Saturday, March 28, 2015

[AvC] Re: Does it take faith to be an atheist?

So,, Lawrey, when you preach "no evidence!" It is not for God you speak, nor the human race, nor the atheist faithful, but...scientists? The scientists "back the atheists" you say?

Which science has as its object of study you, O God?

Physics? Not physics, for it studies mutable being, and You, Eternal One, are immutable.

Mathematics? Not mathematics, for it studies quantity abstracted from matter, and You, Unlimited Being, are not limited by quantity.

Theoligy? Yes! Theology is the science who's subject matter is You. Let us listen to the theologians. What do they say on the question "evidence of God"?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[AvC] Re: An atheist can make God happy by doing good?



On Saturday, March 28, 2015 at 3:41:10 PM UTC-4, Timbo wrote:


On Saturday, March 28, 2015 at 9:40:33 AM UTC-4, yar...@aol.com wrote:


On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 8:06:42 PM UTC-4, Timbo wrote:


On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 9:50:13 PM UTC-4, yar...@aol.com wrote:


On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 7:43:27 PM UTC-4, Timbo wrote:


On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 8:13:08 PM UTC-4, yar...@aol.com wrote:


On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 7:28:13 PM UTC-4, Timbo wrote:


On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 5:40:16 PM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:

Lakewood Church co-pastor Victoria Osteen received backlash from the Christian community after video footage of an August sermon surfaced showing Osteen encouraging congregants to "do good for your own self; it will make you happy and consequently make God happy."
http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/archive/segment/540e11b5fe3444535b0001dc

This might imply that an atheist can make God happy by doing good, and not even good for others but good for themselves. Small wonder that some Christians are outraged!

They should be outraged. Their religion states that God wants them to kill and enslave all that don't accept him as their one and only heavenly father. The Christian god is a jihadist. Modern Christians are breaking his wishes . They should be killing us and taking our 12 year old virgins as sex slaves in reward. They are only half-ass believers in their good book.
  
   You will have to show me where in the "good book" it proscribes the actions that you have just listed.
You will have an easier time getting that kind of textual support from the Qur'an.


  Apparently you do not know the difference between describes and proscribes. In what you point to, there is nothing proscriptive regarding the treatment of a people. It recounts what happened, not what we should be doing today. So, your passage is worthless for what I have asked you to prove.

It recounts what the Lord told Moses to lead them in doing to their neighboring tribes for not believing in him.
. My claim was that there was nothing prescriptive(not proscriptive) in the passage cited. I meant that in terms of authoritative rules or directions toward a particular people. What was described is the sovereign, or the ruler, of a the Hebrew government issuing an order to wage war against a nation (keep in mind that in a theocracy, which the Jews were under at that time, God is the president, king, ruler with appropriate authority to issue such an order). For this to be a hard fast rule for all time and thus fit my sense of the word prescriptive it would have to extend to that people for all time on the grounds of being that particular people and nothing other than that. What you are defending is the I.S.I.S. of Moses' time. These people were unscrupulous thieves, slave traders, and plotters against God's plan by conspiring with Moabites to curse Israel. When that curse was turned into a blessing, they changed tactics and used their women to seduce and subvert Israelite men to serve their idols and thus to abandon the one true God. Since God was the head of state, this is the same as joining I.S.I.S. and then conspire to kill American military men whose addresses were spread throughout the internet. That is to say, they were responsible for making traitors out of Israelite men against their own state. What ruler would countenance such a thing? Well, maybe Obama would harbor I.S.I.S. fugitives and subvert that were trying to radicalize young American men to commit treason, but I don't think even he is stupid enough for that...I could be wrong...after all, it is quite clear that this kind of thing is a lesson that you have certainly failed to learn from history...it seems. So, this had nothing to do with Midianites  not believing in God, this was about them subverting his subjects against his government, making them into a nation of traitors against their own government. This is exactly the reason that we are all in agreement that I.S.I.S. must be stopped and why, if you  were alive back then, you would also agree that it was appropriate to war against the Midianites. Well, maybe I am wrong...maybe you support I.S.I.S. Is that the reason that you are defending ancient I.S.I.S. like tactics?

