Thread: Any Sceptics here annoyed...

All life ever is, is what you make of it. That's it.

Also, the difference between the flying spaghetti monster style arguments and saying there is a god is simply begging the question of plausibility of intent. It's only for a lack of a better word that people would use the word god, but it really could mean the forger of the chaos of the cosmos, that Demiurge responsible for everything's complex structure and existence as opposed to that of non-existence or a much simpler energy or gas cloud-like existence. As time progresses, you can find that the universe through entropy prefers complexity, which I believe says something.

It would seem more plausible that the universe was intended as opposed to just some constant cosmic rolling of the dice. If you disagree, I just hope you realize that your conclusion is equally unfounded in reality and logic as someone who chooses to see intent.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

niverse through entropy prefers complexity, which I believe says something.

It would seem more plausible that the universe was intended as opposed to just some constant cosmic rolling of the dice. If you disagree, I just hope you realize that your conclusion is equally unfounded in reality and logic as someone who chooses to see intent.

Not really. The idea that life on earth was intended has a lot of holes in it. Because then you would have to explain who intended us to be here, and why the thing (lets call it god) exists in the first place. Was he the result of random chance? And you can't say that god was just there because that doesn't explain anything.

If you say that there is a creator you haven't explained anything, because then you have to explain where the creator came from.

I have a bit of a hypothesis to throw out there:

God is just a dude (of perhaps many) who created a virtual world (earth+surrounds) with an evolutionary process designed to produce us (or perhaps some other creature is more important ).
He has a purpose for us. But as individuals, we aren't of much importance. It's the overall genetics/species development that matters. ie. the best.

His criteria? No idea. But assuming the Bible truly is his guide for us (big assumption), then the main point is for us to get along nicely, and be an intelligent species.

Evidence? Not much. But it fits with evolution, and involves god too. Interesting mix, no?

So he's a mad god who likes you suffering pain forever if you don't follow him, because the many religions. Since you talked bible. Free will thrown out the door, and being forced "or else"*shakes fist*

Originally Posted by m-mischief

If you say that there is a creator you haven't explained anything, because then you have to explain where the creator came from.

We came from stuff that came from nothing, so maybe he came from nothing too?

Originally Posted by Mark75

It isn't a "blanket statement". I think there is no god, so obviously I think anyone who thinks there is no god is correct on the issue of god. If I didn't think it was true that there was no god, I wouldn't believe that way. There is no blanket statement or generalization occurring here.

Yes, there is: "everyone who is not an atheist is wrong about religion", your explanation doesn't support this either.

Originally Posted by Mark75

The people I speak of are the ones that offer no defense in the face of criticism except things like "leave me to my beliefs and I'll leave you to yours" or "don't force your beliefs on me" and of course, the ever popular "respect my beliefs". I don't respect beliefs founded on nonsense, so don't ask me to.

People can say this even if they have no fear of the offense. They can say it for whatever reason, actually. Again, that's another generalization. If you truly respect someones beliefs, and if they intend no harm, you'd need not be concerned about their foundations.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

All life ever is, is what you make of it. That's it.

Definitely. Then if you make your life beautiful, you'd like to share it with others who are lost in doubt; that is, to be a peace maker.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

It would seem more plausible that the universe was intended as opposed to just some constant cosmic rolling of the dice. If you disagree, I just hope you realize that your conclusion is equally unfounded in reality and logic as someone who chooses to see intent.

Are you saying that having "no purpose" is equally unfounded as having "a purpose", in this context? This seems to be taken from a non-dualistic viewpoint.


Ok so this topic is about skeptics. So I shouldn't be here, really.

I pity you who turn down God, entirely miss hiss purpose and grand truth. This is not a religious forum, but it doesn't have to be. God is not "some dude", he is a metaphor. He is not a person; Jesus! He is a spirit; does not think or operate like a human. Open your eyes, find the beauty in everything in which you find; move away from the shallows and doubts, you shall all be a divine thinker if you trust so.

Maybe it's just your inner self, and not some "everything, everywhere, all the time" kind of thing?

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

Maybe it's just your inner self, and not some "everything, everywhere, all the time" kind of thing?

They are one and the same; we are one with God, and God is within us all. Give it however many names, confuse yourself if you're afraid, but the divine concept will never change and never has.

Originally Posted by really

They are one and the same; we are one with God, and God is within us all. Give it however many names, confuse yourself if you're afraid, but the divine concept will never change and never has.

