Religion

laconicsax

(14,860 posts)

63. I believe we already established that your definition of nothingness is self-contradictory

Sat Dec 31, 2011, 01:45 AM

Dec 2011

As I recall, you defined it to simultaneously exist and not exist then continued to contradict yourself.

First it was an empty void, then it had no physical attributes, then it was zero-dimensional, then it had zero energy and was a closed system but don't I dare point out that those are physical attributes.

Also, the framework I described is physics..you know, the framework under which the universe operates. Saying that my statement "is only objective within the framework of the experiment" and that I "have have no objective proof that those exact conditions existed in a natural setting" shows a complete lack of understanding of just about everything relevant to this discussion.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

84 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

What is meant by having "a personal relationship with Jesus"? [View all] MarkCharles Dec 2011 OP

This? PassingFair Dec 2011 #1

and insert "...and you don't!" immoderate Dec 2011 #2

I've never seen anyone say that here, so I am not sure you will find cbayer Dec 2011 #3

Culture and language GliderGuider Dec 2011 #4

I've heard it a lot. rrneck Dec 2011 #5

I appreciate all respondents so far, I'm at a loss to understand it.. MarkCharles Dec 2011 #6

Like I said, you may have to go find someone who actually says that. cbayer Dec 2011 #8

Attack believers? Or question their beliefs? There's a distinct... MarkCharles Dec 2011 #11

Oh, there is most definitely a difference. cbayer Dec 2011 #14

Some people here seem to marry their beliefs with their identity. MarkCharles Dec 2011 #15

Right you are. There are many here that seem to marry their beliefs cbayer Dec 2011 #16

If people are mentally ill, they deserve our support, it is not an insult. MarkCharles Dec 2011 #17

Oh, I didn't realize that people posting here were psychiatrists! cbayer Dec 2011 #19

Yes, and some fail to see it in themselves. humblebum Dec 2011 #26

I guess it's a type of hallucination that....... frebrd Dec 2011 #7

Kind of like having a personal relationship skepticscott Dec 2011 #9

Mainly a counter to Catholicism edhopper Dec 2011 #10

Oh, THAT'S what it's all about? MarkCharles Dec 2011 #13

That's a big part of it. Igel Dec 2011 #25

"Personal relationship" implies a fair give and take, contributions from both lindysalsagal Dec 2011 #31

It's when one is really, really convinced that his imaginary friend is real. nt Deep13 Dec 2011 #12

As an Ex-Christian, let me explain it in computer terms: Taverner Dec 2011 #18

outstanding explanation deacon_sephiroth Dec 2011 #33

"He'd die, why don't you?" - LOL Taverner Dec 2011 #34

Not only mean and funny tama Dec 2011 #69

If you ask for an explanation, you're likely to get MineralMan Dec 2011 #20

I'm sure that getting to that point requires lots of attention paid to the teacher, as well as lots lindysalsagal Dec 2011 #32

it's a fundamentalist term RainDog Dec 2011 #21

I can only speak as a recovering theist, LiberalAndProud Dec 2011 #22

What is so fascinating about this description is that I think Freud cbayer Dec 2011 #23

yeah but Freud was sort of...off the mark himself RainDog Dec 2011 #24

god as a guru, or friend when you need one. deacon_sephiroth Dec 2011 #35

Interesting. Implication: Current purveyors know they don't have god and followers lindysalsagal Jan 2012 #81

I've heard it said in the context of "Christianity is not a religion,..." mr blur Dec 2011 #27

That's another angle I honestly hadn't thought about! MarkCharles Dec 2011 #28

They are mentally immature and want a personal sky daddy. Odin2005 Dec 2011 #29

Oh dear, mental immaturity is not going to go over well with.. MarkCharles Dec 2011 #30

Spending hours and hours reading and hearing atheists' complaints about others' ideas, but humblebum Dec 2011 #37