  But all that aside what is in the passage, is describing what happened back then...it is not proscribing what should happen now. We have no theocracy in place and
Midianites are no longer here for us to fight against, though we seem to have a modern day example of a similar group of folks that everyone agrees should be done away with.


It is quite clear that he wants jihad against any neighbor who disbelieve in him. It is also quite clear that he wants them to take their virgins as sex slaves for a gift of committing jihad. Moses or whom ever wrote about Moses was an evil sic fuck.

Bullshit! You either believe this biblical god can and did instruct followers or you must discredit your bible as a good book of truth. Government and religion were not separate. So stop your bullshit of putting blame on a rogue government.

  Actually, if you read my post more carefully, you will see that I did say that the God was the president of Israel...well, a king...but more aptly, the head of state and when a monarch gives an order to his troops to go to war, it is not intended to be instructive...it is meant to be an order to be followed to the individuals at whom it was directed. Giving a specific order to go to war with a particular nation at a particular time in history, is not the same thing as the principle of Muslim Jihad which is an ongoing principle that is proscriptive to today., Of course some Muslims have changed the meaning of the word to mean more of a personal struggle, but that is not how Mohammad practiced the word nor did his followers that waged a Jihad for some 100 years after he died. There is no Christian or Jewish analog to this concept.
 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[AvC] Re: An atheist can make God happy by doing good?



On Saturday, March 28, 2015 at 9:40:33 AM UTC-4, yar...@aol.com wrote:


On Friday, March 27, 2015 at 8:06:42 PM UTC-4, Timbo wrote:


On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 9:50:13 PM UTC-4, yar...@aol.com wrote:


On Thursday, March 26, 2015 at 7:43:27 PM UTC-4, Timbo wrote:


On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 8:13:08 PM UTC-4, yar...@aol.com wrote:


On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 7:28:13 PM UTC-4, Timbo wrote:


On Wednesday, March 25, 2015 at 5:40:16 PM UTC-4, Dingbat wrote:

Lakewood Church co-pastor Victoria Osteen received backlash from the Christian community after video footage of an August sermon surfaced showing Osteen encouraging congregants to "do good for your own self; it will make you happy and consequently make God happy."
http://live.huffingtonpost.com/r/archive/segment/540e11b5fe3444535b0001dc

This might imply that an atheist can make God happy by doing good, and not even good for others but good for themselves. Small wonder that some Christians are outraged!

They should be outraged. Their religion states that God wants them to kill and enslave all that don't accept him as their one and only heavenly father. The Christian god is a jihadist. Modern Christians are breaking his wishes . They should be killing us and taking our 12 year old virgins as sex slaves in reward. They are only half-ass believers in their good book.
  
   You will have to show me where in the "good book" it proscribes the actions that you have just listed.
You will have an easier time getting that kind of textual support from the Qur'an.


  Apparently you do not know the difference between describes and proscribes. In what you point to, there is nothing proscriptive regarding the treatment of a people. It recounts what happened, not what we should be doing today. So, your passage is worthless for what I have asked you to prove.

