Atheist Bible

[Ignignoct]

Go ahead and call anybody who disagrees with you Satan, like anybody cares.
It's so stupid why we are arguing, believe what you want and I'll do the same, just don't go and make accusations that you can't prove and then try to tell someone that they're wrong we you don't know.

Wow. Awesome.

It's like a complete copy/paste reply without needing to relate to anything I posted.

Bravo, sir.

You're truly a pioneer in advanced debate techniques, and outside-the-box thinking.

 

[BNguyen]

I don't have to give you an answer. I have no evidence to favor one conclusion over any other. There are an infinite number of ways the universe could have started. I don't know which way it was. I wasn't there. Maybe somebody has some evidence to suggest a way, but I don't know of anyone who can look beyond the beginning of time.

What you refuse to do is your problem. Bold text doesn't trump Bayesian epistemology.

There are an infinite number of ways to be wrong, only one way to be correct. You'd be a fool to make a claim you don't have any evidence for.

And if you insist, I will insist you tell me how God began. Its just as useless a question.

After reading many of your remarks, I've come to realize how stupid you truly are. You claim to understand this and that and that this is more likely to happen/exist/etc. than that, but you can't see yourself for how little you know. Just because you've studied this or that you immediately think you know it all, but the truth is that almost nothing in science or these studies is correct because we go by human standards, which are the way they are because we believe them to be true. Wisdom and intellect are illusions.
And by the way, if you can't prove that the universe began because of God, then you can't mark it out as an impossibility.

 

[caross73]

"There are an infinite number of ways to be wrong, only one way to be correct. You'd be a fool to make a claim you don't have any evidence for." Really, because you seem to think the terms believe and fact are the same thing.

Because there are no facts, only things we believe very strongly because we have a lot of evidence. We could always be wrong. Just sometimes its unlikely. Other times its VERY likely.

You are very likely to be wrong if you "believe" in things without evidence. You are almost CERTAINLY wrong if you believe in very complicated things, like Messianic Savior Sacrificing PseudoJudaic Deities with Anger Management Issues and Split Personalities with NO evidence whatsoever.

I don't understand why you are having such a hard time understanding this very simple concept.

 

[BNguyen]

I don't think you understand probability. I have not made a positive claim. If I said, God is made of cheese, well then you could quibble and say Cheese God is just as unlikely as Yhwh, but I haven't even suggested the idea of god.

You kind of went against yourself here by saying "If I said that God was made of cheese...but I haven't even suggested the idea of God".
Listen to yourself and read before you submit.

 

[caross73]

I don't think you understand probability. I have not made a positive claim. If I said, God is made of cheese, well then you could quibble and say Cheese God is just as unlikely as Yhwh, but I haven't even suggested the idea of god.

You kind of went against yourself here by saying "If I said that God was made of cheese...but I haven't even suggested the idea of God".
Listen to yourself and read before you submit.

I haven't suggested the idea of God because I make no claims that God is real. IF I said being the operative words. Why don't you take your own advice. I know this is hard, but God is actually an idea, you have to define that idea before you can decide how strongly to believe in it.

And defining an idea is adding qualifiers to it. What is God, what traits does God have, and what ISN'T God. Every qualifier adds a certain probability that I am wrong about it. That probability is close to 1 every time I add in a qualifier, something that distinguishes God from the infinite number of things that God isn't, without any evidence to back it up.

 

[BNguyen]

I don't think you understand probability. I have not made a positive claim. If I said, God is made of cheese, well then you could quibble and say Cheese God is just as unlikely as Yhwh, but I haven't even suggested the idea of god.

You kind of went against yourself here by saying "If I said that God was made of cheese...but I haven't even suggested the idea of God".
Listen to yourself and read before you submit.

I haven't suggested the idea of God because I make no claims that God is real. IF I said being the operative words. Why don't you take your own advice. I know this is hard, but God is actually an idea, you have to define that idea before you can decide how strongly to believe in it.

READ IT. "IF I SAID THAT GOD WAS MADE OF CHEESE" Carefully read the Word "said" and "God", you claim that you did not suggest God, but you include him in your statement. Geez I hate having to repeat myself to people who don't listen.

 

[caross73]

I don't think you understand probability. I have not made a positive claim. If I said, God is made of cheese, well then you could quibble and say Cheese God is just as unlikely as Yhwh, but I haven't even suggested the idea of god.

You kind of went against yourself here by saying "If I said that God was made of cheese...but I haven't even suggested the idea of God".
Listen to yourself and read before you submit.

I haven't suggested the idea of God because I make no claims that God is real. IF I said being the operative words. Why don't you take your own advice. I know this is hard, but God is actually an idea, you have to define that idea before you can decide how strongly to believe in it.

READ IT. "IF I SAID THAT GOD WAS MADE OF CHEESE" Carefully read the Word "said" and "God", you claim that you did not suggest God, but you include him in your statement. Geez I hate having to repeat myself to people who don't listen.

