It explains nothing and smacks of made-up nonsense.
2 Likes
This is far more advanced than this discussion imo.
Spacetime combines the three dimensions of space and one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional manifold.
You will note that throughout, I didn’t even mention or treat time as a dimension. I concentrated on just spatial dimensions.
My criticism was that you said time wasn’t a dimension; because time is a dimension in modern physics. Could you address that instead?
1 Like
Then you are an idiot. You either argue honestly and use the standard definitions that we are using or you create a straw-man and argue from that position. We don’t give a shit about your straw-man bullshit. We are the atheists, this is our definition. You don’t get to define my position.
You completely ignored the request for evidence that connect any dimension with 'Spirituality."
I have no real problem with this. We agree all babies, animals, rocks, and trees, lack a belief. It is not true that a rational mind cannot lack a belief. What I know is that I have not yet heard a sufficient argument or been presented with sufficient proof for the existence of a God or gods. I lack a belief in god in the same way I lack a belief in Santa, Spiderman, or your ability to think rationally.
-
We have no evidence that dogs believe in deities. There is no connection between a dog and belief in a deity until that connection can be evidenced. Do you understand the NULL HYPOTHESIS? If you are to assert a dog believes in a deity, you would have to provide evidence for the claim. If you asserted dogs do not believe in a deity, you would equally need to provide evidence for the claim. There is no evidence supporting the claim that dogs believe in gods, and all evidence seems to point to the contrary.
-
Same as above. We have no evidence of babies believing in gods. If you make the assertion, you need to provide evidence. We have no evidence that a baby has the ability to believe anything. On the other hand, we do have the Church. Any baby that is not baptized burns in hell. Now, I am not sure why babies are born in sin and separated from God until they are baptized. I think it’s a silly idea. But it’s their idea and not mine. According to religions, babies are born atheists and without belief. They need to be saved or they burn in hell.
So a person would have to be a baby?
WRONG! Atheists are not rejecting a proposed ‘thing.’ They are rejecting arguments for the proposed ‘thing,’ which may or may not exist. The time to believe in the existence of anything is ‘AFTER’ it has been demonstrated to be true. Theists have not met their burden of proof, ergo, there is no reason to believe their claims.
1 Like
Oh.
And that’s how you win friends and influence people!
And that means I don’t lack the belief? It means I believe it but reject it? That sounds silly to me.
Isn’t “I lack” the opposite of “I do not lack”?
You started it, we didn’t. If you didn’t explain yourself very well, that’s on you.
3 Likes
Only if you wanted to present a rather clumsy oxymoron.
Well we love unevidenced subjective opinions here… 
Reality is not at all about “spirits”, you have yet to demonstrate such a concept is even possible.
I find your finding ridiculous, as will anyone with a rudimentary grasp of language, and a remedial reading ability, and access to any dictionary. In fact it’s almost as stupid a claim as it is dishonest, almost…
You’re a liar, as that is not how dictionaries are compiled.
That’s a rather idiotic no true Scotsman fallacy, and I don’t believe you.
You just fucking said so??? However the objective evidence suggests newborn babies don’t start to form memories and therefore beliefs for several months after birth. since you seem to think subjective anecdotal claims have merit, here is one for you, I know my earliest memories support this. Oh check fucking mate then…by your rationale…
I don’t believe you, evidence your claim please.
Ah the idiotic use of random capital letters, and a rather inept false dichotomy fallacy, I see we have another infestation of irrational superstition. Please, by all means, do tell me what I think, I never tire of that arrogant penchant theists love to indulge. FYI this remains a false dichotomy fallacy, one may lack a belief thought choice, and one may also lack a belief without making any choice, this is self evidently true, since one cannot believe a claim that one has no conception of.
Now that’s fucking hilarious on its own…so you believe they are real then, wow!
So you do not in fact believe they are real then, so you do in fact lack belief they are real then? Fuck me, the hilarity has surpassed the stupidity… 
That’s no mean feat either…
FYI, one can lack belief either because one has no comprehension of that belief, or because one has determined to withhold belief from any claim. Please ffs look up and learn what a false dichotomy fallacy is.
