A tree is a tree.
Thank you for demonstrating exactly what it looks like to be brainwashed.
Hey, at least you have someone to tell you that you are, in fact, brainwashed beyond reasoning.
I, on the other hand, had to figure it all out for myself.
You are welcome.
Good luck
Without that information; this entire thread is spam, imo.
How the hell do you know more about other people’s reasons for not believing in any god/gods better than that person?
Are you morally superior to all us crazy brainwashed atheists? You sound an awful lot like my devoutly christian wife.
Yes I was raised agnostic and remained so into my mid twenties.
As a kid I basically thought that religion was a bunch of nonsense and science explained our reality.
Rather than being an atheist, however, I logically acknowledged that I could be incorrect, hence the agnosticism.
I always thought that “being raised” involved some sort of training, perhaps even some indoctrination, but just having thoughts isn’t what I think of as “being raised”.
Yes, I was obviously brainwashed by the same social indoctrination that creates many atheists today.
In hindsight, it is so obvious that it is amazing I could not see it sooner. But then, it is called brainwashing for a reason. The hallmark of brainwashing is the inability to use logic and reasoning. In the case of Atheists this is typically a result of grabbing onto Axom 1 and never letting go.
We obviously have different definitions of “brainwashing”. To me “Brainwashing” is a process that takes constant reinforcement to remain effective. If there is no reinforcement, then the “washing” loses its effect over time. In other words, people revert back to “free thought” if not reinforced.
So how to tell the difference between “Brainwashing” and “freethought”? If there is brainwashing going on, then a regimen of required behavior is set forth. Lack of this regimen is an indicator that brainwashing is not taking place.
Any scientifically minded person who believes that the reality we can experience can possibly exist without having been designed by a designer with a high degree of intelligence is necessarily brainwashed so you can see if this applies to you or not.
Yeah, we do have quite different definitions of brainwashing. The evidence of brainwashing can’t be tied to the conclusion. Not only can brainwashed people be given correct conclusions, but non-brainwashed people can reach incorrect conclusions.
[quote=“sourcecodewizard, post:20, topic:5741, full:true”]
If you are then it likely happened through social intimidation where the so called “smart” people who are atheists mock anyone who questions their objectively, provably, nonsensical viewpoint. Having a losing logical position they resort to an entire host of non-logical, non-reasoning methods to persuade including mockery. The majority of the responses to my OP are direct evidence of their brainwashing and demonstrate the kind of nonsense that I am talking about.
I do not recall any mockery or intimidation - certainly not when I reached my conclusion that gods don’t exist, nor by any of my fellow atheists after I had reached that the conclusion. What I have noted is a willingness to allow others to make up their own minds. What mockery I have seen is directed towards folks who insist they have the correct conclusions and can’t seem to explain why they have them.
At this point, I am going to cease replying to this post. There’s enough meat above to chew on before I move on.
No pooftery needed for those; a toy company has taken care of it, according to this evidence. My kids loved these.
Pushing the S.T.E.M. stuff I see, @sourcecodewizard. Nice.
Teach those kids evidence, experimentation, observation!
To demonstrate something is created, you must produce a creator. We are still waiting for the theists to do that.
So then all those books we have from the 1800s are probably self-assembled just like your argument for the universe since, from your statement above, we cannot demonstrate they were actually created since, according to you, we must produce the author to demonstrate that these books were written.
Your argument falls to sheds under scrutiny just like they all always do because they are based upon a foundation of nonsense.
There is nothing to debunk here. Show me your creator. Demonstrate the world is created.
Yes, I like this game too. Fine. Then you show me the authors of those books from the 1800s and really all the machinery from that period also. Since you cannot, then we must conclude from your own “reasoning” that those books and devices were also auto-assembled by these magic magnets that poofed into existence who knows how, from who knows where for who knows why. Continual blatant self-contradiction every where you look is one of the key indicators of brainwashing. You know, all those facts and stuff.
Besides the fact that if any creator of any work including the universe or any book are device chose to remain unavailable or unknown that does not change the fact that the design did, in fact, exist.
People, I shred your nonsense over and over because your base axiom 1 is flawed.
It is not the job of science to decide that " we just don’t do deities, Gods or Goddesses, we are the logic and evidence people. thank you." rather it is the job of science to be the logic and evidence people wherever that logic and evidence lead. In this case, I have actual factual evidence of actual factual structure from Magic Magnet Poof all the way to ATP and what do you Atheists got? You cant even explain magic magnet poof. And instead give me these softball nonsense arguments as usual.
