Maximus69:

My own religion is the most vilified on this planet, so we don't oppose freedom of worship.

As Christianity currently enjoys an unequalled social, political and financial power over any other religion in all the developed nations of the world, and given that Christian churches have a long history of supporting dictatorships to maintain the status quo in many countries, it could well be argued that the vilification comes as thoroughly justified criticism.

No Abrahamic religion unequivocally or unreserevedly supports the freedom of worship of others, and as you failed to mention, they can also be especially intolerant of the non-worshipping atheists.

Maximus69:
The ATHEISTS will soon gain control over the United Nations, they will eradicate religion from the face of the earth.

Uh... You know the UN is mostly controlled by the USA right? The same USA that had a black president, almost had a female president (won the popular vote by over 2 million votes,) but have yet to see an atheist even be considered to be accepted by eithir major party to run for president?

We are so far away from any sort of major position of power being held by someone that is openly atheist I do not expect to see an atheist president for US or any other major office of power within the next half century.

Your religion wants to vilify atheist because of the threat they pose, not to actually hold any offices of power, but that the atheist position, (not a theist,) is so dangerous because ultimately no religion has any sort of actual reasonable counter or response to that position. It strips away the "absolute" authority that religions force onto their followers for total unquestioning loyalty and compliance. Why do you think you theist fear atheist more then islamic extremism that has real world impact and those people are all too happy to kill you for what you believe?

Maximus69:

The Bible said for a short while they will experience relative peace but suddenly the people under them will begin to rebel against the authorities everywhere,

The bible may well have something like said this, do you have a reference?

In any case, it may as well have also said 'water is wet'. This is not soley a prophecy of insurrection against Christianity, its a recurring political situation that has occurred countless times throughout history beginning long before this particular piece was written. Nothing new here.

Tyranny and rebellion have long been features of human activity and in all cases the rebellion of the oppressed has been reasonably justified.

Volatile social circumstances can lead to situations where "each person will start demanding all the good things of life", Do you mean "good things" such as individual rights and freedom from persecution and discrimination, adequate income, food, housing, health services and safe working conditions perhaps? Most rebellions don't just happen in a vacuum.

Do you have a bible reference for the words 'security agents' ? You mean security agents like the Stasi of East Germany, or the CIA, or those of Mossad? Maybe the Spanish Inquisition, whom nobody expects?

Maximus69:
we're the one and only global family of peace loving worshipers today!

I suggest you read some history, because millions and millions of people have been killed in wars started by religion. For example, Cromwell and the Crusades.

Your statement is in direct opposition to reality.

If one follows the claims of the New Testament there is no proof that there are any Christians in the world today at all. Where are the miraculous deeds that Yeshua promised his followers could perform with faith in his name to bring glory to his god? The healing, the resurrections, the bringing of rain etc.
The only healing I have witnessed has involved medical science.

There have been no resurrections.

The only rainmaking has been a result of seeding certain clouds with silver iodide (discovered by Bernard Vonnegut, brother to sci-fi writer Kurt).

Where is all this Christian love? I refer you to my other post about how Christian world dominance would prevent the earth becoming hell. Surely there would be oasis of peace and harmony somewhere in the world that we could aspire to, given the numbers of those who follow the Way?

I think what you mean is that you think of Christians as a family of peace loving worshippers who just want to be left alone, while invoking the right to invade everyone else's life to proselytise and preach, like you do right here on the Nairaland. Yeah?

Maximus69:

For your information, i'm in my fifties!

Duh-oh!... Ouch. You poor thing. Bless your little heart...I shake my head sadly... Wow, man, IF what you say is true, I am amazed you were actually willing to admit it in public. Because at this point, you would have been better off with everybody thinking you are a juvenile who doesn't know any better. Although, to be completely honest, I have my doubts about your proclaimed age. Not that it really matters, though. Even with the language/translation complications put aside (guessing English is not your primary language), you have clearly demonstrated you are here, on this thread, only for the sole purpose of stirring up bullshit in a very childish manner. Lucky for you, though, that is an area in which I excel. Basically, guys like you are simply a delightful form of cheap entertainment for me lol. So, please, by all means, continue slinging your nonsense about in your wanton manner until you slip up enough to get embarrassed. I welcome the amusing distraction lol

Maximus69:
But i have been to so many countries around the world as a former military intelligence officer, and i know that without religion the earth wil be a total mess!

Then you obviously have not visited predominately atheist nations such as Finland and Japan, where the crime rate is very low.

Then you have not visited Brazil, where religion is powerful, and so is violent crime.

Then you have not compared atheist versus theistic areas with crime. FYI, heavily religious nations or regions are the worst concerning crime, rape, and ignorance.

Maximus69:

have you thought deeply why someone poor (police) will carry weapons to protect the rich while himself and his family need the money?

jaephoenix, 1Sharon, Bluezy13, LordReed etc. Show of hands, please. Who all would like for me to educate this little boy about the police? Or would it even be worth the effort lol?...

Maximus69:

My friend, the earth will become a hell if there is nothing giving them a hope or promise of a better life here or elsewhere, there will be no more patience anywhere, everyone will become desperate and nothing can stop them from going for what they want!

The country Australia is currently governed by a devout Pentecostal Christian by the name of Scott Morrison. When he was immigration minister he enacted and continues to support the most racist, inhuman and illegal treatment of genuine refugees, ignoring their legal status and treating them as criminals, when they have done nothing more than plead for asylum.
For many years his government, most of whom claim to be Christian, has supported indefinite detention in prison camps on remote islands off the northern coast without proper housing or health facilities in direct contravention of UN Refugee provisions to which this nation was a signatory.

The lack of hope, the sense of abandonment these people have suffered is evident in the prevalent numbers of suicides and deaths through lack of medical attention. Children have been born and grown up in these gulags; they display profound psychological problems.
You suggest that without Christian dominionism the earth will become a hell.
Your fellow Christians and theists have already achieved that goal, right now, right there in Australia.

And I have not yet even mentioned the draconian policies directed against the poor, the unemployed, the sick, the handicapped and against political and religious opponents that this so-called Christian government has and continues to attempt to legislate.

And I could detail the atrocities of the North Korean theocracy or the barbarous and unjust punishments metered out by those countries who support Sharia Law or basic Koranic teachings, who enforce beheadings, mutilations for transgressions against the Koran. The recent Turkish legislation forcing female victims to marry their rapists in accordance with the wisdom of Allah, is a serious retrograde slide away from the free secular society envisioned by Attaurk.

In the meantime, in neighbouring New Zealand, the current atheist non-racist, humane, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, known world-wide for her earnest sympathy and support for victims of recent white supremacist mosque murders, has offered to take all the refugees, regardless of colour or creed, currently interned illegally by the Morrison government of Australia to live as citizens in her country and yet the Morrison government continues to refuse to let them go.

Your risible comments on Christian political benevolence and the inherent evil of atheists, like most of your comments on everything else, are also uninformed, negative, egocentric, and reflect the sort of theism that was popular in the latter Dark Ages. Your sanctimonious ignorant piety is in tatters.

At most, the atheists will abolish "Special Status" for religions. I would love to see the Churches begin to pay their fair share. Treating them like every other non-prophet in the country is the right thing to do. Atheists will not abolish religion because they value freedom of speech too much. Your freedom of speech is also our freedom of speech. You have the freedom to spout your nonsense and we have the freedom to call "BULLSHIT" each and every time you try. Where you see the problem is with the fact that more and more people are starting to listen to us. Christianity does not need to be legislated into non-existence, it just needs to go away; It needs to go away like every religion before it.

