Atheism, please note the capitalisation❤️

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I am not driven by reactions alone, over which I can have no conscious control.

Yes you are. Logically, you must be.

[ProfessorDavey]

The divine revelations of scripture indicate that we are god-like humans.

Ahh - the next phase of anthropocentricity.

Humans make up a (super)human-like god - and then go 'look god speaks to us, and us alone, because were are like him. Hey, we must be really, really special'. Conceit as well as anthropocentricity.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

No. The experience of "control" does not invalidate the underlying reality of determinism for the reasons that have been explained to you countless times now but that you will not or cannot address.

But your version of determinism indicates that we are just a consequence of unavoidable material reactions driven by the laws of physics - over which we have no personal control.

In reality we are all driven by the God given power of our human soul which sets us free from uncontrollable material reactions to allow us to choose our own destiny.

You will no doubt once again try to accuse me of personal incredulity, but you have yet to explain how personal incredulity can emerge from uncontrollable material reactions.

[Gonnagle]

Oh dear - there you go again with your anthropocentric blinkers on again gonners. What you seem to be saying is that god is universally accepted by humans. Well even then, that isn't true. But why should something claimed to be err ... universal, restrict acceptance to just humans.

Why not all other species on earth now and from the start of life. And what about any living thing that may exist elsewhere in the universe.

And if god is cosmically supreme then why should we restrict ourselves to living things (in of itself a rather arbitrary and athropocentric definition) why not anything and everything in the universe. Now then that would actually be universally accepted - but firstly there is no evidence that god is universally accepted by a rock on a small planet orbiting a random star in another galaxy. Indeed the very concept of acceptance by something inanimate makes no sense at all.

But I guess when people make up human-like gods they are already most of the way down their anthropocentric rabbit-holes.

Dear Prof,

Oh how I love you, shall I compare you to a summer ( old Sane will be along in a minute to complete that, he loves Shakespeare )

There's no evidence to suggest that monkeys, or any non-human animals, believe in God or engage in religious practices as humans do, though some have observed ritual-like behaviors.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Lack of Evidence:
While some chimpanzee behaviors, like stone accumulation at certain trees, have been observed and interpreted by some as potential ritualistic or even "sacred" behaviors, there's no concrete evidence to support the idea that they have a concept of a deity or engage in religious belief.
Ritual-like Behaviors:
Chimpanzees have been observed performing repetitive behaviors, such as drumming on root buttresses or throwing stones at trees, that some scientists have speculated might be related to communication, symbolic actions, or even early forms of ritual.
Human vs. Animal Religion:
The typical dictionary definition of religion often includes belief in a deity, which has not been observed in non-human animals.
Examples of Chimpanzee Behaviors:
Stone Accumulation: Chimpanzees in West Africa have been observed gathering stones and throwing them against trees, sometimes leading to piles of rocks.
Drumming: Some chimpanzees drum on root buttresses, likely for communication, as the noise travels further than a standard chimp cry.
Other Interpretations:
Some scientists have interpreted these behaviors as potentially stemming from feelings of awe or wonder for natural features or events, rather than religious belief.
Further Research Needed:
More observation and experiments are needed to determine if chimpanzees are using these behaviors as anything like a ritual.


The jury is out and probably will be for a long time with our evolved monkey/ape like brain, and we have been described as Homo Religious, I tell you this evolution stuff is fascinating, no telling where it will lead us.

But I guess when people make up human-like gods they are already most of the way down their anthropocentric rabbit-holes.

Guilty your honour, even Atheists do it when describing our God who doesn't exist, Mr Burns has just stated that very thing, made in his own image man and woman but I think I do agree with him that mankind ( this is my anthropocentric coming out ) we are more than the sum of our parts, we are little demi Gods, like the Gods of ancient Greece, fucking it up at every turn.

Gonnagle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

But your version of determinism indicates that we are just a consequence of unavoidable material reactions driven by the laws of physics - over which we have no personal control.

Which contradicts your folksie, colloquial but logically impossible take on reality. So what though? 

In reality we are all driven by the God given power of our human soul which sets us free from uncontrollable material reactions to allow us to choose our own destiny.

That's not "reality"; it's just a blind faith claim about your faith-based reality. If you want to elevate it to the status of an objective reality then (finally) you need to find some sound reasons to justify that claim. And no, "it's magic innit?" isn't a sound reason so you'll need to find something else instead this time.   

You will no doubt once again try to accuse me of personal incredulity,...

Absent any reason at all for me to think otherwise, then yes.

...but you have yet to explain how personal incredulity can emerge from uncontrollable material reactions.

