Thread: Atheist Experience (t.v. show Austin)

There's a reason they add that "Any resemblance to persons real or fictitious is purely coincidental" clause at the end of movies.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Frustrated you say? I don't buy that UM, you're in no way frustrated over society and it's absured laws

I guess you would know better than I would.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

however I am but I deal with it.

You are frustrated with what? And good for you. I deal with stuff too. (Our conversation has already hit a very stupid level, as I knew it would.)

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I don't care for the great pumpkin nor do I wish to spend anytime thinking or debating with people on it's existence rather true or false. Why should I even entertain it or spend the energy?

It was an analogy. The Great Pumpkin was meant to represent God, and you spend lots of energy arguing about the existence of God, right up until the moment you have been backed into a corner, at which point you run for the hills.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Besides (I'm not trying to be harsh) but this is true, all I've seen you do is complain about this and about that. Where does that get you?

What you have seen me do is debate, and what you have seen yourself do is get stumped.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Why don't you take action?

Public debate is action, and you have no idea one way or the other what I have done other than that.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

On another note, you don't know enough about me and my background to even begin to fathom how I think and understand what is and what's not directed toward me.

I didn't address whether you understand whether the show is directed at people like you. I just said that it is (partly). All I need to know is what comments you have made on the topic of the existence of God, and what you have said provides plenty basis for my conclusion.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

1. No you didn't. You made a misstatement. Now either you can own up to that or you can continue to be impudent.

Keep thinking it's a mistatement if you like, doesn't matter to me one way or another. What I'm really confused about is why are you defending that so much? You don't believe GOD exist so what does it really matter right? If I say you hate him, then why are you so desprate to point out that it's not true? So in other words you're saying that you don't hate him? I think you need to talk to your Atheist Veterans to understand the true meaning of Atheism.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

2. You literally told him that he did not believe what he said. You said "I don't buy that UM, you're in no way frustrated over society and it's absured laws".

That is no way implying on his beliefs however I think I see what you are trying to point out. If the case of the matter is his feelings toward things i.e., society, then I can't say he doesn't feel a certain way because I'm not him, so thats my bad, I'll own up to that one.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

3. Yes. You assert your god is real. We okay then, if he is then he is quite an asshole.

Thats your opinion, if you feel that way then hey, thats on you. I don't feel that way and thats all that matters to me.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

It's called accepting the other viewpoint for discussional purposes-- You should try it sometime.

And you accept my viewpoint? If you think you do then you have a very unorthodox way of showing acceptance, degrading my GOD calling him all sorts of names, denying that he exist. Don't say something you're not willing to concede with. You may need to take heed of your own advise my friend. Maybe you should try it and stop calling my GOD names that you wouldn't want anyone calling your Mother, unless you don't care about your Mother and if thats the case then whoever is important to you.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

4. There is absolutely no way you can know that a character that someone made up in a book does not exist.

LOL, That doesn't even make sense. If something is "made up" then obviously it's not real right? Key word here is "Made UP" As the infamous words of Das Efx-- Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

[quote=Universal Mind;805031]I guess you would know better than I would.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

You are frustrated with what? And good for you. I deal with stuff too. (Our conversation has already hit a very stupid level, as I knew it would.)

I've already address this in Seismosaur's reply.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

It was an analogy. The Great Pumpkin was meant to represent God, and you spend lots of energy arguing about the existence of God, right up until the moment you have been backed into a corner, at which point you run for the hills.

Please show me a link where I was backed into a corner and ran for the hills. Because one thing I know for sure is that You've never backed me into a corner.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

What you have seen me do is debate, and what you have seen yourself do is get stumped.

No, all I've seen you do was make complaints. Pretty much the same way my little sister complains when something doesn't go her way.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Public debate is action, and you have no idea one way or the other what I have done other than that.

You're right Public Debating is an action, however complaining doesn't apply.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I didn't address whether you understand whether the show is directed at people like you. I just said that it is (partly). All I need to know is what comments you have made on the topic of the existence of God, and what you have said provides plenty basis for my conclusion.

So your conclusion is that the show is directed toward people who believe in GOD?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Please show me a link where I was backed into a corner and ran for the hills. Because one thing I know for sure is that You've never backed me into a corner.

