For former Mormons who became atheists

[_subgenius]

Can Dr shades be in 2 rooms at once is the question.

But do you really mean "Can (parts of) Dr Shades exist inside 2 rooms at once?"...

I think it has a clear answer.

Clearly, both are acceptable...which has been the point....a point not lost to you...but your ego refuses it to date.
Whereas you would try to claim that one must claim a certain percentage to some yet to be stated decimal precision has meaning.

The relative accuracy is meaningless to the original concept...as has been illustrated by the "blue shirt" example.
Claiming the shirt is Blue is less accurate than claiming the shirt is Carolina Blue...but both statements are still true.
Thus, Saying Dr Shades is in the room or that Dr Shades is out of the room is less accurate than saying Dr Shades is in the doorway...or that Dr Shades is 35.45674% in the doorway - 27.3456% in the room - 43.8765% in the other room.
Your inability to admit this distinction has allowed only your ego/pride to present itself....and your responses thus far have clearly illustrated that.
You are no longer "arguing" "debating" or "discussing"...you are simply engaged in self-pleasure.

[_subgenius]

Actually, the most tried and true example I would readily accept is "This statement is false." That would have been really easy.

not really...that is a paradox...we were discussing contradictions being able to have simultaneous validity.
i can understand the confusion, as the former relies on "defying logic" (proofs) whereas the latter is much less complex.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello,

As an avowed Atheist & Humanist I'll take a moment to address your OP even though the thread is 10 pages deep.

notwithstanding your frivolous introduction......moderators tend to not like it when you post your text in "red".

(unless you were informing us of your Atheism and Humanism in order that we may be aware of the handicap you are bringing to the discussion?)

Hello Sub-Genius,

I haven't had any moderators state whether or not they dislike my responses in red. One can easily discern the reason why I did that.

Well. You couldn't. So we have that.

Also, I was unaware that informing the OP that I'm an Atheist, in a thread dedicated to Atheists, was a handicap? Not sure how you expect an Atheist to answer the OP's query if said Atheist, the targeted audience of this thread, is actually a Theist.

Please refrain from any snarkiness in the Celestial forum, and I'll do the same. Thank you in advance.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[Guest]

Hello Sub-Genius,

that is odd....if the specific thinking is an unresolved fear of death....then whatever is the general understanding you speak of?

By generally understanding why I meant "generally understanding why", not "having a general understanding".

Your statement here is a standard "reason" cited by amateur atheists who either have a misconception about Theism or no knowledge at all on the subject. It is an understandable position given the options available to an atheist/humanist.

I'll forgo stating which logical fallacy this just fell under. That said, I feel similarly about Theists on this board... Generally.

Nice speculation, but mostly just silliness. The "conflating" emotion argument is weak and always without support. To assume that a person is unable to make the emotion/knowledge distinction is absurd and unfounded. The atheist/humanist always relies on some sort of imaginary intellectual high ground.

That's why I stated it was a belief of mine the OP is conflating knowledge with emotion. For example, you're making emotive declarative statements which do nothing but underscore your own feelings on the matter.

speaking of trying to convince others..... Bold assertions are also a person's attempt to convey the truth.

I think you're conflating an assertion with an opinion, which was the reason why I was careful to use "I believe...".

ugh...i decided it was best to cut to the chase....The way it is possible to debate on one's internal processes(whatever those are??)

You don't know what an internal process is? In context of this discussion? How is that possible?

is by recognizing that internal processes are objective and not subjective. We recognize this simple fact in society through concepts like "insanity", "schizophrenia", "normal" etc...

Hoo boy. You have that completely backward, friend. Objectivity not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudices. It's based on facts and is unbiased. The OP is anything but objective; it's inherently subjective.

As an atheist/humanist you must surely recognize, accept, and promote that the laws of nature

What laws are we talking about? Have you considered quantum mechanics in their relation to your supposed immutable laws of nature? Is light a wave or a particle and how does it behave? I believe your subjectivity is showing through again.

are immutable by a human being and therefore every human being is incapable of choosing otherwise...that every human being's behavior, thought, emotion, action, etc.. is bound and beholden to the same laws of the universe.

That's existentially impossible to know, friend.

Therefore, every human "process" is predictable and consistent. These "processes" have but one manner and but one philosophy...to obey the laws of the universe...and it does not matter if it is "normal", "defective", or "mutated"...there can be no escape.

Well, if that were the case there would be no crime, no? Your statement doesn't make any sense on any fundamental level.

The complexity of these processes, according to the atheist/humanist, can not escape these laws anymore than the laws of gravity can be circumvented.

You might want to let NASA know they can't circumvent gravity.

Your position is primitive and narrow...man progressed towards Theism from atheism....atheists are, at best when considering their minority presence throughout history, a defective social entity.

