"When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place."
62 comments:
There's a lot of overlap between the two "groups", so he is advocating redundancy.
Not going to happen. It's easier to make people believe in a farce, than it is to make them believe in nothing.
Anonymous, what do you believe in now?
Anonymous, what do you believe in now?
The All as they describe The Supreme Being in The Kybalion.
The "atheist scientist" Dawkins is really just the most radical of radical autonomists.
In an ordered and knowable world, an "atheist scientist" would be seen as the paradox that it is.
The scientist says there is no empirical evidence for the existence of God and the atheist says God does not exist.
These statements which are held simultaneously by the "atheist scientist" CANNOT be held simultaneously. Meaning, the "atheist scientist" can be one or the other, but not both unless one is a radical autonomist.
The scientist, after proclaiming no empirical evidence for the existence of God, CANNOT, by virtue of his status as scientist, say God does not exist!
But this is EXACTLY what the atheist asserts...
The irony of course is that the scientist's assertion that there is NO emprical evidence for the existence of God is refuted by the atheist who actually acknowledges God (gives reference to His existence) before he transforms Him into an unknowable and arbitrary autonomous god.
The bottom line is that a person like Dawkins has found that he is most evolved for navigating a disordered and unknowable world because he helps create such a world as an "atheist scientist."
I guess you've got proof for the existence of God, Farst. So let's hear it...
Mike.
If the existence of God is something that could be reduced to the level of "proof", ie wouldn't be God.
Yeah, and if the existence of Tinker Bell is something that could be reduced to the level of "proof", it wouldn't be Tinker Bell.
Fact is, DV, when you posit that something exists it is knowable by definition. Else you wouldn't KNOW that it exists and thus you wouldn't be able to posit that it indeed exists. And you can only KNOW something if you have proof. Everything else is BELIEF.
Fisher,
Outside revelation and miracle, the next best proof of God is the irrational position of the "atheist scientist."
If the scientist says there is "no empirical evidence for God" and the atheist follows with, "God does not exist," then a refutation of these assertions seem to prove the existence of God.
When a radical autonomist like Dawkins is asked why he acknowledges God before he rejects Him as nonexistent, he invariably references the God meme.
Likewise, when a scientist says there is no empirical evidence for God, he also must reference the God meme to account for his acknowledgement of a God he claims is not detectable through empirical evidence.
So where did this God meme come from and HOW did it come about if God does not exist and therefore no empirical evidence exists for God?
Simply put, the God meme must have derived thousands of years ago at the individual level.
But how?
How could someone concoct an "entity" with NO empirical evidence to substantiate such entity? How was this original thinker able to conceptualize that which did not exist and gave no evidence of its existence?
When the "atheist scientist" mocks the idea that simply believing in God is proof enough for His existence by citing "tinker bell" or "the flying spaghetti monster," he seems to miss the point that those things can be conceptualized utilizing things we already know exist.
How does he do this for God?
How does the originator of the God meme conceptualize omniscience and omnipotency when such a thing is not knowable via empirical evidence?
Farst...
"How does the originator of the God meme conceptualize omniscience and omnipotency when such a thing is not knowable via empirical evidence?".
The same way that that originator of the God meme can conceptualize the meme of a little flying elf that sprays pixie dust about.
Farst, you contend that there is no such thing as a System of White Supremacy. Nonetheless someone conceptualized it. According to your argument since someone conceptualized it, it must exist.
"Fact is, DV, when you posit that something exists it is knowable by definition."
That's the part you don't understand Mike.
No one "posits" that God exists.
God, like gravity is experienced.
Everything else is talk.
Fisher,
Just do it... Conceptualize something in which NO empirical evidence exists?
When you speak of a "little flying elf" or a "global system of white supremacy" there is ample empirical evidence for "little," "flying," "global," "white," "supremacy," etc.
Again, how does one conceive of God with NO existing empirical evidence?
ohhh. Nice.
Good shit TD.
DV...
"God, like gravity is experienced.".
There is UNIQUE empirical evidence for gravity. That's why you are able to experience it. There is nothing you can point out that you can say "there is empirical evidence that so and so happened because of God".
Besides, DV. If God is knowable, then there has to be empirical evidence that enables you to know God. If God exists and is unknowable, then, by definition ("unknowable"), you wouldn't know that God exist in the first place.
Farst...
"Again, how does one conceive of God with NO existing empirical evidence?".
