PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
RULES
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
RULES
This is the
Kill Em
With
Kindness
Forum!
PLEASE MAKE
SURE TO
FOLLOW THE
RULES!
Offline 
I don't know why I'm bothering. A cursory glance at a hundred other threads would provide refutation of what you're saying. Your first statement, equating atheism with anti-theism is false. Atheism describes a position from agnosticism to a stated certainty that religious propositions are false.
If we addressed the flat earth example in the manner you suggest for all the questions of religion, we wouldn't have looked for a definite answer. We might eventually have found it in spite of ourselves, be we would have shrugged our shoulders and arbitrarily decided on whatever answer seemed satisfying.
Stop pretending that atheism is a matter of being ignorant of religious propositions -- this is false for most of the atheists here. Stop pretending atheism is some kind of knee-jerk reaction. Atheism is a logical position in the face of the lack of supporting evidence for the world's religions. The burden of proof is on you.
OK. I have faith that I do not believe in a god. Actually, on a fundamental basis I just don't believe in a god ergo I am a fundamental atheist.
I don't have to have 'faith' to not have faith.
Nope. Glad you can admit that, but please don't quit looking because then you would simply have to take your own statement on faith.
Depends. I'd say the very fact that one has to have 'faith' in order to believe that there is a god is pretty good evidence.
Well, I'm sure that remains to be seen doesn't it? I mean you denigrate the idea of 'faith' and then expect us to just agree on 'faith' with your assertions.
This is self-contradictory. The beliefs were accepted as reality for a very long time. See: catholics and Galileo.
Very good. Except atheism is a lack of belief in a god not a belief that there is no god. Big difference. Please read more of the site.
Reality has no consciousness ergo it cannot have a concern. Reality is reality.
No. Not all. That is a generalization about people. Were we discussing beliefs or people?
If we're still talking about beliefs then I must call into evidence the fact that nearly every religion has incorporated into its 'holy books' the idea that unbelievers should be pitied and not trusted at the same time. The religious beliefs themselves foster discrimination.
Well, I guess we're on to people. Who created religion and prejudice?
Figured that since only theists and obnoxious people calling themselves 'agnostics' have ever said anything about your first two paragraphs before, but I didn't want to prejudge.
You and forty-eleven others. I'm glad that the debate has drawn people to discuss these important matters.
Only the side making the positive claim needed to be 'strong'. Ray and Kirk made the claim that they could prove 'god' scientifically without using faith or the bible. They failed miserably. That's what counts in my opinion. Why not check the six other threads covering the debate instead of making an entirely new one.
LOL. Just a minute ago, you tried to ascribe a human emotion to reality. You're wrong though. It isn't funny.
Nope. Just explained this.
Nope. Sorry. If you do that then you're no better than the people that imprisoned Galileo and fight stem cell research. Why? Because you would be making reality fit your beliefs.
Agreed. What have we learned here today?
See. That whole idea of being satisfied with new evidence implies stopping there. There is something new everyday. IMHO, that's what makes life so wonderful and more evidence for evolution. New things mean change not 'satisfaction with yesterday's new evidence'.
The idea that whatever evidence you have seen leads you to conclude that there must be a god completely goes against your premise since 'faith' is defined as 'belief without evidence' and we already saw the evidence of your theism is 'faith'.
Meanwhile, I have made no conclusion except not to accept 'faith' as evidence. Do you see how the assertion that I have 'faith' is actually insulting?
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
darth_josh
Reality or what you perceive as reality cannot be proven even your own existence is unprovable. faith is required for you to believe that you are conscious awake and you are reading this. soz Atheism is a faith. in as much as our perception of reality and everything in that reality is based upon faith. it's only a technical point and if you are unhappy with it just believe it isn't here I'm sure it will disappear in a puff of logic
Are you ready then to reject any distinction between subjective and objective claims? Most of us perceive reality in similar ways, but the differences are significant enough that we rely on methods to remove as many human variables as possible when attempting establish objective theories. This is necessary to keep ourselves from laboring under concepts we've convinced ourselves of, but don't actually exist. N-Rays are an example. A process was established for generating them -- they being perceptible under certain conditions as an orange glow emanating from a filament. Unbeknownst to the researcher studying the N-Rays, a visiting scientist had removed an element key to the set up, breaking the process. The researcher claimed to have seen them just the same. N-Rays don't exist.