Just out of curiosity, Maximus69: In your own case, if tomorrow you learn there is no god, Will you start killing, stealing and raping?

Oh dear

Even before I delve further into this topic, I found this paper very quickly:

Dreaming As Mind Wandering: Evidence From Functional Neuroimaging And First-Person Content Reports by Kieran C. R. Fox, Savannah Nijeboer, Elizaveta Solomonova, G. William Domhoff, and Kalina Christoff, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7:Article 412 (July 2013) DOI: 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00412 [Full paper downloadable from here]

cc. hupernikao

From the paper in question, we have:

Abstract

Isolated reports have long suggested a similarity in content and thought processes across mind wandering (MW) during waking, and dream mentation during sleep. This overlap has encouraged speculation that both “daydreaming” and dreaming may engage similar brain mechanisms. To explore this possibility, we systematically examined published first-person experiential reports of MW and dreaming and found many similarities: in both states, content is largely audiovisual and emotional, follows loose narratives tinged with fantasy, is strongly related to current concerns, draws on long-term memory, and simulates social interactions. Both states are also characterized by a relative lack of meta-awareness. To relate first-person reports to neural evidence, we compared meta-analytic data from numerous functional neuroimaging (PET, fMRI) studies of the default mode network (DMN, with high chances of MW) and rapid eye movement (REM) sleep (with high chances of dreaming). Our findings show large overlaps in activation patterns of cortical regions: similar to MW/DMN activity, dreaming and REM sleep activate regions implicated in self-referential thought and memory, including medial prefrontal cortex (PFC), medial temporal lobe structures, and posterior cingulate. Conversely, in REM sleep numerous PFC executive regions are deactivated, even beyond levels seen during waking MW. We argue that dreaming can be understood as an “intensified” version of waking MW: though the two share many similarities, dreams tend to be longer, more visual and immersive, and to more strongly recruit numerous key hubs of the DMN. Further, whereas MW recruits fewer PFC regions than goal-directed thought, dreaming appears to be characterized by an even deeper quiescence of PFC regions involved in cognitive control and metacognition, with a corresponding lack of insight and meta-awareness. We suggest, then, that dreaming amplifies the same features that distinguish MW from goal-directed waking thought.

Oh look, scientists have been able to establish salient features of dreaming via direct neuroimaging techniques.

The authors then set the stage for their investigations as follows:

Dreaming” is usually understood as subjective mental experiences during sleep. Although most famously (and strongly) associated with REM sleep (Aserinsky and Kleitman, 1953; Dement and Kleitman, 1957), dream-like thought is also reported during other sleep stages (see Methods).

For several reasons, by “dreaming” we will generally be referring to subjective reports drawn from REM sleep: for one thing, the majority of “dream” reports have been elicited from REM sleep-stage laboratory awakenings; further, only REM sleep shows a particularly strong correlation with dream mentation (~80% of awakenings from REM sleep result in dream reports: Hobson et al., 2000). For the purposes of the present paper, then, “dreaming” refers to mentation reports from REM sleep.

“Undirected” thought is a similarly complex construct, and can be divided into several different categories (Christoff, 2012). “Mind wandering” (MW) and “stimulus-independent thought” (SIT), for instance, are typically defined as thinking that deviates from a particular task a subject is meant to be completing (McGuire et al., 1996; Mason et al., 2007; Christoff et al., 2009). “Spontaneous thought,” on the other hand, is characterized rather by its undirected, effortless nature—more akin to the everyday concept of “daydreaming” (Singer, 1966; Klinger, 1990; Christoff, 2012); no particular task, or deviation from it, is required. Subtle differences are apparent: MW, for example, might be initiated deliberately (as when a subject decides to “tune out” during a boring task) rather than being “spontaneous.” Nonetheless, these terms are often used interchangeably or with only minimal definition. Fluidity of terminology seems inevitable, however, in a relatively young field of inquiry (Christoff, 2012); moreover, the subjective content and neural basis of these states appear highly similar (compare, e.g., Singer and McCraven, 1961; Christoff et al., 2004, 2009; Stawarczyk et al., 2011). We therefore use these terms relatively interchangeably throughout this paper. MW, spontaneous thought, or daydreaming, then, all refer to subjective reports of undirected thoughts during wakefulness (whether deviating from, or in the complete absence of, a task).

After an exposition on the specific brain regions that are active as part of the Default Mode Network (DMN), including relevant fMRI scans illustrating the activity levels in the regions in question, we have this:

REM sleep is initiated by a network of cells in the pons and nearby portions of the midbrain (Siegel, 2011), but involves a widespread recruitment of higher cortical brain regions (see our meta-analytic results, below, for regions of this theoretical REM network: Table ​Table22 and Figure ​Figure1).1). REM sleep recurs, in increasingly lengthy periods, approximately every 90 mins throughout the sleep cycle, overall constituting about 1.5–2 h of an average night of sleep. Whereas non-REM (NREM) sleep stages are generally characterized by deactivation of many regions as compared to wakefulness (e.g., Kaufmann et al., 2006), REM is unique in that many brain regions are clearly more active than during wakefulness (Table 2). REM also appears to be the most active state from the subjective point of view, with longer, more emotional, and more frequent dream mentation in REM than any other sleep stage (Hobson et al., 2000). REM therefore appears to be by far the best neural marker of dreaming, though it nonetheless remains problematic (see Methods).

A look at the Methods section provides a detailed exposition of the processes used to eliminate phenomena that might impact upon the utility of the neuroimaging techniques they used to perform their analysis, thus ensuring that their results are consistent.

After much discussion of detail, the authors provide this:

Neural evidence for dreaming as intensified mind wandering

To ensure a consistent picture of REM sleep brain activity, we only included in our meta-analysis studies that used relaxed wakefulness (instead of, e.g., other sleep stages) as a baseline condition. Thus the activations observed in REM sleep (Table ​(Table2)2) are in contrast to quiet, waking rest, which—though not directly examined in the studies in question—would very likely have resulted in spontaneous thought/MW at the subjective level, and recruited DMN brain regions. Since the observed foci of activation generally represent t-tests contrasting REM sleep > waking rest, it seems probable that our meta-analytic results actually represent regions showing greater activity during REM sleep than during DMN activation/MW. Because so many significant clusters for REM sleep activation overlapped with DMN regions, these results suggest that brain activity in REM sleep does not simply parallel DMN activity, but rather represents an intensified version of it (Figure 3). The finding of greater cerebral blood flow in DMN regions during REM sleep vs. probable waking DMN activity is consistent with the many qualitative, first-person results discussed above (Section First-person Reports of Content from Mind Wandering and Dreaming), which suggest that mentation during REM sleep is in many ways a longer, immersive, more intensive version of waking spontaneous thoughts and daydreams (Figure ​(Figure33).

Also of interest are prefrontal cortical (PFC) regions, involved in executive processes like cognitive control and goal-directed thought. It is well known that numerous such regions, particularly the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and dorsolateral PFC (DLPFC), are consistently engaged by effortful, goal-directed tasks (Duncan and Owen, 2000). Though executive PFC regions are not part of the canonical DMN (Table ​3; Buckner et al., 2008), more direct, online assessments of MW, using first-person reports combined with fMRI, show that executive PFC areas, alongside core DMN areas, may also be activated during MW (Christoff et al., 2009). Though MW-related activity was not observed in some other PFC regions, robust activation was found in dorsal ACC and DLPFC (Christoff et al., 2009), suggesting that executive processes may to some degree be ongoing during MW. REM sleep, in contrast, shows no such activations; indeed, we found numerous executive PFC regions to be deactivated (Table 2, Figure 1). We propose the tentative notion that waking thought, waking MW, and dream mentation may lie along a continuum of intensity with respect to executive function, as well: executive regions are most active during waking goal-directed thought, undergo a large (but probably not total) diminution during waking rest/MW, and become relatively quiescent, perhaps even actively suppressed, during REM sleep (Figure 3; see also Christoff et al., 2011).

