Random Thoughts, strictly Text

Dirius

Well-known member
I don't know how anyone can still assume, there is a male being in the sky sitting on a cloud, looking down on us called god.

To me it doesn't make any rational sense.

I personally think we are all being controlled by :alien::alien::alien:


So you believe beings we can't see, that came from above the atmosphere, dictate our daily lives. :tongue:
 

Chrysalis

Well-known member
Ive noticed a fair few times now during my AW time frame, that MAINLY mercury transits direct/retrograde have an effect on this forum/even thread.

I find it quite alarming that the zoolog aliens can control us like this.
 

AppLeo

Well-known member
Evidence is an after the fact proof, done by experimenting with the hypothesis provided by a logical conclusion.

No evidence is "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid". It's not after, evidence happens before. Evidence is before you've connected the dots.

A logical conclusion is just an observation that can seem valid, without being so. The theory of telegony had logical conclusions, and minor evidence and turned out to be false. Thus, it wasn't very intelligent, was it? It still seemed reasonable to the individuals that developed the theory.

Yes, that is the process of thinking and learning. We are not omniscient. Logic is the process of identifying what is and what isn't.

Religion is based on conclusions about the nature of our existance for which we have still found no reasoning at all (despite the idea that our existance has no purpose), which I agree that may not lead to satisfactory results at the end of the day, but just like any scientifical hypothesis, it works until someone can disprove it: for most of human theory, Aristotle's model of the universe (which was based on logical conclusions) was the prevailing theorem, until it was disproven by Galileo's model, which he in turned was displaced by Einstein's theory of relativity.

So Religion is correct and good to follow because you think we haven't disproved religious belief?

As for the idea of violence, this is an attriubte of human life regardless of religion, but inherent to any kind of ideology. A number of atheist states such as North Korea, the Soviet Union, China, who were not religious commited atrocities around the world, imposing their views. But their views were based on logical conclusions.

If two rational people are debating each other, they will be able to come to a conclusion because they can provide logical reasons to each other for the validity of their idea. The idea that is most logical and makes most sense will be the idea that both people will go along with.

If you have two mystics, who claim ideas without any logical reasons, they will have no way of showing each other how they are correct. Therefore, if they are to reach a decision about what to do, they'll resort to violence to force one to obey the other.

Faith goes hand and hand with force.

That is a dogmatic aspect of religion, which is based on rules about how to practice your faith. String theory proposes reasons as to why it may be true, but all we have is an incomplete mathematical model that has not shown it to be true. Thus, you are subjugating reasons to the idea that something must be true because you really believe in it.

So you think that we should just have faith in whatever we want.

I have faith I'll fly to the moon without a jet pack. Look at me go :w00t:

The most renowned men on earth. From the ancient greek phylosophers, to the reinassance thinkers, to the founding fathers of the U.S, have been religious in nature. A number of sicentists of our modern age are too. Somehow you deminish them by calling them stupid, in contrast to whom? The most renowned atheist on earth have been responsible for most atrocities against human kind. So calling them stupid, doesn't seem very logical.

Oh I see, a smart person is religious therefore religion must be good. That's a logical fallacy you know. Just because an authority figure believes something to be true doesn't make it true.

Not to mention, these thinkers were a product of their times. They were religious because that was the norm. And if they ever expressed non-religious ideas, I don't think that would be good for them.

Besides, there are plenty of smart people who aren't religious too. I could name plenty, but I don't because that's not a valid argument. You decide the validity of religion by looking at the fact. And the fact is that religion is a bunch of ********.

The most renowned atheist has committed the greatest atrocities, so what you're saying is that atheism is bad because a bad person is an atheist. Another logical fallacy.


You said a cosmos that did not operate under logical laws wouldn't be able to exist. So first you are making assumptions under your own personal hypothesis, you are not providing evidence of what you said, but you are sure thats the case? So you have faith such universe wouldn't be able to exist out of randomness?

