Any Atheists Here..?

**StephL** · 08-19-2014 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by LouaiB

Aaaahh, now I get your point Steph òuó
Pure logic, and creatures try to wrap their brains into understanding it.
So this assumes there is a correct code for the universe, and logic isn't perception, it is how much we understand of the pure code, pure logic. And perception is our senses and current "logical level". So logic isn't a tool as in a mere way to try to make sense of the world for us to understand it and survive, mold itself around new aspects to explain them, and filters, or irrationals, the rest that doesn't help with that.

Yeah - exactly!!
There's our minds at work - our endeavours to get as close as humanly possible to insight into the workings of the cosmos, and that is riddled with misconceptions and comes up against stuff, it can't handle at the time of collision - but - there is on the other hand a cosmos which comes with an inner pure logic.

And thank goodness, because that means that ultimately what we come across and up against will indeed have inner logic and coherence with the rest of what we know, so that with enough mind-around-wrappings, we have a good chance at unravelling it.
But it also might well turn out that certain perfectly logical conclusions will be ultimately beyond our understanding.
Maybe only ours - maybe those aliens from a million planets to the left will be able to understand the subject matter perfectly well, having thinking organs adapted slightly differently.
But neither us failing to, nor them managing to understand will change the fact, that the universe and that "something" are within the realms of pure logic and can be formulated mathematically.

At the moment we can't reconcile QM with Relativity Theory - but we trust upon the prediction, that what they describe is ultimately in keeping with an overreaching logical explanation, even if we need to (partly) "throw out" both of them and propose a completely new theory for integrating these special cases, where they can't be reconciled. Why? Because to all our knowledge and experience, the cosmos follows it's rules no matter what we understand of it, and it's not arbitrary and capricious in it's workings, thus enabling us to do science in the first place. We make predictions, which turn out to be true or not - and that's telling us, that something must be imperfect about those two (QM/RT), because - yeah - don't remember because of what - but there's a problem akin to that orbital irregularity of a planet, which brought Einstein up against Newton's theory of gravity.

If the world just followed our conclusions, if physics as we engage with it, was a perceptional artefact, we wouldn't discover discrepancies which turn out solvable, say by RT.

So existence as all is a concept that:
1) Exists and is explained in the deeper depths of pure logic, or
2)Still might be a false concept created by 'errors', or imperfection in our human minds, and isn't part of the pure logic.

Wow I managed to leap to another rock!

I would agree with #1 without an or, and I would also agree with #2 in that what we understand about the concept might - hell - is highly probably flawed in specific ways having to do with how our brains work.

This is a great and mutually inspiring interaction here!!

Truly we can't determine which is true yet, though (?)(Logical Psychologism or pure logic). Both seem possible, and explain closely our experiences, though pure logic seems to rely on less assumptions.

In these times I just sit down and say to myself : "They both seem probable . Is it because they both are, or because I'm too dumb to grasp them properly?" lol

Also thnx for the links!

Now then - as admitted above, I didn't read the whole Husserl argument, and such I'm coming up dry here, ultimately. In an hour of leisure, I might work my poor little brain through the rest of it. Did you finish it? I guess, one should come up with either agreeing or disagreeing with Husserl here...

About that last sentence, I meant that we logically can explain our perception and expand our perception to involve all elements, but existence itself can't be rationalized or dealt with using perception of the physical world because it's too drastic.

Yeah - QM is already too much for our "perception" and certainly too much for basic heuristics - due to the paradoxical nature of it, something in us revolts upon first contact to these ideas. Seems Einstein felt the same and didn't live long enough to wrap his brilliant mind around it, even.

Pure logic gives one reality and one expanding mind trying to grasp the pure logic of the world.

Logical psychologism gives a reality for each perspective, with it changing as the perception expands (since logic expands with it to create logical dots that fit), and so reality also is very solid in the vie of one specific LP perception at each point in time since the experience of life is only with the dots that the perception included and logic connected.

As far as I understood it, yep. And I'd go with proposition #1.

