patrick.net

Dan8267 says

Tommy, you ignorant slut. Hitler was not an atheist.

Actually he was an atheist for all practical purpose. He was very anti-clerical, but delayed an outright purge of the church probably pending his military victory in all of Europe, which never came. All the people closest to him, from Speer to Goebbles to Bormann wrote in their notes and diaries that Hitler "hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity."

Reality says

you brought up the train

Again, no one is so retarded as to misinterpret my posts as advocating that trains are evil. That is just being stupid.

Reality says

You obviously have great faith in the earthly government.

Which explains all my posts regarding cops. Have you ever read anything I've written about the government?

If you are going to pull assumptions out of your ass, at least pull out ones that don't stink.

Reality says

Yet if you decide to keep on living, you need to deal with secular law. So your contention that deliberately killing a baby is better than leaving a baby to die by accident is simply wrong, in the eyes of the secular law, probably in the eyes of a jury too.

Irrelevant to the issue of morality.
Reality says

Pay Attention: you have no right to make that decision for the babies! Which part of "Thou shall not kill" don't you understand?

That's how proof by contradiction works. You disprove a premise by showing it leads to a conclusion that is known to be wrong.

Seriously, are you really this dumb?

Dan8267 says

You really need to get your lies straight. You keep flip-flopping between the lie that atheists are a raging homicidal maniacs and the lie that you never suggested that atheists are evil. Just pick one of these lies and stick with it.

I never suggested all atheists are individually evil. However, atheistic political movements have proven to be catastrophic in human history.

Dan8267 says

There is no way that anyone could possibly be as stupid as you are pretending to be. I have explained the proof by contradiction numerous times. If you truly don't understand it, you are clinically retarded. If you are not clinically retarded, you are trolling. Either way, I've said enough.

If you want to continue the conversation, add something new instead of feigning incomprehension.

Which part of "You don't have the right to make that decision" don't you understand?

Do you go into hospitals and systematically kill all terminally ill patients who are suffering from pain? It's not your right to make that decision, just like it's not your right to decide whether all new born babies are to live or to die. You may get that right for one baby when your wife gives birth to an extremely premature baby that requires exceptionally intensive care and have congenital deformity. However, until then, keep your power-grabbing mania in check.

Dan8267 says

you brought up the train

Again, no one is so retarded as to misinterpret my posts as advocating that trains are evil. That is just being stupid.

You were just too stupid to realize where your own analogy was leading: religious people in political power kill people just as atheists in political power kill people (never mind the drastically different numerical scale here for a moment) trains kill people just as guns kill people. Where does that analogy leave you with trains if you insist on religion is to blame for killing people? Didn't do well on the GRE analytical test? I see.

Dan8267 says

Reality says

Yet if you decide to keep on living, you need to deal with secular law. So your contention that deliberately killing a baby is better than leaving a baby to die by accident is simply wrong, in the eyes of the secular law, probably in the eyes of a jury too.

Irrelevant to the issue of morality.

Of course it has a morality component: how can deliberate murder be better than accidental death?

Dan8267 says

Reality says

Pay Attention: you have no right to make that decision for the babies! Which part of "Thou shall not kill" don't you understand?

That's how proof by contradiction works. You disprove a premise by showing it leads to a conclusion that is known to be wrong.

Seriously, are you really this dumb?

There is no contradiction. You don't get to make that decision. Just like you don't get to kill all terminal patients in a hospital ward. It's not your right, and not your responsibility. If you do kill them, you get a murder charge. Stop being a control freak.

Reality says

You must have slept through your math classes. Not surprising for a code monkey who could not become a real engineer. FYI, Algera 1 is not where you learn proofs of anything. Algebra 1 means formulae and symbolic sustitutions. Logics and perhaps Geometry are where you learn proofs by logic.

Well that explains things. You went to a shitty high school and learned nothing.

A decent 9th grader can prove that the square root of two is irrational.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/lDfCNZ4N9y4

Algebra does indeed involve proofs.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/U6DcGpcoV2E

bgamall4 says

Paul says:

Just because the Bible contradicts itself does not mean it does not promote slavery and rape. See the quotes I gave above.

bgamall4 says

Dan8267 says

All I can say is that the atheistic view is the humblest.

