Why I'm Not an Atheist

MarkHei · **#221** by **MarkHei** » Apr 06, 2014 9:54 pm

If you're too much of a coward to answer my points directly and want to go potty on my arguments I can say I definately have met you before.

romansh · **#222** by **romansh** » Apr 06, 2014 9:54 pm

Well I must say us atheists and agnostics must have been pretty darned good in our previous lives.

Scot Dutchy · **#223** by **Scot Dutchy** » Apr 06, 2014 10:00 pm

MarkHei wrote:If you're too much of a coward to answer my points directly and want to go potty on my arguments I can say I definately have met you before.

What points actually. Gone on don't be a spoil sport tell us what points are they? Little spikey ones or long thin sharp ones?

You have no points because you gave no evidence, facts or anything else for that matter. All you have is crass preaching and a stupid idea erected out the fluff you have pulled from your arse.

Regina · **#224** by **Regina** » Apr 06, 2014 10:02 pm

fluttermoth wrote:
MarkHei wrote:
If you are reincarnated as a sex slave in a brothel you might ask what you did in a past life that brought you here

So...what you're basically say here is, if someone is enslaved, or sexually abused, or some other abhorrent thing happens to them, it's their fault and that they're being punished for something they did in a previous life, that they're unlikely to remember, is that right?

Just wanting to clarify before I start feeling utterly sickened (oh, too late )

It's handy, isn't it? That way nobody ever needs to waste a second thought on injustice and personal responsibility anymore.
Poverty, abuse, deprivation of all kinds are people's just punishment for their past failings. Neat.

MarkHei · **#225** by **MarkHei** » Apr 06, 2014 10:05 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:
MarkHei wrote:If you're too much of a coward to answer my points directly and want to go potty on my arguments I can say I definately have met you before.

What points actually. Gone on don't be a spoil sport tell us what points are they? Little spikey ones or long thin sharp ones?

You have no points because you gave no evidence, facts or anything else for that matter. All you have is crass preaching and a stupid idea erected out the fluff you have pulled from your arse.

My point I've asked three times or more with no intelligent response. What have you to say about children who report previous lives as soon as they can speak? Why aren't you investigating?

Cito di Pense · **#226** by **Cito di Pense** » Apr 06, 2014 10:29 pm

MarkHei wrote:What have you to say about children who report previous lives as soon as they can speak? Why aren't you investigating?

Children spend a long time listening before they can speak. You're way out of your depth here, and in a few of your other posts as well.

tuco · **#227** by **tuco** » Apr 06, 2014 10:34 pm

Thomas Eshuis wrote:
tuco wrote:
Blood wrote:There seems to be a lot of this pretentious nonsense going around. "I don't believe in God, but I'm not an atheist."

That depends on definition of atheist but it certainly is not nonsense as atheist is not defined in the same way Pi is.

Someone who doesn't believe in a god is an atheist by definition.
And merriam-webster has had the definition wrong for a long time now. This has been pointed out on this board in the past.
They even contradict themselves by defining atheism thusly:
Definition of ATHEISM
1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Disbelief can be lack of belief or belief in a negative.

lol yeah I can see that. May I mail them quoting your post to fix it?

MarkHei · **#228** by **MarkHei** » Apr 06, 2014 10:36 pm

Cito di Pense wrote:
MarkHei wrote:What have you to say about children who report previous lives as soon as they can speak? Why aren't you investigating?

Children spend a long time listening before they can speak. You're way out of your depth here, and in a few of your other posts as well.

Your ignorance is blinding. What do you know about me? Nothing, and yet you judge. Who's out of their depth? You claim to be a skeptic yet you violate your own ethics.

fluttermoth · **#229** by **fluttermoth** » Apr 06, 2014 10:38 pm

MarkHei wrote:
My point I've asked three times or more with no intelligent response. What have you to say about children who report previous lives as soon as they can speak? Why aren't you investigating?

I have actually looked into reincarnation in the past (and I've read Ian Stevenson's book), and I found nothing that couldn't be explained, quite simply, by a mixture of coincidence, wishful thinking, parental (or investigator) leading/prompting and, as Cito de Pense rightly points out, children listening. Very often people talk in front of small children as if they are both deaf and stupid.

On the other hand, as many other posters have pointed, there is zero evidence for any mechanism which could lead to the survival of memories without an organic brain to produce them.

