Re: The (g)od That Exists

[i_am_i]

This happens in every atheist group--the double standard. And like I said, it typically happens when what should be the proof your looking for shows up and you can't deny it, or you deny it but can't remain rational in so doing.

I don't want you to be banned for the simple reason that I'm still waiting for this proof you keep talking about.

So...how about it? Let me see your proof of the (g)od that exists. And please try to bear in mind that not all of of us here have college degrees. Anyway I don't. So simply and clearly present your proof of the (g)od that exists and we can be done here.

[Tank]

Edward

I think 'people' get 'pissy' with you when you start going on about microbes having consciousness because it's just a really stupid idea. It's the sort of thing that if one heard it in a pub from somebody one would just move slowly away from them while keeping their hands visible all the time. The idea that something fitted with effective chemical senses and no sensory organs could be conscious is, on the face of it, ludicrous.

I'll accept evidence but you have to create a frame of reference, do your research, present your results and show how they support your view and how your view can be shown to be wrong. If you wont/can't do this then you're still in the realm of mythical car salesman.

In addition if you are going to go around dissing other members by calling them liars why would you expect not to be warned? You have used the 'You don't know, so don't tell me!' argument but expect to make blind assertions about what you can not possibly know and get away with it.

You spend your time arguing when all we want to see is some sound evidence to support of what you are claiming. It's not surprising you get a bad receptions on atheist forums, God of the Bacturiam, I mean I ask you does that not sound just a little bit odd, but I'd love to see the reaction on a scientific forums  

Chris

[humblesmurph]

Dude, as a clinical psychologist, can I make ONE suggestion.  You need to talk to someone about these delusions of grandure you seem to be trapped in.  So far, all you've done is tell us how great your ideas are, how wonderful your mind is, how amazing your theories are going to be, and how people will be writing about you like Van Gogh.  This may not be the platform from which you would wish to launch your greatness.  Most people on this forum have remarkable BS meters, and right now mine, and I'm sure a LOT of other's, are pegging all the way out.  Just an idea, but in truth, I ain't seen the car, yet... so...

This is not fair.  Being a clinical psychologist, you come off as a bully here Martin TK.  I don't care if I get banned, what's right is right.  You belittle Edward in this passage.  Stating that your BS meter is "pegging all the way out" is the same as calling somebody a liar imo.  

Respectfully, if you start out saying "..as a clinical psychologist...", what follows shouldn't be demeaning in nature.  I've talked to a few clinical psychologists, and none of them have been this insensitive.  I have no doubt you hold whatever academic pedigree you claim to have, but I think it inappropriate to use your position in this manner. If this man does have a problem, how would an antagonistic post on a forum help him?  It's one thing to tell somebody they are full of shit, it's another to  present such an opinion as a professional diagnosis from a clinical psychologist.  

Then everybody jumps all over Edward the Theist for defending himself, but nobody calls out Martin TK? I say again, it's not right.

[Recusant]

So, warn away. Ban me, by all means. That's why I wait 60 days now before donating to these forums.

Well, so far you've gotten a "friendly reminder." That's a long way from being banned, (three strikes), and even then your ban would very likely only be temporary, to give you time to cool down.  You've chosen to take time to cool down on your own initiative, which I think shows wisdom.  As for a double standard, it seems you're ignoring McQ's post that was directed at any and all that have been giving you a hard time.  I've been a member here for a while, and from my experience, the mods mean what they say.  If members continue to antagonize you, they will be subject to the rules enforcement process.  So rest assured you may manage to get yourself banned if you work at it, but from what I've seen so far, you'll stay here just as long as you like.  I hope you do, because you seem to be intelligent, and there is no doubting your passion in expounding your ideas. That combination makes for interesting conversation! ) So for me (and I suspect many others) it's the most accessible and relevant of your "three rationales."

I'm posting a link to a fine lecture by Karl Popper in PDF format. His thinking has been very influential in the philosophy of science, and may give you some valuable insights which could help in refining your hypothesis.  Or maybe not.