A random universe without any laws or a universe that contradicted itself could not exist. Existence is non-contradictory and I know that from observing existence. Things are what they are and cannot be other things. Besides, the idea of a perfectly designed universe implies that a creator created the universe. What makes you think a creator created the universe?

As for the question on the issue of homosexuality, that has to do with historical context. The bible was written by humans. Homosexuality was seen as detrimental to the survival of a society, because tribes and nations had to keep a high birth rate (child mortality was high) in order for the society to survive, thus the reason why most ancient societies view homosexuality as a problem. The ancient nations that did not suffer this problem, given their high number populations (such as the roman republic) didn't need to hold this view. But this is a socio-political issue of ancient time, not religious in nature. Remember that for ancient societies, religion and politics tended to blend.

Well it says in the bible that it's wrong. So maybe we should just dispense with the bible if it's not actually God's words and it's just a product of the times. Seems pretty ridiculous to me that an all-powerful being can't even get his rules and expectations under control. How irresponsible. Or maybe, he just doesn't exist and people are writing ********. The latter makes more sense.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Looking at the state of human existence, how could God be entirely benevolent AND all powerful? Would you let your child fall off a cliff when you could have prevented this from happening, and then excuse your inaction with the explanation that you had to respect your child's "free will"? I think not.
 

Chrysalis

Well-known member

Dirius

Well-known member
No evidence is "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid". It's not after, evidence happens before. Evidence is before you've connected the dots.

Exactly, evidence supports whether a hypothesis is valid or not, thus it comes after the hypothesis has been done, and thus proves it. There is a hypothesis that life exists outside earth, but no direct evidence has been linked for it still. There is evidence that life can exist under certain conditions, but using it to prove the hypothesis at hand is not direct evidence related to the subject. What you have at this point is a logical conclusion that if there is evidence that supports the latter, then there must be evidence to support the former. The evidence that would prove the existance of life outside the conditions of earth, would thus come after (like fining evidence of life outside earth).

Yes, that is the process of thinking and learning. We are not omniscient. Logic is the process of identifying what is and what isn't.

You are asserting that it is logical to assume something to be true, because (in your persepective) it can lead you to a valid theory, despite having no evidence of that being a possibility aside from your conjecture, and while encountering wrong or invalid variables along the way, because it can eventually lead you to supporting evidence that may validate your theory.

You just described how belief in religion works, and how religious thinkers have evolved their thought along the centuries.

So Religion is correct and good to follow because you think we haven't disproved religious belief?

Religion is correct to follow, if the individual so chooses to. Whether it is good or not, is a matter of individual perspective. A lot of people that follow atheism have done much more harm than good for society, an example being socialism.

If two rational people are debating each other, they will be able to come to a conclusion because they can provide logical reasons to each other for the validity of their idea. The idea that is most logical and makes most sense will be the idea that both people will go along with.

If you have two mystics, who claim ideas without any logical reasons, they will have no way of showing each other how they are correct. Therefore, if they are to reach a decision about what to do, they'll resort to violence to force one to obey the other.

Faith goes hand and hand with force.

Nazism and communism were both prevailing similar atheist theories that went to war with each other, and tried to subjugate each other based on logical assumptions, and what they found to be reasonable.

Now days, you can see antifa, or late-term abortionist harming others. They are not very religious are they? but they are pretty violent, specially when it comes to their ideology.

And religion has nothing to do with it. More harm has been done to humanity by atheists within a century, than by all religious quarrels over human history. Blaming religion for the evils of the world, is a very hitchens/dawkins perspective used to sell books.

So you think that we should just have faith in whatever we want.

I have faith I'll fly to the moon without a jet pack. Look at me go :w00t:

You don't have the ability to fly naturally without the aid of machines. Thus your assertion is easily disproven. On the other hand, if someone tells you they have faith there is an afterlife, you can't disprove their assertion. That is the diference.

