"Atheism is the most irrational and illogical religion on the planet..." Linked from FARK. (http://hauns.com/~DCQu4E5g/Atheism.htm)

This essay is meaningless.
It just talks in circles.

His biggest arguement is god exists because he does!
lol

--Namie

NAMIE!

Gokuu !!!

Let's say you have never seen a pencil and are not sure such a thing actually exists. It would be impossible to prove that it does not exist. To prove that it does exist, all you need is to find evidence of its existence such as a piece of paper which has been written on by a pencil or to actually find the pencil. The same is true for God. His existence can be proved by either evidence or direct contact but can never be disproved.

100% WRONG!

If you don't know what a pencil is... how do you know what it does. How do you know it is used for writing. And if it was written on how can you prove it was a pencil when you don't clearly know what a pencil is.

It also means that communications (visions), prophets (teachers), and "miracles" must also be considered as a scientific possibility since we could not possibly know what such a being can and cannot do.

There is no such thing as a "miracle." The theory of miracles was to give people hope who are in need of something that could change their lives drastically.

For example, a prophesy is really nothing more than a being telling us that He will do a certain thing which He may be very capable of doing at some time in the future.

Here is a prophesy for you... Im going to die in the future. OMG IM GOD! bow to me!

Then there is the matter of a person being communicated to by God. I find it mind boggling that people could possibly consider it ridiculous that a superior being could communicate with us. If we can communicate with each other, why isn't it possible that a superior being can also communicate with us? Plus, it should be common sense that a superior being would not have to be limited to our means of communications. Therefore, visions and other forms of communications from a superior being should be considered possible as long as the existence of such a being is possible.

Well because it defies the laws of Science... it cannot happen.

This site is lame and proves nothing.

If the person is aware of this fact, then they are telling me they are being irrational. This is because a logical and rational person only has two possible belief systems when they are aware that it is impossible to disprove the existence of God. The first is to remain open minded and undecided concerning the existence of God until it is possible to prove such a being could not exist which may be never. The other belief system is to believe that such a being does exist because of the evidence.

This is true though. Basically he says being an athiest is as stupid as being a christian...neither have any proof for their beliefs. Christians cant prove there is a good, athiests cant prove there isnt.

Agnostics #1!


Then again I can't prove there arent alien made of feather boas somewhere in the universe...yet illogically I don't beleive there are.

This is true though. Basically he says being an athiest is as stupid as being a christian...neither have any proof for their beliefs. Christians cant prove there is a good, athiests cant prove there isnt.

Agnostics #1!

/cheer

I'd like to add that the pencil exemple (beside being wrong, like Talari showed) doesn't say ANYTHING about the shape or color of the pencil. So it still doesn't give any points for why christianity would be more accurate then ANY random ramblings.

And as for communicatiosn with higher beings, how comes that most faiths contradict each other?

Is God scizophrenic or playing mindgames with us?
Or is it so that all or almost all revelations are either lies or hallucinations?

The later seem more reasonable to assume, somehow.
Most religions claim that a huge majority of all revelations are lies. That is, all revelations of all faiths beside their own are lies. But then why would THEIR revelations be more accurate then all the others?

And why doesn't God communicate openly, for everyone to see and know without a doubt?

I think it's reasnable to assume that the two most logical explenations are that either God doesn't exist, or God doesn't WANT to be known. And if God doesn't want to be known, then his followers ought to stop trying to prove that he does. :)

A third option is a narcisistic childish God that want everyone to believe in him without him giving them any reason to believe that he exist. I would not like to believe in such an unworthy God. If he want me to believe in him, then he have to give me a reason first. A reason to believe that he exist, and also a reason to trust him.

Oh, and...

/hug namie

heya!
Do you still play?
I'm retired since long, but my account is open at the moment. Playing my old newbie shaman a little bit.

On this page, I want to take a look at the logic errors in religion of atheism. When I am contacted by an atheist, the first thing I do is to find out whether they are aware of the fact that it is impossible for science to prove that God does not exist. Most atheist are aware of this.

Very few atheists consider it proveable that there arn't powers beyond the universe. Those few who do are bullshitting, imho. However, more mainstream atheists and agnostics claim that certain claims can be disproven, and this is correct. It's like this:

*Something exists beyond the universe - never disproveable

*Exactly this exists beyond the universe, and it interacts with our lives in this, this and this way - often disproveable.

See the difference?

At first, people thought that evolution proved that God cannot exist but creation scientists were more than glad to point out to us (I was still an evolutionist at that time) that the best evolution can do is to MAKE IT POSSIBLE for God to not exist. This is because the same God who can create life could just as easily evolved it.

Evolution disproves creationist fundamentalist faith, not faith as such.
Correct.

As a matter of fact, Christians who still believe in evolution believe this is what happened and increasing numbers of evolutionists are turning to this concept or simply converting to creation science.

ROFLMAO.

In related news, the chocolade rations was recently increased from 25 to 20 grans.

(Read 1984 if you havn't done so allready. Great book.)

So, the fringe pseudoscience of creationism is growing rapidly, eh? I bet that the belief that the world consists of four elements (rather then atoms) is "growing rapidly" as well. Whatever.

I then leave that person to decide for himself whether to reconsider his belief in atheism or to stubbornly believe what he wants regardless of what science says. That is his choice.

Ah, so this semirandom rambling is "science"?
I would rather call it: "Science!"
/giggle

Or even that.
These nutcases doesn't wear enough goggles.

A Biblical prophet is really nothing more than a teacher or messenger sent with a message or lesson from this being, God, to the people. We call such people ambassadors and use them all of the time. Why is it ridiculous to believe that a superior being would do the same thing?

Good anology!
But embarrasingly easy to answer.

In order to trust a ambassador, we want evidence not only that the country the ambassador represents exists, but also that it's government have, in fact, appointed the guy that claim to be their ambassador, as ambassador.

On a very related note: Was it really wise of the U.S. government to fund this guy?
www.theonion.com/onion330...lungi.html (http://www.theonion.com/onion3307/ambassadorbulungi.html)

:)

Therefore, visions and other forms of communications from a superior being should be considered possible as long as the existence of such a being is possible.

The question have never been if it's possible, but why the allmighty would use such a weak and easily forged form of communication. We don't expect our governments to give us dollar bills that are merely pieces of toilet paper that someone have scrawled sums upon. Yet we expect the allmighty to deliver his allimportant messages in such a pathetic fashion?

This means that we must remain open minded to the possibility that the "miracles" described in the Bible and Torah are scientifically possible because we can never prove that a being capable of doing these things does not or cannot exist.

Not really.
Ever heard of Occham's razor?

If there are two ways to explain a event, and one is sharp and simple while the other is overly complicated or doesn't really explain the evewnt, then we should go with the first theory.

"I know that this goes against the known laws of nature, but it's true anyway because I read it in a very old book - so maybe someone can change the laws of nature at will" - that isn't even a theory.

Unfortunately, there have been and are still many people who take advantage of such beliefs to create fraud.

ROFLMAO.
That ending felt so very adorably cute, somhow.
And yet sad at the same time.

That logic is over 200 years old. 8/

*Well because it defies the laws of Science... it cannot happen.*

I dont believe in christianism really, but this comment is even more retarded than te whole text you read. Theres a LOT of flaws in science, and sciencists cant even know how a brain works for sure. Theres lots of things that defies the laws of science and still work the way they do, and leaves the sciencists completely clueless.

Impresario Almadar Tegleftyln
Retired

Claiming that there definitely is a single all-powerful god is far stupider than claiming there no such entity, simply on the basis of probability.

First off, I find the likelihood of a God existing exactly/nearly as described in the Bible/Torah/Koran about as improbable as me declaring that ramen noodles taste better than quality steak - i.e. not going to happen unless I eat steak every day for fifty years years or suddenly become a vegetarian.

Second, assuming there is such a thing as a god, it's most likely that there are more such deities. What is unique in the universe? There could well be thousands of Earths just like ours out there, with some arriving at this point in history with France as the sole imperialistic world power that invades Texas over alleged WMD possession. There could be worlds where Halo transcends the one-liner posts, Edeina denounces all feminism, and Richard Simmons is the epitome of masculinity. You get the picture.

Third.. I'll post again when I come up with something.

Theres lots of things that defies the laws of science and still work the way they do, and leaves the sciencists completely clueless.

Im sorry.. what? Examples please, Im very curious about the "lots of things that defy the laws of science."

Master Damoiel Mindbend
Retired Enchanter of the 60th Season

"lots of things that defy the laws of science."

The Universe for one.

The universe for one? Vague much?
Its not a trick question - specifically explain to me things that defy the laws of science, silly blanket comments dont cut it. And it would be nice, just to show you have the slightest clue what you are talking about, if you could please include the stated LAW OF SCIENCE that it breaks. If you can make such flippant, "duh!" comments as 'the universe for one', then Im sure it would not be difficult at all to cite the many things that defy the laws of science.

Well, i wont take the time to look up for examples on this, but i remember theres a kind of big bee (dunno how you say it in english) that no sciencist knows how it actually flies, with how big the body is compared to the wings, it actually defies the science laws. (yeah its a stupid example i know)

And to Willgatus, theres just as many probabilities that god exists than he doesnt. He either does or not, no one has proofs on either opinion, so its pretty much 50/50. And thats exactly why i think that having 100% faith on either side is pretty close minded.

Impresario Almadar Tegleftyln
Retired

Slant.

Molecules at the sub atomic level do not follow standard laws of science. They behave with a chaotic randomness for which there is no explaination atm.

A singularity at the end of a black hole defies science in that there is no way to explain what happens when everything, including time, is compressed into a particle.

Have Fun (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&q=%22no+scientific+explanation%22&btnG=Google+Search)

The Universe is a good example actually, Slant.
Infact, I'd say it was THE example.

Unless you can explain to us right now the existance and origins of the Universe?

And if you say One Day There Was A Big Bang, I'll slap you.

This sort of thing has been done far better by people who actually have some idea of what they're talking about. That idea typically doesn't help their case, but at least their arguments aren't so prima facie absurd.

This is true though. Basically he says being an athiest is as stupid as being a christian...neither have any proof for their beliefs. Christians cant prove there is a good, athiests cant prove there isnt.
Actually, it's not as true as you might think. Edeina almost had it. Christians (for example) make certain claims about their god. If it can be shown that those claims are logically mutually exclusive or do not stand up to real world observation, then that god logically cannot exist. Remember, we're not just talking about "some kind of god" (at least, the author of that website isn't). Christians make certain claims about the qualities possessed by that god. For instance, one characteristic is that god is omni-benevolent, meaning this is the best, the "goodest" of all possible worlds. IMO, observation on any given day will tell you that there could easily be a world better than this one, even if all you do is prevent one natural catastrophe or stop one case of premature death. Thus, it seems to me that this alleged god cannot be omni-benevolent, so cannot exist.

