budaatum:

Thats ok. I get you. When I was an atheist though, I never lacked belief in the existence of gods. I just knew they didn't exist in my own mind. They very definitely did exist in the minds of those in whom they existed however. Amazing what one can cook up in ones own mind. I do resent 39 cooking up of stuff in his own head, claiming he does not believe it then making out I do! You trying to spread your crap to my head, 39?

Can things exist in my mind alone and nowhere else and still exist? Or do things not exist in my mind?

"When I was...", buda? You are no longer an atheist?

budaatum:

Thats ok. I get you. When I was an atheist though, I never lacked belief in the existence of gods. I just knew they didn't exist in my own mind. They very definitely did exist in the minds of those in whom they existed however. Amazing what one can cook up in ones own mind. I do resent 39 cooking up of stuff in his own head, claiming he does not believe it then making out I do! You trying to spread your crap to my head, 39?

Can things exist in my mind alone and nowhere else and still exist? Or do things not exist in my mind?

Lol. Same you will turn around and tell me that you use the ENGLISH LANGUAGE. You are being dishonest and kidding yourself. When something exists in your head only(and not in the real world), IT DOESN'T EXIST and it is termed ''imaginary.'' When something exists in the real world, it exists irrespective of whether you acknowledge it or not (or it exists in your head or not) and it is termed ''real.'' Stop trying to make the case that things exist in people's head and whatever it is, it is true for them and they can use it as facts. Stop disorganizing the argument and twisting the English language. I never said things can't exist in your head alone. What exists in people's heads was never relevant to our discussion, why bring it in? We are talking about objective reality,which you admitted can be recognized and is real:
''Yes, I do think one can "distinguish subjective reality from objective reality". It only requires honesty and eyes that see''
quite irony that you show no honesty in understanding what I mean when I say something exists. SMH.

Can things exist in my mind alone and nowhere else and still exist?

If they exist in your mind alone but not in the real world, they don't exist. They are termed IMAGINARY, I repeat IMAGINARY. However, if they exist in real world then they exist and are termed a REAL, I repeat REAL. I believe we are using English here. Address this in your reply, don't skip it.

I do resent 39 cooking up of stuff in his own head, claiming he does not believe it then making out I do! You trying to spread your crap to my head, 39?

False rape allegations . I never said I didn't believe in the elephant. In fact, I won't tell you whether I believe in it or not. Secondly, I never tried to make it out that you believed in the elephant neither did I try to spread it to your head? Stop lying against me and be honest. Maybe you didn't follow the argument logically. (edit: I was only asking if you believe in the elephant and why. That's all).

You still haven't explicitly answered the following :
1) How do you know I made it up?
2) Can you prove the elephant I described isn't at the centre of Neptune? If no, are you inconclusive of it's existence and location? or do you lack belief in it because it's supposed existence has to basis in reality?


SMH

Cc. IAmSabrina, LordReed, Martinez39(myself )

Martinez19:
Lol. Same you will turn around and tell me that you use the ENGLISH LANGUAGE. You are being dishonest and kidding yourself. When something exists in your head only(and not in the real world), IT DOESN'T EXIST and it is termed ''imaginary.'' When something exists in the real world, it exists irrespective of whether you acknowledge it or not (or it exists in your head or not) and it is termed ''real.'' Stop trying to make the case that things exist in people's head and whatever it is, it is true for them and they can use it as facts. Stop disorganizing the argument and twisting the English language. I never said things can't exist in your head alone. What exists in people's heads was never relevant to our discussion, why bring it in? We are talking about objective reality,which you admitted can be recognized and is real:
''Yes, I do think one can "distinguish subjective reality from objective reality". It only requires honesty and eyes that see''
quite irony that you show no honesty in understanding what I mean when I say something exists. SMH.

If they exist in your mind alone but not in the real world, they don't exist. They are termed IMAGINARY, I repeat IMAGINARY. However, if they exist in real world then they exist and are termed a REAL, I repeat REAL. I believe we are using English here. Address this in your reply, don't skip it.

False rape allegations . I never said I didn't believe in the elephant. In fact, I won't tell you whether I believe in it or not. Secondly, I never tried to make it out that you believed in the elephant neither did I try to spread it to your head? Stop lying against me and be honest. Maybe you didn't follow the argument logically.

You still haven't explicitly answered the following :
1) How do you know I made it up?
2) Can you prove the elephant I described isn't at the centre of Neptune? If no, are you inconclusive of it's existence and location? or do you lack belief in it because it's supposed existence has to basis in reality?


SMH

Cc. IAmSabrina, LordReed, Martinez39(myself )

You people should stop flogging yourselves over buda matter. buda is a devil's advocate. LMFAO!

IAmSabrina:

Your argument doesn't compute. Perhaps an illustration will suffice...

IAmSabrina: "Are you allergic to peanuts?"
jjresurrected: "No, I'm not allergic to anything."
IAmSabrina: "Are you allergic to shellfish?"
jjresurrected: "No, I'm not allergic to anything."

Clearly, not having any allergies is a kind of allergy, huh jj?

Atheism has no tenets, no dogma, no rituals, no teachings, nothing to be taken on faith. It's a single position on a single claim.

Yeah! It is your illustration that does!

For instead of digging you out of the hole that of your unwarranted position has gotten you, it has only pushed you much further inside, that for you to come out of it would now require a more complex rescue mission.

As it has only further exposed your futile attempts to restrict the definition of belief to religion or belief in God or any other gods.

And to illustrate my point I gonna be using your own illustration if you permit.

Now you spoke about not being allergic to anything, but only gave instances of food allergies.

So does it mean that one not having any food allergy is a proof that one is not allergic to anything?

If anything, that's only trying to box the definition of allergies into the definition of food allergies, which would not be possible because the definition of allergies span beyond the limits of the definition of food allergies.

For while food allergy is a type of allergy, there are other types of allergies, such as drug allergy, skin allergy, respiratory allergy, insect-sting allergy etc.

Therefore for one not to be allergic to anything, one has to cover the whole span of allergies not to be allergic to any thing, and not just that of which was food related.

So that's my point with respect to the definition of belief, for trying to restrict it's definition to religion or belief in God, or any gods is tantamount to putting it into the box of religion.

Because belief in the sense of religion is just an aspect of all beliefs, so that one does not believe in God, or any other gods, or does not believe in the existence of God, or any other gods, does not mean that one does not believe in anything.

For it must have to do with all forms or definitions of beliefs before one would be said not to believe in anything, or have any beliefs at all.

But that's not atheism, for atheism is just the lack of belief in God or His existence, or any other gods or their existence, which itself ironically is already a belief.

And moreover even in the sense of religion, it may not even be restricted to the belief in God or any other gods alone, for you must have heard of football being a religion, yes, there's an extent to which belief in something else that is not God or gods would get to, that it would also be deemed a religion.

And so it's understandable the concern of that guy who wasn't comfortable with the atheists prayer to the brain, despite that most atheists here are saying amen to it, for it was bordering on religion.