So, it's not as if there hasn't been any scientific research in this field.

But it gets even better, courtesy of this paper:

Neural Decoding of Visual Imagery During Sleep by T. Horikawa, M. Tamaki, Y. Miyawaki & Y. Kamitani, Science, 340: 639-642 (3rd May 2013) DOI: 10.1126/science.1234330 [Paper available from here]

From the abstract:

visual imagery during the sleep-onset period, given measured brain activity, by discovering links between human functional magnetic resonance imaging patterns and verbal reports with the assistance of lexical and image databases. Decoding models trained on stimulus-induced brain activity in visual cortical areas showed accurate classification, detection, and identification of contents. Our findings demonstrate that specific visual experience during sleep is represented by brain activity patterns shared by stimulus perception, providing a means to uncover subjective contents of dreaming using objective neural measurement.

Oh look. The authors of this paper demonstrate that a suitably programmed computer can reliably discern the nature of visual data occurring in dreams from fMRI data.

Looks like once again, a certain mythology fanboy is ignorant of the relevant research.

I've been aware for some time, of advances made in the reliable determination of images observed by individuals while awake using fMRI data, but this is the first paper I've encountered extending that research to dream imagery.

At bottom, it's all neurochemistry. No magic man needed.

E/ the paper I provided above isn't yet documenting the display on screen of relevant images, but previous research involving images perceived by awake individuals has started to move into this area - reproducing on screen images that are consonant with what the subject has viewed. But the mere fact that the paper I described above, demonstrates that a computer can classify the images appearing in a dream reliably, given the fMRI data, is a step forward that the mythology fanboys are completely unaware of, and which is already shattering their complacent notions on this subject.

hupernikao:

Above is based on false logic and assumption. You should point out the lack of honesty not give a bogus expression.

Hilarious.

How many more times should your misrepresentation of Atheism be trotted out please? After the first few times, one could chalk it up to ignorance. At this point, it's clear to me that this ignorance of yours is wilful dishonesty. In fact, examine your next statement...

hupernikao:

You said i made it up. it wasnt. Somethings have different textbook definition and real life definition/application. Such is atheism.

That's a lie, the commonly understood definition is the dictionary definition.

When atheists here say they are atheists they are referring to that dictionary definition, you don't get to lie and claim they mean something else, only an atheist can do that for themselves. Atheism is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities. When I say I am an atheist that is what I mean.

hupernikao:

I HAVE NOT SEEN IT BEFORE, SO I AM NOT SURE IT EXIST
I HAVE NOT SEEN IT BEFORE, HENCE IT DOESNT EXIST
I HAVE NOT SEEN IT BEFORE BUT I HAVE EXPERIENCED IT, I KNOW IT EXIST....


1. Where does Atheism or your opinion falls in these three

Atheism is not a claim no deity exists, until you grasp this simple fact you will fail to see your position is irrational. I don't need to be sure something doesn't exist in order to disbelieve the claim, in fact I find the idea I would believe a claim until I was sure it is invalid a preposterous position.

Now to your question,

The answer is nowhere, as you already know, because it's been explained to you many times already.

I don't believe any deity exists, this is not an opinion, or a claim, it is the rejection of a claim for which no objective evidence can be demonstrated, and I disbelieve all such claims.

hupernikao:
I emphasize this so that we can rest on NL from words like "it cannot be scientifically proven, so it doesnt exist"

Ficticious quote.

hupernikao:

This did not answer by question. We know there are tools to know if one is dreaming, even by simple physical observation we can detect in few occasions. My question is premised on the content of the dream, the served rice, not yam, the rice without meat, why, the very events in dreams. No such tool exist, not even logical truth. So leave that.

Actually, let's stay on that because I found something interesting I'll share in my very next post here.

Meanwhile, have you heard of Germ theory? Little buggers aren’t seen. Doctor stumbles on to some weird connection between washing your hands before delivering babies and mortality rate dropping. Suggests washing hands. Other doctors laugh. He sets up a protocol and tests his hypothesis... blah blah blah now we can see the buggers...

It’s a Theory. Did you know it can still be adjusted dependant on new information?

Now...let’s say you are right (this is extremely vital to you). Let’s say God exists just like those little germs (even as I write this I’m shaking my head) but unlike Germs we can’t “see God” yet... we the atheists are like those doctors that laughed when the first doctor washed his hands after touching the dead...

But you dear sir and your ilk are not like that first doctor. You are running around the hospital telling us what the germs want us to do and how the germs want us to behave. The germs have a plan for us and they only kill the bad. The germs talk to you and you’ve written it all down... Except you don’t know what a “germ” is either. You’ve only washed your hands.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR ANY GOD AS DESCRIBED BY HUMANS

So I ask...can you define the God you believe in?

E/ It is so funny that you criticize science for being unreliable in methods of proof, yet believe in something purely by blind faith. I can make up a deity in an hour and claim the same things you do, and say that it is "unprovable by science". Of course something made up without regard to the laws of the universe cannot be proven by said laws.

Your argument is invalid because you fail to take into account that your entire belief system was thought up thousands of years ago by people with no concept of natural and physical law, in a place and time where modern science was not even considered as a possibility. Now, we do have methods to call BS on most Christian beliefs, but some doctrines and dogmas of Christianity are so far fetched from reality that logic and reason cannot be used to prove or disprove it.

So, you cannot claim that a method of proof is invalid purely based off of the fact that it cannot prove the imaginary.

jaephoenix:

So religion is a crime retardant right?
Cool. How come the most crime infected cornees of the world are the most religious?
Atheistic and irreligious countries like Netherlands and Iceland are relatively crime free, while Nigeria is submerged in crime ?

I have a favourite theist.

His name is Bishop John Shelby Spong .(Episcopalian). He has written best selling books, and there are some excellent clips on Youtube. One of my favourite is where he asserts 'the church is in the guilt and control business"

I have no problem with believers who mind their business, or believers that, at least, have basic integrity. I have a problem with people knocking on my door or even ignoramuses such as Maximus69, who tell whole lies and get upset when you challenge them. Insult is added to injury when it becomes clear such people have not even bothered to say consulted a dictionary about the meaning of the word 'atheist'. They're not concerned with knowledge. Give them books, send them off to school, and what do they do? They eat the books, and then bypass the school to head straight to the nearest internet cafe...

It's obviously far too much to ask that they also be familiar with the most basic notions of the scientific method or reasoned discussion, both of which they ridicule and misrepresent.

short clip (2.48 min) "religion is always in the control business"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KMwz1v1zr4

Maximus69:


You're a female, right?

Please give me one single reason why you can marry a younger man when there are millions of young, beautiful and sexy girls out there without them coming to harrass or assault you for not going for your age mate?

Or can you give me any reason why a young man will not give a grey headed man a dirty slap for saying something stupid?

For your information, the one and only reason is RELIGION!

They will come right into your house and demand to have your man because you're older than him.

As for your older men, they'll become vulnerable to bullying by younger and agile men around them, and tell me what the laws can do to protect you when everything is solely based on the what people think not some mind controlling book regarded as God's word?

