Read good the number I wrote — EugeneW

Your number has nothing to do with the memory capacity of the human brain.
If you want a big number then check out the wikipedia quote below:

In the PBS science program Cosmos: A Personal Voyage, Episode 9: "The Lives of the Stars", astronomer and television personality Carl Sagan estimated that writing a googolplex in full decimal form (i.e., "10,000,000,000...") would be physically impossible, since doing so would require more space than is available in the known universe


and a googolplex is as far away from infinity as 1 is.

Your number has nothing to do with the memory capacity of the human brain. — universeness

It seems a big enough number to be called infinity. The brain can contain all physical structures of the universe. That's more than I can say for a memory chip. A 1 followed by 10exp20 zeros is a pretty big number. There are 10exp 90 particles in the visible universe. A 1 followed by only 80 zeros. A computer memory has just 10exp30....

Your number has nothing to do with the memory capacity of the human brain. — universeness

It is the capacity.

It seems a big enough number to be called infinity — EugeneW

What?? there is no number big enough to be called infinity, that's just mathematical fact!
I have a Computing science honours degree, trust me, Computers can outdo the human brain on processing speed and memory capacity but thats all for now. Computers, no matter how you network them together and no matter what current systems and application software you employ, they cannot currently reproduce the workings of the human brain. We don't even fully understand the working of the human brain yet.

What?? there is no number big enough to be called infinity, that's just mathematical fact! — universeness

For all practical purposes a 1 with 10exp20 is infinite...

For all practical purposes a 1 with 10exp20 is infinite — EugeneW

so what's 1 with a trillion zero's? closer to infinite?

Imagine that. Im on the edge of a forrest area, typing about infinity on my phone, while the dog is in fight with a trunk, after she has chased away another dog (shes in heat), and the gods above enjoy it! If that aint philosophical romantics...

A one with 24 zeros, like for a computerchip, is zero in comparison.

You really think man is able to construct a living 3d structure of neuronlike material, many of which are interlinked, with variable connection strengths?

so what's 1 with a trillion zero's? closer to infinite — universeness

A lot closer than a 1 with 24 zeros!

That those who enjoyed watching people being eaten alive by lions should find the compassion of Christians offensive heresy makes sense.

I'm not religious, but can still say thank God for Christianity. — Gregory A

I'm not religious, but can still say thank God for Christianity
— Gregory A

I think this just about sums up your logic.
I am sure we all await more such 'pearls of wisdom' from you.

How about:
I am not religious but thank god for Islam.
I am not religious but thank god for religion.
I am not political but thank providence for Politics.
I am not scientific but thank providence for Science.
I am not a thinker but thank providence for Thinking. — universeness

. For Christ's sake!
— Gregory A — EugeneW

The issue isn't the existence of religion. Religion is very real. When I'd said ' Thank God for Christianity' I hadn't gone back on my position in any way. And it was you that had quoted me out of context anyhow. You can be thankful for Christianity too and it would not turn you into a theist. Why should anyone's status change by being grateful to a religion. It just shows you are opposed to something simply because it represents theism.

But the arrogance that leads to presumptions like this above is unbelievable
— Gregory A

It's your naivety that is unbelievable!

have been aware of evangelist types since the 70's (the documentary 'Marjoe', Jim Bakker in the 80's
— Gregory A

If you watched a documentary about evanhellical nasties like Jim and Tammy Baker, then perhaps you fell asleep or were not paying attention or.........as you forgot to condemn them as the horrors that they are.
An appeal to Christ means nothing to me as I don't think he ever existed.
I recommend you read Creating Christ by James Valliant or Caesar's Messiah by Joe Atwill or alternatively the works of Dr Richard Carrier. These might help you progress a little. — universeness

No! I'd said I'd been aware of the documentary exposé 'Marjoe' since the 70's & Jim Bakker
in the 80's, how does that not make me very aware of a nasty side to evangelism. And the consensus among the experts is that Jesus was real. Those that claim differently are to be compared to those claiming different theories about the JFK assassination. That is they are trying to make money by writing books backing up their controversial claims. Regardless it doesn't matter anyhow whether Jesus was real, as Christianity is, and it has had an incredibly positive influence on the world. So, you can be a Christian, but not be a theist, be a theist but not be religious.

I've been an atheist for about 20 years, so I feel pretty neutral on this issue. Maybe there was such a guy. Maybe not. Some of the words in the book are nice. Others not. I consider myself influenced by some Christian ideas, but I guess many of us must be
— lll

Sounds like a pretty well-balanced approach to me, although I think the influences are from more ancient storytelling as all the Christian stories are rehashed from earlier ones. — universeness

What's atheism and Christianity got to do with each other??? You really have no idea what any of this is about. Your bias makes you unable to look at any of these things in a clinical way.