Replace "nothingness" with "God" and you've summarized why many of us are atheists. n/t laconicsax Dec 2011 #38

Oh of course, given that the vast majority of posts in this group concern comments humblebum Dec 2011 #39

You're trotting out THAT hoary old argument? laconicsax Dec 2011 #40

The trouble with "THAT hoary old argument" is that it is humblebum Dec 2011 #41

If by simplistic and logical, you mean wrong... laconicsax Dec 2011 #42

There IS NO PROOF one way or the other. That's the point. You are conducting humblebum Dec 2011 #43

Sigh...you really don't get it, do you? laconicsax Dec 2011 #44

Your "ample evidence that the universe could have self-started." is nothing humblebum Dec 2011 #45

Nothing more than hypothesis? Uh, no. It's been experimentally confirmed. laconicsax Dec 2011 #46

In a laboratory that simulated a theoretical model of an ancient natural environment. humblebum Dec 2011 #47

Wrong again. laconicsax Dec 2011 #48

I'm starting to see a pattern here. Evidence presented, some posters MarkCharles Dec 2011 #49

"They have the arrogance to denounce a science they cannot understand." - or humblebum Dec 2011 #67

"What evidence do you have that your god-based model is correct?" I guess humblebum Dec 2011 #50

As you readily admit that you have no evidence... laconicsax Dec 2011 #52

As I said before, it is all subjective. And why should I take you seriously humblebum Dec 2011 #53

This is where you fail. laconicsax Dec 2011 #58

"The framework under which the universe could have self-started is objectively true humblebum Dec 2011 #61

I believe we already established that your definition of nothingness is self-contradictory laconicsax Dec 2011 #63

In other words your nothingness is a somethingness - got it. humblebum Dec 2011 #64

I suppose self-consistent is something. n/t laconicsax Dec 2011 #65

Mouthing the words "I don't know" would be something too, instead humblebum Dec 2011 #66

And again, you show your complete lack of understanding. n/t laconicsax Dec 2011 #68

As well do you. Huge difference between hypothesis and fact. humblebum Dec 2011 #72

I was wondering when you'd trot that straw man out. n/t laconicsax Dec 2011 #73

I think your straw man is a straw man. My statement has everything to do humblebum Dec 2011 #74

LOL! Good one! laconicsax Dec 2011 #75

Ex nihilo? tama Dec 2011 #60

One of the best paragraphs of logical response I have ever seen! MarkCharles Dec 2011 #51

Not all religious believers also disbelieve evolutionary science. LiberalAndProud Dec 2011 #54

Sometimes I wonder if this should be a TOS violation Eliminator Jan 2012 #79

Historically, crazy talk gets a lot of leeway when discussing religion. laconicsax Jan 2012 #80

Who is saying tama Jan 2012 #82

Creationists tend to view exogenisis as crazy talk. laconicsax Jan 2012 #83

"Crazy talk gets a lot of leeway when discussing religion" Arugula Latte Jan 2012 #84

People do not generally believe or disbelieve something because they've decided that it has LeftishBrit Dec 2011 #57

heh. "Benefits of Atheism" Taverner Dec 2011 #70

You have no more proof of being right than religious believers. nt humblebum Dec 2011 #71

Not necessarily IMO LeftishBrit Dec 2011 #59

Dinner and a movie? Maybe some cuddling afterwards? cleanhippie Dec 2011 #36

Means you know what kind of toppings He likes on His pizza when He orders from Domino's. n/t TygrBright Dec 2011 #55

Well, I'm non-religious, but as I understand it... LeftishBrit Dec 2011 #56

good analysis kwassa Dec 2011 #62

I keep clicking on this thread to make a dirty joke, ZombieHorde Dec 2011 #76

I don't know that we had a personal relationship, but we jammed together a couple of times. nt rrneck Jan 2012 #77

My ex had a personal relationship with Jesus, hence why she's an ex... Humanist_Activist Jan 2012 #78