I just pity you people because you'll all cry heavily and wish you've not eradicated religion the way all of you are trying to do now.


You're all looking at the issue from one side but you totally ignore the other side of the coin!

Lol!

Now, now, there, Scooter. Don't go getting too big for your britches just because you obtained a leadership status within your rebel clan. Oh, and try not to get all jealous just because those hot, sexy, older babes refuse to recognize your superior intellect and manly bravado. It is not their fault that sexual relations with a minor such as yourself is illegal in most places. Otherwise, I am confident they would be all over you like flies on a pile of shit.

And don't worry, Maximus69. Next time I am stoning my neighbours kid for pissing his parents off with his cheek I will think about how moral I can be if I only follow your god's word

Hey.... and next time I decide to purchase a foreign slave ( not an israelite natch') I will remember those moral lessons....

Muppet

E/ And please don't make me explain sarcasm to you

hupernikao:


You will need to calm down. Emotional outburst won't be a way for you to properly explain and analyse your claims or facts. Don't let my questioning press your provocative button. We still have a long way to go o. The energy is good for this argument, but calm down.

Leave name calling like stupid, dull and all these subjective emotions out of these. I have passed such distraction and diversion in discussion. Let's face the reality of our discussion.

If you maintain honesty in your argument, nobody's going to have your hide. Unfortunately, you're not giving me that impression

[1] You just made up your own definition for the word "atheism." If you can not stick to commonly accepted and agreed upon definitions, you begin to erode the ability to even communicate basic ideas to other people.

[2] Just because an idea is not testable by science, does not suddenly makes it true. I really hope you know at least that. All it means when science tools are unable to investigate is: simply that is outside the purview of science. Your (and any other) god idea falls within that, by design. Guess where that puts your god idea? On the same level as the idea that I, Tamaratonye1, is your god. You cannot scientifically prove that I am not your god. By your reasoning and your requirements to believe your current god idea, you cannot refute that means I am your god based on the same standards.

hupernikao:

1. What objective evidence do you have that dream exist. Of course it exist but how do you know? Is it by analysis, measurements, observations or by experience Or what?

They have multiple tools to detect dream states already. We can use a tool and tell when someone is dreaming or not. Furthermore some progress has been made on even detecting what sort of dream someone is having. Even with out any tools to aid me, I can typically tell if hubby is having a bad dream, especially if he wakes up with a shout.

hupernikao:

2. What objective evidence do you have that Evil exist?

hupernikao, you cant objective evidence on a strictly subjective idea.

hupernikao:

Surely we know evil exist, but how do we know?

Evil is a human created descriptor of certain types of actions measured in strictly subjective ways. We decide that evil exist. We can just as easily decide it doesn't. Because it is all subjective and has no bearing on reality. It is just a word, a descriptor, of a shared idea humans have, but "evil" does not actually exist. Put another way, if all humans disappeared tomorrow, there would be no "evil" tomorrow, because there would be no humans around to talk about/think about this strictly subjective idea.

hupernikao:

3. Is objective evidence an absolute evidence for proof of existence?, or does the lack of objective evidence enough to deny experiential evidence?

No. But objective evidence certainly does help move a simple human created idea, to the realm of actionable reality.

Depends what kind of objective evidence we are comparing to experimental evidence.

Evidence based on "experiential" (I assume you mean evidenced experienced first hand by our senses,) can be better or worse than other types of objective evidence. But this is a whole different subject, that really has nothing to do with the rest of what you have been talking about. We can discuss further if you want, but I will keep it on topic for now.

hupernikao:

Hope you know we are looking at the core foundation of atheism (objectivity), so I will need a well explained response if such objectivity of evidence is enough to prove or explain all that exist or all that we should accept as existing.

It is statements like this that make me conclude your level of comprehension leaves much to be desired. I strongly counsel you to get someone competent to explain the posts in this thread to you.

You obviously are incapable of absorbing the simplest of concepts.

Atheism is just one thing, defined as a lack of belief in a god or gods. In almost every example, it is because theists have not produced a compelling argument or valid proof.

Be honest with yourself for once! You are the one making the god claim, so first you must convince us that your god exists.

That a was a pathetic attempt at reversing the burden of proof.

No atheist has to prove anything to you, instead you must provide proof of a god.

Maximus69:


In a nutshell you also believe there is no God!

Well let me tell you that you can teach people how to make bread, butter, cheese, clothes and so on, but as for how they should live their lives it's totally out of your boundary!

That's why intellectuals agree that there must be God otherwise each human can do and undo as long as they have working brains, and nobody is expected to control their minds!

I seriously doubt if any "intellectuals" advocate such a course of action lol. Please name a few of those "intellectuals". Personally, I believe those "intellectuals" are members of a religion and seek to maintain control and wealth.

I have the impression you are in favor of mind control regarding one's personal religious beliefs. Is my statement correct?

Are you aware that just recently a North Korean woman is facing serious charges because in a house fire, she chose to save her dog instead of a picture of Kim Jong-il. If you can't make the connection between mind control and this woman's plight, please surrender your brain to the nearest place of worship.

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 2. (first sentence)

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

Do you know a religious sect that opposes this United Nations Declaration? Maybe the church you belong to? I would be very happy to have a name so I can lodge a formal complaint with the United Nations.

Maximus69:


Of course i have the right because i believe in a higher intelligent mind "God", so if i speak of mind controlling anywhere i try to reason with people telling them why all of us should consider adhering to the counsel of this higher intelligent mind.

First off, as I request, you must first prove this god. Second, don't even try to prove your god is intelligent. Based on your holy book, this god is a fuckwit who could not organize a checkers game.

Maximus69:
But you're trying to share your PERSONAL OPINION with other intelligent minds like yours, so tell me what right you have to do that when it's about CHOICES that they've made on their own!

Because they have the right to make up their own minds. I believe in freedom of speech. If the speaker is utter garbage, I have the right to reject what they are saying. If I am saying something you do not agree with, you have the right to reject my words. If your priest or pastor is telling you something you have .. oops, you don't have any rights in that relationship, you must bend you knee, believe whatever they say, follow their instructions, and donate money.

To me it appears you don't have free will. Or the capacity to think things through.

1Sharon:


Trust me, nigerian Christians are aggravating, i understand if you're upset.

I myself need to leave this section for a while

Lol. I agree with you. Honestly though, I find it entertaining having these discussions. These forums are a place to relax and have a laugh once in a while. Plus, I often learn from these interactions. Thanks though. I appreciate your concern.

1Sharon:
OP seems pissed off. It's understandable lol

I sure hope I haven't come across as "pissed off" lol. Religious beliefs are a sensitive area of discourse and I think people have misread the OP and thought it was an emotional one. I assure you it isn't.

Maximus69:

ATHEISM is about absolute freedom and a feeling of intense hatred for mind control, so if you belong to such a faculty the only way to justify your stand is to keep quiet and allow each person to choose what they want.

Yes, I am a strong supporter in freedom, and do oppose mind control. But what you fail to understand that to attain or maintain freedom, you must openly fight for it every day. The moment you are silent, you are losing the battle. I (and I am sure most atheists agree) do not desire to force our beliefs on anyone, but rather just argue our position and challenge a delusional and corrupt human practice.

Maximus69:
So in a nutshell, if you're an atheist you have no business trying to convince (change) other people's minds on what they CHOSE to do!

I have the right to state my opinion and submit an argument. That is called "freedom". You (or any other theist) has the right to accept or reject my opinion.

