Dark energy wrote:

Nothing in your example is representative of atheism. As I predicted you cannot present a valid scenario, because you are either ignorant with regards to what atheism is, or refusing to acknowledge that it is nothing more than a lack of belief in deities.

i think atheism is more then that,why the obsession with god who doesnt exist for atheists? if i am convinced that a Duck that excretes Gold does not exist,will i just ignore people who believe in it or get obsessed about it?

for me,Atheism has cult undertones.

The only reason 'atheism' as a group/type/category exists is due to how the lunacy imposed on us and the rest of society and the world by belief in deities is, or was for some places, the norm, and because that norm is generally harmful to all.

2, My mom begging for a, probable, long time, eternity in my case, doesn't sound like a paradise for her. This is an obvious contradiction to the scenario you present, so your ideas can't make sense.

re-read my post ,i didnt say she will beg for eternity,i said long time,it can be months,years etc.

3, Being able to enjoy anything for billions of years, trillions, ... This is really absurd. The best way to ensure no one suffers boredom is to take away their memory. To ensure an eternity of no boredom is too make them too stupid to get bored, like maybe turn them into plants, or take away memory. Either way, the mind needs get fucked up beyond all recognition. There oughta be a term for that. And resorting to doing away with time leads to nonsense, the same nonsense, minds incapable of experiencing anything without time to do the experiencing in suddenly transformed into minds without time? What can that possibly mean? An unchanging mind wouldn't get bored, like a rock doesn't get bored. Hooray for paradise. Plus, how long should I expect my mom to try to intercede on my behalf? Should I warn her to bring a watch? And the evil-doers, how long do they suffer? Eternity? How long is that in timelessness? How much suffering will they endure? How do you suffer without the time to experience the pain?

these things are indeed beyond our comprehension,we dont have enough insight to it and for you dont exist,i wont try to spend time on it if i were you,after all,they dont effect you right,you are immune to them.

crank wrote:

Dark energy wrote:

Nothing in your example is representative of atheism. As I predicted you cannot present a valid scenario, because you are either ignorant with regards to what atheism is, or refusing to acknowledge that it is nothing more than a lack of belief in deities.

i think atheism is more then that,why the obsession with god who doesnt exist for atheists? if i am convinced that a Duck that excretes Gold does not exist,will i just ignore people who believe in it or get obsessed about it?

for me,Atheism has cult undertones.

The only reason 'atheism' as a group/type/category exists is due to how the lunacy imposed on us and the rest of society and the world by belief in deities is, or was for some places, the norm, and because that norm is generally harmful to all.

self identified atheists make up almost 7 to 12 percent of world population,so my question is why does 88 percent of world populaton fail to see the lunacy yo claim?

Atheists are still on the fringes of society.

Dark energy wrote:
sometimes it is on the Atheists to bring evidence for their lack of BELIEF in a creator

Not sometimes. Not ever. As the onus of responsibility lies with the one making the truth claim not the one who is sceptical of it. However the reason why atheists have no belief in God is because no evidence for such an entity [ in all of his various incarnations as there is more than one ] actually exists. And evidence by definition must be something physical that can be examined to determine its validity in relation to the truth claim that it is supporting. So personal belief or arguments from emotion or from popularity which are the three main justifications for the existence of God are not acceptable since none
of them require evidence per se. And most atheists are agnostic so do not think the existence of God can be categorically disproven. Even though they do not think he exists. Only gnostic atheists are entirely certain of his non existence so only
that position has to be supported because unlike agnostic it is an actual truth claim rather than just a sceptical position

I get so tired with the same nonsense arguments being put forward by theists. I'm glad someone has the patience to refute them for the ten billionth time, when I don't.

Dark energy wrote:

2, My mom begging for a, probable, long time, eternity in my case, doesn't sound like a paradise for her. This is an obvious contradiction to the scenario you present, so your ideas can't make sense.

re-read my post ,i didnt say she will beg for eternity,i said long time,it can be months,years etc.

3, Being able to enjoy anything for billions of years, trillions, ... This is really absurd. The best way to ensure no one suffers boredom is to take away their memory. To ensure an eternity of no boredom is too make them too stupid to get bored, like maybe turn them into plants, or take away memory. Either way, the mind needs get fucked up beyond all recognition. There oughta be a term for that. And resorting to doing away with time leads to nonsense, the same nonsense, minds incapable of experiencing anything without time to do the experiencing in suddenly transformed into minds without time? What can that possibly mean? An unchanging mind wouldn't get bored, like a rock doesn't get bored. Hooray for paradise. Plus, how long should I expect my mom to try to intercede on my behalf? Should I warn her to bring a watch? And the evil-doers, how long do they suffer? Eternity? How long is that in timelessness? How much suffering will they endure? How do you suffer without the time to experience the pain?

these things are indeed beyond our comprehension,we dont have enough insight to it and for you dont exist,i wont try to spend time on it if i were you,after all,they dont effect you right,you are immune to them.