[Martin TK]

Dude, as a clinical psychologist, can I make ONE suggestion.  You need to talk to someone about these delusions of grandure you seem to be trapped in.  So far, all you've done is tell us how great your ideas are, how wonderful your mind is, how amazing your theories are going to be, and how people will be writing about you like Van Gogh.  This may not be the platform from which you would wish to launch your greatness.  Most people on this forum have remarkable BS meters, and right now mine, and I'm sure a LOT of other's, are pegging all the way out.  Just an idea, but in truth, I ain't seen the car, yet... so...

This is not fair.  Being a clinical psychologist, you come off as a bully here Martin TK.  I don't care if I get banned, what's right is right.  You belittle Edward in this passage.  Stating that your BS meter is "pegging all the way out" is the same as calling somebody a liar imo.  

Respectfully, if you start out saying "..as a clinical psychologist...", what follows shouldn't be demeaning in nature.  I've talked to a few clinical psychologists, and none of them have been this insensitive.  I have no doubt you hold whatever academic pedigree you claim to have, but I think it inappropriate to use your position in this manner. If this man does have a problem, how would an antagonistic post on a forum help him?  It's one thing to tell somebody they are full of shit, it's another to  present such an opinion as a professional diagnosis from a clinical psychologist.  

Then everybody jumps all over Edward the Theist for defending himself, but nobody calls out Martin TK? I say again, it's not right.

I acknowledge as much in another post, did you read that one?  I'm amazed that you wasted an entire post on this.  I was called out, warned, etc... and as for other clinical psychologists, have you met them ALL???  Clinical psychologist quite often call BS where BS exists... and I simply said that so far, with the evidence presented, it has been nothing more or less than unconvincing.  So, do you have anything constructive to add to the discussion, or are you just going to point out other's failings, according to your own opinion???

[Martin TK]

To the OP, IF I offended you then I do apologize.  The term DUDE was meant to make me appear less threatening in my assessment.  I stand by my thoughts on your positions as being somewhat "far afield" but I do not wish to insult.  There are times when my opinions are somewhat "opinionated" and I make NO apologies for being that way, nor would I expect you to apologize for your own views.

I would say from my own experiences of going onto Christian forums, a theist who comes on an atheist forum, really needs to have his position clearly articulated in his own mind, prior to posting it here.  I would also recommend that you keep your points short and easily readable, without using words that require persons to have to look them up in order to understand what you are trying to say.  I say this, not because anyone on here is unintelligent, but because this is a forum and most people will dismiss what you are trying to say if they are required to weed through too much fluff to get to the point.

I, frankly, don't agree with anything you have posted to this point, but I do agree that you have the right to post it, believe it, and defend it, within reason.  So, as I have stated previously, POST AWAY and let the discussion begin or continue.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I find it easier to believe that paramecia mimic conscious behavior than to believe that there is an external consciousness infusing us all.

Also, have you answered 'Morph's vitally important question: "How would you falsify this hypothesis?"

[humblesmurph]

Dude, as a clinical psychologist, can I make ONE suggestion.  You need to talk to someone about these delusions of grandure you seem to be trapped in.  So far, all you've done is tell us how great your ideas are, how wonderful your mind is, how amazing your theories are going to be, and how people will be writing about you like Van Gogh.  This may not be the platform from which you would wish to launch your greatness.  Most people on this forum have remarkable BS meters, and right now mine, and I'm sure a LOT of other's, are pegging all the way out.  Just an idea, but in truth, I ain't seen the car, yet... so...

This is not fair.  Being a clinical psychologist, you come off as a bully here Martin TK.  I don't care if I get banned, what's right is right.  You belittle Edward in this passage.  Stating that your BS meter is "pegging all the way out" is the same as calling somebody a liar imo.  

Respectfully, if you start out saying "..as a clinical psychologist...", what follows shouldn't be demeaning in nature.  I've talked to a few clinical psychologists, and none of them have been this insensitive.  I have no doubt you hold whatever academic pedigree you claim to have, but I think it inappropriate to use your position in this manner. If this man does have a problem, how would an antagonistic post on a forum help him?  It's one thing to tell somebody they are full of shit, it's another to  present such an opinion as a professional diagnosis from a clinical psychologist.  

Then everybody jumps all over Edward the Theist for defending himself, but nobody calls out Martin TK? I say again, it's not right.