Oh, okay. Then please refresh my memory on something. You said that you believe the intelligent design argument, right? We both know what that argument is. After a long exchange, we got to the end of the debate, which happens to be the end of the debate for everybody who does not drop out of it earlier. It was the end of the debate because you stopped discussing, which happens to be a big trend with creationists. I asked you who intelligently designed God, and you said that God does not need a creator because he is outside of time, so I said that there could be scientific laws outside of time that serve as the basis for the existence of our universe and asked you why that is not possible and why the outside of time source of the universe would have to be a conscious being. You made a silly joke as a means of completely dodging the question, so I asked you if you were folding. You said I could call it that if I choose to or something. So, what is the next step in the debate? I would love to continue it. What is your answer to the issue I just boldfaced? You ended up backed into a corner. I bet you still are.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

No, all I've seen you do was make complaints. Pretty much the same way my little sister complains when something doesn't go her way.

If you really think that (which you don't), then you don't know what an intellectual argument is or what a question is. Those are what I posted when discussing things with you and all over the place in the Religion forum, which is where you and I know each other from. I have discussed the philosophical nature of the existence, necessity, and nature of God a great deal in that forum. You are lying. Plain and simple.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

[You're right Public Debating is an action, however complaining doesn't apply.

Ad hominem lying does not apply.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

So your conclusion is that the show is directed toward people who believe in GOD?

No, that was not my point. It was that the show is aimed partly at theists who make ignorant and asinine statements about the nature of atheism. You know... statements like, "Atheists hate God." (as if atheists even believe in God)

Okay UM let's get down to it because the rest of this stuff is smoke-filled garbage and you and I both know we have some business to attend to.

First you're asking a 3-part question so I'm going to break those down and answer each one individually.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Why can't there be scientific laws outside of time that serve for the basis of the existence of our universe?

First we have a problem with the format of the question at hand. I would like to make sure you and I are on the same page regarding scientific laws. Please correct me if I'm wrong but in regards to sceintific laws can we concur in the reasoning of which is Scientific Law in essence, is something which has no detractors, a unifying concept in which scientist at the present time are in accordance with? Or on the other hand we have a law which is a single idea by which all scientist. regardless of discipline uniformally conform?

However for either example it's safe to say that presumably the acceptance of scientific laws also applies across disciplines, although most Laws are discipline specific. However I cannot think of a Law or a Theory for that matter that could possibly transcend all disciplines, per se' there is as of yet, NO UNIFIED LAW OF EVERYTHING. Doesn't somthing seem funny about this? Is it not mind-boggling that scientist are not even trained to analyze the pros and cons of laws outside of our field. Why? Because there seem to be this little problem with something we all refer to as time.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Why that is not possible?

In short science can't even grasp the fundamental properties of time within our own field how in the world can science postulate anything that transcend our field? Besides how can it be possible if Scientific Laws break down outside of our parameters?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Why does the outside source of the universe has to be a conscious being?

Consciousness promotes a mind which in turn's promotes direction. It's doesn't make sense to me to think that the universe and everything else including humans just happened randomly without intelligent design. (I'm sure we will revisit this area) Because I think this is your main concern.

Doesn't really have to apply to a fundamentalist.

^Q.e.d.

You know you guys are more than welcome to give your thoughts on my reply to UM.

Ne-Yo your argument makes no sense. Why would there be one "unified law of everything"?

There is no need, so why is this important at all?


This is very simple: "Time" is a product of memory and perception.

"Conciousness" is a product of stimulus and our complex brains.

Obviously these arewn't the total explanations but they should explain it for you, no?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

You know you guys are more than welcome to give your thoughts on my reply to UM.

So far Ne-Yo all I have tried to do was to explain to you that your only trying to provoke, and are telling flat out lies about other people. Now we are at a point where you (and UM) need to take this back to the R/S forums.

Saying things like why are you always trying to play the victom and "you're in no way frustrated over society and it's absured laws" in response to "We get frustrated by illogical beliefs that control our society" and then denying that you are saying what people believe.

Making claims that atheists hate God, a character they don't believe exists...