I don't need to reread it, you do, cuz I ain't got one atom of belief in me, none, I got rid of the last one in the 70's.

You fail to see that you're using a duration of time about my mom, then try the time doesn't exist BS? I got enough insight to know that without experiencing time, then nothing can change. Our existence will be beyond our comprehension, as is god I presume? Why then do we presume to think it's something that is good, something desirable? Like I said, and something I comprehend very well, any entity that creates a shitload of critters just to tell him how glorious he is isn't an entity I'd care to spend any time with, or spend any non comprehensible anything with. Why didn't he just satisfy himself with a non comprehensible dildo? They're a lot more reliable and don't go around making idols and worshipping the wrong butt.

Dark energy wrote:

crank wrote:

Dark energy wrote:

Nothing in your example is representative of atheism. As I predicted you cannot present a valid scenario, because you are either ignorant with regards to what atheism is, or refusing to acknowledge that it is nothing more than a lack of belief in deities.

i think atheism is more then that,why the obsession with god who doesnt exist for atheists? if i am convinced that a Duck that excretes Gold does not exist,will i just ignore people who believe in it or get obsessed about it?

for me,Atheism has cult undertones.

The only reason 'atheism' as a group/type/category exists is due to how the lunacy imposed on us and the rest of society and the world by belief in deities is, or was for some places, the norm, and because that norm is generally harmful to all.

self identified atheists make up almost 7 to 12 percent of world population,so my question is why does 88 percent of world populaton fail to see the lunacy yo claim?

Atheists are still on the fringes of society.

I'll put it in terms you can comprehend, you're creator sucks, he isn't an intelligent designer.

Dark energy wrote:

Nothing in your example is representative of atheism. As I predicted you cannot present a valid scenario, because you are either ignorant with regards to what atheism is, or refusing to acknowledge that it is nothing more than a lack of belief in deities.

i think atheism is more then that,

You could also think the earth is flat and the centre of the universe.
All three of those notion would be wrong.

Dark energy wrote:
why the obsession with god who doesnt exist for atheists?

First of all, most of them aren't.
It is only when theist insist their deistic beliefs should give them power and privilege, that most atheists object.
On the other hand some atheist would prefer it if people do not believe in unsubstantiated nonsense and base their life on that belief.
Most importantly, that you don't understand something does not mean you can just make stuff up and then pretend your made up, ignorance based interpetation is rational or correct.

Dark energy wrote: if i am convinced that a Duck that excretes Gold does not exist,will i just ignore people who believe in it or get obsessed about it?

If people go around telling you cannot marry the person you love, your wife cannot be seen in public areas, your children's body should be mutilated etc, because the gold excreting Duck demands it, I guarantee you that you would not just ignore them.
Especially when the Duckist have (political) power.

Dark energy wrote: for me,Atheism has cult undertones.

Your humpty-dumpty notions are completely irrelevant.
I've noticed you've ignored whole posts and parts of posts you have adressed. Why don't you adress those?

Dark energy wrote:

crank wrote:

Dark energy wrote:

Nothing in your example is representative of atheism. As I predicted you cannot present a valid scenario, because you are either ignorant with regards to what atheism is, or refusing to acknowledge that it is nothing more than a lack of belief in deities.

i think atheism is more then that,why the obsession with god who doesnt exist for atheists? if i am convinced that a Duck that excretes Gold does not exist,will i just ignore people who believe in it or get obsessed about it?

for me,Atheism has cult undertones.

The only reason 'atheism' as a group/type/category exists is due to how the lunacy imposed on us and the rest of society and the world by belief in deities is, or was for some places, the norm, and because that norm is generally harmful to all.

self identified atheists make up almost 7 to 12 percent of world population,so my question is why does 88 percent of world populaton fail to see the lunacy yo claim?

Facts and reality are not determined by popular vote dark energy.
And most of theist don't recognise the luncay because they've been indoctrinated since childhood and acknowledging they were wrong and by extension their parents, is to fundamental of a change to accept.

Dark energy wrote:
Atheists are still on the fringes of society.