Maximus69, do you understand that you had to click to enter my thread? To make this comment opposing mine? Or was a gun pressed up against your head?

hupernikao:

I want you and i focus on the science that you embrace and let us see if truly science is what it is.

I'm sorry but this is hands down the stupidest thing you've said so far, no mean achievement either. Science is amply defined form a cursory Google search, and no one has to embrace anything, it's success as a method is manifest to anyone with an ounce of integrity.

hupernikao:
Because the foundation of science or atheist denying God is because there is no physical prove that he exist.

From rank stupidity to rank dishonesty.

[1] The foundation of science is objective evidence, and open minded rigour.
[2] Atheism is not synonymous with science, atheists just have no biased reason to deny scientific facts the way you superstitious theists do.
[3] Atheism doesn't deny anything, it is just the absence of belief in any deity or deities.
[4] You mean proof not prove, and the lack of proof for deity, scientific or otherwise, is not the basis of atheism of anyone I have met here. They disbelieve because, as do I, because no religious apologist can demonstrate any objective evidence for any deity, nor produce a single rational argument to support their belief.
[5] If something beyond the physical or material exists then demonstrate some objective evidence for this claim, otherwise I will continue to disbelieve your claim for a deity.

Science can't detect non existent or fictional things, that is an objective fact, this is not a limit of science, and each time you place your deity in the category of things science cannot detect you score a spectacular own goal, it is rank stupidity that compels you to keep repeating this fatuous own goal even after it's been explained to you people?

hupernikao:

Every claim of God has reside in the supernatural domain, yet atheist kept asking that God should be proved in the natural via natural tools. Isnt that lack of knowledge in itself?

It is your claim that a supernatural deity exists, so the burden of proof is entirely yours, and you can piss and moan about that all you want, I don't care. Just what you hope to achieve with this nonsensical facile claim is unclear, but it seems little more than puerile trolling to me.

hupernikao:

A guy once ask an athiest here to use science to prove dreams, and the atheist disappeared into the air without response till date.

Whoever he was I sympathise, as most of you are pretty stupid anyway, which makes educating you guys on even basic facts almost impossible, and pretty thankless. But I will try one more time anyway, what that "guy" produced there is an argument based on two known logical fallacies, the first is a false equivalence fallacy by making a specious analogy between dreams and a fictional deity. The second is a poisoning of the well fallacy, by making a puerile suggestion that if science is fallible it is unreliable, which is almost as hilarious as it is stupid, it is definitely logically fallacious.

hupernikao:

What about EVIL or GOOD? Do we have scientific tool or theory to prove evil or good exist?

Already covered in the last response, it is another repetition of the same logical fallacies, and evil and good are also subjective terms quite obviously.

hupernikao:

- Moral Truth: science cant tell us evil or good,

Sigh, it can't tell us which is best colour either, what a truly asinine non-sequitur.

hupernikao:

Can i ask you? How does science or you know that Unicorn doesnt exist? Please i need proper explanation, more importantly, how science arrived at their conclusion. Please i need answers.

Can you demonstrate any objective evidence that is real? Dear oh dear, do you seriously think repeatedly lying about what atheism is, is impressive? I don't believe claims unless they are sufficiently supported by objective evidence, contrary proofs or evidence are not necessary, and demanding this as you have suggested here, is of course the very definition of an argument from ignorance fallacy. Science is not relevant to this basic epistemological requirement.

I don’t think you really need answers. I think you believe you have all the answers. Your ideas and fall back to “god” give you all the answers you need.

When you get to the point of “...I need truth (or at least a way to distinguish fact from fiction)”... then perhaps you’ll engage in a more rational manner.

WHAT OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE CAN YOU DEMONSTRATE FOR ANY DEITY?

That question is all you need to concern yourself with, as it is the beginning and the end of all claims for a deity.

fieryy:
To be honest, we still know very little about the space and the universe to come up with an accurate answer, but one thing is for sure "Ex nihilo nihil fit" - "Nothing Comes from Nothing".

Just wanted to add, is that a hard rule with no exceptions?

Because if you can propose special pleading for a god, then if that one rule can be broken, it can also be broken concerning the origin of this known universe.

TheExecutioner:
I know it's hard for atheists to grasp the concept of divine wrath,

I know it's hard for mythology fanboys like you to grasp elementary concepts, but one you should be learning quickly, is that the assertions of your mythology do not constitute fact. The assertion that your cartoon magic man even exists, is one we've been waiting for mythology fanboys like you to support with something resembling proper evidence. And by proper evidence, I do NOT mean regurgitating the very same assertions from your mythology we've been waiting to see supported with evidence, or peddling vacuous and risible apologetic fabrications that you've manifestly extracted from your rectal passage.

Another concept you should be learning quickly, is that a favourite discoursive tool of those of us who paid attention in class, is reductio ad absurdum. Namely, take an assertion presented to us, treat that assertion by hypothesis as purportedly constituting fact, then demonstrating that treating that assertion in said manner leads quickly to internal contradiction, absurdity and paradox. Applying this famous and robust discoursive technique, does NOT imply that we regard your assertions as true, when we subject your assertions to said treatment. Indeed, reductio ad absurdum has been a staple method within the world of pure mathematics for centuries, and as a corollary of having been deployed in that discipline, we are assured of the essential soundness of the technique.

As a further corollary of the above, just because you treat a merely asserted concept from your mythology uncritically as fact, doesn't mean anyone else here shares your strange predilection. Indeed, it's precisely because those of us who paid attention in class, learned the proper rules of discourse, as opposed to the bastardised version thereof adopted by pedlars of apologetics, that we regard all assertions as a free-fire zone for the deployment of discoursive weaponry. We don't care how "sacred" you think your assertions are, or how much they should be shielded from scrutiny, they will all receive the same discoursive artillery bombardment here.

As for your assertion that "divine wrath" is hard for us to grasp, those of us who paid attention in class are already laughing at you. The reasons for this will become apparent shortly.

TheExecutioner:
but I at least expect you guys to be capable of some form basic intelligent reasoning.

The irony of being castigated on this matter by a mythology fanboy, is truly delicious to savour.

TheExecutioner:
What you call genocide in the Bible is nothing more than God manifesting His Divine Wrath and punishing nations for their sins/crimes.

Except that, oh wait, what we're dealing with here, is the usual piling of assertion upon assertion by mythology fanboys.

First there is the assertion that your magic man even exists, which on its own is seriously problematic. Not least because your magic man is defined in your mythology, as an entity possessing internally contradictory attributes. The likelihood of any entity thus defined actually existing is vanishingly small for obvious reasons. Which on its own points to "sin" being a synthetic, fabricated offence against an imaginary entity.

Second, there is the assertion that the assorted individuals described as being subject to wholesale slaughter in your mythology, were "deserving" of their fate, an assertion that itself is massively questionable, not least because, if your magic man doesn't actually exist, then the requisite passages of said mythology are nothing more than self-justification propaganda on the part of the raving hordes performing the slaughtering. Even if your magic man does actually exist, your mythology presents two contradictory assertions within its pages, namely [1] that your magic man presented "thou shalt not kill" as a purported "commandment", then followed this by exhorting his raving followers to kill on a large scale. If you cannot recognise this as massively contradictory even on an elementary level, it merely demonstrates that your mythology fanboyism has corrupted and perverted your own reasoning beyond recognition. Then of course, we have the other assertion that mythology fanboys like you are so fond of, namely that your merely asserted magic man is purportedly the source of all morality, an assertion that falls flat on its face the moment said magic man exhorts his followers to commit mass murder.