Oh I see, a smart person is religious therefore religion must be good. That's a logical fallacy you know. Just because an authority figure believes something to be true doesn't make it true.

Not to mention, these thinkers were a product of their times. They were religious because that was the norm. And if they ever expressed non-religious ideas, I don't think that would be good for them.

Besides, there are plenty of smart people who aren't religious too. I could name plenty, but I don't because that's not a valid argument. You decide the validity of religion by looking at the fact. And the fact is that religion is a bunch of ********.

The most renowned atheist has committed the greatest atrocities, so what you're saying is that atheism is bad because a bad person is an atheist. Another logical fallacy.

What I'm saying is that individuals who have made their mark on the history of earth, and contributed to humanity, have recognisible achievements, etc., are being called "stupid" by a young person with no type of achievements who is simply repeating the ideals of others. I just find it a bit unsettling, if not amusing.

Actually most of them went against religious dogma, or advocated for reforms (such as Thomas Jefferson). They still were facinated by religion. Einstein called "God" the biggest mistery in human life. He considered himself an agnostic, a term which you seem to disregard also.

What I'm saying is that, atheism can lead you through the same dark path that disregards human life, just like religion or any political ideology. And if we go by the numbers, it seems to have had a much harsher impact within a much smaller time frame than religion has.

I've never heard of a religious person being for late-term abortions (meaning, the murder of a fully formed viable baby).

A random universe without any laws or a universe that contradicted itself could not exist. Existence is non-contradictory and I know that from observing existence. Things are what they are and cannot be other things. Besides, the idea of a perfectly designed universe implies that a creator created the universe. What makes you think a creator created the universe?

Well it says in the bible that it's wrong. So maybe we should just dispense with the bible if it's not actually God's words and it's just a product of the times. Seems pretty ridiculous to me that an all-powerful being can't even get his rules and expectations under control. How irresponsible. Or maybe, he just doesn't exist and people are writing ********. The latter makes more sense.

You are asserting it can't exist, thus you are implying that any universe that comes into existance must then, be perfect and subject to the same laws as our existent universe. You are not providing any evidence for the matter. Also supporting evidence of quantum particles shows that not everything inside our universe behaves according to the laws of science.

So you pretty much have faith in what you say its true?

As for the bible, you can disregard it if you want. We can talk about religious dogma if you choose, but there is a diference in discussing the validity of the belief in the exisance of God, or Gods or something of the life, with the rules of individual religions.
 
Last edited:

AppLeo

Well-known member
Nazism and communism were both prevailing similar atheist theories that went to war with each other, and tried to subjugate each other based on logical assumptions, and what they found to be reasonable.

Atheism isn't nazism or communism. Not sure why you're bringing those into this conversation.

Now days, you can see antifa, or late-term abortionist harming others. They are not very religious are they? but they are pretty violent, specially when it comes to their ideology.

They're just as mystical and stupid as the religious nut bags on the right. Like the islamic extremist or the crusade wars.

And religion has nothing to do with it. More harm has been done to humanity by atheists within a century, than by all religious quarrels over human history. Blaming religion for the evils of the world, is a very hitchens/dawkins perspective used to sell books.

Religion and communism have done evil to the world because they're both irrational and evil. You like to blame communism for the evils of the world, and ultimately atheism for the evils of the world, so I don't see why you have a problem.

You don't have the ability to fly naturally without the aid of machines. Thus your assertion is easily disproven. On the other hand, if someone tells you they have faith there is an afterlife, you can't disprove their assertion. That is the difference.

You're never called upon to prove a negative. That's a logical fallacy. Appeal to ignorance. There is no reason to believe that there is an afterlife because there is no evidence of an afterlife.

What I'm saying is that individuals who have made their mark on the history of earth, and contributed to humanity, have recognisible achievements, etc., are being called "stupid" by a young person with no type of achievements who is simply repeating the ideals of others. I just find it a bit unsettling, if not amusing.

Hmm ad hominem maybe??? I have no achievements so that makes me wrong???