I acknowledge as much in another post, did you read that one?  I'm amazed that you wasted an entire post on this.  I was called out, warned, etc... and as for other clinical psychologists, have you met them ALL???  Clinical psychologist quite often call BS where BS exists... and I simply said that so far, with the evidence presented, it has been nothing more or less than unconvincing.  So, do you have anything constructive to add to the discussion, or are you just going to point out other's failings, according to your own opinion???

First, I haven't met ALL clinical psychologists, what does that have to do with anything?  The three I have dealt with seemed to adhere to a more respectful protocol.  The three I've dealt with wouldn't (i believe) think it appropriate to dress up insults as clinical observations.  It was reasonable for Edward to challenge your claim (of being a clinical psychologist) given the unprofessional manner in which you proffered your professional opinion.

I will not be bullied.  Your response has the tone of "how dare you? I have a PHd!!!"  Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I take it. You are attacking me because I took exception to your use of the phrase "as a clinical psychologist".  I stand by my claim.  It was wrong.  You didn't simply say he lacked evidence.  You insinuated that Edward was delusional and full of shit. You presented this as a professional opinion. You claim you admitted as much on another post.  

Unfortunately, redundancies happen on boards such as these.  I missed your apology (if you did in fact apologize to Edward).  I missed you being warned by a mod (if there was a warning on this thread).  It doesn't make my opinion any less valid.   Everything you post is just your opinion as well.  Almost every post in this thread is about pointing out Edward's "failings".  I've tried to be constructive in this thread.  I've tried to direct Edward towards a more fruitful discourse without insulting the man.  

Why couldn't you just say. "Hey dude, that's old.  I've already admitted that I was wrong" and leave it at that?  Why attack me?

[Edward the Theist]

First I want to thank humblesmurph for his (or her) brave defense of me and of himself. It is impressive to see someone stand up against a group. It kind of restores ones hope and faith in humanity. Google for it. Just search "training paramecium" and take your pick.

In other words, paramecium have memory, too. They still have no central nervous system, mind you, but they apparently have volition, memory, and some measure of IQ. I was convined by seeing what appears to be willful movement. So, I never looked any further. And, I've never conducted those experiments myself. But apparently there's no need to.

Now, I know what you're thinking (and it has nothing to do with ESP on my part). You're thinking there must be something about the cell that produces consciousness. Because if consciousness is external to the organism (as precognition all but proves), then we aren't just dirt clods.  :crazy:

But have no fear. All this does is confirm that we really are just dirt clods...until we die. Then the dirt clod dissolves and all that's left is the consciousness we had before we were born...hell, before the universe was born. But I'm getting all giddy now.  

I'm just wondering if when we die we think to ourselves, "That was interesting...hmmm, let's do that shit again!" and then we wake up in someone else, or create someone else we can wake up in.

I can't help it. I speculate at times.

Oh, and PS to the psychologists out there who think I'm suffering from delusions of grandure. Yeah, from your perspective, I probably am. But my papers, my theory, my book, my speeches, whatever may come aren't going to get done if I take your advice. Oh, wait a minute. You're an atheist psychologist...maybe you don't want me to get those things done. Or am I just being paranoid now?

Look, just keep your hands off my mental illness. I'm still using it.

[Cite134]

You've already falsely stated that atheism is a religion, and you've said you did microbiology work with paramecium. I just pointed out one issue with the false statement. How about backing up your statement about doing microbiology work with presenting some data from it? Preferably in a peer-reviewed journal, or anything that has been replicated.

You haven't pointed out a false statement at all. Is not atheism in this country protected under the First Amendment? If it's not a religion, then it shouldn't be afforded any protections at all. Rather, it's become a fairly dominant religious force in our society. If it walks like a duck and quacks like one, I typically call it a duck.

As for my research: How exactly am I to get published in a peer-reviewed journal? I'm not a biologist. I'm a nurse who made an observation and reported it. You have yet to prove it's not consciousness we are seeing in the paramecium. And by all accounts it looks like it. Again with the duck thing.

You atheists get all bent out of shape over the parameciums. Isn't it funny how your whole world-view rests on whether the smallest animal in the world is conscious or not? One little thing goes one way or the other and the whole world falls apart.

