Thread: So, I think Christians are stupid.

Originally Posted by Invader

Now we're making progress. Notice that my example was specific. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that there are massive bodies orbiting the sun. I made it specific by making the particular object a cosmic elephant. You claim that the universe, based on your understanding of it, can have a creator. That's fine and dandy. Plenty (most?) atheists believe that that's entirely possible, but any of the evidence in favor of that is either not plentiful enough or not understood well enough to claim definitively that the evidence is suggestive of a creator and not some other phenomenon. Once you begin to make specific claims about a creator is when you begin moving beyond any of the alleged evidence altogether. The reason the OP makes a claim about Christians is because Christianity, like many of the world religions, make very specific claims about the creator they believe in. Why? You said "His" at the end of the quote here. Is there evidence to suggest that the creator has a gender? Do you see where I'm going with this?

Sorry, I didn't miss this posting but I haven't had a chance to get back to the forum for a while and this discussion was getting so involved that I felt it would take more time than I could spare to get back into it. And as I mentioned I don't like the atmosphere of the thread, which was the result of the way in which it was started. But this kind of discussion always intrigues me, and it is hard to resist.

I say "His" merely out of convention. There really is no specific gender for God, I wouldn't think (though I believe through faith that He came to Earth in the form of a man), but somehow referring to God as "It" just doesn't sound right.

What you say about making specific claims about a creator is sort of what I was getting at earlier when I said that Christian beliefs cannot be entirely proven through logic. It is, in my opinion, based on personal experience. I think that it is a little presumptuous to believe that we can persuade someone to follow Christ through our own intellect. As Christ Himself says "no one comes to me except the Father draw him". I consider myself to be an evangelical, but I feel that I am meant just to be a witness, and to let God work out the rest.

any of the evidence in favor of that is either not plentiful enough or not understood well enough to claim definitively that the evidence is suggestive of a creator and not some other phenomenon

I would argue here that any phenomenon responsible for bringing everything in the universe would be by definition God. It would have to have an infinite and eternal impact and, having set in motion every cause and effect since the beginning of the universe, be responsible for everything that ever occurs. It would have to exist in and of itself, being responsible for it's own existence (an uncaused cause). It would have to transend all of nature, making it inescapably supernatural.

As for others awaiting a response from me, I apologize in the delay. It is a busy time for me, and I am only able to post quick replies. I haven't even been able to keep up my dream journal for a few days.

If we are able, to recreate the entire universe inside a lucid dream.. what makes you think that God is not capable of doing the exact same thing?

I think its pretty funny, how we are playing God in our dreams, recreating the entire universe inside our mind, and at the same time, we claim it is not possible for God to do such a thing. We are playing God and at the same time, we claim such a concept of God cannot exist.



Nikola Tesla did this, and in his self-created universe he did scientific experimentation, he craeted all his devices, which we are using now, in his dreams first, and he could instantly make them in real life afterwards, without any testing. His self-created universe would follow the laws of physics. Without Nikola Tesla, we would not have electricity. Albert Einstein also discovered general relativity through dreaming, which is pretty good indication of dreams following the laws of physics.


People claim it is not possible for God the creator to exist. Then the very next thing they do when they go to sleep, is play God the creator inside their dreams.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

If we are able, to recreate the entire universe inside a lucid dream.. what makes you think that God is not capable of doing the exact same thing?

I think its pretty funny, how we are playing God in our dreams, recreating the entire universe inside our mind, and at the same time, we claim it is not possible for God to do such a thing.

There is the problem of there being no reason to think any of this is true.

Nikola Tesla did this, and in his self-created universe he did scientific experimentation, he craeted all his devices, which we are using now, in his dreams first, and he could instantly make them in real life afterwards, without any testing. His self-created universe would follow the laws of physics. Without Nikola Tesla, we would not have electricity. Albert Einstein also discovered general relativity through dreaming, which is pretty good indication of dreams following the laws of physics.

Wat

My Inventions: The Autobiography of Nikola Tesla


Of course you claim it is not true. That is exactly what I said in my post, no need to repeat it.

