PoPpAScience

Its been fun but time to move on. A forum that creates a section for atheist to expose there faith based beliefs and ridicle the people the section is suppose to be set up for, is silly at best. Quite obvious that you are bad people and I'm glad to have seen it early.

Rational!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! How do I report the moderators to the moderators. Are you serious?

The quote of mine you posed expands beyond this thread. There have been reasonable responses, if there was not, I would not be posting back. But to say other posts are not of the irrational type, is being bias or dishonest. "seems to me" you misinterpret alot. Ok I'm bored with you, you can not respond honestly. Your obsession with words I do not use is kind of strange.

To quote from strange; "You seem to think". All your posts to me are from this context. Except for 1 or 2 sentences your expressing responses to what you think I'm saying, no matter how clear I be in what I'm saying. Now your not the only one, except for a couple of sentences by others, all else do the same. Post 24 explains what I'm trying to express exactly. But you take a quote from it and express something totally different. For a true philosopher like I, it is not about challenging science or the concept of God. It is always about expanding the frontiers of thought on the matters, to levels not seen before. That is what has driven human understanding for all its history Your very wrong about that!! The evidence has been shown in many a great research books, they just don't use terms like supernatural. But based on how you interpret what I have been posting here, it is obvious that your mind would not be able to see the written words as they are presented. Thus you would not be able to contemplate on that knowledge. This is a normal condition for most and not a reflection on you.

Again!! This thread is about how a atheist reacts when ever the word God is seen. It is not about if there is a God, or about what you believe. It is about how you express what you believe. My point in this thread is that I have witnessed atheist react the same way to the word God for 10 years. Atheist react as if they have very strong faith based beliefs that shall not be challenged, and to do so, one shall receive their raft. They react the same way a religious person does, if their faith is challenged. Its about mannerism of actions and speech.

I like to thank all the posters, except two, for confirming my OP perfectly. That atheism being a faith based belief system, brings out the same responses that any religious person would give if their beliefs where challenged. If atheism was not a faith based belief system, why are the posters posts so filled with emoitional rants, mixed with looniness. Or does it just come down to individuals who just rant as a way of being noticed. I figure they mostly rant in the religion section, because they know other like minded people hang out there and they can giggle together. They always talk about rational, logical thinking, but post as if they had never had a rational thought in their lives. Or, is it only when they are exposed as phonies do they become illogical. It truely is an amazing thing to witness. Even though I would perfer to not rattle their cages for my amusement, I have no choice, because what else is there to post about in this section. It should be renamed the faith based belief section for atheist, because they seem to out number the other faiths by 10 to 1. Truely amazing!

Key words; default position, believe. Exactly! But atheist have a lot to say on the subject. Atheist opinion. Exactly! This is an atheist view also. A true philosopher comes to conclusions about nature from a more knowledgeable point of view. Agree, nothing super natural needed. Skeptic is great. Opinions about others beliefs based on a lack of positive evidence, comes from faith in your beliefs.

I guess I could have asked myself the same question way back when I was studying Buddhism as an atheist. Now I personally separated the teachings of Buddha from the religion created around him. The same way I separate the teachings of Jesus from Christianity. It is their knowledge that I add to my philosophical views on matters of God and Universe. The word atheism comes from Hindu traditions. The word was mostly associated with rejection of certain texts like Vedas, but also in a rejection to 'God(s) of persona', as I like to use. But rarely against there only being God(universe). I would love to explore this avenue with you and others, but not in this thread. The reason for starting this thread was my observation that if I started a thread to discuss the knowledge of the ages, it would only be hijacked and flooded by atheist faith based believers, who admit they don't know or care about the subject matter, but feel its their duty to interject. No offence to you.

