So my history teacher...

Voyager wrote:

King Boo wrote:

Indalecio wrote:

King Boo wrote:

Indalecio wrote: goes on a small rant today, he is a big time christian. We went over this worksheet about the Cold War and one of the true false questions was something about America putting Under God in the Pledge of Allegiance because of the whole atheistic Soviet Union thing.

Anyway, he says, “You know there are some groups of people who try and take that out of the pledge and our money?" and he was really serious as he said it, “They already took prayer out of schools." and he continues about how he would get fired if he would try to do that. So then he asks the class “Who do you think wants to get rid of God in the pledge?" and this kid answered “Communists” in which my history teacher said “Yeah, communists.", At this point I just gave a face palm at all this ridiculousness. I was tempted to call out “People who support the constitution!“ But I was lazy, and I didn’t feel like saying anything at 8 in the morning.

No, the paranoid athiest guy who found a way to say that the pledge weve had for many many generations was unconstitutional so it was changed but no one gave a shit and we still sing it the same way.

The Under God part has only been around since the Cold War....Which was after WW2...You act like we’ve had it since the start of the country.

Its been there since it was made. And we still have it in there, no one gives a shit about the “official” song, just the real one.

It’s not a “song”. It’s The Pledge of Allegiance:

Addition of the words “under God”
The Knights of Columbus, the world’s largest Catholic fraternal service organization, in New York City felt that the pledge was incomplete without any reference to a deity.[4] Appealing to the authority of Abraham Lincoln, the Knights felt that the words “under God” which were from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address were most appropriate to add to the Pledge.[citation needed] In New York City on April 30, 1951, the Board of Directors of the Knights of Columbus adopted a resolution to amend their recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance at the opening of each of the meetings of the 800 Fourth Degree Assemblies of the Knights of Columbus by addition of the words “under God” after the words “one nation." In the following two years, the idea spread throughout Knights of Columbus organizations nationwide. On August 21, 1952, the Supreme Council of the Knights of Columbus at its annual meeting adopted a resolution urging that the change be made universal and copies of this resolution were sent to the President, the Vice President (as Presiding Officer of the Senate) and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The National Fraternal Congress meeting in Boston on September 24, 1952, adopted a similar resolution upon the recommendation of its President, Supreme Knight Luke E. Hart. Several State Fraternal Congresses acted likewise almost immediately thereafter. This campaign led to several official attempts to prompt Congress to adopt the Knights of Columbus’ policy for the entire nation. These attempts failed.

In 1952, Holger Christian Langmack wrote a letter to President Truman suggesting the inclusion of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Langmack was a Danish Philosopher and Educator who came to America in 1911. He was one of the originators of the Prayer Breakfast, and a religious leader in Washington DC. President Truman responded to Mr.Langmack, and agreed to meet him along with several others to discuss the inclusion of “under God” and also “love” just before “Liberty and Justice”. This meeting took place in 1952, and the seed was planted for the inclusion of “under God”.[citation needed]

The Knights of Columbus tried repeatedly, but they were unsuccessful in their attempts to persuade the United States government to amend the pledge. Bills were introduced as early as 1953, when Representative Louis C. Rabaut of Michigan sponsored a resolution at the suggestion of a correspondent. It was a Presbyterian minister who made the difference in 1954 by preaching a sermon about Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. The minister was George MacPherson Docherty, a native of Scotland who was called to succeed Peter Marshall as pastor of the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church near the White House, where, in 1863, the same year as the address, Lincoln attended and even rented a pew. After Lincoln’s death, the pew that he rented became something of a national monument. It became customary for later United States presidents to attend services at the church and sit in the Lincoln pew on the Sunday closest to Lincoln’s birthday (February 12) each year.

As Lincoln Sunday (February 7, 1954) approached, Rev. Docherty knew not only that President Dwight Eisenhower was to be in attendance, but that it was more than just an annual ritual for him. While raised a Jehovah’s Witness, Eisenhower had been baptized a Presbyterian just a year earlier. Docherty’s sermon focused on the Gettysburg Address, drawing its title from the address, “A New Birth of Freedom."

Docherty’s message began with a comparison of the United States to ancient Sparta. Docherty noted that a traveler to ancient Sparta was amazed by the fact that the Spartans’ national might was not to be found in their walls, their shields, or their weapons, but in their spirit. Likewise, said Docherty, the might of the United States should not be thought of as emanating from their newly developed atomic weapons, but in their spirit, the “American way of life”. In the remainder of the sermon Docherty sought to define as succinctly as possible the essence of the American spirit and way of life. To do so, Docherty appealed to those two words in Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. According to Docherty, what has made the United States both unique and strong was her sense of being the nation that Lincoln described: a nation “under God." Docherty took the opportunity to tell a story of a conversation with his children about the Pledge of Allegiance. Docherty was troubled by the fact that it did not include any reference to the deity. Without such reference, Docherty insisted that the Pledge could apply to just about any nation. He felt that the pledge should reflect the American spirit and way of life as defined by Lincoln.

After the service concluded, Docherty had opportunity to converse with Eisenhower about the substance of the sermon. The President expressed his enthusiastic concurrence with Docherty’s view, and the very next day, Eisenhower had the wheels turning in Congress to incorporate Docherty’s suggestion into law. On February 8, 1954, Rep. Charles Oakman (R-Mich.), introduced a bill to that effect. On Lincoln’s birthday, four days later, Oakman made the following speech on the floor of the House:


