Quick, will science come to the last beyond which no more component of matter...

[yrreg]

Quick, will science come to the last particle whatever or thing beyond which no more components of matter can be found, that last particle cannot be composed of still smaller things?

Then what is the implication?



Yrreg

[tsig]

Quick, will science come to the last particle whatever or thing beyond which no more components of matter can be found, that last particle cannot be composed of still smaller things?

Then what is the implication?



Yrreg

No

[Elizabeth I]

Huh?

[Ignatowski]

You lost me after "Quick....

[Egg]

Quick, will science come to the last particle whatever or thing beyond which no more components of matter can be found, that last particle cannot be composed of still smaller things?

Then what is the implication?

Hark, such is the last everlasting particle of science that is beyond components can found matter in many a smaller thing. Then, what indeed must be implied, for what is that, that can be said to be composed.

[Limbo]

lol

[Twiler]

I think he was trying to say:

'Beware, you who seek first and final principles, for you are trampling the garden of an angry God and he awaits you just beyond the last theorem.'

- Sister Miriam Godwinson, "But for the Grace of God"

Oh all right, she's a fictional character from Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. It's still a quote.

[Pure Argent]

Quick, will science come to the last particle whatever or thing beyond which no more components of matter can be found, that last particle cannot be composed of still smaller things?

Probably. Space is quantized: the smallest length possible in the universe is called "Planck length", after Max Planck. It is roughly 1.616x10-35 meters. Presumably there is a particle of matter with this precise length.

Then what is the implication?

That space is quantized.

ETA: Yes, I know, I know. That is not actually the Planck length's properties. But it is the point where regular space goes fuzzy from quantum, so I simplified.

[Foster Zygote]

Quick, will science come to the last particle whatever or thing beyond which no more components of matter can be found, that last particle cannot be composed of still smaller things?
Nobody knows. It was once thought that atoms must be the smallest indivisible components of matter. It's not unlikely, but any assumption that there is nothing further to discover runs counter to the scientific method. A theory may be formulated based on the idea of an ultimate component of matter and it may be a strong theory with a great deal of predictive power, but even the most useful theories are held provisionally, subject to modification or rejection pending any further evidence.

Then what is the implication?
I can't wait for you to tell us.

[Foster Zygote]

Hark, such is the last everlasting particle of science that is beyond components can found matter in many a smaller thing. Then, what indeed must be implied, for what is that, that can be said to be composed.

I see you've downloaded the Yrreg text generator.

[shemp]

I've run this through translation into English.

Before a particle is calm in the particle of the conclusion, is the question the minor of the science of the question totally, of which the impossible capture requests that they are the weakest return, he the module of the ace, that are the impossible ones, in the end with something to watch in the material and the pole?

Now I understand. The answer is "42".

[Elizabeth I]

Quick, will science come to the last particle whatever or thing beyond which no more components of matter can be found, that last particle cannot be composed of still smaller things?


This is how the Nostradamus Generator translates your post:

Earth-shaking fire from the center of the Earth,
Extreme horrors and vengeances,
The twelve red ones will spoil the cover,
So that on the left hand there will be great affliction.

Interestingly, it makes just as much sense this way.

[dio]

Just curious, why quick? You on a deadline?

[Dats]

Quick, will science come to the last particle whatever or thing beyond which no more components of matter can be found, that last particle cannot be composed of still smaller things?

Then what is the implication?



Yrreg

I'll take a stab at the implication being that people would have greater knowledge of how things work whether they find the smallest building block or not through learning about their environment.

[six7s]

Quick, will science come to the last particle whatever or thing beyond which no more components of matter can be found, that last particle cannot be composed of still smaller things?No

Really, NO! (http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/834179944)

If one examines neocapitalist dialectic theory, one is faced with a choice: either accept capitalist theory or conclude that consensus is a product of communication, but only if art is interchangeable with consciousness.

[yrreg]

Just curious, why quick? You on a deadline?



Spontaneity, immediacy, quickness of response, that is sincerity and honesty.



That means don't go looking for cover and camouflage and decoy and quibbling, and yes! no tergiversation, before you give of your genuine pure heart and mind.

I commend you for asking that question, your brain has not yet been marinated as to be inert to reacting except along conditioned ruts.




Yrreg

[arthwollipot]

There is a place for spontaneity, but you really ought to accept some more considered answers as well.

And yes - one day we will find the particles that make up the ultimate bottom level of matter. Some people believe that we already have. If this turns out to be true, then we've already seen the implications.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think Pure Agent's answer sounds good. If we find the smallest quantum of whatever, that just tells us the finest grain of reality. Granted it would be a huge thing to know, but I don't think it would be the end of science by any means.



Just curious, why quick? You on a deadline?
I think it's a technique borrowed from Zen Buddhism. :)

[arthwollipot]

Pure ARgent!

[KingMerv00]

Quick, will science come to the last particle whatever or thing beyond which no more components of matter can be found, that last particle cannot be composed of still smaller things?

I don't know.

Then what is the implication?

That I don't know everything?

[paximperium]

Spontaneity, immediacy, quickness of response, that is sincerity and honesty.



That means don't go looking for cover and camouflage and decoy and quibbling, and yes! no tergiversation, before you give of your genuine pure heart and mind.

I commend you for asking that question, your brain has not yet been marinated as to be inert to reacting except along conditioned ruts. Translation: "No reason. Just being a dick."

[dafydd]

Quick, will science come to the last particle whatever or thing beyond which no more components of matter can be found, that last particle cannot be composed of still smaller things?

Then what is the implication?



Yrreg

What? Are you feeling ok?

[dafydd]

Spontaneity, immediacy, quickness of response, that is sincerity and honesty.



That means don't go looking for cover and camouflage and decoy and quibbling, and yes! no tergiversation, before you give of your genuine pure heart and mind.

I commend you for asking that question, your brain has not yet been marinated as to be inert to reacting except along conditioned ruts.




Yrreg

Yrreg doesn't exist,it's a random text generator.

[devnull]

how would we know if we had in fact reached the smallest possible unit of matter?

[Dancing David]

Quick, will science come to the last particle whatever or thing beyond which no more components of matter can be found, that last particle cannot be composed of still smaller things?

Then what is the implication?



Yrreg

No, causation and all, also limited knowledge.
(seven words)

[Bikewer]

"Big fleas have little fleas,
upon their backs to bite 'em.
And little fleas have littler fleas,
and so on, ad infinitum."

[Czarcasm]

Quick, will science come to the last particle whatever or thing beyond which no more components of matter can be found, that last particle cannot be composed of still smaller things?
Then what is the implication?
We don't know yet, and won't for awhile.
If that answer isn't good enough for you, go find out for yourself and let us know, o.k.?

[Czarcasm]

how would we know if we had in fact reached the smallest possible unit of matter?My Beloved Wife won't be able to take it apart to see how it works.

[I Ratant]

Nobody knows. It was once thought that atoms must be the smallest indivisible components of matter. It's not unlikely, but any assumption that there is nothing further to discover runs counter to the scientific method. A theory may be formulated based on the idea of an ultimate component of matter and it may be a strong theory with a great deal of predictive power, but even the most useful theories are held provisionally, subject to modification or rejection pending any further evidence.


I can't wait for you to tell us.
.
Actually, it's been documented..
String theory explains it.

[Pure Argent]

Pure ARgent!

Thank you.

[tsig]

I commend you for asking that question, your brain has not yet been marinated as to be inert to reacting except along conditioned ruts.




Yrreg

What kind of marinade would you recommend for brains?

[yrreg]

Thanks to everyone here who have given of their heart and mind to react in a constructive manner to my query.

As you know I am a Christian theist, and I like to hear from atheists their sincere and informed opinions on God, even though they have in a way encapsulated their heart and mind to not entertain any questions which might endanger in any way the capsule, where they have safe-enclosed their heart and mind.

