the god question

Post Reply New Topic

i thought my emphasis on the social aspect of theism, as seen from a non-neurotypical viewpoint, added something new to the discussion.

also, i believe "phishing" entails some sort of profit motive? surely nothing is less profitable than religious contention!

m.

As usual, the speculations on this topic are completely subjective.

I will contend that Materialism (and Atheism, and Agnosticism, and Gnosticism, and Voodoo, and the whole range of silly opinions) is completely ideologically based.

I have never met a Materialist of any flavour who has allowed science, reason, logic, or evidence interfere with their ideological prejudices. They are invariably smug in their prejudices simply because their ideology has saturated media and "education" due to the efforts of well organised publicity machines censoring out any realistic objections.

Materialism is entirely vanquished by two simple observations, one a self-evident truth, the other a scientific observation of the Natural Law.

A self-evident truth is one where a proposition or statement has no alternative that is not self-contradictory and thus absurd. The one pertinent to this argument is: "A thing that does not exist cannot cause itself to exist".

The Natural Law that is always and everywhere observed is Entropy... best summarised in its expression as the second law of thermodynamics: "All systems, left to themselves, tend toward maximum randomness and lowest energy (differential)".

I have never met a Materialist who would even contemplate, let alone conceptualise, the implications of either of those statements.

From bitter experience I have no illusions that a Materialist will become reasonable and notice the implications, but I do hope to bolster the confidence of those that intuitively realise that Materialism is an impossible nonsense.

I disagree, as I am a classical Pantheist leaning guy, and NO ATHEIST HERE HAS EVER ACKNOWLEDGED THAT IS A REAL theist GOD per religious view.

It is a real GOD AND is a real THEIST RELIGION and IT REALLY DOES EXIST AS SCIENCE HAS SHOWN FOR QUITE SOME TIME NOW.

AND I'VE RARELY SEEN ANY ATHEIST HERE APPROACH THE TOPIC PER DEFINITION OF ANY OTHER GOD.

AND I challenge you to provide any documentation where they have, as I have been reading here now for 4 years with a reading speed of 10 to 15 times the average human, and close to a photographic memory for words, per my Hyperlexic form of Autism, and IT IS almost ALWAYS ABOUT THE CHRISTIAN OR MUSLIM GOD, WHERE the atheists are complaining about the 'daddy in the sky'.

AND IF THE RECORDS STANDS AS IS, I doubt you will affirm the theological FACT that THIS GOD OF THE UNIVERSE DOES EXIST AS A REAL THEIST GOD PER religious view.

AND to be clear per scholarly FACT AND NOT YOUR PERSONAL VIEW.

Atheists here per my experience are JUST AS FUNDAMENTALIST ABOUT RELIGION AS THE hatred expressed for Christianity.

But that is not at all surprising to me as Almost ALL FUNDAMENTALIST THINKING PEOPLE no matter what the school of religion or rational thought is tend to HAVE A HARD TIME WITH METAPHOR, AND tend to see life in literal and black and white ways.

When I LOOK at this from a tapestry view, the Atheists, in general here, are wearing the similar religious 'clothes' of the FUNDIES WHERE I LIVE IN DEEP SOUTH Red State way.

They just have a different name for GOD, the FUNDAMENTALIST ONE that is infinitely smaller than the ONE GOD of Mother NATURE TRUE THAT I KNOW TO BE 100% TRUE, AND CAN EASILY BE PROVEN BY SCIENCE AS IT IS illustrated both in art and science HERE:



ALL said, WITH ALL due respect, of course. :)

The atheistic expression of ideas that I have observed here comes mainly in two versions: 1) The refutation of the more common gods of the more common religions, and 2) a broad refutation of all and any deities. The latter encompasses any supernatural expression of a deity or deities (pantheism and others) or god-within or human transcendence. Just because your particular bent isn't specified doesn't mean it doesn't fit under the same umbrella.

Please, can I ask you not to SHOUT with every second line. It may stand out more than italics, but doesn't add anything to your arguments, except perhaps as a distracting force majeure. Please be assured, I do ask this respectfully. I like reading your posts, but I struggle with the distraction. Cheers

I'm trying to comprehend what type of materialist you're identifying here. Materialism in general doesn't seem to fit with what you are saying. For example, in many senses, I'm a materialist, but also a pragmatist, especially with regard to science, logic, evidence and home budgets.

And I've not seen an opinion here that is entirely objective. We would all like to believe we we are being objective, but the evidence suggests not. If we were entirely objective, we would be enquiring of all views more than commenting on them and presenting our own views.