It recounts what the Lord told Moses to lead them in doing to their neighboring tribes for not believing in him.
. My claim was that there was nothing prescriptive(not proscriptive) in the passage cited. I meant that in terms of authoritative rules or directions toward a particular people. What was described is the sovereign, or the ruler, of a the Hebrew government issuing an order to wage war against a nation (keep in mind that in a theocracy, which the Jews were under at that time, God is the president, king, ruler with appropriate authority to issue such an order). For this to be a hard fast rule for all time and thus fit my sense of the word prescriptive it would have to extend to that people for all time on the grounds of being that particular people and nothing other than that. What you are defending is the I.S.I.S. of Moses' time. These people were unscrupulous thieves, slave traders, and plotters against God's plan by conspiring with Moabites to curse Israel. When that curse was turned into a blessing, they changed tactics and used their women to seduce and subvert Israelite men to serve their idols and thus to abandon the one true God. Since God was the head of state, this is the same as joining I.S.I.S. and then conspire to kill American military men whose addresses were spread throughout the internet. That is to say, they were responsible for making traitors out of Israelite men against their own state. What ruler would countenance such a thing? Well, maybe Obama would harbor I.S.I.S. fugitives and subvert that were trying to radicalize young American men to commit treason, but I don't think even he is stupid enough for that...I could be wrong...after all, it is quite clear that this kind of thing is a lesson that you have certainly failed to learn from history...it seems. So, this had nothing to do with Midianites  not believing in God, this was about them subverting his subjects against his government, making them into a nation of traitors against their own government. This is exactly the reason that we are all in agreement that I.S.I.S. must be stopped and why, if you  were alive back then, you would also agree that it was appropriate to war against the Midianites. Well, maybe I am wrong...maybe you support I.S.I.S. Is that the reason that you are defending ancient I.S.I.S. like tactics?

  But all that aside what is in the passage, is describing what happened back then...it is not proscribing what should happen now. We have no theocracy in place and
Midianites are no longer here for us to fight against, though we seem to have a modern day example of a similar group of folks that everyone agrees should be done away with.


It is quite clear that he wants jihad against any neighbor who disbelieve in him. It is also quite clear that he wants them to take their virgins as sex slaves for a gift of committing jihad. Moses or whom ever wrote about Moses was an evil sic fuck.

Bullshit! You either believe this biblical god can and did instruct followers or you must discredit your bible as a good book of truth. Government and religion were not separate. So stop your bullshit of putting blame on a rogue government.
 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[AvC] Re: The Serpent of Hermetic tradition


Dendrite (From Greek dendron, Tree)


On Saturday, 28 March 2015 08:33:51 UTC, Amos wrote:






On Friday, 27 March 2015 22:08:01 UTC, Amos wrote:
From that big brainy thing that is the Universal Unconsious Mind! ;)

On Friday, 27 March 2015 18:03:45 UTC, Kurt wrote:
So, where do you get it from. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[AvC] Re: Religion is a smokescreen.

Den lørdag den 28. marts 2015 kl. 02.55.56 UTC+1 skrev GT:

Ego: Religion is a smokescreen.

In religions attempt to pass fiction (like entities with contradictory attributes, or something from nothing) on as fact, it must discredit what is real/factual, by making it appear unreal/fictional, thus allowing for the fictional to seem more plausible, or even real. This discrediting of factual knowledge, in order to replace it with fictional interpretations, is a subversive attempt to replace independent objectivity, with authoritative subjectivity. This sleight of hand ensures that religious authorities have patent on what is real/unreal or what is right/wrong, and through this smokescreen, they obscure the view for others, impairing their ability to see clearly.

Subjects thus misdirected, will adamantly defend their fictional reality, by opposing what is known to be true (as in real); for if they began believing, in what was known to be true, then they must stop believing in, what they formerly believed to be true; and this, for many religious inclined people, is not a possibility, for religion is tightly woven (implemented) into their fears and hopes. People thus misinformed/implemented are unwillingly (and unknowingly) participating in further misdirection, making it difficult for themselves and others, to distinguish between what is real, possible or unreal, impossible.

This intentional and unintentional misdirection must stop, as it effects our view on reality, which again determines are views on concepts such as moral, justice, intention and so forth. I rest assured though, that in time, factual knowledge (which is self-evident) will replace fictional interpretations (which are not self-evident), and religion will be demoted to the same category as other superstitious beliefs - namely the fictional.

Timbo: True, factual knowledge will replace fictional interpretations. Folks don't see the impact of the information age like they should because they were not born into. They were already indoctrinated to believe X amount of BS. Those born into the information age click on at the slightest inkling of there being fiction. Even though the older generations understand it, they are still somewhat used to accepting certain amounts of non-reality.