Rev. Dr. George MacPherson Docherty (left) and President Eisenhower (second from left) on the morning of February 7, 1954 at the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church; the morning Eisenhower was convinced that the pledge needed to be amendedLast Sunday, the President of the United States and his family occupied the pew where Abraham Lincoln worshipped. The pastor, the Reverend George M. Docherty, suggested the change in our Pledge of Allegiance that I have offered [as a bill]. Dr. Docherty delivered a wise sermon. He said that as a native of Scotland come to these shores he could appreciate the pledge as something more than a hollow verse taught to children for memory. I would like to quote from his words. He said, 'there was something missing in the pledge, and that which was missing was the characteristic and definitive factor in the American way of life.' Mr. Speaker, I think Mr. Docherty hit the nail square on the head.
Senator Homer Ferguson, in his report to the Congress on March 10, 1954, said, “The introduction of this joint resolution was suggested to me by a sermon given recently by the Rev. George M. Docherty, of Washington, D.C., who is pastor of the church at which Lincoln worshipped." This time Congress concurred with the Oakman-Ferguson resolution, and Eisenhower opted to sign the bill into law on Flag Day (June 14, 1954). The fact that Eisenhower clearly had Docherty’s rationale in mind as he initiated and consummated this measure is apparent in a letter he wrote in August, 1954. Paraphrasing Docherty’s sermon, Eisenhower said

These words [“under God”] will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded.
Docherty’s sermon was published by Harper & Bros. in New York in 1958 and President Eisenhower took the opportunity to write to Dr. Docherty with gratitude for the opportunity to once again read the sermon.

And the point of the text wall is...? To show that it was INDEED inserted into the pledge in the 50s?

Khorib wrote:

Voyager wrote:

King Boo wrote:

Indalecio wrote:

King Boo wrote:

Indalecio wrote: goes on a small rant today, he is a big time christian. We went over this worksheet about the Cold War and one of the true false questions was something about America putting Under God in the Pledge of Allegiance because of the whole atheistic Soviet Union thing.

Anyway, he says, “You know there are some groups of people who try and take that out of the pledge and our money?" and he was really serious as he said it, “They already took prayer out of schools." and he continues about how he would get fired if he would try to do that. So then he asks the class “Who do you think wants to get rid of God in the pledge?" and this kid answered “Communists” in which my history teacher said “Yeah, communists.", At this point I just gave a face palm at all this ridiculousness. I was tempted to call out “People who support the constitution!“ But I was lazy, and I didn’t feel like saying anything at 8 in the morning.

No, the paranoid athiest guy who found a way to say that the pledge weve had for many many generations was unconstitutional so it was changed but no one gave a shit and we still sing it the same way.

The Under God part has only been around since the Cold War....Which was after WW2...You act like we’ve had it since the start of the country.

Its been there since it was made. And we still have it in there, no one gives a shit about the “official” song, just the real one.

It’s not a “song”. It’s The Pledge of Allegiance:

Addition of the words “under God”
The Knights of Columbus, the world’s largest Catholic fraternal service organization, in New York City felt that the pledge was incomplete without any reference to a deity.[4] Appealing to the authority of Abraham Lincoln, the Knights felt that the words “under God” which were from Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address were most appropriate to add to the Pledge.[citation needed] In New York City on April 30, 1951, the Board of Directors of the Knights of Columbus adopted a resolution to amend their recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance at the opening of each of the meetings of the 800 Fourth Degree Assemblies of the Knights of Columbus by addition of the words “under God” after the words “one nation." In the following two years, the idea spread throughout Knights of Columbus organizations nationwide. On August 21, 1952, the Supreme Council of the Knights of Columbus at its annual meeting adopted a resolution urging that the change be made universal and copies of this resolution were sent to the President, the Vice President (as Presiding Officer of the Senate) and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The National Fraternal Congress meeting in Boston on September 24, 1952, adopted a similar resolution upon the recommendation of its President, Supreme Knight Luke E. Hart. Several State Fraternal Congresses acted likewise almost immediately thereafter. This campaign led to several official attempts to prompt Congress to adopt the Knights of Columbus’ policy for the entire nation. These attempts failed.

In 1952, Holger Christian Langmack wrote a letter to President Truman suggesting the inclusion of “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Langmack was a Danish Philosopher and Educator who came to America in 1911. He was one of the originators of the Prayer Breakfast, and a religious leader in Washington DC. President Truman responded to Mr.Langmack, and agreed to meet him along with several others to discuss the inclusion of “under God” and also “love” just before “Liberty and Justice”. This meeting took place in 1952, and the seed was planted for the inclusion of “under God”.[citation needed]

The Knights of Columbus tried repeatedly, but they were unsuccessful in their attempts to persuade the United States government to amend the pledge. Bills were introduced as early as 1953, when Representative Louis C. Rabaut of Michigan sponsored a resolution at the suggestion of a correspondent. It was a Presbyterian minister who made the difference in 1954 by preaching a sermon about Abraham Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. The minister was George MacPherson Docherty, a native of Scotland who was called to succeed Peter Marshall as pastor of the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church near the White House, where, in 1863, the same year as the address, Lincoln attended and even rented a pew. After Lincoln’s death, the pew that he rented became something of a national monument. It became customary for later United States presidents to attend services at the church and sit in the Lincoln pew on the Sunday closest to Lincoln’s birthday (February 12) each year.

As Lincoln Sunday (February 7, 1954) approached, Rev. Docherty knew not only that President Dwight Eisenhower was to be in attendance, but that it was more than just an annual ritual for him. While raised a Jehovah’s Witness, Eisenhower had been baptized a Presbyterian just a year earlier. Docherty’s sermon focused on the Gettysburg Address, drawing its title from the address, “A New Birth of Freedom."

Docherty’s message began with a comparison of the United States to ancient Sparta. Docherty noted that a traveler to ancient Sparta was amazed by the fact that the Spartans’ national might was not to be found in their walls, their shields, or their weapons, but in their spirit. Likewise, said Docherty, the might of the United States should not be thought of as emanating from their newly developed atomic weapons, but in their spirit, the “American way of life”. In the remainder of the sermon Docherty sought to define as succinctly as possible the essence of the American spirit and way of life. To do so, Docherty appealed to those two words in Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address. According to Docherty, what has made the United States both unique and strong was her sense of being the nation that Lincoln described: a nation “under God." Docherty took the opportunity to tell a story of a conversation with his children about the Pledge of Allegiance. Docherty was troubled by the fact that it did not include any reference to the deity. Without such reference, Docherty insisted that the Pledge could apply to just about any nation. He felt that the pledge should reflect the American spirit and way of life as defined by Lincoln.