Actually it is arrogance. The atheist asks, If God exists, why doesn't he reveal himself? Of course that question does not prove the atheist's argument of no God. But it does reveal the utter helplessness of man when it comes to the subjects of death, belief, unbelief, hatred of God, eternal life, etc.

Your statement is pure bullshit. I don't disbelieve in your god because I asked why he doesn't reveal himself. I disbelieve in your god for the exact same reason you disbelieve in all Greek, Native American, and African gods. I reject transparent lies that contradict themselves and known facts. However, unlike you, I apply that standard to all gods not just other people's gods.

There is nothing arrogant about the position that your existence is a lucky accident and that you are not in any way the center of the universe.

bgamall4 says

Dan8267 says

There were a plethora of murders committed in the name of Christianity during the past 2,000 years.

That was the fault of liars and phony Christians. Christ said that many would claim him at the judgement day but he would say he never knew them. Many are called but few are chosen. Very few.

There are no true Scottsman. The vast majority of Christians are not Christian. In fact, it seems that only the Jews are real Christians.

Reality says

However, atheistic political movements have proven to be catastrophic in human history.

Communism is not an atheistic political movement. It is an economic and political philosophy.

This is an atheistic political movement.

How many people have been murdered by Richard Dawkins?

“We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further.”
― Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

Dan8267 says

Well that explains things. You went to a shitty high school and learned nothing.

I learned Algebra 1 at the start of Junior High, as in 7th grade, not High School. At the "shitty high school" where I went to, my 9th grade math class was Calculus 1, you moron.

A decent 9th grader can prove that the square root of two is irrational.

That's not where one learns the basics of logics. He was applying logics already learned.

Reality says

Where does that analogy leave you with trains if you insist on religion is to blame for killing people

See Tom Selleck and Charlie Chaplin are the most dangerous despots ever.

Preachers like Pastor Charles Worley call for the deaths of "queers and homosexuals" and rallies their flocks to hate. Tens of millions of Americans follow "conservative" preachers like this one. This is why Christians picket funerals with "God hate fags" signs and oppose gay marriage, something required by equality under law.

And all these things, from the ancient to today, are intrinsic to religion. The hatred of gays, the torturing of religious opponents, the destruction of knowledge, the suppression of women are all done specifically because the religion demands it. In contrast, Stalin's and Mao's evil was solely due to imperialistic greed, not atheism, and is not supported by atheists or even acknowledged as atheist philosophy.

So the fact that Stalin was an atheist is as relevant as the fact that he had a mustache. But when the pope persuades millions of Africans not to wear condoms or Charles Worley incites men to murder gays and lesbians, religion is at the very center of those actions.

I've done that issue to death. You are offering nothing new.

Reality says

I learned Algebra 1 at the start of Junior High, as in 7th grade, not High School. At the "shitty high school" where I went to, my 9th grade math class was Calculus 1, you moron.

You lying sack of shit.

Dan8267 says

Communism is not an atheistic political movement. It is an economic and political philosophy.

Of course it was. The "communist" movement was the biggest atheistic political movement in world history.

This is an atheistic political movement.

How many people have been murdered by Richard Dawkins?

Dawkins doesn't have much of a political movement.

Dan8267 says

Reality says

I learned Algebra 1 at the start of Junior High, as in 7th grade, not High School. At the "shitty high school" where I went to, my 9th grade math class was Calculus 1, you moron.

You lying sack of shit.

Just because you are a moron, don't under-estimate others. Math happened to be one of my fortes when I was young, as you can probably guess by now.

Reality says

Of course it was. The "communist" movement was the biggest atheistic political movement in world history.

You lying sack of shit.

Still trying to poison the well. You might as well argue that "communism" was the biggest mustache movement in history.

In any case, it is irrelevant to the fact that the afterlife is a lie and unless you accept that murdering babies is a good thing, you don't really believe in the afterlife.

Reality says

Just because you are a moron, don't under-estimate others. Math happened to be one of my fortes when I was young, as you can probably guess by now.

