Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Um, no! (Score 1) 501

by narcc (#48043549) Attached to: Are the World's Religions Ready For ET?

You still have no logical explanation for a soul with an atheist position, because atheism by nature disbelieves in supernatural forces.

How many times to I have to say it? To be an atheist requires only that you don't believe any any god. You can believe in a soul, afterlife, etc. without also believing in a god. Hence, belief in a soul, afterlife, etc. is perfectly compatible with atheism.

You can change the definition of atheism to preclude that, just don't expect that anyone will accept it.

I have read a whole lot of excellent philosophical works and named 3 authors, you can't name one and can't argue your own position.

You're right. I can't find anyone who both espouses your definition of atheism and argues that the belief in a soul is compatible with it.

Why? For the same reason that I can't find a geologist who argues against the idea the center of the earth is made of pudding.

Atheism to you may include a whole bunch of other nonsense criteria, but here in reality all that is required is a belief that no gods exist.

Again, this is about YOUR argument and how ridiculous it is:

No, Hinduism and Atheism are NOT compatible. The easiest way to demonstrate that you are wrong: Hindu people believe that failures in morality/karma/dharma result in a corrupt soul and may result in reincarnation as a lesser creature as punishment.

Again, you can be an atheist and believe in both a soul and reincarnation. Why? Because neither of those believes also require the believer to believe in any god.

Those things would ONLY be incompatible with atheism if either one required a belief in god. They, very obviously, do not. Therefore, both beliefs are compatible with atheism.

I'm getting a bit tired of repeating myself here. What are you having trouble understanding?

Comment: Re:Um, no! (Score 1) 501

by narcc (#48042931) Attached to: Are the World's Religions Ready For ET?

If you want to argue that a soul and it's judgement fits with atheism please explain.

As I've already stated: A god concept is unnecessary to explain a final judgement or a soul, hence, both are compatible with atheism.

Point me to a credible philosophical work which explains how this contradiction can occur and I'll be satisfied.

There's no contradiction. You don't need a god concept for a judgement or an afterlife.

I have studied Philosophy for nearly 4 decades and have yet to read or see such work.

I'm going to guess that by "study" you mean "smoking pot" and not "reading books". Start with Whitehead and work your way forward.

My contention was that a deity is required for a soul to be judged and have a purpose,

Why do you believe that a god is required for a soul to be judged? Many people believe that such a judgement is done by themselves (as I stated earlier). If you don't like that, how about a judgement by a soul's peers? How about judgement by a lesser entity, like how a people might judge their king. Judgement, very obviously, does not require a deity.

Equally, why do you think that a soul only has purpose if a god exists? That seems like it would be a complicated argument to make, and I doubt that any such argument would be convincing.

Again, your argument was that "Hinduism" (by your definition) is incompatible with atheism:

No, Hinduism and Atheism are NOT compatible. The easiest way to demonstrate that you are wrong: Hindu people believe that failures in morality/karma/dharma result in a corrupt soul and may result in reincarnation as a lesser creature as punishment.

None of those beliefs also require a belief in a god. Hence, they do not make "Hinduism" incompatible with atheism. Your argument is terrible.

Comment: Re:Um, no! (Score 1) 501

by narcc (#48041073) Attached to: Are the World's Religions Ready For ET?

The Wiki article and definition is wrong?

No, it's right there in the summary: "Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist."

The premise of atheist arguments that "science ~can prove~ that a deity is not needed for a Universe" discussed in books since at least the 1700s are all wrong too?

You're confusing things. To be an atheist means that you don't believe in a god. How you justify that belief is irrelevant to your status as an atheist. An atheist need not justify their atheism with any argument, let alone whatever specific argument to which you want all atheists to agree.

Hence my reply to your original post where I contend that you can be an atheist and still believe in all of those things you list, as well as a multitude of similar things. My point was that your argument that "Hinduism" is incomparable with atheism is incoherent.