Since this is yet another unevidenced and subjective opinion, and you created this discussion, I am going to hold my belly while I laugh…
"Never leave the top hat upside down, as all the magic falls out. " Was all I heard there.
You will note I am laughing far harder than is prudent for a man of my age…
1 Like
I never said that time wasn’t a dimension perhaps you can quote where i said that?
I wouldn’t even make a statement like that
So you are saying you believe Superman and Spiderman are REAL? 
Even though you “understand” they are “inventions” of comic book and movie writers? Wow! Not sure whether to be impressed or disturbed. 
1 Like
That do you? …
@X0B35 …
First of all, your nebulous speculations about extra dimensions are precisely that. How do I know this?
Because I’m aware of two basic applicable facts. Namely:
[1] There exists an entire branch of mathematics devoted to the behaviour of spaces with different numbers of dimensions. That branch of mathematics is calld tensor analysis, and if you haven’t studied it, you have nothing to offer here;
[2] Physicists have been applying tensor analysis (more correctly, the advanced variant thereof known as the Ricci Calculus) to such matters as the development of cosmological models.
As a corollary of the above two facts, unless you’ve spent a significant period of time participating in that research, no one here is obliged to do anything other than dismiss your assertions.
Meanwhile:
We’ve seen plenty of blind assertions on this matter by the relevant individuals. What we’ve never seen is any substance to support those assertions.
Mere blind assertion. You have yet to establish, along with those other individuals, that the so-called “spiritual” actually exists.
Oh look, someone else is coming here, purporting to know better what we think, than we do ourselves. This level of hubris will get you nowhere here.
The mere fact that I’ve been able to introduce you to tensor analysis above, should be telling you that in my case at least, your caricature of my thinking is precisely that - caricature. Indeed, tensor analysis formed the backbone of a year of my university studies.
Meanwhile, it appears you haven’t heard of General Relativity, which postulates a 3+1 dimensional spacetime. Thus far, its predictions about the behaviour of the observable universe, have been confirmed, in some cases to 15 decimal places. Many here learned about this before you turned up here.
No, your assertions do nothing of the sort. Because that’s all they are - assertions.
Do learn the elementary concept that assertions do not equal fact, a concept that we keep trying to teach the mythology fanboys here.
Except that unlike your assertions, we have real world observational data to back up this definition. Though as you will shortly discover, I take matters in a slightly different direction in the interests of rigour. Strap yourself in and be patient.
Your attempt to treat this as some sort of “appeal to authority” fails, for the reason I mentioned above.
Which is basically all you have here.
Poppycock. Allow me to run you through the baby steps.
The assertion that a god type entity in its most general form actually exists, is an unanswered question. We know this because if a proper, rigorous answer thereto had been found in the past, said answer would now be part of our mainstream body of knowledge, and no one (other than wilful contrarians or the tinfoil hat brigade) would be arguing about this.
As a corollary, the requisite assertion underpinning that question possesses the status “truth value unknown”, as does every other assertion that has not been subject to test.
Given that the above brings with it certain epistemological subtleties that you are apparently unaware of, your characterisation of people who understand the aforementioned operating principles as having “an exceptionally low IQ” is not merely fatuously wrong, but cheap ad hominem.
Now, time for me to inform you about the somewhat different direction I take, with respect to the matter of what atheism actually is.
I’ve repeatedly stated here and elsewhere, that atheism in its rigorous formulation, is nothing more than suspicion of unsupported mythology fanboy assertions. Indeed, while the exact position taken by atheists on the matter of whether or not a god actually exists is known to be variable, the one universally observed feature of atheists is the very suspicion of unsupported mythology fanboy assertions that I’ve just described. As a corollary, I regard the definition I’ve given above as rigorous for that reason.
Now, if you want to tell me, that being suspicious of unsupported assertions from any quarter, let alone from the farcical quarter that is mythology fanboyism, is “ridiculous”, then I’ll simply point and laugh.
There are of course, numerous other issues pertinent here, but in the interest of (unusually for me) brevity, I’ll leave those aside.
Farcially wrong.
