Does God Exist?

Maybe atheism on itself is more a kind of faith (in the lack of gods) than a religion. Although there are organized forms of atheism which can be given as examples of why it can be seen as a religion too. Personally I would not call it a religion or use this argument to proof any point regarding atheists. Except that they are not much different in the end where it comes to evangelsation practices and trying to make their so righteous and outstanding good outlook the prevailing one. In general they seem just as intolerant and even dogmatic in their convictions like the religious people they usually rally against

Well, what is THE true religion seems to be subjective in the end. That should not have to be a problem, but it is often made a problem. I agree, or maybe better said, my perception of faith, religion and god agree with what you say about damnation (or better the lack thereof )
Anyway, for atheist the true religion or better said the true ideology is of course that there isn't a God, and also that holy books aren't the word of God (all very reasonable, logical and sensible) and shouldn't be taken literally, not as a whole at least. What is funny though is that they often insist a literally interpretation for the theists is the only right one and if those theists do not interpret it as a fundamentalist they're hypocritical believers who (how horrid) 'pick and choose' what agrees with them to their own liking. Which in return makes them kind of fundamentalistic (or at least take that approach) in their urge and hurry to convict theists and theistic beliefs. Perhaps all coming from good intent, but hopelessly pointless and not as constructive and progressive as they seem to think.

 

Get a life, I have one and only comment here when I have nothing better to do. I do enjoy commenting here but when it is nice outside I go outside. Drawing stupid conclusions from the fact I sometimes have better things to do just shows how pathetic your life probably is.

As for "Ali Baba", what is the purpose of these "miracles" other than to put on a show?

Jesus did not come to perform, miracles or otherwise and often was reluctant even to do miracles, he came to spread the good news of God's kingdom. What "good news" does this "Ali Baba" have?

As for this "Sam Harris", I do not know him and cannot comment on his "wisdom, intelligence, sense and culture". I only have this video to go on and if it is any kind of an example of who he is, it seems he would make a good used car salesman because he sure has you fooled.

As for being a "grown ass child", thanx. I have always tried to maintain a youthful sense of wonder about the world around me, how kind of you to notice.

 

To suggest that all humans and societies goes through these stages suggests a fundamental structure.
There is a color coding that he refers to the specifics of which are not delineated. He uses the terms orange and turquoise. By context I'm thinking that he is saying that turquoise is a more mature or sophisticated state than orange and he is talking spirituality, (does that mean self awareness?) There is a biological component. I can see that this is materially consistent with the evolution of matter going from the simple to the more complex. However it is important to note that more complex does not mean higher but it does mean more considerate. Being a function of complexity there is more complicated communication or more things to consider. So I think progressive growth is best understood not on a linear or vertical axis but in a concentric fashion from the center outward as we occupy ever greater space. Complexity is formed over time from simple addition or one bit at a time. Multiplication is quick addition, a multitude of simple interactions compounded, and this is biology's conscious strategy of reproduction.

What he doesn't address at all is life cycle. The life cycle is a redundant pulse that goes from the abstract to the tangible and then again to the abstract which is reflected by the arrows in the graph going from a base point before prehension and extending indefinitely.

Does human being have an ultimately mature state or do we max out within our current frame of reference? Do all individuals go through all stages let's say in a lifetime? Do all individuals reach maturity? Perhaps these questions are misplaced. If these are stages we all go through then we might consider everyone of these stages essential and that means the argument about how is right or who is wrong as in atheist vs, theist is irrelevant.

What remains for me is the question does our own propensity to development of meaning say something essential about the nature of matter. If I don't think it does than that calls to question the real nature of our experience and it is harder for me to imagine not being real than dealing with the sensational reality.

 

Jesus, the all round family entertainer.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bt6VH1mVPAo

 

What many don't understand is that parts of the Bible are literal and some are not. Then how do we know which are which are which, context of course but usually the Bible will just tell you, such as saying "in a vision" or "without an illustration he would not speak to them".

Another thing that confuses many is that many things in the Bible are historical, statement of fact, the things that took place and so many call God out because the foibles of mankind and God's dealings with them are recorded in the Bible.

 

Where do people come up with this stuff, this probably where atheists get their "true facts" about Jesus.

 

He is not trying to convey any message of or against Jesus there OWB. It is just a good piece of humour. Hilarious and briliant use of words imo. It still cracks me up. One of my favourite pieces of Atkinson ever.

edit: If anything, he seems to be ridiculing the focus on miracles and 'magic tricks' by others (wether they are religious or not). I would primarily regard it as a good piece of comedy.

 

If you knew what Writer was referring to, Saying Harris didn't make an argument is a disgrace to intellectual integrity. You either don't understand the concept of arguments or your initial retort is pretty exemplary of the 'dangers' of how far religious bias and ideology goes and how one attempts to shield religious beliefs from said criticism as Harris mentions.

Among other arguments, Harris laid out 3 arguments pretty clearly and given that you responded when Writer laid them out for you, I am leaning towards you had an emotionally aversive reaction to Harris' arguments and got consumed by your religious bias which overwhelmed the logical part of your mind to initially give a fair response.

 

How you choose to spend your time is your life. You only engage here because you have nothing better to do? That really doesn't speak well of your enthusiasm for meaningful or best representation. If you don't stand by your words then why do you post? I post here because it is some of the best I have to offer ans is the reason I do anything. So you might be able to sense where the more serious minded here find you tedious and less than forthright. There are some who find meaning to be meaningful in the most profound sense and to the most profound effect in our lives.