Ego: Unfortunately, I have also seen the younger generation, though not actively believing in anything, are still open to the possibility that a being like a god could exist. I believe this is due to the fact, that they do not know how reality is screwed together (it has simply not been important for them), and are therefore open to the possibility that impossible things can exist and are, in a way, passively endorsing the concept of god.

GT: And you do know how it is all screwed together? Well If you do then please let us know how it all fits in, including the quantum world etc. (but if you don't, then please shut up. Stop trying to use your poor understanding of physics to fight what really is a battle against the conservative structures that religions represent).  Besides, before you tell us what you know, you should really be letting people like Stephen Hawkins know first, I mean he has spent most of his life trying to figure out what you've obviously recently discovered.  

But when you fail, as you will,  to explain 'all'.  It's you that must consider that you are the one who is in fact passively endorsing the concept of a God. 

And, religion is not about taking advantage of science. Religion is still using explanations arrived at thousands of years ago. And that's hardly a smokescreen.  Why for example, if its out to fool anyone, does it not also incorporate magic into its act. That after-all would be popular with children. But instead what we see is just the opposite, it dismisses paganism etc. It's people like your leader, Richard Dawkins, that uses magic to entice children into his following. 

Ego: I do not know how everything is screwed together, but I do know that contradictory things cannot exist; and I do know, that for something to have identify (law of thought), it must be distinguishable, measurable and material:
Only material things exist. 
1. Everything that exists is distinguishable from everything else. 
If a thing (object, entity, information, consciousness etc.) is to exist, then it must be different from all other things; defined by its position in space, relative to all other things, and having characteristics that are unique to it and not to anything else; position in space and characteristics, is a distinguishable aspect of all things; for two things cannot be in the same position at the same time (as the position is already occupied), or have two completely identical characteristics (a things characteristics combined with environmental influences, will ensure different characteristics); nor can two things have the same position and have the same characteristics - if they did, then they would be one and the same. Thus are all existing things, distinguishable. 
2. Being distinguishable, it must be measurable. 
If a thing is distinguishable from all other things, then it implies that this distinction (unique position and set of characteristics) must be measurable, directly or indirectly as it affects the things around it. Thus are all things measurable. 
3. Being measurable, it must be material. 
If a thing is measurable, then it implies that it must be material, as only material things are measurable and distinguishable – immaterial things (concepts) are only distinguishable by their fictional properties and measurable only as stored data.

Thus can it be seen, that every existing thing must be distinguishable, measurable and material; and all three must be present, in order to determine a things existence; thus something distinguishable will always be measurable and material; and something measurable will always be distinguishable and material; and something material will always be distinguishable and measurable
If a thing is claimed to be indistinguishable or immeasurable or immaterial, then it can only exist as a concept of the mind and not as an actual existing thing; for an indistinguishable thing is immeasurable and immaterial; and an immeasurable thing is indistinguishable and immaterial; and an immaterial thing is indistinguishable and immeasurable.

Law of thought: 
Law of identity: Everything that exists is distinguishable from everything else (something is either this or that, as it cannot be both or neither). 
Law of non-contradiction: An object cannot both be something and something else at the same time(something cannot both be this and that - a statement cannot both be true and false) 
Law of excluded middle: An object is either something or something else (something has to be this or that - every statement is either true or false) 
God, not being distinguishable, measurable or material, has no identity and can therefore only exist as a concept, not as an actual thing.

GT: Consciousness, for example, in not something that can be considered real. It can't be pinned down and examined. It only an attribute that we possess as living creatures. And if there are rules that say 'everything' is distinguishable, then there must be a God of sorts. 

Ego: Consciousness is a real, distinguishable, measurable and material thing, which is why only existing, living creatures possess it, and why god, not being distinguishable, measurable or material does not; and if god was distinguishable, then he would be a measurable, material creature and not a god; the only distinguishable things about god, are the fictional attributes that are ascribed to him. Furthermore, consciousness requires a measurable body to store and carry information, in order to be aware and communicate with the environment: 
1. Only measurable bodies can store and carry information. 
2. Consciousness requires the ability to store and carry information, in order to be aware and communicate with the environment. 
3. Since consciousness requires information, and information can only exist in and between bodies, it must also depend upon a body. 
4. God, being immeasurable, cannot be conscious, since consciousness requires a measurable body to store and carry information, in order to be aware and communicate with the environment.