Oh Lawd.
Lemme try again. The way one conceived of "the ether".
The ether neither exists, ever existed, and it was thought of as an immaterial substance. There was no and still is no empirical evidence for it's existence.
Does that mean it nevertheless exists because it was "conceived of"?
Mike,
If you reduce God, to only that which you can "know".
There is no God.
Personally I suspect God operates outside a realm Mike Fisher can know.
Fisher,
Irrational numbers don't exist do they?
They're most commonly used to describe an aspect of reality that "doesn't exist", right?
A description of reality which a certain class of physicists continue to find vexatious to this very day.
those descriptions are parts of models. models which have either been developed and shown themselves useful, or, have been discarded as less than useful.
what model of the world incorporates a "god" function and has shown itself useful in the same way that a model of the world incorporating "gravity" or "quantum mechanics" has shown itself useful?
"Irrational numbers don't exist do they?"
No only do irrational numbers not exist, but numbers in general do not exist. Just as irrational numbers they are conceptual constructs. Those constructs are, however, based on LOGIC. Now I know of no logical model that incorporates a "God Function" (God defined as omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent) that is logically consistent. If you know of one, please let me know.
DV...
"Personally I suspect God operates outside a realm Mike Fisher can know."
Maybe, maybe.
The more important question is, though:
Does God operate inside a realm that DV can know?
Fisher said it's about belief.
Why are the rest of y'all arguing?
It's about belief, faith, whatever you want to call it.
I have no desire to "prove" that God exists to anybody.
What's the point?
"It's about belief, faith, whatever you want to call it." Big Man
I'm not arguing B.M.
But I'm not sure I believe God is about "belief".
I suspect God transcends the puny limitations of man's cognitive capacity.
I agree.
I just don't get the point of trying to pretend that there is a way to prove that God is real.
If the basis of your disbelief in God is that you can't empirically prove that he exists, then that's cool. More power to you.
I don't understand the need by some folks to try to win that argument.
I just don't get the point of trying to pretend that there is a way to prove that God is real.
The orthodox church has practiced glorification and established objective criteria for determining the extent of one's participation in the "uncreated energies".
That such a rigorous system, praxis, and system of proof of achieved subjective experience of the thing exists - and has shaped the lives of millions - is beyond any doubt.
As for all y'all other folks, i.e., those of you who have no knowledge whatsoever of any such religious science, well, the rest of us simply need to know who you are so we can avoid your neurobiological sickness.
Clearly something is VERY wrong with you if you profess and need the existence of an "imaginary friend" who does not communicate with you, and with whom you cannot communicate - but on whose existence you insist to the point of authoritarian coercion and violence against those of us who are not so neurobiologically afflicted.
If you believe it, its true. That's religion in a nutshell.
No one needs to try to prove to anyone else that they believe that a Supreme Being exists. If these poor fools don't have proof from their own lives, to hell with them and what they think.
"If you believe it, its true. That's religion in a nutshell.".
Would it only be so, but unfortunately it ain't. Note this (I loath to give it to him, but hey) astute commentary:
"on whose existence you insist to the point of authoritarian coercion and violence against those of us who are not so neurobiologically afflicted."
"Clearly something is VERY wrong with you if you profess and need the existence of an "imaginary friend" who does not communicate with you, and with whom you cannot communicate - but on whose existence you insist to the point of authoritarian coercion and violence against those of us who are not so neurobiologically afflicted." CNu
Agreed! And that goes double for those who profess to believe in nothing, communicate with only each other and ignorantly subscribe to an occult narrative of history disguised as secularism or zionism or atheism or rationalism or communism or Holocaustism or vaccinism, plantationism, liberalism, homoism, or PickAnIsm - which they attempt to force upon the rest of us not afflicted with their peculiar form of solipsism with violence, imprisonment and threat of ostracization.
Honestly DV, given the history of orthodox belief and practice, a history I'll gladly share with you if you're ever so inclined, I would much rather contend with the wannabe secular powers and principalities, than to have to deal with the violent, authoritarian stumps afflicted by the neurobiological sickness.
Well Craig, that's because you don't yet fully understand that what you call "orthodox belief" is about as secular as it gets.
Hegel made a power move. Crossed you over. While you chose sides, he went base line. Dunked on you.
The Abortionist and the Orthodox assassin are one in the same CNu.
Jesus don't dig neither one of them muhfuggas.