My own view, with regard to religion, comes from having once been very religious, from having studied college level theology, from decades of digging into such things, from being self-aware regarding how judgmental I have been and still can be, and from one extra but important source, and that is this:

As I began unshackling myself from 35+ years of religion, I became a damn good moderate, thinking that objectivity was the high ground. And then I was reminded of the saying that goes with it - "Everything in moderation, including moderation." There are times when passion is more appropriate than moderation. Eventually I realized that as a total moderate, I was fooling myself. So now I let my passionate opinions have their freedom, even if it means I'm at odds with some people.

We are all subjective - so let's own it.

As for entropy, not everything follows it. In a closed system, entropy will be obvious, but in nature it's opposite is also to be found, and with good reason. Look around and you will see it in snow flakes, forests, lightning and many other natural things.

But back to my original query, I'm curious just what breed of materialist you're making such sweeping statements about. Perhaps within a narrow definition, I might even agree with you. Cheers

A broad refutation of all and any deities alone without any actual refutation of any of those deities or any specific address of any of those deities is worthless as discussion.

When the only specific religion that is discussed is the tribal GOD of two religions that leaves out literally scores of other definitions of GOD that could be discussed.

There is obvious an overall (butthurt) thingy about being treated bad at church with the need of revenge, by former Christians turned Atheist and this is neither directed at you personally or anyone else in this discussion.

I have no problems with folks who are not theist, but when it becomes a thing where folks who believe are ridiculed it becomes apparent that there is the (butthurt) element at play.

Otherwise the discussion would move into more of the vast study of comparative religions and truly be interesting, at least to me, as the arguments are always the same and nothing new, when it comes to Abrahamic religions here.

I often clarify that I use Caps as a literary device to emphasis words that drive emotions and this is a common method that people are using in forums to make communication more organic.

Not here so much, but yes, in the more artistic creative avenues of communicating language online

I am not shouting as I live in a state of total peacefulness all the time with mastery over the regulation of my emotions as I practice a TAI CHI and martial arts style of dance walk on average about 8 miles a day, and am a REAL LIFE MARTIAL ARTIST AS WELL, IN THE Kung FU way of philosophy.

We live in a twitter world now, and while you may be old school, in ways of retaining attention for more than two sentences this is NOT the case for younger generations, overall, and part of why this literary device is now used to carry people through more than two sentences.

YES, it's unusual BUT proven to work, overall, to retain the Twitter world readers attention.

Sorry, you find it uncomfortable and I will try to keep that in mind when directly conversing with you, as obviously you have the ability to read more than two sentence without losing interest.

I am also a published poet and regularly use the literary device in that medium and the FEEDBACK IS it works as a way to make language more organic, as written language is often limited in that way.

I also use forms of words in longitudinal movement to express the lyrical rhythm in flow of language as well.

It's certainly not everyone's cup of tea but this site does have some folks that move outside of the box. :)

And to clarify, when I say organic, I mean language with emotion, and not just 'dead' logic.

While some folks find emotion uncomfortable it does aid in the learning process, when accepted as such.

Additionally, the way I learned to do this is from observing another member here doing it where it was my first encounter with this literary device.

It emoted my attention then, and I knew there was an analytical reason behind the literary device and the person conversing with me was NOT SHOUTING, obviously to me but my cognitive empathy seems to be much more enhanced than most people who post here, as that is a proven common issue of deficit on the Autism Spectrum

And THAT is why I often clarify why I am doing it as understanding that does not come natural to all folks, as it did for me, when FIRST introduced to this literary device of organic written language on this Internet Site.

This guy moved outside of the BOX and I listened and learned from him and simply made a change that worked well for me, particularly in unique creative poetic expression that I am often lauded for in the land of metaphor instead of reason only leaning folks.

And not only that but the practice of accentuating emotions with CAPS brought me remediation in real life in reciprocal communication as no one wants to talk to a robot monotone voice in real life.

Emotions move people. Robots just move.

As an experiment, I'll try some of your artistic form. I DO LOVE WRITING, so it's worth the experience.

There is the (as you call it) butthurt thing, BUT TO DISMISS ALL OR EVEN MOST as that is to FALL INTO THE SAME TRAP that we all fall into, regardless of WHICH side we're coming from. We start with the ASSUMPTION and base our comments on that.

When I turned away from Christianity, I DID NOT WANT TO BE THE TYPICAL "EX" turned ANTI, and FOUGHT the impulse for a LONG time. BUT TURNING AWAY FROM CHRISTIANITY turned out to be more of A WATERSHED MOMENT than I expected. Initially I believed some sort of DIVINITY was still possible, but man's feeble attempt to proscribe it was LIKE AN ANT TRYING TO COMPREHEND THE MOON.