The achievements that these men have made were because the compartmentalized their religious views from science. If they took things on faith and didn't follow their reason, and were purely religious they wouldn't have achieved anything.

Allow me to clarify, I'm not saying a person is completely stupid for being religious. I'm saying that the moment you practice or voice religious beliefs you are being stupid.

Actually most of them went against religious dogma, or advocated for reforms (such as Thomas Jefferson). They still were facinated by religion. Einstein called "God" the biggest mistery in human life. He considered himself an agnostic, a term which you seem to disregard also.

I don't really care what Einstein thinks philosophically. Or what anyone thinks philosophically unless they're actually a philosopher. Einstein was also a socialist and left-leaning as well. Does that mean socialism is right? No. He's a math genius but not worth listening to for anything else.

What I'm saying is that, atheism can lead you through the same dark path that disregards human life, just like religion or any political ideology. And if we go by the numbers, it seems to have had a much harsher impact within a much smaller time frame than religion has.

Not true. Slippery slope if you ask me. Atheism is the denial of a God. Whether or not that puts someone on a dark path is indicated by many many other factors.

I've never heard of a religious person being for late-term abortions (meaning, the murder of a fully formed viable baby).

Not discussing the abortion debate.

You are asserting it can't exist, thus you are implying that any universe that comes into existance must then, be perfect and subject to the same laws as our existent universe. You are not providing any evidence for the matter. Also supporting evidence of quantum particles shows that not everything inside our universe behaves according to the laws of science.

How does something exist if it contradicts itself? How can up also be down? How can something be hot and cold at the same time. There is no such thing. That cannot exist. An existence that breaks its own laws is an existence that cannot be. Which means that there is no creator making existence a perfect design. Our sense of order and design comes from observing existence.



As for the bible, you can disregard it if you want. We can talk about religious dogma if you choose, but there is a diference in discussing the validity of the belief in the exisance of God, or Gods or something of the life, with the rules of individual religions.

The belief in the existence of God isn't valid, bible or no bible.
 
Last edited:

Dirius

Well-known member
Atheism isn't nazism or communism. Not sure why you're bringing those into this conversation.

They're just as mystical and stupid as the religious nut bags on the right. Like the islamic extremist or the crusade wars.

Religion and communism have done evil to the world because they're both irrational and evil. You like to blame communism for the evils of the world, and ultimately atheism for the evils of the world, so I don't see why you have a problem.

Your original implication was that religious disagreement can only lead to violence. I'm showing you examples of non-religious ideologies that were atheistic in nature and dogma, that lead to widespread violence against multiple individuals. This show that the origin of violence, is thus not religion.

Thus your assertion that religion is violent in nature, is disproven in part by the fact that non-religious can be violent, and thus religion isn't the source for it. The other is that not all religious individuals are violent. It also shows atheism, which is supposed to be based on reason, does not lead to peace.

You're never called upon to prove a negative. That's a logical fallacy. Appeal to ignorance. There is no reason to believe that there is an afterlife because there is no evidence of an afterlife.

And no one questions that. Your example was to try to show that your claim could not be disproven either (flying to the Moon without aid), but it could, thus it was different than what I was proposing. I was showing you it was just a bad example.

Hmm ad hominem maybe??? I have no achievements so that makes me wrong???

You made the assertion that reasonable people are not religious, by implying that only stupid people would believe in religion, which is a personal scrutiny on the character of other people.

If you introduce the character of other people as a subject of conversation so you can draw a personal conclusion of them, it leaves the door open to evaluate your own character in comparison.

The achievements that these men have made were because the compartmentalized their religious views from science. If they took things on faith and didn't follow their reason, and were purely religious they wouldn't have achieved anything.

Allow me to clarify, I'm not saying a person is completely stupid for being religious. I'm saying that the moment you practice or voice religious beliefs you are being stupid.

