.

[nthn200]

I do too, which is why I asked the question.

Let's define Gnomes as a race of pygmy-sized homo sapiens whose culture includes the practice of building dwellings that are entierly underground.

This strikes me as an entirely logical concept. Why, then, do we dismiss it?
I suppose the major difference is anthropological. Name how many ancient tribes beleived in the concept of gnomes. What purpose do they serve as an icon or functional equation in the lives of ancient civilizations. Seriously though, look up the statistics on how many cultures, independent from each other, thought up very similar archetypes of life that allowed them to come to the conclusion that there was a God (and sometimes one, in the sense that he is democratic and serves all values equally). Joseph Campbell describes this as the collective subconscious.
Oh, I bet more societies believe in tiny cave sprites then you might think. I mean, pretty much the entire continent of Europe, and I know the Aztecs did too; As I recall, they were called Little Earth Stampers.
With the same same seriousness and reverence as to the concept of God? As ubiquitously across the world?...Honestly, lets move on.

[Another brick in the wall]

The concept of god is far from ubiqitous. Ancestor and nature worship were the first religions.

[nthn200]

The concept of god is far from ubiqitous. Ancestor and nature worship were the first religions.
I did not say the first religions were monotheistic, did I? Aside from that, even pantheistic deities were more ubiquitous than gnomes. Im sick of talking about fuckin' gnomes. Put the bong down for five minutes.

[Another brick in the wall]

What do you want to talk about? I'm not going anywhere . . .

[Little Earth Stamper]

The concept of god is far from ubiqitous. Ancestor and nature worship were the first religions.
I did not say the first religions were monotheistic, did I? Aside from that, even pantheistic deities were more ubiquitous than gnomes. Im sick of talking about fuckin' gnomes. Put the bong down for five minutes.
But a deity is a broader concept then a gnome. A deity is any personified being that exerts some control over nature. Hell, we could even argue that deities don't even need to be personified; Its not a big stretch to include Brahman or the Tao among the deities of man.

And really, deities are more likely to exist then gnomes because people like deities better? I don't think so.

[nthn200]

The concept of god is far from ubiqitous. Ancestor and nature worship were the first religions.
I did not say the first religions were monotheistic, did I? Aside from that, even pantheistic deities were more ubiquitous than gnomes. Im sick of talking about fuckin' gnomes. Put the bong down for five minutes.
But a deity is a broader concept then a gnome. A deity is any personified being that exerts some control over nature. Hell, we could even argue that deities don't even need to be personified; Its not a big stretch to include Brahman or the Tao among the deities of man.

And really, deities are more likely to exist then gnomes because people like deities better? I don't think so.
Yes, actually. The concept of the archetype is more subject to abstraction as opposed to a gnome which has a very limited definition. I never said that those deities could not be considered. The personification is a method of interpretation and relating these concepts to humanity. Case in point, the Greek Pantheon of Gods and Goddesses. You could argue with me that there is no man in the ocean stirring up the sea but you would be hard pressed to argue that there is no sea.

[Trublu]

come to Britain. I find it astonishing that some Americans are stigmatised by being atheist.

Here nobody cares.

[Another brick in the wall]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't religious education mandatory in Britain? Aren't most people born there baptized into the Church of England automatically? I hear people talk about how the US is less secular than other western countries, but to me it looks like in some ways it's more secular. I know some European countries have state religions (Church of Sweden, for example) and that the tithing is automatically taken out as a tax.

[Amazonis]

Im lucky to be in Australia, since it is more common to be atheist here than in the US or Uk. In America only 14% of people are completely atheist, but here it is 28% (still could be beter). And at least those who are religious are (usually) less extreme than in other countrys. But still, 28% of people being atheist means that 72% of people are still religious dum asses.

[nthn200]

Im lucky to be in Australia, since it is more common to be atheist here than in the US or Uk. In America only 14% of people are completely atheist, but here it is 28% (still could be beter). And at least those who are religious are (usually) less extreme than in other countrys. But still, 28% of people being atheist means that 72% of people are still religious dum asses.
I have been known to make my own generalizations on this web forum, but out of frustration...which I guess is why I ask. With all honesty, I'm curious, do you truly beleive that all religious types are intellectually inferior, as a rule?

[Another brick in the wall]

By types do you mean people? I don't think being religious automatically makes someone stupid. However, there are a lot of stupid people who profess religion. It's hard not to notice the connection.

[nthn200]

By types do you mean people? I don't think being religious automatically makes someone stupid. However, there are a lot of stupid people who profess religion. It's hard not to notice the connection.
Yeah. It's an unfortunate coincidence. Perhaps it has to do with the fact that we live in a post-enlightenment global community. The masses of the religious right, or as Scott Peck refers to them, the "Stage 2ers", amalgamate towards the dogmatic and would probably be better off if they kept their mouths shut. On the other hand, I think a lot of intelligent people proscribe religion becuase they fear the cost of sacrificing their individuality, which I understand. I mean no oversimplification, however. This is the age of the individual.

[Another brick in the wall]

I don't mind giving up my induviduality if the group I'm working with is doing good. I would work for a christian charity if they were doing the most to help. Or an Islamic charity.