*Disclaimer* I was a atheist when I studied many 10's of research books on God(s) and Religion over a decade period, and if there was an internet at the time I would have been in forums like this taking it to the religious and atheist. So, I understand what it is to be an atheist totally, for I was one into my late 30's. Now I'm a true philosopher. Thanks for the post ajp: I always do! It is hard to get others to accept the words I use, as they stand in our dictionaries. If one wants to know what I mean with a word, google it. Merriam-Webster Dictionary : strong belief or trust in someone or something : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust But the knee jerk assumption always is : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion Now you have added 'blind faith' to the discussion, and I do not use the definition when talking in science forums about atheism. This statement stands as it is, even if we change the word trust, with faith. Your statement here shows why I use the word faith, it is to show that the mannerism of speech by an atheist, is on par with other faith based beliefs. Key words here; mannerism of speech. As I showed above, the definition that you use for 'blind faith', is the definition for 'faith' in the dictionary. I disagree, but can only show it with rational discussion. An example would be; an atheist has read absolutely nothing on the subject of God written by many atheist researchers, then they speak as if they know what the meaning of God is, with 'blind' statements as if they were fact. What I say is, that there has been NO scientific experiments on this matter, and thus I agree with your statement, 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence' . Science only deals with what it can observe, and does a fantastic job of showing how it works. But it is a process, that is always lead by the abilities of the mind to push the boundaries of thought. Your statement about religious people is true. The problem is that those who are not religious, but are true philosophers, are always thrown into the religious category immediately. As a true philosopher, I have, and will be immediately branded religious and vilified by atheist in every forum that I have visited. Would they?? If they can not even pull back the vails of their atheist beliefs long enough to allow their minds to even look and consider potential evidence put forth, how could they ever review their position. My experience has been that an atheist will throw a tantrum, before they would allow the vail to drop. It is hard for me to understand the level of fear that makes an atheist act this way. I can only relate it to how a religious person would respond. Virtually all cases I've witnessed of religious people leaving their faith, is because their 'God of persona' does not show itself or does for them. I've never witnessed a religious person who see's God as this Universe, as shown through observation and science, turning into an atheist. Merriam-Webster Dictionary : a feeling of being sure that someone or something exists or that something is true : something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group Had to go to Dictionary.com for the knee jerk assumption : a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith Again you are trying to justify what you believe(faith-see above) by adding 'blind' to faith and thinking it changes things. The faith comes into play when an atheist responds to a subject matter that they have spent no time studying on, and even worst no interest in, but make statements about evidence. How can there be "sound logic and evidence", if it only comes from one point of view, and a limited level of knowledge on the subject. Again this can only lead to your faith in what you know. Again, an opinion BASED on your FAITH in what your BELIEFS are. Lack of knowledge on the subject of God, and belief that the subject of God only belongs to the religious, is not a philosophical position, it is an atheist position. A faith based belief position.

In this section of the forum, atheists break every rule written governing this section. They do this to put forth their faith based beliefs. As they say, they do not beleive in a God(s) which religions are built around, and feel its their science given right to set the delusional and uninformed straight. They feel it is their duty to speak the word of science, so as to bring the lost back to the light. They quote from their hand book of atheist beliefs, Miller-Urey experiment, Darwin, and the Big Band. They have faith that these prove there is no God, and must express it in every thread over and over again. Now this would be ok, because it is the same thing religious people do all the time in science threads. But they don't just quote from their atheist hand book, they flood the thread with emotion, insults, and gobbledegook. You can look at every single thread in this section and it is the same scenario almost every time. Lets take a thread of 40 posts for example. In this thread the OP at the very best might make 5 posts, maybe 2 at best try to make a response in conversation, 10 posts might say prove it(show me the math), thus leaving 23 posts of emotion, insults, and gobbledegook. How is anyone in this section suppose to have an intellectual conversation, when this rule is not inforced by the moderators. Worst yet, when one moderator is the worst infractor. When a person like I, calls atheists out on their behavour, they post the same posts over and over again. Every post; makes a response to something I never said and then they take great offense that I called atheism a religion. Most posts also throw in some insults. Never, and I mean never in 10 years, have I seen any reply post any different. Now Atheistism is not a cult or religion, even though it acts like one in most cases, it absolutely can be called a Faith Based Belief system. Now if the atheists come in this thread to respond, they will prove my point, they can not help themselves. Some atheist faith based beliefs: There is no God. Science shows there is no need for God. Those who believe in God are delusional. Those who believe in God are ignorant. Basic theories and experiments like Miller-Urey experiment, and Darwin show the Universe can create without purpose or help. etc... As I've seen since forums where created, atheist actions in sections like this one, always sniff of faith based beliefs and little about science.

Very well said. A true philosopher that looks at evidence to the point of seeing the universe as God, but does not connect themselves to the knowledge the evidence came from, is a form of Deists. I like to know where in the world I could go to not be around people like fireworks. Very uniformed statement, sniffs of ideology. In the USA the trend has been the opposite. Prayer was in all schools at one time, but is banned in all public schools now. Schools with religion in them are always private, except in some isolated centers. In the higher level schools, religious views are not tolerated (except Muslim, then they will find you a place to pray). Not only are religious views not tolerated(again exception Muslim) but conservative views are frown upon and will cost you scores if spoke in class.