I don't really care what Einstein thinks philosophically. Or what anyone thinks philosophically unless they're actually a philosopher. Einstein was also a socialist and left-leaning as well. Does that mean socialism is right? No. He's a math genius but not worth listening to for anything else.
Not true. Slippery slope if you ask me. Atheism is the denial of a God. Whether or not that puts someone on a dark path is indicated by many many other factors.

Not discussing the abortion debate.

How does something exist if it contradicts itself? How can up also be down? How can something be hot and cold at the same time. There is no such thing. That cannot exist. An existence that breaks its own laws is an existence that cannot be. Which means that there is no creator making existence a perfect design. Our sense of order and design comes from observing existence.

The belief in the existence of God isn't valid, bible or no bible.


Not really. For example, the first anti-slavery writers used religious theorems, christian in nature, against it ("All men are created in God's image, and thus equal"). So it is hard to imply that these men did not use religion to develop their ideas.

If we use a scientific approach on this, darwinian evolution would showcase that men are not equal. That we also have no responsible moral dilemma over slavery or cruelty, because there is no moral consequence for it. Thus in pure atheistic view, there is no reason for why conquered nations could not be enslaved or exterminated. Logic would dictate that the best interest for an organism to survive, is to eliminate all manner of competition or possible threat, would it not?

The political ideas of liberalism and enlightment are tied to the fact that we hold the religious christian view that we all deserve the same treatment and respect, something that is based on religious dogma.
 

AppLeo

Well-known member
You're dumb Dirius. If you want to accept things as fact without evidence, fine whatever. That's your problem, not mine.
 

AppLeo

Well-known member
Belief in God despite there being nothing in reality that would indicate the existence of God makes it arbitrary and meaningless. It's not even worth discussing, honestly.

There are millions more arbitrary and meaningless ideas that you could take on faith. Like belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or floating invisible green gremlins in the corner, etc...

But no one takes those on faith. Not sure why anyone would take God on faith, if no one takes those on faith. Maybe because they value their feelings above the facts, which makes them dumb.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Liberalism and the enlightenment came from Ancient Greece and Aristotle.

The dark ages were ruled by religious dogma.

Aristotle who concieved the idea of the prime mover? Or the ancient greeks in general who practiced infant exposure, slavery, forced suicide, etc.?

:sideways:
 

AppLeo

Well-known member
Aristotle who concieved the idea of the prime mover? Or the ancient greeks in general who practiced infant exposure, slavery, forced suicide, etc.?

:sideways:

Given the time period, the Greeks were quite advanced. And Aristotle wasn't right about everything, but he certainly provided the grounding for reason and logic and ultimately the enlightenment.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Belief in God despite there being nothing in reality that would indicate the existence of God makes it arbitrary and meaningless. It's not even worth discussing, honestly.

There are millions more arbitrary and meaningless ideas that you could take on faith. Like belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Or floating invisible green gremlins in the corner, etc...

But no one takes those on faith. Not sure why anyone would take God on faith, if no one takes those on faith. Maybe because they value their feelings above the facts, which makes them dumb.

Because the idea that our universe happened out of a random occurance, and has no actual purpose leads to the feeling of an empty existance, and leaves no reason to do other things rather than maximizing pleasure in the little time we have, because there would be no consequence to any particular action in a moral landscape.

Human beings thus naturally seek an answer, and have been thinking about this subject for millenia. Without actual explanation that could rationally explain the purpose of our existance, human beings have no other choice than to seek the supernatural explanation (meaning, a phenomenom we thus can't explain).

Thus if we are being rational, a belief in God or some form of supernatural explanation is thus inevitable to surge, given we have been able to come up with no manner of other explanation based in logic or reason.

Thus the belief in God is natural for humans. And will probably ever be.

In essence, the atheistic point of view is unnatural, because it premiates that some humans believe themselves above all others. This explains why all atheists act and behave as if they had an aura of grandness, usually insulting others and believing themselves to be right about everything.
 
Last edited:
Top