A good way to respond in this situation is to be self reflective not to strike out as in get a life and calling someone else's life "probably pathetic". A lack of good things to do is your pathos.

 

Yes, I answered too quickly and had to edit my post. I agree very funny.

 

Let's keep it fair and realistic and just say he had an emotionally aversive reaction. Maybe due to lack of patience with Writers chronical problem with religion. The other assumption seems to be made partially because of your and writers typical atheist convictions about religious people. Any person looses his patience and temper every once in awhile in an argument like this, where it is clear there will be no agreement or end.

 

I don't believe I said he didn't "make an argument" just that his argument was so weak that it was drivel and did not deserve a response.

Give it a rest, if I had any "emotionally aversive reaction" to what he said it was mild amusement.

As for responding to Writer rather than the "video", that is just the way I do things, I do not post videos as a replacement for my arguments as I feel it is disrespectful but will generally respond to a personal discussion.

Now I have posted an article from time to time, generally in response to a question about a better understanding of something but even then I usually preface it with “I found this information to be helpful” but not as a substitute for my arguments.

So drawing this idiotic conclusion is, well, idiotic.

 

What convictions Asmo? To say there was no argument made in Harris' video is really bad taste. If you value logic, you should be just as concerned about that initial response from OWB.

 

The convictions that seem to be present in and caused you to make the second assumption (after 'and'):

It is ok to assume it was an emotionally aversive reaction that caused him to not reply fair, reasonable and with patience initially. It is a stereotypical atheist (or perhaps even anti-theist/antireligious) conviction to assume it was caused by religious bias or by overwhelming of the logical part of his mind and that that was what consumed him there.

 

What other reason(s) would you claim that he could not recognize arguments there?

I granted him being uneducated but he seemed to do alright when Writer laid them out, so what other reasons could there possibly be Asmo?

 

Let's keep it fair and realistic. You excuse one while dissing the other by saying perhaps the reaction is writer's fault. I think the reaction comes by comparison to an ideal and this conflict is internal or his chronic problem with religion. We are legitimately responsible only to our own actions or reactions.

 

Perhaps he just didn't care for that argument or was focussing on another, and therefor initially missed the point of and the argument itself. I'm just speculating here. I don't know OWB any better than you I think. To be clear: I am also not 100% sure about your convictions regarding religion or theistic faith in general (I understand you don't have any use for it yourself, but I guess here it is about the use others, like OWB for instance, have for it). So if I am projecting things on you that seem wrong or really off I am happy to be corrected on that. But as it looks to me you were projecting stereotypical convictions on him because he 1) lost his patience in this argument, and 2) the convictions are made because you perceive them more often in certain religious people.

I don't excuse anyone per se. I guess I am (mildly) dissing theWriter to show him the amount of respect and understanding he deals out to his convo partners with opposite perceptions/convictions. I am just as glad that OWB later responded more in depth than his initial reply (not for me personally, but for himself and, if all is good, for mrWriter and the convo).
Also, the word 'perhaps' wasn't included for nothing

Makes sense Are you talking about OWB here or Mr. Writer? Or both?

 

How does OWB simply not feeling like responding to argument let his assertions off the hook? I am trying to understand where my "stereotypical atheist convictions" come into play and/or perhaps help you understand the limits in your own thinking in regards to logic and discussion.

It was OWB's first response in several pages to a video post that was on a previous page. It was really a delayed response that was pretty much unnecessary and then Writer makes a witty retort that didn't need to be responded to and then OWB makes a false assertion regarding Harris not making an argument.

 

I'm not sure where I implied that not (feeling like) responding let his assertions completely of the hook. I didn't mean it like that at all.

I already adressed that. They seem to come into play when you assume his INITIAL reply that had a lack of patience (among other things) was mainly or partly because of those convictions about him being 'consumed by religious bias...' etc. while to me it seems his emotionally aversive reaction could just be because of a lack of patience or (for example) not seeing the use of the arguments in that vid.

What limits are you thinking about here? I am intrigued (because from my perspective the agnostic pov is the most logic and certainly the most reasonable, even or maybe especially in a convo with people coming from opposite stances). If you see limits in my thinking regarding logic and (these kind of) discussions I hope you will explain what they seem to be to you! Thanks in advance

Agreed. All right. So? He already made a new post that nuanced his first reaction. That he made a 'false assertion' about Harris not making an argument could simply be a mistake. Why hold it against him as if it was because he has to be 'consumed by religious bias' etc. or as if he did it deliberately or people can't (or aren't allowed to) miss an argument or make a mistake? This is a discussion board, in heated discussions people sometimes react too fast. This is only a problem imo if they don't wanna expand or correct themselves later.

 

Well i'm talking about all of us in regards to responsibility for our own actions or reactions. Your state of mind is never the other guys fault.

I go beyond the discussion of various possibilities to say that such an adverse reaction is always based on comparison to an ideal.

As to writer I think he is purposefully absurd in order to make stark comparisons or to emphasize the absurdity. Kind of an emotional appeal in hopes of getting the juices flowing so to speak .

As to OWB's evolution of responses to the comedy clip, we can trace what led to the initial response of "where do people come up with this stuff." He sees a form he think he recognizes, a story from the bible, except, that is not what the bible says in his minds comparison and that is where the comparing stopped or he popped off prematurely with the knee jerk reaction. If there is anything certain about OWB,s position it is that the bible according to his interpretation is the measure of all things and on this basis he makes his "reasonable" comparisons.