GT: If existence can be seen as a tree-like structure with us as one of the out-most branches, then our consciousness must represent a further extremity still, making it something that is in effect incomprehensible to us. That is we would need to be standing beside the tree to see it. Something that would be impossible.

Ego: One does not have to know everything, to know something; thus I can conclude that certain premises must be present, in order for things to have separate, individual existence; so it matters not 'where' in the tree you are positioned, as all 'places' must abide by these premises; thus all stable things must be distinguishable, measurable and material, for there to be continuity and existence.

GT: It's kind of like this, we would have evolved from the ground, up. So, if our feet can't see our feet, then our consciousness can't see itself also. And if you accept the 'Natural' argument, as you are obliged to, then you accept that there by default needs to be things that are unknowable. 

Ego: The 'Natural' argument you are providing is not an argument, nor is it natural; it is but a blunt statement – so I do not need to accept that existing things can be unknowable – especially since all existing things are knowable; if a thing is not knowable, then it does not exist, as it would not be distinguishable, measurable or material. Else explain to me how things can exist, if they are not distinguishable from each other?

GT: The natural argument is that the universe is a natural place and we are a product of it. So it follows that anything 'external' to our existence would need to be beyond our understanding. And if our consciousness is bordering on that boundary, then we could never 'see' what it actually is. And likewise whatever exists beyond that boundary could also not be able to see it either. Nothing is unknowable? No natural limits? How about an unmodified human being running faster than 30 mph?  

Ego: Every existing thing is knowable because of its limits - a thing is limited to be itself and not anything else - so everything that exist is knowable; for existing things are distinguishable from other existing things; if things are thus distinguishable, then they must be measurable, how else could you tell the difference between one thing and another; thus are all things measurable and therefore material. It matters not, if we can't 'see' everything 'beyond' our universe or not - the fact remains, that existing things (perceivable or not by the senses) must be distinguishable to have existence - and being distinguishable, they are knowable (or in theory knowable).

GT: It's our consciousness that allows us to know things. So anything 'external' to its existence is by default unknowable. Our mind would have reached its natural limits, the edge of reality. If you believe different then you too are a theist. God is the only acceptable external force that we could know. Even then it might take us a long time and still not be without some uncertainty. Which makes sense as it allows us a greater degree of independence not knowing God is a certainty.

Ego: You are contradicting yourself; you state that consciousness allows us to know things and then you state that anything external to consciousness is unknowable - which does not jive, as everything is external to consciousness, except for the thoughts and emotions which consciousness is composed of (which of course would be external to the consciousness of others) - so you are actually stating that there are no things that are knowable.

GT: It takes consciousness to be aware of existing things. But those things 'external' to consciousness we can't be aware of.

Ego: See reply below.

Ego: And god is not an external force; if he was a force, then this force would be measurable (or in theory measurable) and therefore material.

GT: The material aspect of our existence is generated by our brains. There is only "information" available, is how it is put. And as we ourselves are a product of that information, we can hardly be expected to be able to disassociate ourselves from it so as to be able to examine it. Consciousness would be as a result of a bio-chemical process, making it as the only tool available like trying to use a microscope to examine itself. Sure we have awareness, but we can never be aware of what it actually is. 

Ego: See reply below.

Ego: If god was something, then he would be a creature (being distinguishable, measurable and therefore material); if god was nothing, then he does not exist (as nothing is not a thing). So which is it - is god something or is he nothing, keeping in mind that he must be one of them, as he cannot be neither or both?

GT: He could be the conscious controlling intelligence that generates the information that everything is made of.  If he were material himself he would need to be a product of our minds.

