GOD IS DEAD

Rahvin writes;My purpose here was not to address the question of homosexuality but simply to quote the verses in thier entirity and in context.Rahvin thanks for your most recent reply to my quesions, ofcourse you were not required to answer any of those questions but I thank you, it was was exacally what I had asked and what I was looking for in a response to those questions. If you are not correct (in my mind)your are always thourough, this is one thing that characterizes your posts, very good job.As I read your post it reminded me of Dr. Wallace I Matsons last rejoinder in the Warren-Matson debate, where Dr. Matson, like Dr Flew had taken an awful beating from Dr Thomas B Warren, like anyone that had ever debated him had. In his last speech, Dr Matson said "I have been accused of so many violations,one more is not going to hurt", then he moved to a personal explanation of his life and beliefs, which sounded much like yours, thanks again for your very exhaustive response.Not that it matters to you but I will get to it as quickly as I can. I have work and other thing today and will work on it progressively.Thanks again,D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

The fact that they(love, balance and the other bullshit) can also be the "lowest", depending on the circumstances and the point of view. Are you sure you understand English? Is it your native language? Too bad if it is.
Why should i be offering something? Do you think you are in some kind of an Offering Establishment where each participant has to offer something? What if I offer you to take some English classes so that you can understand what "There is no higher purpose in life without God" means and stop this "offer me something bullshit"? The notion of GOD is a higher purpose for our existence. When you assume that God created you and is governing your life and your next life and that of your relatives, why would you say that balance is more important than God, your future or the future of your children? Now I am sure you don't understand even basic English. You can't be claiming this nonsense like that, as if we are in a kindergaten. You assume that there is a God and you claim God doesn't matter. You definitely need to see a doctor. Fast.
If there is no God and people start to realise this, then Nietzsche takes over - we'll have to wait and see what kind of a change in their lives there will be. There will definitely be some change and that's the point of this thread - to find out what. Too bad it takes you a whole week to figure that out. You have shown me nothing but NONSENSE BEYOND NONSENSE. Again you assume there is God and yet you claim your fucking retarded Balance is more important than God. Something's truly very very UNbalanced in your head.THIS TOPIC CONCERNS BELIEVERS IN GOD THAT ARE LOSING THEIR FAITH, WHEN THE NOTION OF GOD IS WANING AND ITS IMPLICATIONS ON THEIR FUTURE LIVES.
It does not concern atheists, let alone atheists like you who have mega-severe reading comprehension issues of the English language.
PS. Your mental issues are evident in this quoted post of yours titled "What God thinks is not important". The fact that you are insisting that we ALL(even the ones who are not angry with God) accept that balance and peace are more important than God, speaks volumes of your mental health.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Hi Straggler, thought I'd find this link to prove to you that I've been waffling my opinion on this for a long time. Parasomnium wrote a topic. He is an intelligent and reasonable atheist, perhaps the only one who ever KIND OF ended up agreeing with me on my points about "God". HEREI couldn't find the juicy posts but this one explains a few things, and you could check out my responses, because I will only end up repeating them here, which can be tedious.Ofcourse, this is just one of the many EvC-wars I had with Shraff, over the years. Call me an insubordinate muggle, or an obstinate fart, but I haven't changed my position on the subject.