I guess that can be your definition of god, i just call it me thinking. Of course i wont think "i want to burn things hee hee".

Originally Posted by Mark75

I think there is no god, so obviously I think anyone who thinks there is no god is correct on the issue of god. Conversely, this means I think that anyone who does believe in god is wrong about god. This is not a generalization. This is a specific instance of me disagreeing with people on a specific item. It is not a sweeping categorization that pigeonholes a group of people into a stereotype. Atheists by definition do not believe in god. I have said that I believe there is no god, so I obviously believe that anyone who believes there is is wrong about the existence of god, in the same way any sane and functional person believes that drinking bleach is potentially lethal. You aren't "generalizing" by saying everyone who thinks drinking bleach is beneficial is wrong about the effects of drinking bleach.

That's generalizing; I'd like to know what you'd call it. You're way of thinking is here not a Law; as you seem to act; if you think it is you must be very arrogant.

Originally Posted by Mark75

The problem is that I don't respect ridiculous beliefs and also sometimes they do cause harm, even if it isn't intentional.

If respecting ridiculous beliefs, or better said, unfamiliar beliefs, is a problem, find a way to change your thinking. And things which cause unintentional harm are known to be accidents.

Originally Posted by LucidFlanders

I guess that can be your definition of god, i just call it me thinking. Of course i wont think "i want to burn things hee hee".

Thinking is not a definition of God, because thinking can be any kind and nature, as evil. However, God is what can be brought into our thoughts; as one recognizes their infinite potential, where thoughts therefore have infinite power. Right thinking makes him astoundingly visible.

Originally Posted by really

That's generalizing; I'd like to know what you'd call it. You're way of thinking is not a Law; as you seem to act; if you think it is you must be very arrogant.

Originally Posted by really

If respecting ridiculous beliefs, or better said, unfamiliar beliefs

I guess it's easier to argue against if you just go ahead and change what I said.

Originally Posted by really

That's generalizing; I'd like to know what you'd call it. You're way of thinking is here not a Law; as you seem to act; if you think it is you must be very arrogant.

Do you think all atheists are wrong about the existence of god?
Well done, that's generalizing.

EDIT: wrote "good" for "god", ha!

Originally Posted by really

Yes, there is: "everyone who is not an atheist is wrong about religion", your explanation doesn't support this either.

I think there is no god, so obviously I think anyone who thinks there is no god is correct on the issue of god. Conversely, this means I think that anyone who does believe in god is wrong about god. This is not a generalization. This is a specific instance of me disagreeing with people on a specific item. It is not a sweeping categorization that pigeonholes a group of people into a stereotype. Atheists by definition do not believe in god. I have said that I believe there is no god, so I obviously believe that anyone who believes there is is wrong about the existence of god, in the same way any sane and functional person believes that drinking bleach is potentially lethal. You aren't "generalizing" by saying everyone who thinks drinking bleach is beneficial is wrong about the effects of drinking bleach.

Originally Posted by really

If you truly respect someones beliefs, and if they intend no harm, you'd need not be concerned about their foundations.

The problem is that I don't respect ridiculous beliefs and also sometimes they do cause harm, even if it isn't intentional.

Originally Posted by really

Are you saying that having "no purpose" is equally unfounded as having "a purpose", in this context? This seems to be taken from a non-dualistic viewpoint.

I'm saying that the human mind can rationalize it's way out of anything even if that answer is staring them directly in the face. Haven't you ever heard a smoker attempt to use logic to rationalize smoking? It's circular nonsense. Why do you think I stay out of R/S? I don't need to prove anything to anyone, and one thing is for certain; You aren't getting anyone to quit smoking by spouting logic, let alone make someone see god if they don't already. Completely futile. And, why should one care either way? They are obviously in that mindset for good reason, if only in their own mind.

So for the individual who sees no intent in the universe will decide to see just that, and under that perception it seems so clear and real to them. It doesn't matter that under their perception the universe just somehow magically decides to will itself out of nothingness to create the trillions upon trillions of stars out of swirlling gases, and then turn around and magically create single-celled life on one of those trillions upon trillions of specks of space dust, which in time splits and forms more complex life which form complex DNA and other forms of complex evolution enough to bestow upon them the ability to realize the scope and vastness of it all... Nah...at that point, they decide to turn around and disown it entirely and say, "Nope, it's just a coincidence. It couldn't be possibly be intended. Highly Improbable."