MarkHei · **#230** by **MarkHei** » Apr 06, 2014 10:40 pm

That's the only thing skeptic have to say. That's all they got. It's like a squirt gun argument. A pea shooter to cut down a major argument. A poo-poo on my argument and nothing intelligent to say regarding the accuracy of information the kids report. You're ignorant on this subject yet you pass judgement. How did you get to become a skeptic? You're a doubter.

fluttermoth · **#231** by **fluttermoth** » Apr 06, 2014 10:43 pm

On the contrary, as I've just said, I am not ignorant on the subject, I've just come to different a conclusion, based on the available evidence, than you have.

fluttermoth wrote:
MarkHei wrote:
If you are reincarnated as a sex slave in a brothel you might ask what you did in a past life that brought you here

So...what you're basically say here is, if someone is enslaved, or sexually abused, or some other abhorrent thing happens to them, it's their fault and that they're being punished for something they did in a previous life, that they're unlikely to remember, is that right?

Just wanting to clarify before I start feeling utterly sickened (oh, too late )

Would you mind addressing this point for me, please?

Calilasseia · **#232** by **Calilasseia** » Apr 06, 2014 10:46 pm

Blood wrote:David, that link to the post where you destroyed Answers in Genesis is not working.

That's because RDF has pulled the forum. I may have to repost the post in question here.

Meanwhile ...

MarkHei wrote:The reason is the lessons I am learning assertions about reincarnation, karma and higher realms of thinking I'm treating as fat

Fixed it for you.

MarkHei wrote:Enlightenment is something Buddhist want to attain and Karma and Reincarnation are central to Buddhism.

So what? These are merely asserted to exist.

MarkHei wrote:If you want to be enlightened you have to learn to accept truth and open your mind.

Being open minded does NOT mean "accept unsupported assertions as fact". Learn this lesson.

MarkHei wrote:If you depend only on worldly phenomoenon you will be constantly confused.

Bullshit. Oh wait, physicists have alighted upon entities and phenomena that the authors of your mythology were incapable of even fantasising about. Better still, the same physicists have placed those entities and phenomena within precise, usefully predictive quantitative frameworks, that are in accord with observation to 15 decimal places. Does your mythology have anything similar to offer? No? Rather refutes your fatuous assertion above about being "confused", doesn't it?

MarkHei wrote:You don't understand what I mean by truth

We know exactly what you mean by "truth". Namely, "the assertions of my pet mythology equal fact".

MarkHei wrote:and that's something you should think deeply about.

Until you provide real evidence supporting the assertions you're peddling as purportedly constituting fact, there's nothing to "think deeply" about.#

MarkHei wrote:What is the truth? It's too huge and you cannot describe the truth exactly.

Try this. A statement is true when it is in correspondence with the entities and phenomena it claims to describe. So much for being "too huge".

MarkHei wrote:You can only find examples of truth.

I just refuted your above assertion.

MarkHei wrote:To understand what truth is, you need to become enlightened.

Read the above and weep. I don't need your mythology in order to discern such matters.

MarkHei wrote:Truth has many answers which are hidden in the fog of our human mind.

The only fog we see here is the fog of your ever growing list of unsupported assertions. Several of which I've just refuted.

MarkHei wrote:Our experiences are all on a collision course with the truth

Really? Looks like that's another assertion of yours I've just refuted above.

MarkHei wrote:so it is hard to find.

Here's a clue for you. Wasting time with unsupported mythological assertions won't bring you any closer to it.

MarkHei wrote:I am a skeptic of events as much as I can be, but I don't dismiss what appears to be signs of Karma as random acts.

Strange how the world offers up plenty of observable events that refute this.

MarkHei wrote:I have faith

That's your problem. Namely, treating unsupported mythological assertions as fact.

MarkHei wrote:that Karma is real

There are plenty of real world events suggesting otherwise.

MarkHei wrote:and events unfold because of Karma.

No, they unfold because of physical laws. Which permit, amongst other things, human beings to be nasty to each other, and get away with it.

MarkHei wrote: Obviously this takes me off the map when it comes to traditional logical thought

It takes you off the map with regard to correspondence with observational reality as well.

MarkHei wrote: but for a Buddhist this is fundamental and my personal experience is that it's true.

Oh dear, the specious argument from personal experience. Yawn.

MarkHei wrote:I cannot prove it because it's not a material thing that can be tested.

Rather buggers your insistence that your assertions purportedly constitute fact, then, doesn't it?