Returning to the assertion that the victims of said slaughter purportedly "deserved" their fate, well this is both risible and dangerous. Such an assertion can be pressed into duplicitous service by the devious, to "justify" exterminating large numbers of people on the basis of any number of specious pretexts, and indeed, historically, was pressed into this very service by mythology fanboys in the past, frequently for naked personal gain. And indeed, naked personal gain was explicitly dangled in front of the raving followers of your magic man, according to easily referenced assertions in your mythology.

Which all, of course, pales into insignificance alongside the massive and blatant disconnect, between asserting that such behaviours are inexcusably criminal for humans to pursue, but purportedly "righteous" when ordered by your magic man, a hideously obscene piece of special pleading that should be obvious to a five year old.

If anything, the requisite assertions in your mythology point to the enormous dangers inherent, in allowing any entity to act as judge, jury and executioner simultaneously. But we're familiar here with the manner in which mythology fanboys erect convoluted apologetic fabrications, in an attempt to paint a fake veneer of "respectability" to the blatant manufacturing of synthetic excuses to hand-wave away entirely proper objections to the travesty of discourse, that is the entirely arbitrary declaration of special, "privileged" status for your magic man, on the basis of nothing more than mythological fiat. Because, at bottom, that's all you have - blind assertion to the effect that your magic man purported possesses the special, "privileged" status exempting said magic man from the same constraints which are simultaneously asserted to be proper to apply to us. This is nothing more than "one law for the powerful, another for the powerless" writ large. And your inability to recognise, this, points rather to your failure of basic intelligent reasoning.

TheExecutioner:

Genocide on the other hand means the killing of a group of people specifically because of their racial attributes or because they practice a particular religion.

The latter, of course, being one of the assertions presented in your mythology - namely, that the victims of this gleefully pursued mass murder, were subject to said slaughter because they dared to have a religion other than that of their murderers. You didn't think this through very hard, did you?

TheExecutioner:
As for what you call slavery in the Bible, it was more of indentured servitude. In indentured servitude, it is not the human being who is owned, rather it is his ability to work which belongs to his master and it was usually for the purpose of paying off debts.

A specious and mendacious fabricated sophistical elision, to try and hand-wave away the hideous reality of the situation of the slaves in question. Numerous historical examples can be pointed to, demonstrating that hideous reality, which in some cases involved kidnapping, and in many cases lethally brutal exploitation. But I'm aware of the manner in which mythology fanboys like you ignore inconvenient historical facts that destroy your apologetics.

TheExecutioner:
As for talking snakes and talking donkeys, the Bible doesn't credit snakes or donkeys with a natural ability to talk, rather the talking snake in the book of Genesis is able to speak because it has been possessed by Satan, while the talking donkey received the ability to talk only for one specific purpose on one specific occasion (to warn his master of imminent death).

Either way, the assertions are risible. Oh wait a moment, there is NO mention at all of the "Satan" character in Genesis, and indeed, the earliest explicit reference to such an entity doesn't appear until 1 Chronicles 21:1, so I'm tempted to treat this as another mythology fanboy ex recto fabrication.

TheExecutioner:
There is nowhere in the Bible where it is ever stated that speaking is a natural ability which animals possess like human beings.

Oh really? So why was the snake in the Genesis fairy tale not explicitly described therein as having found its voice in accordance with your apologetic assertion? For that matter, why is there NO explicit mention of the "Satan" character until we reach 1 Chronicles 21:1?

TheExecutioner:

As for misogyny in the Bible, please provide me with specific passages from the Bible where God regards women as being inferior to men.

Oh this is going to be fun ...

This for starters
Misogynistic - a person who dislikes, despises, or is strongly prejudiced against women.
Genesis 3:16
Exodus 21:7
Numbers 3:15,28
Exodus 23:17
Exodus 20:17
Judges 1:12–13
Leviticus 6:14–18
Numbers 5:15–31
Jeremiah 8:9–10
Exodus 22:29–31
Leviticus 12:1–5
Judges 8:30–31
Leviticus 27:1–7
Nahum 3:4–6
Numbers 36:8–12
2 Samuel 12:11
Deuteronomy 22:20–21
Numbers 31:17–18
Numbers 30:1–8,16
Numbers 31:25–35
Deuteronomy 24:1—4
Judges 5:30
Job 25:4
Ezekiel 36:16–17
Job 14:1–4
Lamentations 1:8–9
Isaiah 19:16
Hosea 9:1

Infanticidal - the act of killing an infant; the practice of killing newborn infants; a person who kills infants.
Isaiah 13:18
Hosea 13:16
1 Samuel 15:2–3
1 Samuel 22:19
Psalm 137:8–9
Isaiah 13:11–18
Numbers 31:17
Jeremiah 13:14
Deuteronomy 13:6–11
Jeremiah 19:3–9
Deuteronomy 28:53
Deuteronomy 3:3–6
Deuteronomy 2:31–34
Hosea 9:11–16
Ezekiel 9:4–6
2 Kings 2:23–24
Exodus 12:29
Leviticus 26:21–22
2 Samuel 12:13–18

Genocidal - relating to or involving the deliberate killing of a large group of people of a particular nation or ethnic group.
Deuteronomy 20:16–17
Deuteronomy 2:32–34
Genesis 6:6–8
Deuteronomy 7:1–2
Numbers 21:2–3
Deuteronomy 2:32–34
Deuteronomy 20:10–19
Deuteronomy 3:3–6
Judges 18:1–28
1 Samuel 15:7–8
1 Samuel 15:2–3
Numbers 31:7–40
Joshua 8:25–28
Joshua 11:12
Joshua 6:21
Joshua 11:16–20
Joshua 11:21–22
Joshua 11:10–11
Judges 1:22–26
Deuteronomy 13:12–15
1 Samuel 27:8–9
Deuteronomy 7:16
Joshua 10:28–40
Jeremiah 50:21

Now let me guess...."Oh but context": "It's a metaphor" "It doesn't really mean that" " Hang on , let me get my Hermenutic goggles and give you several references from random places that contradict that verse...a bit..."

Dear oh dear...someone else can carry the slavery bag....

At the end of the day, your issue is not so much about what atheists fail to grasp about your concept of a god, as much as about what you fail to understand about atheists and how they think and rationalise.

fieryy:


I mostly agree with you, but with due all respect Krauss was wrong.
Stephen Hawkin was right when he said ' when the universe was a singularity, space did not exist'.
However Krauss went a step further and claimed
'the universe itself comes from nothing'. That's a huge difference.
He has been called out on this multiple times. He misused [b]the idea of an 'empty space' [/b]to argue that the universe itself came out of nothing.

But the space is never empty. It can't even be ever empty. It always contains energy, leading to pair of particles having the ability to always form.
Nothing is the absence of any 'thing' and pure nothing has no power to cause itself to persist.

To be honest, we still know very little about the space and the universe to come up with an accurate answer, but one thing is for sure "Ex nihilo nihil fit" - "Nothing Comes from Nothing".

That itself means God, as he's being displayed- the one and only creator, the beginning and the end, if he truly had existed, (which I don't believe anyway) could have not come out of nothing.

Thanks for that.

I took care not to make any claims about Krauss's claim because I don't understand it. It was my intention only to post the claim. Apologies if I unintentionally mislead.

On the bald face of it , Hawkin's explanation makes sense to me. Again I can make no claim because I don't fully understand the physics. So far haven't heard of another explanation ,expressed simply enough that I can understand it.

True enough, "God did it" is an idiot simple claim ,and I want to be open minded. If I was open minded enough to believe that, my brains would fall out.