And also the extent to which atheists believe in science could also pass as it being a religion to the atheists.

LordReed:


"When I was...", buda? You are no longer an atheist?

No. I don't self identify as atheist anymore. I am budaatum, a complete human being, and not one identified by a lacking part that is missing.

That definition is very important, Sabrina.

budaatum:

No. I don't self identify as atheist anymore. I am budaatum, a complete human being, and not one identified by a lacking part that is missing.

That definition is very important, Sabrina.

I get you.

Michellekabod1:

Gone through the post the umpteenth time and yet to discover where Christianity or prayer was insulted,when you find one please do alert me...
It could be my eyes are failing me...

Hahn, lordreed, hardmirror,martinez39,jesusjnr, CAPSLOCKED,happypagan,jesusjnr

I absolutely agree with you Mich!

For instead I see a case where religion is being given its due respects, which further buttresses my position that religion is the air or breath that Nairaland atheism survives on.

For if not for religion, wetin nairaland atheists go get to talk about?

For the worst thing one can do to them would be to isolate them from the religion section and leave them all by themselves, ol boy, na boredom to hell things, for that day na hin a lot of atheists go by force convert to Christ for anything wey go make dem no dey alone by themselves, na tufia kwa, meaning God forbid!

For even the atheists prayer, was borrowed from a religious book, so what else would atheist have to talk about if not something that pertains to religion?

So it should not be seen as an insult when your junior admits that you pass am, by copy copy things, for that one na sign say them dey pay you respect say "you na our senior bros", "bros we dey hail oh", "master we dey for back dey follow small, small oh".

But of course as the saying goes, "if e no be panadol, e no fit be like panadol!"

jjresurrected:
I absolutely agree with you Mich!

For instead I see a case where religion is being given its due respects, which further buttresses my position that religion is the air or breath that Nairaland atheism survives on.

For if not for religion, wetin nairaland atheists go get to talk about?

For the worst thing one can do to them would be to isolate them from the religion section and leave them all by themselves, ol boy, na boredom to hell things, for that day na hin a lot of atheists go by force convert to Christ for anything wey go make dem no dey alone by themselves, na tufia kwa, meaning God forbid!

For even the atheists prayer, was borrowed from a religious book, so what else would atheist have to talk about if not something that pertains to religion?

So it should not be seen as an insult when your junior admits that you pass am, by copy copy things, for that one na sign say them dey pay you respect say "you na our senior bros", "bros we dey hail oh", "master we dey for back dey follow small, small oh".

But of course as the saying goes, "if e no be panadol, e no fit be like panadol!"

.

budaatum:

No. I don't self identify as atheist anymore. I am budaatum, a complete human being, and not one identified by a lacking part that is missing.

That definition is very important, Sabrina.

Michellekabod1:

Gone through the post the umpteenth time and yet to discover where Christianity or prayer was insulted,when you find one please do alert me...
It could be my eyes are failing me...

Hahn, lordreed, hardmirror,martinez39,jesusjnr, CAPSLOCKED,happypagan,jesusjnr

Thank you.

IAmSabrina:

@bolded is an interesting statement. If certain things are unobservable and can't be known at this time, does it make sense to verify it to be true as a fact. If so, how do we arrive at that conclusion?

We verify by doing science.

Science is the use of the senses in the study of the structure and components of 'reality' in order to measure and quantify it so as to know it and utilise it.

(I made that up in my head so check for where I might be incorrect please. And for reality, I had 'phenomen' in my head).

IAmSabrina:
This leads us to the big question: How do we seperate objective reality from subjective experiences?

I "separate objective reality from subjective experiences" by first, making absolutely certain my science equipment is clean, in good working order, and that I am competent enough to adequately use it, then I apply the use of my equipment in the assessment of reality and experiences.

At least that's what I ought to do. But I am a subjective human, with faulty equipment that's not in good working order and which I have no clue how to use because I'm incompetent! When I think I am doing 'science', I could be deceiving myself!

But now that you make me think of it I doubt I go about separating "objective reality from subjective experiences" a lot! Or perhaps I do so unconsciously or automatically. I pay objective money for things I buy in the shops I guess and I always eat objective food that I subjectively (in my own way, I mean) cook.

Ok, I've thought! If it comes from a subject and its mind it's most likely subjective. And if I can kick and hurt my foot on it, its most likely an object. There you go, I do 'science' with my senses.

IAmSabrina:
This is where we talk about patterns & consistency:
a) Ice is very chilled
b) Kittens are fuzzy
c) The sun rises in the east & sets in the west
d) Cars move faster than normal people

You may insist that these are still embedded in your head but ultimately, these incidents are recurring "subjective experiences". Thus, it makes sense to call them "objective".

It does not make sense to call all the things listed above objective, to me! They are after all subjective opinions which neither of us has tested with our photometer! Just look at the words, chilled, fuzzy, faster, all very subjective words that mean different things to different subjects! Even the Sun rises due exactly east and sets due exactly west on only two days of every year, yet we subjectively assume it does so everyday!

Na! Not objective at all, in my opinion!

IAmSabrina:
Then again, I could just ask Martinez & Buda if they're seeing what i'm seeing to confirm objectivity. If Martinez & Buda are seeing what i'm seeing, then their "subjective experiences" matches mine which translates to all three of us subjectively experiencing the same objective thing

What! You'll just ask who, Sabrina? Please be serious! Buda could be tripping or want something off you so lie deceptively in agreement to get it and 39 has elephants in his Neptune! Surely you've heard what we told the emperor about his new clothes? All you'd be doing by asking those two is hoping to create objectivity by the addition of multiple subjectivities and I'm personally not aware of any theory to support that (though johnydon22 intersubjectivity fits that description)! I just need think of a church congregation and miracles and a funny taste is in my mouth!

Our individual subjective experiences can not be objective since they are experienced by individual subjects. And more of either the experiences or experienters doesn't make anything any more objective!

IAmSabrina:
Does the world even exist, Buda? I think it does. That should explain why people can see things and agree unanimously on it.

You see what I mean! The world you've lived in all your life, and you only think it does exist! That was Descarte's dilemma, by the way and which made him ergo sum.

Something must exist for us (who must also exist) to form subjective opinions about it. But we also create imaginary non-existent things and unanimously agree on them too, mind, so the fact we agree on things hardly fulfils the criteria for things actually existing I would think.

IAmSabrina:
However, as an atheist, i'm of the opinion that people's conclusions are less reliable than their experiences. Thus their predictions are less reliable than their conclusions. It would be a huge blunder to accept Buda's experience alone as the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I think I better post a warning here! Anyone who refuses to use their own subjective mind in their own subjective head and just accepts the blundered subjective experiences of buda or anyone else without scrutiny (i.e. by doing science on it with their own subjective senses) is subjected and has blundered!