Considering survival, why would creatures evolve a perception of their own when facing one constant physical reality? It gaining a sense of it's own to survive does seem unlikely in a physical place that is constant to all creatures and realities(perceptual realities). But I defend that a constant physical reality law is only a figment of our perception too, since everything is inside our perception (here defending logical psychologism).

Ultimately we just can't help using our brains - but as I said - I believe those aliens will also sort the physical reality, they find themselves in, in certain ways, which allow them to come up with the same natural laws as our physics endeavours by applying the same pure logic as we do.
But there are nice and clever science-fiction stories doubting this premise. Like creatures to whom our time-concept is alien, say, and causal relationships as well due to that. That's hard to imagine, up to unimaginable, though, since existence as life-form seems inseparable from time. But she managed, somewhat - shame I forgot, what exactly is wavering through my memory here - I wish I found that story, t'was a good one, written by a female author, that's all I know now...

So, really, both seem likely, we can't really tell.
Again, pure logic uses much less assumptions, and I'm really considering it now, but still, if LP is the case, we would still stand here. So, we can tell that it is pure logic when we expand our logic some more from now, but if it is LP, we can't really tell(assuming perception can't catch itself if it is the CREATOR of the reality (imphasize creator, and not just view of reality(which seems the case in pure logic)).

I'll say yes to this for now - maybe until I'll come back to it and claim, that only Husserl got it right - but as said - me bringing in the needed patience to read and consider all the argument would be prerequisite to for example even fully grasp, what it is, LP proposes.

What about my last post - anybody?
I'm aware I've thrown somewhat of a bomb into our garden - but I really hope one or the other comes up with an opinion on it!
Try from 17:45 min. onwards, if that helps - but we're not the squeamish sort of people, now are we?

Her objections against using emotional arguments and appeals to consequences in a debate about why religion is bunk, quite reminds me of you, balban, having had objections against me enthusiastically doing just that.

Does it even make sense, to try and dislodge religion out of people's minds? Only if they come to be critical thinkers in the process, I would say...

Something else - I heard Dawkins speculate about for one thing the possible usefulness of religions in an evolutionary psychology kind of sense - and for another thing he also proposed, that religious ideas might be themselves subject of natural selection, and not so much the individual operating on it's basis.
Bit like a virus - need to read up on that, though.

**LouaiB** · 08-19-2014 05:43 PM

Just to note Steph, my post from "about that last sentence" till the end was only expanding the LP side, but seeing your side of things properly now makes me stand with pure logic now (as much as someone can stand with a scientific thing as big and argued as that

) because:

1) PL uses much less assumptions than LP, making it truer (Occam's Razor)

2) Even though both seem possible, and we can't prove anything wrong (almost?)(yet?), LP is kinda like ghosts: adds up, but it's probably no more than an assumption (and creativity can be wild when it comes to existence thoughts!), and we don't say it's wrong because we CAN'T prove it wrong (yet?).

3) Like your aliens seeing time differently; Defferent realities for different creatures seems very drastic, and that drastic thing(s) doesn't seem to exist in any way! Especially considering that physical reality is still the same for all creatures (assuming that's the case in LP). At the very least, LP can consider these different realities to be relatively similar.

Yeah - QM is already too much for our "perception" and certainly too much for basic heuristics - due to the paradoxical nature of it, something in us revolts upon first contact to these ideas. Seems Einstein felt the same and didn't live long enough to wrap his brilliant mind around it, even.

Yeah, it's probably because we are missing something. PL does believe in the impossibility of paradox. Even if we still see it as paradoxical, maybe it is, but in QM specifically, paradox as we know it doesn't exist (maybe we consider paradox to be true to EVERYTHING because all our mind wrapped around and formed logic for didn't involve at all QM), or maybe not. I don't think 2 contradicting things can happen at the same time, because the CONTRADICT. Standing with PL, we simply know too much for it to be false now. Maybe just for QM, but no, probably we just lack info.

So:
Is paradox true for everything, or do we think that only because all our experiences said so?