Hoping just the same that anyone even a self-declared atheist might act spontaneously and honestly, as to share with me what he knows of everything in this universe of life and matter, and in our common universe of discourse.

I am sorry for people here who have the habit of resorting to a declaration of “I don’t know” or sometimes including everyone in his attitude of know nothing-ism, “We don’t know.”

For it is a very sad commentary on his heart and mind that he has in saying I don’t know or we don’t know made a proclamation, that he is not interested in knowing even by way of sincere and honest speculation, on any matter where even by speculation he might endanger as I said the safe deposit capsule which he has boxed in his heart and mind.





Yesterday, 07:59 AM #1

Quick, will science come to the last beyond which no more component of matter...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quick, will science come to the last particle whatever or thing beyond which no more components of matter can be found, that last particle cannot be composed of still smaller things?

Then what is the implication?



Yrreg





Yesterday, 08:37 AM #6
Limbo
__________________
"Faith in what?" he asked himself, adrift in limbo.

"Faith in faith," he replied. "It isn't necessary to have something to believe in. It's only necessary to believe that somewhere there's something worthy of belief."


Limbo




I fear that atheists do not want mankind to nurture the virtue of hope, because it brings in God.

But if they look at themselves in the big picture they are in fact nurturing hope, hope in evolution by blind chance.

Or ultimately they trust in chance, because chance always up to the present first having landed them into existence, and as members of mankind so far has succeeded in keeping them in existence.

Conclusion, they do have a God, but a blind one with at least the minimal goodness just the same of fortuitously allowing itself the good fortune of choosing to have made mankind, and then so far luckily having succeeded in keeping mankind in survival.

This is just their self-justifying interpretation of God, to keep themselves encapsulated inside their safe deposit box of God-deniers.



Yesterday, 08:41 AM #7
Twiler

I think he was trying to say:

'Beware, you who seek first and final principles, for you are trampling the garden of an angry God and he awaits you just beyond the last theorem.'

- Sister Miriam Godwinson, "But for the Grace of God"

Oh all right, she's a fictional character from Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. It's still a quote.





That is some self-disclosure, that atheists fear an angry God.

But why?




Yesterday, 10:11 AM #8
Pure_Argent
Originally Posted by yrreg
Quick, will science come to the last particle whatever or thing beyond which no more components of matter can be found, that last particle cannot be composed of still smaller things?

Probably. Space is quantized: the smallest length possible in the universe is called "Planck length", after Max Planck. It is roughly 1.616x10-35 meters. Presumably there is a particle of matter with this precise length.


Quote:
Then what is the implication?
That space is quantized.

ETA: Yes, I know, I know. That is not actually the Planck length's properties. But it is the point where regular space goes fuzzy from quantum, so I simplified.




There is that Latin word, res, literally and correctly meaning thing, as opposed to nothing.

Call it quantum, particle, string, wave, etc., whatever, it is something, and not nothing.

Next, it is a component for everything, and and itself is a composite thing.

As I am inclined to speculate, there is a last thing beyond which nothing more within it can be found by science, at least when scientists have come to the admission that they have reached the end of their essential human competency to bore deeper into things.

However, prescinding from the incapability of human intelligence to establish the last thing beyond which none can be further found in composite realities, it cannot be otherwise that composite matter is limited in the further and further composition of still smaller things.

I mean there is an end to further endless composition, even on empirical grounds scientists cannot make a categorical statement whether there is a limit or no limit.

That is the big picture beyond empirical access of mankind to know the innermost recesses of matter, that there is an end thing or there are end things which cannot be further broken up into more components thereof.

Then the creative heart and mind must face the question, who made these ultimate things by which and on which all composite matters are put together with?




Yrreg

[six7s]

As you know I am a Christian theist...

I am sorry for people here who have the habit of resorting to a declaration of “I don’t know” or sometimes including everyone in his attitude of know nothing-ism, “We don’t know.”Yet you're content to live with "I merely believe" and/or "we merely pretend that we know", right?

Good luck with that

[arthwollipot]

I am sorry for people here who have the habit of resorting to a declaration of “I don’t know” or sometimes including everyone in his attitude of know nothing-ism, “We don’t know.”Why? What's wrong with saying "I don't know"? Admitting that one does not know something is the first step into learning something new! You do want to learn new things, don't you yrreg?

[X]

I am sorry for people here who have the habit of resorting to a declaration of “I don’t know” or sometimes including everyone in his attitude of know nothing-ism, “We don’t know.”


Why does an admission of the limits of our current knowledge frighten you so?



For it is a very sad commentary on his heart and mind that he has in saying I don’t know or we don’t know made a proclamation, that he is not interested in knowing even by way of sincere and honest speculation, on any matter where even by speculation he might endanger as I said the safe deposit capsule which he has boxed in his heart and mind.

bolding mine

Woah horsey! Woah, I say! Stop right there...

When did we ever imply that we do not wish to know?

IIRC, it was merely stated that we* don't know. This does not mean we do not wish to know, it merely means we aren't going to make-up answers to fill a void in our knowledge. We'd rather wait and see what further discoveries reveal.

The god band-aid answer nothing, after all...



* the use of "we" here is inclusive of the respondents who said "I don't know", not of everyone. I figured I'd clarify this, since you're nit-picking on the use of "we".

[Jimbo07]

(bolding mine)


Hoping just the same that anyone even a self-declared atheist might act spontaneously and honestly,

Atheists can act honestly.

as to share with me what he knows of everything in this universe of life and matter, and in our common universe of discourse.

What does it matter what any one atheist thinks? It's irrelevant to the truth/falseness of the position.


I am sorry for people here who have the habit of resorting to a declaration of “I don’t know” or sometimes including everyone in his attitude of know nothing-ism, “We don’t know.”

For it is a very sad commentary on his heart and mind that he has in saying I don’t know or we don’t know made a proclamation, that he is not interested in knowing even by way of sincere and honest speculation, on any matter where even by speculation he might endanger as I said the safe deposit capsule which he has boxed in his heart and mind.

Actually, "I don't know," is a starting point for, "sincere and honest speculation, on any matter."

"I don't know," is an honest answer!

Honesty appears to be something you're having trouble with in these posts.

You are either dishonest, or confused. Which is it?

[Elizabeth I]

Why? What's wrong with saying "I don't know"? Admitting that one does not know something is the first step into learning something new! You do want to learn new things, don't you yrreg?

Oooh, I know! I know.

The answer is "no."

[RoboTimbo]

I am sorry for people here who have the habit of resorting to a declaration of “I don’t know” or sometimes including everyone in his attitude of know nothing-ism, “We don’t know.”

Yrreg

What do I have in my pocket right now? Your only two choices are "God" or "I don't know". Don't you feel silly for choosing "God"?

[Foster Zygote]

I am sorry for people here who have the habit of resorting to a declaration of “I don’t know” or sometimes including everyone in his attitude of know nothing-ism, “We don’t know.”
So you feel sorry for people who are honest enough to admit that there are things yet to be learned? How revealing.

For it is a very sad commentary on his heart and mind that he has in saying I don’t know or we don’t know made a proclamation, that he is not interested in knowing even by way of sincere and honest speculation, on any matter where even by speculation he might endanger as I said the safe deposit capsule which he has boxed in his heart and mind.
"I don't know" is not a statement of apathy. In fact, in science, "I don't know" is usually associated with a burning desire to investigate in order to find the answer. "I don't know" is the first step to actual knowing. Pretending to know in order to avoid the admission of ignorance is the truly apathetic action. It causes one to cease searching out answers.

Admitting that you have more to learn is wise.

Pretending to know what you do not is just stupid.

[Foster Zygote]

That is some self-disclosure, that atheists fear an angry God.

Self-disclosure? Seriously? Do you really lack the basic reading comprehension to understand that Twiler was quoting a fictional character and comparing that character's statement to yours?