It is a huge blunder for buda even to accept buda's experiences as the whole truth and nothing but the truth! It would be a greater blunder for anyone else to accept buda's experiences as the whole truth and nothing but the truth!

As a human being, I know my own conclusions (or predictions) are less reliable than my experiences! As a human being, I also know that my perception of my experiences may be wrong so they are not reliable at all! I know this for a fact because I have concluded wrongly in the past, predicted wrongly in the past, and thought I perceived my experience correctly only to later find I didn't have a clue what I was experiencing.

I think this might be because I am a human being, before everything else I might be perceived to be.

Martinez19:

1) How do you know I made it up?
2) Can you prove the elephant I described isn't at the centre of Neptune? If no, are you inconclusive of it's existence and location? or do you lack belief in it because it's supposed existence has to basis in reality?

1), I know you made it up because you have shown you have form of making things up.

2), I do not have to waste my time proving anything to you about faraway Neptune since you have not even shown you are capable of understanding the things on this very earth, and even on this very Nairaland!

Martinez19:

If they exist in your mind alone but not in the real world, they don't exist. They are termed IMAGINARY, I repeat IMAGINARY. However, if they exist in real world then they exist and are termed a REAL, I repeat REAL. I believe we are using English here. wink Address this in your reply, don't skip it. grin

Ok, I won't skip. You must pay attention because I am going on a trip through your mind with imaginary words created in my own mind in English Language.

Go on, read that again. Let me know if the words in my mind as I wrote them down where I sat have not now formed inside your own mind and become real where you are, 39.

budaatum:

Ok, I won't skip. You must pay attention because I am going on a trip through your mind with imaginary words created in my own mind in English Language.

Go on, read that again. Let me know if the words in my mind as I wrote them down where I sat have not now formed inside your own mind and become real where you are, 39.

What a nonsensical reply. It's clear that you don't get it, never will and don't want to. I wonder how many times I have to repeat myself saying that this discussion is not about what's in people's mind but about demonstrating what it means to lack belief. I asked you a series of questions which if you had answered honestly, I would have passed my point across about what it means to lack a belief in something.

You are hell bent on your position that's why you keep misrepresentating me and disorganising the arguments with non sequiturs; irrelevant statements and questions. If a man has made up his mind to hold an irrational position then there is nothing anyone can do to make him reason. Carry on insisting that I want to read your mind or brainwash you with an idea and keep on acting like what people build up in their minds are relevant to this discussion. So much stubbornness and dishonesty. Good day.

budaatum:

1), I know you made it up because you have shown you have form of making things up.

Nonsense. How have I shown I form of making things up?

2), I do not have to waste my time proving anything to you about faraway Neptune since you have not even shown you are capable of understanding the things on this very earth, and even on this very Nairaland!

Refs

This is a load of crap. What are the things I don't understand about this earth? There are many things people don't understand about this earth yet it has not prevented scientists from learn many things about the sun, moon and other planets? That reason is thoughtless. I believe you can do better.

Of course you will never answer because doing that will clearly demonstrate what it means to lack a belief in an idea --- something you deemed impossible and weird.

You don't want to admit that it's possible and you are fervent about it hence the misrepresentation, non sequiturs and irrelevant questions and statements you've thrown in this discussion. This is what happens when you desperately try to defend an irrational position ---- you inevitably build up illogical arguments and misrepresentations. This is similar to christians trying to defend christianity. This happens because there is no rational basis for an irrational position --- never.

As I have said before, carry on insisting that I want to read your mind or brainwash you with an idea and keep on acting like what people build up in their minds are relevant to this discussion. Good day.

Martinez19:


Of course you will never answer because doing that will clearly demonstrate what it means to lack a belief in an idea --- something you deemed impossible and weird.

It is not "impossible and weird" to lack a belief in an idea, 19! People do it all the time! And I do understand that you lack a belief in an idea. That is precisely the reason why your beliefs or lack of them is irrelevant since you can make them up in your head!

budaatum:

It is not "impossible and weird" to lack a belief in an idea, 19! People do it all the time! And I do understand that you lack a belief in an idea. That is precisely the reason why your beliefs or lack of them is irrelevant since you can make them up in your head!

SMH.

Michellekabod1:

Gone through the post the umpteenth time and yet to discover where Christianity or prayer was insulted,when you find one please do alert me...
It could be my eyes are failing me...

Hahn, lordreed, hardmirror,martinez39,jesusjnr, CAPSLOCKED,happypagan,jesusjnr

funny u still mention me

HardMirror:
funny u still mention me

Nothing spoil....
Don't keep grudges on a faceless forum or do you?

Michellekabod1:

Nothing spoil....
Don't keep grudges on a faceless forum or do you?

. Beyond that. Makes no sense.

budaatum:

We verify by doing science.

Science is the use of the senses in the study of the structure and components of 'reality' in order to measure and quantify it so as to know it and utilise it.

(I made that up in my head so check for where I might be incorrect please. And for reality, I had 'phenomen' in my head).

Interesting, Buda, very interesting!

For the purpose of clarity and nothing else:
We live in an Objective Universe, built upon by scientific, observable principles;
- IAmSabrina(f): 2:18am on Apr 02

And unobservable things we don't know are there or see yet. Not elephants on Neptune though!
- budaatum: 2:51am on Apr 02

If certain things are unobservable and can't be known at this time, does it make sense to verify it to be true as a fact. If so, how do we arrive at that conclusion?
- IAmSabrina(f): 3:39am on Apr 02

We verify by doing science.
- budaatum: 1:26pm on Apr 02

We should consider what "unobservable" means though. For example, i don't think we can observe supernatural and/or spiritual phenomena objectively. We should also consider that "science" is the law that governs this universe and every millimeter and Angstrom of this universe is filled with it. Unless you, Buda, may truly believe that the universe will remain in the absence of "science".....

Now you imply that "Objective Universes" & "Subjective Realities" can indeed be seperated by "doing science". So Buda, you tell me, can any experiment be proposed in favor of spirituality to falsify its existence?

I "separate objective reality from subjective experiences" by first, making absolutely certain my science equipment is clean, in good working order, and that I am competent enough to adequately use it, then I apply the use of my equipment in the assessment of reality and experiences.

At least that's what I ought to do. But I am a subjective human, with faulty equipment that's not in good working order and which I have no clue how to use because I'm incompetent! When I think I am doing 'science', I could be deceiving myself!

But now that you make me think of it I doubt I go about separating "objective reality from subjective experiences" a lot! Or perhaps I do so unconsciously or automatically. I pay objective money for things I buy in the shops I guess and I always eat objective food that I subjectively (in my own way, I mean) cook.

Ok, I've thought! If it comes from a subject and its mind it's most likely subjective. And if I can kick and hurt my foot on it, its most likely an object. There you go, I do 'science' with my senses.

It does not make sense to call all the things listed above objective, to me! They are after all subjective opinions which neither of us has tested with our photometer! Just look at the words, chilled, fuzzy, faster, all very subjective words that mean different things to different subjects! Even the Sun rises due exactly east and sets due exactly west on only two days of every year, yet we subjectively assume it does so everyday!