Ego, I suggest you actually examine you own motives if anything. If you do you'll find you are really a Liberal, and that would explain more then anything else your lack of understanding. You are 'opposed' which is not an honest position. Einstein for example was 'not' an atheist and he wouldn't have accomplished as much if he had a particular mindset anyhow.

Ego: See reply below.

 

Ego: And my intention is not to explain all, but to eradicate contradictory beliefs systems, which are nothing but mind-dependent interpretations, postulated to be truths.

And yes, religion is still using explanations arrived at a thousand years before, which is why it is superstitious belief and not objective knowledge.

And religion does not dismiss magic, it merely calls it something else, like miracles, creating from nothing, rising from the dead and magical stuff like that. Religion would like to see itself above superstition, but the fact is, that it is nothing but.

Religion is a con, which you apparently have fallen for. So instead of trying to point out the faults of my being, you should instead try to point out the faults in my logic; but this you cannot, or else you would have, so instead you resort to good old discrediting - so good luck with that, my words speak for themselves; they possess a consistency and logic, which yours do not; my words are self-evident, were yours are merely the fantasies of others.

GT: Religion is an enhancement to survival. If it weren't it would have been discontinued centuries ago. But why you are rejecting it would be more to do what is a backlash against conservative values that we see going on in Scandinavian countries. That and a tight-ass feature you share with the Germans when it comes to money. 

And, by the way, I'm not religious

Ego: Religion is an interpretation of reality, it does not enhance it, quite the opposite in fact; religion is immoral, unjust, subjective, authoritative and contradictory in nature - it is a lie. That the lie has not been discontinued is due to people like you, who keep peddling it, as if it were true.

GT: Theism would be an interpretation of reality. Religion a manifestation of theism. Religion is something we know is real. It survives because it contributes to society. It's failing now because it is under attack from what is nothing more than an effect, which is liberality. And paralleling the demise of religion is the decay of society. Something which we either ignore or deny.

Ego: Religion is superstition, not real - 'Superstition is the belief in supernatural causality—that one event causes another without any natural process linking the two events—such as astrology, religion, omens, witchcraft, prophecies, etc., that contradicts natural science' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition

GT: Religion can be separated from superstition, that's because it offers an explanation for its existence, whereas the others don't. 

Ego: Religion offers no valid explanation; it is all guesswork and assumptions; if it offered a valid explanation, then it would be categorized as knowledge and not belief.

 

Ego: And I see no decay of society, I see change for the better. Those countries that prosper most, are those with a minimum of religious influence. Religion is not but social control, keeping people in line with social tradition and pitting 'tribe' against 'tribe', so as to promote ones superiority over the others (leading to discrimination and conflict).

GT: Of course you don't see the decay, you are a 'decay denier'. It makes you feel good being liberal, and anything that puts you into an endorphin deficit is something to be avoided. And it is in fact 'prosperity' that masking the decay. And, yes there is a degree of control exerted over society by religion, but at the same time society itself chooses (had chosen) to be religious. And the actual conflicts that exist, really are political. For example I'd had it pointed out to me back in the seventies when the conflict in Northern Ireland was at its worst, that this had nothing at all to do with religion really. It was in fact a "class struggle", fought between two sides, one Catholic, one protestant. Nothing religious there, all politics in reality,  But despite this example, one of many, I don't see atheists as supporters of anarchy. Why not? 

Ego: Yes politics is the main cause of conflicts, and religion is sometimes used to further that cause. Saying god wants you to do something, has more weight (for those that believe) than saying a person/country wants you to do something.

GT: Politics uses religion. But still you are an atheist rather than an anarchist?

Ego: Yes.

GT: You are admitting you target theism despite politics being the real villain. As I've said you are a Liberal in disguise.  The atheist's mask that you are wearing does not disguise the liberal all too well though.

Ego: Politics is not the real 'villain'; politics can be debated, religion cannot. The 'villains' are those that preach non-debatable superstitious realities, as if they were true. And I am not a liberal in disguise, for I do not disguise it. Anyway, I have atheist friends who are not liberal and religious who are - so the two things are not the same.