Not true but, even if it was true, so what? It's not my job to explain anything to you. You're the one asserting a deterministic explanation to be "totally impossible", so it's your job to justify your claim. That's how the burden of proof works, as you really should have learnt by now.   

[Gonnagle]

Not all that small. And remember, whatever God or gods, you believe in, most people in the world think you are wrong.

Dear Stranger,

Glad to see your link includes nothing in particular.
17% identify as atheists
20% identify as agnostics
63% describe themselves as “nothing in particular”

Atheist/Agnostic, small very small.

Gonnagle

[Stranger]

But your version of determinism indicates that we are just a consequence of unavoidable material reactions driven by the laws of physics - over which we have no personal control.

In reality we are all driven by the God given power of our human soul which sets us free from uncontrollable material reactions to allow us to choose our own destiny.

You will no doubt once again try to accuse me of personal incredulity, but you have yet to explain how personal incredulity can emerge from uncontrollable material reactions.

FALLACY: Argument by assertion.
FALLACY: Shifting the burden of proof.
FALLACY: Appeal to consequences.

 

[ProfessorDavey]

Dear Prof,

Oh how I love you, shall I compare you to a summer ( old Sane will be along in a minute to complete that, he loves Shakespeare )

There's no evidence to suggest that monkeys, or any non-human animals, believe in God or engage in religious practices as humans do, though some have observed ritual-like behaviors.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Lack of Evidence:
While some chimpanzee behaviors, like stone accumulation at certain trees, have been observed and interpreted by some as potential ritualistic or even "sacred" behaviors, there's no concrete evidence to support the idea that they have a concept of a deity or engage in religious belief.
Ritual-like Behaviors:
Chimpanzees have been observed performing repetitive behaviors, such as drumming on root buttresses or throwing stones at trees, that some scientists have speculated might be related to communication, symbolic actions, or even early forms of ritual.
Human vs. Animal Religion:
The typical dictionary definition of religion often includes belief in a deity, which has not been observed in non-human animals.
Examples of Chimpanzee Behaviors:
Stone Accumulation: Chimpanzees in West Africa have been observed gathering stones and throwing them against trees, sometimes leading to piles of rocks.
Drumming: Some chimpanzees drum on root buttresses, likely for communication, as the noise travels further than a standard chimp cry.
Other Interpretations:
Some scientists have interpreted these behaviors as potentially stemming from feelings of awe or wonder for natural features or events, rather than religious belief.
Further Research Needed:
More observation and experiments are needed to determine if chimpanzees are using these behaviors as anything like a ritual.


The jury is out and probably will be for a long time with our evolved monkey/ape like brain, and we have been described as Homo Religious, I tell you this evolution stuff is fascinating, no telling where it will lead us.

But I guess when people make up human-like gods they are already most of the way down their anthropocentric rabbit-holes.

Guilty your honour, even Atheists do it when describing our God who doesn't exist, Mr Burns has just stated that very thing, made in his own image man and woman but I think I do agree with him that mankind ( this is my anthropocentric coming out ) we are more than the sum of our parts, we are little demi Gods, like the Gods of ancient Greece, fucking it up at every turn.

Gonnagle.

So let's summarise.

First when you say god is universally accepted you need to state which god. So for the sake of arguments we will assume the christian god.

So actually your argument that god is universally accepted really boils down to:

There is evidence that a sizeable minority of current humans accept this god AND
There is evidence that a sizeable minority of humans around over the past two thousand years (a short period in human existence) accept this god BUT
There is no evidence that any human from the first ~298,000 years of the species existence accepts this god
There is no evidence that any non-human species on earth accepts this god (throughout the existence of life on earth)
There is no evidence that any life in another part of the universe accepts this god (throughout existence)
There is no evidence that any non living element of the universe accepts this god (throughout existence)

So effectively your argument is that some of one species on one planet for the most recent 1% of that species existence ... err ... accepts your god.

Weird definition of universal, would you not agree gonners.

[Stranger]

Glad to see your link includes nothing in particular.
17% identify as atheists
20% identify as agnostics
63% describe themselves as “nothing in particular”

Not sure what your point is. Your claim was that that God was 'universally accepted'. This is clearly untrue, no matter what the breakdown of the non-religious is, and hides the fact that the 'God' people believe is not one concept. Presumably every member of the Taliban and ISIS "accept God" but it's hardly the God you believe in, is it? How about the Westboro Baptist Church of "God hates fags" and "Thank God for dead soldiers" fame, same God as you believe in?

[jeremyp]

Hard to find, I see God everywhere, even in your posts.

I don't see God anywhere, not even in your posts.