MarkHei wrote: But having experienced what Karma is, I have faith that its real.

Here's a clue for you. The contents of the television inside your head don't dictate how reality behaves.

MarkHei wrote:This delivers new possibilities of thought which cannot be attained if I were to keep a strictly worldly view.

Oh we've seen those "new possibilities of thought" in your posts. Except they're not new. Treating unsupported assertions as purportedly constituting fact is something supernaturalists have beendoing for at least 5,000 years.

MarkHei wrote:My point is Skeptics are not an authority.

But reliably repeatable observable data is.

MarkHei wrote:Skeptics are here to find fabrication, fantasy etc in actual physical phenomenon as it occurs presently.

Wrong. We're here to find fantasy and fabrication in unsupported assertions peddled as purportedly constituting fact. Learn the difference.

MarkHei wrote:Children are reporting asserting past lives

Fixed it for you.

MarkHei wrote: and it has been documented.

Correction, the assertions have been documented.

MarkHei wrote:The only skeptical argument I heard was the family must have fed this information without knowing it.

I'm sure quite a few parents here will tell you that their children are perfectly capable of listening in on supposedly "private" adult conversations.

MarkHei wrote: Case closed?

No.

MarkHei wrote:Sarcasm is masking your fear.

Bullshit. I'm not afraid of unsupported assertions. I discard them in the same manner I discard the refuse in my bins.

MarkHei wrote:You address my most important point in such a casual manner.

You have a point? When did that happen? Or is this merely another feeble attempt, to try to elevate your unsupported assertions to a factual status they manifestly do not deserve?

MarkHei wrote:Sinning will lead to suffering now or in the future.

Another mere assertion ...

MarkHei wrote: Sin is easy to identify, we all know what it is

It should therefore be easy for you to provide a rigorous definition thereof, shouldn't it?

MarkHei wrote:but we often don't know why we should be good.

The reciprocity axiom?

MarkHei wrote:If we believe in Karma, then we will learn that behaving well brings us merit. Merit makes us confident and gives us peace. I'll refrain from further preaching now. I

Good. Pay attention to the above, and try developing some substantive answers thereto.

MarkHei wrote:The person before stated he didn't fear being reincarnated. I am only showing what can happen in our belief system.

Only if the requisite assertions are true. Speaking of which, where's the evidence for these? I'm still waiting.

MarkHei wrote:You don't have to like it. You can take offense.

I prefer simply to discard that which is bereft of supporting evidence.

MarkHei wrote:But my intention is not to be cruel. It is to make the point that if we are born in miserable conditions we have to ask how did we get here?

Incompetence or malice on the part of those in power?

MarkHei wrote:I'm making you think

Please, I was perfectly capable of this long before you arrived.

MarkHei wrote:but your tolerance for other peoples views are fragile at best.

I don't care if you wish to entertain all manner of lurid fantasies. What I do care about, however, is when someone tries to tell me that [1] those fantasies are real, and [2] that I'm purportedly the one suffering the cognitive deficit if I don't roll over and genuflect before said fantasies. This should be telling you something important.

MarkHei wrote:You have to understand how a Buddhist thinks before you can attack him.

We're not attacking you, we're attacking your assertions. Learn the difference. In short, you are not your ideas. Because we all have the capacity to change those ideas.

MarkHei wrote:You're telling me I am threatening you

Some here, having had experience of receiving substantive threats from supernaturalists in their environment, tend to be a little trigger happy when they see phrases resembling those they've encountered in the past emanating within said environment. You might wish to factor this into your deliberations. I'm fortunate that I don't have that particular burden to bear, but I recognise the signs.

MarkHei wrote:and my arguments are silly.

Tell me, would you accept uncritically an assertion on my part that I could fly like superman? No? In that case, you should understand our position. Of course, if instead of merely peddling that assertion, I provide television footage of me performing the requisite aerobatics, then we're playing a different ball game, but until then, any attempt by me to peddle this assertion as fact will earn deserved ridicule.

MarkHei wrote:These are your illusions.

I don't recall peddling any unsupported assertions here. You might want to factor this into your future posting.

MarkHei wrote:No basis in fact.

Pot, kettle, black much? Still waiting for something other than mere assertions from you.

MarkHei wrote:You're not going to gain any knowledge by being obstinate to every new thought.

Here's a clue for you. Blind assertions do not equal knowledge. Knowledge is derived from testing assertions to destruction, and seeing which survive said test.

