The philosophy and mindset of religion forum trolls

  • Thread starter Thread starter ronnie_bonigli
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
iS there any physical evidence, like perhaps true randomness (which science is proving does not exist within the fields of non-linear mathematics, quantam theory and Chaos) that sugests GOd does not exist?

Let’s take a very common and simple scientific law: The result cannot be greater than the cause.

You cannot have 1+1=3, because the potential for the triad does not exist in two singular objects, only the potential for a dyad, 2.

Now, not all causes are explicitly greater than their results, for example, it seems on the face of it, difficult to believe that a tree can originate from a single seed, but that seed has all the potentiality of a 500 year old oak, if that is the type of seed it is.

Now, the Classical definition of God is a rational being who is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and omnipresent.

This is very intriguing and intself is a mystery to the atheist: How is it possible to conceive of things that we have no experience with and are not latent within any part of the known universe?

For example, we do not have any recorded sensible experience (according to the atheist) of omnipotence, all-power, an infinity of power that is limitless in its source, its scope, and has no degredation. In other words, it is not subject to the second law of thermodynamics, which is at work within the entire universe: All things undergo decay and expend more energy than they can retain.

THerefore to conceive of omnipotence is to conceive of that which does not even exist within the bounds of our physical universe! BUt if all our knowledge of everything is sensory, how do we conceptualize that which it is impossible to know?

Or omniscience. We know what it is to know alot (and atheists are obviously people who know the most :rolleyes: although they choose to live outside the 95% of the world which acknowledges a supreme being of some sort). But none of us have had contact with limitless intelligence capable of knowing not only all that was, but all that is, and all that will be equally at any given point of time.

THerefore to conceive of omniscience is to conceive of that with which we have never had any contact! It is therefore to conceive of something beyond the realm of the senses, which of course is impossible for an atheist.

Or omnipresence: We have never had direct sensible contact with anything that exists everywhere, at all times, in all places, simultaneously, without any dimunition of its substance. But there is something that the atheist must admit is unfeleable and exists everywhere at all times and all places and suffers no dimunition of its substance…

…Truth. If the atheist denies that truth is true at all times and places, then there will be a time and a place where his opinion of truth is untrue, therefore simply reinforcing the truth of the TRUTH.

Therefore, the reasonable atheist will admit to the existence of an intangible substance that exists everywhere in all times and all places.

The next question would be then: Whence is truth? For something so vast and all pervading, for the atheist, what could possibly be its origin? It cannot be less than the truth itself is (whatever that means) because no effect is greater than its cause. Therefore, whatever caused truth is itself truthful.

THerefore since we can conceive of things with which we have no experience abstractly (and rather apophatically) or actually, we must be reflecting something within ourselves: a trace, a mark, an indicator of origin.

Atheistic Darwinian evolution is infeasible because its premise is randomness. THerefore, since no cause is greater than its effect, and order is more perfect than randomness, it impossible that an ordered and orderly world have a random beginning. If it is so, there is no means to determine by which any of us can know anything, because it might just be random neurons in a random aand unstable frame in a shaky and imbalanced world, and therefore without value, nor real meaning.

But We know truth! We can do math: THere is a God.

If these atheists arise from Randomness, on what basis is their mind an adequate receptacle for the truth?

It’s self-refuting, as is their own existence, and they will wake up eventually.
 
Atheism, in its broadest sense, is not accepting claims that gods exist.

An atheist is one who thinks that there is insufficient evidence for the existence of any god. When there is insufficient evidence for the existence of any entity, the rational position is not to believe in this entity until there is sufficient evidence.

Some atheists go a step further and not only do not accept claims about gods but actively believe that no gods exist. But all atheists have in common the fact that they do not accept claims about the existence of gods.
 
"AntiTheist:
Atheism, in its broadest sense, is not accepting claims that gods exist. Some atheists go a step further and… actively believe that no gods exist.
Click to expand...
Exactly.
Dale_M said:
However, the atheist trolls of whom Ronnie has complained take the position that God does not exist and that it is silly to believe in God. Such thinking is a faith statement, since they really have no way of knowing.
Click to expand...
And I agree with you claiming “God is impossible” would be a faith-based claim. Sagan would say, “Absence of evidence is not evidence of absense.”
 