I heard you, and you don't understand what I am saying. The word GOD is NOT AN IDEA in and of itself. I can certainly use the word God without making the suggestion that the word God has any actual MEANING. Suggest meaning 'to imply as a possibility'. Go look it up in Webster's if you think suggest means 'say the word'.

I'm sorry you are frustrated explaining yourself. The feeling is mutual. I don't like semantic games.

 

[caross73]

After reading many of your remarks, I've come to realize how stupid you truly are. You claim to understand this and that and that this is more likely to happen/exist/etc. than that, but you can't see yourself for how little you know. Just because you've studied this or that you immediately think you know it all, but the truth is that almost nothing in science or these studies is correct because we go by human standards, which are the way they are because we believe them to be true. Wisdom and intellect are illusions.
And by the way, if you can't prove that the universe began because of God, then you can't mark it out as an impossibility.

OH, you were calling ME stupid. Well then, clearly you are brilliant and shouldn't be wasting your time arguing with ME. I don't really know ANYTHING with certainty. And clearly, you KNOW that wisdom and intellect are just illusions. Thank you for clearing everything up for me.

God could have created the universe and put all this absence of evidence here just to test the faithful. Personally I think thats a really stupid idea. But yeah, you're right. I could also be living in the matrix, and everything I see is just an illusion. I can't rule it out. And maybe yesterday I rode on the back of a unicorn to the moon, and today my memory of it was erased the moment I woke up because of the night elf magic.

What a deep and useful philosophy that is. Clearly now we can determine what is real.

All I'm saying is that when you make crap up, you're selecting a particular kind of crap from a universe of infinite varieties of crap. Your odds of hitting the real crap are damn slim.

 

[lizards]

Um. The only thing Atheists share, is lack of belief in any gods.

Anything else is not involved. I'm sort of amoral nihilist, but it's just my philosophical view on life that probably isn't shared by too many.

i believe their is a god i cruel evil basturd one but i share your philosophical look on life everything will be explained by science and i look for why things happen

 

[oktalist]

Yeah, it's sort of like anarchists getting together. The only thing that binds us really is our disbelief in fairytales.

Lol, nice, reading that reminded me of the anarchist meetings I kept hearing about.

Atheists with a bible makes about as much sense as an organized meeting of anarchists...

Anarchists can organise (depending on school), they just can't have leaders.

 

[DarkDoor11]

There cannot possibly be an "Atheist Bible" simply because the term "Atheist" describes a person who believes in no God's or higher powers, however Atheist does not mean a lack of religion, if you want a book of morals there are plenty of Atheist religions out there. Honestly I don't really think you should need somebody to tell you what is right and wrong after you reach maturity, it's pretty silly if you ask me. I know my morals, and nobody needs to tell me what not to do, something I was born knowing, and realized as I grew. You can not Group all Atheists, because it's such a diverse range of people falling into a category, It's much too broad, however you could put Buddhist as a group, and they are atheist by religion, they're a group of atheists with similar beliefs, but you can't ever group you and me together, and you never will be able to.

 

[CapnGod]

Can omniscient god
Find the omnipotence
To change
His future mind?

 

[CapnGod]

Descartes did one thing I did like. I'm fairly certain he wasn't the first, but I learned about it in conjunction with him, so I'll attribute it thusly.

The Evil Genius. Man, I love me some Evil Genius. There is no argument for god strong enough to sufficiently counter the Evil Genius argument. Imagine that there is an Evil Genius exerting all his powers toward deceiving you into believing all that you do. Math, science, your senses, everything fails in the face of the Evil Genius. If you've seen the Thirteenth Floor, you could even argue that the Cogito fails in the face of the Evil Genius. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_daemon

The Cogito is about the only thing that really does stand up to the power of the Evil Genius argument, and even that could be iffy.

And, just to be contrarian, I now ask all the people who believe in god to prove to me that the Evil Genius does not exist.

 

[caross73]

Descartes did one thing I did like. I'm fairly certain he wasn't the first, but I learned about it in conjunction with him, so I'll attribute it thusly.
...
The Cogito is about the only thing that really does stand up to the power of the Evil Genius argument, and even that could be iffy.

And, just to be contrarian, I now ask all the people who believe in god to prove to me that the Evil Genius does not exist.

I love it. But hell, of course cogito is iffy, the Evil Genius could make The Cogito turn out any way he liked, and you'd see it as being perfectly consistent with your, now compromised, internal logic. Of COURSE one plus one equals three. It has to be that way!

But thats why arguments like "you can't prove God doesn't exist" don't really get us anywhere. There are lots of things I can't PROVE don't exist, because there are an endless supply of scenarios where I've been tricked! ... But I have to work with the reality I've been presented and make the best guesses I can. That means not making up complicated scenarios that I can't possibly have any evidence for just because I'm enamored of the conclusions I could get with them.

 

[CapnGod]

Oh, I'm fully aware of the fact that one cannot disprove a negative. It's just the turning of the tables that I enjoy.