Apologists provide rationalizations for the evils of the world and why this must still be the best of all possible worlds, but I find them unconvincing. Anyway, this is one way you can legitimately disprove the existence of a god (but not all kinds of gods).

So, the fringe pseudoscience of creationism is growing rapidly, eh? I bet that the belief that the world consists of four elements (rather then atoms) is "growing rapidly" as well.
In the US, it's growing (in influence if not in # of believers) under the moniker of "Intelligent Design" (ID). While the writings of its proponents (Michael Behe of Darwin's Black Box fame and William Dembski, to name a couple) have been shown to be poor science, at best, ID supporters have been doing their best to show ID as being scientific, so that it can get equal time in school classrooms.

Theres a LOT of flaws in science, and sciencists cant even know how a brain works for sure. Theres lots of things that defies the laws of science and still work the way they do, and leaves the sciencists completely clueless.
I don't think there's any reason why scientists can't know how the brain works. They don't know, at least not in full (or in half, really), but most of the techniques used for such research are under 30 years old. What do you expect? Man wasn't supposed to be able to fly, much less go to the moon. Bit by bit, we'll figure it out.

The origins of the universe have been explained scientifically, but only in theory of course:

"The wave function of the universe in Hartle and Hawking's paper gives a probabilistic and noncausal explanation of why our universe exists. More precisely, it provides an unconditional probability for the existence of a universe of our sort (i.e., an expanding [and later contracting] universe with an early inflationary era and with matter that is evenly distributed on large scales). Given only their functional law of nature, there is a high probability that a universe of this sort begins to exist uncaused."
--Smith, Quentin, 1998, “Why Steven Hawking’s Cosmology Precludes a Creature”, Philo, Vol. 1, No. 1, 75-93.

The bees Almadar cites are peculiar in their flight mechanism, but I've never heard of scientists being so stumped by it that they declare the bees scientifically impossible.

Other examples don't "defy the laws of science;" they simply haven't been codified scientifically yet. A lot of progress has been made on subatomic particles, for instance, but it shouldn't suprise anyone that we can't explain them in full yet.

the old aged question about the universe. i would go as far to say we don't know much about it, or dumbfounded by it is probably because we don't have many tools to wich we can study it by, sure we got satalites that takes months to years to travel to the nearest planet or a super-duper telescope, we just don't have the technology right now to say we can fully explain, or say we are baffled by the universe.

atoms are definetly a strange peice of matter, it gets smaller, goes into sub atomic particles, and those even get smaller, i believe they are called quarks? something hard to explain, but their actions (the atom) are easy to explain, the way they react are not a fiction to science, nor is it an unknown, the only chaotic part of an atom is the electron. the electron portion of the atom, once believed to be a direct flow, or single path was pretty much proven wrong.

also, i belive someone stated science didn't know how a brain worked? i thought we had the functions of a brain stapled down to the chemicle reaction and portion of the brain?

We can explain a lot about the brain, but we cannot currently explain what are often referred to as the "emergent properties" (e.g., higher consciousness). How do we get from chemical processes to designing EverQuest (let the quips fly!)? We don't really know.

Electrons aren't the worst of it, really. There are quarks, photons, gluons, gravitons (hypothetically, anyway), tachyons, virtual particles and so on. And they are very very small.

Actually, the argument is a valid one.

Christians *could* prove there is a God, in that he could materialize, demonstrate his powers to an all-star panel of scientists, and then vanish in a god-like way. Atheists *can't* disprove that God doesn't exist. The existence of God (or a god, any god) pretty much falls into the category of "those large number of things I'll probably never have any direct proof about."

Of course, it's just as absurd as me saying "Distant stars are actually made of bologna." I *could* prove it, of course, by flying us all to the meat-sun in my rocket-ship, and there's no way you could *disprove* it, because you don't have a special rocket-ship that flys to the bologna-sun. Heck, there's no way for you to *disprove* anything, as long as I stick to my story that not only is the meat-sun made of bologna, but is made of a special bologna that prevents observation of the said bologna!

Can =! Could

We can't prove God exists... ...but we could.

Bologna anyone?

The argument is only valid so long as the properties ascribed to that god are vague or limited. You can disprove the existence of a god that is ascribed properties that are logically mutually exclusive or contradicted by observation (as shown above).

To simply say, "I can prove there is no god" would be false, though the article I cite above has some interesting things to say on the matter (but is a bitch of a read).

Alm, what you claim is baseless. Even assuming it may be true for the existence of a higher power at all, the odds of only one God existing exactly/nearly as described in religious texts and all alone are tiny.

What were the odds of a transcendent, brilliant composer existing in the world at all? If your standards are ridiculously high, not one such composer was born. But by most reasonable standards of judgment, there were Beethoven, Mozart, and Chopin, among a few others who may have fit the parameters. It's very difficult to declare which is the greatest of the group and doing so - like a monotheistic faith - requires extreme specificity. Keep in mind that these composers were born on Earth within the span of a few hundred years.

Now expand the scope to the universe and eternity. If you set your standards for a God to be too high, there will be none. If you don't, there will probably be more than one. Until there are some plausible means to determine the existence of a higher being, I'll remain skeptical toward religious views.


PS: I'm starting a fund to make a spaceship and travel to those stars of self-concealing bologna - Palimax hasn't lied to us in the past! PM me if you want in.

Thormir pretty much got to everything first, although I would just like to say about this -

A singularity at the end of a black hole defies science in that there is no way to explain what happens when everything, including time, is compressed into a particle.

So your evidence of something that defies the LAWS of science is something that we have never directly witnessed, have no way of studying, and is nothing but theory itself at this point? Im sorry, youll have to do better than that.

As for your google search, did you even read what you looked up? The amazing "facts" of human Auras? A mormon messageboard discussing the "facts" of the bible? The "facts" of the magic of Yuri Geller? I wasted my time reading the bchydro.com link that basically says EMF fields probably don't cause leukemia... so you'll excuse me if I don't waste any more of my time reading your ironclad display of scientific folly.

P.S. What is so hard about asking for the inclusion of the specific law that is broken? You just say - this breaks the law of thermodynamics, or this breaks the law of the conservation of matter. Its a simple request.

Master Damoiel Mindbend
Retired Enchanter of the 60th Season

Well, i wont take the time to look up for examples on this, but i remember theres a kind of big bee (dunno how you say it in english) that no sciencist knows how it actually flies, with how big the body is compared to the wings, it actually defies the science laws. (yeah its a stupid example i know)

It's true that they couldn't explain mathematically exactly how their wings worked. Couldn't. They solved that little problem a bunch of years ago.

This was a minor lack of understanding, of course. Not anywhere as big as when Einstein proved Newton wrong.

Thing is, Science is always improving. Obsolete theories are always being replaced by better ones.

Better, as in "explaining more in a better way", not better as in "coddling religious dogma".

So the "Science is wrong, thus religion is right" argument is to say: "Since theories are replaced with better theories, we might as well replace them with much worse theories instead. The goal of science shouldn't be to explain and handle the world we live in and to increase our understanding, it should be to conserve our beliefs."

Unless you can explain to us right now the existance and origins of the Universe?

And if you say One Day There Was A Big Bang, I'll slap you.

What's wrong wth Big Bang?
That it doesn't explain what caused the Big Bang?
Well, same problem with God. If he created the universe, then who created HIM?

In the US, it's growing (in influence if not in # of believers) under the moniker of "Intelligent Design" (ID). While the writings of its proponents (Michael Behe of Darwin's Black Box fame and William Dembski, to name a couple) have been shown to be poor science, at best, ID supporters have been doing their best to show ID as being scientific, so that it can get equal time in school classrooms.

Growing in a very shortsighted perspective, sure.

However.
A few centuries ago, EVERYONE believed in creationism. 100%. And it was THE one and only theory that was thaught in school.

Now they are "growing" so much that they can start to try (although failing in that attempt) go give their outdated pseudoscience some room at all in school.

Obsolete bullshit always makes minor comebacks every now and then, getting much bigger then it was a decade before but still nothing compared to what it was in it's glory days.

Nevertheless, it's alarming that these fundamentalists have gotten as far as they had. It's a reminder that the modern civilization might fall, and be replaced by a new dark age guided by faith and obedience instead of truth and freedom.

Nevertheless, it's alarming that these fundamentalists have gotten as far as they had. It's a reminder that the modern civilization might fall, and be replaced by a new dark age guided by faith and obedience instead of truth and freedom.

My hero

So your evidence of something that defies the LAWS of science is something that we have never directly witnessed, have no way of studying, and is nothing but theory itself at this point? Im sorry, youll have to do better than that.

yet you believe it exists? Amazing

alright.
How about Black Matter?

And you never addressed the behavior of molecules at sub atomic level.. they defy all laws of physics.. randomness and chaos rule them.. sometimes a particle will move though something, sometimes the same molecule over the same object will move over it..

So there ya go.. But since we are at.. explain Chaos and Randomness scientifically.. Scientifically.. it shouldnt exist.. yet it does.

Is the the most effort you can put into a counter-argument? "Yet you believe it exists? Amazing."? I suppose I should expect nothing less from someone attempting to dig themselves out of a hole they put themselves in.

Master Damoiel Mindbend
Retired Enchanter of the 60th Season

Arguement?

All you asked for was for some things that had no scientific explaination.. What am I supposed to argue against?

Yeah they who said this site was bullshit obviously are retarded or didnt read it properly or at all, or didnt understand it.

Atheism is the belief that it is impossible for there to be a god. This site is saying that it cant be proven impossible. Therefore it has no basis, and the whole belief that it is impossible when it cant be proven so, is wrong.

The difference here between atheism and chrisianity in this regard is :

It is impossible for gods existance to be impossible at this point in time.
It is possible for gods existance to be possible.

Atheism = Impossible
Christianity = Possible.

read that carefully, thats what he was trying to say.

The pencil theory? It works. He just worded it wrong.

I'll do it step by step, with translations between the metaphor side by side so you can better see them.

Let's say you have never seen a pencil and are not sure such a thing actually exists.

Ok, first of all, it says you have never seen a pencil and are **NOT SURE SUCH A THING ACTUALLY EXISTS**

Talarian : this hypothetical person does know what a pencil supposedly is and does which can be obvously seen in the above 7 capitalised words, and represented in the metaphor by we know what god supposedly is and does because christians have told us.

It would be impossible to prove that it does not exist. To prove that it does exist, all you need is to find evidence of its existence such as a piece of paper which has been written on by a pencil or to actually find the pencil.

The metaphor here is, you need to actively search for it, sitting around like you always were will not let you find out anything. So these pencil believers (christians) have told this non-pencil-believer that pencils do exist and that they write on paper (have effects on people). What this "pencil theory" is stating is simply that people need to see a pencil or its effects (god or his) if they are going to believe that there is a pencil, and secondly, that they need to actively search for this pencil, because obviously pencils arent easily accessable where they are. Now if you are at least semi-retarded you will be coming to the same conclusion i came to upon reading of the original paragraph.

