Atheism Poll

[St Truth]

Yet many responded with 99.9999% certainty no Creator of the universe exists. The argument theism vs atheism begins with whether we owe our existence to naturalistic causes minus any intent or plan to cause the universe and life or whether we owe our existence to a transcendent agent generically referred to as God.  If that isn't true then its a moot point about the nature of God. If it is true then you can decide which if any of the Gods is the God who created the universe.

It's not as simple as that. Of course the properties of God is essential before we can decide if it exists. Supposing your definition of God is something that is not personal and has no consciousness, I am prepared to believe in a God. A hitherto unknown force would also qualify as "God" with such a definition. Hence, the attributes of God are essential before someone can decide if God exists or not. Depending on the definition, God can be something as impersonal as a mere force. But the moment you imbue it with consciousness, volition, etc, God enters the realm of nonsense and I dispute its existence.

[St Truth]

Why do you think that is that an otherwise brilliant person doesn't subscribe to your belief or are you stating its a fact God doesn't exist no Creator was involved in causing the universe and life? I'm going to be terribly disappointed if you reach for your weak atheism towel and claim you only lack belief in the existence of God. So state the facts make your case that lead you to conclude we owe our existence to mindless forces that never intended anything to exist and only imbeciles believe otherwise.

Your disappointment doesn't bother me in the least. I am disappointed with intelligent people believing in a hocus-pocus god but that doesn't mean anything. These people don't have to please me just as I don't have to please you.

As I have said, depending on your definition of God, I may or may not accept its existence. If you define God to include an impersonal force, I accept the likelihood of its existence because a force is nothing new or fanciful. But if your God is a supernatural being with consciousness, I don't accept its existence because you are conjuring up a new entity without reason or evidence. I'm assuming you have neither reason nor evidence because I have been asking for that for a long time and nobody however religious he may be can possibly come up with the smallest shred of evidence.

You are employing another trickery of the church. Asking me to state my case against God is one famous trickery that the church uses and William Lane Craig (the man who's better off as a mean used car salesman) usually does in his debate. Let me spell it out to you so you don't repeat this egregious blunder.

It's NEVER for the atheist to state his case against any imaginary being whether it's God, Narnia, the poltergeist, fairies, pixies, leprechauns or the invisible teacup that circles planet Mars. It's for the person who asserts the existence of these objects to state their case. I don't have to say it but I bet it's something you won't do.  I correct myself: it's something you CAN'T do. In CF, all the adults tell me they 'won't' state their case for God because I'm too young to understand. Ho Ho Ho!!! Like I believed them. The imbeciles in CF say a lot of funny things. Thank God I'm now in a forum run by sane people!!!  As I always tell my vicar, 'Thank God God doesn't exist or he'd be the most wicked animal alive'.

[Baruch]

We know that sentience can be generated and sustained by organic brains, but we don't know that sentience can be generated and sustained by anything other than organic brains. If the universe had a sentient Creator, then sentience can be generated and sustained by something other than organic brains (assuming the Creator doesn't have an organic brain), but we have no knowledge that that is the case. If it turns out to be the case, then the scientific method is the only means at our disposal for confirming it. It won't be confirmed by people having emotional experiences, or using faulty logic to "prove" it.

That only works if G-d is some superior alien creature.  You had it right in another post ... human beings are, as far as we know, the principle way in which nature aka G-d manifests consciousness.  But not exclusively so.  I don't think rocks are conscious.  And reductionism can provide no explanation, just description of organic molecules being life instead of other elemental combinations.  Yet all our life forms here, are not completely dependent on carbon, but also on sulfur and phosphorus and other elements.

Don't worry ... if we met a superior alien creature, they would most certainly conquer us and use us as an exotic food source.

[St Truth]

trdsf

Are humans capable of independent volitional thought or is all thought just a regurgitation of experience and memories and its just an illusion we think independently?

I attended a talk by Jerry Coyne (i got him to autograph his wonderful book) and during the Q&A, he mentioned that anyone with the smallest intelligence must know that we do not have free will. I looked at my dad with horror. MENSA tested me and said that I had an IQ beyond the charts which means my IQ exceeds the MENSA maximum of 160 (which made me hope that mine was 200, like Einstein's, but then it's probably much less because I can't understand some physics books that I've read while Einstein could write physics books blindfolded) and I was wondering if there might have been a mistake in the test because I really thought I had free will. Coyne says most people think we have free will because if feels like we have free will but we are really determined by our genes and our upbringing and our genes will determine our reaction to the environment. I haven't thought much about it but I'd like to think that I have free will and I always voluntarily go with the TRUTH because I am...

St Truth

[Baruch]

It's not as simple as that. Of course the properties of God is essential before we can decide if it exists. Supposing your definition of God is something that is not personal and has no consciousness, I am prepared to believe in a God. A hitherto unknown force would also qualify as "God" with such a definition. Hence, the attributes of God are essential before someone can decide if God exists or not. Depending on the definition, God can be something as impersonal as a mere force. But the moment you imbue it with consciousness, volition, etc, God enters the realm of nonsense and I dispute its existence.

