Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Cookie Monster

The Atheism Delusion

772 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Desertrat56
1 minute ago, White Crane Feather said:

I’m simply defending my statment that atheists who don’t claim to make the assertion that there is no god but instead simply believe there is no eveidence of one and they don’t realy know should simply call themselves agnostic. It’s labeling issue, but it’s an important one. They rarely are two different positions. 

Well, I disagree but I am not going to continue this.  You said that three times already so consider it said.   

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noteverythingisaconspiracy
1 hour ago, White Crane Feather said:

It’s labeling issue, but it’s an important one. They rarely are two different positions. 

Why is it important for you to label people ?

Like I allready said, I have not seen compelling evidence for a god, so I see no reason to believe in one.

I dont really care what labels you put on it. Unlike you I dont need a label in order to hold a position on something. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
5 hours ago, signs_of_the_times said:

Here's what Albert says:

Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states—no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems—are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff.... The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings—if you look at them aright—amount to anything even remotely in the neighbourhood of a creation from nothing.

This doesn't sound like a personal attack to me. He's not talking about Krauss's hair here.

That's because you're somewhat illiterate regarding science. 

Comparing virtual particles to a fist is ridiculous. You actually swallowed that? 

He admits the mechanics are there, and denies the engineering. What do you find convincing about that? 

And how is that not just a whine as opposed to a meaningful rebuttal? Semantics. Meh.

Quote

Yes I quoted everything so it doesn't look like I'm picking. But not all of these reviews are focused on the nature of nothingness in Krauss's argument, like Albert's. They focus on his literary style and so on.

Firstly, what's literary style have to do with facts? 

Secondly, they are still positive. If your not cherry picking why are you dancing around opinions rather than the actual science involved? 

Quote

No ones arguing against the Casimir effect. Albert's argument for example is talking about the nature of true nothingness. 

Philosophy.

He is why philosophers have a bad name in general amongst physicists.

His work is theoretical. He is no expert. And certainly not up to Krause's standard. If he was, he would be leading the teams at the LHC instead of Krauss.

I don't care about romanticising terms. Facts are all that is required for this discussion. 

Quote

Virtual particles appear out of quantum fields in space and time, and the nothingness that physicists talk about in this observance is a lack of particles in the fields, not true nothingness. 

No it's not. 

Ground state energy is not zero. Check it yourself. 

Edited by psyche101
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
3 hours ago, White Crane Feather said:

I’m simply defending my statment that atheists who don’t claim to make the assertion that there is no god but instead simply believe there is no eveidence of one and they don’t realy know should simply call themselves agnostic. It’s labeling issue, but it’s an important one. They rarely are two different positions. 

I don't agree.

People aren't agnostic about Santa Claus, Mermaids, Unicorns and Leprechauns. There's no good reason to believe in them. The god idea deserves no more thought than they do until evidence surfaces to change that. The god idea is man made. It's not something evidenced in nature. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
signs_of_the_times
21 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

That's because you're somewhat illiterate regarding science. 

Illiterate is not understanding basic words in a spoken language.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nothing

21 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

 Firstly, what's literary style have to do with facts? 

When did I say literary style has anything to do with facts? I said they are commenting on his literary style and not the facts, which makes their comments irrelevant to this discussion. 

 

41 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Philosophy.

He is why philosophers have a bad name in general amongst physicists.

His work is theoretical. He is no expert. And certainly not up to Krause's standard. If he was, he would be leading the teams at the LHC instead of Krauss.

I don't care about romanticising terms. Facts are all that is required for this discussion. 

You keep saying im going against facts no one is debating against any facts here. No one is arguing against the Casimir Effect or Quantum Vacuums and fluctuations in Quantum fields. And thats not what Albert was arguing against. 

Were talking about the physicist use of the word nothing. So yes it is a semantic argument. 

Krauss is correct in mostly everything else he talks about there. He's correct In the actual physics behind it all. Its his use of the word nothing that is a problem. Its very simple.

Link: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nothing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Desertrat56
4 minutes ago, signs_of_the_times said:

Illiterate is not understanding basic words in a spoken language.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nothing

When did I say literary style has anything to do with facts? I said they are commenting on his literary style and not the facts, which makes their comments irrelevant to this discussion. 

 

You keep saying im going against facts no one is debating against any facts here. No one is arguing against the Casimir Effect or Quantum Vacuums and fluctuations in Quantum fields. And thats not what Albert was arguing against. 