After the service concluded, Docherty had opportunity to converse with Eisenhower about the substance of the sermon. The President expressed his enthusiastic concurrence with Docherty’s view, and the very next day, Eisenhower had the wheels turning in Congress to incorporate Docherty’s suggestion into law. On February 8, 1954, Rep. Charles Oakman (R-Mich.), introduced a bill to that effect. On Lincoln’s birthday, four days later, Oakman made the following speech on the floor of the House:


Rev. Dr. George MacPherson Docherty (left) and President Eisenhower (second from left) on the morning of February 7, 1954 at the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church; the morning Eisenhower was convinced that the pledge needed to be amendedLast Sunday, the President of the United States and his family occupied the pew where Abraham Lincoln worshipped. The pastor, the Reverend George M. Docherty, suggested the change in our Pledge of Allegiance that I have offered [as a bill]. Dr. Docherty delivered a wise sermon. He said that as a native of Scotland come to these shores he could appreciate the pledge as something more than a hollow verse taught to children for memory. I would like to quote from his words. He said, 'there was something missing in the pledge, and that which was missing was the characteristic and definitive factor in the American way of life.' Mr. Speaker, I think Mr. Docherty hit the nail square on the head.
Senator Homer Ferguson, in his report to the Congress on March 10, 1954, said, “The introduction of this joint resolution was suggested to me by a sermon given recently by the Rev. George M. Docherty, of Washington, D.C., who is pastor of the church at which Lincoln worshipped." This time Congress concurred with the Oakman-Ferguson resolution, and Eisenhower opted to sign the bill into law on Flag Day (June 14, 1954). The fact that Eisenhower clearly had Docherty’s rationale in mind as he initiated and consummated this measure is apparent in a letter he wrote in August, 1954. Paraphrasing Docherty’s sermon, Eisenhower said

These words [“under God”] will remind Americans that despite our great physical strength we must remain humble. They will help us to keep constantly in our minds and hearts the spiritual and moral principles which alone give dignity to man, and upon which our way of life is founded.
Docherty’s sermon was published by Harper & Bros. in New York in 1958 and President Eisenhower took the opportunity to write to Dr. Docherty with gratitude for the opportunity to once again read the sermon.

And the point of the text wall is...? To show that it was INDEED inserted into the pledge in the 50s?

Or it could be to inject some facts into the discussion.

^ fair enough

Most of the kids at my school probably don’t know what an atheist or a communist is, even though most of them (through apathy) probably are atheist.

To be honest, I would rather anyone be a christian fundie and try to rationalize what they believe rather than be an apathetic little shit who just doesn’t care.

I’m not talking about skeptical atheists who look at religion and decide it’s rubbish, (why would I flame myself) I’m talking about the ones that don’t search for existential truth to begin with. Religion, even if it leads you to a deluded conclusion, is better than to just be another fuckwit who doesn’t have any opinion about politics, science or religion or anything that shapes the entire fucking society they live in. The same goes for Christians who don’t actually read the Bible.

Yeah I know exactly what you mean Shaun. I have a few friends like that and it’s kinda annoying to me sometimes because I can’t have a discussion about those things, they only want to talk about anime and shit like that.

shaun of the living nli wrote: Most of the kids at my school probably don’t know what an atheist or a communist is, even though most of them (through apathy) probably are atheist.

To be honest, I would rather anyone be a christian fundie and try to rationalize what they believe rather than be an apathetic little shit who just doesn’t care.

I’m not talking about skeptical atheists who look at religion and decide it’s rubbish, (why would I flame myself) I’m talking about the ones that don’t search for existential truth to begin with. Religion, even if it leads you to a deluded conclusion, is better than to just be another fuckwit who doesn’t have any opinion about politics, science or religion or anything that shapes the entire fucking society they live in. The same goes for Christians who don’t actually read the Bible.

The problem with most atheists is that they still retain the ability to delude themselves. Not that atheism is not the truth, logically extending the thought, means that NOTHING matters.

We are as insignificant species, on a tiny planet, revolving around a small star, amid an averaged sized galaxy in a universe of trillions and trillions of galaxies. In time the universe will die, and not even the memory of our existence will remain.

And only the intelligent atheists can construct a reason to exist in such a bleak universe. Many atheists delude themselves with questions of truth and beauty, or say the journey is the thing, not the destination. This takes imaginative intelligence to believe.

No wonder the functional atheist (who does not think of god, or acts if he exists) do not think of those things.
No wonder there are people clutching to the bible than face this truth.

To live, you need a delusion to hold onto, be it love (a chemical reaction) or happiness (another chemical reaction). Love, happiness, despair and sadness may feel real, but are just a function of a mechanical brain.

We all need hope, and we all need a delusion to survive.

Says a DPD schizophrenic.

Indalecio wrote: goes on a small rant today, he is a big time christian. We went over this worksheet about the Cold War and one of the true false questions was something about America putting Under God in the Pledge of Allegiance because of the whole atheistic Soviet Union thing.

Anyway, he says, “You know there are some groups of people who try and take that out of the pledge and our money?" and he was really serious as he said it, “They already took prayer out of schools." and he continues about how he would get fired if he would try to do that. So then he asks the class “Who do you think wants to get rid of God in the pledge?" and this kid answered “Communists” in which my history teacher said “Yeah, communists.", At this point I just gave a face palm at all this ridiculousness. I was tempted to call out “People who support the constitution!" But I was lazy, and I didn’t feel like saying anything at 8 in the morning.

Safe to say, your teacher is an idiot.

Cid wrote: You flame religions and its followers without even considering their side of the story. You’re not much different from Hitler with his extermination of the jews

silverspirit2001 wrote: The problem with most atheists is that they still retain the ability to delude themselves. Not that atheism is not the truth, logically extending the thought, means that NOTHING matters.