So what? That doesn't change the fact that theists cannot provide evidence for the existence of their god(s).
It doesn't change the fact that atheism is the rational position to take.

Thomas

You could also think the earth is flat and the centre of the universe.
All three of those notion would be wrong

chill out,it is my personal opinion.

If people go around telling you cannot marry the person you love, your wife cannot be seen in public areas, your children's body should be mutilated etc, because the gold excreting Duck demands it, I guarantee you that you would not just ignore them.
Especially when the Duckist have (political) power.

where does the diety say those points Child mutilation and not being able to marry the person you love?

First of all, most of them aren't.
It is only when theist insist their deistic beliefs should give them power and privilege, that most atheists object.
On the other hand some atheist would prefer it if people do not believe in unsubstantiated nonsense and base their life on that belief.
Most importantly, that you don't understand something does not mean you can just make stuff up and then pretend your made up, ignorance based interpetation is rational or correct.

they would prefar because they cant force their views on the mainstream society,if atheists were to hold significant political power,they would push for the atheist agenda.

Your humpty-dumpty notions are completely irrelevant.
I've noticed you've ignored whole posts and parts of posts you have adressed. Why don't you adress those?
"Resp

i havent seen it.was wondering,what would prevent an atheist from murdering somone if they were in an isolated island and no court around? with out god watching over and a court there ,what is preventing atheists to rape?

Facts and reality are not determined by popular vote dark energy.
And most of theist don't recognise the luncay because they've been indoctrinated since childhood and acknowledging they were wrong and by extension their parents, is to fundamental of a change to accept.

or may be they cant acknowledge they are wrong because they need have evidence to be convinced.

So what? That doesn't change the fact that theists cannot provide evidence for the existence of their god(s).
It doesn't change the fact that atheism is the rational position to take

well,there many things that science can not prove for example,why the physical laws do exist.Atheism fails to appeal to me though.it is bull crap.

Dark energy wrote:Thomas

You could also think the earth is flat and the centre of the universe.
All three of those notion would be wrong

chill out,

At no point in my posts have I expressed any emotion, so you can stuff this passive-agressive comment right where it came from.

Dark energy wrote:
it is my personal opinion.

And? Something being an opinion, does not make it immune to criticism.
Your opinion is simply wrong.

Dark energy wrote:

If people go around telling you cannot marry the person you love, your wife cannot be seen in public areas, your children's body should be mutilated etc, because the gold excreting Duck demands it, I guarantee you that you would not just ignore them.
Especially when the Duckist have (political) power.

where does the diety say those points Child mutilation

The Abrahamic god commands genital mutilation of boys.

Dark energy wrote: and not being able to marry the person you love?

According to the bible it is wrong to marry anyone other than a person of the opposite sex.

Dark energy wrote:

First of all, most of them aren't.
It is only when theist insist their deistic beliefs should give them power and privilege, that most atheists object.
On the other hand some atheist would prefer it if people do not believe in unsubstantiated nonsense and base their life on that belief.
Most importantly, that you don't understand something does not mean you can just make stuff up and then pretend your made up, ignorance based interpetation is rational or correct.

they would prefar because they cant force their views on the mainstream society,if atheists were to hold significant political power,they would push for the atheist agenda.

Stop making stuff up, it only hurts your credibility.
Atheism is the absence of belief in a deity. Nothing more. The absence of a belief itself cannot provide an agenda, religion, plan, etc.
Also, many people who are atheists also happen to believe in the freedom thought and religion.

Dark energy wrote:

Your humpty-dumpty notions are completely irrelevant.
I've noticed you've ignored whole posts and parts of posts you have adressed. Why don't you adress those?

i havent seen it.

They were between other posts you were responding to, so you're either not reading the thread with any rigour, or lying.

Dark energy wrote:was wondering,what would prevent an atheist from murdering somone if they were in an isolated island and no court around?

What would prevent a bald man from murdering someone if they were on an isolated island with no court around?
What would prevent a colour blind person from murdering someone if they were on an isolated island with no court around?
Again; atheism is the absence of deistici beliefs.
It is not, having no beliefs about morality.
The only thing atheism can tell you about a persons moral beliefs, is that they don't attribute them to, or follow the commandments of, a god.

Dark energy wrote:
with out god watching over and a court there ,what is preventing atheists to rape?

Empathy, the golden rule, a lack of predeliction for rape.
Meanwhile religion hasn't prevented people from comitting rape, murder, or other horrible crimes.
Heck, in the OT god commands the Jews, several times to rape captured women.