There goes your objectivity again! I think you have it backward, yet again. As our society matures, and becomes more and more sophisticated the rejection of God-belief is increasing. I believe easily accessible knowledge, mass education, and the mass communication of ideas are facilitating this phenomenon. Typically in the more restrictive societies, to include the undereducated, do you see Theism flourish unabated.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Ceeboo]

Hey Dr.Cam

we generally find it disheartening that Theism exists, but we also generally understand why. Specifically, I think it's because the Believer has an unresolved fear of death. [/i][/color]

Nonsense!

I define Love as a two-fold thing. The first being a chemical reaction that induces us to have sex, primarily for the propagation of our species, and secondly as a psycho-sexual condition in which we place the object of our affection above the morality we hold for others in order to sustain a relationship that is primarily concerned with the propagation of our species. [/i][/color]

Do you often have these 'chemical reactions' with your children, your parents, your close friends, your siblings, your dog?

Love is a pretty simple thing anyone can grasp if they're willing to think about it for a second or two. [/i][/color]

1 one thousand - 2 one thousand !

Nope, I still think love is one of the most complex, deep, and enormously powerful things on this planet.

Peace and random chemical reaction (But not the kind that induces us to have sex for the propogation of our species)
Ceeboo

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Hello Ceeboo,

I was simply answering the OP's questions directed at someone like myself. I can understand you saying "Nonsense!", but you're not an Atheist. I wouldn't expect you to hold the same view I do.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_Ceeboo]

Hey again, Cam,

Hello Ceeboo,

I was simply answering the OP's questions directed at someone like myself. I can understand you saying "Nonsense!", but you're not an Atheist. I wouldn't expect you to hold the same view I do.

V/R
Dr. Cam

Fair enough!

Peace,
Ceeboo

[_moksha]

Atheist walks into a room and sits down with LDS President Gordon B. Hinckley.

President Hinckley smiles and says "put your truths on the table and we will see what we can add to it". The atheist then proceeds to place a rather large chunk of null space on the table.

President Hinckley looks at it for a minute and then says, "looks like you have spent some serious time reading the FAIR website".

[_subgenius]

You don't know what an internal process is? In context of this discussion? How is that possible?

It is possible by your own subscribed and prior declared philosophy......i can only assume you a referring to the biochemical process that occur inside the boundaries of a person's skin?
Were you just being poetic or is there an actual "process" that you know of?

Hoo boy. You have that completely backward, friend. Objectivity not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudices. It's based on facts and is unbiased. The OP is anything but objective; it's inherently subjective.

Impossible! you are contradicting yourself.....how is it possible for "personal feelings" (as opposed to impersonal feeling?) to influence external stimuli? These "personal feelings" are products of that stimuli, they are wholly reliant on that stimuli! If you are admitting your own inability to discern "feelings" then surely that must be either a developmental defect or a retardation in one of those "internal processes".

What laws are we talking about? Have you considered quantum mechanics in their relation to your supposed immutable laws of nature? Is light a wave or a particle and how does it behave? I believe your subjectivity is showing through again.

what laws? laws like gravity...laws that govern chemical reactions...perhaps you are unaware that certain chemicals, when combined, will produce a reaction...and that reaction is inescapable...those chemicals are incapable of "reacting" any other way.
As for light being a wave or a particle, that question does not negate natural laws...our awareness of a natural law does not determine its existence....the earth was spinning around the sun before we ever realized it was.

are immutable by a human being and therefore every human being is incapable of choosing otherwise...that every human being's behavior, thought, emotion, action, etc.. is bound and beholden to the same laws of the universe.

That's existentially impossible to know, friend.

ironically you just made a faith based statement....and it is completely impossible for your atheism/humanism to avoid that conclusion. Your own declaration of being an atheist/hunanist makes it impossible for you to deny that you are bound to the laws of the universe...whatever those laws may be.....unless you are claiming, now, that there is a supernatural?

Therefore, every human "process" is predictable and consistent. These "processes" have but one manner and but one philosophy...to obey the laws of the universe...and it does not matter if it is "normal", "defective", or "mutated"...there can be no escape.

Well, if that were the case there would be no crime, no? Your statement doesn't make any sense on any fundamental level.

No, crime would still be possible...it is obviously, by your own philosophy, the result of basic processes...in fact, there could be no other result...just as one chemical can not "choose" how it will react with another chemical. Just so happens, with criminals, their result is deemed as a crime by the majority of other processes. Likely, crime would be due to a defect. No person, according to an atheist/humanist, has the ability to override an "internal" chemical process (because that ability would have to be just another chemical process)...you are nothing more than the sum total of biochemical reactions which have no way to deviate from their processes as they are initiated by external stimuli. Your own mind "thinking" it is "making" a choice has to be an illusion...there never was a choice because the chemistry can not deviate.
This is an inescapable conclusion for your doctrine my friend.
However, if you "think" that you are able to choose otherwise...then, please, as an atheist/ humanist, describe how that is possible...describe how your "mind", or your body, is able to choose which chemical reactions will occur and how these reactions could result in something "different" than what the laws of chemistry would prescribe?
and then explain what, if it is not a biochemical product, your "thoughts" are?