ALL humans have the ability to trick themselves.
Fail. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods.

silverspirit2001 wrote: We are as insignificant species, on a tiny planet, revolving around a small star, amid an averaged sized galaxy in a universe of trillions and trillions of galaxies. In time the universe will die, and not even the memory of our existence will remain.

Science tells us the highlighted part, not the lack of belief in gods, you make up the rest.

silverspirit2001 wrote: And only the intelligent atheists can construct a reason to exist in such a bleak universe. Many atheists delude themselves with questions of truth and beauty, or say the journey is the thing, not the destination. This takes imaginative intelligence to believe.

I’m not the deluded one. I’m the one who paying attention to reality.

silverspirit2001 wrote: No wonder the functional atheist (who does not think of god, or acts if he exists) do not think of those things.
No wonder there are people clutching to the bible than face this truth.

You are a person who acts if god doesn’t exist, isn’t a atheist. You are and idiot, who made a pretty story one what you think an atheist is, why you don’t actually talk to one instead of making up stories is beyond me.

silverspirit2001 wrote: To live, you need a delusion to hold onto, be it love (a chemical reaction) or happiness (another chemical reaction). Love, happiness, despair and sadness may feel real, but are just a function of a mechanical brain.

Love and happiness is not a delusion it is a state of mind.

silverspirit2001 wrote: We all need hope, and we all need a delusion to survive.

Says a DPD schizophrenic.

Fail.

Cid wrote: You flame religions and its followers without even considering their side of the story. You’re not much different from Hitler with his extermination of the jews

Indalecio wrote: goes on a small rant today, he is a big time christian. We went over this worksheet about the Cold War and one of the true false questions was something about America putting Under God in the Pledge of Allegiance because of the whole atheistic Soviet Union thing.

Anyway, he says, “You know there are some groups of people who try and take that out of the pledge and our money?" and he was really serious as he said it, “They already took prayer out of schools." and he continues about how he would get fired if he would try to do that. So then he asks the class “Who do you think wants to get rid of God in the pledge?" and this kid answered “Communists” in which my history teacher said “Yeah, communists.", At this point I just gave a face palm at all this ridiculousness. I was tempted to call out “People who support the constitution!" But I was lazy, and I didn’t feel like saying anything at 8 in the morning.

I had to explain my rights when I refused to stand for the pledge of allegiance. Imagine that, a student had to explain their rights to a teacher. I’ll give them a break though since she was a chemistry teacher, but in your case I would have corrected him on so many things.

Join “The Zeitgeist Movement”

Today he was filling our heads with conspiracy theories about Kennedy and King jr.

Ram: Yeah, I was just to lazy at the time haha. It was a bad night before hand so I didn’t get much sleep.

Quoting Siler Spirit2001

“We are as insignificant species, on a tiny planet, revolving around a small star, amid an averaged sized galaxy in a universe of trillions and trillions of galaxies. In time the universe will die, and not even the memory of our existence will remain."

This is just my own idea based on my Christian beliefs and is not documented by any facts, but I have thought for many years that God created the whole universe and only put humans one one planet because he knows how many believers will go to Heaven and the “mansions”, that Jesus said he was going to prepare for us when He ascended into Heaven, are the planets of the universe. I think each believer will get his own planet to do whatever he wants.
I also believe that Heaven is a parallel universe and that we will have the ability to go between universes. JMHO

Gplex wrote:

silverspirit2001 wrote: The problem with most atheists is that they still retain the ability to delude themselves. Not that atheism is not the truth, logically extending the thought, means that NOTHING matters.

ALL humans have the ability to trick themselves.
Fail. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods.

Are you by chance proscribing that the universe has a meaning? A plan? Or sentient? That smacks both deist and against all scientific knowledge. Or maybe your atheism is faith based, your atheism is not based on any logical deductions at all? Or maybe you do not believe in god, but similarly, do not believe in science?

Atheism is deduced by using a tool called rationalism. The tool that science uses. Saying that atheism is just a non belief in gods, is ignoring the method used to divine that result. It is more true to say -

Atheism is a product of appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification, that we lack belief in gods.

“Atheism is the lack of belief in gods” - in its strictest sense, is a position of faith, if you do not cite the process used to discern that conclusion.

So what does that mean? In fact, because we have NOT in this case, used rationalism to fully realise the conclusions of the initial question using deductive reasoning, we are using a partial conclusion.

Gplex wrote:

silverspirit2001 wrote: We are as insignificant species, on a tiny planet, revolving around a small star, amid an averaged sized galaxy in a universe of trillions and trillions of galaxies. In time the universe will die, and not even the memory of our existence will remain.

Science tells us the highlighted part, not the lack of belief in gods, you make up the rest.

When all the universe falls into entropy, no information can be stored by any means. You may believe the universe dies with the last star, but for astrophysicists, the death of the universe is when all matter falls into entropy. (See Heat death of the universe)

Gplex wrote:

silverspirit2001 wrote: And only the intelligent atheists can construct a reason to exist in such a bleak universe. Many atheists delude themselves with questions of truth and beauty, or say the journey is the thing, not the destination. This takes imaginative intelligence to believe.

I’m not the deluded one. I’m the one who paying attention to reality.

Please cite your method for this conclusion, otherwise it is a statement of faith. What are the criticisms of the argument?

Gplex wrote:

silverspirit2001 wrote: No wonder the functional atheist (who does not think of god, or acts if he exists) do not think of those things.
No wonder there are people clutching to the bible than face this truth.

You are a person who acts if god doesn’t exist, isn’t a atheist. You are and idiot, who made a pretty story one what you think an atheist is, why you don’t actually talk to one instead of making up stories is beyond me.