It seems that your argument is based on the sacrifice and selflessnes that your "knowlede" of God induces. You seem to equate this with evidence for God that does not apply to Zig Zog, the FSM, the PU or ay other such entities. Is that correct?My argument is that any belief in any entities for which the "evidence" is purely subjective is utterly worthless in terms of reliability of conclusion.Therefore beliefs in any such entity are, objectively, equally absurd. Pink unicorn, Zig Zog or God.To claim that if such a belief causes sacrifice, denial and hardship then it is somehow more worthwhile in terms of it's veracity is completely nonsensical.All this does is demonstrate the depth of the delusion.Believing with absolute conviction that the mighty Zig Zog requires one to individually pluck each and every hair from ones body and then wear this as a permanent undergarment, and then undertaking this painful task, no more suggests that Zig Zog actually exists than living a "good Christian life" suggests that God actually exists.All it demonstrates is that people really do believe their delusion to be true. I don't doubt that they do. The lack of meaningful or reliable evidence for God remains the same as that for PU or Zig Zog regardles of any strength of belief.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Too bad you don't have the mental capacity to understand that if there is no God and we are here by chance, by complete randomness in this cage called Universe, we will NEVER EVER figure out what's outside the "box". We'll never know what lies beyond our 3D world, how it started, who started it and was there a reason for the whole silly universe to exist as it is. We'll just have to accept half-assed, half-brain statements like:1. The universe had no other choice, there was no other way so it did happen the way it did.2. Oh it's just an emergent property - though we have absolutely no idea why the emergent property exists in the first place and what causes it.There are people looking for these answers all over the world and when the notion of God dies, so do the answers that people hoped God could eventually provide. This should make you sad but oh well, you are only interested in balance, love and other ridiculous dumbshit. Whatever. Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

Pardon me for jumping in rather late to the discussion (and into the middle of what may be a fractious argument). This thread has raised some very interesting posts (especially at the start, from Stile). Although I haven't read all the posts, I hope I can contribute without being redundant. This last post of yours, Agobot, is as good a place as any for me to start: Why so pessimistic? Do you really think humanity has reached a point of stagnation? (I see no evidence of that.) Are you assuming that evolution has stopped altogether?Just as the first self-aware generations of our species could not have envisioned their living environment as part of a globe, let alone as a planet in a solar system in a galaxy in a vast universe at least 14 billion years old, so too the brighter members of current generations, who do understand these things and take them for granted, are still not close to knowing what can and should be known about reality. There's a lot inside the "box" we haven't seen yet, and just getting to know more of it could change us drastically.We've made a lot of progress, just with our species staying more or less as-is over a span of (I'm guessing) not more than a million years (perhaps half that) -- a mere milli-fraction of geological time, let alone universal time. And most of that progress has actually been made in just the last 500 years, with the advent of tools that extend our senses (primarily sight) into ranges far beyond what evolution could bestow on us.And progress is still being made in the right direction. We continue to extend the ranges and domains of what is humanly perceivable, and we're not even talking about where evolution might take us next, because there's no way yet to know what capacities might be introduced by mutations, let alone how they might interact with the many environments we now inhabit.Why is it essentially bad that the universe around us started with no purpose? As a self-aware species that emerges "in due course" within this overall setting, it seems incumbent on us to establish a purpose, to determine what really makes sense as a goal, and to figure out the paths to pursue that. The overall process is meaningless only to those who say it is meaningless. For the rest of us, the meaning extends as far as we are able to extend our awareness.Maybe our species is the only life form in the universe ever to attain self-awareness, ever to develop the capacity to perceive beyond the range normally available to physical senses. And maybe we'll all be wiped out in 2039 by a planet-killing asteroid. Then again, maybe before that wipe-out occurs, we'll have figured out how to control things just enough to keep that asteroid from killing us all (proving once and for all the value of scientific progress).But then there may be other asteroids, and/or there may be drastic changes in climate and/or ecology, whether man-made or not. The important lesson in terms of "the meaning of our existence" is that while we are natural products of the universe, this does not entail that there is anything in (or beyond) the universe that is purposefully looking after us and protecting us. To the best of our knowledge, we're on our own, and we've just been remarkably lucky so far.Our development as a social species, our inherited method of reproduction, the necessities built into bearing and raising children, our seemingly unique capacity for language -- all of that creates meaning. We compulsively assign meaning, even to things that can be easily, readily understood as non-purposive. We are happiest when we are able to create order out of disorder. Many of our activities in playing and recreation are built around this drive: organizing a random assortment of cards into suits and straights, assembling puzzles, discerning patterns."God" "exists" because "He" has been a way for people to see everything as meaningful. But this approach has been causing a lot of problems, and we've reached a point where there are better approaches to satisfy our need for meaning.Do we really need to have some sort of externalized sense of meaningfulness assigned to us? No. We create meaningfulness -- we define it. The universe is not meaningless or purposeless while we (or some species like us) exist in it.Who cares "who started it"? Why should that matter to us now, when we have climate change and planet-killing asteroids to worry about? Anyone who honestly believes there's a God who will save us from all that will be rightly considered missing the point (and fooling themselves) unless and until one (or both) of two things happen:1. We really do witness some supernatural intervention that saves humanity from oblivion.2. The people holding this belief actually apply it in a way that materially, constructively and effectively contributes to actions that eventually lead to saving humanity from oblivion (e.g. the faithful who are pushing hard for ecological responsibility on "religious" grounds)(Of course, there are those believers in God who seem to be looking forward to the point at which our physical existence is fully obliterated. Let's just wait for those few to die out, shall we?)

