Atheism-o-Phobia Part 3

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
501

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
If I believe that there is an uncaused cause that cannot be known (don’t know if it’s a thing, being, framework that’s always been), and I believe that moral law comes from this uncaused cause in a similar way the laws of physics do, then what does that make me? Is that deism or just a more faith oriented type of atheism? Just a question of definitions really.[/quote]

We’re talking about universal moral law, above and beyond mortal opinion. The sole purpose of their existence seemingly to differentiate–good, or evil–between the actions and thoughts of intelligent and self-aware creatures. How could such discernment be made without an intelligence to make it? Further, what is a law if it is absent? Why claim the existence of universal moral law, yet deny a universal authority to deal with trespass? Why claim something a universal moral law if it’s law is never felt? Where is the justice in these laws if they, even in the final reckoning of the human race, will never hold power over us? Judgement requires a will and intelligence in order to judge. Universal moral laws need a univerasl author.

From this, we must claim at least some knowledge about this author’s character. After all, we’re making the claim that this author is the source of moral law. And, in the first place, what those moral laws even are. A claim as to what pleases and displeases the author. But then, if we’re defining those moral laws, therefore, describing the character/nature of the author, from what revelation do we speak from? It is a claim to having faith in some sort of deposit of revelation. Apostolic and textual? Purely one or the other? Something new?[/quote]

Faith is not necessary. Universal moral “laws” do not exist. An author for these laws is not necessary.

Seriously, my atheist friends here… don’t engage him at his own game. You can’t argue your way out of it. [/quote]

Actually, in this case it is your atheist friend’s (and mine) “game.” Fletch is an atheist,“without god,” absent the additional doctrinal caveats. He is, again, simply “without god.” Fletch isn’t playing my game. He too holds to belief in the real existence of good and evil, independent of opinion and/or firepower. A good and evil above the survival of one organism, a population, or even a species. A morality that doesn’t change with each indiviual’s genotype (thus, nonexistence of Morality with a capital M). And, mostly certainly not rudderless in the slow tide of adaption to changing environment. He believes–that is, has faith–in a morality that is anchored out of reach of the victor, and above whatever it takes to survive. In otherwords, we’re having a mutual exchange, blossoming from at least one commonality.

However, in the end I agree with you. It is impossible to be disrespectful towards the faith a person may hold in a Diety or dieties, while holding out that some actions are intrinsically evil. Now, I’m not saying Fletch has to take my arguments and arrive at my conclusions. But yes, it gives us common ground for respect and understanding.

502

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
If I believe that there is an uncaused cause that cannot be known (don’t know if it’s a thing, being, framework that’s always been), and I believe that moral law comes from this uncaused cause in a similar way the laws of physics do, then what does that make me? Is that deism or just a more faith oriented type of atheism? Just a question of definitions really.[/quote]

We’re talking about universal moral law, above and beyond mortal opinion. The sole purpose of their existence seemingly to differentiate–good, or evil–between the actions and thoughts of intelligent and self-aware creatures. How could such discernment be made without an intelligence to make it? Further, what is a law if it is absent? Why claim the existence of universal moral law, yet deny a universal authority to deal with trespass? Why claim something a universal moral law if it’s law is never felt? Where is the justice in these laws if they, even in the final reckoning of the human race, will never hold power over us? Judgement requires a will and intelligence in order to judge. Universal moral laws need a univerasl author.

From this, we must claim at least some knowledge about this author’s character. After all, we’re making the claim that this author is the source of moral law. And, in the first place, what those moral laws even are. A claim as to what pleases and displeases the author. But then, if we’re defining those moral laws, therefore, describing the character/nature of the author, from what revelation do we speak from? It is a claim to having faith in some sort of deposit of revelation. Apostolic and textual? Purely one or the other? Something new?[/quote]

Faith is not necessary. Universal moral “laws” do not exist. An author for these laws is not necessary.