MarkHei wrote:Not knowing your age or your level of suffering I cannot say anything about you. All I can say is with proper conditions you'll see there's more to life than skin and bones.

Those proper conditions being the presentation of real evidence for the requisite assertions. Is this elementary concept starting to sink in yet?

MarkHei wrote:For Skeptics, I wish you luck in finding physical proof of a phenomenon that is un-provable.

In which case, an untestable phenomenon is indistinguishable from a non-existent phenomenon. Something I keep telling the assorted pedlars of "design" assertions from the creationist camp.

MarkHei wrote:It's just that you lack the tool of Karma because that requires a faith and you cannot accept faith.

Because, wait for it, all the evidence available, points to faith being nothing more than uncritical acceptance of unsupported assertions. Is this elementary concept starting to sink in yet?

MarkHei wrote:Karma is a concept that is bigger than you.

And we're back to the assertions once more. Congratulations on demonstrating my points for me.

Now, care to address the above with substance ... ???

MarkHei · **#233** by **MarkHei** » Apr 06, 2014 10:52 pm

Are you suggesting I don't understand the scientific method and how skeptics are SUPPOSED to function? What you are doing is passing judgement without knowing the facts. Is that your skeptic oath? We judge because we're smarter than everyone else? Where is your scientific method? Why are you not looking into this subject? isn't this what you're SUPPOSED to do? Investigate claims of paranormal behavior? Are you worried about losing your wager? Why is the subject of Reincarnation ignored by skeptics, or is it? I've only seen sparse discussions. Maybe there's a debate with Schermer, but I don't know who he was debating. Anyway, good luck in improving your skills at evaluation.

hackenslash · **#234** by **hackenslash** » Apr 06, 2014 11:00 pm

MarkHei wrote:Atheists and cynical, clever, but not wise. The Atheists that are angry are the ones who know everything.

Well not me, then, neither angry nor knowing everything. I'm the sort of atheist who is simply aware that no good reason has been presented to accept the existence of anybody's imaginary friend.

They live in delusion that there is nothing for them.

I know what there is for me, and it doesn't include a celestial peeping-tom or an afterlife.

The truth is beyond their comprehension so they refuse to accept anything other than worldly.

What truth would that be, then?

This is the stagnant mind of an Atheist that limits his possibilities beyond this life.

Nothing stagnant about my mind, even when drugged to the eyeballs on morphine as I am now. As for the possibilities beyond this life, I'd love to see what evidence you might have for anything other than the oblivion that preceded it.

Without a better understanding of who we are, where we are going and where we come from, the Atheist allows his mind to wander in the direction that seems most likely to himself.

I understand all of those things about myself, but still no evidence for any siderial scopophiliac.

More power to you, but there's already answers the Atheists refuses to accept.

What answers would those be? I have a sneaking suspicion that the 'answers' you're talking about are those I would classify as 'not even wrong'.

He is by definition then, lost until he opens his mind to that which is around him.

Bet you my house I know more about what's around me than you do.

Goldenmane · **#235** by **Goldenmane** » Apr 06, 2014 11:07 pm

MarkHei wrote:My point I've asked three times or more with no intelligent response. What have you to say about children who report previous lives as soon as they can speak? Why aren't you investigating?

Children don't report previous lives as soon as they can speak. They don't go from "can't speak" to "can speak" overnight. It takes months before they can iterate a simple fucking sentence - months in which they are learning from their surroundings.

Including, for example, the expectations and beliefs of their parents.

What utter guff.

hackenslash · **#236** by **hackenslash** » Apr 06, 2014 11:09 pm

MarkHei wrote:Do skeptics believe in Dark Matter and Dark Energy?

No,I don't 'believe' in either, probably because, being conversant with the relevant physics, I have knowledge of them. Where evidence exists to support a proposition, it isn't a matter of belief. Indeed, I and some others here dispense with belief as superfluous.

My understanding of these phenomenon is that they cannot be measured directly and so cannot be proven to exist.

Then you understand incorrectly. Dark Matter and Dark Energy exist. There is no doubt about that whatsoever. What their precise nature is is not understood, but there's no reasonable doubt that they are real. Perhaps if you learned something about them, you wouldn't make such errors. I've written reasonably extensively about both, should you wish to avail yourself of the forum search facility.

But without them, all our models fail.

Not really. Certain aspects of our models may be in need of some revision, but those models are actually in need of revision to some degree at least anyway.

