The Folly of Atheism, part 2

There is data and empirical evidence that support abiogenesis. This does not constitute defacto proof but, it is more than the supernatural theory.

This in now way however, rules out the supernatural theory.

What has been debunked is the "Great Flood" part of the creation story in Genesis.

 

Was Johnny that was claiming that the author of Mark was a disciple - and me claiming that this is not what Biblical Scholars, and reputable seminaries teach - or the early Church fathers for that matter.

There definitely some contradictory stuff going on here.

 

Right and at max only 1 can be correct (unless two say the same thing which is rarely the case) making it a demonstrable fact that at least 99.9% of all these stories are figments of the human mind.

Someone claiming defacto "my version is the correct one- my version is the correct one" is then abject nonsense given that every one of the aforementioned adherents to the thousand different variants all claimed made the same claim.

This is one of the reason that "faith" based religions have stood the test of time. Faith- by definition- is belief without proof.

This "faith" ideology is part of the evolution of more and more sophisticated mind control techniques in religion over time.

 

OK. Then instead of asking "Is there any evidence to the contrary?", I will state: There is no evidence to the contrary!

Please be careful with your interpretations of what I write.

"I label the thing they believe in as 'clearly the product of man's imaginings'."​

Thing - singular. Not Things - plural. Since we were talking about gods - it is clear that the Thing being referenced was a god.

In an earlier post you stated that more than hundreds of gods were created by man. You cannot 'know' this for a fact. Your 'conclusions' are flawed, as you cannot know the things you claim to know. You are not omnipotent. How do you 'know' this?

I'm not going to address that in this post. I have done so in other posts.

You and I both acknowledge that Thor and Atlas and Athena and Dizang and Shango and Arrernte and Apistotoke are the creation of man's imaginings. That is not a subjective belief. That is a statement of fact based on history and knowledge and logic. The only difference between your beliefs and my beliefs are trivial - one god out of thousands. Yet for some reason you must cling to the idea that somehow, somewhere there exists a supernatural entity. Ask yourself why.

 

That's a very arbitrary response. You are someone who prides himself on making arguments based on science and logic. Where is your science or logic in the above exchange?

 

OK. I'll play.

It's not about time being infinite. Even if time is infinite, all possible permutations and combinations will not happen in this universe.
For what you are suggesting, there have to be an infinite number of universes with an infinite number of "laws".

OK.

OK.

I don't think moving my fingers across a keyboard is a strange phenomenon.

Why indeed.

OK.

OK.

I thought, therefore I'll respond...

Your conclusion is valid if and only if we accept the premise of the (highlighted) sentence which began with the word "If".​

Dear God, you made many, many poor people.
I realize, of course, that it's no shame to be poor
But it's no great honor, either.
So what would have been so terrible if I had a small fortune?

If I were a rich man,
Daidle deedle daidle
Daidle daidle deedle daidle dumb
All day long I'd biddy-biddy-bum
If I were a wealthy man

I wouldn't have to work hard,
Daidle deedle daidle
Daidle daidle deedle daidle dumb
If I were a biddy-biddy rich,
Daidle deedle daidle daidle man​

 

Yes that's what cultists and fundies think about "Freelance Christians" such as myself, they hate and fear me because I go around demolishing them on the internet debating circuit..
For the record there are plenty of decent Christians out there who send me feedback like this-

