Freedom From Atheism Foundation

[phacemeltar]

your perspective of right and wrong is human, and anything that would be considered a god would be utterly out of your understanding; i want to know the atheist stance on sun-worshipers. sounds entertaining.

[Malice_Mizer]

Originally Posted by Ravager [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I won't argue anymore, because it's idioticer and I shouldn't have been baited by this thread in the first place. Just know that I'm right and you're wrong, unless you can find proof positive of your position beyond human emotions that are purely the result if illogical thinking. (That is, assuming you are indeed trying to defend some idiotic belief.) We're all going to know the fact of the matter in due course, it's just too bad all of these religious nuts won't have a mind to appreciate the fact when it comes, cuz there's no thinking when you're dead.

Wow. That entire post was just . . Wow.

Which is more illogical, belief that the universe was created from a creator, or belief that the universe was birthed from the total void of nonexistence, in which case the very concept of "Why does something exist rather than not exist" remains entirely unacknowledged and ignored.

Your own opinion on the issue is full of illogical holes, as well: fundamental philosophical questions not addressed or glossed-over, nihilistic materialism. The only difference is that I appeal to something beyond my own puny human mind, which is constrained by the shackles of time and space and physical cognition, and you believe that your mind is capable of understanding the very nature of reality, something you subjectively experience and therefore are entirely unqualified to objectively analyze. Yet you think you're capable of doing just that, and that's where you fail.

[Daldolma]

long story short, ravager is a simpleton who thinks he's got a handle on an unanswerable question

[Frieza_Prexus]

Originally Posted by Daldolma [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

long story short, ravager is a simpleton who thinks he's got a handle on an unanswerable question

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[DeruIsLove]

Originally Posted by phacemeltar [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

i want to know the atheist stance on sun-worshipers. sounds entertaining.

The same stance that they would have on any other group that worships an inanimate object. The sun exists, there's no evidence that it's not a god, ergo it's not plausible to consider the sun a god.

Is your post supposed to be some kind of hook/catch or something? This type of question comes up all the time and is one of the easier ones.

Originally Posted by Malice_Mizer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Which is more illogical, belief that the universe was created from a creator, or belief that the universe was birthed from the total void of nonexistence, in which case the very concept of "Why does something exist rather than not exist" remains entirely unacknowledged and ignored.

In most cases I'm now of a fan of the 'why' of things as opposed to the 'how'. In the case of the universe it's amazing enough that such a vast expanse of wonder and beauty exists in the first place. If that's not good enough for you and you need something deeper, that's a personal problem.

[DeruIsLove]

more of a fan of*

[Mblake81]

Originally Posted by DeruIsLove [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The same stance that they would have on any other group that worships an inanimate object. The sun exists, there's no evidence that it's not a god, ergo it's not plausible to consider the sun a god.

Could be nothing more than when the sun comes up I am warmed, it grows plants which help animals which help me sort of thing.

Daydreaming vs Cold hard world

If you have time to daydream doesn't that mean you have time to work? idle hands

[DeruIsLove]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Malice_Mizer]

Originally Posted by DeruIsLove [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Stupid pop science crap. What he said is obviously true, but does every scientist agree on everything when data rolls in? Data, and physical evidence in general, must first be interpreted by the human mind in order to mean anything in the first place. If you think the human mind is capable of purely objective consideration, can be trained to become immune to its subconscious, and therefore is a static organ that is identical between individuals, then you're sorely mistaken.

Again: what we're talking about is philosophy. Metaphysics. Ontology. These things are at their very core beyond the physical, which is where science and evidence exist. These fields of inquiry seek to, as you said, answer one question while science attempts to answer another. I believe you said, "I'm more interested in the why than the how." Science deals with one, philosophical inquiry with the other.

If you think that there is an end to science, and that one day every single possible question can be answered, you need to expand your mind a bit and consider the very structures that allow for science to be a thing. This is like you being content with simply understanding everything about a videogame without questioning why the game exists in the first place, or the computer that the game runs on, or who made the game to begin with. All you're concerned with is the dull, dead, physical laws that govern the game because that's all you can sense and feel. You disregard the inherently flawed methods with which you discern physical existence, that is, your senses. If your senses are capable of feeding your rational mind a mirage, or a misapprehension, how can you then in turn believe that your senses are infallible methods of gathering data?

You make human reason your God. And for that, I am sorry.

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by Malice_Mizer [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Stupid pop science crap. What he said is obviously true, but does every scientist agree on everything when data rolls in? Data, and physical evidence in general, must first be interpreted by the human mind in order to mean anything in the first place. If you think the human mind is capable of purely objective consideration, can be trained to become immune to its subconscious, and therefore is a static organ that is identical between individuals, then you're sorely mistaken.

Again: what we're talking about is philosophy. Metaphysics. Ontology. These things are at their very core beyond the physical, which is where science and evidence exist. These fields of inquiry seek to, as you said, answer one question while science attempts to answer another. I believe you said, "I'm more interested in the why than the how." Science deals with one, philosophical inquiry with the other.

If you think that there is an end to science, and that one day every single possible question can be answered, you need to expand your mind a bit and consider the very structures that allow for science to be a thing. This is like you being content with simply understanding everything about a videogame without questioning why the game exists in the first place, or the computer that the game runs on, or who made the game to begin with. All you're concerned with is the dull, dead, physical laws that govern the game because that's all you can sense and feel. You disregard the inherently flawed methods with which you discern physical existence, that is, your senses. If your senses are capable of feeding your rational mind a mirage, or a misapprehension, how can you then in turn believe that your senses are infallible methods of gathering data?

You make human reason your God. And for that, I am sorry.

This is you, you dummy.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]