---

autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.

Obviously you are wrong. Scientists have not stopped even for a minute pursuing the idea of reaching further deeper into our universe past and finding the nature of the Universe. You say we should care about global warming, shuffling cards, enjoying life and not deal with "unnecessary" details like the Universe beginning and yet we see countries investing $10 000 000 000 in CERN. Do you think they are crazy?
To me it doesn't even makes sense that there could be people who would not be interested in knowing what they are, what started it and was there a purpose behind all this. This is one of those traits that clearly separates humans from animals - our consciousness and the logical questions typical only of humans(of all species) - "Who are we and why are we here?"

The only thing I assume is that the 3D will be our last frontier. Assuming we can find and explore other dimensions(if there are any) in the far future is pure speculation at this time and i don't want to speculate. And it's offtopic.

I am quite sure you have misread his post. I am not defending his post, just each time I read it I don't see how you came up with that reply.

That's the same as saying the Universe was meaningless for 13.7 billion years minus 200 000 years. Even I accept that we are giving meaning to the Universe(which I won't for obvious reasons), that still makes 13 700 000 000 years of meaningless existence as per your claim. No, we don't create meaningfullness. Natural Selection does by selecting "genes" favourable to a desired outcome. The desired outcome being - our survival. But of course Natural Selection is no all-powerfull God and quite naturally cannot inspire meaning in us about everything in the Universe. That's why we say that even though there is no meaning for the existence of the Universe, that it's OK. Because otherwise we'd have to resort to the notion of God, about which we have zero evidence.Just a few examples of inspired meaning to us by Natural Selection to ensure simple survival of the species:1. Love(being devised by Natural Selection has no chance whatsover of being a higher purpose)
2. Jealousy
3. Rivalry
4. Survival
5. Sex
6. Sleep
7. Rest
8. Walk
9. Run
10. Eating
11. Giving birth to children
12. Adultery
13. Inventing
...We can continue like this forever. Pretty much all the meaning in our lives comes from and is inspired by Natural Selection and you cannot expect NS to inspire you with meaning about the existence of Alpha Centauri. Nature doesn't work that way.BTW there's good news and evidence that we are probably not alone out there and as the topic of this thread states - God is indeed dying:"Building Blocks of Life Detected in Distant GalaxyThe discovery of an amino acid precursor in a far-flung galaxy is fresh evidence that life has potential to form throughout the universe, scientists say.Researchers using the world's largest radio telescope”the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico”have detected methanimine in the distant galaxy Arp 220.Researchers had previously detected evidence of formaldehyde, ammonia, hydrogen cyanide, and possibly formic acid in the star-forming region.Methanimine can form the simplest amino acid, glycine, when it reacts with either hydrogen cyanide and then water, or formic acid."The fact that we can observe these substances at such a vast distance means that there are huge amounts of them in Arp 220," said Emmanuel Momjian, a former Arecibo astronomer, now at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory in Socorro, New Mexico."It is indeed very intriguing to find that the ingredients of life appear in large quantities where new stars and planets are born."The scientists warn, however, that Arp 220 has undergone a recent merger and hosts a vibrant star nursery. With new stars living hot and fast, then violently exploding, conditions are probably too turbulent to allow life to evolve.But the ingredients for life could take root later, when more stable, sun-like stars are born."http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...80204-galaxy-life.html Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.Edited by Agobot, : No reason given.