Spannerose - "Mick, I would like you to know that the result of reading your posts I am left with the desire to pick up my bible for the first time in years"
ChildofLight - "So good to read your responses Mick, some are quite witty and made LOL"
Happysandyh - "welcome Mick, welcome welcome!"
HenryS - "You are brilliant Mick in finding appropriate phrases. Another one of your superb emails to store"
Firebrand - "Amen and welcome Mick"
Coconut - "Whew! Thanks for sharing Mick"
Sarah4Jesus - "Listen to Mick in Plymouth, he is a great teacher"
Cathie - "Very wise advice Mick, thanks"
Lillian - "Mick please come back..it's nice having you on the board"
Kierri - "That was one of the best explanations I've ever heard! Yay for Mick in Plymouth"
Haimehenmmli - "I LOVE IT MATE!!! I'm going to put it into my files, with some of my other favorites, from you"
Evachrst3 - "Right on, Mick, I couldn't agree more.Thank you for defending the faith so eloquently".
Devilmademedoit2 - "I love this! Thanks, Mick!"
SweetSummer96 - "Wow. That's a cool story Mick."
Vespasian052 - "Wow! Mick,what an awesome tale.."
Beekpr9 - "Amen to all you have said, Mick!"
Saipan1777 - "Spot on Mick bravo"
Duke Tinn - "Thanks again Mick. Great Stuff"
Tahella - "Welcome Mick!"
Ainglkiss - "Mick what a wonderful story. You write so well. Keep up the great work"
BlessedOne - "Glad to have you here Mick! Jesus is the way!"
MonkGirl - "Wow, thank you Mick! That is really comforting...and all I really needed to hear!"
WOFman - "Welcome Mick!"
JeffC - "HELL YEAH! PREACH IT BROTHER, THE REALITY WAY! (LUV YUR STYLE....)
Nottonguetied - "I loved those stories from Mick"
Honeybearx - "This was very good reading thank you Mick"
Megan - "Mick, I just wanted to tell you that I loved this story, it was very touching"
Benjoman - "Your one of the only ones from the singles board that I still love Mick"
Sherry Anne - "Mick i love your posts"
Antipas - "Brilliant yet again Mick"
Easynote - "ROFL Mick you are pure class, another of your timeless classics!"
Kermit - "I love Mick. He is so, how shall I say it, RIGHT ON THE MONEY AND FUNNY, TOO"
Kermmiekr - "How uplifting Mick, and so very true"
Chrysalis55- "Just want to say, I love your posts and your messages not only inspire me, sometimes they make me laugh
because you are able to get your point across in such a great way. WAY TO GO waymarker!!!"
Evenflow- I just LOVE this post You have made me smile BIG TIME this morning. Good for you and what a great attitude you have to life xx
Luismtzzz- "I like how you reason religion. I am enjoying your answers"
Justforme- "I am so happy to meet a sensible Christian"
Apple Pie - "Really good to see you, Mick. Come on over to 4church, we could do with your input and your humour"

 

I think that perhaps where your argument splits away from that of most of the debate I have participated in on this forum is that people here really put a lot of stress on the idea that god is a supernatural force that affects the natural world.

You seem to be saying here that God is the natural universe or that natural process could be used to become godlike.

It is somewhat like the pantheistic idea or at least what I consider pantheism. Like Einstein and Spinoza indicated the natural processes of the universe are the best means of knowing God since God is the natural universe.

I do lean in this direction also. When I originally introduced myself here I described myself as an agnostic atheist with a conflict between pantheism and nihilism.

 

I do not think your understanding of probability is up to snuff. Even if the probability of an event happening are a gazillion to one - in an infinite amount of time the event will happen an infinite number of times.

Not thinking was your first mistake Mr. fancy pants.

If it is not strange .. then explain how a thought manifest itself into physical reality.

 

There are plenty of decent "people" out there. Some of them are Christians

There are even some decent fundies out there .. and many wolves in sheeps clothing ! Matt 7 :15

Like this guy> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVKRWg-gyeI

 

Much rests on how one defines God. .

If an entity could control energy through its will (humans can do this to some degree internally - a thought is manifested in to physical reality) .. then this would be at least a demi-God.

Matter and energy got together in some configuration that gained knowledge of itself - (We exist).

Is this the matter, the energy, or some combination of the two ?

At the sub-atomic level matter and energy interchange one into the other so let us suppose it is the energy.

If energy itself can know of it's own existence and have ability of self manipulation like humans do - that would be a God.

It would be like the universe is one big mind.