So this is a kind of mysterious force that sounds a lot like emptiness in some religious views.

Well, we can ignore religious views for the most part, especially those with magical entities in them, because those entities fail the very first and all subsequent tests for coherence and consistency.

Do skeptics discount dark matter and dark energy the way they do with rebirth and paranormal phenomenon?

Nope. Thing is, among the skeptics of which you speak are many competent scientists, and that includes here, where we have professionals in the sciences among our membership, as well as quite a few professional scientific educators. You might want to factor that into your thinking.

Anyhoo, the spidey-sense is tingling quite violently here.

BlackBart · **#237** by **BlackBart** » Apr 06, 2014 11:10 pm

MarkHei wrote:
BlackBart wrote:Fear of what? Why is it necessary to believe in Karma? Do you live ethically merely through a fear of Karmic retribution?

Your notion of Karma is too narrow.

I don't have a notion of it.

Karma is everything to us.

What the fuck does that even mean?

We are under its influence but we can learn to control it to a certain degree.

That line was cool in Star Wars, in real life, it's just jibberish.

If we are kind person good things come to us. We have peace and happiness. We don't hurt others. This is a person who experiences good Karma.

Really? Didn't work for Anne Frank did it?

On the other hand, people who are motivated by greed, fear, anger, jealousy are living in a realm that some might call hell.

Apart from the Nazi War Criminals who died rich at a ripe old age.

MarkHei · **#238** by **MarkHei** » Apr 06, 2014 11:17 pm

They may have died rich but they're going to be born with that same filthy mind.

hackenslash · **#239** by **hackenslash** » Apr 06, 2014 11:18 pm

MarkHei wrote:The answers I am referring to is that we are part of a bigger realm beyond the material world.

And of course you can present evidence for this, can't you?

This cannot be measured by science so the skeptics refuse to believe it.

Which is right and proper. It's called thinking critically. This involves not accepting that which is merely asserted to exist.

But there are limits to your worldly understanding

Oh really? Care to tell us all what they are?

and if you aren't able to take risk with a leap of faith

Risk? What risk? Anyhoo, you talk as if faith is a good thing. It isn't.

when the evidence is upon you and you're just sitting there looking at it not knowing what to do,

What evidence? More importantly, this contradicts the preceding sentence. Why would I need faith when there is evidence? Why do you?

perhaps making fun of it or attacking the argument's punctuation rather than the point being made,

There was a point?

then you are living in your own illusions.

Well, that's entirely possible, though I'd venture to suggest that if I'm living in an illusion, then a) it's a compelling one and b) it's an illusion that is commonly shared.

The truth that is out there is Buddhism and the faith part of Buddhism says that our lives are driven by karma and our lives are endless.

Buddhism is truth? Again, though, you keep levelling your idiotic accusations at atheists. Are you not an atheist, or are you just not initiated into Buddhism sufficiently to be aware that it is itself atheist (there are a couple of Buddhist schools that have deities, but I'm pretty sure you aren't into any of those, for various reasons)?

This opens up new avenues of research for those who are not timid.

Excellent! I love research. Tell us what to look at and we'll see if we can get a grant.

hackenslash · **#240** by **hackenslash** » Apr 06, 2014 11:20 pm

MarkHei wrote:You may attack my funny way of speech and spelling that don't conform to your articulate style but the message remains. There is a realm beyond your understanding which is refused on the basis of not conforming to man made laws.

Which man-made laws would those be? You don't mean scientific laws, do you? They're not really man-made. They're mathematical formulations of what we observe. We haven't observed anything that points to anything supernatural.

Why I'm Not an Atheist

Re: Why I'm Not an Atheist

Re: Why I'm Not an Atheist

Re: Why I'm Not an Atheist

Re: Why I'm Not an Atheist

Re: Why I'm Not an Atheist

Re: Why I'm Not an Atheist

Re: Why I'm Not an Atheist

Re: Why I'm Not an Atheist

Re: Why I'm Not an Atheist

Re: Why I'm Not an Atheist

Re: Why I'm Not an Atheist

Re: Why I'm Not an Atheist

Re: Why I'm Not an Atheist

Re: Why I'm Not an Atheist

Re: Why I'm Not an Atheist

Re: Why I'm Not an Atheist

Re: Why I'm Not an Atheist

Re: Why I'm Not an Atheist

Re: Why I'm Not an Atheist

Re: Why I'm Not an Atheist

Who is online