The same is true for God. His existence can be proved by either evidence or direct contact but can never be disproved.

"never can be disproved." the meaning in this sentence is the non-pencil-believer cant say "NO, PENCILS DEFINITELY DONT EXIST BECAUSE I HAVENT SEEN ONE OR HAVENT SEEN WHAT ONE DOES, YOU ARE ALL LIERS PENCILS DONT EXIST!" because that would be flawed, atheism is the same thing. Take it or make up some more irrelivant bullshit and leave it.

I gather from your posts that you will NOT search for god in order to prove/disprove him because you are afraid of what you might find. This is your deep down feeling, and if you arent afraid, what is it? Telling yourself that you are right and being so blatantly stubborn that you wont even stop for one second to consider if its possible? Or is it that you are so caught up in public opinion you think its "uncool" to search for that which you think does not exist, yet the only way you can prove your convictions is to find them, or not.

Yeah i know youre getting angry right now and thinking "hey grumblin's a stupid christian, hes not right." i Don't consider myself a christian, but i believe that atheism is wrong, and sure, christianity is possible.

I believe i've earned myself a damned good flame here. Don't let me down with mindless retarded shit. Please? thanks.

On a different note, the world is indeed flat.

Atheism is the belief that it is impossible for there to be a god.

No, Atheism is the belief that there isn't a god.
Not the belief that there cannot possibly be a god.

Theists claim that there is a god, atheists claim there isn't.
Both have every right to their belief, and in reality they are both just as unproveable.

The site is right that "if we had any evidence that god exists, then we could prove it". However, they don't ahve any proof. So it's a friggin moot point.

The idiots are not the atheists or the theists, but the zealots on both sides that claim their own belief to be the absolute truth that everyone must believe in. Demanding that others believe in something you can't prove, just because you believe it (and maybe that you'll harass or kill them if they don't obey you), that isn't very nice at all.

This Goes both for Theist zealots like the christian crusaders and muslim mujahedins, AND for the atheist zealots of the Soviet union.

And comfusing the stength of your own belief with actual proof, that's just silly. Selfrighteous christians ought to be ashamed of themselves, and so ought certain atheists. Not all christians or all atheists, mind you.

I gather from your posts that you will NOT search for god in order to prove/disprove him because you are afraid of what you might find. This is your deep down feeling, and if you arent afraid, what is it?

If there is a higher power, i'd prefer to not dissapoint him by being a selfrighteous narrowminded asshole in his name.

In war after war, both sides praying the same God for the bloody death of each other. Do the God feel honored?

I wouldn't!

I had a dream once. It was about Arne Imsen, the leader of Maranata. Kinda the swedish version of this crowd: www.godhatesfags.com/ (http://www.godhatesfags.com/)

Maranata preach that husbands should beat their children and wives, that homosexuals are The Evil Conspiracy, and that all other churches are whores of satan and should be accordingly harassed.

In my dream, Imsen got his first-last-and-only TRUE vision from Jesus Christ. The angels sang as Jesus stepped down from heaven, looked Imsen deeply into his eyes, and told him: "Stay off my side, asshole. Don't preach your bullshit in my name".

If there is a God, I'll be ready to listen to him if he ever have something to tell me. I will not, however, listen to mortals to claim their words to be the words of God. Too many of these guys are liars or lunatics. And being allknowing, Of Course God is well aware of this problem. I'm sure he don't mind.

Oh, by the way!
If you believe in prophets, then know this:

Jesus just told me that he want everybody to give me all their money. Only the people who give me all their money will go to heaven, everyone else will burn forever.

Do you dare take the risk? What if I'm right? WIll you sacrifice your eternal bliss for mere money?? Obey me! God said so!

just as what ed said about atheism, we hold a beliefe there is no great power, the unseen of a omnipotent being controlling our fate, or bestowing up us what we call free will.

it is not the fact that we have not seen it that we don't believe in it, we choose to lead the rout of science for our meaning, there is not a care in the world that atheists want to prove there is no god, some may try but the general population from my experience is that we don't care, we walk our path, you walk yours

as for..

"And you never addressed the behavior of molecules at sub atomic level.. they defy all laws of physics.. randomness and chaos rule them.. sometimes a particle will move though something, sometimes the same molecule over the same object will move over it..

So there ya go.. But since we are at.. explain Chaos and Randomness scientifically.. Scientifically.. it shouldnt exist.. yet it does. "

not they don't defy laws of physics, physics explains it all pretty well, the only chaotic portion of the atom is the electron, and the chatic path which the electron takes is what keeps the nucleus in order. if it werent for the chaos inflicted portion of the atom there would be no order.

as for particle moving through and over, or reflecting, its all a matter of size, amount, energy released and the type of materials you are using

science isn't about explaing chaos, there are many people who define chaotic anomolies, and workt heir profession around it, from some peoples point of view it is chaos which run this world, it is chaos which we are brought in to, and it is natural selection that starts the order, its the question of which came first? the chicken or the egg, in this case, which came first? chaos or order, with out chaos, how did you start order? and with out order you have chaos, it is natural that chaos is the first experience and over time order is installed

the big bang wouldn't explain the creation of the universe but it would explain all the reactions we have in the universe, as well as the creation of life, non explain-able but also not ruled out as what could not be defined as science, which the atom can be, and has been since the roman era

Take it or make up some more irrelivant bullshit and leave it.
The pencil theory only proves one thing Grumblin, pencil and God are both man creations.

L2 and Halo, instead of saying "It can't be explained by scientific laws", I prefer to say "there is no scientific law YET to explain it".

Oh and Edeina is the wrong, I'm the right one, God told me to spread the truth, give me money and your first virgin daughters, and you'll go to Heaven.

Soooooo! Edeina or me? Who has the real truth now? Will you take a risk?
Or, better idea, laugh at both of us and walk away?

How about "the Butterfly Theory"?

for those unaware.. its a Theory that says if a Butterfly flaps its wings in, oh say, Tokyo, it causes a Tornado to occur in Omaha.
This is mostly used in reference to weather phenomeon.
OK.. got it?

Now what quantum theory says is that the world of atoms (and particles smaller than atoms) is very different from our everyday world. The quantum world is very cloudy - you know where something is, even if you don't know what it is doing. Our everyday world seems very reliable but the quantum world is a world of probability rather than of predictable certainty. Scientists cannot be sure what atoms and particles will do. We may, for example, be able to say that half the atoms in a lump of uranium will decay in the next hour, but we cannot tell which individual atoms they will be.
Randomness.. Chaos...
Chaos theory says that the everyday world is not as predictable, tame and controllable as people once thought. Scientists talk not in terms of clocks as they did with Newton, but also in terms of clouds. By this they mean there are systems in the world that are so exquisitely sensitive that any disturbance totally changes their future behaviour and the behaviour of dependent systems.
www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html (http://www.hawking.org.uk/lectures/dice.html)

So the question becomes.. is Randomness...random?
Do things happen for absolutly no reason? Does the butterflys wings cause a ripple effect that causes something to happen across the globe?
Can order be made from the Chaos of QT? Some think so and String Theory is being worked as an explaination of Randomness.

Einstien hated randomness.. like most scientists he rejected it, his lifelong goal was to establish a unified theory of everything... but was never able to link his Theory of Relativity with Quantum Theory.
I think the Big Bang cosmology is pretty well motivated. What happened very close to the Big Bang is a matter of controversy and speculation. The reason it is speculative is that it requires quantum theory. But because it is the universe you also require Einstein's general theory of relativity, and scientists can't fit the two theories together consistently. So it is all guesswork - clever guesswork.
It is reasonable to suppose that the broad picture is right - that time and space and matter all came into being together.

I shall be telling of this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I -
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

So does the atheist assume that all things in the universe are random, completely and totally without cause or reason?
Or is there a universal order?
Tough question to ask yourself.. but go ahead.




The atheist stance seems to suggest that very thing.. except in an area we havent looked at.
Our lives.. our existance.
Can you REALLY say you believe that creation of the Universe was a string of incredible coincidences?
How about the probabilty for Life to occur spontaneously.. Abiogenesis.
In 1977 Prof. Hubert Yockey, a specialist in applying information theory to biological problems, studied the data for cytochrome a in great detail.1 His calculated value for the probability in a single trial construction of a chain of 100 amino acid molecules of obtaining by chance a working copy of the enzyme molecule is 1/1065 , or the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 65 zeros. This is a probability 100,000 times smaller than my very rough estimate published two years earlier. Prof. Harold Morowitz estimated that the simplest theoretically conceivable living organism would have to possess a minimum of 124 different protein molecules. A rough estimate of the probability of all of these protein molecules to be formed by chance in a single chance happening would be P124P = (1/1065)124 = 1/108060, the fraction 1 divided by the number 1 followed by 8060 zeros. Truly these are extremely small probabilities calculated through a statistical approach. They tell us that the probabilities for the chance formation of a single working protein molecule or of a living cell are effectively zero.Prof. Morowitz made a careful study of the energy content of living cells and of the building block molecules of which the cells are constructed. From this thermodynamic information he was able to calculate the probability that an ocean full of chemical "soup" containing the necessary amino acids and other building block molecules would react in a year to produce by chance just one copy of a simple living cell.2 He arrived at the astronomically small probability of Pcell = 1/10340,000,000, the fraction 1 divided by 1 followed by 340 million zeros!
Thats JUST life on this planet.. never mind the other series of mind boggling events in creation for it to occur. And remember.. the Universe is Finite and limited (it has an age and a measurable size)
The astronomers have discovered a curious thing. They cannot determine if our universe will expand forever, or if it will contract back into the infinitesimally small point from which it came. The mass of our universe seems to be very near to a balance point. If it were just a tiny bit less, the speed of expansion would be so great that the universe would be far larger than it is now, the familiar stars far away and barely visible. If it were a tiny bit more, gravity would long ago have pulled our universe back into a tiny point, and life would never have had a chance to exist. If the mass is exactly on the balance point, the expansion will slow to nearly a dead stop, and just hang there forever. This perfect balance is called a “flat universe”. We are so near to the balance point that the odds of this happening by chance are estimated to be more than 100 billion x 100 billion to 1. This indicates to me that there was something at work here that dictated a flat universe.


So yes... we know the mechanics of HOW the universe formed.. we know what happened. We know how evolved on this planet.
But is that the only question? Can explain to me everything there is to know about a Miles Davis song by telling me how a trumpet works?

To quote the article.

For a person to believe that the being, God, does not exist when it is impossible to prove that He does not exist is irrational because it will always remain possible that the being, God, does exist. This requires that all rational and logical people either believe in the being, God, because of evidence or keep an open mind and be undecided about His possible existence. Therefore, atheism is the most irrational and illogical religion on the planet because it will always be possible that the being, God, exists.
All the things we believe in is only true from a point of view.