Seriously, my atheist friends here… don’t engage him at his own game. You can’t argue your way out of it. [/quote]

Actually, in this case it is your atheist friend’s (and mine) “game.” Fletch is an atheist,“without god,” absent the additional doctrinal caveats. He is, again, simply “without god.” Fletch isn’t playing my game. He too holds to belief in the real existence of good and evil, independent of opinion and/or firepower. A good and evil above the survival of one organism, a population, or even a species. A morality that doesn’t change with each indiviual’s genotype (thus, nonexistence of Morality with a capital M). And, mostly certainly not rudderless in the slow tide of adaption to changing environment. He believes–that is, has faith–in a morality that is anchored out of reach of the victor, and above whatever it takes to survive. In otherwords, we’re having a mutual exchange, blossoming from at least one commonality.

However, in the end I agree with you. It is impossible to be disrespectful towards the faith a person may hold in a Diety or dieties, while holding out that some actions are intrinsically evil. Now, I’m not saying Fletch has to take my arguments and arrive at my conclusions. But yes, it gives us common ground for respect and understanding.[/quote]

Crap… that’s so flowery I want to go puke.

And, there you go again making sense.

503

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

Crap… that’s so flowery I want to go puke.

And, there you go again making sense.

[/quote]

Every once in a while I stumble upon making sense despite having none of my own.

504

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
If I believe that there is an uncaused cause that cannot be known (don’t know if it’s a thing, being, framework that’s always been), and I believe that moral law comes from this uncaused cause in a similar way the laws of physics do, then what does that make me? Is that deism or just a more faith oriented type of atheism? Just a question of definitions really.[/quote]

We’re talking about universal moral law, above and beyond mortal opinion. The sole purpose of their existence seemingly to differentiate–good, or evil–between the actions and thoughts of intelligent and self-aware creatures. How could such discernment be made without an intelligence to make it? Further, what is a law if it is absent? Why claim the existence of universal moral law, yet deny a universal authority to deal with trespass? Why claim something a universal moral law if it’s law is never felt? Where is the justice in these laws if they, even in the final reckoning of the human race, will never hold power over us? Judgement requires a will and intelligence in order to judge. Universal moral laws need a univerasl author.

From this, we must claim at least some knowledge about this author’s character. After all, we’re making the claim that this author is the source of moral law. And, in the first place, what those moral laws even are. A claim as to what pleases and displeases the author. But then, if we’re defining those moral laws, therefore, describing the character/nature of the author, from what revelation do we speak from? It is a claim to having faith in some sort of deposit of revelation. Apostolic and textual? Purely one or the other? Something new?[/quote]

Faith is not necessary. Universal moral “laws” do not exist. An author for these laws is not necessary.

Seriously, my atheist friends here… don’t engage him at his own game. You can’t argue your way out of it. [/quote]

Actually, in this case it is your atheist friend’s (and mine) “game.” Fletch is an atheist,“without god,” absent the additional doctrinal caveats. He is, again, simply “without god.” Fletch isn’t playing my game. He too holds to belief in the real existence of good and evil, independent of opinion and/or firepower. A good and evil above the survival of one organism, a population, or even a species. A morality that doesn’t change with each indiviual’s genotype (thus, nonexistence of Morality with a capital M). And, mostly certainly not rudderless in the slow tide of adaption to changing environment. He believes–that is, has faith–in a morality that is anchored out of reach of the victor, and above whatever it takes to survive. In otherwords, we’re having a mutual exchange, blossoming from at least one commonality.

However, in the end I agree with you. It is impossible to be disrespectful towards the faith a person may hold in a Diety or dieties, while holding out that some actions are intrinsically evil. Now, I’m not saying Fletch has to take my arguments and arrive at my conclusions. But yes, it gives us common ground for respect and understanding.[/quote]

Phew… I saw my name and started worrying you’d start putting words in my mouth but nope my suspicions were apparently unfounded. You’re spot on.

505

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
If I believe that there is an uncaused cause that cannot be known (don’t know if it’s a thing, being, framework that’s always been), and I believe that moral law comes from this uncaused cause in a similar way the laws of physics do, then what does that make me? Is that deism or just a more faith oriented type of atheism? Just a question of definitions really.[/quote]

I think this places you in the same company as long time former atheist Antony Flew who now believes that there was a cause and he has called it God. And it also places you light years ahead of people like Cap and forlife who may have deeper issues.