An evidence makes a theory viable. A lack of evidence doesn't make a theory not viable, only a falsification.Evidence for God is another topic though. Evidence is defnined as something which would follow if God was true, but there are areas of disagreement here.The problem is one of composition, which you still haven't realized in your haste.We DO KNOW Zigzog, and the IPU do not exist, as far as JTB goes, because we have a JTB that they are made up. (Justified true belief).As for my argument in the topic I linked to, it was not in the following form;I suffer as a Christian, therefore my God is true.That's either a misunderstanding of my position or a strawman. I will go for the former, and give you the benefit of the doubt. My argument was that "God" has genuine meaning to people, which shows one difference between God and ZigZog. Just a difference. If I show differences, then you can't present Zigzog as the equivalent to God.1. People have died for God. People haven't for Zigzog.
2. People believe in God. People don't believe in Zigzog.
3. God is historically prevailent. Zigzog is not.
4. It is unknown as to whether God is an idea. It is known that Zigzog is.Now that is a LIST OF COMPOSITION that allows me to disprove the claim that invisible pink unicorns are the equivalent of "God". Logically, I am correct, because any analogy of a reality must show equivalent substitutions of that reality. IPUs are not equivalent except for in one manner - their apparent none-existence OR invisibility.Composition is every element of the predicate. We have a comparison. Thus far I can only think that God and Zigzog share invisibility, as we can't assume that God is made-up, because of the fact that we know Zigzog is made-up. I still have four valid differences atleast.Did you even look at the fallacy of the undistributed middle term? You can't just ignore such an important point. This is where the likes of Dawkins falls short. He has science, but in his hastey acceptance of the authority of science, he has neglected Logic 101.A rich man doesn't sit down to count his pennies, but that doesn't mean that a poor man will not find any value in pennies.

You're quite right about this Zigzog fellow, however I'd like you to meet the one true bringer of truth, his name is Trask:
1. Everybody that ever lived died for Trask, even if they don't know it.
2. I believe in Trask
3. Trask is historically prevailent, he just tricked you into thinkng he's not
4. Trask is not an idea, he's real, and he speaks to me. He told me to post this so you could be enlightenedFurthermore I would like to state that Trask likes to prank people, he does it all the time.You see Mike, how do you refute that. Sure you can say it's not true and I am lying, and then I can come back and say I'm not. The point I'm trying to make is that simply claiming something to be true does not make it so, so unless you can come up with anything else then bare assertions, I'll just keep claiming the same, and more, for Trask and we'll never get anywhere.

There are differences, however well hidden they are. Essentially the same problems are in there.1. We know he's made up for arguments' sake.
2. God is historically prevailent, as I refer to the history everyone has, when they look in the books, whereas you say, "you just didn't know" which is ad hoc, and not relevant to reality.I could go on but why bother. And I agree with that point.My claim isn't that God is true. My claim is that it is not known as to whether God exists or not. If that were true, why do entities such as Trask only turn up in these arguments?Can't you see that to a reasonable person, such things are not serious. It is only plain to disbelievers that God can be measured against absurd vacuous inventions, or that he is one himself, and it's arrogance to simply assume that you are correct and everyone else is incorrect.MY POINT is that logic itself, and what it teaches us objectively, can show that these types of arguments don't have any merit.However, I am reasonable. The part I do agree on is that God cannot be proved objectively. But many things can't be proved without them being absurd.It is only a claim to say that God is absurd, and it is problematic either way because such claims depend on subjective opinion either way.