I won't go into the LONG AND CONVOLUTED steps of logic, emotion, PASSION, research, internal and external conversations that I had after leaving the faith, EXCEPT TO SAY that the result took me FURTHER AWAY FROM THE SUPERNATURAL than I previously expected. It was like I was BLIND, BUT NOW I SEE. I had grown up and GROWN AWAY FROM THE NEED FOR ANY SUPERSTITIOUS EXPLANATIONS!

NATURE, THROUGH SCIENCE offers all the explanation needed. Any and ALL DEIFICATION is a hangover from our ignorant past, EVEN THOUGH WE STILL SEEK to incorporate it in our lives, CREATING arguments that VALIDATE THAT DESIRE.

BUT, with the DISMISSAL of ALL deification, supernatural, transcendence etc, THERE IS NO NEED TO MAKE EXCEPTION for anyone's specific notion of GOD or supernatural expression.

BUT..... I DO ENJOY comparative religion and the ANTHROPOLOGICAL HISTORY (LOVE it) of religion in general, REGARDLESS of it's ideological or geographical origin. It's just that such topics are rare here, and when they DO occur, they're often HIJACKED by one side or another or all sides.

That was.... interesting, writing like that. Not sure if it's me though. As a Literacy teacher, it goes against the grain, even though I LOVE WRITING.

I loved it and truly if everyone could and would get creative like this in life, in some way, not necessarily this way, and move out of the box, it would truly be more fun, at least to me, with my current philosophy of life.

The greatest lesson of life I learned is to treasure imperfection, and never take anything serious to the point of any stress.

I am in control of my emotions, so there is absolutely nothing anyone could do in words to bother me.

And no, I certainly wasn't always that way.

At one point in time I had a case of severe anxiety and panic attacks that my attending shrink offered no possibility of recovery for.

I am completely fearless now per illusory fears, and it took many years to get to this place I stay at now, drug free, per anti-anxiety medications.

But live and learn is what I do.

And as much as I enjoy writing now, the non-verbal communication aspect of life, both with other folks and all of nature through dance is total bliss for me, now that my body is totally balanced and I float like a butterfly or like a person on skates on land, with my Nike Athletic shoes instead. :)

I use to live in my head, and now I have a body. :)

Additionally, science now shows that there are receptors in all cells of the body that allow us to experience life in either darkness or light, per a lifted or dejected spirit.

We can grow those receptors for advantageous supply of positive neurochemicals through the practice of 'LIGHT' or we CAN simply die off into the darkness of death in life.

Eastern philosophy, particularly the practice of martial arts, has proven this as a real phenomenon for THOSE WHO practice it, for at least 7 thousand years.

Now science has finally caught up to the FULLER TRUTHS OF HUMAN BEING, and living human successfully, without any need for external materialistic goods to fill THE VOID.

ALL OF THIS is GOD to me.

And people have been sensing it with myths and all types of metaphors for thousands of years and calling it the same.

The BOTTOM LINE IS it works consistently and without fail for those who learn to balance and regulate their emotions and sensory integration through the real intelligence of physical intelligence that does drive the intelligence of emotion and sensory integration.

I cannot even convince my wife of almost 25 years, even as she sees my constant state of bliss but her mind seems forever 'corrupted' by the 'red state church' she was raised in.

I understand why, but it is still sad that this is her seemingly unchangeable reality.

If change was possible for me, as bad off as I was, I hold out hope that almost anyone could feel the bliss that I feel all the time now.

Finding a path that works is the challenge that will never work if one neither knows what they are looking for or wants to find it.

My path of balanced movement leading to a balanced mind per emotions and sensory integration per much greater physical intelligence may not work for everyone, but most definitely is a proven science of intelligence in art that does work in Eastern Philosophies, again, for over 7 thousands years, so far beyond the Abrahamic version of the interrelationship of all that is.

The real man Jesus IF he existed was likely just another Yogi LIKE MAN that was brave enough to come down from the 'mountains' and in his case possibly the 'desert' to share TRUTH TO SIMPLE HUMAN BLISS.

AND NOT surprising if he was crucified for it, as it is hard enough to do today, even online beyond an anonymous face.

I choose full disclosure, and perhaps the martial arts prowess and fearless thingy is part of that. :)

Additionally, I neither fear life or death, as I have already died in life and lived that death for many years far beyond any definition of depression or anxiety.

I am alive and I will DO WHATEVER it takes to stay that way, in life. :)

Thanks for your understanding and joining in on my fun. :)

Thank you for the reply.

A certain amount of subjectivity, as in likes and dislikes, is necessary for a balanced personality. However, the sort of subjectivity I am criticising is where likes and dislikes replace and/or displace (substitute for) cold, hard (objective) facts.