Tell me how you plan to find out which one of us is right.

[Gonnagle]

So let's summarise.

First when you say god is universally accepted you need to state which god. So for the sake of arguments we will assume the christian god.

So actually your argument that god is universally accepted really boils down to:

There is evidence that a sizeable minority of current humans accept this god AND
There is evidence that a sizeable minority of humans around over the past two thousand years (a short period in human existence) accept this god BUT
There is no evidence that any human from the first ~298,000 years of the species existence accepts this god
There is no evidence that any non-human species on earth accepts this god (throughout the existence of life on earth)
There is no evidence that any life in another part of the universe accepts this god (throughout existence)
There is no evidence that any non living element of the universe accepts this god (throughout existence)

So effectively your argument is that some of one species on one planet for the most recent 1% of that species existence ... err ... accepts your god.

Weird definition of universal, would you not agree gonners.

Dear Prof,

Who loves ya baby.
First when you say god is universally accepted you need to state which god. So for the sake of arguments we will assume the christian god.


No I do not, I do not have to state which God, that's me personally, I can't state which God because I don't have words for God, other Christians may differ.

There is no evidence that any human from the first ~298,000 years of the species existence accepts this god


Since man first stepped out of the cave they have sensed this presence, in a tree, a flower, a rock, a spear if they had got that far, it was only later that they started to put names to Gods, God the hunter, God the farmer, God of thunder, God of rain, but some religions still maintained this all present sense, Brahmin, something universal above all, Dao/Tao something overarching, Buddhism, the ultimate goal, and then Judaism, one God, put them all together and you may get close to my God, as close as I am to the planet Mars.

But I am a Christian, nature, nurture, did I chose to be a Christian, next question!

There is no evidence that any life in another part of the universe accepts this god (throughout existence)


Yet! but why should ET not evolve the same as us, my theory, ET is still scrambling about waiting to discover fire.

So effectively your argument is that some of one species on one planet for the most recent 1% of that species existence ... err ... accepts your god.


No they all accept my God, one God, different names.

Thank you Prof, I enjoyed that.

Gonnagle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

No they all accept my God, one God, different names.

Seriously?

Neptune? Zeus? The Flying Spaghetti Monster? Ra? Wiracocha and the countless thousands with different and very often mutually contradictory characteristics were all the same god, and it happens to be your god too?

Seriously though?   

[Gonnagle]

Not sure what your point is. Your claim was that that God was 'universally accepted'. This is clearly untrue, no matter what the breakdown of the non-religious is, and hides the fact that the 'God' people believe is not one concept. Presumably every member of the Taliban and ISIS "accept God" but it's hardly the God you believe in, is it? How about the Westboro Baptist Church of "God hates fags" and "Thank God for dead soldiers" fame, same God as you believe in?

Dear Stranger,

See this is like Blue with his Leprechauns, lets pick the most outlandish or most horrible parts and run with them, confirmation bias, leave it, just leave it😀 I love you Atheists, Agnostics, ignostics can I just run with non believers

Gonnagle.

[Maeght]

I am not driven by reactions alone, over which I can have no conscious control.

I think you are.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

Seriously though have a wee look at Strangers religious chart thingy, but spaghetti monster haven't heard than one in years, oh dear

Gonnagle. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gonners,

See this is like Blue with his Leprechauns, lets pick the most outlandish or most horrible parts and run with them, confirmation bias, leave it, just leave it😀 I love you Atheists, Agnostics, ignostics can I just run with non believers

You're still not getting it. The conclusion "leprechauns" is supposed to be outlandish. That's the absurdum part of the reductio ad absurdum. That's how the fallacy works. 

Gee whizz fella.

[Maeght]

The divine revelations of scripture indicate that we are god-like humans.

To take that claim seriously you would have to demonstrate that the scriptures are divine revelations, and demonstrate that a God exists to revel them.

[Stranger]

No they all accept my God, one God, different names.

Sorry but this is just silly. The God that is "really all the different versions of God but by other names", is just another version of God that is different from the ones that "definitely aren't the God of those heretics over there". You're just adding to the list of God-concepts, not going beyond it.

See this is like Blue with his Leprechauns, lets pick the most outlandish or most horrible parts and run with them, confirmation bias, leave it, just leave it😀 I love you Atheists, Agnostics, ignostics can I just run with non believers

You still don't grasp the point about leprechauns.

Leaving your inability to grasp reductio ad absurdum aside, these are real people who believe in 'God' but the God they believe in is nothing at all like the one you believe in. You seem to be simply running away from that fact.

[ProfessorDavey]

No they all accept my God, one God, different names.