I thought that was an interesting story, and I shared it even though your argument is merely a tu quoque against the rationality of atheism.
I'm not entirely sure. I will need some time to think about this
"it's only a technical point"
As it can only be a technical point. although one cannot deny the truth in the philosophy. one can-not live in the world of that philosophy
"Are you ready then to reject any distinction between subjective and objective claims"
Technically yes. but I draw a distinction between the philosophies and in my perceived reality no
And this begs the question will you deny truth for your faith ?
Then N-Rays exist, time actually does slow down in a traumatic event, and the birds sing louder when you're in love. It's not a hypothetical philosophical question. Every day the police work hard to remove the failures of subjectivity from eyewitness accounts. Why do you think they pack a lineup with cops and people they know are unrelated to the crime? Why do scientists make every effort to disprove their own hypotheses, rather than just settling on the answer that appeals to them? There is a difference between something that seems true at one moment, and something that can be repeatedly and independently verified. While we trust our senses on a daily basis, we're forced to confront their limitations when we're looking for reliable information.
Don't bother trying to call atheism a position requiring faith again.
P1 - If there's no evidence of a god, then the lack of evidence of a god is evidence that there is no god.
P2 - There is no evidence of a god
C - Therefore there is no god
People who think there is something they refer to as god don't ask enough questions.
Even in the real world or what we perceive as reality there are no absolute certainty only probabilities. science is not absolute and it can never claimed to be absolute because of certain fundamental problems the Heisenberg uncertainty principle for example. it's a big universe and are understanding of it is quite limited. we are clever monkeys but we ain't that clever yet. N-Rays may exist although they probably don't,
"time actually does slow down in a traumatic event" on a personal level yes certain parts of your brain will shut down increasing the speed of decision making. adrenaline will speed up muscle reactions. and if you happen to be falling out of a plane. the universal constant C speed of light ie time. will be affected by gravity air density and so on as you fallAtheism is a position requiring faith unless you have some certain and absolute knowledge and not just some gut feeling you have. remembering "I think so therefore I am" died at the birth of AI.
If this is so, can you provide an example of an exception that suggests it?
Absolute as opposed to what? Religious claims are absolute within their contexts, but they haven't been demonstrated to actually represent anything in the real world. I can say “argle is greater than bargle,” and I can mean it as an absolute certainty, but it doesn't describe anything actual. Science is based on observations and predictions which, when tested, will speak to the validity of our understanding of those principles. The religious question exists because it was written down in a book, not because there was evidence that warranted further study. Religiously-motivated “science” works backwards, starting with a certainty and a conclusion, then looking for ways to support it, with no allowance for failure.
They were specifically defined, tested, and disproved. They don't exist. That's the beauty of having a hypothesis you can test.
What do you mean by “actually?” A witness to the event not really paying attention might experience the whole thing as a fraction of a second. The clocks of the world don't seem to be affected, despite the daily occurrences of traffic accidents. The difference between perception and reality is potentially vast, which is why we take pains not to rely on perception alone for proof of something.
To hold an unproven position requires faith -- not to hold it does not.
No idea what you mean here. Sorry.
In philosophy the realization that what we perceive as reality may not be real " ? am I a butterfly dreaming that I am human " being one example of many
Ones very existence was called into question until a philosopher called René Descartes came up with "Cogito, ergo sum" I think so therefore exist. which became the cornerstone of Western philosophy proving ones own existence
Until AI "artificial intelligence" although it still at an incredibly primitive stage.the realization that a human consciousness could eventually be contained artificially or made artificially called into question the validity of Cogito, ergo sum. and ones existence has again been called into question
ie you may just be part of a sims game
Science whatever the question the answer is physics
Physics has two main disciplines classical physics you drop a ball and it bounces in a predictable way "observational science"
But the ball will never be absolutely predictable because of external physical forces Erath quakes dust particles air temperature alpha particles and so on. it is not technically possible to take into account every possible variation. so an approximate model of how the ball should bounce is used in observational science. the model can be extremely accurate but it will never be absolute. weather forecasts work in exactly the same way using observational science. but the external physical forces a far greater so the model is less predictable "If this is so, can you provide an example of an exception that suggests it?" weather forecasts. as an extreme and every other scientific model ever. it's all down to probability
Quantum physics the second discipline
The ball is made of atoms. atoms were created in the Big Bang. by accelerating energy to the speed of light E=MC squared ( E energy equals M matter squared by the speed of light universal constant C ) Heisenberg uncertainty principle is used to point out that you can not observe these atoms without affecting them thus the uncertainty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle
And without certainty of the structure of the ball at any given time no absolute model of the balls behavior can be made
You exist in a uncertaint universe. science can only give us probabilities not absolute certainties
"To hold an unproven position requires faith -- not to hold it does not."