The article says Atheisim is illogical and irrational because you can not prove beyond doubt that god does not exist.

Agree to that? Ok, move on..

Whats good for the goose is good for the gander. If its illogical and irrational to be an atheist because you can't prove god doesn't exist. Then it's just as illogical and irrational to believe he does exist when you can not prove beyond any doubt that he does exist.

People believe in god through Faith. Not because they can prove he exists. They just know it. Atheism is the same thing. They just know there is no god.

--Namie Amuro

In my dream, Imsen got his first-last-and-only TRUE vision from Jesus Christ. The angels sang as Jesus stepped down from heaven, looked Imsen deeply into his eyes, and told him: "Stay off my side, asshole. Don't preach your bullshit in my name".

Can I have a hit of that? Looks like some good shit!:rollin

First, there is a big difference between "breaking the laws of X" and "not being described by the laws of X".

The first tends to happen at boundry conditions of science. And it doesn't happen very often nowadays.

The second is pretty common. Science cannot explain gravitational effects at the sub-atomic level yet -- there are many theories asto how it works. The problem is that experimention on gravity is extremely hard.

Second
And you never addressed the behavior of molecules at sub atomic level.. they defy all laws of physics.. randomness and chaos rule them.. sometimes a particle will move though something, sometimes the same molecule over the same object will move over it..

Strangely, last I heard, molecules don't exist at the sub atomic level, because molecules are collections of atoms bonded electricly.

I am incapable of understanding what you mean.

Are you talking about sub atomic particles? Quantum mechanics covers those nicely. We can't predict the behaviour in complicated situations (it is computationally infeasible), but I know of no experiment that gives results that contradict the standard model of particle physics. If you have one, I'd advise you to write it up and you might have a shot at a nobel prize -- the standard model has stood for decades now (scientists are still trying to find what some of the free parameters are, but their values are constrained by experiment. And there are extensions proposed regularly).

Oh and Edeina is the wrong, I'm the right one, God told me to spread the truth, give me money and your first virgin daughters, and you'll go to Heaven.

Soooooo! Edeina or me?

memememememememememe

/grumble
I bet some misguided heterics will follow you.
But *I* want those virgins, goddamnit.
Time to start a holy war.

So does the atheist assume that all things in the universe are random, completely and totally without cause or reason?
Or is there a universal order?
Tough question to ask yourself.. but go ahead.
False dichotomy fallacy. There's no reason to suggest that these are the only two options. It's quite possible that a third option (or more) exists that blends the two choices above. Observation strongly suggests that our day to day lives benefit from a universe that functions in an orderly manner. The probability of disorder of some sort, such as might be caused by a chaotic event, is extremely small.

The atheist stance seems to suggest that very thing.. except in an area we havent looked at.
Our lives.. our existance.
Can you REALLY say you believe that creation of the Universe was a string of incredible coincidences?

Well let's see. I'm here, and there is no evidence of a deity (saying that my being here is such evidence just begs the question), so yes. Except...I don't believe that creation was a string of coincidences at all, but a necessary event. This event might have resulted in some other kind of universe, but we wouldn't be around to notice it, just as some kind of sentient life isn't around to notice the universe that created us.

How about the probabilty for Life to occur spontaneously.. Abiogenesis [followed by statistical quote that includes "A rough estimate of the probability of all of these protein molecules to be formed by chance in a single chance happening would be..." (emphasis mine)]
Hehe, I'm surprised to see this one still about. No biologist thinks all those proteins hooked up with one another by mere chance. Rather, biologists believe molecules predisposed toward bonding with one another created the first self-replicating formations, which in turn developed into the first self-replicating forms of life. Chance had little to do with it.

They cannot determine if our universe will expand forever, or if it will contract back into the infinitesimally small point from which it came
There we go with that "cannot" word again. Scientists "can't" do this, they "can't" do that, as if there was some universal rule preventing scientists from making their discoveries. Just because scientists haven't done something does not mean they can't. But at last report, the universe will be expanding forever. Seeya when we get there.

Is the the most effort you can put into a counter-argument? "Yet you believe it exists? Amazing."? I suppose I should expect nothing less from someone attempting to dig themselves out of a hole they put themselves in

The problem is the way the laws of science work. See, they change. Things do prove laws wrong, so they change them. Einstein proving newton wrong, etc.

Almadar pretty much explained it in his first post there, though he exaggerated. Science has never been a 100% sure thing, thats why scientists keep studying things. To think that all our current knowledge is exactly correct is just ignorant.

Soo.. a recent example. The universe is expanding, but according to the laws of gravity, it should be slowing down, and eventually retract back into one itty bitty ball of something. That was pretty well agreed upon if I am correct. However, it was discovered that the universe's expansion may just be accelerating. This went totally against the "laws of science." So, as they look more into it, they are figuring out why it is, and the "laws of science" just may change again.

Thats the Dark matter issue L2 brought up and you ignored.

There will always be things that defy our current "Laws of Science", since we can't know everything. Don't be a fool.

It's not so much that the laws change, but our understanding of them occasionaly needs updating (or even radical alteration).

HTML Comments are not allowed

Well.
No matter how you look at it Thormir.. I still get the feeling that atheists look at the extreme odds of things occuring.. Now you dont like Biogenesis? Thats cool.. It is after all statisically so unlikely that it is impossible, i dont like it much either. But still
1# Certain simple molecules underwent chemical reactions until after about half-a-billion years complex organic molecules were produced.
2# Molecules that could replicate eventually were formed (the most common guess is nucleic acid molecules), along with enzymes and nutrient molecules that were surrounded by membraned cells.
3# Cells eventually somehow “learned” how to reproduce by copying a DNA molecule (which contains a complete set of instructions for building a next generation of cells). During the reproduction process, the mutations changed the DNA code and produced cells that differed from the originals.
4# The variety of cells generated by this process eventually developed the machinery required to do all that was necessary to survive, reproduce, and create the next generation of cells in their likeness. Those cells that were better able to survive became more numerous in the population
All this had to happen on a planet that was the perfect temperture, surviving through 10 billion + years of catacylsmic events, springing from an event that is in itself and by definition totally impossible, yet in the Planck Second, becomes possible.
But then you say
Observation strongly suggests that our day to day lives benefit from a universe that functions in an orderly manner
So you accept the inconcieveable improbabilty of any of this occuring as "Well.. Im here, and God never tapped me on the shoulder"
Look at the odds again.
Planck Second; Big Bang; Flat universe; formation of stars and Planets; bonding of Molecules; Sustination of life; freewill.

The odds of you "phasing" though a solid wall are ALOT better than all of this occuring (yes there are odds that this will happen... you just have to walk into a solid wall enough times)

I don't believe that creation was a string of coincidences at all, but a necessary event.
yet.. Quantum is random. Randomness and Chaos exist. The universe is not infinite and it is not timeless.. For your "inevitable" universe to exist there can be no randomness, everything must fit and have an explaination, there must be reason for all happenings great and small. (besides of course... Freewill)

You take your belief in the occurance of events happening in perfect order and relation despite such odds as 10 to 30000 power. To an atheist it HAD to happen because it DID.
Who is using false logic?
Are all events in your life predetermined?
Every single object and molecule in existance comes from the same place.
Its random or its not. You say not.. Of course you do, because in a random Universe, God looms larger.
"God Does Not Play Dice"
Einstein said that when trying to come up with a unified theory of everything.. he failed when he saw Gods Dice being thrown at the Quantum level.


But again.. Your telling me how the trumpet was made and how it produces sound. You arent telling me anything about the music.

100% WRONG!

If you don't know what a pencil is... how do you know what it does. How do you know it is used for writing. And if it was written on how can you prove it was a pencil when you don't clearly know what a pencil is.



You missed the point.He never said "you don't know what a pencil IS,he said Let's say you have never seen a pencil and are not sure such a thing actually exists.

Now you dont like Biogenesis? Thats cool.. It is after all statisically so unlikely that it is impossible, i dont like it much either.
No, no and no. I like abiogenesis just fine. What I dislike is the quoting of statistics to show how "unlikely it is that this could happen by chance" when no biologist thinks it happened by chance in the first place.

So you accept the inconcieveable improbabilty of any of this occuring as "Well.. Im here, and God never tapped me on the shoulder"
Given that we are here, the probability doesn't seem inconceivable at all. But again, look what I wrote above. This only looks so unlikely because you're examining it from the tail end. Look at the winner of a Powerball lottery. What are the odds that Joe Smith was the sole winner of the multi-million dollar prize? Pretty damn small. However, while there did not have to be a winner in this drawing, there was a winner, and Joe Smith happened to be it.

This actually circles back onto one of the points Critchton was making: We don't know the probability that a universe of this sort will come into being. We don't know the probability that a pre-Planck time universe will spawn this or other types of universes. We don't know how many other universes are out there and what types they are (though many, if not most, current cosmological models allow or demand for the existence of parallel universes). We don't know the probability of life forming on a planet of this type, so many millions of miles from the sun, nor do we know what other types of life might be out there and the chances of it coming into being. All of these probabilities could be very high...or they could be very low.

We are here, but that doesn't necessarily make us special in some way. If we weren't here, another form of life might be in the universe in our place...or it might not. But stating how improbable our presence is without any knownledge of crucial variables involved won't get your argument very far.

This is what Hawking has to say on the randomness of the universe's development:
They [he refers to apologist William Craig by name] would claim that nature had complete freedom to start the universe off any way it wanted. That may be so, but it could also have made it evolve in a completely arbitrary and random manner. Yet all the evidence is that it evolves in a regular way according to certain laws.quote]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>yet.. Quantum is random. Randomness and Chao<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->
I think you're letting terminology get in the way of clear examination of the topic. "Quantum is random" is a meaningless statement. Quantum physics is the study of the behavior of very small particles. If their behavior was truly random, we certainly wouldn't have gotten very far. But no, quantum particles have a sort of organized chaos to them that allow probabilistic calculations to be made about their behavior. Not random at all.

You may want to define chaos before making claims about it, but I have a feeling any definition of chaos you make would simply be a claim involving low probability, or would be physically meaningless. But hey, let me know ;)

BTW, the pencil analogy is absurd when you get down to it. Compare the following:

Q: So what is this pencil thing?
A: It leaves markings on most solid objects, useful for communication, drawing, and the like.
Q: Can I see one?
A: Sure, they exist over most of the world.
Q: That's not much help. I doubt such things exist.
A: *takes Q to store, buys a pencil*
-------------------
Q: So what is this Pencil thing?
A: It's an almighty presence that drew us onto this planet. Some say it erased the dinosaurs first, but it depends on what you believe.
Q: Okay, can I see the pencil?
A: No, but it's all around us, and you can enjoy the drawings its made, which are creation.
Q: That's not much help. I doubt such a thing exists.
A: The Pencil wrote a book. Read the book, and believe...

Apples and mangoes, really.

probabilistic calculations
Saying "X will happen sometimes" isnt scientific as I know it.