But no, paradox isn't a concept, it's more of a stable thing, like matter, I think, but still it IS a concept, technically speaking, since we thought it out to explain why opposite things never happen at the same time, not like matter which already IS and needs no assumptions. But again, it works too much to be false.

You can ignore this paradox babble, I'm just stating everything possible and nothing to work with lol.....Just rambling

Lol I just realized that I talk too generally. Is it me or are these subjects lacking proper details cuz they are too of a general concept and assumptions?

I still didn't read Husserl's argument yet, but I must because I'm considering PL to be much more likely now!

**kadie** · 08-25-2014 01:43 AM

Just a little. I dont know what the term is that would describe my lack of faith in a God, I do however believe in the teachings of Jesus. That basics at least...you know all the love thy neighbor stuff, honor thy mother and father, dont cast stones. Now I may not be very good at following those ideals and teaching, after all I am a flawed human, and I know I could try harder in some of those areas.
So if that is atheist, then that be me. Or not.

**Box77** · 08-25-2014 06:46 AM

Originally Posted by kadie

Just a little. I dont know what the term is that would describe my lack of faith in a God, I do however believe in the teachings of Jesus. That basics at least...you know all the love thy neighbor stuff, honor thy mother and father, dont cast stones. Now I may not be very good at following those ideals and teaching, after all I am a flawed human, and I know I could try harder in some of those areas.
So if that is atheist, then that be me. Or not.

Hi! That Jesus guy sometimes seems to me a contradiction more than an example of love: Did Jesus come to bring peace or not? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry

Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth

Anyway, perhaps it was because of his natural father had to live in the shadows because of love out of law... who knows!

**kadie** · 08-25-2014 07:05 AM

Hmmm. Well I was talking more about the moral basics. Not all his teachings, because as we know, the gospels were not written by him or even written iin his time, so all I can take as positive are the essential moral teachings which are basically the 10 Commandments. With a grain of salt of course.

**Box77** · 08-25-2014 05:49 PM

Yeah, I get what you mean! But I'm afraid that you could be wrong about who invented those 10 commandments: Ten Commandments - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

According to the story in Exodus, God inscribed them on two stone tablets, which he gave to Moses on Mount Sinai. Modern scholarship has found likely influences in Hittite and Mesopotamian laws and treaties, but is divided over exactly when the Ten Commandments were written and who wrote them.

In other words, your moral teachings could be dating back in time further than you thought!!

**kadie** · 08-25-2014 06:19 PM

That could be. Interesting link though. I heard some new tablets were just discovered and that they may predate Jesus and his teachings. As for the Commandments, I was exposed to them early from Christian Church, so of course you are told about the tablets and Moses and the burning bush and all that. Although I don't think I really cared about the origins when I began to question the whole God concept. It's still a good moral compass for me and for a lot of other people. Like I said, taken with a grain of salt of course.

**StephL** · 08-25-2014 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by kadie

Just a little. I dont know what the term is that would describe my lack of faith in a God, I do however believe in the teachings of Jesus. That basics at least...you know all the love thy neighbor stuff, honor thy mother and father, dont cast stones. Now I may not be very good at following those ideals and teaching, after all I am a flawed human, and I know I could try harder in some of those areas.
So if that is atheist, then that be me. Or not.

Originally Posted by kadie

Hmmm. Well I was talking more about the moral basics. Not all his teachings, because as we know, the gospels were not written by him or even written iin his time, so all I can take as positive are the essential moral teachings which are basically the 10 Commandments. With a grain of salt of course.

Warm Welcome kadie!

How come the moral teachings of the bible have any sort of special status to you? Isn't it rather so that there is something within you as a human, which tells you what is moral, and what is not - including in the biblical teachings of Jesus?