Apparently you don’t understand how the rules of proper discourse work. One central rule being that any assertion that remains unsupported by proper test thereof, is safely discardable, as such an assertion adds no useful knowledge. Matters are aided on our behalf, by the fact that the typical mythology fanboy manifestly hasn’t engaged in proper thinking with regard to how a “god” is defined. All too often, mythology fanboys fall back upon whichever platitudinous assertions on the subject are contained in their favourite mythologies, without bothering to ask if said assertions are even meaningful, let alone testable.
Since quite a few of those assertions involve the construction of the “god candidates” contained in those mythologies, as possessing contradictory and absurd properties, they can be dismissed on this basis alone. Recognising this isn’t “wilful summary dismissal”, and your caricature thereof of our doing so again demonstrates that you haven’t thought properly about the issues.
I’ll sit back and await the usual failures in response to the above.
3 Likes
Well apparently that is the accepted approach, which is based on the interpretation of an observation or “spiritual experience” which has no explanation readily available to the experiencer.
I mean, how many times have you said “that’s not a banana? Or “that’s not a knife”…or “that shit isn’t music”?
You are over-complicating…it’s only applicable in instances of blank Q (as opposed to IQ) where natural explanations apparently, and/or immediately available, fail to provide arguably “satisfactory” explanations… and cognitive desperation sets in…It must be…(fill in the blank…ergo blank Q) see? Simple
…(patting pockets… mumbling to self)… Where the hell did I put that damn door key?.. (checking sofa cushions)…
1 Like
Yes, yes… I’m working on it. Not for you, you understand this shit, but for the readerfs. Now… where was I. Oh yea! It’s not a bottle cap, it’s not a piece of rubber, it’s not a straw, it’s not a cup, it is not a computer wire, it’s not a window, it’s not a capo, it’s not a picture frame… This is really working. I’m getting there. I just keep eliminating shit and soon I will have an answer.
Don’t confuse me with facts… I’m on a mission. "It’s not hot sauce, it’s not Dr. Pepper, it’s not a camera. It’s not a fingernail file, it’s not a zipper, it’s not an aluminum can, it’s not a needle, it’s not a tack, it’s not a pen, marker, or pencil, it’s not a keyboard. I just feel so purposive.
2 Likes
Dinner guests. Fishing buddies. People who sit next to monkeys on buses.
To be precise, it’s actually 6 dimensional monkey farts.You can’t see them. You can’t hear them. You can’t even smell them. Matter of fact, you cannot even remotely imagine or conceptualize how nefariously vile and potent they are. Make no mistake, though, walk through one and you will quickly find yourself transported outside of space and time beyond ANY dimensions.
(Edit for the munchies.)
What kind of evidence will be sufficient for you?
Wow. Thanks for the insult. This is just you being emotional as you’ve said nothing. So you expect me to adopt a definition that lacks merit? Nah.
If you check closely, we dont know who a man or a woman is based on the illogical redefinition of words and terms.
There is something common and unique with all who have the capacity to lack a belief. They are intellectually weak.
No need for long essays: a dog or any other animal CANNOT believe or disbelief or have any kind of opinion about any diety.
A baby CANNOT believe or disbelief or have any kind of opinion about any diety. And by the way, your points about baptism and babies being born atheists prove that your knowledge of Christianity leaves much to be desired.
Sigh. You just truncated what I said just to create your strawman.
I said: What you have as Atheist is NOT a lack of Belief, but a personal choice based on reason to REJECT a proposed thing, fact, idea or issue in relation to deities.
Evidence:
Which is more appropriate to describe you?
Do you believe Corithaze is an African Professor of Engineering?
OR
Do you Lack a belief that Corithaze is an African Professor of Engineering?
I’m getting tired of repeating myself but what the hell: What you have as Atheist is NOT a lack of Belief, but a personal choice based on reason to REJECT a proposed thing, fact, idea or issue in relation to deities!
Tell me:
1.Do you lack a belief in deities because it was imposed on you or it was a personal choice you made?
-
Do you have reasons to reject the proposal by theists that God/gods exist to be worshipped?
-
Do you know any adult self proclaimed atheist who does not know that theists exist?
In what way does your answer negate the definition here?
Will this be on the test?
Ah. Of course. Before you did your research you were convinced of Superman and Spider-Man. You had to look behind the curtain in order to “form” your disbelief. I get it. Well done.
1 Like