So, it’s not that there is no God, it’s just that you feel you haven’t been given a good enough argument yet. HA!

WIshful thinking.
 
edward_george said:
What have you done to help the poor? You come on here and preach all of this–and yet what have you yourself done? The Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the world. You preach anti-religion and “let’s help the poor.” If you don’t believe in God, then how can you believe in a supreme good, which would include helping the poor? How can you say that we are evil for not helping the poor? The fact that there are poor people should simply be a part of life, just how the chips fall in our world, evolutionarily speaking–survival of the fittest, eh?

What have you done for the poor?

-ACEGC
Click to expand...
The fundamental question is that the manipulation from the God and the teaching of the churches are bulwarks for our planet to enter the final stage of development. It is symbolized by (1) the elimination of all supernatural beliefs and (2) the scientific approaches to fully explain our world.

First, the God has overwhelming power over us. It has been reflected by all religions and human history.

Second, the natural roles of the God (the nucleus – manipulator – of this planet) and the humankind (the life cycles – biosphere) have fully satisfied our current circumstances and human history. This scientific approach (to apply basic biological principles into the planetary level) is the only way to explain the occurrence of lives on the Earth.

Third, we have no evidences for undefined objects, ghosts etc. The most important is that souls contain no memories and are not self-conscious. It does not worth to die for a book – the Bible. If it happened, it will become really a classic in the universe. As a bachelor in history, I can tell you that it was written within 2,000 years. We have everything required for a scientific approach to illustrate the origin of our world. That is the similarities of lives. Lives are lives in different levels. A higher level of lives gives birth to the lower ones. It has fully explained the occurrence of lives on the Earth and the absence of lives on the other planet by pointing out the natural role of human beings (biosphere) as the life cycles of this planet. By comparing the most basic unit of lives (the cell) and the Earth, we have the clues how hierarchies of lives work.

If most of us have denied this scientific hypothesis, this manipulator (the so-called God in all religions) will become illusions forever. When the life cycle has finally come to an end, all of us will hear a voice talking about heaven and hell. Everyone will look upon this voice as an illusion. It is a forseenable ending of this manipulator. **Our world will end with hate (against those hiding the truth). **Please consider it as a serious warning. There are records in the search engines and I am saving all my conversations on the online forums for the future development of this scientific hypothesis.

Do not blame on language barriers. A native English speaker is very arrogant to refuse questions by saying, “I do not understand”. You are keeping us away from the truth. The intention of the God and religious people to turn the clock back is the same as murdering all of us.

What I have done is using my real identity to let the public to realize the truth in the electronic platforms with the hope to delay the time (death is an inevitable cost for every living thing).

Life has a start. There must be an end.
Aging can only be slow down. It cannot be recovered.
By comparing the Earth with the mother cell, we have the full picture on the nature of lives.

Teru Wong
 
LifeIsAbsurd said:
Dale_M, if atheism simply amounts to not believing the claim “God exists”, I can’t imagine you successfully arguing faith is required to be an atheist. The only way I could see you accomplishing that would be to create a straw man argument, for example, defining atheism to mean something silly few atheists claim like “God is impossible”.
Click to expand...
Here’s my take on it. There are “agnostic atheists”, who maybe in their quieter moments will even wonder if maybe there is something else beyond this world. And then there are the what used to be called militant atheists, i.e. evangelical atheists, now called “new atheists”. These are the ones are tend to see atheists as an enlightened elite minority surrounded by a mass of unenlightened superstitions fools, and it is their “duty” to mock, humiliate, insult, and ridicule them with the rare possibility that they might shake these superstitions fools into enlightenment. They are the ones who love to put up mocking atheist billboards like “You know it’s a myth. This season, celebrate reason” at Christmas time. We don’t have many new atheists here because their modus operandi tends to get them quickly banned in a forum like CAF that has low tolerance for that behavior.

I would say that new atheism is less a “religion” than one of the world’s best self-esteem boasting programs, you can be a plumber, bricklayer, or garbageman and still feel that you are intellectually superior to the majority of mankind, not a bad deal.
 