We can ask him about all those silly diseases, deformities, and ways he kills people.
Very different argument for a very different time for very valid reasons.
Here I am claiming that there is 100% proven certainty that our Universe could not exist except through an intelligent designer because of the overwhelming evidence in the form of fortunate coincidence after fortunate coincidence that are ubiquitous throughout science from magic magnet poof all the way to ATP.
Win one lottery and everyone congratulates you.
Win every lottery, every time you play and just north of no rational adult person thinks that could be just luck anymore. Same goes for all these lucky breaks in science.
This post shows the proof of a designer, slam dunk, no doubt.
None of this post was intended to argue anything about the designer other than the clear level of elevated intelligence necessarily required to account for our universe and the structure of the science that describes it.
I’m just saying it must be designed.
Why is it obviously so screwed up?
That’s another post for another time.
What mockery I have seen is directed towards folks who insist they have the correct conclusions and can’t seem to explain why they have them.
The OP explains it exactly and explains exactly the reason why you are unable to see it.
a universe of Magic Magnets poofing into existence IS EVIDENCE.
as is the rest of science read the OP
It’s not mockery its just pointless trying to explain further because, well, because a tree really is a tree.
How the hell do you know more about other people’s reasons for not believing in any god/gods better than that person?
I don’t and don’t claim to.
I answered this previously but in case you did not see it my arguments in the OP refer specifically to Atheists who believe themselves to be factually accurate based upon evaluating the totality of the evidence specifically regarding the necessity of an intelligent designer to account for our universe and the science describing it. It is this specific class of Atheist that are, in fact, brainwashed beyond reasoning.
Are you morally superior to all us crazy brainwashed atheists?
sadly, I am as morally screwed up as everyone else
You sound an awful lot like my devoutly christian wife.
Not promoting any religion here, just the 100% proven fact that our universe was designed.
No doubt for whom?
Please provide attributes for this designer. Is it humanoid, mechanical, non material? In or out of space/time? Does it possess the omni-suite of powers? Did it have a beginning? Will it have an end? Does it currently interact with us? Have dominion over us?
How do you get raised not knowing if there is a god or not, and call it brainwashed? You were brainwashed in to now knowing if there was a god? Does that make any sense at all?
I don’t know anyone who actually knows if there is a god or not. I know many people who profess to know, but when asked for evidence or good reasons, they have none. Do you have any good reasons or evidence?
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha … Who proved this fact and when. Please cite your source. Hopefully you do understand that science does not ‘PROVE’ anything. Science builds models. Any ‘Proof’ you have would be mathematical. Math is abstract as well as descriptive of reality. Are you speaking of an abstract proof or a proof that can be applied to reality? I have seen no proof for a designed universe and I have been looking at evidence for over 40 years. What amazing new proof did you discover?
(At this point our interlocutor is just repeating bullshit and not engaging anyone’s arguments. Clearly, his “Universe is designed” argument has been debunked about 5 times and he still repeats the same crap without addressing any of the objections to his assertion. I think we are done with the troll.)
Well, I would say that human beings get emotionally attached to their ideas. If your idea is “there is no God,” then you are emotionally attached to it. If your idea is “there is a God,” then you are emotionally attached to that.
Of course, atheists can be brainwashed. A rational person would say, “I don’t know,” and would observe not only what is known but also what is ignored, which outweighs what we know by a factor of 1 to 10,000 (or as many zeros as you wish).
Too much confidence in intellect is the mistake of those who think that not seeing their mistakes means there are none. Intellect is a great deceiver; it creates worse delusions than any mythology.
Are you implying that all folks who identify as atheist believe no gods exist?
If so, you are decidedly incorrect. Personally, I’ve never met an atheist that contends that. They do exist but may not be in the majority.
No one has to say “There is no God.” We are still waiting for you to provide evidence. What do you think, we are going to believe shit just because you say so? Then we would be marked by every con man and church of the planet. I choose not to be manipulated by the lies of theists. Either demonstrate your god exists or admit that you have no real evidence and can not demonstrate it. Your first cause argument is dead.
That is called a straw man fallacy.
The second part is right anyway, as you have no understanding of logic, so even if anyone has made such an error, it seems very unlikely you’d understand it, judging from the number of known common logical fallacies you’ve used in a very short space of time.
This is another straw man fallacy.
I am calling this one, troll, and you’re also sawing the branch you’re sitting on.