 

Earth is the product of severe disruption and was knocked into its present orbit as the main remnant of a larger planet, Tiamat, according to the Sumarian legend Enumera Elish (Celestial Battle). On another pass, if I recall correctly, Kingu, a moon of Nibiru smashed into Tiamat and gauged out the basin of the Pacific Ocean. The gauged out mass reformed into our moon. The asteroid belt is the shattered and scattered remainder of Tiamat.

The effects of encounters between Earth and Nibiru have varied in severity because of differences in orbital patterns, angular relationships, and timing of approaches. If previously said size 4 shoe doesn't fit per claimed scenario, then we'll have to wait until discovery of the real McCoy avails better data. Unaccountable perturbations of existing orbits reported by scientists suggest that another mass may be out there, but there is also speculation that other phenomena may be the cause.

Nah, it's just an alien UFO cult that idolizes Gilligan, playing tricks us.

P.S. Nibiru is scheduled to come our way again in about 1400 years from now.

 

.......Uh......Sure..........(tecoyah backs away slowly).

 

Still beating this dead equine of yours?

 

You ought to know better by now that such cherry picking is liable to be misrepresentative. Worse yet, since there was so much of my post that you didn't read, you are in no position to declare that such cherry picking is representative of my assessment of the contents. Nice job of twisting things around to where the embarrassment is yours. In contrast, some other posts by you in other areas are admirably sophisticated and sharp. I'm guessing that you sometimes have a problem focusing and thinking things through when not devoting enough time to get things sorted out smoothly.

Dream on. Can I sell you some moon damage insurance before the next pass of our moon? You might have heard about the fact that it imposes a slight land tide along with the water uplift. Submarine capacity need not have been built into the ark.

Out on the water, the safest place to be during a tsunami is out on the deep open sea. Hell breaks loose at the shallows along coastlines.

Everything? Maybe if you're getting under the influence, abstain from nipping for a period sufficient to allow sensible posting. Better yet, properly read the post section that you're contending.

You weren't doing much thinking either. Now we know the rest of the story.

 

Well...anyone following this thread has to realize that there are some people who blindly guess that at least one god exists...or, alternately, blindly guess that it is much more likely (probable) that at least one god exists than that none exist. Those people insist that they are not blindly guessing...but are working from a position of reason or logic.

On the other hand, there are some people who blindly guess that no gods exist...or blindly guess that it is much more likely (probable) that none exist than that at least one does. Those people insist that they are not blindly guessing...but are working from a position of reason, logic, or science.

Both groups are kidding themselves. Both are doing nothing more than blindly guessing...and scorning the blind guesses in the other direction.

Much better, in my opinion, to simply acknowledge that all one can do about the true nature of the REALITY of existence...is to guess.

My take:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

 

I hope you weren't backing away just because of the alien/Gilligan reference. It's not a good idea to disrespect them. They have formidable weapons, BB guns actually, but each BB is a Packman that can consume a megaton of matter.You could be risking the annhilation of the entire planet.

 

Actually...being Tanillion I am well protected by both Galactic treaty and the masses infiltrated into theses Humans population. The Nano chewers of Galbon cause me no concern at all. Remember what happened the last time these little buggers messed with us!

 

This is what you said

"I doubt you could even meet that burden for the assertion, "All gods that have ever been worshiped on planet Earth are the creation of man's imagination"

My post is aimed directly at that statement and says essentially that the possibility that all gods are not created by man is vanishingly small. Is it zero no, but it is so infinitesimal as to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

I prefer Plato's allegory of the cave but both are applicable. So since nobody seems willing to actually define what they mean by god inany meaningful way then i guess you are saying the whole discussion is moot.

 

It is NOT vanishingly small...although it IS the guess I would make.

You do not even know how many gods have been worshiped; you do not know how the notion of "worshiping" gods began; you do not know if any of the "worshiping" began as a result of an instigation by a god.

In any case...just as I doubt Ecco could...I ALSO DOUBT YOU could meet the burden of proof for the assertion:

"All gods that have ever been worshiped on planet Earth are the creation of man's imagination"

If you are saying you could...do it.