[six7s]

Why? What's wrong with saying "I don't know"? Admitting that one does not know something is the first step into learning something new! You do want to learn new things, don't you yrreg?Yrreg works in mysterious ways!

If we knew what it was we were doing, it would not be called research, would it?
Some famous dead bloke

[six7s]

Tatltuae :)

[Dancing David]

...
I am sorry for people here who have the habit of resorting to a declaration of “I don’t know” or sometimes including everyone in his attitude of know nothing-ism, “We don’t know.”

For it is a very sad commentary on his heart and mind that he has in saying I don’t know or we don’t know made a proclamation, that he is not interested in knowing even by way of sincere and honest speculation, on any matter where even by speculation he might endanger as I said the safe deposit capsule which he has boxed in his heart and mind.
...
Then the creative heart and mind must face the question, who made these ultimate things by which and on which all composite matters are put together with?
...




Yrreg


I don't know, I care in some sort of sense but there are questions without answers.

I still love my life and live a great life.

The universe is, we might have answers someday or we might not.

So feel sorry for me if you wish. I am confortable not knowing. But then in my pantheon there is no omnipotence except for the Unknowable, and that is the point that which Knows All is not human, it can not be expressed in wrods, thoughts or ideas.

So....

Not
Limit
Light

[KingMerv00]

I didn't think I could disagree with someone so strongly. Saying "I don't know." is a beautiful, humble act. The alternative is to lie or to believe without knowledge.

[AkuManiMani]

I think he was trying to say:

'Beware, you who seek first and final principles, for you are trampling the garden of an angry God and he awaits you just beyond the last theorem.'

- Sister Miriam Godwinson, "But for the Grace of God"

Oh all right, she's a fictional character from Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri. It's still a quote.

I could never bring myself to play her faction. They just seemed so...lame.

[Robert Oz]

Quick, will science come to the last particle whatever or thing beyond which no more components of matter can be found, that last particle cannot be composed of still smaller things?


Possibly.


Then what is the implication?


God?




EDIT: Welcome back, yrreg. I, for one, missed your threads.

[yrreg]

Thanks to everyone here who have given of their heart and mind to react in a constructive manner to my query.

As you know I am a Christian theist, and I like to hear from atheists their sincere and informed opinions on God, even though they have in a way encapsulated their heart and mind to not entertain any questions which might endanger in any way the capsule, where they have safe-enclosed their heart and mind.

Hoping just the same that anyone even a self-declared atheist might act spontaneously and honestly, as to share with me what he knows of everything in this universe of life and matter, and in our common universe of discourse.

I am sorry for people here who have the habit of resorting to a declaration of “I don’t know” or sometimes including everyone in his attitude of know nothing-ism, “We don’t know.”

For it is a very sad commentary on his heart and mind that he has in saying I don’t know or we don’t know made a proclamation, that he is not interested in knowing even by way of sincere and honest speculation, on any matter where even by speculation he might endanger as I said the safe deposit capsule which he has boxed in his heart and mind.

[...]



"Faith in what?" he asked himself, adrift in limbo.

"Faith in faith," he replied. "It isn't necessary to have something to believe in. It's only necessary to believe that somewhere there's something worthy of belief."


Limbo




I fear that atheists do not want mankind to nurture the virtue of hope, because it brings in God.

But if they look at themselves in the big picture they are in fact nurturing hope, hope in evolution by blind chance.

Or ultimately they trust in chance, because chance always up to the present first having landed them into existence, and as members of mankind so far has succeeded in keeping them in existence.

Conclusion, they do have a God, but a blind one with at least the minimal goodness just the same of fortuitously allowing itself the good fortune of choosing to have made mankind, and then so far luckily having succeeded in keeping mankind in survival.

This is just their self-justifying interpretation of God, to keep themselves encapsulated inside their safe deposit box of God-deniers.


[...]





Please also contribute your thoughts on why I see atheists as not wanting mankind to nurture the virtue of hope.



Yrreg

[KingMerv00]

Please also contribute your thoughts on why I see atheists as not wanting mankind to nurture the virtue of hope.

Because you don't listen.

[paximperium]

Please also contribute your thoughts on why I see atheists as not wanting mankind to nurture the virtue of hope.
Because your idea of "hope" involves delusion and blind faith...kind of like being a drunkard.

[Mashuna]

Please also contribute your thoughts on why I see atheists as not wanting mankind to nurture the virtue of hope.



Yrreg

Because you don't listen.

Because you're wilfully ignorant of what atheists actually think, so you prefer to make up your own little stories.

[yrreg]

Everything I write here about atheists are attempts to understand the heart and mind of atheists, the (pardon the word) vocal kind that are belligerent in their explanations or even justifications of why they are atheist.

And I have at this point come to the idea that atheists are ruled by a set of attitudes which account for their vocal belligerency in their justification for being atheist.

Some of these attitudes are:
( Not in any order of importance )

1. It is unacceptable to man to hope for something better in life and after death.

2. It is unacceptable to man to be morally good to avoid punishment for being morally bad.

3. There is nothing intrinsically good in moral goodness, therefore no need to do moral goodness except for what? avoiding punishment whatever or adverse reactions from fellow humans?

4. People who claim to know God by reason and experience are into believing in a flying spaghetti monster.

5. Human life is worth nothing and you can have as many abortions as you want, and kill as many people as you can get away with.

6. Sex must be totally free without any restrains whatever among at least consenting partners, or on anyone you can get away with.




And that is why namely because of these attitudes, and there are more, they don't want to speculate on the existence of God.




Yrreg

[RoboTimbo]

And so soon after KingMerv00 posted this:
Because you don't listen.
you go and prove it to be true.

[KingMerv00]

Let's test your listening skills.


Some of these attitudes are:
( Not in any order of importance )

1. It is unacceptable to man to hope for something better in life and after death.


I'm an atheist and don't think that is true.

2. It is unacceptable to man to be morally good to avoid punishment for being morally bad.

I'm an atheist and don't think that is true.

3. There is nothing intrinsically good in moral goodness, therefore no need to do moral goodness except for what? avoiding punishment whatever or adverse reactions from fellow humans?

I'm an atheist and don't think that is true.

4. People who claim to know God by reason and experience are into believing in a flying spaghetti monster.

I'm an atheist and don't think that is true.

5. Human life is worth nothing and you can have as many abortions as you want, and kill as many people as you can get away with.

I'm an atheist and don't think that is true.

6. Sex must be totally free without any restrains whatever among at least consenting partners...

I'm an atheist and don't think that is true. (The "must" screwed it up for me.)

or on anyone you can get away with.

I'm an atheist and don't think that is true.

And that is why namely because of these attitudes, and there are more, they don't want to speculate on the existence of God.

I'm an atheist and I enjoy speculating on the existence of God.


Now what have you learned?

[six7s]

Everything I write here about atheists are attempts to understand <snip/> justifications of why they are atheist.Justify? Are you sure?:rolleyes:

If so... try this:

There is not ONE shred of evidence for anything supernatural

I'm sincerely curious to know how why you pretend that you can 'justify' your theism

[Ysidro]

Let's test your listening skills.



I'm an atheist and don't think that is true.



I'm an atheist and don't think that is true.



I'm an atheist and don't think that is true.



I'm an atheist and don't think that is true.



I'm an atheist and don't think that is true.



I'm an atheist and don't think that is true. (The "must" screwed it up for me.)



I'm an atheist and don't think that is true.



I'm an atheist and I enjoy speculating on the existence of God.


Now what have you learned?

You're not really an atheist? ;)

[Louisthe13th]

To quote a wise person:

"He's not even wrong."

[nescafe]

Everything I write here about atheists are attempts to understand the heart and mind of atheists, the (pardon the word) vocal kind that are belligerent in their explanations or even justifications of why they are atheist.Making stuff up to make your worldview look better by comparison is not attempting to understand anything.