Because if the ‘Anti-whatever’ feels they have a good reason for being against it, they want to tell the people who are for it.

Like you see a reason against abortion, well then you’ll go and protest against the pro-choicers.

Everybody feels the need to voice their opinion and tell others why they are ‘wrong’. Its part of human nature apparently.

Politics should give you a great example of what I mean.
 
40.png
Ronnie:
Here’s my take on it. There are “agnostic atheists”, who maybe in their quieter moments will even wonder if maybe there is something else beyond this world. And then there are the what used to be called militant atheists, i.e. evangelical atheists, now called “new atheists”.
Click to expand...
Ronnie, whether one is agnostic or not and whether one is an evangelist or not are separate choices.

For example, there’s Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion. He’s an atheist, an agnostic, and an evangelist all wrapped into one.

What’s the basis for atheist agnostic evangelism? Consider, some people claim there’s a dinosaur in Loch Ness. Wikipedia refers to Nessie as a cryptid, “a creature or plant whose existence has been suggested but that is unrecognized by a scientific consensus, and whose existence is moreover often regarded as highly unlikely.” If I had an elderly mother who planned to donate all their monies to protecting Nessie, I would try to persuade her not to, even though I can’t be absolutely certain Nessie doesn’t exist. If she believed in Nessie but didn’t make any negative life decisions based on that, I probably wouldn’t care.

I’m not an evangelist. I don’t believe your choice to be a Catholic has a negative impact upon me or my family.
Blue Shadow:
Everybody feels the need to voice their opinion and tell others why they are ‘wrong’. Its part of human nature apparently.
Click to expand...
That, too! We’re humans, not vulcans… Mr. Spock excepted. 😉
 
“Lives in Different Levels” is a universal hypothesis. It is different from atheism. The God exists. Instead of the supernatural beliefs, the hierarchy of lives is a much more reasonable claim for the existence of this subject. If this scientific hypothesis failed, this subject will become illusions forever. When the life cycle finally come to an end, this subject may whisper into everyone’s minds and talking about heaven and hell. However, we will laugh at this subject (the God in all religions) and pretend to have illusions (according to its meanings in psychology). This is foreseeable.

Religions are not convincing enough to persuade the new generations to accept the existence of this subject. We have to find another way out. The scientific approach to her existence can also stop the exploitations of natural resources and put all human resources back to delay the aging of the Earth. If this attempt failed, the relationship between this subject (the nucleus) and humankind (the life cycles) will never be found. It will lead to the tragic ending of our planet. The God will become illusions forever. Eyewitnesses are impossible. Nothing out of the natural rules.

“History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce” Our planet does not have a second chance.

We are indivisible – the nucleus and the life cycles co-exist as a unity.
Everyone was born to be.

I have no offenses. I am talking about the possible future.
Welcome to have a look on My Vision

Teru Wong
 
LifeIsAbsurd said:
That’s wonderful. It’s worth noting, the top two American philanthropists are agnostics, as are the top two donors in my corporate office:

**Uh, that’s actually not necessarily worth noting, and here’s why:

From the likes of the Gospel of Mark * to Dostoyevsky’s ‘The Brother’s Karamazov’, intelligent people have recognized the… how shall we say… ‘diminishing demands’ of charity, as the philanthropist becomes wealthier. Which is why we recognize that the old widow in the parable is the greater ‘philanthropist’ when she enters destitution for the sake of charity, over Bill and Melinda Gates when they sign away several million.

So, these figures measured solely in cumulative donations do not really reflect the charity*** of the philanthropist. This is without taking into account that philanthropy can be immensely profitable, from the laws governing American taxes to the positive emphasis we place on philanthropy given our country’s Christian roots.

Finally, the Roman Catholic Church’s charity and its contributions cannot be measured alongside the figures on the list you’ve cited–the Church’s contributions are not simply monetary. In order for our Church to function, many men and women selflessly give their lives to service. For the vast majority of the Church’s servants (and even her laity), their gift is in form like the old widow’s.