Were talking about the physicist use of the word nothing. So yes it is a semantic argument. 

Krauss is correct in mostly everything else he talks about there. He's correct In the actual physics behind it all. Its his use of the word nothing that is a problem. Its very simple.

Link: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nothing

BUT, that has nothing to do with atheism does it?

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
signs_of_the_times

We can just agree to disagree on what nothing really means and leave it there.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
30 minutes ago, signs_of_the_times said:

Illiterate is not understanding basic words in a spoken language.

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nothing

That's why I'm complaining about semantics. 

30 minutes ago, signs_of_the_times said:

When did I say literary style has anything to do with facts? I said they are commenting on his literary style and not the facts, which makes their comments irrelevant to this discussion. 

So you included them why?

I see you didn't comment on the out of context paragraphs, particularly the misrepresentation of Professor Carroll's contribution. 

30 minutes ago, signs_of_the_times said:

You keep saying im going against facts no one is debating against any facts here. No one is arguing against the Casimir Effect or Quantum Vacuums and fluctuations in Quantum fields. And thats not what Albert was arguing against. 

Were talking about the physicist use of the word nothing. So yes it is a semantic argument. 

Krauss is correct in mostly everything else he talks about there. He's correct In the actual physics behind it all. Its his use of the word nothing that is a problem. Its very simple.

Link: https://www.dictionary.com/browse/nothing

Yes, it's very simple.

When discussing physics, nothing has been redefined. 

Why We Had to Change the Meaning of Nothing

And this discussion is about physics. 

David Albert is insisting on using a classic definition. That's pointless. We know it does not apply.

As such, his redundant interpretation does not refute the very fact that something can indeed come from nothing. All it shows is he wants an argument. Therefore Krauss wins this round. 

There's no agree disagree here, David Albert is clearly wrong and doesn't actually have an argument. He's just creating drama to take a stab at Krauss. Personally, I don't respect that sort of behaviour. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
10 hours ago, quillius said:

Hi MW,

I am curious as to what you consider the starting/default position to be?

ie you cannot construct a 'disbelief' position without someone firstly creating a belief position. Imagine a world where 'God' hasn't been mentioned before. We cannot have a position of 'disbelief' at this point. It is not until someone makes the claim that we are then able to take the opposing 'belief' position. Hence why the onus is on those that create the belief.

The analogy of Mars is not accurate in my opinion. We know mars exists and we know life exists so it is reasonable to have either a belief or disbelief in 'life on mars' as both ingredients are proven to exist. 

With regards 'God' we are starting with zero

 

anyhow was mainly curious to the starting point as mentioned above

 

Good question 

A rock or a dog cannot be an atheist, even though they don't believe in gods 

The starting point is when a human being either asks themselves the question, or is asked the question, " Do "gods" exist ?" And gods, here, covers a very wide territory

Then they have to form an opinion.

We know that very young infants see gods in the world as invisible, self directed  agents of change,  which cause things to happen and change 

So other animals atm are not theists/atheists, but soon we will have AIs capable of forming a belief construct, and thus being theists or atheists 

Humans evolved the capacity to perceive and construct gods at the time when their self awareness  reached the point of abstract, conceptual language of the mind   and we began to question our world.

Gods were one answer we constructed to those questions 

We dont know if life exists on mars, so both a belief construct and a disbelief construct are reasonable  Once we KNOW, then neither will be rational.  (you cannot, rationally, believe or disbelieve in the existence of something you KNOW exists or does not exist )Eg you cant rationally believe that you  had a mother,   because you KNOW you did.

UNLESS you know that gods do NOT exist or DO exist, then, for the same reason, both belief and disbelief are reasonable, rational, and logical.

Beliefs serve very important purposes whether they are accurate or not. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
7 hours ago, Desertrat56 said:

Now you are beating a dead horse.  "without knowledge of god" describes every human on the planet.  Those who think they have knowledge of god may have had a personal experience that they interpreted as god, but that doesn't mean that is knowledge, it is an interpretation of an experience.

ALL true knowledge. is an "interpretation of personal experience"  

Do you really count all the other stuff as Knowledge? 

If i encounter an elephant on my front lawn, (as we did one day as a child  In a small town in South Australia) are you going to argue that it only existed as a personal experience and not knowledge ?

(the elephant had escaped over night from  a circus nearby and we had no front fence, so it wandered in, and was eating some of our trees :))

If gods are real, like elephants, then of course humans can, and do, interact with them.