----As A youth of about 14, I stumbled upon the concept that time and space came into being when God created the world. I asked one of the sisters at the Catholic school I attended. She changed the subject.

Pity really, because Catholicism accepts evolution**. I think it would be pretty simple for a Jesuit apologist to slip the Big Bang/ great expansion into Catholic theology. (assuming that has not already bene done)

**I was taught that the church has no problem with evolution because we don't know the duration of each 'day' of creation. Could be billions of years for all we know. When I heard that at age 14 or 15, I remember thinking that explanation was pretty cunning and it left me with a feeling of unease.

ElidaxZiel:


You seem signs Nd evidence to believe God exist

But none will be given you

God exist , you know It deep o inside

You are only fighting your shadow


Answer this


If energy can neither be Created nor destroyed

How did does Energy got into the system

I want you tro logical explain this to me

No story just answer straight

# you are a learner

I'm not aware that your imaginary friend exists "deep inside". Your pretending to know what I believe is futile. What you have here is a failed attempt to convince yourself (not me) that your favourite imaginary friend exists, even when it looks like your fantasy bubble is being rudely bursted on an online chat forum. You can't handle it, and are now attempting desperately to shut down the argument with this old chestnut.

Now to your question,

When you say, "how does energy get into the system", this is asking the question in completely the wrong way , in my opinion. The universe is all that there is, unless you can offer evidence to the contrary.

If the total energy of the universe is zero (which is a highly valid hypothesis, based on what we know about the universe), you have your answer, which is that it didn't - what we see is just perturbations around the zero-energy mean. And your argument is of little or no practical relevance. Whether this is true or not is something we might never know. But at least it is based on observations and logic, as opposed to the supernatural claims of the followers of the petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; the vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; the misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully(*). Or, as you might know "him": God.

Plus, the first law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with what happened before the rapid expansion. And please don't pull out all the stops just to lie to yourself. NO ONE knows what happened before the rapid expansion.

I once asked a physicist acquaintance "what was there before the big bang? Sorry, rapid expansion. His answer: 'there was no before". Stephen Hawking said that when the universe was a singularity, the size of a single atom, time and space did not exist.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aH5ukK7ngL8

Lawrence Krauss also has an interesting video on the notion of a universe from nothing . I can't claim to understand all of it. I'm actually more interested in the fact that competent scientists are seriously discussing the topic; to me that means the matter is not settled.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=46sKeycH3bE

Your questions seem to me to be a sneaky attempt at shifting the burden of proof . I for one have made no claims of scientific expertise nor about the existence of god. I need prove nothing. It is up the the theist to prove his claim of the existence of god, or any claims about science.

The internet is loaded with scientific papers by (Steinhardt & Turok for example), in which they postulate a mechanism for energy being donated to the incipient universe. But I suspect you have been too busy pretending that apologetics dictates how reality behaves, to bother with such inconvenient interruptions to your fantasy as actually reading the extant cosmological physics literature. Instead you come over here to embarrass your cult members with your false claims and nasty, bogging, appalling, unspeakable, unbelievable, nightmarish use of English.

I mean, for a second I squinted my face trying to understand the question "How did does Energy got into the system". Couldn't you read before posting this eyesore? Do you have problems constructing sentences? Anyways, I digress...

Now riddle me this... can you demonstrate how we get causally to 'God'?

For example, we know we can follow natural causal links all the way back to a second after the big bang... everything has a naturalistic cause.

What is the preceding natural cause before you specifically invoke your god?


(*) Credit to Richard Dawkins, for this magnificent rant.

Maximus69:


It's not my duty giving you any evidence Sir, 99.9% of people on this planet have feelings and what they want, it's just a little number that are willing to listen and learn more about what they need.

Our job as Christians is to find the later and help them know what we all need to make our planet a Paradise. As for persons who want to believe that there is no way out, we leave them to continue in their doubts.

When those who listened and learn are enjoying the benefits of wisdom, even before judgment comes all eyes will see it!

Disclaimer: I'm actually a woman, although I find it flattering when you address me as a sir lol

Obviously, you do not care for facts or evidence, and are completely satisfied with telling lies and half-truths to yourself. It's both amusing and pitiful really.

I understand you are either [1] a dishonest peddler of unfounded nonsense or [2] a truly deluded individual.

Whichever clown you are, it would be criminal to pull the jesus lollipop out of your mouth. Enjoy your self-deceit.

Muppet

Maximus69:


Whether logic or not, the fact remains that there is no need commenting if you've got nothing to teach people regarding their blunders!

Unlike you, I have no need to peddle lies to people, Maximus69. Let me know when you can present evidence for all your hubris. Mental masturbation with your so called logic can only take you so far.

ElidaxZiel:

I will say it and keep saying it, you are ignorant and speaking from the limitness of your knowledge

Limitness (sic), another hilarious own goal, for your sake I do hope this was an attempt at irony lol.

ElidaxZiel:
1. A human Mind , is the energy body or software that Enable the brain to function and perfrom mental activities, such as thinking, Visualization, and Conscious decision making.

That's bollocks.

ElidaxZiel:

2. Your dream is the best evidence for spirtual realm,,. You dream yet you can provide evidence for it

Nope. It's just a dream.

ElidaxZiel:
3. Evidence is useless when it comes to mystery,,.

Even by the standards you and your cult have previously set, this has to be hands down one of the most idiotic asinine claims I've seen a theist make. Do you even know what a dictionary is?

evidence
noun
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

mystery
noun
Something that is difficult or impossible to understand or explain.

So Bullwinkle thinks facts can't help explain things that are difficult to explain, priceless.

Is this just how you convince yourself that what makes you feel warm and fuzz has some merit? .... It's rank intellectual dishonesty.

Plus, Sherlock Holmes might disagree with you on that one. Also, you must have never watched any Scooby Doo, or read any Agatha Christie novels. And having helped in investigations of countless real-life "mysteries", I would say evidence is extremely USEFUL in regards to mysteries.

As you can see, all your claims are unevidenced. If you can't be bothered to even pretend to evidence them, then in the bin they go, it's no loss as even by theistic standards your verbiage is mind numbingly stupid.

ElidaxZiel:
My dear , go and learn quantum physics..

You're about as much an authority on quantum physics as Stephen Hawkins was an authority on Olympic snowboarding.

Mythology fanboys like you don't have any "research", all you have is mythological assertions and ex recto apologetic fabrications.

You should take your output to a stand up comedy venue lol. You'll have them rolling in the aisles.

ElidaxZiel:

Then why do you conclude there is no God,,,

This is the heart of the matter, the antecedent on your behavior. You have been asked to provide proof of a god or gods, and since you understand that there is no valid method to provide any proof, you have decided that attacking science and attempting to discredit science, somehow makes your inability to provide any proof of a god as rational since (to you) science is not a valid tool.

Everything follows patterns of natural causality, from us how we currently are, to evolution from primate relatives, to the formation of the earth from an accretion disc and all the way to the big bang. There is no sign... not even 0.00000001% of evidence of anything outside of the laws of nature and physics

And that is good enough!

Most of us do not need some clutch of sinister, child raping virgins to guide us morally. Most of us realise that religion and all its bullshit books, verses, psalms etc... explain absolute Bleep all.

Most of us realise we live in a material universe and that science as a tool can actually offer cogent, proven answers that are testable and demonstrable... we don't need to invoke our imaginary friends simply because we dont understand how certain phenomena exist or occur.

Give your head a wobble you plank.