 

 

Ego: The alternative to 'god's order', is not anarchy, it is cooperation and reason, based on fairness and equality - things which religion are against.

GT: Religion has effectively taken a back seat to politics through-out history. The strengths of the pieces in the game of chess is evidence of that. But still your problem is with religion not politics (the real problem appears to be that you are a liberal).

Ego: No, my 'problem' is that I have a logical approach to reality, which of course is reflected in my political viewpoints; whereas you have an authoritative dogmatic approach, which is reflected in your political viewpoints - which is why many theists are conservative. Anyway, using your 'logic', I could state that being a conservative, stands in the way of you being an atheist.

 

Ego: Religion explains nothing, it merely states that a supernatural entity is everything and created everything - that is just a blunt statement, not backed up by self-evident observation or logic. Religion must therefore never be the ruling or guiding principles in a society, as it depends solely upon subjective interpretations - and the one with the biggest sword, will be the one possessing the greatest truth.

GT: Religion helps preserve society. It provides a set of rules that can't exist in the natural sense. Survival of the fittest are the naturalists rules. So, if for example it turns out that females alone are fitter to survive than is 'mankind' combined, then there is a chance of this happening. Keeping in mind that there would be no guarantee of survival in a Natural universe. That is if one day the feminists succeed, males are eliminated, then that of itself wont guarantee survival. Sure the species will continue, but maybe only as  tribes feudal and fascistic. Don't accept that possibility? What happened to the Romans then? 

Ego: Religious rules are but cultural norms, hiding behind an almighty deity, to avoid criticism and scrutiny. As for the Romans, they got sacked.

 

Ego: And I am not 'back lashing' conservative values as such, only those that are entangled in religion, and are opposing objective reality and the truths one can derive there from.

GT: Is that right. So, apart from being an atheist you don't support any other of the 'causes' of liberality? Environmentalism? Abortion? Gay rights? Women's rights, 'Underwater fathering' etc.?

Ego: The liberal causes you mention there, are precisely those that fundamentalistic theists oppose, because of their entanglement with religion  so yes I support all of the above, except maybe for 'Underwater fathering', which I do not know what is.

GT: That's right, they are.  But that's because theism is about survival, whereas abortion, euthanasia, contraception as issues, aren't. Anything perceived as being counter to our continued procreation, which would also include gay marriage, women's rights etc. you'll find, some religion or another, opposes. 

As for the underwater fathering that's just a take on underwater birthing. It's sarcasm aimed at the wide-eyed naivety of liberals.  

Ego: Theism is about social control, to ensure that power is kept in the hands of the few, who can then exploit the many, not unlike uncontrolled capitalism. Religion is absolute; and would let the mother suffer, so that the child may live; and leave those in pain, who cry for relief; and spread decease and suffering, were it could have been avoided.

Religious rules are not reasonable and it's morals are not fair.

 

Ego: Not quite sure about what you mean about the tight assed feature, Scandinavians share with Germans...

GT: One of the reason you reject religion is because it might cost you money. Not a good reason when you consider that just about everything else costs money too.

All of the people of German ancestry that I know are tight-fisted (as well as being arrogant). So it's not unreasonable to presume that the people of your country, being near the Germans, aren't somewhat the same. A cultural quirk like that is not a good reason to reject religion, if that's what is happening in your case, is it?

Ego: Cost me money? You do know, that we pay the largest income tax in the world (about 50%); and that all Danish citizens believe that this is a good thing - as it provides security for those (or one self, one day) that are less fortunate. And many Danes pay church taxes (about 80% of the population paying around 1% and all wages to the clergy are taken over the main taxes) even though they are not religious as such (support cultural tradition and the pretty churches).

GT: Yes we do know that your country and other Scandinavian countries pay high taxes. And know the benefits that it brings. But it's still a reason to not want to be religious as it's adding to the tax burden. Besides it wouldn't stop the churches still needing contributions to be made.