Yours is an appeal to popular usage and if accepted why then the title of this thread 'The Invalidity of Atheism'.
— Gregory A

Oh, so we get to make up our own meanings ? My girl soak inky. I appreciate this weeps mail over potty. A roach beep some witch? A go sinner claws it ?

For get a boot out ! Its shelf help noses same stew me. Spore me your plops and puns and your both dump flu of has it. Go brick to pet. (But hairy back !) — lll

I've been gay for most of my life only becoming a little bit cynical as I've got older. Do you get it?

The consensus would be that atheism is simply a non-belief in god/s but the reality is that atheists are actively opposed to theism.

I suspect trolling is as common amongst theists as it is amongst atheists. That is, its hard to imagine they actually believe everything they are saying. My guess is they are angry because they feel insulted by atheists, which in itself is a staggering hypocrisy. — DingoJones

Theism does not relate to atheism. Atheism relates to theism. Theism is not an attack on atheism. Theists defend theism from the attacks of atheists. Where's the hypocrisy then.

Keep the faith man! Dawkins would have found a way!
— universeness

I don't think so. He obediently sticks to the dogma... — EugeneW

And, you can't teach an old dogmatist new tricks.

My own argument against God is that we are images of God but are forced to suffer while God is not forced to suffer. This is not symmetrical because one would expect God to have the power to get us to heaven effortlessly like he is in heaven — Gregory

How does it all hang together? We have to work for it i.e. we need to earn our place in heaven here on earth, a place where being good is, well, "impossible" (try it) - aut neca aut necare (it's either you or me, better you, right?). Doesn't it give you the feeling you're playing an RPG in nightmare mode? Some may disagree though and these folks are the lucky ones; for some reason unfathomable to me or those like me, they were born to do "great things." Details? None of my business.

And, you can't teach an old dogmatist new tricks. — Gregory A

Precisely! The poor bugger got caught up in his own fucking meme (excusez les mots). Which would be no problem, but he's actively engaged in fighting theism. Like a real inquisitor.

Are we witnessing the dawn of the hive? Are the pylons of power impressing the scientific, miracle-devoid, cold and icey new atheistic worldview upon the global hivemind? The work on the panopticon is in progress. We're fucked!

We have to work for it i.e. we need to earn our place in heaven here on earth, — Agent Smith

We're bound to rerun in the universal domain eternally. Again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again
and again and again and again and again

And the gods watch. Again. Without morally obliging.

theism is a rejection of free-speech
— Gregory A

Eh? Atheism is the view that there are no gods. What has it got to do with free speech? It's nothing to do with politics, it's not a political movement or anything of the sort.

When you say 'invalid' what I think you mean is 'false'. Atheism is not an argument but an assertion/proposition about the way things are. Only arguments can be valid or invalid. Beliefs, assertions etc, can be true or false. — bert1

If atheism is the view that there are no gods then it would have nothing to do with free speech. If atheism challenges theism to show proof of god/s, then it would most certainly be challenging theism's right to free speech. If atheism isn't to the left, then theism isn't to the right???

There are two possibly valid positions, one, the belief in a naturally occurring universe, and one in a supernaturally occurring universe. Consequently, there can be no (logically) valid middle ground.

You ask theists for evidence of god/s then you have no evidence of god/s yourself, for your request to be valid, means you also have no evidence of Nature (a naturally occurring universe). You can't hold out for evidence of one then still ask for evidence of the other.

Imagine that. Im on the edge of a forrest area, typing about infinity on my phone, while the dog is in fight with a trunk, after she has chased away another dog (shes in heat), and the gods above enjoy it! If that aint philosophical romantics.. — EugeneW

A one with 24 zeros, like for a computerchip, is zero in comparison. — EugeneW

You really think man is able to construct a living 3d structure of neuronlike material, many of which are interlinked, with variable connection strengths — EugeneW

A lot closer than a 1 with 24 zeros! — EugeneW

Your dialogue is based on obfuscation and distraction on this issue, in my opinion, EugeneW.
You gave no response to:

What if we are forced to life, created to live like the gods did?
— EugeneW

Sci-fi shows play with this concept all the time but from the point of sentient lifeforms who existed in our galaxy millions of years before humans. In Babylon 5 they are called the first ones. The Vorlons, The Shadows etc. To us, they would seem like gods, but they are not. Why are these god-like descriptions less likely than the descriptions you have been posting here to describe your version of god(s). Could I replace every mention you have made of god(s) on this thread with 'The Vorlons,' would it change your claims much? Apart from your 'but mine are real and yours are fantasy,' claim. The same claim that the Christians have about the Muslim god or hindu god(s) and vice versa. — universeness

and I know for a fact that computing technology can already surpass the memory capacity and processing speed of a single human brain. So Who knows how far that technology will go, given even another few thousand years of science and scientists. We have already discussed transhumanism in other threads and you know my views on that topic. I fully expect human lifespan to be vastly extended in the future and that there certainly will be more physical merging between humans and technology.
An article I read recently in New Scientist magazine suggests that the first human to live to 150 to 170, is alive today!. I find that much more interesting than your playtime with nonexistent god(s).

