Why I'm Atheist and not Agnostic

fun perhaps. compellling no.
but it does highlight precisely my point.

basically, if anything, it is our own ego, our collective ego mostly, but perhaps some people their individual egos as well, my mother was one of those, if she didn't know or believe something, it couldn't possibly exist,
setting up our own collective ego, as judge jury and executioner, absolute, of what can or cannot exist,
when by any logical surmise, all that we know, can be little more then a tiny fraction of what there is to be known.

 

Nonsense. we all possess the same neuro chemicals. You are talking about abstraction in either case.

 

Oblivious.

As if all blobs of chemicals are capable of equal degrees of REASONING.

 

One could argue that it is the ego which wants to make reality more 'fantastical' than it really is.

I mean the fact that we have billions of light years to work with in the observable universe, as well as have a ton of unknown matter and energy to discover, to suggest that someone has any insight to anything beyond that could be viewed as ego-centric.

 

What are degrees of reasoning? You said there is no level playing field. The fact is there fundamentally is no matter what you believe about it. In your instance the pitch of the playing field is based on your personal apprehension. There appears no level playing field to you because you establish the level in the absence of other perspectives. You have a personally drawn map that you refer to when saying degrees of reasoning. You combine chemicals and get predictable results. Brain chemicals represent the capacity to reason or make connections. No one is without the potential. No one but operates by some comparison.

 

Well grandiose anyway and inefficacious as the suggestion alters no fact. We are all centered around our level of identification. Now the ego errs in thinking both high and low in the reflective measurement of self. Being is real in this instance, not relatively real or just. Pride and shame or the sensation of self worth are both the same vain apprehension of the function in being.

 

There either is a God or there is not. It can not be both. The reality is that there is no level field of reasoning here. Just because you lack the ability to visualize this simple logical reality doesn't make you right. Ever here of an "And Gate" logic circuit? You say there is a balance, I say there is no balance, therefore by the very nature of this difference in opinion... "No Balance" is in fact the reality and only logical result or answer.

 

Depends on the specifics of comparison. God is invoked in either case.

At this level of definition god exists,
As
an image, idol, animal, or other object worshiped as divine or symbolizing a god.

Really, which one of us do you think is more stupid?
The reality is reality is the same for everyone.
I asked you what are degrees of reason? If you can't articulate your position then you don't have one worth repeating.
The scientist makes comparisons on an equal or standard basis.
Frustrated pontificators claim imbalance or injustice.

You ever hear of a thing called condition? A disagreement is as common an estate as agreement is. Both parties are equally yoked. Disagreement is a fact for both in disagreement.

 

We confuse our opinions with being indicative of the way things are yet they only reflect our own determinations or mirror our mental processing. Real things come in the form of energetic exchange, chemical reaction and electromagnetic fields. These are the conditions in which we live.

 

The energetic appearance of the god phenomena is in human devotion to an idea of authority. Doesn't matter if you are pro or con, everyone chooses with a guide. We all clamor for correctness and this is fundamental to our survival as you must know what is good for food.

 

No one negates the realm of comparison or evidence. In many instances the evidence is the subjective emotional effect of conviction. This can be seen in terms both positive and negative. An exchange you and I had earlier demonstrates this. Whereas you perceived a post as an attack reflecting on past violations, i.e. things you perceived happening earlier in the thread that you thought needed to be brought into proportion, I perceived it as a question as I conceive no guilt. Reality is not guilty of anything and when you make accusations you distort the apprehension of real things. We cannot escape the effects of our own thinking on perception. We tend to find in the world the things we look for. There is no injustice in reality beyond a persons complaint against it. We are energetic beings experiencing the dynamic tensions we create in relationship.

 

Well then,.......... The Question is what DO you believe in? and also....What do you worship?

 

If I understand you, there would be no point in having a logical fallacy such as ad hominem because the attack would always be subjective. I do think recognition of fallacy is important as it allows for discussion to move in a consistent, logical manner rather than discussion regressing to name calling irrelevant to the assertions made.

 

You understand me correctly. To say someone has attacked is to say he is an attacker and this is irrelevant to the standard regard of phenomena. We all make statements. Minds cannot attack other minds. A reputation can be called into question because it is an abstraction and this leads to further abstraction. To assign deviant qualities or superior qualities in an abstraction. We can discount ad hominem as simply not meaningful. According it no meaning it need not be an offensive element.

 

You might want to make this appeal to the mods and have them remove personal attacks as something ban worthy while you're at it.

 

Correctness? I think some things just work and other things do not for whatever reason.

 

Things work. There is nothing that doesn't work. Your work is finding environmental security. You don't want to be injured falling into holes and you don't want to be poisoned.

 

funny you mention the word poison as I have been feeling slowly poisoned lately....and I do not know by what....

 

I have actually had this discussion with moderators, in asking them to allow me to work out my own communications and I feel for the fact that you had your responses removed. Another version of breaking up communication is the claim of off topic. If it is something divergent then you don't need to address it, this is what creates the divergence.