Properties of divinity ... is something oft debated by post Greek theologians, particularly 1000 years ago.  There is "via positiva" or what G-d is ... and "via negative" or what G-d is not.  Back then most theologians were satisfied with negative theology.  They were neo-Platonists.  Along came the neo-Aristotelians, who attempted to restore positive theology into favor.  Initially such men, like St Aquinas, were condemned ... but by hook or crook, St Aquinas won over the Catholic church.  Maimonides won over the rabbinic Jewish community (not all Jews were or are rabbinic).  The neo-Aristotelians however, in Islam, were defeated by the older neo-Platonists ... and this retarded their development, to the benefit of Europe.  It was the books of the Arab and Jewish philosophers in Arabic, who had kept alive the Greco-Roman traditions, that made intellectualism possible in Europe again starting in Spain and Italy ... translated into Latin by Jewish scholars.

If you wanted to know positive theology, as it existed when the Anglican church broke off from the Roman church ... you would need to study St Aquinas.  He and his contemporaries were strong in logic, in spite of what atheists falsely claim about reason.  There have always been intellectual disbelievers ... and they have always been a minority.

[Baruch]

I attended a talk by Jerry Coyne (i got him to autograph his wonderful book) and during the Q&A, he mentioned that anyone with the smallest intelligence must know that we do not have free will. I looked at my dad with horror. MENSA tested me and said that I had an IQ beyond the charts which means my IQ exceeds the MENSA maximum of 160 (which made me hope that mine was 200, like Einstein's, but then it's probably much less because I can't understand some physics books that I've read while Einstein could write physics books blindfolded) and I was wondering if there might have been a mistake in the test because I really thought I had free will. Coyne says most people think we have free will because if feels like we have free will but we are really determined by our genes and our upbringing and our genes will determine our reaction to the environment. I haven't thought much about it but I'd like to think that I have free will and I always voluntarily go with the TRUTH because I am...

St Truth

So you do intellectualize ... you do follow the most recent braniac you have met personally ... and in this case he is an idiot, like all other determinists (including theological ones).  Well I hope as you mature, you will develop a more discriminating taste in the philosophy you supposedly despise.  Determinism has been bankrupt for over 100 years now in physics.  Idiot savants are a dime a dozen, and not even worth that much.  Again, being a whole human being, is much better than a braggart IQ.  I was measured at genius level when I was 6, and I can tell you as a genius, that it is BS.

[St Truth]

That only works if G-d is some superior alien creature.  You had it right in another post ... human beings are, as far as we know, the principle way in which nature aka G-d manifests consciousness.  But not exclusively so.  I don't think rocks are conscious.  And reductionism can provide no explanation, just description of organic molecules being life instead of other elemental combinations.  Yet all our life forms here, are not completely dependent on carbon, but also on sulfur and phosphorus and other elements.

Don't worry ... if we met a superior alien creature, they would most certainly conquer us and use us as an exotic food source.

'reductionism can provide no explanation' - labels again. I encourage readers to ignore such labelling because there is no truth in it. But if you read it too  many times, the less guarded among us will be lulled into believing that only God has the answers. Rubbish! Baruch says he doesn't know about God - he just 'knows' God exists. If you can't even define God (whether you spell it in full or delete the vowel to make it seem like a dirty word makes no difference), you have no answer. Don't listen to his labelling when he says this or that -ism has no answer as if God has an answer. Repel it in your head and call every bit of nonsense by its real name - NONSENSE. Studies have shown that if you are forced to listen to nonsense for a long time, you will believe in it. That's what the church does with the liturgy - it's a form of brainwashing. Always identify the trickery of religion and counter it in your head even if you don't wish to reply in a post.

But I'm different. I will counter errors and untruths because I seek only the truth and I spread the truth far and wide for I am...

St Truth

[Baruch]

And your egomania ... needs diagnosis.  Hope you get help.  I now realize I am not the person for that job.

[Baruch]

trdsf

Are humans capable of independent volitional thought or is all thought just a regurgitation of experience and memories and its just an illusion we think independently?

Nazis, commies and other tyrants ... always like to claim that we have no free will.  One ... that they can't help but enslave us.  And two, they can't help but be criminals.  If you meet a determinist, run the other way.

[Baruch]

There is nothing special in the word 'understand'. Nothing mystical at all. Of course we can understand insects. We probably understand them better than they do themselves. You don't have to be something to understand it. Whether it's insects or even machinery, our understanding of something is not dependent on our becoming that something. Whatever gave you such a silly idea?

For an Englishman, you display a shocking disdain for proper English.  Consult your OED.  Or are you just an advocate of your own version of Newspeak?

