set, match, game {wink} 
stu, you have reduced him to gibbersih.. err gilbert
stu, you have reduced him to gibbersih.. err gilbert
Atheism is a or is a product of mental illness...
- Thread starter OPTIONAL777
- Start date
why do you cross pollinate fundamentalism with an inate knowledge of a creator? seriously, thats a stretch!
surf
Longshotesque...
Quote from killthesunshine:
set, match, game {wink}
stu, you have reduced him to gibbersih.. err gilbert
Don't ever lose that sense of humor.
In otherwords everyone should just make up whatever god concept suits them, or not if they don't feel the need for such a crutch to get through life. If that is the case why bother posting all this drivel and challenging what other people have imagined or not? Despite the fact that you "believe" you have some special insight that no one else has (or maybe your fellow cultists do I don't know, if you are not now a memebr of a cult you are a prime candidate for starting one) you don't. No one does. No one knows the truth of how the universe came to be and if there is any god like being, all conjecture on the subject is borne of man's imagination.
So who is more likely to be mentally ill, one who gives their imaginary world equal footing with the real world or one who recognizes their superstitions and fantasies' for what they are?
No matter how much the ubiquitous lunatic Napoleon "believes" he is riding Wagram, it doesn't change the reality for everyone else that he is sitting stationary on a chair in the asylum.
I note that you didn't have any answer when logic was brought to bear. People who are mentally ill and live in some fantasy world often ignore aspects of logic or reality that don't conform to their fantasy when the rationalization gets too difficult.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
Theistic or atheist dogma is still dogma...
Mvic****empirisism by definition cannot be dogma****
"As far as what is more likely or what the preponderance of the evidence shows, life in general and human history in particular does not support the logical construct of a simultaneously perfect loving merciful omnipotent and omniscient god."
Those stuck in a Judeo Christian concept of God, either theist or atheist would naturally come to this conclusion at times.
Other ideas of God not bound by the Judeo Christian concept of God have a different answer to your false dilemma...
Imagine a system that does nothing but reward or punish what God designates as good or bad behavior, that there is perfect justice as people reap what they sow, and don't think of one life as the time frame upon which this process works...this way of looking at things will blow the concept of "innocent victim" and God as unloving and merciful right out of the water...
Mvic****OK this is pretty conjecture on your part (there is as much evidence for this conjecture as there is for god being a fire breathing unicorn) and just a way around the logical breakdown of the christian view of god. Sort of like saying that if you just forget about our reality and conjecture that when one dies they rise to an elevated state oif being, sort of like a graduation, then murder can actually be a good thing. This is the type of out of reality conjecture that allows for all sorts of lunatic justification of cults and other entirely imagined belief systems****
Those who seek their happiness only in the world, will forever get that chance, and those who seek their happiness only in God will forever get that chance.
Mvic****again where is there any shred of evidence for this conjecture? You don't know god, its properties, or even of its existence any more than anyone else alive so why do you persist in acting like you do? What makes you so special that you think you know the mind of god? If there was a god is it even likely that you could comprehend such a being? Who is more likely to be mentally ill, the man who sees the burning bush and believes it imparts some other worldy wisdom to him or the man who recognizes it for the hunger or drug induced hallucination that it is?****
Those who want to stay on the wheel do so, those who want to get off the wheel may do so...
Mvic****where is this evidence for there being something other than the earthly wheel? Who is more likely to be mentally ill, someone who sees earthly reality on equal footing with some imagined other state of being or someone who sees reality as more concrete than any other imagined state of being?****
Who amongst the theists are really willing to give up the world for God?
Mvic****is that a direct quote from Jim Jones or the wacko from Waco?****
In otherwords everyone should just make up whatever god concept suits them, or not if they don't feel the need for such a crutch to get through life.
People can do as they please...as long as they don't keep me from doing what I please.
If that is the case why bother posting all this drivel and challenging what other people have imagined or not?
That's what message boards are...
Despite the fact that you "believe" you have some special insight that no one else has (or maybe your fellow cultists do I don't know, if you are not now a memebr of a cult you are a prime candidate for starting one) you don't. No one does. No one knows the truth of how the universe came to be and if there is any god like being, all conjecture on the subject is borne of man's imagination.
I have no special insight, there is nothing special about suggesting people be free to believe what they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.
So who is more likely to be mentally ill, one who gives their imaginary world equal footing with the real world or one who recognizes their superstitions and fantasies' for what they are?
The one who is more likely to be mentally ill is the one who pretends to be an intellectual, but is seen to be overly emotional...it is called denial, and most in the field of mental health will tell you that denial and pretension of an intellectuality when it isn't real will lead to, if it is not not already based, a mental illness...
No matter how much the ubiquitous lunatic Napoleon "believes" he is riding Wagram, it doesn't change the reality for everyone else that he is sitting stationary on a chair in the asylum.
People aren't committed based on their beliefs, they are committed to asylums based on their actions....
I note that you didn't have any answer when logic was brought to bear.
I note that you didn't bring any logic to bear...
People who are mentally ill and live in some fantasy world often ignore aspects of logic or reality that don't conform to their fantasy when the rationalization gets too difficult.
Some do, some don't...no one that I know has demonstrated that belief in God is a fantasy world, and the bulk of professionals in the mental health field concur...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from OPTIONAL777:
Theistic or atheist dogma is still dogma...
Mvic****empirisism by definition cannot be dogma****
"As far as what is more likely or what the preponderance of the evidence shows, life in general and human history in particular does not support the logical construct of a simultaneously perfect loving merciful omnipotent and omniscient god."