Me: You will claim this is not true.
Youl: This is not true.

I hope you see the redundancy of your statement here.

Any omnipotent or even just mostlypotent god should be ABLE to do that, sure. My argument is that a) there is no god, b) we don't actually create a universe when we dream, and c) we don't live in a dream.

The bit with Tesla and Einstein, though, is rather interesting...

Lol "there is no god" is not an argument as you do not even have a concept, or a definition of God. You could as well say "there is no spaghetti monster". Your argument is pointless as you do not even care about the concept of God, you can't possibly think that you could understand? If you refuse to think about God, how can you even come close to understanding? You claim God is "omnipotent" but this is something you made up, or copied yourself. Do you have physical evidence of god being omnipotent? No, so you shouldn't be making such claims either as you claim yourself, that you require physical evidence. So you are contradicting yourself.

If you refuse to think about the concept of God, you shoudln't even be discussing God.

The only way to arrive at the concept of God is through logic. But then you must first accept the idea, that logic is flawless. Computers and mathematics are proof of the idea, that logic can be flawless. If logic was not flawless, your computer would not run.

However, the scientific method requirse physical evidence. So, as long as you stick to the scientific method, and require physical evidence, there is no point in discussing God. We will never ever find any physical evidence for the imagination, yet we have it. The only way to discuss imagination is through logical evidence, but science refuses to accept logical evidence as valid evidence, eventho computers are based on logic and are proof that logic can be flawless.

Atheist = disbelief in God, not not thinking about god. Hurr durr derp.

And the problem with any God is that you can't ever clearly define one AND prove that it exists. The more specific you get, the less you can justify your belief (i.e. god has the form of a warthog with nine heads and a tentacle coming out of its back. He likes to play polo on the weekends, and oh yeah, he created everything in seven days). The more you try to adapt the idea of god to some form of evidence, the more vague the concept becomes until you can't even be sure what you mean by the term "god" (i.e. god is "energy").

And yeah, guess what? We can show exactly what regions of the brain light up whenever we use imagination. We can, in essence, find out where it is coming from. I call that valid evidence. I also have yet to hear one logical reason why there must be a god in this universe.

Regardless of whether or not the contents of the bible are fact, it can still be a good thing. It becomes a problem when people start pushing it on others, and doing other douche-tastic things.

I was raised a christian, then around middle school I became an agnostic/athiest. That, however, doesn't mean I left it all behind and started being a condescending hate mongerer that speaks down to christians. I think the bible still has some good stuff in it, and that we could learn a few things from it. I don't believe in a god, but I don't judge those who do.

As long as you Christians keep to yourselves I'm alright. But the second it becomes personal, prepare for some emotional rape. Not the good rape either. And I'm pretty thorough... so don't think you'll get off easy (pun intended? Sure, why not).

I look at christian the same way I look at politics, gays, etc. I won't judge, but it isn't my personal cup of tea. Keep me out of it and I'll get by fine.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

You could as well say "there is no spaghetti monster".

Let's.

If we are able, to recreate the entire universe inside a lucid dream.. what makes you think that The Flying Spaghetti Monster is not capable of doing the exact same thing?

I think its pretty funny, how we are playing The Flying Spaghetti Monster in our dreams, recreating the entire universe inside our mind, and at the same time, we claim it is not possible for The Flying Spaghetti Monster to do such a thing. We are playing The Flying Spaghetti Monster and at the same time, we claim such a concept of The Flying Spaghetti Monster cannot exist.

People claim it is not possible for The Flying Spaghetti Monster the creator to exist. Then the very next thing they do when they go to sleep, is play The Flying Spaghetti Monster the creator inside their dreams.

Prove me wrong.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

We will never ever find any physical evidence for the imagination, yet we have it.

What makes you say that?

Originally Posted by Mark75

Let's.

If we are able, to recreate the entire universe inside a lucid dream.. what makes you think that The Flying Spaghetti Monster is not capable of doing the exact same thing?