Magilum you hold an unproven position.
And this begs the question will you deny truth for your faith ?
You ignored the specific content of my reply, and simply posted a long description of physical concepts before making the jarring conclusion.
*****************, would you say your experience suggests something as wildly inconsistent with day to day life as this is something necessary to entertain on a serious level? Is there some special reason you don't think your reading this right now represents reality, versus a bizarre “brain in a jar” type scenario?
I waited for the point to materialize, and none did. Maybe your point fell victim to the uncertainties of science and crossed into a parallel universe.
What position is that?
[MOD EDIT - removed poor taste in word choice]
my only point was that regardless of what side we stand on we are all flawed people...and without attacking atheism you still found the need to defend it...interesting...the burden of proof is on me ?...how quaint...a cop out at best and an unwillingness to face the fact that you believe what you believe based on an assumption...the burden of proof is on every person for what they believe, it is only fair...of all there is to learn in this universe man knows so very little and assumes the rest...man can not yet speak with knowledge but only heart felt conviction...the objectivity of man is often just another unfounded assumption...your assertions of what you think I believe about atheism and religion, which I disdain, are too numerous for me to address within the constraints of time and seem to be only varying shades of wrongness...you know me not and simply because I label myself theist you define me with an appaling assortment of assumptions...I assume this is how you make most of your decisions and as it becomes a habit so truly it was said that "first we make our habits and then our habits make us"...I came here to quarrel with no one only to engage in an exchange of ideas with what I hoped would be free thinkers...if you wish to debate the merits of atheism and theology then I am here to struggle with you in pursuit of the truth...I see the purpose of debating to attack an idea without mercy, to shake away everything false and be left with only truth... this is not happening when you make unfounded assertions as to what I believe...you never even asked what I believed, never cared to investigate what I believe before drawing your conclusions... oh how Mr. Paine was right when he said "time makes more converts then reason"...
Greeting Rogus, I think you may find the following advice useful concerning this topic. I was engaged in the very same argumentation that you are outlining in this post. I ultimately came to realize that I was trying to argue something that most intelligent atheists already know and accept. What I am specifically referring to is the uncertainty in science. I tried to translate this uncertainty into the argument that atheism is a faith-based belief. Ultimately, I have come to realize that this argument just doesn't stick.
If I may recommend that you read the first four chapters of The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. He outlines the positional stance of proper atheistic conceptions and brings up many objects that you have brought up. He essentially explains how it is that atheism is not a faith based system of belief similar to theism.
After reading these four chapters I can almost guarantee that your motives will be more focused on issues that are worthy of debate in this forum.
The implication that we should put Darwinism on trial overlooks the fact that Darwinism has always been on trial within the scientific community. -- From Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth R. Miller
Chaos and chance don't mean the absence of law and order, but rather the presence of order so complex that it lies beyond our abilities to grasp and describe it. -- From From Certainty to Uncertainty by F. David Peat
imagine you are to conduct a scientific observaton of people and in the interests of integrity you of course can not interact or tamper with what you are observing...so you watch people and make your notes...at the end of your observation you would have a list of what they did and said...this is basically what science does it observes things to see what they do and then draw useful conclusions...however I find that when I look at mankind and namely that man called myself I find there is more to me than what I do, there is also what I should do...and the part "what I should do" is a big part of me and science can not detect it even though it is real... with each of us observing the same reality disagreements are outward expressions of internal prejudice...how can we (humanity) look at the same thing and draw so many different beliefs unless we are all guilty of twisting evidence in favor of our preconceived beliefs ?...you state that I am in the minority...this is very telling that you would even think that matters...minority vs majority has nothing to do with what is correct only with what is popular in a given circle of people...at first you sound intellectual and rational but then stoop to popularity...hmmm...it wasn't a debate on the nature of reality ?...are you kidding, every debate is about the nature of reality...and yes both sides were weak...I am always ready to scrap my beliefs when evidence is presented to the contrary and have done so...I was raised in the church, spent my early 20's as an atheist and then returned to theism but decided I would not let anyone cram their beliefs down my throat and so I meticulously inspect the ideas thrown at my door and just like the mail I recieve much of it is junk...so if you can lay something at my door worth considering cool, but I must say a lack of evidence does not measure up for me as a reason to believe something especially when man is restriced to such a small part of the universe and has hardly learned anything in comparison to to all there is to learn which means there is much unconsidered evidence...
