|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 7, 2016 10:02:04 GMT 10
And who says I require it? If atheism is shown false, the opposite must be true.
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 7, 2016 10:24:39 GMT 10
Good day Mr. Jubjub bird.  Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 7, 2016 10:27:20 GMT 10
...How can you be certain of that? Have you examined every known fact in our universe?
Tuning out certain truths doesn't diminish it's reality
|
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Oct 7, 2016 10:28:32 GMT 10
Atheism doesn't claim anything.
Atheism is merely the refusal to blindly believe without proof.
It is you religionists who are claiming something exists which cannot be proved, or seen, or heard, or touched, or smelled, or tasted, or measured.
So if you wish to claim your god exists, then PROVE it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 7, 2016 10:32:18 GMT 10
Atheism doesn't claim anything. Well, that can't be true. Unless it's a misnomer, it makes at least one claim. A= no Theos= God Ism= a suffix used for Philosophy Atheism= the philosophy of no god. |
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Oct 7, 2016 10:36:33 GMT 10
Atheism doesn't claim anything. Well, that can't be true. Unless it's a misnomer, it makes at least one claim. A= no Theos= God Ism= a suffix used for Philosophy Atheism= the philosophy of no god. You're already in a deep hole which is rapidly filling up with bullshit. My advice: “STOP DIGGING!” |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 7, 2016 10:37:40 GMT 10
KTJ, You really need to get out of your own way, You aren't that deep. Yorick at least, shows potential. You show all the complexity of a green speckled duck turd. Yorick is carrying both you and Slarti.
I'll commend him for that.
Take back your free advice, I don't accept.
|
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Oct 7, 2016 10:43:26 GMT 10
When you can PROVE that your delusion (god) is real, then I'll start taking you seriously.
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 7, 2016 10:45:56 GMT 10
When you can PROVE that your delusion (god) is real, then I'll start taking you seriously. It won't remain a mystery forever. Tell you what, if we die and that's it; I promise to let you gloat about it.  If I'm right, forget it. You'll have bigger problems to deal with. |
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Oct 7, 2016 10:52:33 GMT 10
When I die, that will be it....FINNIS....THE END.
Meanwhile, you will continue to wallow in your religious delusions.
And with that I'm off to work.
|
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Oct 7, 2016 22:10:37 GMT 10
|
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 9, 2016 22:30:52 GMT 10
When I die, that will be it....FINNIS....THE END. Meanwhile, you will continue to wallow in your religious delusions. And with that I'm off to work. If that were true, it's not much of a counter argument. In fact, it's not much motivation to be an atheist at all. The religious and the atheist could live very similar lives with very differing outlooks -- To choose from the despair of the atheist, or the hope of the religious. From a psychological standpoint; delusion or no, hope seems the healthier option here. Delusion and depression are both mental illnesses, you know. And you only suspect delusion on the part of the religious.  |
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Oct 10, 2016 7:26:13 GMT 10
When I die, that will be it....FINNIS....THE END. Meanwhile, you will continue to wallow in your religious delusions. And with that I'm off to work. If that were true, it's not much of a counter argument. In fact, it's not much motivation to be an atheist at all. The religious and the atheist could live very similar lives with very differing outlooks -- To choose from the despair of the atheist, or the hope of the religious. From a psychological standpoint; delusion or no, hope seems the healthier option here. Delusion and depression are both mental illnesses, you know. And you only suspect delusion on the part of the religious. The despair of the Atheist? Atheists KNOW their fate, we don't have to worry about going to HELL, that is purely in the imagination of the Theist  |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 11, 2016 8:49:28 GMT 10
Good point about "despair" imagined to be the state of an atheist. That's idea is so wrong. The freedom that comes from rejecting the delusion about "god" is really a great experience. It boils down to delusion vs reality. For example: You might be an obese person, facing type 2 diabetes. The delusional way to handle that is to think: "Oh, that's the way god made me, and anyway ... when I get to heaven I'll be a picture of good health and everything will be wonderful." or ... The real way to handle that is to take a 30 minute walk every day, cut down the amount of food you eat, become a healthy person, avoid the type 2 diabetes and have a happy life. As a person who has type 2 diabetes, let me be the first to inform you that it is a genetic disease. I inherited it from my very petite mother, and she from hers, and my grandmother was raised as orphan. Also know that my wife is facing cancer, I would accept anyone's help to extend her life. But excersize and diet isn't quite going to cut it. Let's stop pretending that physical death is an avoidable lifestyle choice; and adopt this analogy: --The disease of death is terminal and inevitable; someone offers a solution to survive beyond the disease. Even if you lack proof and still doubt, how is it reasonable to reject the very help that could extend your existence ? Sure it may be a lie, but what are you risking? A theist can live a fulfilled life just like an atheist can. If you can't believe that, then the prejudice is yours. |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 11, 2016 9:52:45 GMT 10
Not in all cases.. The presupposition then being, a person who believes in an afterlife is incapable of having a good life? I beg to differ. ...And how is it worse to do all these things and look forward to reuniting with their lost ones in eternity ? It's not irrational. If they err in their belief about the afterlife what follows is inconsequential. Your other examples are argument to the absurd; most Christians know grace isn't licence to do whatever they please. Quite the contrary, we are commanded to live as Christ. How is no hope preferable to possessing hope? Particularly when it pertains to reaching the end of one's life? |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 11, 2016 10:01:40 GMT 10
"The presupposition then being, a person who believes in an afterlife is incapable of having a good life?" I never said that. They could have a happier life if they did away with that delusional idea though. Begs the question, since you haven't really shown it a delusion. Thanks for your opinion, though. How about the rest of my post? |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 11, 2016 10:03:42 GMT 10
"The presupposition then being, a person who believes in an afterlife is incapable of having a good life?" I never said that. They could have a happier life if they did away with that delusional idea though. Happier than what? It seems you just said it. That's a lot of hubris, Ed. |
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Oct 11, 2016 10:14:04 GMT 10
"When debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser" -Socrates
|
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Oct 11, 2016 11:43:32 GMT 10
I note that Sporky hasn't backed up his claim about despair being part of being an Atheist. But then again, he just usually disappears when faced with facts like in his latest ill-informed topic that he started.