And I have at this point come to the idea that atheists are ruled by a set of attitudes which account for their vocal belligerency in their justification for being atheist.This should be lulzy.

Some of these attitudes are:( Not in any order of importance )

1. It is unacceptable to man to hope for something better in life and after death.
What does this have to do with being an atheist? I hope for a better life for me and mine, before and after I am dead. Has nothing to do with God belief.

2. It is unacceptable to man to be morally good to avoid punishment for being morally bad.Again, this has nothing to do with atheism. One can either do good for goodness' sake (or due to fear of punishment if caught, whatever) without having to believe in some sort of God or higher power that grants moral agency or punishes transgressions.

3. There is nothing intrinsically good in moral goodness, therefore no need to do moral goodness except for what? avoiding punishment whatever or adverse reactions from fellow humans?We evolved to have a moral capacity as individuals, so our capacity for moral behavior may be intrinsic in that sense.

4. People who claim to know God by reason and experience are into believing in a flying spaghetti monster.huh? That makes even less sense than usual.

5. Human life is worth nothing and you can have as many abortions as you want, and kill as many people as you can get away with.No, you are describing a sociopaths turned serial killers, not atheists.

6. Sex must be totally free without any restrains whatever among at least consenting partners, or on anyone you can get away with.What consenting adults get up to is none of my business, even if it squicks me. Still has nothing to do with being an atheist.


And that is why namely because of these attitudes, and there are more, they don't want to speculate on the existence of God.Only in your inner dialog with your favorite straw atheist.

[Sun Countess]

Please also contribute your thoughts on why I see atheists as not wanting mankind to nurture the virtue of hope.
Because you have preconceived ideas of what makes atheists "deny" your god, instead of listening to why atheists have concluded from all the available evidence that god(s) don't exist. Hint: the real reasons have nothing to do with anger, tergiversating, sour graping, or guiltless masturbation.

Let's see what other pre-conceived ideas you may be harboring in that theistic "I don't understand how other people see a moon and deny my god" head of yours:


And I have at this point come to the idea that atheists are ruled by a set of attitudes which account for their vocal belligerency in their justification for being atheist.

Some of these attitudes are:

1. It is unacceptable to man to hope for something better in life and after death.
It's never unacceptable for a man (OR A WOMAN) to hope for something better in life. I hope for better things all the time, and I work to achieve them. I think it's pretty delusional to hope for anything at all after death, since my life will stop at that point. I wouldn't promise some sort of heaven to a dying child any more than I would promise a pony.

2. It is unacceptable to man to be morally good to avoid punishment for being morally bad.
I'll admit I don't understand at all what you're saying here. Of course it's acceptable and preferable for man (OR WOMAN) to be morally good. Avoiding punishment is not a reason for being morally good; treating others the way we would like to be treated is a no-brainer for me. I'm good because I like when others are good. I wouldn't treat others badly if I knew I could avoid punishment.

3. There is nothing intrinsically good in moral goodness, therefore no need to do moral goodness except for what? avoiding punishment whatever or adverse reactions from fellow humans?
Is this a rewording of claim #2? There is "good" in moral goodness. I don't want to live in some dog-eat-dog world where the biggest and baddest win, but prefer to live in a society where the majority treats others nicely.

4. People who claim to know God by reason and experience are into believing in a flying spaghetti monster.
Way to completely miss the point of the FSM (may you be spared his noodly wrath). But what are your reasons for believing in your particular god and not the FSM? All the evidence that points to your particular god also points to the FSM, just as it points to Zeus or Thor. The only difference is the culture and the time.

5. Human life is worth nothing and you can have as many abortions as you want, and kill as many people as you can get away with.
Oh yes. All atheists are serial murderers. We're not busy working or raising families or occupying ourselves with hobbies; we're all about the murders. :rolleyes:

6. Sex must be totally free without any restrains whatever among at least consenting partners, or on anyone you can get away with.
Is that last bit supposed to be implying that atheists are also serial rapists? Seriously, it's a wonder I ever get anything done around the house. And how did I ever pass the criminal record check so I could work with children? Other than the rape, I don't think there's anything wrong with whatever consenting adults want to do with each other. Myself, I like to keep it boring and have stayed completely faithful to my husband of over 20 years.


And that is why namely because of these attitudes, and there are more, they don't want to speculate on the existence of God.
I'm willing to speculate all you want. I haven't seen any evidence of any god's existence. Of all the tens of thousands of gods that have been invoked by mankind over the millenia, how should I choose the correct one? It's kinda hard to believe that 99.9% of them have been man-made fictional constructs, and the single "right and true" one chose to reveal himself to a small group of nomadic goat herders living in a tiny area of the middle east.

But whatever. You go on believing whatever you want to. The goat-herders weren't making it up like everybody else, and atheists are serial rapist/killers who find human goodness unacceptable. :rolleyes:

[X]

Everything I write here about atheists are attempts to understand the heart and mind of atheists, the (pardon the word) vocal kind that are belligerent in their explanations or even justifications of why they are atheist.

And I have at this point come to the idea that atheists are ruled by a set of attitudes which account for their vocal belligerency in their justification for being atheist.



If you're so determined to "understand the heart and mind of atheists", then why is it you never listen to what we say, instead ignoring it in preference to your preconceptions?





Some of these attitudes are:
( Not in any order of importance )

1. It is unacceptable to man to hope for something better in life and after death.

2. It is unacceptable to man to be morally good to avoid punishment for being morally bad.

3. There is nothing intrinsically good in moral goodness, therefore no need to do moral goodness except for what? avoiding punishment whatever or adverse reactions from fellow humans?

4. People who claim to know God by reason and experience are into believing in a flying spaghetti monster.

5. Human life is worth nothing and you can have as many abortions as you want, and kill as many people as you can get away with.

6. Sex must be totally free without any restrains whatever among at least consenting partners, or on anyone you can get away with.




And that is why namely because of these attitudes, and there are more, they don't want to speculate on the existence of God.




Yrreg


:drinkspit:


I can't recall ever reading anything more weasely-worded than this. The way you distort and re-phrase what has been said to make it sound immoral is appalling.

In fact, it looks suspiciously intentional...

[Niggle]

Yrreg, you're the one whose mind is stuck in a rut. You have your preconceived ideas of what an atheist is and refuse to listen to what actual atheists have to say about anything.

How the bloody hell did this become about your god? You started out asking about the smallest particle of matter. When did that become "goddidit"?

[Pure Argent]

As you know I am a Christian theist, and I like to hear from atheists their sincere and informed opinions on God, even though they have in a way encapsulated their heart and mind to not entertain any questions which might endanger in any way the capsule, where they have safe-enclosed their heart and mind.

And as you know we believe that you have done that very thing to yourself. Unfortunately, simply saying "NO U" gets us nowhere, so let's drop the (slightly) veiled insults, shall we?

I am sorry for people here who have the habit of resorting to a declaration of “I don’t know” or sometimes including everyone in his attitude of know nothing-ism, “We don’t know.”

Why? Sometimes "We don't know" is the correct answer. Quite a lot of the time, actually. Pretending to know is just stupid.

For it is a very sad commentary on his heart and mind that he has in saying I don’t know or we don’t know made a proclamation, that he is not interested in knowing even by way of sincere and honest speculation, on any matter where even by speculation he might endanger as I said the safe deposit capsule which he has boxed in his heart and mind.

Saying "I don't know" does not mean that you do not want to know. You have simply made that conclusion to fit with your preconceived biases.

I fear that atheists do not want mankind to nurture the virtue of hope, because it brings in God.

Hope and god are not intertwined. It is entirely possible to talk about one without bringing in the other.

Or ultimately they trust in chance, because chance always up to the present first having landed them into existence, and as members of mankind so far has succeeded in keeping them in existence.