​Don't know, I never said that anywhere. Asking for evidence is a viable question. You so far have been making statements as questions to me and I try to avoid answer them. I responded to this post because you recognized that the he/she was you in my post. hmmm what does that say? Now this is a gobbledegook statement, full of emotion. You don't believe[beliefs] in god(s), but must respond every time it is mention. What's up with that? If you were entering threads about stamp collecting, of which you have no knowledge on because you don't care about the subject, and making many statements that could be perceived as negative and gobbledegook in nature. What's up with that?

It is not more-or-less. It stands alone. Religion is a collection of works that are worshiped. Religious people can become very emotional and dogmatic. But individuals can make statements in a perceived factual manner that are strictly based on their faith that it is so. I find atheists, do this a lot when talking against certain subject matter, just as I did when I was an atheist. A perfect example of this is, you have a member posting in every philosophical or religious thread. When ever the word God is printed he/she responds with the same posts over and over again. He/she says; I have no interest in if God is or isn't, but here is my emotional and gobbledegook response anyway. The repeating of these posts is very dogmatic, and faith based. For if one has no interests in the subject matter, then they are ignorant of the subject, and regurgitate their faith based beliefs only. Faith, based, and beliefs, are not words belong to the subject of religion only. They are words that can related to the speech of individuals or groups outside Religion. All fall in to the category of faith based beliefs, because we all are not all-knowing beings and science is on the endless path to knowing. Thus when I witness over the last 10 years, atheists expressing their faith based beliefs on a subject matter, and they call me religious for doing so, I react. Not to stir trouble, but it does, but to be philosophical about the situation.

Having a hard time with the structure of your question, but I'll try. First part, is to me. Second part must be a statement, for I never said science has all the answers. Third section is a question, that I partially touched on in my post, on how scientist dictate to philosophers.

Some of my favorites are: Science of Mind by Ernest Holmes. Tibetan book of the dead. Genesis and the Big Bang by Gerald Schroeder. Science of Being and the Art of Living by Maharishi Mahesh Yogi

Now the OP of this thread post and ran, so my response is in general. Science does an excellent job of showing and explaining the perceived Universe. That's what it does. It is not bias in its findings, only expresses what it finds. Because science on earth has been around only for a short time in earth history it can only study a virtual now to come to conclusions. The rest is theory based on observations of this virtual now. Do our observation see all there is to see, I say not, because we have always found new findings. This brings us back to the OP's question based on his post. Because he is designating God as one of persona, from the Jewish religion as it is expressed in the bible, then the answer is yes. Because based on the perception and literal interpretations of this God story in the bible, then the actions of this God do not match up with science. Now if God is this Universe, as explained in the original teachings of all religions, then based on science, God creates just as science shows, step by step the process goes, and the process is the only way it goes. Again yes, science can explain everything without God('s help). Science discovers the process of creation, that is what it does. There is a huge difference between the God with persona, in man made religions, and the God Universe of the original seer's. Huge difference in a God personally manipulating a Universe, and a God Universe manifesting through the processes we discover with science. Huge difference between creation by God thinking, and God manifesting.

I never seek to be banned, but fear it when I see moderators expressing emotional and unfounded judgements. Please show me one time I called atheism a religion, never have in a decade of internet conversation, and never would. I use the definition of 'faith based beliefs'. And I'm always classed as religious for doing so. I have a faith based belief in my ideals as do all others, no matter what classification they use. No knowledge is absolute truth, but expressed with faith that it is so, by majority. Clear evidence has no meaning if ones mind is closed to it. I have never seen in ten years of internet conversation, an atheist discuss God, creation, or evolution, without bringing emotion, and gobbledegook statements into the discussion. Never! Because this is fact, I always look at it that I am offending their faith based beliefs. Just as in your post, you express as if an non atheist can not look at observations in reality and come to conclusions not different then science, but different then atheists. So I ask, are you saying that only atheist can see the knowledge of science?

LOL! I know, can't help myself.