  Your pov assumes that gods are NOT real and physical, and thus cannot be interacted with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
50 minutes ago, signs_of_the_times said:

Here's a link with scientists/students discussing this very topic with many of them on both sides of the fence. 

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_Quantum_Field_Theory_allow_the_Universe_to_emerge_from_nothing

 

:sleepy:

The philosopher orientated posters are using classical definitions and the physics orientated posters are using the physics definition.

That is not addressing why something can come from nothing. 

What do the scientists working at the LHC on the cutting edge say? 

You seem to be searching for anyone who objects to the idea, rather than dissecting the information to examine it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
28 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

A rock or a dog cannot be an atheist, even though they don't believe in gods 

Hi Walker

Anyone knows that rocks are not aware of themselves or anything else so no point. How do you know what dogs think?

31 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

The starting point is when a human being either asks themselves the question, or is asked the question, " Do "gods" exist ?"

What if they never had god as one of the possibilities as usually that occurs from external others who influences the choices.

34 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

We know that very young infants see gods in the world as invisible, self directed  agents of change, 

Documentation please as this sounds more like a projection on your part.

36 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Gods were one answer we constructed to those questions 

Just because someone came up with a god construct does it mean that the construct is real and because it is a construct it can be twisted to answer any question

You don't have a god, never met one and talk like a believer

jmccr8

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
8 hours ago, White Crane Feather said:

I’m simply defending my statment that atheists who don’t claim to make the assertion that there is no god but instead simply believe there is no eveidence of one and they don’t realy know should simply call themselves agnostic. It’s labeling issue, but it’s an important one. They rarely are two different positions. 

White crane good to see you posting. Why are you defending your position? This isn’t politics. :P
 

Yes, one can believe they know god subjectively and do spout this claim to anyone who will listen. I say if it works for them, cool. But at current, we have no way to observe or measure this claim objectively. But, it sounds like you are announcing you are attempting this, can’t wait for you to get back to us with the evidence. You have been promising this for awhile. 
 

The atheists state this by saying there are no facts for god but are open to revision in the event facts show up, and the agnostics say they just do not know of a way to evidence this claim, but if some shows up they will evaluate it. 

 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
37 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

White crane good to see you posting. Why are you defending your position? This isn’t politics. :P
 

Yes, one can believe they know god subjectively and do spout this claim to anyone who will listen. I say if it works for them, cool. But at current, we have no way to observe or measure this claim objectively. But, it sounds like you are announcing you are attempting this, can’t wait for you to get back to us with the evidence. You have been promising this for awhile. 
 

The atheists state this by saying there are no facts for god but are open to revision in the event facts show up, and the agnostics say they just do not know of a way to evidence this claim, but if some shows up they will evaluate it. 

 

 

Hi Sherapy

Correct me if I am wrong but wouldn't agnostics be more don/t know don't care unless there is evidence that shows otherwise?

jmccr8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
1 hour ago, Sherapy said:

White crane good to see you posting. Why are you defending your position? This isn’t politics. :P
 

Yes, one can believe they know god subjectively and do spout this claim to anyone who will listen. I say if it works for them, cool. But at current, we have no way to observe or measure this claim objectively. But, it sounds like you are announcing you are attempting this, can’t wait for you to get back to us with the evidence. You have been promising this for awhile. 
 

The atheists state this by saying there are no facts for god but are open to revision in the event facts show up, and the agnostics say they just do not know of a way to evidence this claim, but if some shows up they will evaluate it. 

 

 

Hahha well I’m only six months into to my masters in mathematics. Another few years and I may have acquired the skill to put it into a mathematical proof. I won’t make a difference any way. Most of these dudes here have even said god could come down and introduce himself and show off some powers and they would still only believe that they were having some sort of mental episode. I don’t think anyone will be ever satisfied, but that didn’t mean it won’t be fun trying. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
4 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

Anyone knows that rocks are not aware of themselves or anything else so no point. How do you know what dogs think?

What if they never had god as one of the possibilities as usually that occurs from external others who influences the choices.

Documentation please as this sounds more like a projection on your part.