I am dubious, not least because all you are able to offer is to repeat the same unevidenced claim, and of course were this true, then theistic belief would be universal among elite scientists in that filed, and we see precisely the opposite.
Ad hominem fallacy.
And you are preaching and trolling, so I shall duly flag this post.
False equivalence fallacy, since we know human authors are possible, and have sufficient objective evidence that humans write books.
I ask again, what are magic magnets?
Correct, now at what point will you be attempting to demonstrate any objective evidence to support those claims, something beyond endless unevidenced assertions and circular reasoning fallacies?
I don’t believe you, as your assertion is still unsupported by any objective evidence.
No it doesn’t, you just repeated the claim ad nauseam, not explanation and no evidence was offered. You also ignore the expansive responses illustrating that your arguments were irrational.
If it is fact, then you’d be able to demonstrate this by sharing that knowledge, all you have offered is bare assertions and fallacious arguments.
That’s not what atheism means.
Facile again, some people get emotionally attached to their ideas, but other rely on methods that help remove as much subjective bias as possible, methods like science and logic. The last sentence is a circular reasoning fallacy, ironically. Atheism is not an idea either, it is the lack or absence of belief in any deity or deities, and whilst I can’t speak for other atheists, unlike the visiting theists here who love to make sweeping straw men, my criteria for belief is that sufficient objective evidence be demonstrated to support that belief, I have never seen any for any deity.
That’s utter nonsense of course, but pretty funny that mythology produced that asinine claim, while peddling unevidenced mythology over reason and ignorance over knowledge.
How do you do that - analogy, logic? How successful have you been?
I don’t think I’m the first one to say, “The Sleep of Reason Produces Monsters.”
Who cares, it has absolutely nothing to do with your previous claim, or my response?
That was your claim, and it is nonsense. Intellect is a tool, as is reason, it’s been used to create the best methods we have to help us objectively understand reality, science and logic, parenthetically mythologies have had millennia, and most of what they asserted is either completely unevidenced or roundly contradicted by those methods.
That’s the mistake I think you’re making. Not being attached to an idea is not so simple. You may think you’re not attached to your ideas, but my experience tells me that, most of the time, people are personally attached to their ideas, even when they deny it. I don’t think attachment to an idea is even a voluntary thing.
While one can rationally try not to be attached, I doubt it’s a simple task to detach yourself from everything you believe in order to have a perfectly objective view of your ideas. I don’t think this is how the human brain works, and the void that opens when everything you believe in disappears is not an easy mental state to endure. I’ve seen people openly admit to me that they try to detach themselves from certain memories or experiences because those events shatter everything they believed in. In situations of extreme emotional pressure, the temptation to find a “rational answer,” even when it’s an absurd or remote idea, is too strong. When the situation becomes irreparable, people often detach themselves just to avoid being affected by it.
A different issue is finding evidence for things, which allows you to replace old beliefs with new ones. The mistake here is thinking that new ideas based on evidence are the truth, when in fact, these new ideas are simply your latest interpretation of the events, not the absolute truth.
Oh, no, I think it makes total sense. People often find logical explanations for even the most terrible actions. I tried to explain this to you when I said that morality is based on dogmatic principles. It’s a mistake to think that a criminal is someone who can’t think rationally or can’t control their emotions through reason.
Many idealistic scenarios are the result of “rational” reasoning, and often they turn into nightmares. We should be extremely cautious in believing that what we find rational is the only possible interpretation of things.
Atheism
noun
I stopped reading there, I am done explaining why.
Indeed not, but since I have never claimed otherwise I am left wondering why you have shared something that seems almost trivially true? Especially when I very carefully explained that this subjective bias innate in us, was precisely why we created methods like logic and science, to remove as much of that subjective bias as possible.
Nope, I have explained this would be precluded by the criteria I set for belief, and there is no belief I would not abandon if the objective evidence dictated it.
Care to tell us what this latest sweeping unevidenced assertion, has to with your claim that
You have two claims there, I’ve numbered them for you as you seem unable to address them. Now care to offer anything beyond even more sweeping unevidenced assertions that remotely support either assertion? NB anecdotal claims will be binned.
Straw man fallacy, I have never in my life claimed to possess absolute truth, and am not making any such mistake, only refusing to believe claims that are insufficiently or completely unsupported by any objective evidence.
Another pithy unevidenced sweeping assertion, quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
There is no we, that’s a straw man you made up. Again it simply screams out that you don’t understand what logic is or what it does.