I think that forlife at least argues vehemently that there is no God, for a reason. He could not rationalize his homosexuality and remain a Christian. I am not trying to mock him in any way. But eventually since those two things do not mix (cognitive dissonance) one had to be dropped. (yes I know there are so called Christian churches that accept homosexuals, but most intelligent people know better). He either had to become an atheist, or stop being a homosexual. Now in order to rationalize his lifestyle he needs to keep pounding on God. It’s almost like a young child after a scary movie, “there’s no monster’s huh mom? Huh? Monsters that’s impossible, how silly, no way…yeah.” Keep in mind I have no doubt that this has been painful for him.

God only knows what’s happened in Cap’s life to drive him to be so excessively anti-Christian but I assure you it was something. I think there is a difference between someone who is comfortable in their own skin and walks the path of the atheist and these two people (and others as well). Again I do not say that in to degrade either of them. But when all is said and done there are not many people (in this country at least) who feel that have to be as “in your face” about their atheism as these guys. Then again this is a message board they’re probably not like this in person.

Okay my arm chair psychology class is over, there will be a test on Monday.

:slight_smile:
[/quote]

Zeb, I’ll say it again;

You don’t know what you think you know about people.

if you keep persisting in arguing against straw men, you will keep looking stupid. [/quote]

You seem to be guilty of what you are accusing me of. You are implying that you know all about forlife and Cap, do you? No. Therefore, even though you don’t know anything about them your rushing to a false conclusion that I am wrong (straw man anyone?). If you persist in talking about things you know nothing about (yeah you’ll look stupid but there are things more important than that)you will continue to amuse me, so carry on.

506

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
If I believe that there is an uncaused cause that cannot be known (don’t know if it’s a thing, being, framework that’s always been), and I believe that moral law comes from this uncaused cause in a similar way the laws of physics do, then what does that make me? Is that deism or just a more faith oriented type of atheism? Just a question of definitions really.[/quote]

I think this places you in the same company as long time former atheist Antony Flew who now believes that there was a cause and he has called it God. And it also places you light years ahead of people like Cap and forlife who may have deeper issues.

I think that forlife at least argues vehemently that there is no God, for a reason. He could not rationalize his homosexuality and remain a Christian. I am not trying to mock him in any way. But eventually since those two things do not mix (cognitive dissonance) one had to be dropped. (yes I know there are so called Christian churches that accept homosexuals, but most intelligent people know better). He either had to become an atheist, or stop being a homosexual. Now in order to rationalize his lifestyle he needs to keep pounding on God. It’s almost like a young child after a scary movie, “there’s no monster’s huh mom? Huh? Monsters that’s impossible, how silly, no way…yeah.” Keep in mind I have no doubt that this has been painful for him.

God only knows what’s happened in Cap’s life to drive him to be so excessively anti-Christian but I assure you it was something. I think there is a difference between someone who is comfortable in their own skin and walks the path of the atheist and these two people (and others as well). Again I do not say that in to degrade either of them. But when all is said and done there are not many people (in this country at least) who feel that have to be as “in your face” about their atheism as these guys. Then again this is a message board they’re probably not like this in person.

Okay my arm chair psychology class is over, there will be a test on Monday.

:slight_smile:
[/quote]

Zeb, I’ll say it again;

You don’t know what you think you know about people.

if you keep persisting in arguing against straw men, you will keep looking stupid. [/quote]

You seem to be guilty of what you are accusing me of. You are implying that you know all about forlife and Cap, do you? [/quote]

You just can’t help yourself, can you?

It’s almost pathological.

507

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
If I believe that there is an uncaused cause that cannot be known (don’t know if it’s a thing, being, framework that’s always been), and I believe that moral law comes from this uncaused cause in a similar way the laws of physics do, then what does that make me? Is that deism or just a more faith oriented type of atheism? Just a question of definitions really.[/quote]

I think this places you in the same company as long time former atheist Antony Flew who now believes that there was a cause and he has called it God. And it also places you light years ahead of people like Cap and forlife who may have deeper issues.