Just because someone came up with a god construct does it mean that the construct is real and because it is a construct it can be twisted to answer any question

You don't have a god, never met one and talk like a believer

jmccr8

 

I know that dogs dont have adequate language of the mind/self  awareness to believe in gods  if the y did we would see the signs :) 

Every human child, with a functioning mind,  even those raised by atheists, and hypothetically by robots who never mention the word god will construct a concept of powerful, invisible, self  directed agency,  at a very early age  Humans do NOT get  the idea of gods from  others,  they evolve them before the y have the abilty to speak with others..

This is their first god construct 

  However, the individuals and culture around a child may shape the type of god the y believe in, as the y grow a little older, , or teach them not to believe in gods,  This can only occur  AFTER they can communicate such  concepts with others. 

I've provided the documentation/ sources many times before.

it is, by now, just an established scientific fact so i dont need to continue to provide it 

No a god construct by itself can't answer questions tha t human beings cant answer for themselves  It is a part of the human mind and. thus. only has the human mind to work with

A real god however which has its own existence, knowledge, science technogly, etc.,  can provide power and answers not found in a human mind 

This is one way to establish the physical existence of such a god and tell the difference from  a mental construct 

quote

The Existence of a God-Concept Research indicates that children form mental representations of God by the age of six, whether or not they have been exposed to the concept of the existence of God

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jerry_Carlson2/publication/232440794_The_Development_of_the_Concept_of_God_in_Children/links/55de456a08aeaa26af0f24d2/The-Development-of-the-Concept-of-God-in-Children.pdf

quote

Understanding this requires a delve into “dual process theory”. This psychological staple states that we have two very basic forms of thought: System 1 and System 2. System 2 evolved relatively recently. It’s the voice in our head – the narrator who never seems to shut up – that enables us to plan and think logically.

System 1, on the other hand, is intuitive, instinctual and automatic. 

In addition to helping us navigate the dangers of the world and find a mate, some scholars think that System 1 also enabled religions to evolve and perpetuate. System 1, for example, makes us instinctually primed to see life forces – a phenomenon called hypersensitive agency detection – everywhere we go, regardless of whether they’re there or not. Millennia ago, that tendency probably helped us avoid concealed danger, such as lions crouched in the grass or venomous snakes concealed in the bush. But it also made us vulnerable to inferring the existence of invisible agents – whether they took the form of a benevolent god watching over us, an unappeased ancestor punishing us with a drought or a monster lurking in the shadows.

Similarly, System 1 encourages us to see things dualistically, meaning we have trouble thinking of the mind and body as a single unit. This tendency emerges quite early: young children, regardless of their cultural background, are inclined to believe that they have an immortal soul – that their essence or personhood existed somewhere prior to their birth, and will always continue to exist. This disposition easily assimilates into many existing religions, or – with a bit of creativity – lends itself to devising original constructs.

“A Scandinavian psychologist colleague of mine who is an atheist told me that his three-year-old daughter recently walked up to him and said, ‘God is everywhere all of the time.’ He and his wife couldn’t figure out where she’d gotten that idea from,” says Justin Barrett, director of the Thrive Center for Human Development at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California, and author of Born Believers. “For his daughter, god was an elderly woman, so you know she didn’t get it from the Lutheran church.”

For all of these reasons, many scholars believe that religion arose as “a byproduct of our cognitive disposition”, says Robert McCauley, director of the Center for Mind, Brain and Culture at Emory University in Atlanta, Georgia, and author of Why Religion Is Natural and Science Is Not. “Religions are cultural arrangements that evolved to engage and exploit these natural capacities in humans.”

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20141219-will-religion-ever-disappear

quote

From an early age humans confront numerous fundamental problems that must be solved in order for them to function in the world. These include distinguishing between inanimate objects and “agents” that can act on their surroundings, recognising faces, avoiding contaminants, parsing speech and reading other people’s intentions. By the time children are 6 or 7 years old, their cognitive systems for solving these problems are mostly up and running (see “The God issue: We are all born believers”).

https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/god/

WHILE many institutions collapsed during the Great Depression that began in 1929, one kind did rather well. During this leanest of times, the strictest, most authoritarian churches saw a surge in attendance.

This anomaly was documented in the early 1970s, but only now is science beginning to tell us why. It turns out that human beings have a natural inclination for religious belief, especially during hard times. Our brains effortlessly conjure up an imaginary world of spirits, gods and monsters, and the more insecure we feel, the harder it is to resist the pull of this supernatural world. It seems that our minds are finely tuned to believe in gods.