I call bullshit on you, especially since you seem to be unable to grasp the concept of proof by contradiction.

Dan8267 says

In contrast, Stalin's and Mao's evil was solely due to imperialistic greed, not atheism, and is not supported by atheists or even acknowledged as atheist philosophy.

What imperialistic greed? Neither Stalin or Mao was particularly expansionistic. In fact, rather restrained in dealings with foreign powers in order to preserve their domestic control. Stalin and Mao were power maniacs who built personality cults around themselves. Those personality cults were made possible by suppression of previously existing religions.

Not supported by other atheists? What do you think their subordinates were? theists? Who cares if you acknowledge them as atheist philosophy . . . they used atheism for personal political gains, just like many other people used religions for personal political gains.

While I personally enjoyed Dawkins' books on evolution and I have quite a few atheist friends, given that the vast majority of the population have a psychological need to have faith in something, promoting atheism as the new social norm thereby letting government-worship becoming the default faith, without any check from an organized moral authority (which is usually played by religions) is tantamount to collective suicide for the society. The world history has already witnessed quite a few of those episodes.

I can't wait to go to Satan after I die.

Dan8267 says

Reality says

Of course it was. The "communist" movement was the biggest atheistic political movement in world history.

You lying sack of shit.

Still trying to poison the well. You might as well argue that "communism" was the biggest mustache movement in history.

Except all the communist regimes engage in anti-religion and anti-clerical purges, whereas none of them engage in mustache promotion or purging.Dan8267 says

In any case, it is irrelevant to the fact that the afterlife is a lie and unless you accept that murdering babies is a good thing, you don't really believe in the afterlife.

Nonsense. Do you not accept that terminally ill patients suffering from pain are better dead than staying alive and suffering? Heck, some may even think baby with Down's Syndrome would be better not born. Yet it is not your right to decide for other people's parents and kids.

Dan8267 says

Reality says

Just because you are a moron, don't under-estimate others. Math happened to be one of my fortes when I was young, as you can probably guess by now.

I call bullshit on you, especially since you seem to be unable to grasp the concept of proof by contradiction.

I learned A => B as logically equivalent to !B => !A in 7th grade Geometry and Logics.

Reality says

Except all the communist regimes engage in anti-religion and anti-clerical purges, whereas none of them engage in mustache promotion or purging

Ah, but the converse of that statement is not true. Communist regimes engage in purging all political opposition, including religious authorities. That is intrinsic to centralized power, not atheism. Ironically, religion is a form of centralized power that does the exact same thing: kill the competition.

However, you see all the so-called militant atheists killing off the religious in our society do you?

http://www.youtube.com/embed/jDZPviIq6D4

Yeah, Harry Potter is a stone cold killer.

Reality says

Do you not accept that terminally ill patients suffering from pain are better dead than staying alive and suffering?

I accept that the only person who has the right to make that decision is the terminally ill. And I strongly support euthanasia rights and the death with dignity movement.

But the web pages do remain, in infinity as defined by every computer/server/backuptape cache/wifi signal generated and lost into space.

Think about it this way. Web pages being consciousness. Your browser being the brain. Your browser has the ability to capture and contain the web page for some time, such as the mind captures and contains consciousness in like manner.

If your turn off the body, consciousness loses the ability to express itself through that particular medium. Fortunately, their are trillions of other mediums available for expression in this universe.

Your issue is you only take your logical conclusions as far as your computer background allows.

You do not allocate room for unknown parameters, even though they are in a constant state of discovery.

The human race unfortunately does not have the entire playbook. We only have possibly sketched out the first two plays of the game...

Dan8267 says

Think about it this way, you don't have to understand anything about system memory, arithmetic logic units, logic gates, direct memory access, machine language, or anything else about your computer to understand that the web browser you are using is being generated and maintained by that computer. If you turn off the computer, the web browser does not remain.

SoftShell says

Think about it this way. Web pages being consciousness. Your browser being the brain.

Your analogy is flawed. Web pages are stored external to your computer. Your consciousness is not stored external to your brain.

I am not arguing about afterlife, religion, heaven/hell, pink unicorns. They are simply your projections as driven by your very human "need to know for sure".