There is now virtue or advantage in being a mushy- brain (non-judgemental) Mr Nice guy unless you are a smarmy salesman, or politician, or some kind of hippie living in a completely fabricated dream-world.

Materialism is what you say: That is a popular, but completely unjustifiable superstitious ideology. The stuff that is pretentiously called "science" to give superficial credibility to that is barely more (in its essence) than a bunch of assumptions detached from reality linked in a great circle of circular reasoning.

Your notion of entropy is a good case study. Without entropy nothing in the physical Universe could do anything. Nothing can happen unless there is a movement from a state of higher potential to a lower one.

That argument of yours re "open" and "closed" system is a perfect example of a Furphie... a complete nonsense of a red herring that is used to sell this stuff to the naïve. There can be no such thing as an "open" system. It doesn't matter how big the Universe is... it is still the system, and it can only work on entropy.

Lets take just one of your proposed examples of "non-entropic" activity; lightning. Lightning does not occur without a very large electric potential between one place (or thing) and another. Power from the Sun produces the potential by heating and disturbing the atmosphere. The potential is dissipated (equalised) in a lightning bolt exactly in accordance with entropy. The power from the Sun is dissipated into space by using up potential in the Sun, an entropic process.

Even the glimmer of the most distant star is produced by entropic process. When the twinkle of a star touches your retina and produces a signal in the brain that your mind can interpret as "information", the photons don't magically go back to their origin to repeat the process; they are dissipated into the lower, or no potential, sink.

I think I might be already overloading irrational minds so I will stop there and field objections.

Overall in the universe entropy will increase of course, but that doesn't mean that you can't have a decrease in entropy locally, for example life here on earth is mostly fueled by solar energy so they can "order" their bodies. When the sun goes out most life here will likely not survive.

I would say a reasonable suggestion, trollcatman, except that a local decrease in entropy would imply an overall decrease in entropy.

You could burn fuel to power your car up a hill increasing its (gravitational) potential energy but its gravitational potential gain will be less than the petrol power required to get it there. We could say that there is a "local" gain in potential energy but, overall, entropy is increasing.

No physical activity, kinetic, chemical, quantum etc. can happen without potential being dissipated in its process. Nothing will happen unless a higher potential can proceed to a lower.

Is for atheists. For the various believers it's an answer.

Very Very simple. If the religious admit that it is purely their own belief, if they admit that what they believe (in the case of YECs) goes against the known laws of nature, if the religious stop interfering in the lives of the non religious and stop pushing governments to make or amend laws based upon their supernatural beliefs then people like myself would not care one hoot. The trouble is this is not the case, so until it is I am people like me will continue to try and expose religious dogma for the nonsense that it is.

A Gandhi type person is what I think you're talking about. However, you show just how subjective you are with your arguments. That's fine, we're all subjective, we just need to own it. Subjectivity is a good thing - it's an important part of passion. And even Gandhi was passionately subjective about certain things.


No Furphie mate.

One explanation of Entropy is about complexity breaking down to simple. Or high forms moving to low forms. It's like a car rolling down a hill. It will roll downhill until it reaches its lowest possible point. BUT. But along the way, it's momentum will carry it up and over smaller hills. Yes it's a "local" condition, and only temporary. But temporary can last fractions of a second, to days, years and millions/billions of years. A forest can be created by these temporary uphills in momentum.

A snowflake is created out of water, forming into complex and unique crystals. That's a local example of the simple becoming complex. Yes it's temporary, but temporary is not limited to mere moments.

Many things will be pushed into being, created by these uphill moments of inertia. Everything from snowflakes to galaxies, and everything in between. That ain't no Furphie.


Let me be clear, some scientists may be pretentious, but science itself is not. Science won't even state something as fact, even when it's irrefutable. The theory of gravity is as close to fact as you can get in this world, but 'science' still insists on calling it a theory. Conversely, people with set ideologies argue a thing with certainty and almost never say, "this is our theory." That's where the ideologist "likes and dislikes replace and/or displace (substitute for) cold, hard (objective) facts."

p.s. To think yourself better than your peers is both subjective and irrational.

And it's wrong most of the time. Most of the time, when everything is added up, you are, invariably, quite similar in quality to your fellow humans.

I'm a full-fledged nonbeliever in deities, supreme forces, etc.

However, I don't argue religion because it's a matter of faith for those who follow it. I just state what I believe/not believe in

I can't disprove, to believers, the existence of their "god." I can't prove that there is NO god or gods.

I'm interested in religions as something to study, in conjunction with history. I'm interested in the Bible as a work of allegory, a moral treatise, a chronology, an exposition of the history of Biblical times, and a work of poetry.

I don't believe somebody should be lambasted for their beliefs--unless they advocate something which harms innocent people.