Na! Not objective at all, in my opinion!

Brilliant argument. Like you said, we seperate objectivity & subjectivity "scientifically". We are encouraged to seek only positive evidence hoping that the reality we perceive in accordance with the evidence presented.

When the evidence opposing theistic religions like Christianity are presented, they refuse to understand why. They try to ignore the counterexamples. Observing objective reality objectively can indeed be painful because it exposes all the errors we have committed, and continue to commit. Its very easy for people to weave new stories around facts. Some "truths" needs to be discarded and replaced with an alternate explanation. Pride allows humans this talent or skill and that's why christians think they have the answer to every question! Shame won't allow them to admit ignorance!

Unfortunately, the only truth is that any explanation still could be wrong. It does not serve us well to cling too tightly to anything we want to believe, Buda. Tightly held beliefs will blind you to the truth!

That is my problem with religion, Buda! When we let the ego convince us to deny certain facts, life gets more complicated for a reason - because our subjective reality is no longer the truth. Why should we live our lives based on assumptions of whether these things are true?....

Cc. LordReed

What! You'll just ask who, Sabrina? Please be serious! Buda could be tripping or want something off you so lie deceptively in agreement to get it and 39 has elephants in his Neptune! Surely you've heard what we told the emperor about his new clothes? All you'd be doing by asking those two is hoping to create objectivity by the addition of multiple subjectivities and I'm personally not aware of any theory to support that (though johnydon22 intersubjectivity fits that description)! I just need think of a church congregation and miracles and a funny taste is in my mouth!

Our individual subjective experiences can not be objective since they are experienced by individual subjects. And more of either the experiences or experienters doesn't make anything any more objective!

Really, Buda?

I think distinguishing "subjective realities" from "objective realities" is a worthy pursuit that brings simplicity to our daily endeavours. It may be difficult but Sabrina enjoys it

I think I better post a warning here! Anyone who refuses to use their own subjective mind in their own subjective head and just accepts the blundered subjective experiences of buda or anyone else without scrutiny (i.e. by doing science on it with their own subjective senses) is subjected and has blundered!

It is a huge blunder for buda even to accept buda's experiences as the whole truth and nothing but the truth! It would be a greater blunder for anyone else to accept buda's experiences as the whole truth and nothing but the truth!

As a human being, I know my own conclusions (or predictions) are less reliable than my experiences! As a human being, I also know that my perception of my experiences may be wrong so they are not reliable at all! I know this for a fact because I have concluded wrongly in the past, predicted wrongly in the past, and thought I perceived my experience correctly only to later find I didn't have a clue what I was experiencing.

I think this might be because I am a human being, before everything else I might be perceived to be.

I'd like to add to that warning and say that people need to have a proper understanding of objectiveness, Buda!

Whether Buda likes it or not, Sabrina's rectangle is Buda's rectangle. We observe shapes exactly the same. My eyes see the exact same thing yours do. Just a little sharper and maybe slight nuances in the colors but the overall picture is identical.

Eyes are not subjective, Buda's square is not Martinez's circle, and neither are Sabrina's! We hear things the same way we might interpret them differently, but the sound produced in our heads are the same. Some people can understand objectiveness and some people simply don't have the brain power to do so. If we couldn't understand objectiveness we wouldn't be able to understand math. Punctum Supremum!

If we couldn't understand objectiveness, Sabrina, Martinez, Buda, Lord, JJ, Michelle,.... we'll all be helpless! We wouldn't be able to build a single thing because what were building might not be that. Beans na beans no matter who chop am....

Cc. Martinez39 / Martinez19

jjresurrected:
Yeah! It is your illustration that does!

For instead of digging you out of the hole that of your unwarranted position has gotten you, it has only pushed you much further inside, that for you to come out of it would now require a more complex rescue mission.

As it has only further exposed your futile attempts to restrict the definition of belief to religion or belief in God or any other gods.

And to illustrate my point I gonna be using your own illustration if you permit.

Now you spoke about not being allergic to anything, but only gave instances of food allergies.

So does it mean that one not having any food allergy is a proof that one is not allergic to anything?

If anything, that's only trying to box the definition of allergies into the definition of food allergies, which would not be possible because the definition of allergies span beyond the limits of the definition of food allergies.

For while food allergy is a type of allergy, there are other types of allergies, such as drug allergy, skin allergy, respiratory allergy, insect-sting allergy etc.

Therefore for one not to be allergic to anything, one has to cover the whole span of allergies not to be allergic to any thing, and not just that of which was food related.

So that's my point with respect to the definition of belief, for trying to restrict it's definition to religion or belief in God, or any gods is tantamount to putting it into the box of religion.

Because belief in the sense of religion is just an aspect of all beliefs, so that one does not believe in God, or any other gods, or does not believe in the existence of God, or any other gods, does not mean that one does not believe in anything.

For it must have to do with all forms or definitions of beliefs before one would be said not to believe in anything, or have any beliefs at all.

But that's not atheism, for atheism is just the lack of belief in God or His existence, or any other gods or their existence, which itself ironically is already a belief.

And moreover even in the sense of religion, it may not even be restricted to the belief in God or any other gods alone, for you must have heard of football being a religion, yes, there's an extent to which belief in something else that is not God or gods would get to, that it would also be deemed a religion.

And so it's understandable the concern of that guy who wasn't comfortable with the atheists prayer to the brain, despite that most atheists here are saying amen to it, for it was bordering on religion.

And also the extent to which atheists believe in science could also pass as it being a religion to the atheists.

[img]https://media./images/7e588795356b06f737bde80d870b3a8b/tenor.gif[/img]
Are we really going to wear ourselves out and pick bananas on this issue, jesus jnr?

This isn't the first time but i think i'm finally going to tell you that your understanding of atheism is terribly miscontrued, you always fashion these mind blowing generalizations over "atheists" like we're a pack of wolves. Sadly, you're not the only one

Aside the rejection of the god hypothesis, nothing holds atheists together. Not even all atheists can agree on this, as some do assert with all confidence that zero gods exist! Seen the diff yet, jnr?

I've seen atheists who believe in things like ghosts....... some also believe in destiny, so if you're thinking that all atheists don't believe in the supernatural, you're sorely mistaken.

As hard as your sort love to try, the bitter truth is atheism has zero motives, zero strings. There's nothing to it! You believe something and i simply reply "I don't see how this makes sense" . And that's it. The reason i'm atheist is not the same reason HardMirror or CAPSLOCKED or Frank317 are atheists, we all have different backgrounds. As I & budaatum have been deliberating above, our view of reality varies tremendously, so "atheism" doesn't beget any beliefs either.