Religious ideas are common to all cultures: like language and music, they seem to be part of what it is to be human. Until recently, science has largely shied away from asking why. “It’s not that religion is not important,” says Paul Bloom, a psychologist at Yale University, “it’s that the taboo nature of the topic has meant there has been little progress.”

The origin of religious belief is something of a mystery, but in recent years scientists have started to make suggestions. One leading idea is that religion is an evolutionary adaptation that makes people more likely to survive and pass their genes onto the next generation. In this view, shared religious belief helped …



Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126941-700-born-believers-how-your-brain-creates-god/#ixzz6k47xloEq

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/nov/29/religion-children

These are basically old news now, and a lot more has been discovered through evolutionary psychology and human cognitive studies 

 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

I know that dogs dont have adequate language of the mind/self  awareness to believe in gods  if the y did we would see the signs :) 

Hi Walker

What signs kneeling down and praying, passing the collection plate you can not claim to know what animals think or understand and that has been observed by reading your posts for years

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Every human child, with a functioning mind,  even those raised by atheists, and hypothetically by robots who never mention the word god will construct a concept of powerful, invisible, self  directed agency,  at a very early age  Humans do NOT get  the idea of gods from  others,  they evolve them before the y have the abilty to speak with others..

Show me interviews by professionals with children six and under and even better if it follows them for a few years to age 6 then you have a starting point for discussion.

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

I've provided the documentation/ sources many times before.

Did you really some times you give links that I am not sure you read all of before posting that were either not supporting your position or not even related to the subject discussed.

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

The Existence of a God-Concept Research indicates that children form mental representations of God by the age of six, whether or not they have been exposed to the concept of the existence of God

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jerry_Carlson2/publication/232440794_The_Development_of_the_Concept_of_God_in_Children/links/55de456a08aeaa26af0f24d2/The-Development-of-the-Concept-of-God-in-Children.pdf

This was published in 1987 is it still relevant. I see that you did not deny that you had a god or ever met one

jmccr8

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
1 hour ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

What signs kneeling down and praying, passing the collection plate you can not claim to know what animals think or understand and that has been observed by reading your posts for years

Show me interviews by professionals with children six and under and even better if it follows them for a few years to age 6 then you have a starting point for discussion.

Did you really some times you give links that I am not sure you read all of before posting that were either not supporting your position or not even related to the subject discussed.

This was published in 1987 is it still relevant. I see that you did not deny that you had a god or ever met one

jmccr8

Of course i can claim to know an animal's cognitive abilities Its fairly basic cognitive science 

and yep they show none of the signs of spiritual awareness or worship which humans did once the y evolved the capcity fr such thought  Nor do brain scans show any of the patterns of activity seen when humans are using language  

quote

There are numerous studies of how the human brain processes language, but how do dogs think? Neuroscientists at Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest recently completed a study published in Science in which they scanned the brains of thirteen family dogs with an MRI. While they were in the scanner, the dogs listened to their trainer's voice saying various phrases, such as "well done," which was considered a meaningful phrase, and "as if," a meaningless phrase, both in praising tones and emotionally neutral tones. The findings showed that the meaningful phrases were processed in the left hemisphere of the brain, regardless of intonation, which is similar to human's processing, but the meaningless phrases did not register. "It shows that these words have meaning to dogs," says Attila Andics, a neuroscientist who was a member of the research team.

Intonation did still play a role in the study, being processed in the right hemisphere of the dogs' brains to see if inflection played a role in the dogs' understanding. For example, the speech that resembled praise lit up the reward system area of the brain. The findings of this study indicate that the meaning of phrases and the tone in which they are delivered are processed separately to help dogs identify what specifically was said to them. 

https://www.hillspet.com/dog-care/behavior-appearance/what-do-dogs-think-about

Thus we know that dogs can recognise and respond, not just to over 200 specific words, but emotional inflexion.

We also know that certain words make a dogs pleasure centre light up significantly 

However these studies can also show tha t dogs don't understand or use abstract symbolic language, and thus think  only in concrete terms, unlike humans 

 

I didn't answer your last question because i didn't understand it  

We've  been over my experiences with "god" many times 

I don't believe in the existence of  gods any more than I believe in the existence of my dogs The y are all real, physical, independent entities, with the same evidences for their   existence 

If you don't believe the sources i gave (which included professionals with their own children) then you  wont believe anything else i supply.

Try researching the topic for yourself 

The studies i sourced showed how science discovered humans evolved propensity for belief and for constructing gods

By 2009 or so, it was accepted science and no longer just a theory   Today the experts are working on it using more advanced technologies, capable of seeing thoughts and language from inside the human brain. 