I would say objective verifiable evidence makes a theory viable This is your whole point and one which I fundamentally disagree with. If the objective evidence for God, PU or Zig Zog are all completely absent then there is no more reason to belive that God exists than PU or ZZ. This is my position. It is a different topic but there really is no scientific evidence for God. There are interpretations of evidence derived from philosophical standpoints but there is no predicted tested evidence or discovery. None exists. I have asked for it repeatedly and never been presented with any. No we do not. I exprienced ZZ and "chose" to interpret this as me making up a God for the sake of argument.
You experienced God and "chose" to interpret this as subjective evidence of his genuine existence.
Either one of us could have potentially gone the other way.
The whole concept of JTB is utterly and completely reliant on a subjective agreement as to what is justified. There are people who experience God and believe that he tells them to kill people. Is this JTB? There are millions who absoluetely believe in Hindu Gods. Is this JTB? I experience ZZ and dismiss this as an imaginary God. Is this JTB? You choose to interpret your subjective experience as evidence for God. Is this JTB? How are all of these different.One mans justifeid belief is another mans delusional insanity. Unless we resort to objective evidence there can be no agreement as to the criteria for "justifiable" It was a misunderstnding. I try not to debate with myelf as I usually lose You happen to be correct that ZZ means nothing to me. But then again nor does your God.
If I did radically change my life on the basis of what I beleieved ZZ required of me would that add any weight at all to the likelihood of his existence? Surely not? Would it not just suggest I was a bit mental? If by virtue of my personal charisma (I wish....) I managed to convince a whole society to follow the teachings of ZZ would that make his existence more "real"? Surely not. Differences in people's behaviour (which seems to be what you are talking about) tell us nothing about the veracity of Gods existence. They simply tell us the depth of people's belief at any given time in a specific cultural context. People have died for Apollo and Vishnu. Maybe one day people will die for ZZ. People believe in (or have believed in) Apollo and Vishnu. Maybe one day people will believe in ZZ. Apollo and Vishnu are both historically prevalent. One day ZZ may be so. It is unknown whether or not Apollo or Vishnu are ideas. ZZ may be more than an idea. You only have the word of a atheist that ZZ was a conjured up idea rather than direct revelation. Surely that is not a subjective judgement worth trusting????!!!!! All you have done is show that the Christian concept of God is most prevalent within the culture that we both happen to currently inhabit. Vishna meets all the criteria you specify in another contemporary culture. Apollo meets all the criteria in a historical context. ZZ (or another God as yet unknown) could well meet all these criteria in a future context. History teaches us that Gods come and go. There was a point in history where the same comparison you make between God and ZZ could have been made between the Christian God and Apollo. By your definitions this would have resulted in the conclusion that Apollo was the 'real' god and that God was equivelent to little more than ZZ.
Baed on this what is to say ZZ (or some other God) will not overtake your God in all the criteria you specify at some point in the future? It's not just your God though is it? I can apply your reasoning to any contemporary God.
We could apply your reasoning against the idea of the Christian God at any point in history before the Christian God was the prevalent belief.
This suggests that one day ZZ (or another God) could be the prevalent God. Not really. You have twisted logic to effectively say little more then "Lots of people genuinely believe in my God. This makes it more real/true than a God which very few or no-one actually believes in".KEY POINT
Your whole argument is little more than a philosophically dressed up assertion that the objectively verifiable number of people who demonstrate that they really do believe in the existence of God is somehow evidence for the subjective belief that you all superficially share. You are trying to sneak in physical evidence based reasoning to unjustifiably support subjective belief. If anything this is an indirect admission that you too consider objective verifiable evidence as a necessary requirement for a meaningful position on this topic. Backing a particular God on numbers alone is a dangerous game. If the currency of the gods is number of believers then your God may be a rich God now but he was a poor god once and he could be so again............The cult of ZZ is coming Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

But Huntard I have been recruiting and far more people now believe in Zig Zog than Trask.Therefore the existence of Zig Zog is more true