To sum up, its a fundamental misconception of charity, to reduce it to cumulative total of monetary gifts, without consideration of proportion.

businessweek.com/interactive_reports/philanthropy_individual_2008.html?chan=magazine%252Bchannel_special%252Breport

Agnostics and atheists don’t have to be charitable, we don’t fear a supreme being nor threats of damnation, but many choose to be charitable.

**Are you suggesting that [all/most?] theists are charitable [only/largely?] because of fear and threats? If not, what does fear/hell/damnation have to do with anything?

I hate to indulge in tangents, but I find it so silly how atheists attempt to lionize their cause by re-drawing the ideological lines to fit some ridiculous model of ‘those who are/are not afraid of hell…’, rather than what these terms actually stand for.**

My reasons for philanthropy are personal, but Warren Buffet states his here:

cms.givingpledge.org/Content/uploads/634159146750834110_Warren%20Buffett.pdf

**As stated above, this isn’t really comparable. Warren Buffet donates to charity without enduring a single second of privation to his lifestyle. **

Excellent question (for everyone to consider for themselves).
Click to expand...
 
LifeIsAbsurd said:
By pre-judging all “those people” are trolls you have your answer by definition:

Wikipedia: “[A] troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog,** with the primary intent of provoking other users into a desired emotional response** or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.”

If you actually want to understand someone, that usually begins with setting aside prejudices–consider asking a particular person why they say what they say if you’re curious.

If you just find someone annoying, ignore them, or choose a forum with active moderators who see things your way. Trolls are everywhere, and almost as common as claims that non-trolls are trolls.

Yours,
A relatively happy, non-theist, non-gnostic, non-troll. 😛
Click to expand...
What we have is a functional definition, largely in terms of a specific kind behavior–with, I concede to your point above, only a glimpse into this person’s intentions.

Put simply, we have people who come here and say things that are inflammatory or hurtful. I can understand the knee-jerk anxiety you might have when I use a term as subjective as ‘inflammatory’, but I don’t think my use of this term is inappropriate. Especially given that there are very clear principles set out in the CAF forum rules and CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) of what we as Catholics believe, what we do not believe, and how to offend against what we believe in.

In this way, the CCC might be used in a perverse and extremely ironic way as handbook of how to offend a Catholic, haha. :rolleyes:

So, it is a fair question to ask: why does a person do this? Its not excessively prejudiced to classify a certain set of actions, and then inquire into the reasons behind this behavior.

As for your quaint suggestion that all we have to do is politely ask them why they hold this or that opinion–many people come here, vociferously denying any value in the RCC. Their stated position is that the RCC is an ideological dinosaur, there is no rational basis for sharing its opinions, and its ridiculously irrelevant to the point of being laughable. Usually, their reasons for this aren’t particularly well-grounded in any one source of Catholic doctrine or practice–not in encyclicals, scripture, documented occurrences in Catholic history, &c… They frame these few positive statements in angry tirades, full of pompous language.

Yet, they’re still here, reading what Catholics have to say. Most of what we’re interested in–in such a case, if you can imagine it, or find an example of it within the forum–is hidden not so carefully ‘between the lines’.

Therefore, its not a mistaken classification, as your post suggests. There are more than enough examples of this kind of behavior, for the OP to wonder why it is that people who condemn… in speech… our Church and her doctrines to ‘nonsensical irrelevance’, at the same time… in action… devote an otherwise unconscionable amount of time and interest to engaging Catholics over the internet.
 
kk23wong said:
I have noticed contradictions in your religion.

Charity and love of the God are being revealed by the number of deaths in developing countries.

The God denied the physical presence and it resulted in disaster – population bloom, exploitations of natural resources and overproduction of consumer goods.

The physical presence of the God allows us to understand the nature the universe. The natural role of the humankind is the life cycles of this planet. The biosphere will eventually come to an end and the regenerations of the Earth must not be infinite. It explained the absence of lives on the nearby planet. It keeps our natural role and each planet itself is a higher level of lives. Hence, their biospheres have already ended.

Chinese English?

It is ridiculous to see people admire the God for their own fortune and forget those living in hell on the other side of the Earth. Soon the water and food shortage will spread to developed world. We have the evidence from the UN statistics. Only one person dares to speak out in this planet. You see how worse the situation is. The God manipulated our world by the GIFTED POWER from birth. Power does not equal to mortality. Every opponent was FORCED to compromise the God’s will. Otherwise, they have illusions. It is a TYRANNY.
Look at the crown on Jesus. Power has corrupted the God.