You have something, which tells you what to discard and what to treasure, when it comes to that book, but it certainly isn't the book itself. Why hang on to it, if not for being told in childhood, what it supposedly says? Not one person in the world needed to be told how to feel about doing the things, which are forbidden in that mini-portion of the ten commandments, which makes actual sense.
I'm happy you brought up the commandments - they are among the worst of moral guidelines, anybody ever cared to write down in my eyes. It seems to me, people shy back from criticising them because they supposedly were written literally and directly by god - quite the opposite would be sensible - if they really stem from an omniscient and omnipotent god - one should expect them to be time- and flawless.
Lets take a closer look at what they actually say:

Originally Posted by King James Bible

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

He starts off with three commandments, which have no other content as a tyrannical and jealous god commanding people to love and fear him, and only him, and puts murder on one level with making a graven image or using god's name in vain. I can't help to think, how petty of him, if he did...
But the worst is what I fattened - how can that be overlooked?! He puts punishment for the sins of the forefathers upon the following generations!!
Why would he do that? Because hell had not yet been invented - that and eternal damnation came only in the New Testament, that lovely book!
But it's the worst of all moral atrocities in the bible - punishing for eternity, billions and billions of years in constant agony - it's too much for any finite crime.
It is just as petty to appeal to being rewarded for following his commandments, as it is utterly immoral to condemn people's descendants.
And if really taken literally - #2 could mean you shall not make any pictures at all, by the way.

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

This one of course also only has to do with him, and how to worship him, he wasted all the first four on that, but here it gets absurd, really absurd, and nobody in their right minds actually follows this commandment on the Christian side of affairs. But some Jews do, Orthodoxy holds on to it, and just how much absurdity you invite with following god's word is best demonstrated by relaying the news story, Dawkins re-tells from 15:11 min. onwards - a story of an Israeli farmer and his Kafkaesque struggles to have his vegetables be accepted as kosher, on the background that fields may not be worked on in the sabbath year - funnily I found this almost instantly, after only vaguely remembering.

So that's four we could very well do without. There's more than that - manservant/maidservant - I guess, this means slaves, there are many bible verses, even in the new testament, which tell you for example what not to do to your slaves, but it says nowhere, that you shouldn't hold slaves in the first place.

How about a commandment saying: Thou shalt not own other people!?

What most people are able to produce from the top of their heads are the classical four:

Originally Posted by King James Bible

6. Thou shalt not kill.
7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
8. Thou shalt not steal.
9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.

Is there any culture on earth which had or has a moral code without these aspects? Even the most primitive of cultures hold these four, so that doesn't give the Abrahamic god any credit, that he saw fit to agree on these universal human moral sentiments. I agree with this fictitious god - but only so far. One must also wonder, why he wouldn't explain it a bit better, when it is actually okay to kill - surely when god tells you to, it is - ask Noah! He wasted so much space on these plates with vanity, now we don't know, how to interpret the good bits!

5. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.

First off - this is of course also a human universal, found in every society, because it is intrinsically human to do so.
But I really dislike how this is actually put - it doesn't just tell you to do it, it tells you to do it in order to live longer, gives you a selfish motivation to do so, I don't like it. Besides - what if your father rapes you every night - shall you not go tell the police then, because if you dishonour your father, you will die young, because god said so?
Hm.
Could of really done a better job on that one.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.

Now isn't that just beautiful, don't you think?
Where shall I even start?
Mentioning how blatantly the whole thing addresses men as superiors and owners of women?
Also note the order of appearance - first the house, then the wife, then the slaves, then the cattle and then anything else which belongs to your male neighbour.

More importantly maybe - what we are on about here is literally thought-crime - coveting something - you can't help to have a thought, it's moral nonsense to forbid such a thing under terrible threats of punishment. But it is very clever, too, it makes sure that you do sin no matter how hard you try, and thus feel the need for forgiveness.
Ah - thoughtcrime of course is also the very first one - you'll be eternally damned if you don't believe, but you can't really decide what you believe, now can you?

Why hang on to that stuff, it's really purely sentimental - is anybody actually drawing moral inspiration from this quackery? I really doubt it.
Anyway - I am convinced, kadie, that you would have no problem whatsoever coming up with a vastly better moral document than the 10 commandments any day and half asleep!

Edit: seems an ass can be a donkey - you never cease to learn...

**kadie** · 08-25-2014 07:04 PM

Well Hello StephL.