1. I am an atheist - just for proof, fuck the holy spirit, Mohammed can go fuck himself, hindus are nutjobs - insert religous profanity of your choice here.
2. I said a “functional atheist” - do you have to declare yourself to be an atheist to be an atheist? If you never had a thought about god or never bothered to evaluate your position on god, or act if god exists, does that make you a Muslim? Christian? Can you be religious without having faith?
3. How rude. I have been trying to explain a rational concept, you have failed to give me rational arguments against it, rather sticking to your own dogmatic and emotionally driven views. I would suggest a little reflection may be in order to re-examine why you hold your views, and more importantly the process you use to justify those views.

Gplex wrote:

silverspirit2001 wrote: To live, you need a delusion to hold onto, be it love (a chemical reaction) or happiness (another chemical reaction). Love, happiness, despair and sadness may feel real, but are just a function of a mechanical brain.

Love and happiness is not a delusion it is a state of mind.

So is a state of mind not driven by chemical reactions, a mechanical process? The state of mind is ephemeral, not linked to the process of bio-chemistry? In fact we have a soul which is not driven by impulses like sex, hunger, thirst and pleasure?

Plenty of drugs around which dispute your conclusion, anti-depressants, anti psychotics, cocaine, heroin et al.
What about neurology and psychiatry, which is based on the mechanical function of the brain?
Are these wrong?

IS your metaphysical analysis of mind provable? Does physics and chemistry work differently in the brain than the rest of the universe?

Conciousness is a result of a mechanical brain, operating on a mechanical software, admittedly extremely complex, but operating by the laws of physics on a molecular level. Hence we are predictable to a degree, and our states of mind are due to processing memories and chemicals in a mechanical deterministic way.

Gplex wrote:

silverspirit2001 wrote: We all need hope, and we all need a delusion to survive.

Says a DPD schizophrenic.

Fail.

Proof?

silverspirit2001 wrote: Are you by chance proscribing that the universe has a meaning? A plan? Or sentient? That smacks both deist and against all scientific knowledge. Or maybe your atheism is faith based, your atheism is not based on any logical deductions at all? Or maybe you do not believe in god, but similarly, do not believe in science?

Meaning for what? This is a broken question, just because you can put together a phrase (which really isn’t a phrase, but appears to be one) doesn’t mean it makes sense.
I never stated any of this; you pulled this out of nowhere.

silverspirit2001 wrote: Atheism is deduced by using a tool called rationalism. The tool that science uses. Saying that atheism is just a non belief in gods, is ignoring the method used to divine that result. It is more true to say -
Atheism is a product of appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification, that we lack belief in gods.
“Atheism is the lack of belief in gods” - in its strictest sense, is a position of faith, if you do not cite the process used to discern that conclusion.
So what does that mean? In fact, because we have NOT in this case, used rationalism to fully realise the conclusions of the initial question using deductive reasoning, we are using a partial conclusion.

Faith has many meanings.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one’s supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
Where I used 1 and 6, religion uses 2, 3, 4,5 and 6 (in 6 they use beliefs, I use principles)
When someone tries to pull the “faith card” on me, I have to sigh, and explain to them why the word faith is meaningless when used in this context.

silverspirit2001 wrote: When all the universe falls into entropy, no information can be stored by any means. You may believe the universe dies with the last star, but for astrophysicists, the death of the universe is when all matter falls into entropy. (See Heat death of the universe)

What do you mean by death? The universe will be here in 1 shape or another. It will not simply disappear. When I use the term “death of the universe”, I am saying the universe will no longer be the universe as we know it.
Again, you have gone off somewhere that I didn’t even touch on.

silverspirit2001 wrote: Please cite your method for this conclusion, otherwise it is a statement of faith. What are the criticisms of the argument?

I’m sure you have workout that this statement doesn’t mean much to me.
“Many atheists delude themselves with questions of truth and beauty”. – Some reason you think it’s appropriate for you wanting me to give you an explanation for wild accusations.

silverspirit2001 wrote: 1. I am an atheist - just for proof, fuck the holy spirit, Mohammed can go fuck himself, hindus are nutjobs - insert religous profanity of your choice here.

This holds no weight for me. It doesn’t matter if you are and atheist, your arguments (the claims inside your arguments that you seem to try and pass off as truth) mirror those of religious faith.

silverspirit2001 wrote: 2. I said a “functional atheist” - do you have to declare yourself to be an atheist to be an atheist? If you never had a thought about god or never bothered to evaluate your position on god, or act if god exists, does that make you a Muslim? Christian? Can you be religious without having faith?

No that would make you an atheist. I came to the conclusion that you where religious, because of your lack of knowledge of the words you are using. Sorry about that, I have to get rid of that idea that most religious people lack knowledge.

silverspirit2001 wrote: 3. How rude. I have been trying to explain a rational concept, you have failed to give me rational arguments against it, rather sticking to your own dogmatic and emotionally driven views. I would suggest a little reflection may be in order to re-examine why you hold your views, and more importantly the process you use to justify those views.

Dogmatic? Emotionally driven? I’m not dogmatic, and every person is driven by emotions. You make wild claims. Can you point out 1 thing that has lead you to any of your conclusions about me?

silverspirit2001 wrote: So is a state of mind not driven by chemical reactions, a mechanical process? The state of mind is ephemeral, not linked to the process of bio-chemistry? In fact we have a soul which is not driven by impulses like sex, hunger, thirst and pleasure?

I never stated any of this. Personally when I talk about the soul, I am talking about the pattern that is inside the brain, because that’s what makes you, you. The rest of you question from nowhere can be answer from this bit of knowledge.

silverspirit2001 wrote: Plenty of drugs around which dispute your conclusion, anti-depressants, anti psychotics, cocaine, heroin et al.
What about neurology and psychiatry, which is based on the mechanical function of the brain?
Are these wrong?

The brain seems like a chemical super computer. We don’t referee to digital storage, electronics and chemical reaction as “mechanical”. So why are you claiming the brain is mechanical?

silverspirit2001 wrote: IS your metaphysical analysis of mind provable? Does physics and chemistry work differently in the brain than the rest of the universe?