So luck is the only thing keeping us atheists alive?

Conclusion, they do have a God, but a blind one with at least the minimal goodness just the same of fortuitously allowing itself the good fortune of choosing to have made mankind, and then so far luckily having succeeded in keeping mankind in survival.

Nope, sorry. You started from false information, though, so you can't be blamed on your incorrect conclusion.

This is just their self-justifying interpretation of God, to keep themselves encapsulated inside their safe deposit box of God-deniers.

This is just your self-justifying interpretation of god, to keep yourself encapsulated inside your safe-deposit box of god-acceptance.
Again, insults get us nowhere. Let's drop them and get back to actual discussion, shall we?

That is some self-disclosure, that atheists fear an angry God.

But why?

We don't fear something that we don't believe exists.

There is that Latin word, res, literally and correctly meaning thing, as opposed to nothing.

Call it quantum, particle, string, wave, etc., whatever, it is something, and not nothing.

Next, it is a component for everything, and and itself is a composite thing.

As I am inclined to speculate, there is a last thing beyond which nothing more within it can be found by science, at least when scientists have come to the admission that they have reached the end of their essential human competency to bore deeper into things.

However, prescinding from the incapability of human intelligence to establish the last thing beyond which none can be further found in composite realities, it cannot be otherwise that composite matter is limited in the further and further composition of still smaller things.

I mean there is an end to further endless composition, even on empirical grounds scientists cannot make a categorical statement whether there is a limit or no limit.

And your basis for this statement? Did you even read my post on Planck length?

That is the big picture beyond empirical access of mankind to know the innermost recesses of matter, that there is an end thing or there are end things which cannot be further broken up into more components thereof.

Then the creative heart and mind must face the question, who made these ultimate things by which and on which all composite matters are put together with?

Is that all this was? Really? The argument from creation? Why didn't you just say so? You wasted all our time.

Everything I write here about atheists are attempts to understand the heart and mind of atheists, the (pardon the word) vocal kind that are belligerent in their explanations or even justifications of why they are atheist.

You're the one who comes here asking for explanations. Don't ask if you don't want answers.
You also don't try to understand us. You start with a preconceived notion of how we are and stick with it no matter what we say or do.

And I have at this point come to the idea that atheists are ruled by a set of attitudes which account for their vocal belligerency in their justification for being atheist.

What a surprise.

Some of these attitudes are:
( Not in any order of importance )

1. It is unacceptable to man to hope for something better in life and after death.

2. It is unacceptable to man to be morally good to avoid punishment for being morally bad.

3. There is nothing intrinsically good in moral goodness, therefore no need to do moral goodness except for what? avoiding punishment whatever or adverse reactions from fellow humans?

4. People who claim to know God by reason and experience are into believing in a flying spaghetti monster.

5. Human life is worth nothing and you can have as many abortions as you want, and kill as many people as you can get away with.

6. Sex must be totally free without any restrains whatever among at least consenting partners, or on anyone you can get away with.



Wow. It's amazing how much prejudice you managed to fit into six sentences, isn't it?

And that is why namely because of these attitudes, and there are more, they don't want to speculate on the existence of God.

On the contrary. I find speculating about it very entertaining and a good mental exercise. What I don't like is people like you trying to twist facts and logic to hide the truth that their belief is completely unfounded.

Yrreg, you're the one whose mind is stuck in a rut. You have your preconceived ideas of what an atheist is and refuse to listen to what actual atheists have to say about anything.

How the bloody hell did this become about your god? You started out asking about the smallest particle of matter. When did that become "goddidit"?

You expected a yrreg thread to be about something other than his god?

[Dunstan]

And I have at this point come to the idea that atheists are ruled by a set of attitudes which account for their vocal belligerency in their justification for being atheist.

Liar. You had these prejudices about atheists from the moment you came here.

Funny how us atheists have moral scruples against lying, but you don't.

[Dats]

And that is why namely because of these attitudes, and there are more, they don't want to speculate on the existence of God.

Yrreg

Didn't you make another thread saying atheists and theists shouldn't speculate on the existence of God because we don't have the words or concepts to know what it is as it sees itself?

[Dunstan]

Didn't you make another thread saying atheists and theists shouldn't speculate on the existence of God because we don't have the words or concepts to know what it is as it sees itself?

Yes, but when he says "atheists and theists shouldn't speculate," he really means "atheists should shut up."

ETA: Welcome to the forum! It's best to view yrreg threads as entertainment rather than serious discussion.

[Niggle]

<snippity>
You expected a yrreg thread to be about something other than his god?

No, not really. I'm just pointing out his own leap of illogic. I do know that he'll simply ignore it.

No, I don't know why I bothered. Something about a train wreck.

[Dats]

Yes, but when he says "atheists and theists shouldn't speculate," he really means "atheists should shut up."

ETA: Welcome to the forum! It's best to view yrreg threads as entertainment rather than serious discussion.

Thank you for your welcome.

[Third Eye Open]

How did this go from being about the smallest possible unit of matter... to suddenly being yrreg bashing on atheists again? I don't even know what happened...

Pro troll for sure.

[arthwollipot]

Yrreg is definitely back.

Yrreg, why don't you listen to and understand what some actual, genuine atheists are saying? I don't know any atheists (including myself) who subscribe to your six tenets. Although you came close with no.6...

[Foster Zygote]

Everything I write here about atheists are attempts to understand the heart and mind of atheists, the (pardon the word) vocal kind that are belligerent in their explanations or even justifications of why they are atheist.

And I have at this point come to the idea that atheists are ruled by a set of attitudes which account for their vocal belligerency in their justification for being atheist.

Some of these attitudes are:
( Not in any order of importance )

1. It is unacceptable to man to hope for something better in life and after death.

2. It is unacceptable to man to be morally good to avoid punishment for being morally bad.

3. There is nothing intrinsically good in moral goodness, therefore no need to do moral goodness except for what? avoiding punishment whatever or adverse reactions from fellow humans?

4. People who claim to know God by reason and experience are into believing in a flying spaghetti monster.

5. Human life is worth nothing and you can have as many abortions as you want, and kill as many people as you can get away with.

6. Sex must be totally free without any restrains whatever among at least consenting partners, or on anyone you can get away with.




And that is why namely because of these attitudes, and there are more, they don't want to speculate on the existence of God.




Yrreg

The stupid! It BURNS!!!

[Tricky]

Wow! Another version of "How can you be moral without God?" I never expected such a thing from Yrreg.

[EventHorizon]

Yrreg is definitely back.

Yrreg, why don't you listen to and understand what some actual, genuine atheists are saying? I don't know any atheists (including myself) who subscribe to your six tenets. Although you came close with no.6...

Because willful ignorance is usually the modus operandi of any bigot.

[arthwollipot]

Because willful ignorance is usually the modus operandi of any bigot.I'm not sure that it's wilful, strictly. I'm pretty sure that yrreg quite simply doesn't understand.

...Anything.

[Jimbo07]

Liar. You had these prejudices about atheists from the moment you came here.

Funny how us atheists have moral scruples against lying, but you don't.

I'm not sure that it's wilful, strictly. I'm pretty sure that yrreg quite simply doesn't understand.

...Anything.

It's as I've said,

yrreg is either confused, or dishonest. I'm not sure which.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Pure ARgent!

Thank you.

My apologies, Pure Argent. (I was affecting a Boston accent!)

I'll be sure to put an extra "r" in there some time to make up for it.

[six7s]

My apologies, Pure Argent. (I was affecting a Boston accent!)

I'll be sure to put an extra "r" in there some time to make up for it.I whole-hearrrrrrrrrtedly rrrrecommend the 19th of Septemberrrrrrrrrrr (http://www.talklikeapirate.com/)

[six7s]

It's as I've said,

yrreg is either confused, or and dishonestFTFY Jimbo :)

[GanipGnop]

Alas, poor Yrreg I knew him Horatio, a fellow of infinite jest, he was a deaf as a post and lived in his own world of mythology and fantasy where he gamboled with merriment to the delight of all.