Chaos is when things happen outside the probable.
Lets say your looking at the movement of a subatomic particle.. 51% of the time the object will move to the left of another static particle as expected.
Under the exact same circumstances 49% of the time it will not. It will do something "else".
There is no reason for the alteration. There are no outside forces acting upon it (butterfly). It just Doesnt.
Chaos = Lack of Reason.

Thormir has argued this much more eloquently than I possibly could have, but I did want to respond to one thing that Disco said.

Soo.. a recent example. The universe is expanding, but according to the laws of gravity, it should be slowing down, and eventually retract back into one itty bitty ball of something. That was pretty well agreed upon if I am correct. However, it was discovered that the universe's expansion may just be accelerating. This went totally against the "laws of science." So, as they look more into it, they are figuring out why it is, and the "laws of science" just may change again.

Ok I dont know where you got this from - here is the current theoretical model of universal expansion.

Hubble's constant essentially tells us the current kinetic energy of the universe, but we do not yet know the overall strength of the universe's gravitational pull. The strength of this pull depends on the density of matter in the universe; The greater the density, the greater the overall strength of gravity and the higher the likelihood that gravity will someday halt the expansion.

Precise calculations show that gravity can win out over expansion if the current density of the universe exceeds a semmingly minuscule 10 ^-29 gram per cubic centimeter, which is roughly equivalent to a few hydrogen atoms in a volume the size of a closet. The precise density marking the dividing line between eternal expansion and eventual collapse is called the critical density.

Observations of the luminous matter in galaxies show that the mass contained in stars falls far short of the critical density. The visible parts of galaxies contribute less than 1% of the matter density needed to halt the universe's expansion. The fate of the universe thus rests with the dark matter. Is there enough dark matter to halt the expansion of the universe?

We can estimate the amount of dark matter by looking at the mass-to-light ratio. In order for dark matter to contribute enough mass for the universe to have the critical density, the average mass-to-light ratio throughout the universe would have to be approximately 1,000 solar masses per solar luminosity. Clusters of galaxies have mass-to-light ratios of a few hundred solar masses per solar luminosity, still a few times less than the ratio needed to halt the expansion. Thus, if the proportion of dark matter in the universe at large is similar to that in clusters, the universe will expand forever. For gravity to reverse the expansion and pull the universe back together, even more dark matter would have to lie beyond the boundaries of clusters.

If large-scale structures really do contain a higher proportion of dark matter than do clusters, the influence of that extra dark matter should show up in the velocites of galaxies near those large-scale structures: Larger amounts of dark matter should cause greater deviations from Hubble's law. As of 2003, however, most studies of galaxy velocities hold the line near the value we infer from clusters, which is about 30% of the critical density required to reverse the expansion. If that is the case, the universe will continue to expand forever. Astronomers subdivide the two general possibilities for the fate of the universe, expanding forever or someday collapsing, into four board categories. Each represents a particular pattern of change in the future expansion rate. We will call these four possible expansion patterns recollapsing, critical, coasting, and accelerating.

The first three possibilites assume that gravity is the only force that affects the expansion rate of the universe:

- If the matter density of the universe is larger than the critical density, the collective gravity of all its matter will eventually halt the universe's expansion and reverse it. The galaxies will come crashing back together, and the entire universe will end in a fiery "Big Crunch." If this is the fate of our universe, then we live in a recollapsing universe. (The overall geometry of a recollapsing universe closes upon itself like the surface of a sphere, which is why this type of universe is sometimes called a closed universe.

- If the matter density of the universe equals the critical density, the collective gravity of all its matter is exactly the amount needed to balance the expansion. The universe will never collapse but will expand more and more slowly as time progresses. If this is the fate of our universe, then we live in a critical universe. (Mathematically speaking, a critical universe stops expanding after infinite time, and its overall geometry is flat like the surface of a tabel. Thus, a critical universe is one example of what astronomers call a flat universe.)

- If the matter density of the universe is smaller than the critical density, the collective gravity of all its matter cannot halt the expansion. The universe will keep expanding forever, with little change in its rate of expansion. If this is the fate of our universe, then we live in a coasting universe. (A coasting universe is sometimes called an open universe, because its overall geometry is more like the open surface of a saddle than like the closed surface of a sphere.)

Because observations of distant supernovae suggest that a repulsive force opposes gravity on very large scales, astronomers are now seriously considering a fourth possibility:

- If a repulsive force causes the expansion of the universe to accelerate with time, then we live in an accelerating universe. ITs galaxies will recede from one another increasingly faster, and it will become cold and dark more quickly than a coasting universe. (Depending on the strenth of gravity relative to the repulsive force, the overall geometry of an accelerating universe could be flat, open or closed. However, most astronomers favor a flat geometry in this case.)


That was pretty well agreed upon

More consensus science, Eh Disco?
Educate yourself better so that you "wont be a fool."

Master Damoiel Mindbend
Retired Enchanter of the 60th Season

here is the current theoretical model of universal expansion

That was pretty well agreed upon


Now, I'll admit I don't know a ton about the subject and could be wrong, but I don't see how what you posted goes against what I said.

?

I'd like to see someone prove science exists or link me to someone that does.

You can't prove science exists. You must assume things (things the average person wouldn't think of) but there are things to be assumed

There is no such thing as a "miracle." The theory of miracles was to give people hope who are in need of something that could change their lives drastically.

Miracles are not a common thing.. They're not supposed to be. But they have happened in history, and for some reason the documentations of them have been kept quiet.. Probably because of this belief that since it can't be proven it doesn't exist.

And I hated that website :b repeat the same know nothing idea over and over in different ways, woo.

Soo.. a recent example. The universe is expanding, but according to the laws of gravity, it should be slowing down, and eventually retract back into one itty bitty ball of something. That was pretty well agreed upon if I am correct. However, it was discovered that the universe's expansion may just be accelerating. This went totally against the "laws of science." So, as they look more into it, they are figuring out why it is, and the "laws of science" just may change again.

Ok lets reexamine I suppose.
You start by saying this is a recent example... I would assume you mean from the past 10 years or so? I dont consider anything much older than that recent unless youre talking about a much greater time scale. 10 years is an ETERNITY when talking about scientific progress.

You then say that the universe is expanding, but should be slowing down and then retracting.
The excerpt I posted points out that is not true. I cant say if there was a time when that was believed to be truth, however it seems logical to me that the basic tenets of gravity being known before any serious complete accounting of all the matter in the universe has been attempted, that in recent memory there would be few astronomers under the impression that the universe DEFINITELY would be contracting into itself.

Then you say that was pretty well agreed upon - Now pardon my inability to properly express grammatically the way that I interpreted the sentence, but I took that to mean that "It was agreed upon", and not "It used to be agreed upon". If that makes sense.

Followed by someone again making the claim that this goes against the laws of science, which is patently untrue. If there were about 3 and a half times more matter in the universe, and it was still expanding, I might agree with you. Dark matter being the *relatively* new discovery that it is [First proposed in the 1930's by Fritz Zwicky, but taking decades to gain acceptance], the estimates on the total matter in the universe has only grown, not shrunk.

IE - The law of gravity predicts that if the currently estimated amount of matter in the universe is close to accurate, that the universe will continue to expand for all time, possibly at an increasing rate. This prediction matches with our current level of observation and understanding, and if you have a better explanation Id like to hear it.

Master Damoiel Mindbend
Retired Enchanter of the 60th Season

I'd like to see someone prove science exists or link me to someone that does.

What a stupid thing to say.
Science (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science) - 1]The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
2]Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3]Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

Science isnt something tangeable and noones arguing that it is. The RESULTS of science are easily accessible and youre welcome to research that until youre blue in the face. An atheist or agnostic wouldnt argue with you about wether the CATHOLIC CHURCH exists, but they would probably willingly take issue with your belief in an invisible but all powerfull deity controlling every aspect of their lives.

Miracles are not a common thing.. They're not supposed to be. But they have happened in history, and for some reason the documentations of them have been kept quiet.. Probably because of this belief that since it can't be proven it doesn't exist.


If there is such thing as fate and that everything happens for a reason, then there is no such thing as miracles, because it was supposed to happen.

Well crap, you're right Slant, I forgot about certain stuff that ya brought up. You got me, my example was wrong.(thats what I get for writing science stuff on 3 hours sleep)

I still disagree with you on the main point though. Do you think our current level of knowledge in science is 100% correct?

If there is such thing as fate and that everything happens for a reason, then there is no such thing as miracles, because it was supposed to happen.

This reminds me of the Manga/Anime Berserk. :b

I still disagree with you on the main point though. Do you think our current level of knowledge in science is 100% correct?

God no :P I think there is a good chance that all of our laws will hold up for awhile without much revision however. They have proven extremely resilient and capabale of fitting a huge range of observations. I dont think anyone can say how well they apply to the very large or the very small, guess we will find out as time passes.
Its the theories that I think will need to be reevaulated and reworked to fit the increasing body of knowledge we will have access to over the years. Oh sure, some theories will make the transition to law, but I think there is a good chance many of them will prove insufficient. I guess if the universe really is infinite then there is an infinite amount to learn :)

Just as a addition here.

Believing in a scientific reason for all things happenning in the Universe does not necessarly preclude a belief in God.. However.. a good scientist will seperate the two as it doesnt do to already have the answers to the question.

I think that even if we found a uniflying theory of everything, if we understood the mechanics of all creation and process in the Universe.. we would still have lots of questions to be asked about those very things.

theres always going to be questions, theres always going to be something we want to know about that we didn't know about before, theres always going to be the next step

just cause science hasn't explored it or figured it out yet, does not mean it can't be!

Atheism is the belief that it is impossible for there to be a god.

Okay - I just couldn't let this pass. The line above is the popular, uneducated definition of atheism, but it's not the correct one. The word atheism has as its root the word theism, which can be defined as the belief in one or more gods. Then we add the prefix a, which means "without."

The atheist position is not a positive belief—that is, it does not assert anything. It simply indicates that the person does not hold the belief that a god or gods do exist. The atheist would say, "I do not believe in god." The atheist does not necessarily say, "There is no god." And if he or she does assert the non-existence of a god, it's probably in response to some theist's specific claim about the nature of a god (which can usually be demonstrated to be logically impossible quite easily).

Anyway... taking into consideration the proper definition of atheism, the original essay in this thread doesn't have a leg to stand on. The atheist quite literally has nothing to prove. It's like asking someone to justify why he or she doesn't believe that three-legged iridescent purple unicorns from Pluto are infiltrating the U.S. government.

The burden of proof lies squarely with the person who claims god exists.

Give some thought to this statement:

Not believing in god is NOT the same thing as believing there is no god.

-----------------------

And while we're on the subject (and while I'm on my soapbox), I'd like to mention one little thing about agnosticism. It's really just thinly-veiled atheism, trying to escape the social stigma that, sadly, comes with it.