And, for whatever reason, they choose not to see that blatant and obvious contradiction of using the very gift they gave themselves to deny their own nature, despite it staring them in the face every second of every day. They will logically sit there and use their time to argue against the genuineness and awe of the moment. Something so absurd to begin to imagine once you truly understand.

I've been in their shoes once upon a time so I can understand where they come from. Although, the logic used to get there couldn't be more skewed if they tried.

When all signs point to yes, saying no just isn't logical. Asking for falsifiability for the moment is absurd in itself, as well. Think about it...

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

But right and wrong is the issue.
If you are - say - 90% sure god exists,
- You are 90% sure the statement "God exists" is correct.
- You are 90% sure the statement "God does not exist" is incorrect.
- Therefore it would be reasonable to be 90% sure that anyone who says "God does not exist" is making an incorrect statement - ie. they are wrong.

It doesn't - of course - say why they are wrong, how they think, or anything else about their nature, save for the fact that they believe something that you are 90% sure is not right.

Sure; good point. But once again, this is not the way I think about this, there are different contexts, morals, "rights and wrongs" which I am fully unaware of in this case, and through that sense I cannot make any judgement. I can only express what I have learned and help people learn what I have; if it rises high beyond the norm, so be it. Subjective ideas are sometimes hard in some cases to relate to other persons.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

I'm saying that the human mind can rationalize it's way out of anything even if that answer is staring them directly in the face. Haven't you ever heard a smoker attempt to use logic to rationalize smoking? It's circular nonsense. Why do you think I stay out of R/S? I don't need to prove anything to anyone, and one thing is for certain; You aren't getting anyone to quit smoking by spouting logic, let alone make someone see god if they don't already. Completely futile. And, why should one care either way? They are obviously in that mindset for good reason, if only in their own mind.

So for the individual who sees no intent in the universe will decide to see just that, and under that perception it seems so clear and real to them. It doesn't matter that under their perception the universe just somehow magically decides to will itself out of nothingness to create the trillions upon trillions of stars out of swirlling gases, and then turn around and magically create single-celled life on one of those trillions upon trillions of specks of space dust, which in time splits and forms more complex life which form complex DNA and other forms of complex evolution enough to bestow upon them the ability to realize the scope and vastness of it all... Nah...at that point, they decide to turn around and disown it entirely and say, "Nope, it's just a coincidence. It couldn't be possibly be intended. Highly Improbable."

And, for whatever reason, they choose not to see that blatant and obvious contradiction of using the very gift they gave themselves to deny their own nature, despite it staring them in the face every second of every day. They will logically sit there and use their time to argue against the genuineness and awe of the moment. Something so absurd to begin to imagine once you truly understand.

I've been in their shoes once upon a time so I can understand where they come from. Although, the logic used to get there couldn't be more skewed if they tried.

When all signs point to yes, saying no just isn't logical. Asking for falsifiability for the moment is absurd in itself, as well. Think about it...

Yes I agree; just seems like a different point of view now.

I don't quite get what you mean.
Morals don't have anything to do with this. (When I said right/wrong here what I really meant was true/false I suppose)

When making a judgement about how sure (90% ?) you are of something you would/should take into account your own ignorance.

Originally Posted by RedfishBluefish

When making a judgement about how sure (90% ?) you are of something you would/should take into account your own ignorance.

If I'm not 100% sure, than 90% is as good as nothing; I'm not jumping to any conclusions that everybody else is wrong just that my experiences may be more fitting. And, if you read my post correctly, taking into account my own ignorance is exactly what I am doing; which makes it no longer ignorance.

I mean there are far too many things that come into play that I could miss whilst referring to another's life and judgment. If you understand mine exactly, good for you.

I don't really see any point arguing this any further.

I'm still not understanding you.
What you're saying is you can't know if other people's beliefs are right or wrong because they may have experienced something related that you haven't, right? I agree, but...
In the same way, you can't be sure if you're own beliefs are correct because there may be something related that you haven't experienced yet.

I'm saying that those two uncertainties are the same thing. That is, if you are genuinely 90% sure that you are correct, then that probability of 90% should take into account both what you have observed, and what it is possible you haven't observed. The latter includes anything anyone else may have observed, so your 90% certainty can be applied to other people.

I could go one about this for much too long so I'll just say this:
Being 90% sure of "A", yet 50% sure that someone else is right to believe "not-A" is illogical.
It results in you believing "A" is both 90% and 50% probable.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Why do you think I stay out of R/S? I don't need to prove anything to anyone,

Please come to R/S. Please. It would be fun.