|
|
|
|
Post by KTJ on Oct 11, 2016 19:10:39 GMT 10
Has anybody else noticed how whenever Sporky turns up, this thread goes 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round 'round and 'round and 'round and 'round in circles?
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Oct 11, 2016 22:33:06 GMT 10
Pack behaviour  |
|
|
|
Post by pim on Oct 11, 2016 22:45:29 GMT 10
You know that Victa is cranking up for a lupine howl when he begins to write in vertical columns. The extra spacing shows how the howl trails off ...
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Oct 11, 2016 23:04:23 GMT 10
Victa and mates ... ![]() |
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Oct 12, 2016 9:07:47 GMT 10
Is that really what you think? Just because three people agree that religion is a nonsense they become predators?
Very sad way of looking at opinions that don't match your own and adds nothing to the discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by pim on Oct 12, 2016 12:10:52 GMT 10
Mi dispiace molto Donatello, ma io non parlo bene l'italiano. Alorra ho bisogno di dire questo in inglese. Hai capito?
Personally I haven't the faintest idea whether we live in some sort of Matrix style simulation or not. But here's the kicker: I don't care. It's like all those questions about life, the universe and everything, for all I know the answer could be 42. It's unknowable. Like God .. or for that matter no God. The old Trekkie in me recalls an episode of TNG when Geordie and Data are in the Holodeck playing Sherlock Holmes - with Data as Sherlock and Geordie as Watson - and Geordie decides to challenge Data by instructing the computer to create a Holmes adversary capable of defeating Data's positronic brain (whatever that is, but stay with me on this one). The ship's computer sets to work, the Enterprise lurches as a surge of energy is diverted to the Holodeck and a computer-generated Moriarty appears. Problem is that in order to create a Moriarty which is a match for Data/Holmes, the computer had to create one sophisticated enough to acquire self-awareness and understanding that it is indeed a computer-generated hologram, and that there is a much larger and more substantial reality outside the Holodeck. I'll gloss over the rest of the narrative to the very end in which the Moriarty hologram is outwitted by Jean-Luc Picard who takes him through a series of holographic simulations without "Moriarty" realising it, adjusts his program settings so that Moriarty is reduced to microscopic size, and sends him on his way - at Moriarty's request - in a small shuttle craft there to meet whatever interstellar destiny awaits him. And as Moriarty speeds off into the void Picard gives a few commands to the computer and all the computer simulations - except for the one Moriarty is in - dissolve and the Enterprise crew find themselves back in "normal" reality. Moriarty's "reality" is a box. Inside is a computer-generated universe within which a microscopic Moriarty can have his adventures. Basically Picard has constructed a matrix for Moriarty.
As story lines go, it's not bad for an American TV soapie and I'm not trying to "prove" anything. Fanciful? Of course it is. What about the Matrix movies? They’re pretty good too. A lot of the work on the movies was done in Sydney, I believe.
But beyond providing good material for fantasy/sci fi movies is the it's-all-a-computer-simulation scenario of any scientific value? I'm not a scientist so I dunno. Is it of philosophical value? I'd argue that it is. No don't even think of verballing me that I said I'm a "believer". But if Descartes' "cogito ergo sum" or "I think, therefore I am" is a valid philosophical statement - and wiser & more erudite minds than yours or mine say it is, then I can't dismiss it. It’s no more absurd than the idea of Genesis as a scientific and historical account of the origin of the universe and arguably a darn sight less absurd. I'd also say that the best atheists fearlessly grapple with the notion of absurdity in a universe without meaning or purpose and if a distinguished atheist like Camus can delve into ancient Greek mythology and examine the absurd fate of a Titan like Sisyphus condemned to spend eternity pushing a boulder up a mountain for having displeased the gods, in order to examine and highlight the philosophical problem of the Absurd in a godless universe, I'm not fazed by an American geek postulating a computer-simulated universe in which we all exist in a Matrix.
|
|