[Andrew Wiggin]

When learning to use a japanese sword, the beginning student cuts rolls of straw which, when properly soaked, simulate a man. Eventually, most move beyond cutting at straw men, but it is a neccesary stage, as one must know what the sword feels like when cutting.

As an athiest, I'm always amused to hear all the silly things I'm presumed to believe, so that I can be converted to a simple roll of straw, to be hacked at by an inept swordsman.

A.

[joobz]

Why do tegervisators deny the virtue of thinking? Can't they see that thinking requires googliegarbond? If only the tegervisators would recognize googliegarbond, they too can be as sooper duper smart and cool like me!

[thatguywhojuggles]

Scientists have already found the smallest particle--yrreg's brain.



Sorry, couldn't help it.

Remember to attack the argument, not the arguer.

[paximperium]

Scientists have already found the smallest particle--yrreg's brain.



Sorry, couldn't help it.
Actually, that still remains only hypothetical.

[Brainache]

But what is the smallest virtual particle?

[Elizabeth I]

I'm not sure that it's wilful, strictly. I'm pretty sure that yrreg quite simply doesn't understand.

...Anything.

And he refuses any and all attempts to inform him. It's willful, all right.

[Dancing David]

Please also contribute your thoughts on why I see atheists as not wanting mankind to nurture the virtue of hope.



Yrreg

I don't know Yrreg you tell me.

Personally i don't see that you have to have god to have hope.

[Dancing David]

I will try to correct and modify your statement to fit my understandin of being an atheist. My insertions will be in bold.
And I have at this point come to the idea that atheists are ruled by a set of attitudes which account for their vocal belligerency in their justification for being atheist which demonstrate their lack of agreement in my thoughts about a belief in god.

Some of these attitudes are:
( Not in any order of importance )

1. It is unacceptable to man to hope for something better in life and after death.

2. It is unacceptable to man to be morally good to avoid punishment for being morally bad. People will live with the consequences of their choices which includes negative consequence such as judicial and social condemnation

3. There is nothing intrinsically good in moral goodness, therefore no need to do moral goodness except for what? avoiding punishment whatever or adverse reactions from fellow humans?each choses their own life and informs their choices as they see fit. they live with the consequences of their choices which may include judicial action and social condemnation

4. People who claim to know God by reason and experience are into believing in a flying spaghetti monster have a belief that i do not share.

5. Human life is worth nothing and you can have as many abortions as you want, and kill as many people as you can get away with. Humans have a value, which is often personally, socially and culturally defined.

6. Sex must be totally free without any restrains whatever among at least consenting partners capable of giving informed and knowing consent, or on anyone you can get away with.








Yrreg

[Dancing David]

You're not really an atheist? ;)

But he wears a funny hat and a kilt!

[Aitch]

6. Sex must be totally free without any restrains whatever among at least consenting partners, or on anyone you can get away with.


Oh, I don't know; sex with restraints can be, how can I put this, interesting. :cool:

[Pure Argent]

My apologies, Pure Argent. (I was affecting a Boston accent!)

Ah. Well, that's perfectly acceptable, seeing as I was born in Leominster.

[yrreg]

Thanks, folks for your reactions.

I am learning to know the variety of atheists, that is good for my understanding of the heart and mind of atheists.

Perhaps you should all of you who call yourselves atheists think up better concepts and words to describe yourselves, so that you would not get identified with vocal belligerent atheists, who call God a dratsab (read that backward) and other very unpleasant names, which they would not call anyone or anything at all, which means something of reverence to others, fellow human beings, owing to at least civilized politeness if nothing else.




Yrreg

[Ryokan]

And maybe you should find another word than theist to describe yourself, so you're not confused with the kind of people who fly planes into buildings.

Or maybe you should just realize that judging people by one of their labels is silly. Judge people by who they are, what they do and what they say. Not such a stupid concept, is it?

[Sun Countess]

Perhaps you should all of you who call yourselves Christians think up better concepts and words to describe yourselves, so that you would not get identified with vocal belligerent Christians like Fred Phelps, who call soldiers, homosexuals and pop musicians gaf or tuls (read those backwards) and other very unpleasant names, which they would not call anyone or anything at all, which means something of respect to others, fellow human beings, owing to at least civilized politeness if nothing else.

[six7s]

Perhaps you should all of you who call yourselves atheists think up better concepts and words to describe yourselvesThere are synonyms...

concept of atheism: reality
atheists: realists

However, they don't always fit... Some atheists believe in woo just as fantastically nutty as yours...

Why don't you find a new label to describe your woo? Or are you happy to be identified with your God of the Old Testament and the associated sadism, misogyny, homophobia, racism, infanticide, genocide, filicide, sadomasochism, etc?

:confused:


------
edit: Damn! too slow! What are Canucks and Norwegians doing up as this time?

[EventHorizon]

who call God a dratsab (read that backward)

Yrreg

You're struggling enough with words going forward, the last thing you need to add to your repertoire is words that go backwards.

[six7s]

who call God a dratsab (read that backward)You're struggling enough with words going forward, the last thing you need to add to your repertoire is words that go backwards.

FTFY, EventHorizon :)

[EventHorizon]

FTFY, EventHorizon :)

Thanks!

[KingMerv00]

I am learning to know the variety of atheists, that is good for my understanding of the heart and mind of atheists.

Honestly, I'm impressed you finally learned that atheists are not monolithic. Good for you.

[Dats]

FTFY, EventHorizon :)

pɐǝɹ oʇ pɹɐɥ s,ʇɐɥʇ

[arthwollipot]

?reh deen uoy nehw anoiF s'erehW

[six7s]

?reh deen uoy nehw anoiF s'erehW








esruoc fo ,gnidiH

[yrreg]

Why does an admission of the limits of our current knowledge frighten you so?





bolding mine

Woah horsey! Woah, I say! Stop right there...

When did we ever imply that we do not wish to know?

IIRC, it was merely stated that we* don't know. This does not mean we do not wish to know, it merely means we aren't going to make-up answers to fill a void in our knowledge. We'd rather wait and see what further discoveries reveal.

The god band-aid answer nothing, after all...



* the use of "we" here is inclusive of the respondents who said "I don't know", not of everyone. I figured I'd clarify this, since you're nit-picking on the use of "we".


The god band-aid answer nothing, after all...



Why do atheists always insist that God as creator of everything answers nothing in the way of explaining everything in the last analysis of where everything comes from?


All right, then you explain to me why God as creator of everything does not explain anything at all where everything comes from?




Yrreg

[yrreg]

(bolding mine)



Atheists can act honestly.



What does it matter what any one atheist thinks? It's irrelevant to the truth/falseness of the position.



Actually, "I don't know," is a starting point for, "sincere and honest speculation, on any matter."

"I don't know," is an honest answer!

Honesty appears to be something you're having trouble with in these posts.

You are either dishonest, or confused. Which is it?

You are either dishonest, or confused. Which is it?


No, neither, but It is reason enabling me to declare my knowledge of God than my ignorance of God.

And honestly I am inclined to see that you are not reasonable to proclaim your awareness of God, instead you choose to suppress your reasoning faculty, or abuse it to deny the existence of God.



Tell me, which is reasonable, genuinely reasonable -- not abusing reason to hoodwink oneself, cleverly deceiving oneself, that composite things have a compositor, God, or that they just pick up the components (and where do these components come from?)to put themselves together to become further composite things, and where do they get the power or energy to do so?




Yrreg

[yrreg]

What do I have in my pocket right now? Your only two choices are "God" or "I don't know". Don't you feel silly for choosing "God"?