I think its pretty funny, how we are playing The Flying Spaghetti Monster in our dreams, recreating the entire universe inside our mind, and at the same time, we claim it is not possible for The Flying Spaghetti Monster to do such a thing. We are playing The Flying Spaghetti Monster and at the same time, we claim such a concept of The Flying Spaghetti Monster cannot exist.

People claim it is not possible for The Flying Spaghetti Monster the creator to exist. Then the very next thing they do when they go to sleep, is play The Flying Spaghetti Monster the creator inside their dreams.

Prove me wrong.

So you agree with me, that God aka The Flying Spaghetti Monster does exist? ^^ Doesn't matter what you label God as, Flying Spaghetti Monster or Beef Jerky.. the point remains. It doesn't matter with which word you substitute God, the logic still remains. What exactly is the difference between "God" creating the universe or "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" craeting the universe? There isn't, just a different name. Who knows, God might as well be a flying spaghetti monster. You seem to think, that by substituting God with another word, that suddenly the logic of my argument dissapears.. it doesn't. It's like you would have changed the word God in Allah. Lol... your logic fails. Logically speaking this should all be logical and logically fit into your natural logic but for some unlogical reason you seem to ignore the inherent logic behind my logic. Logic?

Originally Posted by Caprisun

What makes you say that?

Imagine a naked woman inside your head. How will you ever provide physical evidence for this naked woman? Sure you can say some neurons are firing off, but you will never be able to proof that you saw a naked woman.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

So you agree with me, that God aka The Flying Spaghetti Monster does exist? ^^ Doesn't matter what you label God as, Flying Spaghetti Monster or Beef Jerky.. the point remains. It doesn't matter with which word you substitute God, the logic still remains. What exactly is the difference between "God" creating the universe or "The Flying Spaghetti Monster" craeting the universe? There isn't, just a different name. Who knows, God might as well be a flying spaghetti monster. You seem to think, that by substituting God with another word, that suddenly the logic of my argument dissapears.. it doesn't. It's like you would have changed the word God in Allah. Lol... your logic fails. Logically speaking this should all be logical and logically fit into your natural logic but for some unlogical reason you seem to ignore the inherent logic behind my logic. Logic?

What is this I don't even

Imagine a naked woman inside your head. How will you ever provide physical evidence for this naked woman? Sure you can say some neurons are firing off, but you will never be able to proof that you saw a naked woman.

Brain Scan Can Read Your Thoughts : Discovery News
Psychic computer shows your thoughts on screen - Times Online

EDIT: curious as to why you had him visualize a naked woman. You know, a cheeseburger or strip of bacon or just about anything else would have been sufficient. >.>

Originally Posted by Mario92

What is this I don't even



Brain Scan Can Read Your Thoughts : Discovery News
Psychic computer shows your thoughts on screen - Times Online

EDIT: curious as to why you had him visualize a naked woman. You know, a cheeseburger or strip of bacon or just about anything else would have been sufficient. >.>

Wow very cool article! Thanks for sharing!

But you migt have misread it..

Finally, the software was used to monitor the two patients’ brains as they watched a new film and to reproduce what they were seeing based on their neural activity alone.

All this software can do, is map neural activity to a certain pre-determined movie. They can't actually regenerate any image you see, they can only regenarete an image they have shown you before. So basically, you can imagine a naked woman inside your head, and it's impossible to ever proof it. You can only see neural activity. Unles they have shown you that picture of a naked woman before, they can't regenate it. That's what I understood from the article. But ok ,the artcile isn't very clear, I could ne mistaken. Would be a cool technology.. and if you think about it would probably be possible in the future, but this article is talking about something else afaik.

In the study, Maguire and her colleagues Martin Chadwick, Demis Hassabis, and Nikolaus Weiskopf showed 10 people each three very short films before brain scanning. Each movie featured a different actress and a fairly similar everyday scenario.

The researchers scanned the participants' brains while the participants were asked to recall each of the films. The researchers then ran the imaging data through a computer algorithm designed to identify patterns in the brain activity associated with memories for each of the films.

Finally, they showed that those patterns could be identified to accurately predict which film a given person was thinking about when he or she was scanned.

The results imply that the traces of episodic memories are found in the brain, and are identifiable, even over many re-activations, the researchers said.