Why do I not conclude that any god exists? Because I have zero proof or reason to believe in this imaginary friend. If you truly desire to score points in this forum, then provide proof. My ears are open, I am listening, convince me with a rational dialogue.

hupernikao:

All your response above affirmed the fact that science is good and has helped humanity but not perfect. Imperfection will implies, it is fallible and can be revised.

Of course scientific theories are being constantly revised. That is not because the scientific process is flawed, but that new discoveries add to our knowledge base, and sometimes old theories are discarded.

In science, when you learn something new, you say "OK, we got it wrong, so we will revise our proposals". That is a challenge all scientific researchers face, that the results of their studies may be embarrassing or definitely not what they desire.

hupernikao:

Science simply cant boast of knowing all about how the world functions and all entity that functions around it. But it seems atheist know all.

Atheism does not make that claim, although your ignorance makes many atheists look like Einstein. Once again, there is just one definition of atheism, a lack of belief in a god or gods. If religion and superstition is so appealing to you, why has it failed to convince us atheist of the existence of any god?

hupernikao:

The probability of measure of success of scientific theories accuracy over past centuries when measured together will amazed you how unstable science has been.

Says the guy using a computer and/or smart phone to send that message around the globe over the internet.... *rolling eyes*... Yep, those damn bumbling scientist idiots lol.

Two more unevidenced claims, and one of them assuming to know what others will think, you've excelled yourself. Now, how many scientific facts do you deny that don't contradict your religious beliefs in any way?

Buussssttteddd....

hupernikao:
See, science today is still in its embryo, developing gradually, we are yet to see the full power of science and may never see it in our time.

Science is a methodology, well developed and consistently producing results.

Our human knowledge base in in it's embryo stage, because we have just come out of the dark ages (thanks to religion inhibiting human progress) and over the next few millennium, will continually add to the knowledge.

hupernikao:

When you arent done researching, you dont make conclusions.

The results of scientific research are never presented as hard conclusions, but at best, a tentative explanation until new information is revealed.

NOW,

First of all, proof is the remit of pure mathematics and formal axiomatic systems derived therein. Science deals in correspondence with observational data.

Second, if an asserted entity is bereft of accompanying evidence, the requisite assertions about that entity can be safely discarded.

Third, your attempt to dismiss reliable methods of testing assertions, just because your assertions are vacuous and probably untestable even in principle, is not merely lame, but duplicitous.

Fourth, if you want to support the implicit assertion that there exist other reliable methods for testing assertions, then the ball is in your court to demonstrate that [1] the requisite methodologies exist, and [2] that they produce verifiably reliable results. Your failure to do so will merely reinforce the vacuity of your position.

Scientific claims can be trusted to the extent their are supported by objective evidence, as can all claims, thus your religious claims are utterly meaningless, as you cannot demonstrate a shred of objective evidence. Evolution for instance is manifestly and objectively true as the rotundity of the earth, and they are both as likely to be wrong.

ElidaxZiel:


Hahahaha dear

Science is limited,.

Can you give me proofs that you dream at night

Can you tell me the location of your mind,, in your brain.


When you remember someone face,. When does the image appears in your brain ??

Science can not work with Spiritual realm

[1] Please define "mind".
[2] Please supply your best evidence for a "spiritual realm". Not just a repeat of your factless bluster.
[3] There is no reason to assume existence without evidence. You do not get to imagine possibilities into existence.

The attached video is obviously very dated. The Professor discusses the similarities of Jesus Christ, Hare Krishna and Ahuro Mazda/Zooroster. The immaculate conception, good versus evil spirits...etc. The video is 12 minutes long and straightforward.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7_DsBoTQ-Y

ElidaxZiel:
You are just plain ignorant

That almost did make me laugh out loud....well I tried, I just couldn't help but be disdainfully amused at your complete Muppetness.

hupernikao:

1. Has science, as a methodology of observation, done/completed all its observation/research? I mean has science found out all that we have in this world or still researching?

Of course not. The more we learn, the more we learn we have a lot more to learn. For example, Perlmutter did his study to determine the expansion rate of the universe. The results were the complete opposite of what was expected, that the universe was accelerating in it's expansion.That result lead to the dark energy hypothesis, basically a completely new field of research.

hupernikao:
2. Does it always mean that, when it is not scientifically proven to exist, then it doesn't exist? bearing in mind myriad of discoveries that the limitation of the tools of science once couldn't registered/affirmed or known but now known/accepted over time by the same science based on further studies

For science, you need something to study, to examine, to measure. One can not do that with an imaginary friend (with the exception of psychology and how the brain works).

hupernikao:

3. How stable has science and its theories be over the history of mankind, are there scientific theories that ruled for centuries but later became discarded by the same science as incomplete? If yes. To what extent can you trust our current observations/research to remain true, final, and same in centuries to come?

The more we learn, the more we learn we have more to learn. Science is not static, and a scientific theory may be overturned at any moment. For example, the ancient Greeks postulated on the nature of gravity. Later on, such scientists as Galileo added to the learning on what gravity is. Newton finally offered an explanation on the effects of gravity, and Einstein finally explained how it worked. But the discovery of dark energy and dark matter may require another Einstein, one who can come up with a new way of understanding the universe.

But science offers the best explanation at that time, based on our knowledge base.

hupernikao:
"YOU WROTE: I propose that it is not the fault or shortcoming of science, but rather the bullshit surrounding the god claim.

When this your proposal becomes a law/fact or scientifically proven (as you say), then we can gist on this. Keep this for now."

NO

Theists have made the god claim, it is incumbent on them to prove their imaginary friend.

Maximus69:


Simply quote "you have no questions"

So there is no reason for you to comment since you don't agree that people's minds could be subjected to control.

The main purpose of commenting when people are talking is to REDIRECT the thinking faculty of sane individuals towards what you feels is beneficial, but since you don't think that is necessary, then your participation is needless!

I already licked, clobbered, pasted, or snuffed out your feeble logic. What possible questions could arise from your vapid rhetoric?

You don't get to dictate the rules, champ. Re-assess your logic and try again, is what you need to do.

hupernikao:


It's so funny and sorry, that when science couldn't prove a thing, it then means it doesn't exist.

See, you can't box all things within the geometry of science.

In all, It seems atheism at the end is not actually about questioning things to know but about concluding and judging all things in the court science. Sadly, that is what limits its research.

Science is a methodology, and it has proven to be the most reliable method in examining and explaining observable and testable phenomenon.

Science is not capable of examining woo woo such as the god claim.

I propose that it is not the fault or shortcoming of science, but rather the bullshit surrounding the god claim.

Question hupernikao: can you propose a better method in actually examining the god claim and arriving at real truth?

What happens after death?

All we are is just what is in our brain, and when it dies that means we die. I don't see how all our data that makes up us is somehow transported from a damaged and rotting brain into an alternative reality where we continue to experience ourselves.

All explanations of an afterlife are all based off myths and magic, there is no actual scientific approach to how an afterlife would work. We know that nothing is accredited to magic; there is science behind things like echos, the tides, the sun rising, etc. So why would we believe that there is some magical way of us continuing to live on after death?

Is God omnipotent?

No

Moralgladiator:
Who are you? I am humbly impressed.

Hold it right there, Moralgladiator. I strongly suggest you grab a pen and some paper and start taking notes. We are in the presence of true greatness, and we should strive diligently to preserve his enlightened teachings as much as possible before he tires of our simple-minded mental deficiencies. Do not take for granted the precious time he allows us to share with him. For one day Maximus69 will be gone, never to return. And then we - the misguided heathens - will be left lost and wandering aimlessly without his strength and wisdom to guide us and give us hope. Such a sad day that will be...