No, I wouldn't feel silly saying that God is in your pocket, okay?


If you as a guileless child can understand that God is everywhere, you will not feel silly either that God is rightly in your pocket as also in your brain and in your mind and in your heart, and outside you, everywhere.


Otherwise how does everything keep itself in place, ultimately?

Now, I will let you into a secret: God is limited by boundaries beyond which there is nothing, nothing is the only border of God's presence.



Yrreg

[yrreg]

So you feel sorry for people who are honest enough to admit that there are things yet to be learned? How revealing.


"I don't know" is not a statement of apathy. In fact, in science, "I don't know" is usually associated with a burning desire to investigate in order to find the answer. "I don't know" is the first step to actual knowing. Pretending to know in order to avoid the admission of ignorance is the truly apathetic action. It causes one to cease searching out answers.

Admitting that you have more to learn is wise.

Pretending to know what you do not is just stupid.


You forget to mention that modern scientists wilfully wear mental blinders.

They encapsulate their heart and mind within the empirical limits of man's sensory faculties, and dare not go beyond into the realms of pure reasoning.

That is why they are missing wisdom while accumulating empirical data by which they bury themselves deeper and deeper, and justify themselves that there is no relevancy for man to transcend beyond the empirical realms of his sensory faculties, which is where they are wrong or shortsighted, awfully.




Yrreg

[paximperium]

Why do atheists always insist that God as creator of everything answers nothing in the way of explaining everything in the last analysis of where everything comes from? Because it is completely and utterly useless and does in fact explain absolutely nothing.

All right, then you explain to me why God as creator of everything does not explain anything at all where everything comes from? Don't know. Science does not make up lies.
No, neither, but It is reason enabling me to declare my knowledge of God than my ignorance of God. Your posts falsify this claim

And honestly I am inclined to see that you are not reasonable to proclaim your awareness of God, instead you choose to suppress your reasoning faculty, or abuse it to deny the existence of God. What an ad hominem Gerry. Getting frustrated at people calling you what you are?

Tell me, which is reasonable, genuinely reasonable -- not abusing reason to hoodwink oneself, cleverly deceiving oneself, that composite things have a compositor, God, or that they just pick up the components (and where do these components come from?)to put themselves together to become further composite things, and where do they get the power or energy to do so? The Sun. Do keep up.
Some people actually understand those things that you don't.
If you as a guileless child can understand that God is everywhere, you will not feel silly either that God is rightly in your pocket as also in your brain and in your mind and in your heart, and outside you, everywhere. Is he in your belly? In your feces? :rolleyes:


Now, I will let you into a secret: God is limited by boundaries beyond which there is nothing, nothing is the only border of God's presence. I'm sorry but I don't speak Loony speak. Please translate to English.

You forget to mention that modern scientists wilfully wear mental blinders. Yup. Sure.

They encapsulate their heart and mind within the empirical limits of man's sensory faculties, and dare not go beyond into the realms of pure reasoning. Ah, so you saying that you're Irrational and un-empirical. Well we can agree on that.

That is why they are missing wisdom while accumulating empirical data by which they bury themselves deeper and deeper, and justify themselves that there is no relevancy for man to transcend beyond the empirical realms of his sensory faculties, which is where they are wrong or shortsighted, awfully. Translation: "Why won't they believe in the irrational and illogical?"

[wollery]

You forget to mention that modern scientists wilfully wear mental blinders.

They encapsulate their heart and mind within the empirical limits of man's sensory faculties, and dare not go beyond into the realms of pure reasoning.If they were to do that they wouldn't be doing science. Scientists, by definition, do science which, by definition, is limited to the empirical.

So, ummm, no.

That is why they are missing wisdom while accumulating empirical data by which they bury themselves deeper and deeper, and justify themselves that there is no relevancy for man to transcend beyond the empirical realms of his sensory faculties, which is where they are wrong or shortsighted, awfully.I know a lot of scientists who, in their private lives, do consider these things. But in their work lives they are required to stick to things that are empirically measurable. Unfortunately some occasionally forget the limits of science, at which point they stop doing science and start fantasising.

Let me repeat the salient point for you Yrreg.

If it isn't empirically measurable it isn't science.

Just so I can be sure that you see it, and hope that you understand it.

[RoboTimbo]

No, I wouldn't feel silly saying that God is in your pocket, okay?


If you as a guileless child can understand that God is everywhere, you will not feel silly either that God is rightly in your pocket as also in your brain and in your mind and in your heart, and outside you, everywhere.


Otherwise how does everything keep itself in place, ultimately?

Now, I will let you into a secret: God is limited by boundaries beyond which there is nothing, nothing is the only border of God's presence.



Yrreg

You illustrate the point that your god is a god of the gaps. Where you don't know the answer, you insert "god". Is there ever a time when you will say "I don't know" or is your answer always going to be "god" for everything?

You called it correctly when you said a guileless child believes god to be everywhere.

[Dancing David]

Thanks, folks for your reactions.

I am learning to know the variety of atheists, that is good for my understanding of the heart and mind of atheists.

Perhaps you should all of you who call yourselves atheists think up better concepts and words to describe yourselves, so that you would not get identified with vocal belligerent atheists, who call God a dratsab (read that backward) and other very unpleasant names, which they would not call anyone or anything at all, which means something of reverence to others, fellow human beings, owing to at least civilized politeness if nothing else.




Yrreg

atheist: one who does not believe in god

As far as politeness, you mean like not making up lies and insulting people?

[Sun Countess]

All right, then you explain to me why God as creator of everything does not explain anything at all where everything comes from?
Does that theory explain where your God itself comes from?

Does your theory explain how he actually made all these physical things out of thin air, as he simply breathed them into existence? Is his breath similar to human breath? Or is it closer to dog's breath? (He is everywhere, after all. :rolleyes:) Does your theory of god as creator come close to explaining why he made the universe so big and so hostile or why he created tapeworms? What questions does it answer where the answer isn't some variation of "god made it perfect but man screwed it up?"

[dafydd]

The god band-aid answer nothing, after all...



Why do atheists always insist that God as creator of everything answers nothing in the way of explaining everything in the last analysis of where everything comes from?


All right, then you explain to me why God as creator of everything does not explain anything at all where everything comes from?




Yrreg

Your god created grammar too.

[arthwollipot]

All right, then you explain to me why God as creator of everything does not explain anything at all where everything comes from?Because when you have a hypothesis that is capable of explaining everything, it really explains nothing at all.

Why is the sky blue? Goddidit.
Why is water wet? Goddidit.
Why do we see a rainbow? Goddidit.
Why does it hurt so much when I get an ischiorectal abscess? Goddidit.
Why did the universe appear? Goddidit.

Once you allow "Goddidit" as an answer, it can answer any question ever asked or thought of.

[Foster Zygote]

Because when you have a hypothesis that is capable of explaining everything, it really explains nothing at all.

Why is the sky blue? Goddidit.
Why is water wet? Goddidit.
Why do we see a rainbow? Goddidit.
Why does it hurt so much when I get an ischiorectal abscess? Goddidit.
Why did the universe appear? Goddidit.

Once you allow "Goddidit" as an answer, it can answer any question ever asked or thought of.

Why does it hurt when I pee?

[Lord Emsworth]

Why do atheists always insist that God as creator of everything answers nothing in the way of explaining everything in the last analysis of where everything comes from?

Well, what is this answer, this explanation? I am all ears.

All right, then you explain to me why God as creator of everything does not explain anything at all where everything comes from?

The proof of the pudding is in eating. See above. (I know now already that you are not even going to give anything that is worthy of the word "reply.")

[Elizabeth I]

Tell me, which is reasonable, genuinely reasonable -- not abusing reason to hoodwink oneself, cleverly deceiving oneself, that composite things have a compositor, God, or that they just pick up the components (and where do these components come from?)to put themselves together to become further composite things, and where do they get the power or energy to do so?