Dark energy wrote:

Facts and reality are not determined by popular vote dark energy.
And most of theist don't recognise the luncay because they've been indoctrinated since childhood and acknowledging they were wrong and by extension their parents, is to fundamental of a change to accept.

or may be they cant acknowledge they are wrong because they need have evidence to be convinced.

Wrong. Stop shifting the burden of proof.
The person making a claim has to provide evidence, not the person doubting the claim.
If you claim a god exists, you have to demonstrate that it does.
It is not up to others who do not accept your assertion to prove that it does not.

What you're arguing is the equivalent of this:
Person A: "I have a living dinosaur in my garage."
Person B: "I don't believe you."
Person A: "Prove that I do not have a living dinosaur in my garage."
If you cannot see how irrational that is, you really need to study the basics of reason and reasoning.

Dark energy wrote:

So what? That doesn't change the fact that theists cannot provide evidence for the existence of their god(s).
It doesn't change the fact that atheism is the rational position to take

well,there many things that science can not prove at the moment for example,

FIFY.
So what?
If you can't demonstrate it, it's not accepted as either a fact or scientific theory.

Dark energy wrote:
why the physical laws do exist.

You are begging the question.
Why does there need to be a reason for physical lawss to exist?

Dark energy wrote:Atheism fails to appeal to me though.

This is an appeal to emotion.
Just like popularity does not determine what's true or rational, neither does the point of wheter it appeals to you or not.

Dark energy wrote:
it is bull crap.

You have not demonstrated this.

Dark energy wrote:


Well,sometimes it is on the Atheists to bring evidence for their lack of BELIEF in a creator

Utter shit.
You make the positive claim, you bring the evidence. Explain to me how I provide evidence for a lack of a creator or anything that doesn't and never did exist. Where do I buy the litmus paper and what do I test it on?

You pick your creation story and I'll dismantle it for you for the bollocks it is, with ease.

I won't speak for others, that's rude and presumptive but I stopped believing as soon as I was able to read the Bible for myself and critically appraise the bollocks I was reading for what it was approx 10-13yrs old. Nothing I've read, seen, heard, experienced since has approached convincing me otherwise. Nothing.

I'm open to being wrong but I need convincing with something beyond bullshit, empty claims, unsubstantiated promises of paradise or threats of hellfire.

When you have something sensible to offer, bring it on. Until then, tough shit. People round here don't buy your shit

I'll address some of the earlier posts, and work my way through the rest as and when my debugging schedule affords the time ...

blackhash wrote:

Fallible wrote:

blackhash wrote:

Fallible wrote:Why do you want to initiate a discussion involving concepts like paradise/hell or say God? We're atheists.

Well, there are theists poaching the unsuspecting atheist, trying to convert him. It is therefore necessary to give valid arguments to the world. At least, I am not into ism's. Let reason prevail.

Atheists are atheists either because (a) they were brought up as theists and then lost their belief, or (b) they were brought up without god-belief being inculcated into them in the first place. Those who are atheists because of (a) don't need rudimentary and easily refuted concepts like heaven, hell and God refuted again in order to stop them being converted, because they have already proven unconvincing to them despite others' best efforts over a number of years, and those who are atheists because of (b) are usually aware of theistic claims already and already don't believe them.

I am not saying that an atheist should believe in the primitive ideas of a theist. Neither am I saying that the atheist should believe in circular reasoning or rigmarole of the theist. I am just acknowledging that even a theist may come up with sound logical arguments now and then.

Care to name one? Only thus far, all that supernaturalists have to offer, when their offerings are subject to intensive critique, is "the assertions of my favourite mythology are true, end of story".

blackhash wrote:The atheist should be enthusiastic but not careless.

Welcome to the world of rigour. Which you will find a good number here are already devoted to.

blackhash wrote:Muslims are the most hidebound theists

Actually, they're in competition with American fundamentalist Christians for that title. The jury is still out on who crossed the line first.

blackhash wrote:and claim to prove using syllogism and propositional logic the existence of God.

So does William Lane Craig, and he's a self-declared Christian. So the mere fact that two different brands of supernaturalist, each claiming supremacy for their own favourite mythology, claim to have "logical proof" for the assertions of their favourite mythology, on its own arouses suspicion, not least because the assertions of the two mythologies in question are mutually incompatible.

blackhash wrote:I have therefore found Naturalism a good counter argument. Materialistic Naturalism is quite convincing and is useful to counter the theist.

I don't have to use any "isms" to do this, I just have to use data.

blackhash wrote:Emotions are necessary along with feelings. The response to the stimulus of emotions is where the problem lies. With advanced technology in their hands these emotional extremists cause wide scale destruction of life.