Well, before you put too much of your words in my mouth or assume I follow all those commandments, let me keep it simple. I'm not here for an argument or debate about how I choose to conduct myself or what I choose to believe in. I dont know what a true atheist believes, so I was curious about this thread.
I agree that most of the commandments of antiquated and meant for control of another, but that does not mean that all of them are. The things I take most to heart are the teachings about love, forgiveness, and honoring those you love. Those are all higher vibrational emotions and when practiced and paid attention to or meditated upon, bring me to a place where I feel good. So to me it is a matter of floating my own boat. Everyone is free to float their own boat with what ever makes them feel good. After all it is not my place to control what another person does as long as it's not hurtful to me or my family and loved ones etc.
So sorry if my posting here has brought up some stuff, I had hoped time would have eased the path to peacefulness between us. Then again, maybe I am wrong and took your post as an attack when it was not meant to be at all. Either way *peace*

**StephL** · 08-25-2014 09:16 PM

And peace to you!
An atheist is no more and no less than simply a person, who does not believe in the existence of god(s) - so I guess, you might be one as well!

We're all atheists for all of history's gods except the one(s) we believe in - some people just go one god further - I wish I knew, whom I'm quoting now - but I like it, it gets down to the essence of it! So it's not so much that we believe in something other than religion - besides not believing in god we believe all sorts of different things. I'm all for sailing one's boat according to one's very own values for instance - giving meaning to one's life as an active process.

I'd say I am an agnostic atheist, because I am well aware, that I will never be able to conclusively disprove the existence of a creature, worthy of the denomination "god".
Maybe we are "only" a simulation on some advanced beings' computational arrangements - such a being could be called a god.
But I would want to know, where this god came from, and suspect, it might have evolved, or been created by an evolved creature.
Oh - and in that case - even though I find it highly unlikely - I would love to talk to god of course!

Edit: Wasn't an attack on you at all - I just really don't like the commandments, but I do like a good opportunity to raise people's consciousness as to what exactly they are actually saying. I wasn't really aware of the details myself for ages by the way, despite RE lessons!

**kadie** · 08-25-2014 10:54 PM

I wish I had more time to post more on your take of the ten commandments today, but I have family in town so I just wanted to make a quick comment.
In regards to the 10th.....I pretty much feel the way you do and I found myself chuckling a little at the way you put it. However on the other hand, I would love to live somewhere maybe in a remote wild part of the country, where I didnt have to look at the crap in my neighbors yard, or see the bee ach in the mercedes with her nose so high she'd drown if it rained. There are times that I see something that someone else has and I say's "daymn thats cool. I want one", but it would be stupid to go run out and buy it. You know what I mean, so maybe sometimes it's a good thing to keep your eyes off your neighbors stuff. lol

**Darkmatters** · 08-26-2014 12:08 AM

Originally Posted by StephL

We're all atheists for all of history's gods except the one(s) we believe in - some people just go one god further - I wish I knew, whom I'm quoting now - but I like it, it gets down to the essence of it!

I think it was Dawkins, at least I heard him say it - not sure if he was the first.

And yeah, theist means a person with belief in god(s), so an atheist by definition is a person WITHOUT such belief, the prefix A meaning without (as in apolitical, apathetic, amoral etc). Gnosticism on the other hand refers to knowledge, not belief, so a gnostic is a person with knowledge, and an agnostic is a person without knowledge. So really everyone is agnostic - nobody really knows for a fact if there's a god or not. Some people claim they do one way or the other, and some feel that the sheer strength of their belief should somehow be construed as knowledge, but the fact of the matter is it's impossible to really know. So all theists and all atheists are technically agnostic.

Oh, and Steph, congrats on discovering GirlWritesWhat (Karen Straughn as she's known since Youtube practically forced all its members to use their real names). She's excellent, and another one that speaks just as eloquently for the rights of men is Allison Tieman (used to be Typhon Blue). I don't think she talks about theism though, so might not hold any interest. One who deals with both (in a less aggressive and patronizing way than The Amazing Atheist (self-proclaimed) is ThunderFoot, a scientist after your own heart I believe.