Blimey - that's rather arrogant of you. Effectively telling Hindus, Sikhs etc that they might consider that might consider they believe in Hindu or Sikh etc gods, but they are wrong they actually believe in your god.

I think they may rather robustly beg to differ and if you are able to make that argument, then so with equal justification can they.

But I see you are still embedded firmly in your anthropocentically parochial world-view where everything revolves around humans and everything is seen through human values and experiences.

Ho hum.

[Gonnagle]

Sorry but this is just silly. The God that is "really all the different versions of God but by other names", is just another version of God that is different from the ones that "definitely aren't the God of those heretics over there". You're just adding to the list of God-concepts, not going beyond it.

You still don't grasp the point about leprechauns.

Leaving your inability to grasp reductio ad absurdum aside, these are real people who believe in 'God' but the God they believe in is nothing at all like the one you believe in. You seem to be simply running away from that fact.

Dear Stranger,

Can't remember if it was you, maybe it was the Prof, giving Vlad a hard time about his old buddy, but you are sounding very Reverend Dawkins like to me, or is it Harris, Hitchin the very men who made their millions attacking the fundies and the crazies of religion and started their own foaming at the mouth cult of atheism.

Gonnagle.

[Gonnagle]

Blimey - that's rather arrogant of you. Effectively telling Hindus, Sikhs etc that they might consider that might consider they believe in Hindu or Sikh etc gods, but they are wrong they actually believe in your god.

I think they may rather robustly beg to differ and if you are able to make that argument, then so with equal justification can they.

But I see you are still embedded firmly in your anthropocentically parochial world-view where everything revolves around humans and everything is seen through human values and experiences.

Ho hum.

Dear Prof,

Sorry but Hinduism, brahmin, the ultimate reality, I could never argue against that God.

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

Can't remember if it was you, maybe it was the Prof, giving Vlad a hard time about his old buddy, but you are sounding very Reverend Dawkins like to me, or is it Harris, Hitchin the very men who made their millions attacking the fundies and the crazies of religion and started their own foaming at the mouth cult of atheism.

Now you've got that off your chest, do you have anything to say about the actual points I made?

Yes, there are fundies and crazies who "accept God" and using those as examples is the easiest way to point out that different people believe in different Gods (because you're obviously neither), even if they would say they "accept God". The differences are not confined to the difference between the extremes and the moderates.

You actually seem to be close to the Baháʼí faith (there are quite a few on another forum I post on), but, as I said, that's just another version of God. It's just illogical to say that everyone who "accepts God" is accepting your God, when there are very clear differences.

And BTW atheism doesn't do cults, foaming at the mouth or otherwise. Even Dawkins (why are theists so obsessed with him, I've literally never seen an atheist as convinced he's some atheist icon in the way theists seem to think he is!?) said that organising atheists is like herding cats.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Stranger,

Sorry it was those heretics over there comment, anyway not my God, the God, how's that.

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

Sorry it was those heretics over there comment, anyway not my God, the God, how's that.

Doesn't help with the fact that what people believe in and call "God" is fundamentally different. It's easiest to see with the extremes but it extends to what is mainstream in many religions, denominations, cults, and sects. There aren't many people here, let alone theists, but in other online discussions the differences are very visible and stark. There are Christians who think all Muslims will go to hell, there are Jehovah's Witnesses who think you can't be a believer if you accept evolution. Hell, there's somebody on another forum who thinks he is God incarnate and that the world began with his birth and will end and start all over again when he dies. There are people who are seriously anti-trinity and somebody else who thinks Mary, 'the Holy Mother', is a part of it. I can find you people who think that actual physical objects should be worshipped as gods, I could go on, and all of this is just my own personal experience...

[Nearly Sane]

Doesn't help with the fact that what people believe in and call "God" is fundamentally different. It's easiest to see with the extremes but it extends to what is mainstream in many religions, denominations, cults, and sects. There aren't many people here, let alone theists, but in other online discussions the differences are very visible and stark. There are Christians who think all Muslims will go to hell, there are Jehovah's Witnesses who think you can't be a believer if you accept evolution. Hell, there's somebody on another forum who thinks he is God incarnate and that the world began with his birth and will end anpd start all over again when he dies. There are people who are seriously anti-trinity and somebody else who thinks Mary, 'the Holy Mother', is a part of it. I can find you people who think that actual physical objects should be worshipped as gods, I could go on, and all of this is just my own personal experience...

I'm guessing that Gonzo will see this as the rich tapestry of humanity trying to interpret something beyond them. Gonzo sees the fact that they are trying to interpret something as meaning something exists.