Let me explain. There are two and only two possibilities: either you hold a belief in a god or gods... or you do not. If you do, then you are a theist. If you do not, then you are an atheist. Period.

Granted, it is possible to be an agnostic theist. This person believes there is a god, but believes that the god is unknowable by the human mind. I think this position is philosophically untenable, but I'll pass on opening that can of worms.

MOST self-proclaimed agnostics, though, would probably say that they have no way of knowing whether or not there's a god, so they choose to reserve judgment. That's fine, but in the meantime... do they hold the belief that there definitely is a god? If not, then they are by definition atheists.

To anyone who considers him- or herself an agnostic, I'd pose the following question: "Do you believe that there is a god?" The answer I might expect is: "I don't know." I'd say that's answer enough... if you don't know, then it's a pretty safe bet that it's not a belief you hold. Ergo, you're an atheist. Don't feel bad. Sure, you may be feared and loathed by countless millions... but congratulations on exercising your capacity for reason.

To anyone who considers him- or herself an agnostic, I'd pose the following question: "Do you believe that there is a god?" The answer I might expect is: "I don't know." I'd say that's answer enough... if you don't know, then it's a pretty safe bet that it's not a belief you hold.

False. Theism is the believe that there is a god, Atheism is the belief that there is not a god. In the above quote, you make it sound like Agnosticism is just another branch of atheism, when really, it is not. Its like saying "Do you believe your father is dead?" when he left you at age 7, and hasnt contacted since. By replying "I dont know" You seriously just dont know. You dont automatically assume that he's dead just because you dont know. Its the same principal. 2 choices, both seperate and opposite from each other, not knowing is the third choice, no a sub-choice of one of the other 2.

but congratulations on exercising your capacity for reason.

and here you go glorifying your opinion as the right one, "because i have a huge capacity for reason i came to the conclusion in which i made a choice that i thought was reasonable, and maybe if i tell people it was the right choice even though my theory is baseless, they will believe that what im saying is superior to their view and think themselves worse or me better and want to come to join me and because i have an opinion which is against lots of other people, i am rebellious and special" Sure, dream on fucktard.

(haha theres no full stops in that whole paragraph)

To anyone who considers him- or herself an agnostic, I'd pose the following question: "Do you believe that there is a god?" The answer I might expect is: "I don't know." I'd say that's answer enough... if you don't know, then it's a pretty safe bet that it's not a belief you hold. Ergo, you're an atheist.

I don't believe, period.
Not in a God, not in a un-god.
I have no ground for believing in the non-existence of a higher power, so I don't.

If this is atheism by the definition you use, fine. Call it that. But don't be an ass about it. And I'll still call it agnosticism. To me, atheism is the belief in un-god.

There are five levels to it, really:

*Fundamentalist Theism - "knowing" that one religion or another is The Truth.

*Theism - believing in a religion or in higher powers in general.

*Agnosticism - knowing that you in fact do not know, thus rejecting all belief alltogether.

*Atheism - beleieving that there are no higher power.

*Fundamentalist Atheism - "knowing that there are no higher powers.

Please note that statements like "Islam is a lie" fit in all five categories. Fundamentalist christians and fundamentalist atheists will agree with each other on that matter, and all kinds of theists (except muslim theists), agnostics and atheists may think that islam contradicts itself and is thus impossible. Same goes for christianity, hinduism and so on. Religious people generally reject each others religions, and are thus atheists in that regard.

Saying "X will happen sometimes" isnt scientific as I know it.
It depends on the context. If you can say, "X will happen under these circumstances," then yes, it's scientific (assuming you have empirical data to back that up. If you say, "X may or may not happen whatever the circumstances" then one could scientifically say: a) We just don't understand X enough, let's study it; b) someone let the philosophers know we have an uncaused cause. In most (all?) cases, something happens because something else precedes it and causes that thing to happen.

This may not be absolutely true depending on where you stand on the free will debate (which is best left in its own thread, or in dark matter <g>).

Chaos is when things happen outside the probable.
I'm not that knowledgeable in chaos theory, but I'm pretty sure this definition isn't part of it. Chaos theory studies emergent patterns from seemingly random data/processes.

Lets say your looking at the movement of a subatomic particle.. 51% of the time the object will move to the left of another static particle as expected.
Under the exact same circumstances 49% of the time it will not. It will do something "else".
There is no reason for the alteration. There are no outside forces acting upon it (butterfly). It just Doesnt.
I don't think this is a real world (or real particle accelerator) example though. Again, not an expert...and, of course, there's the Uncertainty Principle to contend with. It's difficult to attribute causation in an observation when the observer might be the cause.

[At this point it's worth mentioning how difficult it gets to discuss these kinds of things unless everyone has PhD's in quantum cosmology. Try picking through a few of these (http://www.qsmithwmu.com/philosophy_of_physics_papers_by_quentin_smith.htm) articles with 100% understanding. Interesting reading, but not easy to toss around on a message board debate.]

I'd like to see someone prove science exists or link me to someone that does.
One could substitute music, art, exercise...just about any human pursuit in place of "science" in the above sentence. They are all human pursuits. Does science require certain assumptions to work? Primarily, it requires one: That the natural world acts in a regular manner, so that under controlled conditions one can expect (i.e., it is highly probable that) similar circumstances will yield similar results. That's my line; I'm sure it's better put somewhere else.

I agree that science and most common religious beliefs aren't mutually exclusive. Evolution and religion can certainly co-exist. It doesn't work for me, but it works for plenty of others, and that's just fine. Cosmology and religion can also co-exist, though I suspect the future holds 2 trends in that debate:

1) scientific understanding will nail down with greater firmness a likely acausal (i.e., unconditional) route of universal creation; this route will preclude the possibility of their being a "creator" agent (Quentin Smith has demonstrated this already with respect to the Hawking-Holdt model); 2) it will be shown as metaphysically untenable that an agent outside of time can act (I think this has already been shown, but there's a lot of science involved in the debate).

But even then, faith has always shown itself to be an immensely resilient human instinct/emotion/sensibility.

People are still debating the validity of Pascal's Wager. Kinda sad in a lot of ways.

scientific understanding will nail down with greater firmness a likely acausal (i.e., unconditional) route of universal creation; this route will preclude the possibility of their being a "creator" agent

Using the words "likely" in this statement negates your point. You can scientifically prove anything you want but you cant prove that GOD didnt invent that system. You cannot prove that no creator agent was involved. You can prove that a creator isnt NEEDED but not that one WASNT involved.

People spend too much time trying to prove Faith. If you could prove it then it wouldnt be faith.

>People spend too much time trying to prove Faith. If you could prove it then it wouldnt be faith

They take even more time trying to prove that their faith is the correct one and better than anyone elses faith.

They take even more time trying to prove that their faith is the correct one and better than anyone elses faith.

No more time that some scientists spend trying to prove man has no need for anything beyond rational thought and scientifically proven processes to explain the workings of the universe.

Even if God doesn't exist, Man has a need for the spiritual and emotional stability provided by faith. Science has become that faith for some, providing a rock solid foundation based on the belief that all things have a rational, observable and reproduceable explanation.

Where the faith of science fails, for me, is when the assumption is made that because we understand a process and can reproduce it, it therefore follows that God can't have been involved or that His existence is disproven. As has been mentioned before, understanding the process of evolution doesn't mean Man wasn't created by God. Reaching a scientific understanding of how our universe came to be also doesn't preclude God's involvement.

No more time that some scientists spend trying to prove man has no need for anything beyond rational thought and scientifically proven processes to explain the workings of the universe.
Scientists don't try to prove anything of the sort. Naturalism is a basis of science, not a proposition. What you state above is the province of philosophers and theologians.

Even if God doesn't exist, Man has a need for the spiritual and emotional stability provided by faith.
Is this opinion at all supportable? I don't know that man has such a need at all, unless you expand the definition of 'faith' considerably.

Science has become that faith for some, providing a rock solid foundation based on the belief that all things have a rational, observable and reproduceable explanation.
Science is a man created system of analysis that works quite well, as opposed to other man created systems of analysis. No faith is necessary beyond that needed to avoid radical skepticism or solipsism.

Where the faith of science fails, for me, is when the assumption is made that because we understand a process and can reproduce it, it therefore follows that God can't have been involved or that His existence is disproven.<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>
That's a personal assumption, not a scientific one. Science isn't concerned with religion, though some scientists may be, on both sides of the coin. Still, I don't think you'll find "how my study impacts religious belief" headings in any peer reviewed scientific journal.

A god very well could have been involved in the universe's creation, the evolution of life, and the development of Teletubbies. I personally doubt that's the case very strongly, but it coul<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->

>No more time that some scientists spend trying to prove man has no need for anything beyond rational thought and scientifically proven processes to explain the workings of the universe.

that is extremely ignorant, scientists spend their time trying to improve life for humanity (some for pure money), none spend their time trying to disprove the need for "rational thought"

I didn't say all scientists Trimlock, just some. Just as not all people of faith are interested in converting the masses, just some.

Some scientists try to improve life for humanity. So do some believers.

Some scientists don't care anything about improving life for humanity but merely the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. Some believers don't care anything about improving life for humanity either. In my estimation that makes them both extremely short-sighted and misguided although that is just an opinion.

The danger, regardless of belief or non-belief, is falling into the trap of absolutism. I believe, but leave room to evaluate and refine my beliefs as necessary.

Scientists don't try to prove anything of the sort. Naturalism is a basis of science, not a proposition. What you state above is the province of philosophers and theologians.

I simply offered the statement as a counterpoint to the opinion that religious persons spend too much time "proving" their flavor of faith is better than all others. Its true that some do. It is also true that there are scientists who maintain the position that man doesn't need faith in God as long as science can rationally explain an event or process.

"Even if God doesn't exist, Man has a need for the spiritual and emotional stability provided by faith."

Is this opinion at all supportable? I don't know that man has such a need at all, unless you expand the definition of 'faith' considerably.

I typoed. The statement was supposed to be "provided by a faith."

Everyone believes in something. Everyone. Whether the foundation of that belief is religious faith, scientific study, rational thought or some other system, we all believe. I have never seen God with my own eyes but I believe He exists. I have never seen a molecule or atom either but believe they exist as well. The likelihood of me seeing either one with my own eyes before my physical death is slim.

Science is a man created system of analysis that works quite well, as opposed to other man created systems of analysis. No faith is necessary beyond that needed to avoid radical skepticism or solipsism.

I don't deny science as a system works well. The power of the human mind to devise ways of discovering how the world around us works is astounding. But unless we all care to reproduce every scientific experiment ever conducted there are some things we are forced to accept on faith. If not the scientific facts themselves then the trust we place in the people or publications that convey those facts to us to be accurate and reliable.

"Where the faith of science fails, for me, is when the assumption is made that because we understand a process and can reproduce it, it therefore follows that God can't have been involved or that His existence is disproven."