DV...
"Agreed! And that goes double for those who profess to believe in nothing...".
Why would that go for someone who "believes in nothing"? What do you mean by "believes in nothing"?
DV...
"Hegel made a power move."
Exactly what do you mean by that? What "power move" did Hegel make? Did you ever read the Phenomenology?
Well Craig, that's because you don't yet fully understand that what you call "orthodox belief" is about as secular as it gets.
Explain to me and for the benefit of everyone paying even a little attention, exactly what I'm referring to when I write "orthodox belief".
Please cite the spokesperson to whom I'd likely direct your attention as an authority on the subject in question.
If you don't know, simply admit it and stop posing and lying....,
Exactly what do you mean by that? What "power move" did Hegel make? Did you ever read the Phenomenology?
rotflmbao....,whew!!!!
"Explain to me and for the benefit of everyone paying even a little attention, exactly what I'm referring to when I write "orthodox belief"." CNu
Um. um. well. The violent, authoritarian stumps afflicted by neurobiological sickness, of course.
"Did you ever read the Phenomenology?" MF
Nah. Never read that.
The Phenomenology of Mind - in German Phänomenologie des Geistes - is the most basic outline of Hegel's philosophical system. If one didn't read it it makes little sense to say anything about Hegel. Hegel is the one who inspired Marx's philosophical system known as dialectic-materialism, by the way.
In other words, DV. Don't say random shit again.
"Explain to me and for the benefit of everyone paying even a little attention, exactly what I'm referring to when I write "orthodox belief"." CNu
Um. um. well. The violent, authoritarian stumps afflicted by neurobiological sickness, of course.
Nah DV.
Here's the theological aspect and the historical aspect.
While I don't expect you to read any of this, I submit it to your attention for future reference so that you will know the difference between orthodox belief and neurobiological sickness.
Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Hebrews 1:11
Fisher,
When the "atheist scientist" makes a certain declaration, it is actually supposed to mean something because it is substantiated by reality.
When the scientist in Dawkins says "There is no empirical evidence for God" and then the atheist in Dawkins says, "Therefore, there is no God," on what aspect of reality does he rest?
Nevermind the self-evident deception in asserting God does not exist while claiming the scientific mantle, what is Dawkin's foundation to make his claim?
The God meme...?
In short, Dawkins, like all "atheist scientists," just adopts the scientific consensus and then claims God was simply made up. And this is how the "atheist scientist" is able to acknowledge God both as a scientist and an atheist before dismissing Him as fiction.
That's it!
The question that arises is how the God meme originator conceived of that which by the "atheist scientist's" own admission is inconceivable.
Remember, when talking about phenomena, there are unique and singular events and then there are those events that scientists brag about because they are redundant and repeatable and therefore predictable.
The conception of God by the human mind was a unigue and singular event born of a unique and singular mind. This take is sound by evolutionary standards.
So if we are to understand the above as transpiring thousands of years ago, perhaps tens of thousands, then how is it all these years later that the "atheist scientists" are claiming there is no empirical evidence for God and therefore there is no God?
How did the God meme originator conceive of that which is unknowable because it does not exist?
Just do it...
Again, when you talk of all these mystical creators, you do so with a subconscious reference to what you know about God.
But to what did the God meme originator reference if not the empirical evidence?
When the "atheist scientist" makes a certain declaration, it is actually supposed to mean something because it is substantiated by reality.
wrong.
scientific declarations are meaningful because they are falsifiable
period.
The conception of God by the human mind was a unigue and singular event born of a unique and singular mind. This take is sound by evolutionary standards.
wrong again.
bibtardism in flagrante...,
your conception of god is entirely different than the conception of god arising in the mind of a sane and healthy human being.
no one - other than the knuckle dragging contingent of which you're part - shares your primitive and distasteful conception farts.
what exactly is it that drives your compulsion to peddle the unwanted product of your conspicuously defective brain farce?
Nevermind the self-evident deception in asserting God does not exist while claiming the scientific mantle, what is Dawkin's foundation to make his claim?
The God meme...?
Dawkins coined the term "meme" twit.
So if we are to understand the above as transpiring thousands of years ago, perhaps tens of thousands, then how is it all these years later that the "atheist scientists" are claiming there is no empirical evidence for God and therefore there is no God?
Are you actually so dense that you don't realize you're chasing your own tail?