Destroy the brain destroy the human, damage the brain damage the memories, yes it is very much provable.

silverspirit2001 wrote: Conciousness is a result of a mechanical brain, operating on a mechanical software, admittedly extremely complex, but operating by the laws of physics on a molecular level. Hence we are predictable to a degree, and our states of mind are due to processing memories and chemicals in a mechanical deterministic way.

You really need to learn more about the human body before you start making claims like these. But yes, your basic concept of the human brain seems correct.

silverspirit2001 wrote: Proof?

This post.

Cid wrote: You flame religions and its followers without even considering their side of the story. You’re not much different from Hitler with his extermination of the jews

To be honest silverspirit2001, I know if you’re not lying this is going to be a terrible thing to say, but you mention schizophrenia as if you’re trying to convince people you have it to sound like you’re different. Not trying to be an asshole, you just sound that way. Like all these kids on YouTube claiming they’re “worried” they’re a sociopath (as if a sociopath would care). I myself have some weird habits and problems with social relations but that doesn’t mean I automatically diagnose myself with a mental disorder like so many people jump to.

No, I am an out patient with Sandwell and Birmingham Mental Health Trust, on anti psychotics, anti depressants and lithium as a mood stabilizer. Being normal would be fantastic, even just understanding emotional issues would be a blessing, since it seems to make people happy.

But let me make this clear, saying I am a schizophrenic is more about acknowledging the disease, to help me get over its effects, and about educating others like yourself, to hopefully realize that it does not make you less of a person, or less rational if it is controlled, or has views that should be discounted, or that schizophrenia should be a source of shame.


In reply to Gplex, I am using terminology of the physicist, mechanical is a term to describe a deterministic view of the universe, the terms of cause and effect.

And gplex, try arguing the whole statement, rather than picking out bits you want to argue, making straw men positions.

ie

silverspirit2001 wrote: Atheism is deduced by using a tool called rationalism. The tool that science uses. Saying that atheism is just a non belief in gods, is ignoring the method used to divine that result. It is more true to say -
Atheism is a product of appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification, that we lack belief in gods.
“Atheism is the lack of belief in gods” - in its strictest sense, is a position of faith, if you do not cite the process used to discern that conclusion.
So what does that mean? In fact, because we have NOT in this case, used rationalism to fully realise the conclusions of the initial question using deductive reasoning, we are using a partial conclusion.

Faith has many meanings.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one’s supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
Where I used 1 and 6, religion uses 2, 3, 4,5 and 6 (in 6 they use beliefs, I use principles)
When someone tries to pull the “faith card” on me, I have to sigh, and explain to them why the word faith is meaningless when used in this context


You pick on one word, rather than the argument itself. Try this, instead of the word faith, use the word unsubstantiated conclusion instead.

AS to the dogmatic, every reply has been along the same lines, attack one word, ignore the whole sentence, misconstrue the intent of my replies to suit your own feelings or argumentative knowledge.

Another example.

silverspirit2001 wrote: The problem with most atheists is that they still retain the ability to delude themselves. Not that atheism is not the truth, logically extending the thought, means that NOTHING matters.

ALL humans have the ability to trick themselves.
Fail. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods.

silverspirit2001 wrote: Are you by chance proscribing that the universe has a meaning? A plan? Or sentient? That smacks both deist and against all scientific knowledge. Or maybe your atheism is faith based, your atheism is not based on any logical deductions at all? Or maybe you do not believe in god, but similarly, do not believe in science?

Meaning for what? This is a broken question, just because you can put together a phrase (which really isn’t a phrase, but appears to be one) doesn’t mean it makes sense.
I never stated any of this; you pulled this out of nowhere.


In this case, I was arguing that atheism was based on a conclusion argued by reasoned thought, and the process of reason is not fully investigated by atheists, to its full logical conclusions in relation to the universe.

Your reply.

The first statement was irrelevant to the discussion, as I was postulating that most atheists had not fully applied reason to all arguments of our existence.
Second statement was just a conclusion, without citing a method that resulted in that conclusion.

ie

I am an atheist. That is a statement.
I am an atheist because... That is argument with a conclusion.

So to point out the erroneous defence you put up, I used imagination to proscribe and bound the statement

“Fail. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods."

Just saying atheism is lack of belief in gods is to fail to understand that atheism is a conclusion of rational thought, and posting irrational questions was a way of pointing out, that a statement without an argument is meaningless in a debate. It was not proscribing those views to you.


To be honest, debating with you, is like debating a child, for only bold simple statements carry meaning.

So far you have not demonstrated to me that you have any subtle processes of reasoning, So I will have to look elsewhere on this board for adult discussions.

silverspirit2001 wrote: No, I am an out patient with Sandwell and Birmingham Mental Health Trust, on anti psychotics, anti depressants and lithium as a mood stabilizer. Being normal would be fantastic, even just understanding emotional issues would be a blessing, since it seems to make people happy.

Normal people have problems too…

silverspirit2001 wrote: But let me make this clear, saying I am a schizophrenic is more about acknowledging the disease, to help me get over its effects, and about educating others like yourself, to hopefully realize that it does not make you less of a person, or less rational if it is controlled, or has views that should be discounted, or that schizophrenia should be a source of shame.

Why would it be a source of shame?

silverspirit2001 wrote: In reply to Gplex, I am using terminology of the physicist, mechanical is a term to describe a deterministic view of the universe, the terms of cause and effect.

Wow, in all my time I have being studying I have not yet come across any physicist that would use that term to describe a chemical reaction. Of course I have run into many physicists who mock chemists.

silverspirit2001 wrote: And gplex, try arguing the whole statement, rather than picking out bits you want to argue, making straw men positions.