**StephL** · 08-26-2014 12:59 PM

Yeah!! I'm so happy you reacted and know her and think positively about her Mr. Matters!
It happens so very rarely, that I come across somebody who actually changes my mind about stuff, gives me something novel to think about - and she certainly did. I've been watching a bit more of her's and went about a not insubstantial reorganisation of the way I think about gender issues, including noticing how much feminist cultural conditioning I've been actually going through without even noticing. And I guess for a woman to come to these insights and be open about it is rather easy. If I were a guy, I don't know, if I would have even dared to post that video.

I too am not overly amazed by the respective atheist by the way, he's nervy - going to check out Thunderfoot and Allison Tieman. But really? You need to give your real name for participating on youtube? That's baad news I would say - could even be dangerous, depending on whom you piss off by what you do. Do you know more about that, and how it came to be? I believe to have come across something with google as well - where I didn't get further and they apologized with having to sort something out with people's real names...

And thank you for your furtherings out on terminology, too - yep - exactemently so.
I hear Dawkins say it as well, and see him peek through his glasses at the audience, waiting for the laughs - but I'm not sure, if it might not be one of Sam Harris' quotes. It's great against the perception of "atheist" as a derogatory term, something completely alien, or misunderstanding atheism as yet another belief-system, coming with whatever extras. It usually does come with an attitude of scepticism and trying one's best to be a rational thinker on the basis of evidence - but even that is not implied in the term itself.

**Darkmatters** · 08-26-2014 01:35 PM

It was when YouTube was merged with Google, so what you experienced with Google would probably be pretty much the same. Though I seem to recall one day everybody was practically forced to at least temporarily switch to their real names, and then if you wanted to you could go through some procedure to go back to your original username. They wanted to link up a person's various accounts and have them all associated with their real name, the assumption most people arrived at was that it was to make it easier to track people. As if they were capitulating to the NSA or something. Big Brother is watching..

**StephL** · 08-26-2014 03:43 PM

Holy fudgecake!!
This smells like the fish-shop in Asterix - I'm not deluding myself about how it could well be that all my internet activities ever might be re-traceable to my real persona one day, I hope not, but it could well be. I hope and actually believe that I could well live with that - I'm no different in real life, but anyway - this is taking away the amazing freedom of expression, our day and age has graced us with.

I've just been typing in Thunderfoot and found a real marvel - him visiting Westboro Baptist church and "communicating" - well - trying to communicate with these two lovely believeresses:

Uaaargh - may the holy spaghetti-monster help us against such attitudes!! What a horrible creature, this woman in the middle - this is incredible, I never saw such blatant hostility and belligerence of Christians, honestly - this really blows my mind. How unbelievably horrible!!
Imagine small kids being born into this sort of Christianity - imagine politics being made on the grounds of such attitudes. Jeeezus!!

**kadie** · 08-26-2014 05:35 PM

You now it kind of funny that I find myself a bit agitated when I perceive someone really perverting Christianity too. I don't know why it is and I don't even believe in a God. I guess its years of propaganda that has settled in. Yes that woman is foul. Actually I find her more foul that adulteresses, and thieves.

**Box77** · 08-26-2014 06:21 PM

Originally Posted by Darkmatters

It was when YouTube was merged with Google, so what you experienced with Google would probably be pretty much the same. Though I seem to recall one day everybody was practically forced to at least temporarily switch to their real names, and then if you wanted to you could go through some procedure to go back to your original username. They wanted to link up a person's various accounts and have them all associated with their real name, the assumption most people arrived at was that it was to make it easier to track people. As if they were capitulating to the NSA or something. Big Brother is watching..

Sometimes I wonder what if Leonardo Da Vinci (or any other great mind known so far) had ensured to cover his/her tracks the way some great minds use to hide themselves these days. I think nowadays it's not a single genius messing around alone here and there but whole communities with a bunch of great people who, I hope, once they pass away this existence, at least, it will be possible for others to know (and use them as an example?) who they were more than just some unmemorable, faceless, anonymous person. Little brother is watching back...