But to what did the God meme originator reference if not the empirical evidence?
neurobiological sickness
a really bad brain fart shared by knuckle-dragging primitives such as yourself.
The Essence of Ghost Not and Primeval Stupidity
"Your parents are frightened, your educators are frightened, the governments and religions are frightened of your becoming a total individual, because they all want you to remain safely within the prison of environmental and cultural influences." -- Krishnamurti
Objective reality exists. There is a physical reality independent of what we may think of it. We can use our senses to discern aspects of physical reality.
In order to better understand and interact with physical reality, we use representational systems in our heads, consisting of symbols. The symbols are intended to stand for or represent aspects of physical reality.
Physical reality simply is. But our symbols include "not operations" -- negation and denial. In physical reality, there are mountains, valleys, etc.; but there aren't really any "not-mountains," "not-valleys," etc. However, in our heads we can have the symbols "not-mountains," "not-valleys," etc. This indicates a most important difference between physical reality and our representational systems. It's important to realize that we are free to create whatever symbols we like and do with them whatever we like!
Many differences between our symbols and physical reality can and do occur. Reification (or hypostatizaton) is a process whereby we create a symbol for which there is no corresponding thing in physical reality. Then we think that because we use this symbol (and can apparently communicate intelligibly with others, using the symbol), therefore the symbol stands for something that exists in physical reality. A good example is the symbol "constellation." We observe several stars, which we consider to form a "group" we call a "constellation." If we measure the distances between the earth and these stars, we find some are much closer to us than others. If viewed from a very different point in the universe, anyone suggesting that these stars are in a "constellation," would be laughed at.
We can test our symbols against physical reality by using our senses. Many people have seen stars; nobody has really seen a so-called "constellation." Of course, anyone can draw a map with a number of stars on it, and then draw connecting lines between them and claim they are a "constellation." Our symbols are essentially mind-maps of the territory of physical reality. But the map isn't the territory. The menu isn't the meal.
(continued);
Some people fail to make a clear distinction between their symbols (maps) and physical reality (territory). This is what Ernst Cassirer called "primeval stupidity" ("Urdummheit" in German) -- see #TL071: Ernst Cassirer and "Primeval Stupidity."
Our symbols are a means toward the end of better understanding and interacting with physical reality. Hans Vaihinger (author of 'The Philosophy of As If') formulated the principle of "The Preponderance of Means over Ends" -- our means tend to become more important to us than our ends; our means tend to preponderate over our ends. Because we have a SYMBOL called "constellation," many people claim that a THING "constellation" exists. And if you press them, many will insist that they can actually SEE the "constellation."
We can make a distinction between actual perception and conventional perception or "agreed-upon perception." For most children, at an early age, because of social pressure, it's as if a switch in their mind is turned from "actual perception" to "conventional perception." After that, if there is a conflict between "what everybody agrees they see" and "what children actually see," they will "fall in line" (conform) and "see" ("perceive") all kinds of things like "constellations." This is a most important aspect of Ghost Not. It's a disconnect from physical reality.
Another most important aspect of Ghost Not is DENIAL. At the same time as the disconnect, you deny that you made a disconnect (flipped your switch from actual perception to conventional perception). In Ernst Cassirer and "Primeval Stupidity," I give some examples of how conventional people (Ghost Not victims) claim that they see things, even though they can provide no evidence that they've actually seen these things. In their minds they just "know" that these "things" exist "because everybody knows it" and their symbols are more important to them than their actual perceptions. (They may know the expression, "come to your senses," but they have no idea what it implies.)
At an early age, humans learn to associate words with things: hand, foot, face, floor, table, bird, cat, dog, tree, etc. They put labels on things. They come to identify labels with things.
"You can know the name of a bird in all the languages of the world, but when you're finished, you'll know absolutely nothing whatever about the bird... so let's look at the bird and see what it's doing -- that's what counts. I learned very early the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something." -- Richard Phillips Feynman
Farst, the concept of God (in terms of omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent) is not inconceivable and I can't think of any atheist scientist or otherwise who says it is not conceivable. The unknowable God is not an atheistic concept, it is a religious concept which is rooted in the inability of the God-Believer to (a) deliver proof for the existence of God, and, and above all, (b) explain the ethics of God.
Fisher
Proof is subjective.
And, it would be mighty idiotic for someone who is not omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent to speculate on the "ethics" of a being that is.