Making such statements as " You don't believe GOD exist so what does it really matter right? If I say you hate him, then why are you so desprate to point out that it's not true? "

As if trying to say that an atheist is trying to state they they love God, rather than defending that fact that they don't feel one way or another about a fictional character. "Why are you so desperate to point out that it's not true?" Because, if you say we hate God, your implying that we believe such a character exists. This is yet again you trying to say what people actually believe.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

Ne-Yo your argument makes no sense. Why would there be one "unified law of everything"?

Makes no sense? You're basically stating the same thing I just stated. That there is "no unified law of everything". So considering we both agree on this does it make sense to you; that Scientific Law would transcend anything outside of our own field?

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

There is no need, so why is this important at all?

Maybe you need to ask UM that question which I'm kind of shocked that you haven't considering you're only trying to figure out the same thing I'm trying to figure out from his question.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

This is very simple: "Time" is a product of memory and perception.

"Conciousness" is a product of stimulus and our complex brains.

Consciousness and time are intertwine within subjective experiences. Are you making the assertion that Time and Consciousness doesn't allow for experiences? You're saying that We do not precieve time on a Conscious level? Are you really arguing this? If I'm wrong then whats the point in the two definitions?

Originally Posted by Sandform

So far Ne-Yo all I have tried to do was to explain to you that your only trying to provoke, and are telling flat out lies about other people. Now we are at a point where you (and UM) need to take this back to the R/S forums.

Man why are you guys so emotional. I don't have a problem with taking this to the R/S forum. All you had to say was "Hey Ne-yo this doesn't belong here Man" and I would've been on my way. The rest of that stuff you're mentioning just makes it sound like you're having some sort of a tangent.

Consciousness and time are intertwine within subjective experiences. Are you making the assertion that Time and Consciousness doesn't allow for experiences? You're saying that We do not precieve time on a Conscious level? Are you really arguing this? If I'm wrong then whats the point in the two definitions?

Experiences are memories.

Memories create time.

Memories and complex brains create conciousness.

What do you not understand?

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

What do you not understand?

I don't understand how can memories create time, care to elaborate on that one?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Okay UM let's get down to it because the rest of this stuff is smoke-filled garbage and you and I both know we have some business to attend to.

First you're asking a 3-part question so I'm going to break those down and answer each one individually.

First we have a problem with the format of the question at hand. I would like to make sure you and I are on the same page regarding scientific laws. Please correct me if I'm wrong but in regards to sceintific laws can we concur in the reasoning of which is Scientific Law in essence, is something which has no detractors, a unifying concept in which scientist at the present time are in accordance with? Or on the other hand we have a law which is a single idea by which all scientist. regardless of discipline uniformally conform?

However for either example it's safe to say that presumably the acceptance of scientific laws also applies across disciplines, although most Laws are discipline specific. However I cannot think of a Law or a Theory for that matter that could possibly transcend all disciplines, per se' there is as of yet, NO UNIFIED LAW OF EVERYTHING. Doesn't somthing seem funny about this? Is it not mind-boggling that scientist are not even trained to analyze the pros and cons of laws outside of our field. Why? Because there seem to be this little problem with something we all refer to as time.

In short science can't even grasp the fundamental properties of time within our own field how in the world can science postulate anything that transcend our field? Besides how can it be possible if Scientific Laws break down outside of our parameters?

No, I am not talking about laws that we have necessarily discovered. I am talking about principles of reality that are at the basis of the existence of our universe. The reason I ask is that our conversation went like pretty much every intelligent design argument I have ever been in or come across.

theist: The universe is so, wow, golly, so great and complex, such a big deal. It could not have happened by itself. Something must have consciously created it.

atheist: Then who created God, who is an even bigger deal?

theist: God is outside of time and eternal, so he does not require a creator.

atheist: There goes your original argument. So why can't something outside of time and eternal that is not God and not conscious be the source of our universe?

That is where the conversation always ends, and it is where it ended with you. But now you say this...

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Consciousness promotes a mind which in turn's promotes direction. It's doesn't make sense to me to think that the universe and everything else including humans just happened randomly without intelligent design. (I'm sure we will revisit this area) Because I think this is your main concern.