The third of your sentences above would appear to refute the first.

blackhash wrote:At the very least decisions involving human life should be backed unanimously.

Well that's the problem with consensus. If that consensus isn't informed by data, then that consensus could easily be wrong. Which, oddly enough, is demonstrated on a large scale amongst those supernaturalists that have arrived at some form of consensus. Though a far more serious problem for supernaturalists, is the complete absence of consensus on a global scale, even amongst those claiming to be adherents of the same mythology.

blackhash wrote:What I fear is unethical atheists.

Thus far, unethical supernaturalists have had far more opportunity to wreak havoc. See: all of human history over the past 5,000 years.

blackhash wrote:The atheist that I have interrogated are mostly nihilist.

You manifestly haven't encountered a proper cross section of the relevant demographic. Let me introduce you to my own views as an example.

Nihilism is usually defined as the position, that life has no objective meaning, purpose or intrinsic value. Unfortunately, that simple definition lacks rigour, because it fails to distinguish between those who merely assert thus, and those who regard data as being informative with respect thereto. It also fails to distinguish between those who regard life as having no intrinsic value from the standpoint of the rest of the universe, but who accept that individual human beings, by placing a value on their own lives, extend that valuation to others, and those who dispense with such valuation altogether, including to themselves, though I suspect that individuals in the latter category are extremely rare.

Extending this to the world of ethics, an ethical nihilist is usually defined as someone who does not accept the existence of an inherent ethics. But again, this definition lacks rigour, for failing to distinguish between two distinct classes in this regard. First, there are those who consider there not to exist an inherent ethics built into the fabric of the universe, but accept that human beings, as entities possessing the ability to create ethical concepts, do possess at the very least an inherent intent to build an ethical framework. Then there are those, again I suspect extremely rare individuals, who do not even accept the existence of a human intent.

I do not consider the universe to possess its own integrated, intrinsic ethical framework, because this simply does not make sense in the light of the data on the subject. Ethical frameworks only make sense when entities capable of conceiving and applying those ethical frameworks exist. In the earliest era of the existence of the universe, even neutral atoms didn't exist, let alone any structures arising from composite assemblages thereof. The only entities that existed at that time, were free-moving subatomic particles and fundamental forces, including gravity. It's rather weird, to put it mildly, to imagine the existence of an ethical framework, moreover one specifically targeted at entities that would not exist for another 13 billion years, and which were not even guaranteed to appear in the future during that early epoch.

On the other hand, once those ethically capable entities (ie. us humans) appeared on the scene, then the existence of ethical frameworks made sense, precisely because those ethical frameworks are our products. It is we who brought them into existence, though much useful data on the origins thereof can be found in the primatology literature, suggesting strongly that awareness of at least some elementary abstract ethical concepts is not uniquely a human gift. Furthermore, I am aware of data in considerable volume, pointing to demonstrably negative consequences arising from not exerting diligent effort to build properly considered ethical frameworks and apply them. As a consequence, I am all in favour of exerting that diligent effort, which immediately distances me from the textbook standard definition of 'nihilist', but in doing so I recognise that the unfortunate fate of humans is to have discovered that they are the ones required to exert that diligent effort, and cannot thus delegate that effort elsewhere, either to a real or imagined alternative entity.

In short, we cannot rely on the rest of the universe to do our hard work for us - we have to get off our arses and do it ourselves. This isn't nihilism, it's merely a recognition of the observable data in this regard.

blackhash wrote:Reason, alone is never enough of a Light.

Reason needs data to work with, if it is to be concretely applicable. No amount of abstraction can substitute for data, if one wishes to apply reason concretely.

Dark energy wrote:.

So she is is paradise, but she doesn't get to choose which (if any) of the husbands to have.
Assuming they are also in heaven it means they don't get to choose her either.

Some heaven, where you don't get what you want

it is one of the possible viewpoints i have described that God may allow her to choose which husband she wants,in heaven,there is no envy, jealousy and you wont hear insults and the greetings are peace ,peace.

It is of course patently absurd, the notion that we can get what we want there, when that is bound to conflict with the wishes of others. It is also very obvious that it was written by misogynists for misogynists, men can have 72 virgins to bang but where did they come from, and what do they want? Obviously in the time the books were written people didn't think that way, women were mainly a warm body to shag, who cared what they thought? They were only women, to be seen and not heard.

What you get there depends on the deeds you have done in the life before so you will see people higher in the rank then you,there wont be the kind of envy we know on earth and not everyone gets 72 hurul-cayn.