I am simply saying
1- Our level of understanding the universe, how/if it was created, etc... is miniscule
2- Given our inability to define how consciousness is created in humans, or what it is for that matter, coupled with #1 above, no one can say with absolute certainty what happens to it upon the death of the body.

Atheists and fundamentalists, brothers in absolutism.
Agnostics, intellectually honest with the ability to simply say: "I don't know".

Heraclitusstudent says

Except of course there are numerous observations that can lead you to think the earth is not flat, but none - zero - that can lead you to believe there are unknown physical behaviors that are required to explain consciousness.

Except of course it's emotionally more satisfying to think you and loved ones will survive body death.

According to the same logic you could believe there is a pink unicorn living in NYC subway and bending the laws of physics to remain undetected - and be sure it will be proved one day.

Given your inability to describe how consciousness is created and maintained, coupled with our minuscule knowledge of the workings of our universe, your statement below is mere speculation.

For all we know at this point, consciousness is not 'stored' at all. Humans and other beings may simply be conduits of expression of consciousness in this universe( speculation, but as valid as yours ).

Human consciousness may be one entity expressing itself through billions of humans, or the exact opposite.

Unless you can come up with a viable understanding of what consciousness is, how/if it is created for each individual, and the inner workings of it, everything in this thread about consciousness is just speculation based on incomplete observations from people with a minuscule skill set of the laws of this particular universe that we occupy.
Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

Think about it this way. Web pages being consciousness. Your browser being the brain.

Your analogy is flawed. Web pages are stored external to your computer. Your consciousness is not stored external to your brain.

BTW, your statement below is flawed.

Once downloaded, web pages ARE stored on your computer hard disk and for some time in memory cache.

One could also speculate, once borne, consciousness, or a part of it, uses the human mind as a conduit to this universe, until the body is "turned off".

Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

Think about it this way. Web pages being consciousness. Your browser being the brain.

Your analogy is flawed. Web pages are stored external to your computer. Your consciousness is not stored external to your brain.

SoftShell says

- Our level of understanding the universe, how/if it was created, etc... is miniscule

Irrelevant to the argument D3. If you reject the idea that the girl made the right decision to kill herself, then by logical necessity, you reject the premise that led to that decision, i.e., the afterlife life.

SoftShell says

Atheists and fundamentalists, brothers in absolutism.

Agnostics, intellectually honest with the ability to simply say: "I don't know".

Atheists are not fundamentalists. Atheists are skeptics. They insist on being convinced by evidence. Fundamentalists refuse to be convinced by evidence. Those are polar opposites.

Have your god come to one of my tea parties and I'll be completely convinced.

Furthermore, the statement "I don't know" is honest only if it is true. Feigning ignorance is not honesty. I do know the Earth is round. It would not be honest for me to say, "Well I don't know for sure whether the Earth is round or flat and supported by an infinite tower of turtles.".

So no, agnosticism is not the most easily defendable position, especially when you include the honest reality that so-called agnostics are highly selective about what they are agnostic about, to the point of being racist. Their agnostic about the Judeo-Christian god because their tribe is full of people who accept this god, but they aren't agnostic about Native American gods, African gods, Asian gods, Aboriginal gods, etc. That double standard smacks of racist and cultural prejudices. It is hardly honest or open-minded.

Possibly.
But I am debating "consciousness", not the "D" series of statements.
So your statement "irrelevant to the argument" is correct.

But as an outside observer to the 'argument', there appears to be a lot of holes in your statement below, as exposed by the numerous posts.

My thought is, unless you are physically there and have a personal understanding of what is going on in the mind of this child, there is no way to know for certain why she self destructed.

Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

- Our level of understanding the universe, how/if it was created, etc... is miniscule

Irrelevant to the argument D3. If you reject the idea that the girl made the right decision to kill herself, then by logical necessity, you reject the premise that led to that decision, i.e., the afterlife life.

SoftShell says

BTW, your statement below is flawed.

Once downloaded, web pages ARE stored on your computer hard disk and for some time in memory cache.