I mean, I get the problem that you and CNulan have when with many folks who claim a belief in God.
But, proof is a subjective concept. It's takes different levels and kinds of "proof" to make something "fact" for different people.
God hasn't proven himself to exist to you.
He has proven himself to exist to me.
Makes sense to me.
Big Man...
"He has proven himself to exist to me.".
Good. How exactly?
Fisher
Through his actions in my life, through the work of his Spirit in my heart.
In my times of need and despair I have felt God speak to me, and in my times of joy he has also been there.
I feel God within me the same way you feel love or hate.
I can't point to him and say "There he is," but that doesn't mean he doesn't exist.
I can't point to the spark within this fleshy body that causes it to be alive, but it's still there as well.
OH LAWD
the urdummheit barrier is impenetrable....,
Act like Jews?
So fake a Hollacaust and guilt-trip the world into submission? Like a Jewish granny?
Fisher,
If God is conceivable then He is conceivable via the empirical evidence. If not, then please SHOW us how to conceive of something without the benefit of empirical evidence?
Just do it...
urdummheit,
you didn't watch the cartoon I posted for your edification?
Farst...
"If not, then please SHOW us how to conceive of something without the benefit of empirical evidence?"
I bet ya no one has ever seen a person come alive after having been dead and buried for a few hundred years. Nonetheless, most branches of Christianity teach (conceive) that the long-dead will be physically resurrected to life.
Fisher,
Quantum mechanics posits that very potential, although the reason no one will ever see it is that it is highly improbable.
But conceiving a dead person coming alive is gleaned from the empirical evidence as such thing has actually happened.
Again, has any scientist ever shown human consciousness to conceive of anything without benefit of empirical evidence?
Meaning, can YOU conceive of something without benefit of empirical evidence?
If you can then you will at least be somewhat closer to claiming that the God meme originator conceived of God without benefit of empirical evidence.
Farst, I said that no one has actually has ever seen a person come alive after having been dead and buried for a few hundred years. That's an entirely different notion from acknowledging that quantum mechanics may allow for some such event. You claim that people devise the God meme and other such things solely in the light of empirical evidence. Well, there is no empirical evidence that a person came alive after having been dead and buried for a few hundred years. Nonetheless, there are plenty of memes, religious or otherwise, that assert that such a thing is possible and/or will happen.
Thus, summa sumarum, a meme was created without empirical evidence.
Fisher,
You are utilizing a very "scientific" notion of empirical evidence.
When I speak of empirical evidence, I am using the most fundamental and universal definition. You on the other hand seem to be saying that because a resurrection has never occured with a "dead time" of several hundred years then there is no empirical evidence for resurrection. And the meme that "talks" of such resurrection is therefore without empirical evidence.
The reality though is that there is empirical evidence for coming back to life (resurrection) and time lapse. One could easily draw upon this empirical evidence to create your meme because at the end of the day conceiving of a unique and unprecedented idea must be done through inference.
Conceptualization without inference (appeal to the empirical evidence) has never been demonstrated by ANY scientist.
Or you can go the way of Nulance and assert that the quantum-evolutionary mechanics did it and try to explain why it would do such an unnecessary thing, mechanistically-speaking?
Farst...
"You on the other hand seem to be saying that because a resurrection has never occured with a "dead time" of several hundred years then there is no empirical evidence for resurrection.".
No Farst. I don't seem to be saying any such thing. I said that the person or persons who came up with the notion of resurrection after hundreds of years of people being dead and buried never saw any such thing happen. I.e. they came up with that notion in the absence of empirical evidence.
Fisher
The cats who preach the resurrection used the resurrection of Jesus and various prouncements by him to come out with the belief that believers will rise again.
Does that qualify under your definition of empirical evidence?
What resurrection of Jesus? You don't honestly believe that?
Fisher
Nah, not going to have that argument.
I just wanted clarification as to whether you were talking about resurrection in general, or resurrection soley after hundreds of years.
What you clearly fail to appreciate Mr. Fisher, is that drawing the distinction between "resurrections in general" and "resurrection soley after hundreds of years" makes a world of difference wrt the sense and sensibility of the subject in question.
Better ack like you know!
LOL
I just like to know cats stand.
Big Man...
"resurrection in general, or resurrection soley after hundreds of years".
Makes no difference.
"Nah, not going to have that argument.".
I just asked you whether you believed in the resurrection.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Post a Comment