Women get, if they are lucky, the man they have already had - when he can tear himself away from the business of repeatedly popping cherries, which is apparently what all the best men want, so why would they bother with their old wife who isn't a virgin and probably wants to waste their sexy-time with talking and emotions and stuff?

wrong,there is no old age in heaven.

I cannot understand how anyone can distort their thinking so badly as to not be able to see how this is just silly mythology written according to how relatively ignorant men thought in tribal societies of old.

I respect your views what ever,but it is not as easy as it seems ,theists will have all the fun.

You are ignoring the difficulty that two people have to choose to be together, and they may choose differently, so no matter how deserving you are you don't always get what you want, an ideal paradise is therefore not possible.

You are ignoring the difficulty of the 72 virgins. They are also in heaven, and supposedly getting what they deserve, I can't imagine that there is vast oversupply of girls wanting to be 1/72nd of a harem whose purpose is to be a reward for someone else.

You are ignoring the difficulty of the wife (and by old I mean former) supposedly wanting to be with the husband (Definitely a man's view that this can be the only thing a woman wants) , wheras what he deserves if he has been good enough is a pile of virgins (again, obviously a man's view, by todays standard more of an immature boy's view) they can't have it both ways.

Why would theists have all the fun? If any gods exist they decided to set things up in such a way that the evidence is consistent with all religion being made up. Believers cannot be shown to have any better attributes as a group than gullibility and they overwhelmingly fall for the religion they are most exposed to, little or no investigation of other religions is done to try and establish truth. What makes a theist objectively more worthy than an independent thinker who cares about the truth?

As well as the virgins, don't forget the 'rivers of wine'...
MDI

A similitude of the Garden which those who keep their duty (to Allah) are promised: Therein are rivers of water unpolluted ... and rivers of wine delicious to the drinkers. Surah 47:15

In the Big Rock Candy Mountains
You never change your socks
And the little streams of alcohol
Come trickling down the rocks
The brakemen have to tip their hats
And the railway bulls are blind
There's a lake of stew
And of whiskey too
You can paddle all around em
In a big canoe
In the Big Rock Candy Mountains

Data is sometimes useful in applying reason but not always. Verification of data, framework in which it is obtained makes analysis difficult. People use intuition where no data is available(unscientific and therefore unacceptable). The social context is the source of data. Social context itself is affected by prejudices and technology. So, we are gathering data on shifting sands.
It is therefore necessary to introduce dialectical materialism to get data on individual needs(physical) and make conclusions.
The problem is : Humans are emotional. Prejudice or hate is a very vital emotion for survival. They call it "fire" in the South. One does not go beyond ones prejudices. These prejudices may be of well informed individuals.
It is necessary to decide the course of action. Which data are we referring to to bring change.
The explanation given above is necessary to distinguish between an atheist and a theist. The theists are responsible for carnage and mass murder quoting the scriptures all along which is pure BS. The theists want comfort on every level in their life. The theists have managed to convince us that all are not equal. They forget that this may mean that some people are superior to them. Yes, theists have a very wide comfort zone. Unfortunately all that is going to change in the current millennium. Mark Twain had said that the Bible contains more than 1000 lies.
We atheist have given the theists concessions. The theists sometimes show human nature making it difficult to call their bluff. The purpose of theism is Equality and Justice. The failure to realize this has been a boon for the atheists.
Thank you, theists

blackhash wrote:Data is sometimes useful in applying reason but not always. Verification of data, framework in which it is obtained makes analysis difficult. People use intuition where no data is available(unscientific and therefore unacceptable). The social context is the source of data. Social context itself is affected by prejudices and technology. So, we are gathering data on shifting sands.
It is therefore necessary to introduce dialectical materialism to get data on individual needs(physical) and make conclusions.
The problem is : Humans are emotional. Prejudice or hate is a very vital emotion for survival. They call it "fire" in the South. One does not go beyond ones prejudices. These prejudices may be of well informed individuals.
It is necessary to decide the course of action. Which data are we referring to to bring change.
The explanation given above is necessary to distinguish between an atheist and a theist. The theists are responsible for carnage and mass murder quoting the scriptures all along which is pure BS. The theists want comfort on every level in their life. The theists have managed to convince us that all are not equal. They forget that this may mean that some people are superior to them. Yes, theists have a very wide comfort zone. Unfortunately all that is going to change in the current millennium. Mark Twain had said that the Bible contains more than 1000 lies.
We atheist have given the theists concessions. The theists sometimes show human nature making it difficult to call their bluff. The purpose of theism is Equality and Justice. The failure to realize this has been a boon for the atheists.
Thank you, theists

You do realise that your rectum is not a source for data?