Explain to me how picking your argument to manageable pieces, equals a straw man position? Google “straw man argument”, before you choose to reply to this.

silverspirit2001 wrote: ie
silverspirit2001 wrote: Atheism is deduced by using a tool called rationalism. The tool that science uses. Saying that atheism is just a non belief in gods, is ignoring the method used to divine that result. It is more true to say -
Atheism is a product of appealing to reason as a source of knowledge or justification, that we lack belief in gods.
“Atheism is the lack of belief in gods” - in its strictest sense, is a position of faith, if you do not cite the process used to discern that conclusion.
So what does that mean? In fact, because we have NOT in this case, used rationalism to fully realise the conclusions of the initial question using deductive reasoning, we are using a partial conclusion.
Faith has many meanings.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one’s supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God’s will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
Where I used 1 and 6, religion uses 2, 3, 4,5 and 6 (in 6 they use beliefs, I use principles)
When someone tries to pull the “faith card” on me, I have to sigh, and explain to them why the word faith is meaningless when used in this context
You pick on one word, rather than the argument itself. Try this, instead of the word faith, use the word unsubstantiated conclusion instead.
AS to the dogmatic, every reply has been along the same lines, attack one word, ignore the whole sentence, misconstrue the intent of my replies to suit your own feelings or argumentative knowledge.

Using the wrong word to express yourself is not my fault. Your questions where unintelligible, what else was I suppose to do? Ignore it?
““Atheism is the lack of belief in gods” - in its strictest sense, is a position of unsubstantiated conclusion, if you do not cite the process used to discern that conclusion.”
Let me see… The belief in gravity in its strictest sense is a position of unsubstantiated conclusion, if you do not cited the process use to discern that conclusion..
Without the process use to discern that conclusion we can conclude that everything is a position of “unsubstantiated conclusion”.

silverspirit2001 wrote: Another example.
silverspirit2001 wrote: The problem with most atheists is that they still retain the ability to delude themselves. Not that atheism is not the truth, logically extending the thought, means that NOTHING matters.
ALL humans have the ability to trick themselves.
Fail. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods.
silverspirit2001 wrote: Are you by chance proscribing that the universe has a meaning? A plan? Or sentient? That smacks both deist and against all scientific knowledge. Or maybe your atheism is faith based, your atheism is not based on any logical deductions at all? Or maybe you do not believe in god, but similarly, do not believe in science?
Meaning for what? This is a broken question, just because you can put together a phrase (which really isn’t a phrase, but appears to be one) doesn’t mean it makes sense.
I never stated any of this; you pulled this out of nowhere.
In this case, I was arguing that atheism was based on a conclusion argued by reasoned thought, and the process of reason is not fully investigated by atheists, to its full logical conclusions in relation to the universe.
Your reply.
The first statement was irrelevant to the discussion, as I was postulating that most atheists had not fully applied reason to all arguments of our existence.
Second statement was just a conclusion, without citing a method that resulted in that conclusion.
ie
I am an atheist. That is a statement.
I am an atheist because... That is argument with a conclusion.

I did not use any made up premises. Your reason of logic doesn’t follow, by your argument the belief that fairies are made up, is not a logical conclusion, because it hasn’t been fully investigated. The non belief of something without evidence is the logical default position. Else we would be force to believe in everything without evidence.
Saying that the group “atheist”, do something is not logical (unless you apply the proper definition), because the only real thing this group has in common, is the non belief in gods. To claim that they all feel, think, do, anything else, is not something you can claim! I have been saying to over and over, you have completely ignored me!

silverspirit2001 wrote: So to point out the erroneous defence you put up, I used imagination to proscribe and bound the statement

Can you please quote 1 part of anything I have posted to you that was made up?

silverspirit2001 wrote: “Fail. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods."
Just saying atheism is lack of belief in gods is to fail to understand that atheism is a conclusion of rational thought, and posting irrational questions was a way of pointing out, that a statement without an argument is meaningless in a debate. It was not proscribing those views to you.

No, atheism isn’t anything but a lack of belief in gods.. Nothing else can be attributed to atheism. You want to keep adding things to atheism, I keep telling you what atheism is. It is only 1 thing; I have met atheists who are dogmatic as those with religious faith, and blindly believe that there is no god without rational or logical conclusions.
Debating you has being like debating a creationist.
Creationist: The universe was created in 6 days.
Me: Ah.. no it wasn’t.
Creationist: A statement without an argument is meaningless in a debate.

silverspirit2001 wrote: To be honest, debating with you, is like debating a child, for only bold simple statements carry meaning.
So far you have not demonstrated to me that you have any subtle processes of reasoning, So I will have to look elsewhere on this board for adult discussions.

Translation, “I no longer what to debate you, spit out an insult and state that I will not come back”.

Cid wrote: You flame religions and its followers without even considering their side of the story. You’re not much different from Hitler with his extermination of the jews

I apologise to you gplex, about the insult in the last statement, but I was having a bad morning. I realize now, that saying I would not discuss this further with you, is just a frustrated reaction, because I believe all debate has a positive influence, and should always be encouraged.

I had written a hefty but incomplete rebuttal to you, but alas, pressing the back button by mistake deleted it, my bad.

anyway much shortened

Physicists use the term mechanical regularly. Think netwonian mechanics and quantum mechanics. I was using the term for a whole system of biological and chemical reactions*, rather than as you believe I said, a chemical reaction.

* ie one reaction determines the action of a cell, and hence the chemicals it releases to cause another reaction elsewhere, for the desired results.

When physicists use the term mechanical, it is utilizing newtonianism, the doctrine of “conception of the universe as being governed by rational and understandable laws”.

FYI One of the objections of Einstein to quantum mechanics (god does not play dice), was that quantum mechanics did not obey the laws of cause and effect, a hinderence to accepting it as rational. My favorite quote about quantum mechanics is by Richard Feyman - " think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics”.


next

“Atheism is the lack of belief in gods” - in its strictest sense, is a position of faith, if you do not cite the process used to discern that conclusion.

your reply was to define faith

2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.

er..... Is this not what I said? Only by justifying the position of atheism with reason is it not a position of faith.

next

Let me see… The belief in gravity in its strictest sense is a position of unsubstantiated conclusion, if you do not cited the process use to discern that conclusion..
Without the process use to discern that conclusion we can conclude that everything is a position of “unsubstantiated conclusion”.