That is not an answer. It is merely a repetition of the original assertion. You will need to back your statement up with logic to have actually answered my question. Of course a mind is one of the things that can promote direction, but so can wind, water, time, gravity, asteroids, and all kinds of other things. (No, I am not saying that one of those things created the universe.) A mind is not the only thing that promotes direction. Why would a conscious mind be necessary for the creation of our universe?

So, you are still stumped.

The fact that not one person has ever given a good answer to that is why I don't buy the intelligent design argument and do not see reason to believe that God exists. I don't not believe in God because I hate him, whatever sense that idea is supposed to make. Also, I actually do have a problem with the fact that my county is a dry one and that the strip club scene in Jackson got ruined by religious nuts. Those are not my only beefs. What psychic told you otherwise?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

atheist: There goes your original argument. So why can't something outside of time and eternal that is not God and not conscious be the source of our universe?

You might as well go so far as to say based on the argument that God is outside of time and eternal, then there has to be a principle outside of time and eternal that allows God to exist.

Originally Posted by Sandform

You might as well go so far as to say based on the argument that God is outside of time and eternal, then there has to be a principle outside of time and eternal that allows God to exist.

Hey, that's a good point. Something eternal has eternally been the source of God's existence, as long as we are supposing God's existence. Based on the intelligent design arument (early in it, before it drastically contradicts itself), it could be the intelligent designer of God.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I don't understand how can memories create time, care to elaborate on that one?

Without recollection of the past the past does not exist.

Without recollection of the past forseight cannot exist.

There is only the present.

Your ability to recall and to think off of what you can recall creates the illusion of "time".

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

No, I am not talking about laws that we have necessarily discovered. I am talking about principles of reality that are at the basis of the existence of our universe.

Why do you always switch up your questions like that?

This was your original statement, you said this.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I said that there could be scientific laws outside of time that serve as the basis for the existence of our universe and asked you why that is not possible?

Now you're claiming that you are not talking about laws that we have necessarily discovered. So which one is it? Are you talking about scientific laws as the precursor or the principles of reality that are the basis of the existence of our universe as a precursor? And you wonder why people get stumped when you say one thing and turn around and say something else. Either way the basis of reality doesn't transcend space-time so where is the logic in that question?

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

That is not an answer. It is merely a repetition of the original assertion. You will need to back your statement up with logic to have actually answered my question. Of course a mind is one of the things that can promote direction, but so can wind, water, time, gravity, asteroids, and all kinds of other things. (No, I am not saying that one of those things created the universe.) A mind is not the only thing that promotes direction. Why would a conscious mind be necessary for the creation of our universe?

I think it's pretty clear that is an answer, on the contrary I don't think you are grasping what I'm explaining to you. Wind, water, time, gravity, etc.. does not promote conscious direction, however they are patterns. Creation is a DESIGN, DNA is a DESIGN, the universe is a DESIGN, how many times have you seen wind blow through a junkyard and make a Mercedes SL 500? I'm talking about the basis of our existence is an indication of causality in which conscious causality allows for design. I want to make it clear that I'm talking 'cause'. Let me give you the "logical" example of this. A point for instance occurs in both space and time. If you take two points P1 and P2 they can have a series of different relationships spatially and temporally, to each other. But their spatial relationship is qualitatively very different from their temporal one. If P1 occurs before P2, for instance, then P1 can affect P2 but P2 does not have the same relationship with P1. You can talk about the casual future of P1 in other words in the same way that you are not able to talk about the casual past of P2. Why? Because in our universe events do not have causal past. Even Einstenian space-time in fact delineates the geometry of both space and the order of events. From any occurrence, the effects of that occurrence throughout subsequent time form a cone, extending into the fourth temporal dimension. Within the cone all is causal and logical. Without, Causuality is lost and madness reigns. No matter how you look at it UM there is one constant you can never change, and that is causality. If you muck around with the order of events you end up with a badly behaved univese indeed. Notice how I stated "Order of Events" and not "Random Events".

Originally Posted by Sandform

You might as well go so far as to say based on the argument that God is outside of time and eternal, then there has to be a principle outside of time and eternal that allows God to exist.