Ego: It does not cost more money to be religious than not in Denmark; as stated, the state pays for everything; so there are no contributions to religion, only to humanitarian non-profit organizations (new churches are also paid for by the state).

Ego: Consciousness is a product of the brain, which is part of a physical system (body); consciousness does not give rise to material existence, it is a product of material existence, as is information. My consciousness is not the same as yours, they are different or distinguishable; this difference must be measurable (actual or in theory), being that they are different. Things that are thus distinguishable and measurable, we name material.

Information is likewise material (as it too is distinguishable from other pieces of information and must therefore too be measurable), as stored and processed data/information, and can represent reality correctly (A=A) or incorrectly (god). .

And yes I am a liberal, but as before mentioned, liberal is not the same as atheist, as I know atheists who are not liberal and theists who are.

And if Einstein (or any other) should not agree with my logic, on this particular subject, then he/they would be wrong - as you are. Else explain how existing things can be distinguishable, but not measurable (which is what you are implying)?

I suggest you read about the concept of identity that states 'The concept of identity is important because it makes explicit that reality has a definite nature. Since reality has an identity, it is knowable. Since it exists in a particular way, it has no contradictions.': .
A is A:
Aristotle's Law of Identity http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_Identity.html
'Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is. "This leaf is red, solid, dry, rough, and flammable." "This book is white, and has 312 pages." "This coin is round, dense, smooth, and has a picture on it." In all three of these cases we are referring to an entity with a specific identity; the particular type of identity, or the trait discussed, is not important. Their identities include all of their features, not just those mentioned.

Identity is the concept that refers to this aspect of existence; the aspect of existing as something in particular, with specific characteristics. An entity without an identity cannot exist because it would be nothing. To exist is to exist as something, and that means to exist with a particular identity.

To have an identity means to have a single identity; an object cannot have two identities. A tree cannot be a telephone, and a dog cannot be a cat. Each entity exists as something specific, its identity is particular, and it cannot exist as something else. An entity can have more than one characteristic, but any characteristic it has is a part of its identity. A car can be both blue and red, but not at the same time or not in the same respect. Whatever portion is blue cannot be red at the same time, in the same way. Half the car can be red, and the other half blue. But the whole car can't be both red and blue. These two traits, blue and red, each have single, particular identities.

The concept of identity is important because it makes explicit that reality has a definite nature. Since reality has an identity, it is knowable. Since it exists in a particular way, it has no contradictions.'

 

Only material things exist. 
1. Everything that exists is distinguishable from everything else. 
If a thing (object, entity, information, consciousness etc.) is to exist, then it must be different from all other things; defined by its position in space, relative to all other things, and having characteristics that are unique to it and not to anything else; position in space and characteristics, is a distinguishable aspect of all things; for two things cannot be in the same position at the same time (as the position is already occupied), or have two completely identical characteristics (a things characteristics combined with environmental influences, will ensure different characteristics); nor can two things have the same position and have the same characteristics - if they did, then they would be one and the same. Thus are all existing things, distinguishable. 
2. Being distinguishable, it must be measurable. 
If a thing is distinguishable from all other things, then it implies that this distinction (unique position and set of characteristics) must be measurable, directly or indirectly as it affects the things around it. Thus are all things measurable. 
3. Being measurable, it must be material. 
If a thing is measurable, then it implies that it must be material, as only material things are measurable and distinguishable – immaterial things (concepts) are only distinguishable by their fictional properties and measurable only as stored data.

Thus can it be seen, that every existing thing must be distinguishable, measurable and material; and all three must be present, in order to determine a things existence; thus something distinguishable will always be measurable and material; and something measurable will always be distinguishable and material; and something material will always be distinguishable and measurable
If a thing is claimed to be indistinguishable or immeasurable or immaterial, then it can only exist as a concept of the mind and not as an actual existing thing; for an indistinguishable thing is immeasurable and immaterial; and an immeasurable thing is indistinguishable and immaterial; and an immaterial thing is indistinguishable and immeasurable.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atheism vs Christianity" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atheism-vs-christianity+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.