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

blackhash wrote:Data is sometimes useful in applying reason but not always. Verification of data, framework in which it is obtained makes analysis difficult. People use intuition where no data is available(unscientific and therefore unacceptable). The social context is the source of data. Social context itself is affected by prejudices and technology. So, we are gathering data on shifting sands.
It is therefore necessary to introduce dialectical materialism to get data on individual needs(physical) and make conclusions.
The problem is : Humans are emotional. Prejudice or hate is a very vital emotion for survival. They call it "fire" in the South. One does not go beyond ones prejudices. These prejudices may be of well informed individuals.
It is necessary to decide the course of action. Which data are we referring to to bring change.
The explanation given above is necessary to distinguish between an atheist and a theist. The theists are responsible for carnage and mass murder quoting the scriptures all along which is pure BS. The theists want comfort on every level in their life. The theists have managed to convince us that all are not equal. They forget that this may mean that some people are superior to them. Yes, theists have a very wide comfort zone. Unfortunately all that is going to change in the current millennium. Mark Twain had said that the Bible contains more than 1000 lies.
We atheist have given the theists concessions. The theists sometimes show human nature making it difficult to call their bluff. The purpose of theism is Equality and Justice. The failure to realize this has been a boon for the atheists.
Thank you, theists

You do realise that your rectum is not a source for data?

E-rectum definitely.

blackhash wrote:Data is sometimes useful in applying reason but not always.

The only arena in which concrete data has ever been demonstrated to be dispensable, is pure mathematics. But that's because pure mathematics is the most completely abstract discipline in existence. The moment that one tries applying abstract ideas to concrete situations, data becomes useful by definition, if only to determine if those abstract ideas being applied are the wrong abstract ideas. For example, it is possible to determine the motion of an object, from an abstract perspective, when that object is affected by a centrally directed force. if r (note the boldface, used to denote a vector) is a unit vector directed away from the central point in question, and the magnitude of the force is given by some function f(r) (here r is in normal type, denoting the scalar magnitude of the distance of the object from the central point), then the central force is described by:

F = -f(r) r

The problem that arises, when applying this to real, observable central forces, is that there exists, quite literally, an infinite choice of functions f(r). The question is which of those choices of f(r) results in behaviour that replicates the real world data. Blindly asserting that some particular choice of function g(r) is applicable, fails dismally if that choice results in behaviour that is wildly divergent from observed data. If on the other hand, a choice h(r) results in behaviour of the modelled object replicating the behaviour of an observed object, then we have confidence in that choice h(r).

Indeed, one of my mathematics textbooks demonstrates this principle in action, by asking what happens to a particle that is moving under a central force whose scalar function is of the form k/r5. The path taken by an object under such influence, is a circular path passing through the central point. As a consequence, k/r5 is useless as a function modelling gravity, because a huge number of real, observed objects moving under gravity do not behave in this manner.See: every planetary system thus far examined by astronomers.

On the other hand, a choice of scalar function of the form k/r2, results in the object moving in an ellipse, with the central point being located at one of the foci of the ellipse. Lo and behold, this is an excellent fit for real, observed systems, which is why Newton chose this as the basis for his Law of Universal Gravitation, and did not choose a function of the form k/r5.

In short, the moment the data conflicts with your choice of function, your choice of function loses.

blackhash wrote:Verification of data, framework in which it is obtained makes analysis difficult.

This does not appear to have been a problem for the world's physicists. I wonder why?

It doesn't appear to be a problem for the world's chemists, biologists, astronomers and geologists either.

Indeed, those self same scientists in the past, alighted upon methods of enhancing the rigour of data acquisition and analysis, and in doing so, alighted upon ideas applicable to the entire empirical enterprise, that enthusiasts for mythology were incapable of even fantasising about.

blackhash wrote:People use intuition where no data is available(unscientific and therefore unacceptable).

Actually, what people do, if you bother to check their actual behaviour, is derive inferences from insufficient data. They're still using data to base their ideas upon, even if they're not explicitly aware of this.

blackhash wrote:The social context is the source of data.

First of all, "social context" does not apply to physics. That's your first elementary error here.

Second, in areas where social context does apply, you'll find that numerous diligent efforts have been expended to account for this, and eliminate any effects this may have upon the phenomena of interest being studied.

blackhash wrote:Social context itself is affected by prejudices and technology.