That's a dead argument, God being eternal there I don't think there would be a predeccessor. I'll entertain that one for a moment. Let's say there is a principle outside of time that created God, you're still stuck with trying to figure out what created that principle and the principle before that and the one before that. You'll be stuck with an infinitely elusive answer.

Originally Posted by Seismosaur

There is only the present

Presentism huh. okay I can dig that. I thought you were going somewhere else with that and I was sure enough going to call you out on it.

However you still haven't answered my question up there.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

Why do you always switch up your questions like that?

This was your original statement, you said this.


Now you're claiming that you are not talking about laws that we have necessarily discovered. So which one is it? Are you talking about scientific laws as the precursor or the principles of reality that are the basis of the existence of our universe as a precursor? And you wonder why people get stumped when you say one thing and turn around and say something else. Either way the basis of reality doesn't transcend space-time so where is the logic in that question?

Scientific laws that we have not discovered. Gravity was a scientific principle before we identified it simply because scientists were studying its effects and looking for explanations and hypothesized about it, and these other ones might be just as real as gravity. Science is not all about accomplished knowledge. It is also about study and hypothesizing, of course in the direction of knowledge. I am asking you why that which is eternal and at the root of the universe has to be a guy and cannot be a principle or set of priniciples, not to split hairs over the meaning of the word "scientific". You know what I am asking. Stop playing silly distraction games.

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

I think it's pretty clear that is an answer, on the contrary I don't think you are grasping what I'm explaining to you. Wind, water, time, gravity, etc.. does not promote conscious direction, however they are patterns. Creation is a DESIGN, DNA is a DESIGN, the universe is a DESIGN, how many times have you seen wind blow through a junkyard and make a Mercedes SL 500? I'm talking about the basis of our existence is an indication of causality in which conscious causality allows for design. I want to make it clear that I'm talking 'cause'. Let me give you the "logical" example of this. A point for instance occurs in both space and time. If you take two points P1 and P2 they can have a series of different relationships spatially and temporally, to each other. But their spatial relationship is qualitatively very different from their temporal one. If P1 occurs before P2, for instance, then P1 can affect P2 but P2 does not have the same relationship with P1. You can talk about the casual future of P1 in other words in the same way that you are not able to talk about the casual past of P2. Why? Because in our universe events do not have causal past. Even Einstenian space-time in fact delineates the geometry of both space and the order of events. From any occurrence, the effects of that occurrence throughout subsequent time form a cone, extending into the fourth temporal dimension. Within the cone all is causal and logical. Without, Causuality is lost and madness reigns. No matter how you look at it UM there is one constant you can never change, and that is causality. If you muck around with the order of events you end up with a badly behaved univese indeed. Notice how I stated "Order of Events" and not "Random Events".

You just flat out dodged the question (AGAIN). You don't have to explain to me the need for cause. I am not asking how you know there is cause. I am asking how you know the cause/source of the universe is a dude. Why does it automatically have to have a mind? You are not answering that. Uh, yeah, wind does not cause a Mercedes to be formed in a junk yard. So what? Wind and water created the Grand Canyon. Snow flakes form in nature. Galaxies form in space. All kinds of patterns and formations have resulted from principles that were not conscious. So why does the source of the unviverse have to be conscious, according to you?

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

That's a dead argument, God being eternal there I don't think there would be a predeccessor. I'll entertain that one for a moment. Let's say there is a principle outside of time that created God, you're still stuck with trying to figure out what created that principle and the principle before that and the one before that. You'll be stuck with an infinitely elusive answer.

Not necessarily a predecessor, but a metaphysical reason. Didn't you make the point that formations (like Mercedes) can only result from conscious designing? Why is God any different? If he can just happen to be in his immaculate form, why can't nature without consciousness just happen to exist in a form?

I'ma just duck and cover and hope a stray bullet doesn't hit me.

However you still haven't answered my question up there.

O.o

Originally Posted by Ne-yo

That's a dead argument, God being eternal there I don't think there would be a predeccessor. I'll entertain that one for a moment. Let's say there is a principle outside of time that created God, you're still stuck with trying to figure out what created that principle and the principle before that and the one before that. You'll be stuck with an infinitely elusive answer.

It isn't a dead argument. Something would have to allow God to be eternal, and that would be an eternal law.

"infinitely elusive answer" Such is God.