Theists and/or Atheists, we all have our individual belief systems. There are atheists who have never believed and there are atheists who've abandoned belief along the way. We have nothing inherently in common with respect to (non-) belief in gods apart from that non-belief. Thus, there's no belief system in atheism. That's if there's even a system lol

Martinez19:

IAmSabrina:

His case is tiring and confusing. He first questioned the possibility of lacking belief in something and I tried, using the case of the elephant in Neptune, to demonstrate what it means to lack belief in something ---- I really tried.

He ended up twisting and confusing the whole argument. Worse is his twisting of the English language. He later admitted that it's not impossible or weird to lack belief in something. Why did he ask the question in the first place then? He also put the words "impossible or weird" in quotation marks and I knew something was up ---- another twisting of the English language. I had to stop the discussion.

I could go on addressing him but I don't have the time.

IAmSabrina:

Interesting, Buda, very interesting!

For the purpose of clarity and nothing else:
We live in an Objective Universe, built upon by scientific, observable principles;
- IAmSabrina(f): 2:18am on Apr 02

And unobservable things we don't know are there or see yet. Not elephants on Neptune though!
- budaatum: 2:51am on Apr 02

If certain things are unobservable and can't be known at this time, does it make sense to verify it to be true as a fact. If so, how do we arrive at that conclusion?
- IAmSabrina(f): 3:39am on Apr 02

We verify by doing science.
- budaatum: 1:26pm on Apr 02

We should consider what "unobservable" means though. For example, i don't think we can observe supernatural and/or spiritual phenomena objectively. We should also consider that "science" is the law that governs this universe and every millimeter and Angstrom of this universe is filled with it. Unless you, Buda, may truly believe that the universe will remain in the absence of "science".....

Now you imply that "Objective Universes" & "Subjective Realities" can indeed be seperated by "doing science". So Buda, you tell me, can any experiment be proposed in favor of spirituality to falsify its existence?


Brilliant argument. Like you said, we seperate objectivity & subjectivity "scientifically". We are encouraged to seek only positive evidence hoping that the reality we perceive in accordance with the evidence presented.

When the evidence opposing theistic religions like Christianity are presented, they refuse to understand why. They try to ignore the counterexamples. Observing objective reality objectively can indeed be painful because it exposes all the errors we have committed, and continue to commit. Its very easy for people to weave new stories around facts. Some "truths" needs to be discarded and replaced with an alternate explanation. Pride allows humans this talent or skill and that's why christians think they have the answer to every question! Shame won't allow them to admit ignorance!

Unfortunately, the only truth is that any explanation still could be wrong. It does not serve us well to cling too tightly to anything we want to believe, Buda. Tightly held beliefs will blind you to the truth!

That is my problem with religion, Buda! When we let the ego convince us to deny certain facts, life gets more complicated for a reason - because our subjective reality is no longer the truth. Why should we live our lives based on assumptions of whether these things are true?....

Cc. LordReed



Really, Buda?

I think distinguishing "subjective realities" from "objective realities" is a worthy pursuit that brings simplicity to our daily endeavours. It may be difficult but Sabrina enjoys it


I'd like to add to that warning and say that people need to have a proper understanding of objectiveness, Buda!

Whether Buda likes it or not, Sabrina's rectangle is Buda's rectangle. We observe shapes exactly the same. My eyes see the exact same thing yours do. Just a little sharper and maybe slight nuances in the colors but the overall picture is identical.

Eyes are not subjective, Buda's square is not Martinez's circle, and neither are Sabrina's! We hear things the same way we might interpret them differently, but the sound produced in our heads are the same. Some people can understand objectiveness and some people simply don't have the brain power to do so. If we couldn't understand objectiveness we wouldn't be able to understand math. Punctum Supremum!

If we couldn't understand objectiveness, Sabrina, Martinez, Buda, Lord, JJ, Michelle,.... we'll all be helpless! We wouldn't be able to build a single thing because what were building might not be that. Beans na beans no matter who chop am....

Cc. Martinez39 / Martinez19


[img]https://media./images/7e588795356b06f737bde80d870b3a8b/tenor.gif[/img]
Are we really going to wear ourselves out and pick bananas on this issue, jesus jnr?

This isn't the first time but i think i'm finally going to tell you that your understanding of atheism is terribly miscontrued, you always fashion these mind blowing generalizations over "atheists" like we're a pack of wolves. Sadly, you're not the only one

Aside the rejection of the god hypothesis, nothing holds atheists together. Not even all atheists can agree on this, as some do assert with all confidence that zero gods exist! Seen the diff yet, jnr?

I've seen atheists who believe in things like ghosts....... some also believe in destiny, so if you're thinking that all atheists don't believe in the supernatural, you're sorely mistaken.

As hard as your sort love to try, the bitter truth is atheism has zero motives, zero strings. There's nothing to it! You believe something and i simply reply "I don't see how this makes sense" . And that's it. The reason i'm atheist is not the same reason HardMirror or CAPSLOCKED or Frank317 are atheists, we all have different backgrounds. As I & budaatum have been deliberating above, our view of reality varies tremendously, so "atheism" doesn't beget any beliefs either.

Theists and/or Atheists, we all have our individual belief systems. There are atheists who have never believed and there are atheists who've abandoned belief along the way. We have nothing inherently in common with respect to (non-) belief in gods apart from that non-belief. Thus, there's no belief system in atheism. That's if there's even a system lol

Your clarity, patience and ability to ignore distractions are very commendable. Feel quite satisfied agreeing with the points you lay out.

IAmSabrina:

Interesting, Buda, very interesting!

For the purpose of clarity and nothing else:
We live in an Objective Universe, built upon by scientific, observable principles;
- IAmSabrina(f): 2:18am on Apr 02

And unobservable things we don't know are there or see yet. Not elephants on Neptune though!
- budaatum: 2:51am on Apr 02

If certain things are unobservable and can't be known at this time, does it make sense to verify it to be true as a fact. If so, how do we arrive at that conclusion?
- IAmSabrina(f): 3:39am on Apr 02

We verify by doing science.
- budaatum: 1:26pm on Apr 02

No. One cannot verify what one sees not nor know of it's existence. You can only verify what you are aware and know of. You touched on this in your following.

IAmSabrina:

We should consider what "unobservable" means though. For example, i don't think we can observe supernatural and/or spiritual phenomena objectively. We should also consider that "science" is the law that governs this universe and every millimeter and Angstrom of this universe is filled with it. Unless you, Buda, may truly believe that the universe will remain in the absence of "science".....

To start with, I do not agree that ""science" is the law that governs this universe and every millimeter and Angstrom of this universe is filled with it".

I earlier defined science as the use of the senses, but here is a more detailed definition:

Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Science is simply a thing humans do. It is not some sort of doer on its own.

Now on "unobservable phenomenom". Some things we study indirectly by their effect, like the gravitational effect of Neptune on other planets. But lets stick to the examples you posed, "supernatural and/or spiritual phenomena".

If we were going to scientifically verify (or falsify) anything about "supernatural and/or spiritual phenomena", we'd have to define it, set out criteria for our experiment, test assumptions, be honest, and so on, which we haven't done! In fact, I doubt we've even defined supernatural, or spiritual!

