Atheism As A REJECTION OF--Not Disbelief In--An Evil God (hell, quote, evolution)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Instead of posting that, why didn't you try what I suggested.
This is why -- instead of running away -- we often skip over your posts.
It doesn't matter if you think you explained it well.
It matters if the reader thinks you explained it well.
You have a habit of ignoring things that don't suit your needs. It matters only to a point. You are just taking sides and ignoring what is said.
My post 788 ....
" ... I'll try again, but you have the easy part. as soon as you don't like it, you divert from it. Cryptic. That statement shows you are not playing this game to just do the best we can. ok, you have no idea. Then when I try and tell you about it using an example you rip me for going off topic and not answering.
are you willing to go through the process and learn? I am going to use dark matter as an example because its easy and most people understand it.
Are you willing to honestly go through the steps to learn what I mean? I will be asking you "do you understand that." and will expect an honest answer without diversion. The example is going to be simple and straight forward but it directly applies. to this religion and god stuff. ...'
You have a habit of ignoring things that don't suit your needs. It matters only to a point. You are just taking sides and ignoring what is said.
My post 788 ....
" ... I'll try again, but you have the easy part. as soon as you don't like it, you divert from it. Cryptic. That statement shows you are not playing this game to just do the best we can. ok, you have no idea. Then when I try and tell you about it using an example you rip me for going off topic and not answering.
are you willing to go through the process and learn? I am going to use dark matter as an example because its easy and most people understand it.
Are you willing to honestly go through the steps to learn what I mean? I will be asking you "do you understand that." and will expect an honest answer without diversion. The example is going to be simple and straight forward but it directly applies. to this religion and god stuff. ...'
watch how the universe works. You will some astro physicists say "It all comes down to information."
intellegent life was inevitable the moment it went "bang". I can say without fear that it means deity.
look at time in detail. Life was almost present at the start of earth. then, from the first mammal to humans in under 65 million years. Thats not "a long time". From two cells to a human in 10 months. They are very similar processes.
some say it may wake up when it re-collapses.
Not really similar processes. The two cells already have the exact information required to build the adult human. The first mammal did not have the information to make a human; it required years of mutation and selection to get here. (Although I grant you that the majority of the important housekeeping genes have not changed much or at all). 200 million years - my reading says that long from first mammal to human - may not be long in the scope of the Universe, but it is after all enough time for 10 million (human) to 200 million (small mammal) generations. I don't think any of us can really conceptualize that size of a number: 200,000,000 opportunities to take one small step toward humankind.
In the interest of yielding to phets Superior posterior, punn intended ...
here is the something more again ... Please, ask a question and will I explain it.
"something" more is real simple. The system we are in is vastly more complex than we are. We are a subset of the information exchange. That is the something more.
or
we are made up if some 17 fields that are interacting in such a way that the universe has "created" (for lack of a better word) us. That is the something more.
or
We seem to be separate entries existing apart from each other. But the reality of the situation is that those fields I mention above are all the same exact fields. We are all connected and interacting as a unit, not separate pieces. That is the something more
or
when we are talking about spiritual stuff. what is a more reasonable starting point. We are part of a larger more complex system? or deny it all because some of us are so afraid of religion. thats the something more.
Not really similar processes. The two cells already have the exact information required to build the adult human. The first mammal did not have the information to make a human; it required years of mutation and selection to get here. (Although I grant you that the majority of the important housekeeping genes have not changed much or at all). 200 million years - my reading says that long from first mammal to human - may not be long in the scope of the Universe, but it is after all enough time for 10 million (human) to 200 million (small mammal) generations. I don't think any of us can really conceptualize that size of a number: 200,000,000 opportunities to take one small step toward humankind.
Thats a good point, the difference is the preexisting code. The early code had "evolution" built in to be able to adjust. Self evolving code. Well, I say "early code", its the same today.
I don't know if you answer my question about whether you recognize the flaw in your logic, but you do begin to make better sense to me when you point toward laying aside egos. Takes some intellect, however, to recognize or simply acknowledge some things are beyond our scope of understanding. Not necessarily beyond the scope of nature unless or until we can determine something beyond the scope of nature is actually involved. Right? Until then, with ego aside, we can simply recognize the limits of our understanding.
Just like once upon a time we thought Earthquakes were beyond the scope of nature (or the natural world). Now we know they are not.
Is there a reason we can't or shouldn't be able to agree on this humbly speaking?!?
You see, the bold above is an intellectual argument and as soon as intellectualism enters the fray so do egos: "My argument about nature's abilities to form complex life is better than your argument it cannot. So there!" The truth is, as you say, such arguments about nature's capabilities are simply mental exercises designed to flex gray matter muscle but of no use for anything else. So my assertion that nature could not have achieved the level of complexity we see in this world i.e. flowers, wild life, entomology, etc and how it harmonizes pretty much 99% perfectly is just an opinion, not factual in any way. But I think I have a good argument for why I believe as I do.
You see, the bold above is an intellectual argument and as soon as intellectualism enters the fray so do egos: "My argument about nature's abilities to form complex life is better than your argument it cannot. So there!" The truth is, as you say, such arguments about nature's capabilities are simply mental exercises designed to flex gray matter muscle but of no use for anything else. So my assertion that nature could not have achieved the level of complexity we see in this world i.e. flowers, wild life, entomology, etc and how it harmonizes pretty much 99% perfectly is just an opinion, not factual in any way. But I think I have a good argument for why I believe as I do.
thats why you see me say "lets put what we are saying side by side and see what seems to make more sense"
look at earth quakes.
we don't know whats causing them. so it is a deity? the best we have? is "I am not sure, but maybe the rock is moving." better or is saying "nobody knows so I am not even talking about the rock moving and the deity is wrong." the most rational position?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle watch how the universe works. You will some astro physicists say "It all comes down to information."
intellegent life was inevitable the moment it went "bang". I can say without fear that it means deity.
look at time in detail. Life was almost present at the start of earth. then, from the first mammal to humans in under 65 million years. Thats not "a long time". From two cells to a human in 10 months. They are very similar processes.
some say it may wake up when it re-collapses.
Speaking of intelligent life: this tiny Japanese Pufferfish blows me away. With a brain the size of a pinhead, look at what this amazing little creature can construct. It would put most crop circle makers to shame. I see stuff like this and I think, "A Higher Intelligence has to be behind this".
Speaking of intelligent life: this tiny Japanese Pufferfish blows me away. With a brain the size of a pinhead, look at what this amazing little creature can construct. It would put most crop circle makers to shame. I see stuff like this and I think, "A Higher Intelligence has to be behind this".
I don't think "higher intelligence", I think "more complex life form." more precisely, the "something more" is just all the data being processed around us. And we are just part of it.
I stick with that because we can point to it say "look, thats it". all noise around this site gets in the way. deity here, anti-religion there, none of them care.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The truth is, as you say, such arguments about nature's capabilities are simply mental exercises designed to flex gray matter muscle but of no use for anything else. So my assertion that nature could not have achieved the level of complexity we see in this world i.e. flowers, wild life, entomology, etc and how it harmonizes pretty much 99% perfectly is just an opinion, not factual in any way. But I think I have a good argument for why I believe as I do. 