Those stuck in a Judeo Christian concept of God, either theist or atheist would naturally come to this conclusion at times.
Other ideas of God not bound by the Judeo Christian concept of God have a different answer to your false dilemma...
Imagine a system that does nothing but reward or punish what God designates as good or bad behavior, that there is perfect justice as people reap what they sow, and don't think of one life as the time frame upon which this process works...this way of looking at things will blow the concept of "innocent victim" and God as unloving and merciful right out of the water...
Mvic****OK this is pretty conjecture on your part (there is as much evidence for this conjecture as there is for god being a fire breathing unicorn) and just a way around the logical breakdown of the christian view of god. Sort of like saying that if you just forget about our reality and conjecture that when one dies they rise to an elevated state oif being, sort of like a graduation, then murder can actually be a good thing. This is the type of out of reality conjecture that allows for all sorts of lunatic justification of cults and other entirely imagined belief systems****
Those who seek their happiness only in the world, will forever get that chance, and those who seek their happiness only in God will forever get that chance.
Mvic****again where is there any shred of evidence for this conjecture? You don't know god, its properties, or even of its existence any more than anyone else alive so why do you persist in acting like you do? What makes you so special that you think you know the mind of god? If there was a god is it even likely that you could comprehend such a being? Who is more likely to be mentally ill, the man who sees the burning bush and believes it imparts some other worldy wisdom to him or the man who recognizes it for the hunger or drug induced hallucination that it is?****
Those who want to stay on the wheel do so, those who want to get off the wheel may do so...
Mvic****where is this evidence for there being something other than the earthly wheel? Who is more likely to be mentally ill, someone who sees earthly reality on equal footing with some imagined other state of being or someone who sees reality as more concrete than any other imagined state of being?****
People are free to decide what is real for themselves...
Who amongst the theists are really willing to give up the world for God?
There are a few who do renounce the world for God...
Quote from stu:
Physicist Leonard Susskind Rejects Intelligent Design
â I don't believe that the universe was designed by an intelligence. I believe the universe was designed the same way the incredible human being was designed. It certainly looks - and before Darwin it looked like some designer must have....what else could possibly account for the complexity of a human being, the human brain and so forth, and we eventually found out what it was. It was random mutation, a bunch of carbon oxygen and other stuff for that mutation to work on, and a little bit of everything evolved. Some things did better than others. Those things are more populous than the things that didn't do well and so it was basically randomness, statistics and the laws of physics that led to our own design.
I think the same is true of the universe. oh incidentally, in the process of designing us, it also designed a hell of a lot of stuff not nearly as intelligent as we are in fact most of the stuff out there is not intelligent. And so it wasn't that there was an upward trend that just naturally led to intelligence, there was just, everything happened. Everything that could happen happened. Some of it's still happening.
That seems to be the way, or at least according to one version of cosmology, and it's by now the most popular version of cosmology, is the universe is exceedingly big, just like the bush or the tree of life, it has many different environments. So many different environments that a very small fraction of them are capable of supporting life and that small fraction of them happens to be the small fraction that 'looks' [Susskindâs emphasis] as if it were intelligently designed. Incidentally it's the only fraction we can exist in which to ask the question. So that's my view of it other people have different views. â
To anyone who watches the vid , listens to or reads what he says objectively, it is perfectly clear and obvious Susskind says and clearly states ....
'I don't believe that the universe was designed by an intelligence......"
he explains..
it 'looks' as if it were intelligently designed... but is isn't. It's "random mutation, a bunch of carbon oxygen and other stuff ...."
In grasping at straws in an over zealous religious intent, you are a delusional wreck jem and you've supplied the very evidence yourself to prove it
And what is his thesis that allows him to make that comment STU....
he makes the statement about randomness based on his speculation that we have an almost infinite amount of universes = landscapes = environments.
let me break it down for your consumption with a dumbed down example.
For instance if you dealt a different hand to every card table possible - one of the hands would have a a royal flush beating a four aces.
If that table is our universe it would not be amazing that our universe had a the super winning hand. ... One of the universes was bound to support life. And we are randomly in that universe.
Now to bring the analogy out to string theory numbers. Lets say there are almost infinite cards in the deck.
if you deal them all out - one of those hands will be the perfect highest hand.
The life supporting universe.
So if every hand is dealt - we have infinite universes and we are randomly in the perfect universe.
No big deal one universe in trillions and trillions and trillions was bound to support life.
But, what if only one hand or universe is dealt.
That STU is the fricken point.
If one universe was dealt then not only does our universe just look designed. The implication is that it is designed.
And guess what STU - we only have evidence of one universe.
if you wish to engage in an academic conversation - then go to the source and prove that what I just wrote it incorrect.
I know you won't do it because
1. I am correct.
2. you are numb nuts troll.
Why the hell are you still wittering on about this ?
This is what you said.....
This is what Susskind actually said in a video which you supplied and in which anyone can see and hear him say.....
Leonard Susskind :
" I don't believe that the universe was designed by an intelligence. " Leonard Susskind
Just what the hell is wrong with you?
Doesn't matter I already know. Religion got in the in the way of any common sense and critical thinking you may once have had .
Susskind is saying the universe looks designed ..but it isn't (by an intelligence).
So no matter - one universe or endless universes, that's red herring territory. He says anyway " I don't believe that the universe was designed by an intelligence. "
Why would anyone want to "engage in an academic conversation" with you? There's no point.
You can't even tell isn't from is.
Because you first sort of quote physicist Leonard Susskind out of context to support your claim, and then dismiss his actual conclusion? Yeah, jem, you're the go-to guy for all things physics.