Teru Wong
Click to expand...
So… if I understand you correctly… you are the sound of one hand clapping?
 
LifeIsAbsurd said:
Ronnie, whether one is agnostic or not and whether one is an evangelist or not are separate choices.

Not necessarily separate choice. It is not difficult to imagine the formation of a person into an agnostic, for instance, being entirely separate and in isolation from their formation as an evangelist, for instance.*

For example, there’s Richard Dawkins, author of The God Delusion. He’s an atheist, an agnostic, and an evangelist all wrapped into one.

What’s the basis for atheist agnostic evangelism? Consider, some people claim there’s a dinosaur in Loch Ness. Wikipedia refers to Nessie as a cryptid,

Is your name Jimmy Wales, by any chance?

“a creature or plant whose existence has been suggested but that is unrecognized by a scientific consensus, and whose existence is moreover often regarded as highly unlikely.” If I had an elderly mother who planned to donate all their monies to protecting Nessie, I would try to persuade her not to attempt to dissuade her… Wikipedia says its a little less clumsy. 😉 , even though I can’t be absolutely certain Nessie doesn’t exist. If she believed in Nessie but didn’t make any negative life decisions based on that, I probably wouldn’t care.

I don’t really see how this tale is relevant, please connect that with the first sentence of your paragraph.

I’m not an evangelist. I don’t believe your choice to be a Catholic has a negative impact upon me or my family.

That, too! We’re humans, not vulcans… Mr. Spock excepted. 😉
Click to expand...
 
LifeIsAbsurd said:
I was trying to:

  1. *]clarify that charitable donations, atheism, and agnosticism are not incompatible,

    **Why? In response to whom? Why did you only cite the extreme fringe of ultra-wealthy agnostics/atheists whose philanthropy–of all people–actually loses its charitable dimension at that point. **

    *]give four concrete examples to support that claiim
    *]provide the reason why one of them chose to donate 99% of his wealth to charity
    *]re-focus on “What have you done for the poor”

    **As regards the last three here, I think my biggest problem with this is that your examples weren’t very compelling for the reasons cited. **

    I’m not embarassed in the least by any of the above goals, even if your follow-up implies I’ve failed to re-focus the thread onto “What have you done for the poor” and you would prefer to undermine the genorosity of the top American philanthropists by saying they don’t know what else to do with the money.

    I would like to refer you to your own opening statement within this very thread, where you advise us not to second-guess the motives behind the actions of trolls. What makes you so sure that these donations are committed out of generosity.

    I’ve also been told by (non-Catholic) Christians that my donations were not ‘true charity’. Its recipients seem not to care about that distinction.

    Well, since you’ve repeatedly injected mention of your own donations into the discussion, please be a little more specific about how you have donated.

    As a matter of fact, I cited four examples of agnostics and atheists, the top two philanthropists in America (wealthy) and the top two in my corporate office (middle class). Since I myself am one of my examples it’s absurd to think that I’m living vicariously through my own actions, and atheists in general have no need to–if we believe charity to be the right course of action, we’ll have personal examples to show like I do.

    And now I will make one final attempt, leveraging the dazzling power of large, colored, and unexpected fonts. 😛
Click to expand...
 
All:

My experience with true trolls is that, unfortunately, they don’t stay around long enough. Generally speaking, the so-called trolls on CAF, are people like you and I who want information. The information they want is, per se, unattainable. They are looking for that solid elocution that they cannot refute.They are expecting it from Catholics. They know they most likely will not get it from others.

They have been disregarded, under-regarded, and un-regarded, elsewhere. So, they throw out a large piece of bait, on CAF - hoping for that rare “big catch.” That ultimate series of words that will turn on their belief cycle. It is the Catholic duty and moral obligation to bite into it as big as he/she can. It is the Catholic duty to not disregard, under-regard, or un-regard our earth-mates.

The saving of just one, is worth our entire collected effort.

God bless,
jd.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top