Edit: Sorry, a little bit out of topic (or perhaps not) but I had to say it...

**DeviantThinker** · 08-26-2014 06:48 PM

Hi, I can perhaps call myself a gnostic atheist in that while I do believe that it is merely improbable for an intelligence creating our universe, it has been categorically demonstrated that the theistic god is fictitious. This is because while the notion of a intelligent creator is dealing with the unknown, much of the bible deals with the known and hence can be empirically investigated. Based on many of the false facts that the bible dispels in the book of genesis alone, I think it is safe to reject the Christian (and Islamic and Jewish) god.

I often hear apologetics claim that those passages are supposed to be metaphorical and allegories, not to be taken literally. In fact some even claim that atheists who use these passages as evidence against Christianity are as bad as the fundamentalists in taking biblical passages literally. However, this is simply a dishonest interpretation of the texts. It is clear from history that these passages were intended to be literal cosmologies and were not meant to be taken in a purely metaphorical context. In fact, the Christian apologetics' attitude would have been regarded as downright heretical, and rightly so. Religion was fully intended to be an explanation of our universe and this recent meme of religion explaining the why and science the how is simply an attempt to limit the defeat that religion has faced.

**StephL** · 08-26-2014 07:44 PM

Originally Posted by kadie

You now it kind of funny that I find myself a bit agitated when I perceive someone really perverting Christianity too. I don't know why it is and I don't even believe in a God. I guess its years of propaganda that has settled in. Yes that woman is foul. Actually I find her more foul that adulteresses, and thieves.

Well - in my opinion, fundamentalist Christians are at the least honestly deluded, while it is intellectually dishonest to go about Apologetics the way DeviantThinker has pointed it out so beautifully!
It's really there in the book - even if modern moderate Christians want to explain it all away. I'm torn between sometimes thinking - if people are willing to openly and blatantly stand by what the book indeed actually says, and not what we are taught to think about, what it says - this can only be good for bringing about the downfall of religion. I see it as helping people out of the remains of systematic brainwashing in early childhood by organisations with thousands of years of experience with shaping minds to their own - yes - worldly benefit. But on the other hand it is immensely scary to imagine people in power, who literally want to bring about the end of days, the rapture. I forgot the numbers of people in America who expect it plus those, who believe it might well come in their lifetimes, but it was horrendously high.

Originally Posted by Box77

Sometimes I wonder what aif Leonardo Da Vinci (or any other great mind known so far) had ensured to cover his/her tracks the way some great minds use to hide themselves these days. I think nowadays it's not a single genius messing around alone here and there but whole communities with a bunch of great people who, I hope, once they pass away this existence, at least, it will be possible for others to know (and use them as an example?) who they were more than just some unmemorable, faceless, anonymous person. Little brother is watching back...

Edit: Sorry, a little bit out of topic (or perhaps not) but I had to say it...

Weell - yeah. But look - the internet doesn't forget. It even doesn't forget Box77 and StephL. So if we're that good...

But I feel with you - coming out is a marvellous thing - and shame there's a need for the atheist community to borrow this meme.

Originally Posted by DeviantThinker

Hi, I can perhaps call myself a gnostic atheist in that while I do believe that it is merely improbable for an intelligence creating our universe, it has been categorically demonstrated that the theistic god is fictitious. This is because while the notion of a intelligent creator is dealing with the unknown, much of the bible deals with the known and hence can be empirically investigated. Based on many of the false facts that the bible dispels in the book of genesis alone, I think it is safe to reject the Christian (and Islamic and Jewish) god.

I often hear apologetics claim that those passages are supposed to be metaphorical and allegories, not to be taken literally. In fact some even claim that atheists who use these passages as evidence against Christianity are as bad as the fundamentalists in taking biblical passages literally. However, this is simply a dishonest interpretation of the texts. It is clear from history that these passages were intended to be literal cosmologies and were not meant to be taken in a purely metaphorical context. In fact, the Christian apologetics' attitude would have been regarded as downright heretical, and rightly so. Religion was fully intended to be an explanation of our universe and this recent meme of religion explaining the why and science the how is simply an attempt to limit the defeat that religion has faced.