You might want to let NASA know they can't circumvent gravity.

i am pretty sure they do not violate or circumvent the law of gravity...in fact they spend quite a bit of effort in order to adhere to that law....hint: big rocket engine. Me jumping in the air is not circumventing the law of gravity...in fact that action confirms it...the law requires me to exert a specific and immutable force due to gravity...i can not somehow magically render the law of gravity non-existent as you apparently imagine the magic rocket does.
If you have proof of NASA somehow suspending or negating the law of gravity, please post it.

There goes your objectivity again! I think you have it backward, yet again. As our society matures, and becomes more and more sophisticated the rejection of God-belief is increasing. I believe easily accessible knowledge, mass education, and the mass communication of ideas are facilitating this phenomenon. Typically in the more restrictive societies, to include the undereducated, do you see Theism flourish unabated.

please...at best your trying to confuse correlation with causation....and your notion of "as society matures" is imaginary and without reference. You are suddenly on the objective-train? Please, provide evidence that society is "maturing"... exactly what is a "fully developed" society?
The only reasonable conclusion form history is that atheists are a social defect.

Ultimately your claim that you are an atheist requires you to be amoral (not immoral...amoral)...yet you contradict that notion by claiming to be a humanist...i assume a secular humanist, because a religious humanist would negate your atheism...nevertheless, it might be interesting for you to start a thread where you provide, if possible, the basis for which you derive your moral code...my guess is that it is derived from the "seat of my pants" school of thought.

[_Alfredo]

Clearly, both are acceptable...which has been the point....a point not lost to you...but your ego refuses it to date.
Whereas you would try to claim that one must claim a certain percentage to some yet to be stated decimal precision has meaning.

The relative accuracy is meaningless to the original concept...as has been illustrated by the "blue shirt" example.
Claiming the shirt is Blue is less accurate than claiming the shirt is Carolina Blue...but both statements are still true.
Thus, Saying Dr Shades is in the room or that Dr Shades is out of the room is less accurate than saying Dr Shades is in the doorway...or that Dr Shades is 35.45674% in the doorway - 27.3456% in the room - 43.8765% in the other room.
Your inability to admit this distinction has allowed only your ego/pride to present itself....and your responses thus far have clearly illustrated that.
You are no longer "arguing" "debating" or "discussing"...you are simply engaged in self-pleasure.

I don't see why you're bringing up the shirt again. My thing is determining contradiction, if you haven't noticed... Cus apparently you haven't noticed that blue includes Carolina blue. So, with those meanings the two don't contradict one another. Blue includes Carolina blue (<---looked it up). The only other meaning you could apply to blue and still make sense is to define blue as, say, this color. Now, one of the statements would clearly be false given that a shirt with a fixed color would be either Carolina blue or whatever blue you choose.... but there's just no case for contradiction as long as you choose to define blue as including Carolina blue.

But still not letting you get away with this, sub... I can ignore what you said about my ego because it won't matter after I prove my point still. There is no contradiction until you define what you mean by "Dr Shades", even if it's ambiguous.

It doesn't help to just make new statements with percentages. That just answers my question as to whether you mean part of Dr. Shades or not.... Although, I'm not sure if that's what you intended because I sometimes don't know what you're talking about if you don't relate it the points I make. I ask you to do it constantly. Don't see why you haven't caught on that our discussion would be much smoother if you did. I can be understanding even if might choose to be a dick.

As for the most important idea I'm offering for this discussion... I'll break it down again: It's not my ego. It's this: there are only a few meanings for "Dr Shades" in those statements which might make sense. The statements could possibly mean "part of Dr Shades", but then they no longer contradict. That's why I've assumed you won't use that definition in order to show contradiction.

So the question that follows is what else could it mean and (watch now... the point---->) retain contradiction? That's all you really have to do to show what you think you know about me.

I'll be a little extra honest. Not only can I not think of any way to consider the two statements in any non-ambiguous way that saves your contradiction... I've been thinking, but I still can't come up with a way to show contradiction even by defining terms as ambiguous.

not really...that is a paradox...we were discussing contradictions being able to have simultaneous validity.
i can understand the confusion, as the former relies on "defying logic" (proofs) whereas the latter is much less complex.

Not about defying logic? Why didn't you just say your not talking about any logic defying contradiction?

So, you mean that it doesn't matter that the contradiction is the result of using ambiguous terms and not logically sound... I don't need to ask how ambiguous statements can be logically valid?

You just mean to say that each statement isn't valid but "vaaaaliiiddd". Ok. Why didn't you just say so instead of pretending like you couldn't relate this to my request to define terms? You can just admit that I'm right about each of the unambiguous meanings for the terms create no contradiction... (but how can I know really because you didn't respond to them...) Then we can move on once it's understood that I'm still calling BS on whether you can provide definitions for the terms in you room statements and keep the contradiction.