Hmm, car is a tangible scientifically made object. A Soul is what again?

I'm going to stop you there. Your contention was that a " supernatural being" was necessary to attach a soul to a vessel and thus an atheist cannot believe in reincarnation. My point was that you need not posit a god as such an entity is not necessarily essential. Why shouldn't a soul be able to step in to a vessel as easily as I step in to my car? You seem to have VERY strong beliefs about things that you don't believe even exist. I find that puzzling.

Comment: Re:Um, no! (Score 1) 501

by narcc (#48039535) Attached to: Are the World's Religions Ready For ET?

Atheism does not claim a particular god (or group of gods) does not exist, atheism claims that the Universe requires no supernatural deity in order to exist and can be explained by science alone.

Sorry, I assumed you were using the definition everyone else uses. In the future, it would help if you gave your own definition for terms if you've redefined them to suit your personal tastes.

Judgement of a soul (which meets criteria as supernatural entity on it's own) would be done by what exactly, if not a supernatural being?

Some people believe that they judge themselves during a life review.

Moving said soul into another living creature would be done by what exactly, if not a supernatural being?

I don't need a mechanic to get in my car, or a tailor to get dressed in the morning. Why should a supernatural being be necessary for a disembodied soul to possess a vessel?

Belief in what is convenient is satanism "do what thou wilt" and not atheism. And yes segments of atheism have been taken over by satanic beliefs, and it's been easy to do since people believe in appeals to authority.

Okay...

Comment: Re:Um, no! (Score 1) 501

by narcc (#48034163) Attached to: Are the World's Religions Ready For ET?

No, Hinduism and Atheism are NOT compatible. The easiest way to demonstrate that you are wrong: Hindu people believe that failures in morality/karma/dharma result in a corrupt soul and may result in reincarnation as a lesser creature as punishment.

Atheists don't believe any gods exist. You can be an atheist and believe in reincarnation, an afterlife, souls, and a host of other things.

+ - bentgate, a new issue Phone 6 users?

Submitted by mrspoonsi
mrspoonsi (2955715) writes "First, there was 'Antennagate', as iPhone 4 users found a noticeable drop in signal strength when touching the lower-left corner of their handset, leading Apple to tell its customers that they were holding the device the wrong way. Then came 'Scuffgate', as iPhone 5 users complained that it was all too easy to scratch that device's aluminium bodywork. Now, with the launch of Apple's latest handsets, comes 'Bentgate'. A handful of users — so far, at least — have complained that their iPhone 6 Plus handsets are 'bending', without significant force being exerted upon them. Several of these reports have come from users on the MacRumors forums. One user, 'hanzoh', said that his handset had been in his front trouser pocket for much of the day, which involved sitting while on a long drive and at a wedding, where he also danced. By the end of the day, when he placed his 6 Plus on his coffee table, he noticed that the device had bent slightly towards the top."

Comment: Re:PROOF (Score -1, Flamebait) 275

by narcc (#47970929) Attached to: Nvidia Sinks Moon Landing Hoax Using Virtual Light

Randi's trick for disproving psychic phenomena is blind and double-blind testing.

Randi's trick is convincing you that that's what he does.

How he gets away with his nonsense when all his followers are (admittedly, self-described) skeptics is beyond me.

Speaking of ... why isn't he in jail? Why hasn't Pena been deported?

Comment: Re:funny! [frist post] (Score 1) 133

by narcc (#47969631) Attached to: "Big Bang Signal" Could All Be Dust

Yahweh, of course.

"Lol, watch this! I'm gonna put this bitchin' fruit out there, and then tell those jerks who don't even know right from wrong to not eat it. When they do, I'll totally fuck over their entire race from now until the end of time and blame them for it!"
-- Genesis 3:2, Standard Slashdot Translation

They laughed at Einstein. They laughed at the Wright Brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. -- Carl Sagan

Working...