IAmSabrina:
Now you imply that "Objective Universes" & "Subjective Realities" can indeed be seperated by "doing science". So Buda, you tell me, can any experiment be proposed in favor of spirituality to falsify its existence?

Yes, we can, to favour or falsify. We would have to define what we mean by terms we use though.

IAmSabrina:

Brilliant argument. Like you said, we seperate objectivity & subjectivity "scientifically". We are encouraged to seek only positive evidence hoping that the reality we perceive in accordance with the evidence presented.

Science, as in doing science, is itself an act of separating the subjective from the objective. We just need to do it right. But no, we do not seek "only positive evidence". We can also seek for opposing evidence that refutes our claims. If we don't, someone else will then egg on our face!

IAmSabrina:
When the evidence opposing theistic religions like Christianity are presented, they refuse to understand why.

Hey! That's a huge leap! We haven't defined Christianity and you are presenting evidence to refute it already, Sabrina!

IAmSabrina:
They try to ignore the counterexamples. Observing objective reality objectively can indeed be painful because it exposes all the errors we have committed, and continue to commit. Its very easy for people to weave new stories around facts. Some "truths" needs to be discarded and replaced with an alternate explanation. Pride allows humans this talent or skill and that's why christians think they have the answer to every question! Shame won't allow them to admit ignorance!

I think I might "ignore the counterexamples" too if we haven't quite made sure that we understand the same thing when we say a word like "Christianity". Or shouldn't we first agree what we mean first? We did do it with atheism and are smarter for it!

IAmSabrina:
Unfortunately, the only truth is that any explanation still could be wrong. It does not serve us well to cling too tightly to anything we want to believe, Buda. Tightly held beliefs will blind you to the truth!

I agree that holding on to beliefs is blinding. Here's me expressing the exact same sentiment to Ihedinobi3

"......covering my eyes and not checking the evidence is like blinding myself, and is, at the very least, an act that would be like filling my own body with sin and while focusing on the speck of sin on the bodies of others" .

But sorry Sabrina, people will do whatever they want to do regardless of what I think or believe.

IAmSabrina:
That is my problem with religion, Buda! When we let the ego convince us to deny certain facts, life gets more complicated for a reason - because our subjective reality is no longer the truth. Why should we live our lives based on assumptions of whether these things are true?....

You blame religion for my ego, Sabrina, or is that an assumption you basing on?

Is it my religion that makes my ego deny certain facts, or is it me twisting religion to agree with my ego, I wonder.

Science

Define, "Spiritual", Sabrina. Let's see if it exists.

IAmSabrina:


[img]https://media./images/7e588795356b06f737bde80d870b3a8b/tenor.gif[/img]
Are we really going to wear ourselves out and pick bananas on this issue, jesus jnr?

I don't know about you Sabrina, but I can't really find any bananas around me, for me to be able to pick anyone up

But a more serious note am I that wearisome?

IAmSabrina:


This isn't the first time but i think i'm finally going to tell you that your understanding of atheism is terribly miscontrued, you always fashion these mind blowing generalizations over "atheists" like we're a pack of wolves. Sadly, you're not the only one.

Maybe you're actually speaking of someone else, cause I never heard myself say "a pack of wolves" before with respect to atheism. "A pack of something" yes! But never wolves.

IAmSabrina:


Aside the rejection of the god hypothesis, nothing holds atheists together. Not even all atheists can agree on this, as some do assert with all confidence that zero gods exist! Seen the diff yet, jnr?

See sabrina, I've followed some of your comments and topics and i've observed how highly intelligent thou art, but the way you are refusing to apply that extent of intelligence to this point of argument, is really making an already worst situation, even much worster.

I mean this is your last chance saloon to get yourself out of that hole you got yourself into, because after this chance I think you would have sunk in too deep for any rescue mission to be possible.

So take my hand sabrina, maybe bad but it could only get worse, I mean, can't you even see the phobia you've already developed for the word "belief" with respect to atheism, I mean is it that bad if it's that "belief" that God does not exist that binds y'all atheists together?

Sometimes I wonder why people are more concerned about a word or title, than the meaning they bear, for to me without the meaning, a word or title is meaningless.

IAmSabrina:

I've seen atheists who believe in things like ghosts....... some also believe in destiny, so if you're thinking that all atheists don't believe in the supernatural, you're sorely mistaken.

Maybe what you're trying to say in a nutshell is that there are false atheists, just as there are false believers, prophets, worshipers, disciples, christians, Christs, etc, with respect to theism.

Because I think that believing in the supernatural aka the spiritual etc., which cannot be proven to exist via scientific method, is more or less believing in the existence of super beings, speaking of which of course God has to be the foremost.

And from your point here about atheists, it means that there's no much difference between atheists and theists, as what unites theists is just their belief in God, for the doctrines and beliefs that exists in theism are just too numerous to mention, but I would oblige you with a few:

Hell does not exist, Mary the mother of Jesus is worthy of worship, Jesus is not the begotten Son of God, absolute predestination of Creation, one can serve mammon and God, one's enemy must die, die, die by fire etc.

So nothing much different in theism, from atheism in the respect you just pointed out, for while what binds theists is their belief in God, what binds atheists is their belief that God does not exist.

IAmSabrina:


As hard as your sort love to try, the bitter truth is atheism has zero motives, zero strings. There's nothing to it! You believe something and i simply reply "I don't see how this makes sense" . And that's it. The reason i'm atheist is not the same reason HardMirror or CAPSLOCKED or Frank317 are atheists, we all have different backgrounds. As I & budaatum have been deliberating above, our view of reality varies tremendously, so "atheism" doesn't beget any beliefs either.

Hard to try? Lol!

I don't even have to try anything, for only your contradiction of yourself here, by saying zero motives, zero strings... has usurped me of my powers to try and hence made things even much easier for me than they already were.

For I wasn't the one that said,

IAmSabrina:
Aside the rejection of the god hypothesis, nothing holds atheists together

So only this your own well thought out quote already proves that you believe that there's at least one motive, one string, if not more that binds atheists together, and not zero as you later claimed out of desperation by all possible means to avoid that (word) "belief", even the one string that holds atheists together.

IAmSabrina:


Theists and/or Atheists, we all have our individual belief systems. There are atheists who have never believed and there are atheists who've abandoned belief along the way. We have nothing inherently in common with respect to (non-) belief in gods apart from that non-belief. Thus, there's no belief system in atheism. That's if there's even a system lol

Already busted Lol!

budaatum:

No. One cannot verify what one sees not nor know of it's existence. You can only verify what you are aware and know of. You touched on this in your following.

To start with, I do not agree that ""science" is the law that governs this universe and every millimeter and Angstrom of this universe is filled with it".

I earlier defined science as the use of the senses, but here is a more detailed definition:

Science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Science is simply a thing humans do. It is not some sort of doer on its own.