That's a personal assumption, not a scientific one. Science isn't concerned with religion, though some scientists may be, on both sides of the coin. Still, I don't think you'll find "how my study impacts religious belief" headings in any peer reviewed scientific journal.

Thats not a personal assumption on my part, that is an assumption made by others and presented to me as "fact". Its an example of someone else's religious views being presented to me as a counterpoint to my own. Its an example of a "rational thinker" trying to prove his or her system of faith is better than mine.

Its the very thing all the non-theists rail against believers for doing.

>No more time that some scientists spend trying to prove man has no need for anything beyond rational thought and scientifically proven processes to explain the workings of the universe.

Did some scientist abuse you as a grad student or something?

>I simply offered the statement as a counterpoint to the opinion that religious persons spend too much time "proving" their flavor of faith is better than all others. Its true that some do. It is also true that there are scientists who maintain the position that man doesn't need faith in God as long as science can rationally explain an event or process.

And if you don't believe them you are going to burn in hell. For eternity!

Oh wait....

No more time that some scientists spend trying to prove man has no need for anything beyond rational thought and scientifically proven processes to explain the workings of the universe.
The worst is when they come to your door with labcoats on and chalk boards in hand, trying to get you to understand their whacky equations and giving out copies of The Origin of Species.

>The worst is when they come to your door with labcoats on and chalk boards in hand, trying to get you to understand their whacky equations and giving out copies of The Origin of Species.

Offer them Tarot readings, that always makes them run away screaming.

The worst is when they come to your door with labcoats on and chalk boards in hand, trying to get you to understand their whacky equations and giving out copies of The Origin of Species.

You win. =)

i had to put up a gate to stop those whacky scientists from coming to my door three times a day ... wait ...

How can you argue that Atheism is irrational because you can't disprove the existance of God, and why does this guy talk simply about Christianity?

Christianity is the religion of belief in the human-form son of God, not in God alone.

Atheism is the belief that god does not exist.

They are both beliefs. Neither can be proven or disproven. The only argument in favour of the existence of God, is that the universe exists, and that is why I am agnostic.

Actually, I'm not agnostic. I have faith that all religions on this planet are wrong, including my own religion, which I'm about to explain:

If God is everything that is and ever will, can and can't be, then surely God is the universe itself, and that includes everything that Isn't. God is not simply everything that exists, it is also everything that does not exist. God is all the matter, energy and nothingness of the universe and alternate but non-universes.

I'll try to explain by putting God within a time-frame:
Imagine God is the only entity within the infinite expanse of nothingness, before the big bang. With what materials would God be able to forge a thriving universe? The only thing that exists is God itself, and therefore God created the universe using itself. Meaning all matter, energy and nothingness is in logical belief, God (Including human consciousness).

However, considering that God cannot be bound by the limits of the human perception of time, the universe is in a permanent state of existance, inevitability and change.

If i was asked the question of: "What is God's purpose?", then i would answer: "To experience everything that is and isn't in every possible and impossible way."

This is the basis of my beliefs (probably highly flawed, just like any other religion), but my beliefs do expand into the realm of common belief. I believe that each of us has a soul, which has the purpose of experiencing everything in a different way from any other soul. I believe that our souls will eventually spend an infinity in both heaven and hell, because as we move towards the final stages of inevitability, we get closer to becoming everthing that is and was, until we once again merge into God-minus-infinity-plus one (our) universe, and another big bang occurs.

Every time there is a big bang, a different universe is created, and a different set of experiences emerge, until everything that is not, has been (Of which there is an infinite amount, meaning the universe will never cease, but will only change).

Flame all you like against my gobble-de-gook, but this is the most rational explanation for existance that I can think of.

I thought no power on heaven or earth could ressurect this thread. How wrong I was :(

Anyway, one thing:
Atheism is the belief that god does not exist.

They are both beliefs.
Not quite. Atheism is lack of belief in a deity. Those who possess belief say the evidence is sufficient to support their view, or aren't concerned with evidence, simply relying on faith. Many atheists require evidence before they will possess a belief in a deity. Until sufficient evidence is shown, they do not possess that belief.

Atheists believe that there is no God.
If someone simply don't believe (in God or in Un-God) then he is a Agnostic.

Ok just want to know how in any way shape or form this is true.

Quote
Some scientists try to improve life for humanity. So do some believers.

Exactly how do some believers try to improve life for humanity..? by imposing there beliefs on other people ?? you lost me here and I must say this has been an enjoyable thread to read.

Oh and for the record I fall into the my god is morgoth and he lives in the lake behind my house group.

Nategray
Shaman Protector Of Earth

Exactly how do some believers try to improve life for humanity..? by imposing there beliefs on other people ??

Although Ill admit there seems to always be 'strings attached' when Christians etc. try to do good things, but saying they dont do anything is kinda silly. They run homeless shelters, soup kitchens, all sorts of international medical, food and training programs in third world countries... So their help usually comes with a bible and a prayer :p They do a lot of good, even if their religion doesnt always do a good job of representing the help for humanity on all fronts.

Master Damoiel Mindbend
Retired Enchanter of the 60th Season

every culture has a god

we are lead to belive that they belive in false gods and only our god is the correct one.

clearly mans nature to seek a higher power

orginized power by man (crouption) with no limits to use this power other then the ones we set.

religion is the worlds oldest con.... and 95% of you fell for it.

Ok good yes I can understand that, guess I am mis-interupting good and benifiting humanity which I consider advancments in medical science or things along those lines which I cannot see them contributing to. But I definatly agree they do alot of good around the world no doubt about that even if it does go hand in hand with converting you.
Oh and I just found out my god morgoth who lives in the lake whom I have been worshiping is actually an alien who has told me they seeded our planet billions of years ago so that there race would live on ( so much for the random creation of life theory I had ) and we are just a plae replication of them.:rollin

Nategray Shaman Protector Of Earth

Zenrk..

It might be better if you learned to spell before you started offering opinions on really any subject..

CORRUPTION

I mean.. ill debate with anyone.. but it starts to feel ridiculous when its against "Bobo "Zenrk" Plunkski, the dumbest Kid in Mrs. Cribbopple's 7th grade English Class"

He without sin may throw the first stone, right L2?

Master Damoiel Mindbend
Retired Enchanter of the 60th Season

He without sin may throw the first stone, right L2?

Nobody seems to know the rest of that verse:

Then Jesus did have to say, "Put the rock down, Mom!", and bade his father to hold her back.

Esbat
Failing at humor for 33 years!

Hah!

One laugh. I think I'm just going to give up on being funny.

Esbat, I think "funny" gave up on you early on :(

i dont care how poorly i spell, if i cared 2 seconds with spell check i could have fixed it, i dont hid behind something i am not to try and impress some ignorant asshole.


for anyone intresred in the bible the history channel has a 2 hour show on parts of the bible that where removed.


very interesting part was jesus as a child, the modern bible skips from a baby to about a 12 year old. also some things about heaven and hell that are very different then we are lead to believe now, pointing out some large mistakes in modern religion.

Just a question,
God might exits, he/she/it might not.
I personally don't care either way.
How would that fall into the Atheism/Theism lineup?

You would be an atheist (I've done much philosophical reading after my last post as to the nature of Atheism, hence an answer different from what I would have stated before [ agnostic]). An implicit Atheist, ergo you cannot define a reason for your lack of belief, but simply don't believe in god. You don't have to say that god does not exist to be an a-theist, as there are several varieties of atheists-- you can simply say that you don't believe either way, and therefore, since you don't believe in a god, you are a-theistic.

Dai, Atheism can be defined as "believing there is no god".

In which case, someone who does not believe in god, and does not believe there is no god, is not an athiest. Neither is he a theist, one who believes in god. The traditional name for someone who neither believes in god nor believes there is no god is an agnostic.

The law of excluded middle (either A or not A is true) isn't always true. =)

So I thought too for the longest time. I'll explain why I say differently now and the origins of the concept of agnosticism later, got to leave for dinner now.

very interesting part was jesus as a child, the modern bible skips from a baby to about a 12 year old. also some things about heaven and hell that are very different then we are lead to believe now, pointing out some large mistakes in modern religion.

If you don't believe in God then none of this would be interesting to you anyway because it would all be equally as false as everything else. You cant use the same principle you claim is false to prove the fallacy of itself.

Besides that you don't need more than just the regular Bible to see large mistakes with religion period.

Daid, words really dont have fixed meanings. People use words differently to mean different things at different times. Sometimes this is useful, sometimes it gets in the way of communication.

All I'm saying is, having a word "athiest" which is "belief there is no god" and another word "agnostic" which is "neither belief in god nor belief there is no god" distinguishes between people's beliefs, and is a somewhat useful distinction. You could argue that all Christians are Jewish, but the word play would be of no practical use: having seperate words for Christian and Jew is useful and gives the words more detail and meaning.

Agnostics sometimes wish to seperate their beliefs from Athiests. Giving ownership of the precise finnicky meaning of a term to those who are labelled by the term seems polite at the very least. =)

Agnostics sometimes wish to seperate their beliefs from Athiests. Giving ownership of the precise finnicky meaning of a term to those who are labelled by the term seems polite at the very least. =)
Perhaps, but its unnecessary unless we continue to let the "Disgruntled old cynic" paradigm continue to exist. There is nothing wrong with being an atheist, despite the negative connotation that it implies still. And I wouldn't say it's a "precise finnicky meaning", there is actually quite a big difference between the misused version, and the actual meaning.


Daid, words really dont have fixed meanings.
Not always, but there is a correct way and an incorrect way, and since he was asking for an answer, I figured it was only fair to provide the correct one.




Anyways, to cover your original post:

Dai, Atheism can be defined as "believing there is no god".
This makes atheism into a positive assertion, which it is not. Atheism, should it be a positive assertion would have to defend itself by proving why it is right. Instead, since it simply is a lack of belief in a god (whether or not you believe there is no god or you just don't believe either way [Commonly referred to as "Agnosticism"] is irrelevant in terms of being an atheist), the defense of atheism (which shouldn't be needed as it isn't a positive belief, but theists will try to reverse it to somehow justify theology by stating that Atheism is indeed a positive belief which should be defended) is to question theism. Yea, that was a rediculously complex sentence... sorry :\



The traditional name for someone who neither believes in god nor believes there is no god is an agnostic.
Au contraire, this nomen wasn't even created until 1869. Thomas Huxley, upon joining the Metaphysical Society, found that the majority of his contemporaries were -ists of some sort. However, he couldn't quite find his religion, saying:

"They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"--had more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble."


As a result, he jokingly created the term "agnostic" to describe himself, making fun of the "Gnostics"- an example of men who claimed to have knowledge of the supernatural without any justification.