IMO a naked woman is more tasty than a cheeseburger or strip bacon, is that what you use your imagination for? Food?

All this software can do, is map neural activity to a certain pre-determined movie. They can't actually regenerate any image you see, they can only regenarete an image they have shown you before. So basically, you can imagine a naked woman inside your head, and it's impossible to ever proof it. You can only see neural activity. Unles they have shown you that picture of a naked woman before, they can't regenate it. That's what I understood from the article. But ok ,the artcile isn't very clear, I could ne mistaken. Would be a cool technology.. and if you think about it would probably be possible in the future, but this article is talking about something else afaik.

Read it again:

Researchers have been able to convert into crude video footage the brain activity stimulated by what a person is watching or recalling.

IMO a naked woman is more tasty than a cheeseburger or strip bacon, is that what you use your imagination for? Food?

No, I'm a filthy pervert...I just didn't expect the same from you.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

Imagine a naked woman inside your head. How will you ever provide physical evidence for this naked woman? Sure you can say some neurons are firing off, but you will never be able to proof that you saw a naked woman.

Never? I don't think it's inconceivable that in the distant future we could create some device that reads minds.

Originally Posted by ChaybaChayba

You seem to think, that by substituting God with another word, that suddenly the logic of my argument dissapears.. it doesn't. It's like you would have changed the word God in Allah. Lol... your logic fails.

el oh el

Wow, great job dodging the argument. Here's what you sound like.

Person1: This jar is full of peanutbutter.

Person2: No, it is clearly pickles.

Person1: LOL peanut butter is still peanutbutter even if you call it pickles.

(you're Person1)

The purpose of my post was not to rename "god" but to substitute him with another character entirely. I'm talking about an actual monster made of actual spaghetti. Not "god" called a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Reread the post and try again.

Originally Posted by Mark75

Let's.

If we are able, to recreate the entire universe inside a lucid dream.. what makes you think that The Flying Spaghetti Monster is not capable of doing the exact same thing?

I think its pretty funny, how we are playing The Flying Spaghetti Monster in our dreams, recreating the entire universe inside our mind, and at the same time, we claim it is not possible for The Flying Spaghetti Monster to do such a thing. We are playing The Flying Spaghetti Monster and at the same time, we claim such a concept of The Flying Spaghetti Monster cannot exist.

People claim it is not possible for The Flying Spaghetti Monster the creator to exist. Then the very next thing they do when they go to sleep, is play The Flying Spaghetti Monster the creator inside their dreams.

Prove me wrong.

Another fun bit of reading: God Allah - Does It Mean God?

You guys need to dig deeper than this. It's not a matter of providing evidence; contrary to common skepticism. It's about understanding what purpose evidence is for and what it is.

How can it apply to God? Does evidence have any purpose with God, or is it just mental masturbation?

Asking to prove God sounds illogical to me. If you can prove God, it automatically makes God less than the whole universe, which contradicts God.

God is neither provable nor disprovable.

How convenient...

Originally Posted by really

You guys need to dig deeper than this. It's not a matter of providing evidence; contrary to common skepticism. It's about understanding what purpose evidence is for and what it is.

How can it apply to God? Does evidence have any purpose with God, or is it just mental masturbation?

Asking to prove God sounds illogical to me. If you can prove God, it automatically makes God less than the whole universe, which contradicts God.

God is neither provable nor disprovable.

Then what's the point?

Originally Posted by Spartiate

How convenient...

For who?

Originally Posted by BLUELINE976

Then what's the point?

The point of debating the existence of God? Zero (well, as 'lly said, mental masturbation if you like that sort of thing). The point of pursuing a religious belief system? To relieve mental anguish, open new avenues of experience, and obtain a whole new range of modalities for living as a human being.

Having experiences whilst not caring if they're real or not...

I can't think of anything to call that except self-delusion.

Originally Posted by Xei

Having experiences whilst not caring if they're real or not...

I can't think of anything to call that except self-delusion.

And I would call your definition of "real" delusion What can ya do?

Perhaps I don't know what real is, but I know you can't just make it up.