Now on "unobservable phenomenom". Some things we study indirectly by their effect, like the gravitational effect of Neptune on other planets. But lets stick to the examples you posed, "supernatural and/or spiritual phenomena".

If we were going to scientifically verify (or falsify) anything about "supernatural and/or spiritual phenomena", we'd have to define it, set out criteria for our experiment, test assumptions, be honest, and so on, which we haven't done! In fact, I doubt we've even defined supernatural, or spiritual!

Yes, we can, to favour or falsify. We would have to define what we mean by terms we use though.

If you do not agree that ""science" is the law that governs this universe and every millimeter and Angstrom of this universe is filled with it"., then of what purpose is "science"? I mean, and correct me if i'm wrong Buda, but since you say "doing science" is our way of seperating "Objective Universes" from "Subjective Realities", then it has to be a major player in the universe! Or is there any other way we can accomplish this task?

As for the definition of "supernatural and/or spiritual phenomena", i agree that it needs to be defined. But oops! Even the christians have multiple ideas of what supernatural phenomena consist of and/or what spirituality even means! If it can be defined then it can be falsified, if it can't be defined then it can't be falsified. Thus, does it make sense, Buda, to accept unfalsifiable "truths"?

Science, as in doing science, is itself an act of separating the subjective from the objective. We just need to do it right. But no, we do not seek "only positive evidence". We can also seek for opposing evidence that refutes our claims. If we don't, someone else will then egg on our face!

You know me, Buda! You know I don't like people "egging on my face"; I don't react well to it! Seeking opposing evidence is obviously important as well, but only if you have any claims to make concerning a subject!

Hey! That's a huge leap! We haven't defined Christianity and you are presenting evidence to refute it already, Sabrina!

True. Then again, christianity does make claims AND we may have had different definitions of "evidence" as used in the context in which i used it.....

Subjective views, you know

I think I might "ignore the counterexamples" too if we haven't quite made sure that we understand the same thing when we say a word like "Christianity". Or shouldn't we first agree what we mean first? We did do it with atheism and are smarter for it!

@bold highlights one major problem of christianity. The name "Christianity" does have many definitions. That explains why we have Catholicism, Calvinism and various other shades of"'Christianity". Once again, proper definition for a subject needs to made for it to be falsified. And if it cannot be falsified....

I agree that holding on to beliefs is blinding. Here's me expressing the exact same sentiment to Ihedinobi3

"......covering my eyes and not checking the evidence is like blinding myself, and is, at the very least, an act that would be like filling my own body with sin and while focusing on the speck of sin on the bodies of others" .

But sorry Sabrina, people will do whatever they want to do regardless of what I think or believe.

Of course they will do what they want! Its typical of them!

You blame religion for my ego, Sabrina, or is that an assumption you basing on?

Is it my religion that makes my ego deny certain facts, or is it me twisting religion to agree with my ego, I wonder.

Religion is not responsible for your ego, Buda. I never stated that and if you feel Sabrina implied such statement anywhere please let her know.

Religious beliefs are simply worldviews that are subscribed to by multiple parties. But it is the human ego (which is completely independent of religion) that makes people to "blindly hold on to their beliefs & worldviews". This leads to dogma and intolerance to any views that oppose said beliefs.

Also, theistic religions consist of certain doctrines and rules that the followers of said religions must abide to (including questionable instructions in the holy books)
=> Determination to conform to these rules without question + dogma & intolerance to opposing points of view due to our human ego= Major disaster (in my view of course)

jesusjnr:
I don't know about you Sabrina, but I can't really find any bananas around me, for me to be able to pick anyone up

But a more serious note am I that wearisome?

Are you sure, you seem to be doing a very good job of picking bananas, jnr. Not just here. But in nearly every thread you've ever created during your stay on Nairaland

As for being wearisome, the blunt truth is that judging from your posts and interactions, i think its safe to say you're a Nairaland meme and that we can count the number of people who actually like you on Nairaland, and they may or may not be more than 1

Even you know i'm not lying

Maybe you're actually speaking of someone else, cause I never heard myself say "a pack of wolves" before with respect to atheism. "A pack of something" yes! But never wolves.

I trust you're smart enough to understand what I meant in my post. I also trust you are familiar with figures of speech

[s]See sabrina, I've followed some of your comments and topics and i've observed how highly intelligent thou art, but the way you are refusing to apply that extent of intelligence to this point of argument, is really making an already worst situation, even much worster.

I mean this is your last chance saloon to get yourself out of that hole you got yourself into, because after this chance I think you would have sunk in too deep for any rescue mission to be possible.

So take my hand sabrina, maybe bad but it could only get worse, I mean, can't you even see the phobia you've already developed for the word "belief" with respect to atheism, I mean is it that bad if it's that "belief" that God does not exist that binds y'all atheists together?

Sometimes I wonder why people are more concerned about a word or title, than the meaning they bear, for to me without the meaning, a word or title is meaningless.[/s]

I have also known you long enough to know that you're fond of writing epistles making little to no point at the end of day. The verbose above is a long rant that translates to nothing meaningful and/or relevant to the discussion at the end of the day. I'd appreciate you make the points you want to make without delving into long stories with little to no substance

As i've repeated, the issue of Atheism being a belief has been worn out, washed, rinsed, and left to dry multiple times that the argument has faded and weakens me now. In fact, i haven't heard this argument in a long time until you just brought it up. Please don't equate this to fear. That would be laughable indeed. The "Atheism is a belief system" is one of the most malnourished arguments die hard fanatics like yourself have brought forward against atheists

Maybe what you're trying to say in a nutshell is that there are false atheists, just as there are false believers, prophets, worshipers, disciples, christians, Christs, etc, with respect to theism.

Nope. Cause then i'd be committing the No True Scotsman fallacy. That is, engaging in circular logic.

For instance, i make an absolute statement that group A is innocent of negative quality X. Someone points out an example of a member of group A which is X, contradicting my statement and showing it to be invalid. Rather than modifying my statement and acknowledging that A can be X, I declare that, if such a person/thing is truly X, then they cannot possibly be a member of group A, because, as previously stated, all A are innocent of X.

Example:
P1: "All left-wing activists are pacifist."

P2: "Here are some examples of left-wing activists engaging in violent protest."

P1: "If they engaged in violent protest, then they are not truly left-wing, because all left-wing activists are pacifist.".

Because I think that believing in the supernatural aka the spiritual etc., which cannot be proven to exist via scientific method, is more or less believing in the existence of super beings, speaking of which of course God has to be the foremost.

SMH Don't cry o!

If anything, this should show you why you should never call atheism a belief. Does Subjectivity mean anything to you, Jnr? Get a grip, man, you're lagging behind!

And from your point here about atheists, it means that there's no much difference between atheists and theists, as what unites theists is just their belief in God, for the doctrines and beliefs that exists in theism are just too numerous to mention, but I would oblige you with a few:

Hell does not exist, Mary the mother of Jesus is worthy of worship, Jesus is not the begotten Son of God, absolute predestination of Creation, one can serve mammon and God, one's enemy must die, die, die by fire etc.