Regardless of this, however, the idea of agnosticism does not lie in the same realm as theism or atheism for a simple reason: It is like comparing apples to oranges, and heres why:

Both Theism and Atheism deal with either the existence or lack of existence of a god. The arguments are purely ontological; they state whether or not god is or isn't, nothing more. Agnosticism, however, does not indicate whether or not one believes in a god, but simply whether or not, should one exist, this god would be knowable. The agnostic view is really a metaphysical idea about this god, but, once again, nothing more. Resultingly, Agnostics can actually be either Theists or Atheists. An agnostic theist believes in the existence of god but claims that the nature of such god is unknowable, and an agnostic atheist keeps from advancing one more step in his or her conclusions, and instead says that god, if he or she existed, would not only be unknowable in nature, but in existence as well. As such, because of "a" (without) and -"theism" (belief in a god or gods), this person would still be classified as an atheist.

The only problem I can see you have there is a dislike for the connotation of the word atheist, which is, fortunately, something that is slowly on the decline, but has understandably been built up by theologians since man began to question what they're fed.



All I'm saying is, having a word "athiest" which is "belief there is no god" and another word "agnostic" which is "neither belief in god nor belief there is no god" distinguishes between people's beliefs, and is a somewhat useful distinction.
Don't get me wrong, I completely understand what you're saying. What I'm saying is, and don't take this personally, but you're wrong... And that is why. *points above*


The desire to seperate the two is something that society has ingrained in us, but since he asked how that would fall into the lineup, I answered: Hes an agnostic atheist.

Edeina writes:
There are five levels to it, really:

*Fundamentalist Theism - "knowing" that one religion or another is The Truth.

*Theism - believing in a religion or in higher powers in general.

*Agnosticism - knowing that you in fact do not know, thus rejecting all belief alltogether.

*Atheism - beleieving that there are no higher power.

*Fundamentalist Atheism - "knowing that there are no higher powers.


You've left out a whole category of belief which is belief in higher power within - such as Hindu, Buddhists, etc.

Don't know much about Hinduism, but would mention that Buddhists are not god-believers, per se. Often the word "deity" is used (or "god king") as a mistranslation of beings with enlightened accomplishments - but this is just a really bad misunderstanding.

Buddhists do believe that there is a god realm, where one experiences much bliss - but still suffers from death at the end. Buddha is not a god in this belief system - and, moreover, anyone can become a Buddha (there are many). If you assemble the causes and conditions, you can be like the Dalai Lama, for instance. But it isn't something you can cram the night before the exam to do.

Last, Buddhists don't even believe in a self, really, but a collection of causes and conditions (karma) that propels beings endlessly through life after life. The only way to end this constant recycling is if the being awakens from the dream of this circle to their true, primoridally pure, compassionate nature. This is very difficult to do, and the human form is considered to be the easiest form in which to make this achievement (the god form being way too distracting with its intense and temporary - albeit Kalpa-long - pleasures).

To get back to the pencil example, Buddhists would ask "what is 'pencil'?" If you look at the stick of wood and lead and erase, and disassemble it into its component parts, you realize that the pencil only exists because of its interdependence on other things. Moreover, the pencil is what it is now, but it is not permanent it is dissolving as all things are dissolving. So, we say, there is no pencil. Only mind.

Hope this is of interest to the topic at hand at this point, as I am responding after only having read a couple pages.

Edit: Actually "Dharma" (the name Buddhists use for the teachings) does in fact connote "the truth" - as in Edeina's first example. However, the Buddha himself mentioned that what he discovered he just discovered himself. He said not to believe him, what he said, but to try the path out for oneself and just see.

You've left out a whole category of belief which is belief in higher power within - such as Hindu, Buddhists, etc.

The Theist debate only centers around monotheism. It doesnt pertain at all to polytheistic or eastern ideas/beliefs.

Not to say those are not relivant, but all the Divine Command Theory and Is There a God debates only center on the monotheistic perspective.

Polytheism isnt argued because if you cannot prove/disprove one god, you obviously can't prove/disprove multiple gods. The eastern ideas come into play after the theist debates run to fruition...or when you advance to the Tainoistic plane of self enlightenment and can actually comprehend those unbelievably advanced topics.

Well, I'm not so sure. The whole question of what does and does not exist *at all* is pretty central to Buddhism, as the pencil example demonstrates. So in that way you could in fact apply those teachings to the atheism debate. Actually, from a Buddhist perspective, atheism would be akin to the "wrong view" of "nihilism." Nihilism is the mistaken idea that there is actually *nothing* instead of emptiness (which is not nothing).

This makes atheism into a positive assertion, which it is not. Atheism, should it be a positive assertion would have to defend itself by proving why it is right.

X is not true because if X where true it would imply Y, and Y would be bad. Thus X is not true.

Classic fallicy, I'm pretty sure... Can you name it? =)

Just because "Athesim being a positive assertion" implies "atheism would have to prove itself" does not imply "athesim is not a positive assertion". You are missing the implicit assumption "athesim doesn't have to defend itself".

Atheism can be a positive assertion. There are those who believe there is no god. And there are those who do not believe there is a god. They both exist.

To one, it is a positive assertion. To the other, it isn't.

Or, are you saying those who believe there is no god are not atheists? =p

Or, are you saying those who believe there is no god are not atheists?
Not at all, there are a variety of flavors of atheism, as there are varieties of theism. To be classified as an atheist, one simply has to be without a belief in god. One who believes there is no god (which is the common conception of atheism) is a form of atheism and falls into that category because the person doesn't believe in god. Whether or not they believe there is no god isn't relevant to being an atheist, it is simply something that atheism commonly entails for many people.




Atheism can be a positive assertion. There are those who believe there is no god. And there are those who do not believe there is a god. They both exist.
Only the later is a requirement to be an atheist, and the former is another common belief held by some atheists which makes a positive assertion, which atheism, by definition of the word, isn't. Whether you choose to take another step or not is up to the atheist, but only the "no belief in a god" is what makes an atheist an a-theist.



Classic fallicy, I'm pretty sure
There was no fallacy, simply a misconception of the real definition of atheism.

Miscellanea

If you don't believe in God then none of this would be interesting to you anyway because it would all be equally as false as everything else. You cant use the same principle you claim is false to prove the fallacy of itself.
Au contraire! The existence of these other myths, stories and legends that even many believers are unaware of, is as equally interesting as the rest. Perhaps even moreso, since the existence of the apocrypha begs one to wonder just why these stories were excluded or suppressed. It's all academic, but that doesn't mean it isn't interesting.

X is not true because if X where true it would imply Y, and Y would be bad. Thus X is not true.

Classic fallicy, I'm pretty sure... Can you name it? =)
It's known as an "Appeal to Consequences." =)

Daidal, you are correct in the applications of the terms "athiest," 'agnostic" and "theist." However, it's just much easier to use the common parlance of "agnostic" in casual discussion. =)

Atheism can be a positive assertion.
An apple can also be called a locomotive, but it'll only get you funny looks.

And there are those who do not believe there is a god.
Actually, the phrase you're looking for is, "those who believe there is no god." But anyone who uses such a phrase (and I suppose there's at least one) probably isn't aware of the problems it represents.

The burden of proof lies squarely on the shoulders of the theists. In fact, this is where Ruthey's adducement (/wave Ruthey) is important, since it illustrates the many faces of theism. The burden of proof lies with individual proponents of these many forms of belief. The atheist, lacking any belief, has nothing to prove, so need merely kick back and watch the show, such as it is.

I actually would ask atheists and theists alike to prove to me that *they* exist. Meaning - how do you know you exist? Can you prove to me the existence of a Ruthey or a Daidal or a Thormir?

In fact, it becomes more interesting if you start to apply such logic (that you might come up with to prove you exist) to proving that your character in EQ does not really exist.

Ruthey, solipsism and radical skepticism are only useless mind games. They serve no purpose other than a very weak, "Gotcha!"

I would disagree that this is solipsistic. That's an easy out; to apply a label rather than attempting the exercise.

So if I consider what is a Ruthey, what do I come up with? What are the factors that make up a Ruthey? And once I know these factors, is that Ruthey permanent? Is Ruthey not changing at all moments, slowly dissolving from birth, old age to death? And does that not apply to the game Ruthey as well as the real Ruthey?

This is not a question of "gotcha" but in fact a valid philosophical road to take in answering the question of what does, in fact, really exist.

But instead of phrasing it in an epistemological manner, you seemed to be speaking from the point of radical skepticism (e.g., we could all just be the dreams of our EQ characters, who are actually real). The epistemological questions of self don't really hang on whether "Do I exist?" (at some point, we must take that for granted) but more on "How do I interpret and understand the world?" Is it the sensation or my mind's interpretation of the sensation that is the key factor?

I'm pretty sure we won't be solving that ageless conundrum here =)

Actually, and this is a level of inquiry I've just begun to delve into so I'm not that well-versed myself atm, but to take the risk anyway - I would even examine the very sensations and the tendency of the mind to interpret. Have you ever experimented with observing thought itself and letting thoughts go? When the mind starts to move (make judgments, observations, etc. - have thoughts) - watch it. When you have a consciousness of a sensation, watch that. When something appears before your eyes and, without a word, you know it as whatever name we give the object (computer screen for instance), watch that. There's always the question - so who is it that's watching? I suspect that's where you can start to find the existence of god or not-god. But like I said, this is something I myself am just beginning to look into.

And there are those who do not believe there is a god.
Actually, the phrase you're looking for is, "those who believe there is no god."

No, I used exactly the phrase I wanted to use.

Lets actually see the sentance right next to the one you quoted:
There are those who believe there is no god.
And there are those who do not believe there is a god.

I meant different things by these two different phrases.

There are those who do not believe in god.
Sortof like those who do not believe "stocks are a good investment".
There are those who believe that there is no god.
Sortof like those who believes "stocks are a bad investment".

While you can define your terms and ignore this, I personally find using definition games for reasons other than clarity to be intellectually dishonest.

Au contraire! The existence of these other myths, stories and legends that even many believers are unaware of, is as equally interesting as the rest. Perhaps even moreso, since the existence of the apocrypha begs one to wonder just why these stories were excluded or suppressed. It's all academic, but that doesn't mean it isn't interesting.
Reread what he wrote. He basically says "God doesnt exsist but on a different note God likes to eat spam"

Ack btw forgot to say /hug /wave Thormir!

Electrons aren't the worst of it, really. There are quarks, photons, gluons, gravitons (hypothetically, anyway), tachyons, virtual particles and so on. And they are very very small.

Thormir didn't i see you on that last episode of Star Trek ;p

the one in the back with the pointy ears

the last two replies on here from Ed and Will where awsome. Because you beleive in god doesn't mean you should push it on others. I used to be a strong beleiver in the holy ghost but when i got older, after seeing how there was no proof and the bible had been rewriten like 45 times...I started to beleive that this was just a type of "Santa Clause." Also the bible can be quite prejudice and contradicting, that is something I frown on.

You can argue about it while you are burning in Hell.

I've been to hell, and it is in Fort Rucker, Alabama. Worst sunburn I've ever had.