Wrong again. Local caching of web pages is irrelevant since your argument is that the web pages can be restored by redownloading them. If you're going to make an analogy -- which by the way is the weakest form of debate -- then at least be consistent.

In any case, local caching of web pages has nothing to do with the human brain and consciousness. Your analogy does not prove or even remotely suggests an afterlife.

More importantly, if you truly accept the Christian afterlife then you must accept that the girl made the right decision to kill herself. Do you accept that conclusion?

Your analogy is false One cannot be 'agnostic' for one god, and believe in another.

Agnosticism is the belief that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims, are unknown or unknowable.

The people you describe below are not agnostic, even though you describe them as such.

Dan8267 says

Their agnostic about the Judeo-Christian god because their tribe is full of people who accept this god, but they aren't agnostic about Native American gods, African gods, Asian gods, Aboriginal gods, etc. That double standard smacks of racist and cultural prejudices. It is hardly honest or open-minded.

SoftShell says

But I am debating "consciousness", not the "D" series of statements.

Than spawn a new thread entitled something like "The Nature of Consciousness" and then present your thesis there.

No need to get this thread further off track.

Wow. I really really thought you were some kind of computer wizard, but what you state below makes me wonder if you are a registered user of "Pc Matic"...

Please tell me why you would have to "redownload them" when they are stored on hard disk in browser cache?

And that is not my argument, it's your response.

Dan8267 says

SoftShell says

BTW, your statement below is flawed.

Once downloaded, web pages ARE stored on your computer hard disk and for some time in memory cache.

Wrong again. Local caching of web pages is irrelevant since your argument is that the web pages can be restored by redownloading them. If you're going to make an analogy -- which by the way is the weakest form of debate -- then at least be consistent.

SoftShell says

Agnosticism is the belief that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims, are unknown or unknowable.

The people you describe below are not agnostic, even though you describe them as such.

Then there are no real agnostics in the world. No so-called agnostic believes that Garuda, the snake-hating sun god, or Dionysus, the Greek god of wine and orgies, may or may not exist and we cannot or do not know for sure.

All so-called agnostics are highly selective in their agnosticism.

The computer/browser/storage comments were a response to your initial analogy.
I agree that my response does not prove an afterlife. It was not meant to.

Dan8267 says

In any case, local caching of web pages has nothing to do with the human brain and consciousness. Your analogy does not prove or even remotely suggests an afterlife.

1 or 2 examples?

Dan8267 says

All so-called agnostics are highly selective in their agnosticism.

Reality says

Actually he was an atheist for all practical purpose. He was very anti-clerical, but delayed an outright purge of the church probably pending his military victory in all of Europe, which never came. All the people closest to him, from Speer to Goebbles to Bormann wrote in their notes and diaries that Hitler "hates Christianity, because it has crippled all that is noble in humanity."

Hitler gave the Church free reign and continued the state subsidies of Catholic Church in return for a promise of support.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichskonkordat

Abbot Herwegen told the meeting:

What the liturgical movement is to the religious realm, fascism is to the political realm. The German stands and acts under authority, under leadership - whoever does not follow endangers society. Let us say 'yes' wholeheartedly to the new form of the total State, which is analogous throughout to the incarnation of the Church. The Church stands in the world as Germany stands in politics today."."[45]

...

On 20 August 1935 the Catholic Bishops conference at Fulda reminded Hitler that Pius XI had:

exchanged the handshake of trust with you through the concordat - the first foreign sovereign to do so..Pope Pius spoke high praise of you...Millions in foreign countries, Catholics and non-Catholics alike, have overcome their original mistrust because of this expression of papal trust, and have placed their trust in your regime."[42]

In a sermon given in Munich during 1937 Cardinal Faulhaber declared:

At a time when the heads of the major nations in the world faced the new Germany with reserve and considerable suspicion, the Catholic Church, the greatest moral power on earth, through the Concordat, expressed its confidence in the new German government. This was a deed of immeasurable significance for the reputation of the new government abroad.[42]

This agreement brokered by Hitler is still in force, by the way.

The treatment of Jews, the retarded, political dissenters, unions, etc. was all well known at the time, so ignorance is not an excuse. The Church only insisted that conversos not be molested.