So nothing much different in theism, from atheism in the respect you just pointed out, for while what binds theists is their belief in God, what binds atheists is their belief that God does not exist.

[img]https://media./images/75564c9a29be2b3398f0ce67911d1840/tenor.gif[/img]
Jesus Jnr! Nairaland's Bible Belt Boy!

I'm starting to think you have no idea what you're arguing and perhaps you just want to involve yourself in the discussion, which i appreciate but i put it to you, Jesus jnr, that you have no idea what you just walked into....

A belief system is, according to Dictionary.com, "a set of principles or tenets which together form the basis of a religion, philosophy, or moral code."

To be more specific, a belief system is a codified set of beliefs and ideas. In the case of modern religions, these ideas do not arise in a vacuum but are spread virally from person-to-person through indoctrination, either orally or through books. If you are exposed to such belief systems, you have the option to either accept them as truth (believe) or reject them (disbelieve). Disbelief of (all) gods, when you've been exposed to the concept also qualifies as Atheism. But most people disbelieve in some gods — there are, after all at least 1,000 gods out there. Christians believe in 1 god and reject the other 999. Atheists who have been exposed to religions merely reject 999+1 god.

Yes, there are atheists who believe there are no gods (I haven't come accross one on NL tho), but that's not required to be an atheist, since it's a different proposition.
Proposition 1: Do you believe any gods exist?
Proposition 2: Do you believe that no gods exist?

Some people try to claim that you must subscribe to one of these or the other, but that's just not true. It's like a court case: "Do you believe the defendant is guilty? No? Then you must believe they're innocent!" would be terrible reasoning, and a basic inability to understand that "is guilty" and "is innocent" are two different claims. In court, we address exactly one of these: do you find the defendant guilty? The result is either "Guilty" or "Not guilty." It's not "Guilty" or "Innocent." It's not a coincidence that this is true: the court is looking at only one question — that of the defendant's guilt. Innocence is a different proposition.

Hard to try? Lol!

I don't even have to try anything, for only your contradiction of yourself here, by saying zero motives, zero strings... has usurped me of my powers to try and hence made things even much easier for me than they already were.

For I wasn't the one that said, So only this your own well thought out quote already proves that you believe that there's at least one motive, one string, if not more that binds atheists together, and not zero as you later claimed out of desperation by all possible means to avoid that (word) "belief", even the one string that holds atheists together.

[img]https://s2/images/MuttleyHilarious34d26efd4dfccb03.gif[/img]

Oh come on Jesus Jnr, get up off your knees! You're blowing the game! You really can't be serious here lol...

I'm kicking the ball over to you for the final time now:
a) Define "motive"
b) Explain how "the lack of belief in a claim" is a "motive"

Already busted Lol!

[img]https://media./images/189bc14b567783143f3c6fce21d31259/tenor.gif[/img]
With all due respect, Jnr. I'd ask you to carefully consider the argument you try to make before you bring it forward. Quit pushing the envelope if you can't mail it in properly.

Please don't take any offense here. But suffice it to say i can't help but find your argument ridiculous and laughable at best

IAmSabrina:

If you do not agree that ""science" is the law that governs this universe and every millimeter and Angstrom of this universe is filled with it"., then of what purpose is "science"? I mean, and correct me if i'm wrong Buda, but since you say "doing science" is our way of seperating "Objective Universes" from "Subjective Realities", then it has to be a major player in the universe! Or is there any other way we can accomplish this task?

I don't not see how "science" is the law that governs this universe and every millimeter and Angstrom of this universe is filled with it".

You either mean science created the universe in its own right and controls it, or the universe was scientifically created by some science doer and controller. Which is it?

Are you equating the human activity of using "our intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment", to some creating god force!

IAmSabrina:
As for the definition of "supernatural and/or spiritual phenomena", i agree that it needs to be defined. But oops! Even the christians have multiple ideas of what supernatural phenomena consist of and/or what spirituality even means! If it can be defined then it can be falsified, if it can't be defined then it can't be falsified. Thus, does it make sense, Buda, to accept unfalsifiable "truths"?


The name "Christianity" does have many definitions. That explains why we have Catholicism, Calvinism and various other shades of"'Christianity". Once again, proper definition for a subject needs to made for it to be falsified. And if it cannot be falsified....

We agree that one must fully define what one wants to verify or falsify, or we'd be crossing wires.

Let's us now agree to always do so with one another, Sabrina. Define words before verifying or falsifying their authenticity.

IAmSabrina:
Religion is not responsible for your ego, Buda. I never stated that and if you feel Sabrina implied such statement anywhere please let her know.

Religious beliefs are simply worldviews that are subscribed to multiple parties. But it is the human ego (which is completely independent of religion) that makes people to "blindly hold on to their beliefs & worldviews". This leads to dogma and intolerance to any views that oppose said beliefs.

Also, theistic religions consist of certain doctrines and rules that the followers of said religions must abide to (including questionable instructions in the holy books)
=> Determination to conform to these rules without question + dogma & intolerance to opposing points of view due to our human ego= Major disaster (in my view of course)

Of course you never said anything about my ego, Sabrina smarts, though it wouldn't matter if you did. However, the human ego is very much influenced by ones religion contrary to how you stated. Study people carefully and you'd find we grab on to the image of God that suits our ego. That's why the bullying parent worships the God of Moses, and the loving one the loving Christ. We are not so much created in God's image, but our gods are images of us.

We also do not "blindly hold on to beliefs & worldviews", or follow "certain doctrines and rules", or "abide to questionable instructions in the holy books" contrary to your claim. I wonder if you have not been pointing at Christians thinking it was "Christianity"? Do tell where you see us loving one another, which is the most basic instruction in most holy books!

What many Christians do in fact, though many might not admit it, is not see the teachings and worldviews we are meant to hold on to and sin, sin, sin, which is the opposite of the teachings in the holy books!

budaatum:
I don't not see how "science" is the law that governs this universe and every millimeter and Angstrom of this universe is filled with it".

You either mean science created the universe in its own right and controls it, or the universe was scientifically created by some science doer and controller. Which is it?

Are you equating the human activity of using "our intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment", to some creating god force!

We've established that "science" is "using our intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment".

And when i call it the "law that governs the entire universe", i call it the only method by which we establish Objective "truths" that we're aware of. Every action we take and/or decision we make in this universe is based on this "science".

We agree that one must fully define what one wants to verify or falsify, or we'd be crossing wires.

Let's us now agree to always do so with one another, Sabrina. Define words before verifying or falsifying their authenticity.

I'm OK with this, Budaatum

LordReed:


Your clarity, patience and ability to ignore distractions are very commendable. Feel quite satisfied agreeing with the points you lay out.

you talk too much. So how my mention found it's way into ur post.