And, you can't teach an old dogmatist new tricks.
— Gregory A

Precisely! The poor bugger got caught up in his own fucking meme (excusez les mots). Which would be no problem, but he's actively engaged in fighting theism. Like a real inquisitor. — EugeneW

I can understand him not liking the opiated Christian that lives in a world where little goes wrong. And can understand his dislike for those that reject science. And his enjoyment of touring the world enlightening others with his understandings. But still, there is that arrogance that leads to making mistakes. I wouldn't like it if Dawkins were discredited for any reason, but would rather he be more open-minded just in case.

and I know for a fact that computing technology can already surpass the memory capacity and processing speed of a single human brain. — universeness

Speed is all computers got. On a memory chip you can store 10exp24 bits? Compare with the brain: 10exp10exp20. That's about 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
..........dzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzx........overloaoaoad.....


And the row continues to the ends of the Earth! A bit more than a chip memory... Take that Earthling!

read recently in New Scientist magazine suggests that the first human to live to 150 to 170, is alive today! — universeness

Do you really care how old we can get? Why?

I just dont get what he's got against theism. Isn't it obvious the universe is created? He's got the right to be an atheist, of course, but his vision is a cold one.

Why should anyone's status change by being grateful to a religion. — Gregory A

You miss the point again! I am incredulous at the statements you type, such as the one above.
You think I should be grateful to the most pernicious con tricks in human history such as Christianity and Islam. I would need a book a similar number of pages as the babbling bumbelling bible to list my complaints against horrible doctrines like Christianity and Islam. Have you got it yet?

how does that not make me very aware of a nasty side to evangelism. — Gregory A

And yet, you cant see the very nasty sides of the nasty ways in which humans manipulate all religious doctrines. I know that the best comeback theists can come up with against this is to talk about the nastiness of non-religious systems such as fascism/totalitarianism/autocracies etc, which is total BS. Such systems kill any humans that get in their way. Theism is neither here nor there to such 'cults of narcissistic personalities. Putin IS A THEIST and an autocrat so the labels are not mutually exclusive. The Nazis swore allegiance to Hitler and god, etc, etc. The excuses for humans killing humans are myriad and we must stop scapegoating god(s) and political doctrines for the heinous behaviour and the evil that humans do in their name. NUCLEAR BOMBS DONT KILL PEOPLE, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.
I have no problem with individuals like @EugeneW who have their own personal version of god(s). I will debate them based on my own atheism but such exchanges are ultimately harmless. It only becomes a problem when those who group together in common religious faith want to impose a theistic code or ethics/commandments or BS like sharia law or any educational/political/social directive OF ANY KIND that a whole population must comply with. To me, such directives are like a declaration of war on human progress.

What's atheism and Christianity got to do with each other??? You really have no idea what any of this is about. Your bias makes you unable to look at any of these things in a clinical way. — Gregory A

Again I throw your exasperation with my viewpoint and your claim of 'you really have no idea what any of this is about,' right back at you. It's like asking what's fascism got to do with humanism, what's war got to do with peace? I think the answer is a great deal! If you ignore the rising strength of one then you invite the subjugation of the other. To maintain a healthy balance you MUST be very attentive to both and decide where you think the balance between any two opposing viewpoints should be set. It is unlikely that one will ever eradicate the other completely. On theism vs atheism, I advocate for vast majority atheism and very small theism as I believe this would be most commensurate with human progress towards the goal of global unison. One species on one pale blue dot planet, moving towards interplanetary existence.

the most pernicious con tricks in human history such as Christianity and Islam — universeness

To be replaced by the con of science?

↪Gregory A Frankly that is utter garbage. An atheist doesn’t ‘reject’ god, they just never really considered it at all and when told about some said ‘god’ simply don’t know/understand what the hell people are talking about - hence comparison to Santa.

You can see this is hunter gatherer tribes who were told of some ‘god’ and they asked where the god was. They believe what they see and have some vague belief in a possible afterlife (but they are non-committal).

Everyone is born an atheist because everyone is born without any real conception of themselves let alone some hypothetical being. — I like sushi

There are plenty of things I don't understand by still don't feel the need to make disparaging remarks about.

Belief in god had come about naturally because in those times there was no other explanation for our existence. That said many people continue to believe regardless of those who say it isn't so.

We are born with a sense of justice. A baby cries when hungry expressing an injustice. It doesn't just lie there.

would need a book a similar number of pages as the babbling bumbelling bible to list my complaints against horrible doctrines like Christianity and Islam. Have you got it yet? — universeness

I can give you a similar list of complaints of the horrible doctrine of the sciences...