theslowclap

You made a whole new account because nobody agreed with being intolerant? Sad. And by the way, your hate rhetoric doesn't really advance your point. All you are saying is, "let's assume that there is no god and go from there, otherwise everyone else is an idiot." I don't understand why you are so adamant on proselytizing your atheistic religion. I don’t find you as intellectually curious but rather irrational. Here is the definition of rational you so amazingly provided (thanks for going to a website and pasting the definition. That took a great deal of work and advanced your argument soooo much!):“having or exercising reason, sound judgment, or good sense: a calm and rational negotiator.”
Simply dismissing the possibility of a higher being when you previously stated that scientists claim they “don’t know” sounds unreasonable to me. Come on, you have to at least admit that both views require some type of faith.

You’re probably going to say, “nuh uh! You’re an idiot and atheistic reasoning is infallible!” Which in that case, the conversation is over since you’ve now gained much more faith than many theists.

And same goes to the Bob example: you started with the assumption that the imaginary friend is imaginary, therefore nonexistent. You can’t prove a point through circular reasoning. Sure it’s good rhetoric, but it doesn’t make you right.

Notice how I haven’t been trying to prove theism as the only way to understand the greater truths in the universe. This entire time I’ve simply been arguing that you are intolerant and that there is reasoning (that is, “rational” thinking) involved in theism. You may disagree with the reasoning, but the reasoning is there nonetheless. Basically, you can’t prove it either way; however, I chose to have faith in one direction whereas you chose to put your faith in the other and dismiss everyone else who disagrees with you.

applejack

New account. Same anger. Clouds his judgment the Dark Side does.

You're falling into the trap that most western Atheists do - you are focusing on fundamentalist religion, rightfully dismissing that, and then extrapolating the flaws of that belief structure to a conclusion about the nature of God itself.


You should read the book "Quantum Questions" by philosopher Ken Wilber. It's a compilation of the spiritual / mystical writings of some of our greatest scientists - Einstein, Bohr, Heidinger, Pauli, etc.... They understood that they were simply studying the shadows on the wall of Plato's metaphorical cave and that it was beyond the scope of their work to understand the light creating those shadows.

In addition, you should study the research done on afterlife / near death experiences. The experiences of thousands of individuals are incredibly consistent and refute your made-up belief that "nothing" happens after we die.

Not to be rude, but you are not reflecting the analytical skills one would expect of an individual at the highest levels of academia. You are simply asserting your belief without proof and stating it as fact. That's what fundamentalists do.

Don't be a fundamentalist.

collegehopefull

I was tempted to read the rest of what you wrote in the Yoda voice, but the predicates are all in the right place....shucks.

Go on youtube, type : beyond belief V.S. Ramachandran

Good stuff. ( I don't like his politics, but I love his neuroscience)

applejack

I had the same temptation for a brief moment, then I came to my senses.

Never understood how one of the wisest beings in the universe couldn't master basic grammar.

Btw - TheSlowClap is perhaps the best user name yet.

collegehopefull

^ A lot of things in StarWars made no sense.

TheSlowClap is pretty awesome.

(I imagine him slow clapping whenever he derides someone, and it makes it awesome)

TchaikovskyPiano

Well, technically that doesn't really show that something actually does happen after life; that people's experiences seem consistent doesn't exclude a natural explanation. Though I agree that any experience after life, including nothingness, is not verifiable.

danyellie1913

you guys all sound too smart for me.
am i going to be the dumb kid at cornell?
i don't really want to argue, i just want to learn.
i don't know what to doooooooooooo about transferring.
anyway. sorry to interrupt your debate.

Bothwings

@ Danyellie1913- Well when debating about religion, one has to at least SOUND smart in order to be taken seriously. So some of these guys might not be as smart IRL (though most of them probably are).

applejack

If your post is genuine, danyellie, I can tell you that it was at Cornell that I began to develop my intellectual capacity. I was a good student, meaning I could get good grades and all that before, but I really began to think analytically for myself due to both my classes and late night conversations with friends at Cornell.

It's not looked down upon to be smart there, so I would say you have nothing to worry about. College is a time for expanding your mind, not for coming in fully formed.

collegehopefull

^ that puts you far, far above a metric crap ton of people at any institution. Don't worry.

TchaikovskyPiano

I think that people on forums feel more free to express their opinions and beliefs because of the anonymity the Internet offers. As long as you don't blatantly proselytize you probably won't run into too many arguments that you don't want to be a part of.

Your original post suggests that you will probably be happy staying where you are. But at Cornell, you will undoubtedly be exposed to more diverse experiences, and afforded more opportunities in life. It's a risk, and it's a tough decision; good luck!

monkeybrains510

I saw the word God in the title and immediately thought "trolls and essays"... IMHO, fundamentalists of any conviction are annoying and should express the insecurities about their beliefs elsewhere - maybe to an animal or inanimate object. They would probably give more ****s about your opinions.

CayugaRed2005

Not to sidetrack the conversation here, but I started to read up a bit on some ontological arguments for the existence of a supreme force or being, and I found the following argument from Descartes interesting:

Kind of like how a transcendental number exists.

collegehopefull

Saying that God necessarily exists because the idea of existence is contained in concept of God is like saying.....

"If the idea of necessary existence is contained in the idea of The Flying Spaghetti Monster, The Flying Spaghetti Monster necessarily exists"



I don't find it interesting, I find it hopelessly circular.

If anything ,the "truth" of 'God' (the definition of which has never really been clarified....btw) exists only for people that assume God to exist.

applejack

I find it amusing how often I read the thoughts of these "great philosophers" and simply realize, "Nope. He's wrong."

Perhaps they were groundbreaking for their time. Much like comedy though, society moves on.