Is Atheism a crutch for people who don’t understand the complexity of God?

[Gringinho]

Quote from I am...:

What would you call the process of separating out truth from illusion? I call it religion.
...
Jesus

Well, in my view - I would call it reasoning; but I would also not connect this to an absolute truth, because as you say - belief in absolute truth (or any universally absolute) is in fact "faith".

What I also pointed out was how the forced and not voluntary "alignment" of others into such belief - is akin to corruption - or "sin" in your religious terms.

 

[Gringinho]

Quote from jonbig04:

Once AGAIN you did not answer me. You said it was invalid, and I simply want to know why? I'm not asking you nonsensical questions. Just one. Answer the question gring.

I showed you how evolution and science using carbon dating and DNA disproves a creating deity for humans and the earth. It is you that keep repeating the question.

When it comes to the origin of the universe - and the universe as a whole - the question is much more complex.

 

[jonbig04]

Quote from Gringinho:

I showed you how evolution and science using carbon dating and DNA disproves a creating deity for humans and the earth. It is you that keep repeating the question.

Now you are just in denial. But you know what thats ok. Lets stick to today gring.

 

[Gringinho]

Quote from jonbig04:

Now you are just in denial. But you know what thats ok. Lets stick to today gring.

Are you saying that evolution (modern evolutionary synthesis) and science with carbon dating and DNA, does not disprove a creating deity?

 

[jonbig04]

You would love for me to answer that, so we could do exactly what we did yesterday all over again today, but I still want to know why my statement was invalid as you said it was. However you, as usual, make a statement and then can't back it up. You say that i ask all this "nonsensical" questions. I'm simply asking one. In case you have forgotten.

Just to do a quick recap.

I stated that according to jonbigism 2+2=5.

You then said that it was "invalid"

I asked why, and then you said "you to have a valid statement - it must lie within a system which has some "integrity" and can be used to prove anything - i.e a link between the semantic and syntactic structure towards being a model"

At that point I explained to you that jonbigism is exactly the same as standard math, except that 4 is in the place of 5 and vice-versa.

So now I want to know Why is the statement 2+2=5 (as according to jonbigism) invalid?

Don't skate around, don't try to change the subject into yesterday's debate. Answer the question.

 

[Gringinho]

Well, if the ONLY difference would be 4 and 5 changing semantic meaning in elementary algebra - then it would not be invalid --- AS LONG AS you always qualify your statement with this context. Of course, you did not do this - and that made it just nonsensical as always...

 

[jonbig04]

Quote from Gringinho:

Well, if the ONLY difference would be 4 and 5 changing semantic meaning in elementary algebra - then it would not be invalid --- AS LONG AS you always qualify your statement with this context. Of course, you did not do this - and that made it just nonsensical as always...

Ok so you are now saying that 2+2=5 according to jonbigism is not invalid?

 

[andrasnm]

Imagine there was am alternate reality called "infinity”, which resided outside of our Universe. This reality does not know about our universe, but our universe was in fact emanated from it. The cause of this emanation is unknown but it could be speculated upon that it is a weird kind of a "desire of self-expression" from this REALITY called Infinity. The characteristic of this infinity are as follows;
1) It is without form, limits or polarity
2) It is in everything and everywhere and since our universe is emanated from this, a slice of infinity exists in all things
We, in fact know that infinity exists as we cannot reach the end of some finite concepts such as Pi, or the known universe. When we find borders of our universe we somehow can find a way to push the envelope and reach beyond.
To some people this infinity is the unknowable, unspeakable god.
So here is the proof that god in fact exists. You can try to prove me wrong…..

 

[I am...]

Quote from Gringinho:

Well, in my view - I would call it reasoning; but I would also not connect this to an absolute truth, because as you say - belief in absolute truth (or any universally absolute) is in fact "faith".

What I also pointed out was how the forced and not voluntary "alignment" of others into such belief - is akin to corruption - or "sin" in your religious terms.

Funtionally then, religion and reasoning must be different words for the same thing. Since "religion" has been co-opted and twisted beyond recognition, "reason" might be an effective alternative. I would connect reason to truth inasmuch as reason does lead to truth, and truth is sane and reasonable. If reason does not lead to truth, it must be the kind of *logic* or *rhetoric* that builds and maintains illusion ["the universe"] as "truth". If the will to know truth is greater than the wish to believe lies, then reason will function effectively. If you rule out an absolute universal truth, then, if there is an absolute universal truth, your "reasoning" will not lead to the absolute universal truth.

"The universe" is a lie repeated 24/7, imposing itself as "absolute truth" upon the beguiled, forcing a waffling mind to align with its "reality". As such, it is a "sin". Sin is simply the denial of reality which takes seriously the notion of an insane idea: that what is one can be made many, and that truth can be different for each one. The religio-theist and the reasono-athiest meet on the common battlefield of time, space, form, stars, planets, water, fire, air, "man" and "woman", each more or less agreeing that these are "real", the former by "creation", the latter by "nature", and worth fighting over. Either way, both are "sinners", taking seriously what is really insane, and by these means deny reality, which is also the absolute universal truth.

There is this idea that "reason" could be employed to make what is really insane *work*. Good luck! In this context, reason is synonymous with ingenuity. Ingenuity takes what is insane seriously, and attempts to make adjustments so that individualism will work.

On the quest for reason, I would posit this axiom which we both may agree on:
What must impose itself through fear, force, or intimidation must be entirely illegitamite.

Jesus

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

Because of your hatred you keep taking the illogical side of the debate.

While your dirty harry quote is amusing its is not on point.

My statement was science is not on the side of the Atheist. (To make sure you get it - I will spell it out.) That statement does not mean Science is on the side of the Theist.

You really should check your emotions - that cause you to make illogical conclusions.

You really should learn that in general , response to your nonsensical mumblings is not hatred. There are people trying to help you get over yourself.

Then your statement is in essence wrong
"Their model suggests that new universes could be created spontaneously from apparently empty space."



That would be an example, using the terminology you bumble along in, as "..... what came before the big bang debate science IS on the side of the atheist."

But of course science doesn't choose sides. It is however interesting to observe how there is science and there are scientific facts and findings that explain a universe ex nihilo, which tends to affirm the Atheist position. Something you are clearly ignorant of.

Being determined to remain ignorant as you seem to wish, ... or as jonbig04, who employs a personal form of absurdity, ... both in order to leave a gap or just some breathing space for a Creator of any ridiculous kind to squat in, it should be said , is less than weak, and hardly much to do with any debate.