I don't know about the Cogito, though. I mean, the act of thinking pretty much at the very least proves that something exists to have the thought. Which, I suppose, was Descartes' point. However, I am reminded of the making of The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, and the AI set up to have a convincing fight scene.

Is the Evil Genius strong enough to cause the thought of existence in the absence thereof? I suppose, by definition, yes, He (It?) is, I'm just saying that it's iffy and could still be up for at least some reasonable debate, whereas the Evil Genius is definitely strong enough a proposition to sunder the rest of reality.

 

[CapnGod]

There cannot possibly be an "Atheist Bible" simply because the term "Atheist" describes a person who believes in no God's or higher powers, however Atheist does not mean a lack of religion, if you want a book of morals there are plenty of Atheist religions out there. Honestly I don't really think you should need somebody to tell you what is right and wrong after you reach maturity, it's pretty silly if you ask me. I know my morals, and nobody needs to tell me what not to do, something I was born knowing, and realized as I grew. You can not Group all Atheists, because it's such a diverse range of people falling into a category, It's much too broad, however you could put Buddhist as a group, and they are atheist by religion, they're a group of atheists with similar beliefs, but you can't ever group you and me together, and you never will be able to.

Blah, blah, blah. There can be an Atheist Bible, precisely because there is a book so named. Just thought that might be somewhat relevant. It's pretty good, too.

 

[Captain Blackout]

/facepalm
I'm betting I'm repeating a bit here. I'm a stickler for reading a forum before posting but I didn't have time this time.
I'm gonna get flamed, I'm sure. Oh well.
NOT ALL RELIGIONS ARE IMPERIALISTIC!
Taoism, many Native American belief systems, peace Christians, many Buddhist sects (some Buddhists were imperialistic samurai and many buddhists are strictly philosophers however my statement still stands as there are Buddhist sects that are religious without being imperialistic), a number of pagan sects, etc. etc. etc. The list goes on.
Don't think Mao's China was imperialized atheism? Ask the Taoists and Buddhists who were murdered in the name of "religion is poison" and "rational atheism".
Neither religion or atheism is the real problem. Humanity's need to conquer in the name of whatever is at hand is the problem.
Go study some religious history beyond your narrow "Judeo-Christian-Islam warmongering" perspectives and quit bashing religion with uneducated generalities.

 

[caross73]

Oh, I'm fully aware of the fact that one cannot disprove a negative. It's just the turning of the tables that I enjoy.

I don't know about the Cogito, though. I mean, the act of thinking pretty much at the very least proves that something exists to have the thought. Which, I suppose, was Descartes' point. However, I am reminded of the making of The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, and the AI set up to have a convincing fight scene.

Is the Evil Genius strong enough to cause the thought of existence in the absence thereof? I suppose, by definition, yes, He (It?) is, I'm just saying that it's iffy and could still be up for at least some reasonable debate, whereas the Evil Genius is definitely strong enough a proposition to sunder the rest of reality.

You only THINK the act of thinking proves you exist. That logic might be faulty if you are being kept in the dark. Maybe in fact, nothing can indeed think. Nothing being Not Something.

Under the God hypothesis, God as usually stated has no reason to keep me in the dark. And no form of illusionary world could possibly prevent an omnipotent God from handing me knowledge of his existence, knowledge that I would believe because he's omnipotent. So in fact we MUST be living in an evil genius, or at least an indifferent genius scenario IF in fact I am being hindered from seeing the real world.

Was that the 'here is a hand' argument? I mean, if I'm a brain in a vat, then I can't know about the existence of my hand. But here is a hand, therefore, I'm not a brain in a vat.

 

[CapnGod]

If you are referencing my Two Towers reference, it was another mention of The Thirteenth Floor thing. Basically, programmers designed AI to act autonomously and have a battle scene play out randomly, such that it was more convincing. Those were simplistic AI scripts, but think about it. Do they think? Do they exist in the world they think they do? I suppose it's really just more reality questioning here.

I don't think I'm really going for the brain in the vat hand argument, because I'd rather bail out a leaky boat with a thimble than try and use that argument against the Evil Genius. He's one powerful anti-god.

 

[caross73]

Not really referencing the two towers, but what I meant was, you've been trained to think that only something is capable of thought, and since you think, therefor you are something. If in fact NOT something can think, you may well be NOT something that is thinking it is SOMETHING under the influence of the evil genius -- who can apparently cause you to evaluate A AND NOT A as true.

That is a very impressive concept.

As to do AI scripts think? Well, I think that given sufficient feedback, self reference, the ability to evaluate the status of the AI script ... yes, that is a rudimentary form of thought. I don't see anything we are doing now that they can't do on a mathematical level. At some point, they will simulate us to the degree that we can't tell they are simulations, and in that circumstance, what is the difference?

Of course the two towers, they weren't dealing on a level of symbols and abstraction; just heuristics and math.