Wow! This is one of the most concise and intelligent things I read around this topic in a long while!
The most warmest welcome!

flowers (1).gif

When you reminded me of LessWrong by referencing an article a while back, I've been looking forward to you showing up here. A gnostic atheist - brilliant - and completely sensical, too. I'll put this in my little cache of denominations, next to antitheist and besides that - agnostic concerning the flying spaghetti monster.

**Darkmatters** · 08-27-2014 01:10 AM

Wow, I agree Steph, that is excellent!! Deviant's concept of the gnostic atheist I mean. Every time revealed 'wisdom' from some holy book comes under the aegis of science to discover the real answers, it always turns out the religious answers were completely wrong, and in fact quite in line with what you would expect superstitious tribes of the period to come up with as an explanation for things beyond their understanding. So if these all-knowing gods failed so miserably on every count where we've been able to check them, then why assume anything else said about them is correct? You know, I do get awfully tired of always having to say "Well, I suppose we can't really KNOW… "

And Kadie, hatred is always despicable in any form.

**DeviantThinker** · 08-27-2014 09:11 AM

Thanks for the praise but I am sure that there are epistemological skeptics just waiting in the shadows to stab me for my absolute statements.
I can already hear them screech "But DT! How can you claim that the biblical texts you have been exposed to are undoubtedly authentic or that the theistic god does not have an independent existence from biblical claims!?"
I might as well dismiss all of external reality as a figment of my imagination before I can please those types.

Also, I'm amazed at Thunderf00t's composure in that video. If I was in his situation, I doubt I would have remained so calm.
It's a shame that he has recently gone on an extended diatribe against feminism. I miss his videos against creationism or anti-nuclear rhetoric or even his more general celebrations of the scientific method.

**Darkmatters** · 08-27-2014 09:22 AM

Ugh, actually I dislike when TF gets all worked up and starts ranting about anything. He's only a step above The Amazing Atheist once he gets himself all wound up. He ends up sounding nearly as hateful as the Westboro Baptist ladies. I mean don't get me wrong, I agree with the points he's making when he slams anything as irrational as Creationism, radical feminism, or solar roadways, it's just that he becomes a total ranting jerkwad when he does it.

**DeviantThinker** · 08-27-2014 12:40 PM

I agree with you that he gets ranty but don't ever compare him to The Amazing Atheist, even favourably. Thunderf00t demonstrates step by step how his opponents are mistaken and you get from his videos not just the debunking of creationism but also a more thorough understanding of the scientific method, how to use it and what common pitfalls and fallacies you should avoid.
The "Amazing" Atheist on the other hand is just a bitter, resentful man who enjoys singling out scapegoats for slander under the misguided mindset that this will make him feel better about himself.
Also, while I disagree deeply with Thunderf00t on his absolute views on feminism, he has never given me the impression that he is a misogynist at heart, unlike TAA.
I do think a certain degree of ranting is permissible when you have to deal with the sheer dishonesty and bullshit on display from creationist proponents as long as the rant is well informed.

**Darkmatters** · 08-27-2014 12:43 PM

Yeah, I was only referring to how angry and spiteful he gets and the way he insults people, aside from that he rocks. And I've never seen him say anything misogynist at all, he only rips into radical feminism, which is about on a level with Creationism wrapped in the Westboro Baptist
Church.

I also dislike the angry insulting streak in Dawkins, though Hitchens manages to be entertaining and charismatic when he does it.

**DeviantThinker** · 08-27-2014 01:14 PM

Thunderf00t rarely calls it "radical feminism". He always just refers to his targets as feminists which is my problem with him. He is brushing all feminists as the same, both explicitly ("why feminism poisons everything") and implicitly.
But yeah, he does have a rhetorical edge to him which while is usually entertaining for me, I can understand why it irritates others.