[St Truth]

So you do intellectualize ... you do follow the most recent braniac you have met personally ... and in this case he is an idiot, like all other determinists (including theological ones).  Well I hope as you mature, you will develop a more discriminating taste in the philosophy you supposedly despise.  Determinism has been bankrupt for over 100 years now in physics.  Idiot savants are a dime a dozen, and not even worth that much.  Again, being a whole human being, is much better than a braggart IQ.  I was measured at genius level when I was 6, and I can tell you as a genius, that it is BS.

Labels mean nothing to me. If you have anything of substance, you will spell it out clearly so I can refute what you say.

If you follow MENSA's ratings, geniuses are no big deal. You only need an IQ of about 140 to be a genius. Most people are geniuses. But Ho Ho Ho!!! I'm beyond the MENSA charts. There's actually another test I can take to determine how much above 160 my IQ is but I haven't done it yet. I'd like to think I'm like Einstein even though I'm not confident I'll be anywhere near that since I couldn't understand some physics books I read. It will be such a letdown if my IQ is found to be precisely 161. Not knowing what it really is might be better.

[Baruch]

Labels mean nothing to me. If you have anything of substance, you will spell it out clearly so I can refute what you say.

If you follow MENSA's ratings, geniuses are no big deal. You only need an IQ of about 140 to be a genius. Most people are geniuses. But Ho Ho Ho!!! I'm beyond the MENSA charts. There's actually another test I can take to determine how much above 160 my IQ is but I haven't done it yet. I'd like to think I'm like Einstein even though I'm not confident I'll be anywhere near that since I couldn't understand some physics books I read. It will be such a letdown if my IQ is found to be precisely 161. Not knowing what it really is might be better.

Like MikeCL .. you are Humpty-Dumpty ... a word means exactly what you (egomania) says it means, no more, no less.  When you become Archbishop of Canterbury, maybe I would be willing to listen to your ravings.

[Drew_2017]

It's not as simple as that. Of course the properties of God is essential before we can decide if it exists. Supposing your definition of God is something that is not personal and has no consciousness, I am prepared to believe in a God. A hitherto unknown force would also qualify as "God" with such a definition. Hence, the attributes of God are essential before someone can decide if God exists or not. Depending on the definition, God can be something as impersonal as a mere force. But the moment you imbue it with consciousness, volition, etc, God enters the realm of nonsense and I dispute its existence.

Welcome to the board St Truth,

Does consciousness, volition, etc exist in humans? If so we can establish that consciousness, volition, etc exist. If you agree how can you rule that out as a potential cause? If your belief is mindless forces unintentionally created consciousness and volition in humans how can you rule out such forces did so before humans or the universe? Subsequently those beings caused this universe. If you dispute this possibility then you dispute the basis of our existence you subscribe to.

I'll ask you a question no one here seems to want to answer. Could natural forces like the one's alleged to have caused our universe to exist cause a virtual universe to exist like the ones scientists have created or are there phenomena which only could be caused by intelligent means?

[St Truth]

For an Englishman, you display a shocking disdain for proper English.  Consult your OED.  Or are you just an advocate of your own version of Newspeak?

I know my language better than you. 'Understand' does not mean 'empathise' which is probably what you are thinking of. Yes, I'm familiar with the OED definition of 'understand' and I'm right.

One of the definitions apply:

'Be knowledgeably aware of the character or nature of.'

A good entomologist is knowledgeably aware of the character or nature of insects.

Ho Ho Ho!!! I'm right and you're wrong. For I am none other than...

St Truth

[St Truth]

Welcome to the board St Truth,

Does consciousness, volition, etc exist in humans? If so we can establish that consciousness, volition, etc exist. If you agree how can you rule that out as a potential cause? If your belief is mindless forces unintentionally created consciousness and volition in humans how can you rule out such forces did so before humans or the universe? Subsequently those beings caused this universe. If you dispute this possibility then you dispute the basis of our existence you subscribe to.

I'll ask you a question no one here seems to want to answer. Could natural forces like the one's alleged to have caused our universe to exist cause a virtual universe to exist like the ones scientists have created or are there phenomena which only could be caused by intelligent means?

As I have said previously, I'm currently in a different country and my time is vastly different from yours. I can only answer a small part of your question before I have to put my phone away or risk it being confiscated. It's a very human failing to think that there are phenomena that can only be caused by intelligent means. Even if you define a phenomenon to include the typing of the Complete works of Shakespeare, then of course it is still very likely for an unintelligent source to bring about over many million years by slow incremental changes an animal intelligent enough to do that. It's always conceivable that the ultimate source is impersonal and unintelligent. To postulate the ultimate source as something so developed as a Supreme Intelligence is to put the cart before the horse because it begs the question how indeed such a being could come to exist. To say that this Supreme Being has always existed is of course to make up your own rules to govern a presupposition that you have come up with in the first place. Letting one presupposition ride on the back of another presupposition (both presuppositions of which are not backed by any reason or evidence) is the embarrassing hallmark of theism and I'm not saying this disparagingly or with intent to hurt the delicate feelings of religionists because I too am a Christian and a pious altar boy.

But I am first and foremost none other than...

St Truth