Well stated! Only when one deliberately keeps themselves neutral on the matters of God, can they reasonably contemplate on the knowledge available to them. Preconceived beliefs on the matter of God, lead to an argumentative discussion, and less a conversation on the matter. One must look at the knowledge, as the most impartial judge they can be, and be diligent in their studies. Things I took from reading this thread: Considering God, is classified by many to be anti-science. Where only fundamentalists dispute science in favor of God. Those against the notion of God, always use the God hypothesis of fundamentalist, as their view of God. This is most likely due to their ignorance of the larger body of non-fundamentalist views about a God. There has never been any experimental attempted to prove or disprove God, so the answer should be, we don't know and we don't care. If one does not know or care, why do they always respond?

"find the more coherent story of GOD"? The place is, deep studying on the scientific research books on religions knowledge, there one finds a more coherent understanding of the original knowledge. No amount of evidence would be able to reach your mind, your mind is made up. Your emotional out burst here shows this to be true. Where did I mention god(s)? Your highly speculative conclusions about what I know are emotionally charged and unfounded. Yes my preaching is equal to scientist preaching that there is no God, I agree. There's no difference to stating 'no God' without evidence, as there is stating there 'is God' with out evidence. It's all faith based beliefs.

Ya true. I blasphemed atheistic beliefs yesterday, so I have a huge target on my back now. I'll probably be banned quickly, or at least have my posts highly censored. Sad, but it is taboo to speak against atheist beliefs in a science forum, and I should have known better.

Food for thought is the minds favorite meal. One must understand that the knowledge of God through history, has been wrapped in stories so that it could survive, and more importantly be used for human purpose. One must dissect these stories to understand God. The physical representation you state as "no", is that what our Reality flows upon. The creative process we perceive as Reality, is only a part of the over all story of God. There's evidence in the creative process, that God as IS, flowed into BEING. God IS, and transforming into Being, are still ONE thing. Using "he" contradicts the premise of your OP. Using designated words for creations, i.e. males, should not be used in talking about God as the Only thing. Not to all minds! To a true philosopher the idea you mainly speak of here, is one of the simplest of idea's. But an even simpler idea, then what you comprehend, is where one must go to find the more coherent story of GOD. In the more simpler idea I spoke of earlier, God does not need to govern, force, or control Reality, the process of creation takes care of those things. Universal laws are the evidence of the processes of creation, as they stand now, not as the preordained laws people perceive. You are right that creation is not magic and has fundamentals to it. There are blocks (forms), but they are held together, by the Actions of Motion, this is the invisible glue you deny. ​ I hope my feedback was positive, and hope you come back to see it.

Philosophy has mainly through out history, been a way of taking observations about reality and giving them conventional words and classifications for human contemplation and conversation. This became more important for the more advanced science age and its need for universal words to classify their findings. Words like space and time were dealt with philosophically to give them standing in science. Philosophy in past history, played the major roll in formalizing advancement in thought and understanding. Around the turn of the 20th century philosophy started to lose its partnership with science and having a lesser and lesser roll in science, turned to predominantly contemplating on the subjectivity and objectivity of human thought. If philosophers today try to advance thought beyond that what science can deal with, they are called metaphysical or against main stream. If a true philosopher today, who embraces science in every detail, but tries to advance the conversation, they are told to show the math or experiments. Scientist today dictate how we are allowed to contemplate or converse about the reality we live in, true philosophy is delegated to the designation of religion.

Yes it is off topic and I was responding to a mods off topic response. Actually you are wrong. Denying the existence of something that science has made no effort to understand or discover, is a blind faith belief. To have the belief that anything to do with the creative process of the Universe has to be 'random flukiness', and the belief that any other discussion must have a God element to it, can be associated with a faith based belief system. So denying without proof is ok, but expressing with out proof is wrong. hmmmm! I was a diehard Atheist into my late thirties, but looked in the mirror one day and seen the impossible, 100 trillion trillion particles working in unison for me to look, and realized that I was wrong in denying the possibilities of less complicated or more complicated entities. I find it always funny, that questioning the faith of an atheist, always gets the response that the other is religious. There are those, like I, that try to avoid faith based beliefs, and follow the evidence where it leads. All evidence without prejudice.

Atheism is a faith based belief system, and can be as dogmatic and emotional as religion. With the over whelming majority of scientist being atheist these days, there is a very restrictive and hostile environment for true philosophy to hold its place with science as it has for all human history. Just try to have a conversation about evolution with an atheist scientist, and see how emotional they will get. It always drops my jaw, to hear scientist disregard the imaginative nature of the mind and its precursory roll in scientific discovery. My first response to this phenomenon is, that it most be faith based atheist dogma driven. Without human imagination, there would not be any science ever conceived. We would just live on pure instincts like animals do.