And that supposed psychologist? I am an expert on that. If he is one, and it's true I can't be sure, but if he is, he acts awfully unprofessional about it. In fact, go back and check it out: he uses his supposed credentials to insult me. That's how he reveals he's a psychologist, but using it to insult me--dude. You really think that guy is a Ph.D. or Psy.D. He'd have to show me his license before I'd believe it. Oh, and without a state license, he is not a clincial psychologist. :upset: Anyone who wants can contact me through my blog or I think I have an e-mail link in my profile. If you don't ban me, I'll come back and start a new topic in a week or so. The great big theory of (g)! :verysad:. In addition, unelss your theory can be tested by professionals who actually study these things, and can be verified over and over, it still can be ignored. EVEN if it did, how is this evidence for God...or (g)od. (I don't think it would still make much of a difference since your (g)od simply sounds like a pantheistic one)..

[Edward the Theist]

EVEN if it did, how is this evidence for God...or (g)od. (I don't think it would still make much of a difference since your (g)od simply sounds like a pantheistic one)..

A. Atheism worships and praises science, even speculative sciences. Or at least in my opinion it does, how's that? In my opinion, regardless of the hot air y'all tend to spew about not being a religion, you seem like one to me. Maybe I'm wrong.

B. Pantheism means God is the universe. Monism means the universe is God. A slight difference, but one that makes all the difference if you ask me. I'm a monist.

[humblesmurph]

EVEN if it did, how is this evidence for God...or (g)od. (I don't think it would still make much of a difference since your (g)od simply sounds like a pantheistic one)..

A. Atheism worships and praises science, even speculative sciences. Or at least in my opinion it does, how's that? In my opinion, regardless of the hot air y'all tend to spew about not being a religion, you seem like one to me. Maybe I'm wrong.

B. Pantheism means God is the universe. Monism means the universe is God. A slight difference, but one that makes all the difference if you ask me. I'm a monist.

Could you explain (B) a little more?  I'm seeing  god=universe and universe=god.  They seem like the exact same thing.

[Davin]

A. Atheism worships and praises science, even speculative sciences. Or at least in my opinion it does, how's that? In my opinion, regardless of the hot air y'all tend to spew about not being a religion, you seem like one to me. Maybe I'm wrong.

An atheist might worship and praise science, however atheism has nothing to worship/praise by it's very definition. The atheism/theism dichotomy is much different from Religion Vs. Science. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god, those who label themselves as an atheist are simply saying that they don't believe that any of the proposed gods are real. That aside an atheist could be religious, Scientology is technically an atheistic religion in that they believe in an alien and not a god, but that is not a requirement to take on the atheist label. Just as believing in all the Greek/Roman gods is not a requirement for being a theist. In fact atheism/theism/atheist/theist say nothing about religion at all.

B. Pantheism means God is the universe. Monism means the universe is God. A slight difference, but one that makes all the difference if you ask me. I'm a monist.

Can you explain the slight difference and how the order in which you place the items in the statement changes the concept?

[Cite134]

EVEN if it did, how is this evidence for God...or (g)od. (I don't think it would still make much of a difference since your (g)od simply sounds like a pantheistic one)..

A. Atheism worships and praises science, even speculative sciences. Or at least in my opinion it does, how's that? In my opinion, regardless of the hot air y'all tend to spew about not being a religion, you seem like one to me. Maybe I'm wrong.

B. Pantheism means God is the universe. Monism means the universe is God. A slight difference, but one that makes all the difference if you ask me. I'm a monist.

A. I don't remember "praising" science. Not sure how to do that. Respectfully, I think you are wrong in that aspect.
B. Sounds the same to me, but okay, I'm an atheist. That's fine.

I must say though...your theory did have me thinking about the true function of consciousness. I will continue to ponder

[Sophus]

I don't have a shrine for Science in my closet.  

But really Edward, I would be interested in seeing you address this from my last post:

The Magic Pudding’s satirical antenna remark is actually quite astute in that: if you concede certain things are not made to receive consciousness from some external force while others are (especially when some protozoa do and others don't), why then implement the external force at all? It’s not necessary. It means there’s something already going on inside of the organism which accounts for this.

How can any of this possibly be proof of a [g]od?