What?

Do you have to go to school to learn to be that incoherent?

[arthwollipot]

Why does it hurt when I pee?*all together now* Goddidit.

[dropzone]

Quick, will science come to the last beyond which no more component of matter...And I thought I had a habit of posting drunk.

Note to current English majors; speaking from experience: Awkward, confusing, and archaic construction just tells the board you've had a few. It not only doesn't bolster your intellectual cred, but marks you as one who should be asleep, not posting.

[dafydd]

What?

Do you have to go to school to learn to be that incoherent?

No,you just have to hock your brain to religion.

[Lord Emsworth]

*all together now* Goddidit.

No, that is wrong. To quote the words of the great theologian Robbie Williams, this is due to "Sin, Sin, Sin."

Sheesh.

[godless dave]

Spontaneity, immediacy, quickness of response, that is sincerity and honesty.

What about accuracy? For a question like this, isn't it more important to take the time to research the answer?

[Elizabeth I]

What?

Do you have to go to school to learn to be that incoherent?

No,you just have to hock your brain to religion.

:D But, to be fair, I have known lots of religious people who were fluent and articulate speakers and writers. I think our boy here thinks the more impenetrable his prose, the more profound it will seem.

Someone seems also to have made the serious error of making him the gift of a dictionary and a thesaurus. If there's an afterlife, I bet that person will have to pay.

[Dancing David]

What?

Do you have to go to school to learn to be that incoherent?

Dr. Ian Malcolm "Oh, yeah. Oooh, ahhh, that's how it always starts. Then later there's running and screaming."

[Pure Argent]

Thanks, folks for your reactions.

I am learning to know the variety of atheists, that is good for my understanding of the heart and mind of atheists.

Oh, goody.

Perhaps you should all of you who call yourselves atheists think up better concepts and words to describe yourselves, so that you would not get identified with vocal belligerent atheists, who call God a dratsab (read that backward) and other very unpleasant names, which they would not call anyone or anything at all, which means something of reverence to others, fellow human beings, owing to at least civilized politeness if nothing else.

Well, perhaps you should stop judging all atheists simply because we are atheists, rather than asking us to come up with new terms for ourselves. And I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but your god is a dratsab - at least, if you follow the Abrahamic god.

Why do atheists always insist that God as creator of everything answers nothing in the way of explaining everything in the last analysis of where everything comes from?

Because it doesn't.

All right, then you explain to me why God as creator of everything does not explain anything at all where everything comes from?

Because it merely replaces one thing we don't understand with a wizard. After all, when you don't understand how something happened, it must be MAGIC (http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/11/2/)!

No, neither, but It is reason enabling me to declare my knowledge of God than my ignorance of God.

No, it's belief. Big difference.

No, I wouldn't feel silly saying that God is in your pocket, okay?

If you as a guileless child can understand that God is everywhere, you will not feel silly either that God is rightly in your pocket as also in your brain and in your mind and in your heart, and outside you, everywhere.

Otherwise how does everything keep itself in place, ultimately?

O_o

wut

Now, I will let you into a secret: God is limited by boundaries beyond which there is nothing, nothing is the only border of God's presence.

So he's neither omnipotent nor omnipresent, then?

You forget to mention that modern scientists wilfully wear mental blinders.

Because they don't.

They encapsulate their heart and mind within the empirical limits of man's sensory faculties, and dare not go beyond into the realms of pure reasoning.

The two realms are intertwined.

That is why they are missing wisdom while accumulating empirical data by which they bury themselves deeper and deeper, and justify themselves that there is no relevancy for man to transcend beyond the empirical realms of his sensory faculties, which is where they are wrong or shortsighted, awfully.

How would you propose that we remove all sensory input from all thought processes?

[Jimbo07]

Tell me, which is reasonable, genuinely reasonable -- not abusing reason to hoodwink oneself, cleverly deceiving oneself, that composite things have a compositor, God, or that they just pick up the components (and where do these components come from?)to put themselves together to become further composite things, and where do they get the power or energy to do so?


Yrreg

Well, it might be reasonable to follow the evidence. The evidence may someday point at something called (for want of a better label), God. However, that is not currently the case.

Every time there is a gap in our knowledge, it tends to get filled (or if we can't fully answer a question, the gap at least gets squeezed, or another gap exposed, etc.). Gaps regarding the mechanisms of the universe tend to get filled, squeezed (even blown open), with other mechanistic answers and questions. So far, nothing has required a God.


God is everywhere...

Otherwise how does everything keep itself in place, ultimately?

Well, I'm not exactly sure what you mean, but if you mean anything in the universe, there's nothing that requires a God to be how it is.


Now, I will let you into a secret: God is limited by boundaries beyond which there is nothing, nothing is the only border of God's presence.


Well now, this is just blind assertion! Nothing you have said there has any necessity of being true.

Do you have any evidence to back up this claim?


You forget to mention that modern scientists wilfully wear mental blinders.

Have you ever met, or had the pleasure to spend time with, any genuine practicing scientists?

This is the sort of statement I talk about when I accuse you of dishonesty.


They encapsulate their heart and mind within the empirical limits of man's sensory faculties, and dare not go beyond into the realms of pure reasoning.


Of course that's not true. Mathematicians, for example, may go into areas which do not have physical demonstrations.


That is why they are missing wisdom while accumulating empirical data by which they bury themselves deeper and deeper, and justify themselves that there is no relevancy for man to transcend beyond the empirical realms of his sensory faculties, which is where they are wrong or shortsighted, awfully.


The problem with this is that we don't know that "transcend beyond," actually has any meaning beyond wishful thinking! Worse, sometimes the consequences of such fantasies are not well thought-out.

...

Look, Yrreg...

At least you responded to my posts with somewhat good humour, and lengthy replies. At the very least I can commend you with bringing up the distinction between empricism and reason. So here are some of my honest thoughts:

I think that evidence trumps reason. Reason is a highly useful tool and dovetails nicely with the collection of evidence. However, the problem with pure reason is one of definition, if nothing else. For argument's sake, let me use "logic" as my definition of "reason." It's not exactly correct, but it helps me narrow down a point.

Logic, if applied correctly to faulty assumptions, will produce logically correct answers which are ultimately untrue. For example: if Aragorn could distract Sauron, and Frodo could get to Mount Doom, then Frodo could be in a position to throw the ring into the fire. Since Aragorn did distract Sauron, and Frodo did get to Mount Doom, Frodo was therefore in a position to throw the ring into the fire.

The one follows from the next... but it's entirely fictional.

In the best case, I feel that logic is applied to evidence to shave off faulty evidence, and evidence is used to test the limits of logic.

No one dares "not go beyond into the realms of pure reasoning." Your statement is simply untrue. However, since it doesn't seem likely that you know many practicing scientists or are aware of the motivations of individuals, you may not be dishonest in this, you may simply be mistaken.

...

I am back to my original assertion. You are either dishonest, or confused.

Which is it? One is easier for you to fix than the other...

[Beerina]

Quick, will science come to the last particle whatever or thing beyond which no more components of matter can be found, that last particle cannot be composed of still smaller things?

Then what is the implication?



Yrreg


God suffers from the same problem of "it's turtles all the way down", FYI.

[Andrew Wiggin]

As long as ya realize that to avoid crushing damage, it's turtles of ever increasing size all the way down. A veritable chelonian eiffel tower of infinite height, with carefully calculated exponential proportions, to keep the turtles from turning into turtle puree at some incalculable depth

A

ETA: not only do we require exponetial proportions for stability, it also prevents some nutball terrorist chelonaut armed with nanothermite and a plane full of explosives from bringing the whole thing crashing down, turtlestory by turtlestory in a fashion intelligently designed to mimic a controlled skyscraper (turtle scraper? or would that be a tool for shell cleaning?) demolition.