Nope, gravity has been justified already, with testable laws, which has been proved. It has a verified conclusion.

When you are talking about gods existence, since we cannot prove a negative, and religious people cannot prove gods existence, we have no proof, it is an unsubstantiated conclusion.

now

The non belief of something without evidence is the logical default position. - YES, that is the point, you have used reason to define this as a starting point. Without reason, you cannot make this statement!

It is only 1 thing; I have met atheists who are dogmatic as those with religious faith, and blindly believe that there is no god without rational or logical conclusions.

Sorry, just need to clarify the statement. Are you saying that they are atheists without having used logic or reason to justify their position?
If so then my response is below

How can you decide what you believe without judging the matter? If they are not using reason to come to the conclusion that there is no god, what are they using?

Please ask these people, why are you an atheist, because I would be fascinated to know their response.

And please do not say they are Buddhist, because believing in re-incarnation is a supernatural doctrine.

oops, made a mistake in that post.

should say

Let me see… The belief in gravity in its strictest sense is a position of unsubstantiated conclusion, if you do not cited the process use to discern that conclusion..
Without the process use to discern that conclusion we can conclude that everything is a position of “unsubstantiated conclusion”.

Nope, gravity has been justified already, with testable laws, which has been proved. It has a verified conclusion.

When you are talking about gods existence, since we cannot prove a negative, and religious people cannot prove gods existence, we have no proof, it is an unproven conclusion.
Therefore we have to use unsubstantiated conclusions for a position of faith.

Sorry about that.

Please, please use some quotes….

silverspirit2001 wrote: I apologise to you gplex, about the insult in the last statement, but I was having a bad morning. I realize now, that saying I would not discuss this further with you, is just a frustrated reaction, because I believe all debate has a positive influence, and should always be encouraged.

I hope you can control yourself a little better when you are annoyed with someone in front of you.

silverspirit2001 wrote: I had written a hefty but incomplete rebuttal to you, but alas, pressing the back button by mistake deleted it, my bad.
anyway much shortened

I usually type my response out in a text file.. It makes reduces the chance of those annoying mistakes.

silverspirit2001 wrote: Physicists use the term mechanical regularly. Think netwonian mechanics and quantum mechanics. I was using the term for a whole system of biological and chemical reactions*, rather than as you believe I said, a chemical reaction.

Those are just names.. there are many things in science and especially mathematics that are poorly labeled.

silverspirit2001 wrote: * ie one reaction determines the action of a cell, and hence the chemicals it releases to cause another reaction elsewhere, for the desired results.

Yea, problem is, we don’t get to control the human brain, as we would a mechanic system.

silverspirit2001 wrote: When physicists use the term mechanical, it is utilizing newtonianism, the doctrine of “conception of the universe as being governed by rational and understandable laws”.

How about you try and track and predict the position of and electron, and tell me how that goes…

silverspirit2001 wrote: FYI One of the objections of Einstein to quantum mechanics (god does not play dice), was that quantum mechanics did not obey the laws of cause and effect, a hinderence to accepting it as rational. My favorite quote about quantum mechanics is by Richard Feyman - " think I can safely say that nobody understands quantum mechanics”.

Einstein spend his last days trying to disprove himself, and Richard Feynman might have been correct at the time he said that, but we now know many things about quantum mechanics.

silverspirit2001 wrote: next
“Atheism is the lack of belief in gods” - in its strictest sense, is a position of faith, if you do not cite the process used to discern that conclusion.
your reply was to define faith
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
er..... Is this not what I said? Only by justifying the position of atheism with reason is it not a position of faith.

Do I have to explain to you the many different meanings of faith again?

silverspirit2001 wrote: next
Let me see… The belief in gravity in its strictest sense is a position of unsubstantiated conclusion, if you do not cited the process use to discern that conclusion..
Without the process use to discern that conclusion we can conclude that everything is a position of “unsubstantiated conclusion”.
Nope, gravity has been justified already, with testable laws, which has been proved. It has a verified conclusion.

“If you do not cited the process use to discern that conclusion”. Sorry you can’t use those laws to discern a conclusion.

silverspirit2001 wrote: When you are talking about gods existence, since we cannot prove a negative, and religious people cannot prove gods existence, we have no proof, it is an unsubstantiated conclusion.

Again. Buy your logic every claim is equal to the disbelief of the claim. No. Disbelief is the default position.

silverspirit2001 wrote: now
The non belief of something without evidence is the logical default position. - YES, that is the point, you have used reason to define this as a starting point. Without reason, you cannot make this statement!
It is only 1 thing; I have met atheists who are dogmatic as those with religious faith, and blindly believe that there is no god without rational or logical conclusions.
Sorry, just need to clarify the statement. Are you saying that they are atheists without having used logic or reason to justify their position?
If so then my response is below
How can you decide what you believe without judging the matter? If they are not using reason to come to the conclusion that there is no god, what are they using?

Have we ever physically measure the distance from the earth to the moon, to the sun, to other stars? No. Have we ever physically measured the circumference of the earth? No. We used reason and measurements to deduce these units of lengths.
What about the weight of a planet? The sun, a star, a galaxy. Even black holes? No we haven’t. Reasoned was use to define these quantities.
We judge our beliefs, but some people don’t reason their way through using physical evidence and reasoned logic, before they accept a concept.
“There is no god”, and blindly saying such thing is a faith base matter, which is as dogmatic as saying “there is a god”. For me I am not accepting both claims.
For you to keep lumping all atheists together and making stereotypical claims about the entire group is rather annoying.

silverspirit2001 wrote: Please ask these people, why are you an atheist, because I would be fascinated to know their response.
And please do not say they are Buddhist, because believing in re-incarnation is a supernatural doctrine.

Yet they are still atheist. Just go on to stickam, and find a room called debate faith, and just listen, you will eventually run into a few.

Cid wrote: You flame religions and its followers without even considering their side of the story. You’re not much different from Hitler with his extermination of the jews