[nevermind, I was replying to the wrong poster]
"repetition of same question, the sign of a poor imagination" or I could just be looking for a straight answer
"*******************, would you say your experience suggests something as wildly inconsistent with day to day life as this is something necessary to entertain on a serious level? Is there some special reason you don't think your reading this right now represents reality, versus a bizarre “brain in a jar” type scenario?"
Bingo we have moved into the realms of gut feeling and a personal belief system. and far far away from the disciplines of science
Please excuse me while I stick to science
bizarre “brain in a jar. science teaches us that nothing is impossible just highly improbable
would you say your experience suggests something as wildly inconsistent with day to day life as particles constantly popping in and out of existence
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?chanID=sa005&articleID=0004D0F8-772A-1526-B72A83414B7F0000&topicID=13
Because the highly improbable sometimes happens science is able to deal with this because of the inbuilt uncertainty in the scientific discipline
If you claim certainty you have moved away from the scientific disciplines into your own personal belief system and you invoke faith in your own personal belief system
If you stay within the scientific discipline and the uncertainty in this discipline then you invoke faith
And this begs the question will you deny truth for your faith ?
[MOD EDIT - removed poor taste in word choice]
Ahhhh. No. I won't deny verifiable truth ever. That would be delusional.
Prove god 'is' or 'was' and I won't be an atheist. Neither would you be a theist.
Because then (after proof) there need be no 'faith' involved. No reason to say that you have faith and I lack faith.
You can call it a cop out if you wish. Unfortunately, it is reality.
It should be easy right?
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
I'm getting very bored with this. You make a ham-fisted comparison of human comprehension of reality to quantum physics and things occuring at a particle level, and you do so as though it begged some philosophical question.
You've failed to address my previous points, failed to substantiate your claim that my position as an agnostic-atheist requires faith, and offered only repetition and inane science fiction scenarios or concepts orphaned from your premise.
Unless your next post substantiates your claim about my "beliefs," I'm done talking to you.
Then we have done talking
You are entirely certain of you're beliefs and you are entirely certain of the world you live in. science is the foundation for your certainty. because science shows with certainty that you are correct. and if any field of science doesn't it should be considered woolly headed nonsense
Thank you for answering this question "will you deny truth for your faith " the answer would be yes. as I have demonstrated uncertainty in science. which seem to deny
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle the clue is in the name uncertainty principle / but I'm just repeating woolly headed nonsense here am I not. this isn't real science.
http://www.sciam.com/askexpert_question.cfm?chanID=sa005&articleID=0004D0F8-772A-1526-B72A83414B7F0000&topicID=13
And some more woolly headed science. they just tend to make this stuff up it's not real is it. virtual particles woolly headed science fiction more like. it isn't real science and I'm just repeating woolly headed nonsense here
My apologies if missed some issue you've raised but I was trying to remain focused on the key issues
Subjects such as time can get extremely complicate. and the behavior of time or more precisely space-time can seem extremely unusual unless you've already study quantum physics and also studied cosmology
I've got a link for you:
http://www.worcestervoice.com/removed%20clergy/named_in_suite_rev_devilin.htm
Is that you? Can you prove it isn't? How can you be certain?
I'm not entirely certain what am. I tried to remain open-minded to all possibilities. I use science to explain the world around me while being ever mindful of its limitations. I like to study philosophy for the possible answer that science may give us in the future ? is that a theist
Proof denies faith. unfortunately as far as I'm aware you can't prove negatives which leaves faith to fill the gaps. I have faith that there isn't an invisible teapot orbiting Mars as I can not prove it. so I must have faith that it isn't there
http://www.themonastery.org/
I'm an Ordained atheist Minister
I'm pretty certain it's not me although I'm assuming I'm not a schizophrenic living a duel life
Sex drugs and rock 'n roll those Catholics
http://arlettaq.spaces.live.com