Which is why, lo and behold, diligent effort has been expended to eliminate any prejudices present. As for technology, this simply makes it possible to acquire data that was beyond our reach before the advent thereof. Funny how that technology draws upon empirically verified foundations for its very existence ...

blackhash wrote:So, we are gathering data on shifting sands.

Wrong. We're simply gathering more data than we did in the past, and from a greater range of sources.

blackhash wrote:It is therefore necessary to introduce dialectical materialism to get data on individual needs(physical) and make conclusions.

Poppycock. Funny how physicists haven't needed any "isms" to do their work.

blackhash wrote:The problem is : Humans are emotional.

The solution is: put those emotions to one side when perusing data. Next?

blackhash wrote:Prejudice or hate is a very vital emotion for survival.

No it isn't. We have a large body of data in existence, to the effect that mutual co-existence is not only possible, but realisable with a little effort.

blackhash wrote:They call it "fire" in the South.

Actually, you'll find that the typical racist wasn't actually born that way, but was taught to be racist by peers. There are, once more, a large number of observable instances of people who weren't taught to be racist, and who manage to coexist with others without conflict. See, for example, the people who rallied round in Norway to mitigate the effects of Anders Breivik's murderous rampage.

blackhash wrote:One does not go beyond ones prejudices.

Correction. The indolent do not go beyond their prejudices. Again, there are numerous observable instances of individuals who exert the requisite effort to do precisely that.

blackhash wrote:These prejudices may be of well informed individuals.

This is wrong by definition. A genuinely well-informed individual recognises prejudices for what they are, and exerts effort to abandon them.

blackhash wrote:t is necessary to decide the course of action. Which data are we referring to to bring change.

Again, wrong. There's a difference between relevance and cherry-picking to fit a predetermined conclusion. Do learn this elementary concept.

blackhash wrote:The explanation given above is necessary to distinguish between an atheist and a theist.

No, the difference between an atheist and a theist, is quite simple to present. A theist treats the assertions of a mythology uncritically as fact. An atheist doesn't. End of story.

blackhash wrote:The theists are responsible for carnage and mass murder quoting the scriptures all along which is pure BS. The theists want comfort on every level in their life. The theists have managed to convince us that all are not equal.

Interestingly enough, quite a few theists, to their credit, were at the forefront of the campaign to abolish slavery. Hardly the action of someone who regards inequality as some sort of divinely ordained state.

blackhash wrote:They forget that this may mean that some people are superior to them.

Well this in itself opens up all sorts of intractables. Such as how is "superior" defined. Better at the 110 metres hurdles than others? Better at pure mathematics? Better at making money?

blackhash wrote:Yes, theists have a very wide comfort zone. Unfortunately all that is going to change in the current millennium.

Be wary of predictions. Supernaturalists have taught us that these have a habit of failing, when not based upon a solid foundation of data. Worse still, economists and politicians have taught us that predictions can fail even when one has access to relevant data.

blackhash wrote:Mark Twain had said that the Bible contains more than 1000 lies.

To be fair, the authors of the requisite mythology didn't know enough even to begin a proper analysis of their surroundings. We're dealing here with people who were apparently incapable of counting correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses. Oops.

As a consequence, it's tempting to suggest that they weren't competent enough to be worthy of the epithet "liar". Oh, we know they were making shit up, and treating that made up shit as fact, but they didn't have even the rudimentary level of knowledge required to subject their made up shit to a proper critical examination. Quite a few of those authors were making shit up from a starting point of woefully naive sincerity. In short, they didn't know any better.

blackhash wrote:We atheist have given the theists concessions.

Actually, what has happened, is that later supernaturalists stole those "concessions" in a power grab. Because, one of the nastier products of the business of fabricating mythology, then insisting that mythological assertions purportedly constitute inviolable fact, is the emergence of an insidious phenomenon known as enforcement of conformity to doctrine. Which, tragically, has had utility value for every would-be dictator since it emerged, whether the dictator in question sincerely adhered to the requisite mythology, or merely used that mythology as a convenient foundation for the consolidation of power.

blackhash wrote:The theists sometimes show human nature making it difficult to call their bluff.

I don't recall anyone here having problems doing this ...

blackhash wrote:The purpose of theism is Equality and Justice. The failure to realize this has been a boon for the atheists.

Actually, several of us here understand the reasons for that failure. Namely, the failure to take account of data, before peddling assertions as purportedly constituting fact.

blackhash wrote:Thank you, theists

I'm not about to thank those responsible for observable iniquities.