 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
1 minute ago, Mr Walker said:

We've  been over my experiences with "god" many times 

I don't believe in the existence of  gods any more than I believe in the existence of my dogs The y are all real, physical, independent entities, with the same evidences for their   existence 

Hi Walker

All the experiences that you have recounted are about alien tech or aliens and you do not believe that the alien is god so my point stands that you do not have a god nor have you met one.

jmccr8

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
8 hours ago, signs_of_the_times said:

We can just agree to disagree on what nothing really means and leave it there.

No

They are called Harbulary batteries.

Duh!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
14 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

All the experiences that you have recounted are about alien tech or aliens and you do not believe that the alien is god so my point stands that you do not have a god nor have you met one.

jmccr8

Well that is what gods are :) Advanced alien species (now that we know there are no human gods living on Olympus etc. )

  That's what the god of the bible is  eg to create a planet etc in7 days requires some REALLY advanced tech :)   Of course tha t never happened but it shows how ancient people thought of god  ie an alien being with incredible powers 

What else could a real god be, than an alien with advanced tech  ? :)  

My relationship with my entity is respectful, but not worshipful.(maybe  because i was raised an atheist secular humanist)    But many humans, brought up with religious beliefs,  do worship it.  I've met the being( and its avatars )  which many humans call god But i chose not to see it in those terms. 

god is NOT just an imaginary friend, made up in our minds and existing no where else .

It is a very real, very powerful being, (or race of beings, or  artificial intelligences) which is interested in Humanity, and in  helping us survive and evolve. 

It is part of a widespread galactic civilization and system of governance,   with transportation and communication networks stretching across the galaxy, and including our own system. 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
Just now, Mr Walker said:

Well that is what gods are :) Advanced alien species (now that we know there are no human gods living on Olympus etc. )

  That's what the god of the bible is 

What else could a real god be, than an alien with advanced tech  ? :)  

My relationship with my entity is respectful, but not worshipful.(maybe  because i was raised an atheist secular humanist)    But many humans, brought up with religious beliefs,  do worship it.  I've met the being( and its avatars )  which many humans call god But i chose not to see it in those terms. 

god is NOT just an imaginary friend, made up in our minds and existing no where else .

It is a very real, very powerful being, (or race of beings, or  artificial intelligences) which is interested in Humanity, and in  helping us survive and evolve. 

It is part of a widespread galactic civilization and system of governance,   with transportation and communication networks stretching across the galaxy, and including our own system. 

Hi Walker

Well I guess we are done with this bit as I am not inclined to derail this thread with your defensives.

jmccr8

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
6 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Walker

Well I guess we are done with this bit as I am not inclined to derail this thread with your defensives.

jmccr8

sorry but i dont get you or what you are saying  so I have tried to explain  my experiences and understanding as best i can 

You interpret that as meaning there are no real gods I say the ONLY real gods are advanced alien beings, but they are real and they are (to humans) gods. 

IMO the being i know is the same being encountered by peole from  the biblical times (and going back to the shamen of ancient times   BUT I have the advantage of knowledge and understanding which the y did not, and so PERCEIVE this being (or beings )very differently to how they did 

Its not derailing the thread. it is very pertinent to it 

Ie while i respect and acknowledge anyone's beliefs  I know that atheists are wrong 

There does exist a powerful interventionist alien entity  which humans call god, and have called god, for many millennia 

Atheists are not deluded, just mistaken, usually because the y possess inadequate evidences for god's existence, and thus make a logical/ rational,  but false , decision that gods do not exist    :) 

 If this being did not exist,  and have physical abilities, then both my wife and I would be dead. 

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
1 minute ago, Mr Walker said:

sorry but i dont get you or what you are saying  so I have tried to explain  my experiences and understanding as best i can 

You interpret that as meaning there are no real gods I say the ONLY real gods are advanced alien beings, but they are real and they are (to humans) gods. 

IMO the being i know is the same being encountered by peole from  the biblical times (and going back to the shamen of ancient times   BUT I have the advantage of knowledge and understanding which the y did not, and so PERCEIVE this being (or beings )very differently to how they did 

Hi Walker

See my comment on twisting constructs to answer questions. This is my last response to you on this matter do not try and bait me into discussing this as a serious answer aliens are not gods and you affirm this end of story

jmccr8

  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.