But if you are going to attempt to do it...keep that word "ALL" in mind.

 

I would have gladly provided the quote, if necessary. I was merely refuting the notion that it was NOT written by Mark. Perhaps we were arguing the same point?

Polycarp, whom Irenaeus knew, for one.
from 'against heresies', ch3:
But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true

Ignatius also knew John the apostle, & many of the early church writings allude to 'many' others who conversed with the apostles, & had a sequential history with them. These writings, in context, was to refute the many heresies that were common at the time, where distortions & false teachings were running rampant in the early church. The early church 'fathers' were applying historical credibility to the Message, as the messengers.

I completely concur that Mark is thought to have been a disciple of Peter, as has been the common belief throughout church history, with textual evidence to back it up. I know of no other 'evidence' to the contrary, that has any historical validity. I think, looking back on the thread, that this was your point, as well. So it seems we have no disagreement, but that does not stop us from arguing, evidently.

 

I still see the argument of probability as a fallacy. it is an attempt to put mathematical evidence & 'proofs' as an argument for naturalism. It is based on the assumption, 'Given enough time, anything is possible!' But as a mathematical formula, or scientific evidence, this is a flawed argument. One has to DEMONSTRATE possibility, not just declare it.

For example, you may claim that if you jump enough times, you can eventually reach the moon. You may make the 'probability' argument for this. You can say it is 100,000,000 to one, odds, but still, there is a chance. Therefore, it is possible. And, since it it possible, that is what happened, obviously. But how can you put 'odds' on such an event? It is NOT scientifically possible, so how can any statistic be given for it? It is an arbitrary figure, pulled out of thin air (or perhaps an onus! ), with no scientific or mathematical basis.

The exact same argument can be used for supernaturalism, using the same fallacy. What are the 'odds' that a supernatural entity exists? 100 to 1? 10B to 1? 100T to 1? How can you put a figure on that? But whatever 'odds' you make, given enough time, so the argument goes, 'it could have happened!' So both of these flawed, logical fallacies cancel each other out, in a comparison between the 'odds' of supernatural vs natural.

Over the history of man, there have been many 'theories' or postulates ABOUT the nature of the universe.. whether there is a supernatural explanation, or if it is only natural. As of now, there is NO EVIDENCE to compel either conclusion. Both are beliefs, based on individual influences. There is nothing empirical, mathematical, or biological to compel any beliefs about origins, or the nature of the universe. Those conclusions are all beliefs.

And the mistaken beliefs of time past are irrelevant. There have been debunked naturalistic 'theories', too, but that does not invalidate the concept of a naturalistic origin. The same with supernatural 'theories'. Just because one is debunked, or proven flawed does not automatically invalidate the overall concept of a supernatural entity.

So, i would apply your charlie brown kicking the ball as a repeated attempt to use 'probability' as an argument for or against naturalism. You never get to kick the ball, but just keep running at it, hoping the argument will work, this time.

 

Me? NEVER!!

I would never disparage the obvious desire of man to inquire into the deepest mysteries of life, or to ponder the universe, time, infinity, & his navel. This 'discussion' has been going on for time immemorial, and likely will for the unforeseeable future.

And, i am sure, there will be plenty of dogmatists, from all sides of the philosophical spectrum, who will arrogantly assert THEIR beliefs as Absolute Truth. But that does not mean we should abandon the quest. It is part of our makeup, to question the Angst.. to ponder eternity.. to consider abstract concepts that have no bearing on our day to day lives. IMO, it is evidence OF 'something'.. some kind of inner awareness, or longing, or inkling.. which seems to be a universal attribute of Man. It is subjective, to be sure, but it is something.

 

Is the burden you are placing on the claim unreasonable? Does one need to know the name of every God ever conceived to understand the human tendency to associate unexplained natural phenomena with a supernatural cause?

Does one need to know the name of every leprechaun to decide not to believe in leprechauns? Does one need to know the name of every star to decide if stars actually exist or not?