I think that forlife at least argues vehemently that there is no God, for a reason. He could not rationalize his homosexuality and remain a Christian. I am not trying to mock him in any way. But eventually since those two things do not mix (cognitive dissonance) one had to be dropped. (yes I know there are so called Christian churches that accept homosexuals, but most intelligent people know better). He either had to become an atheist, or stop being a homosexual. Now in order to rationalize his lifestyle he needs to keep pounding on God. It’s almost like a young child after a scary movie, “there’s no monster’s huh mom? Huh? Monsters that’s impossible, how silly, no way…yeah.” Keep in mind I have no doubt that this has been painful for him.

God only knows what’s happened in Cap’s life to drive him to be so excessively anti-Christian but I assure you it was something. I think there is a difference between someone who is comfortable in their own skin and walks the path of the atheist and these two people (and others as well). Again I do not say that in to degrade either of them. But when all is said and done there are not many people (in this country at least) who feel that have to be as “in your face” about their atheism as these guys. Then again this is a message board they’re probably not like this in person.

Okay my arm chair psychology class is over, there will be a test on Monday.

:slight_smile:
[/quote]

Zeb, I’ll say it again;

You don’t know what you think you know about people.

if you keep persisting in arguing against straw men, you will keep looking stupid. [/quote]

You seem to be guilty of what you are accusing me of. You are implying that you know all about forlife and Cap, do you? [/quote]

You just can’t help yourself, can you?

It’s almost pathological.
[/quote]

Thank you please continue I am still amused.

508

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
If I believe that there is an uncaused cause that cannot be known (don’t know if it’s a thing, being, framework that’s always been), and I believe that moral law comes from this uncaused cause in a similar way the laws of physics do, then what does that make me? Is that deism or just a more faith oriented type of atheism? Just a question of definitions really.[/quote]

I think this places you in the same company as long time former atheist Antony Flew who now believes that there was a cause and he has called it God. And it also places you light years ahead of people like Cap and forlife who may have deeper issues.

I think that forlife at least argues vehemently that there is no God, for a reason. He could not rationalize his homosexuality and remain a Christian. I am not trying to mock him in any way. But eventually since those two things do not mix (cognitive dissonance) one had to be dropped. (yes I know there are so called Christian churches that accept homosexuals, but most intelligent people know better). He either had to become an atheist, or stop being a homosexual. Now in order to rationalize his lifestyle he needs to keep pounding on God. It’s almost like a young child after a scary movie, “there’s no monster’s huh mom? Huh? Monsters that’s impossible, how silly, no way…yeah.” Keep in mind I have no doubt that this has been painful for him.

God only knows what’s happened in Cap’s life to drive him to be so excessively anti-Christian but I assure you it was something. I think there is a difference between someone who is comfortable in their own skin and walks the path of the atheist and these two people (and others as well). Again I do not say that in to degrade either of them. But when all is said and done there are not many people (in this country at least) who feel that have to be as “in your face” about their atheism as these guys. Then again this is a message board they’re probably not like this in person.

Okay my arm chair psychology class is over, there will be a test on Monday.

:slight_smile:
[/quote]

Zeb, I’ll say it again;

You don’t know what you think you know about people.

if you keep persisting in arguing against straw men, you will keep looking stupid. [/quote]

You seem to be guilty of what you are accusing me of. You are implying that you know all about forlife and Cap, do you? No. Therefore, even though you don’t know anything about them your rushing to a false conclusion that I am wrong (straw man anyone?). If you persist in talking about things you know nothing about (yeah you’ll look stupid but there are things more important than that)you will continue to amuse me, so carry on.
[/quote]

He’s actually read my responses to your accusations in the past, so yes he does know more about me than you do.

Keep the circus act up, Zeb! The entertainment is priceless.

509

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
<<< Still the most scientific claim we can make is this: We cant say if God exist or not, becuase there are no evidence to exam to prove or disprove his existence. agnostisism is the most scientific way to go.
[/quote]This is great!!! Keep em comin guys.
[/quote]

Sorry Florelius, but agnosticism is the opposite of the most scientific way to go. Agnosticism depends on the fundamental assumption that the existence of a god cannot be proven or disproved. Science is about things that can be proven or disproved. This is why most non-believing scientists consider themselves atheists.

Perhaps, it would help to understand that the label atheist means; “without god.” It does not mean “anti god” or “there’s no such thing as god.” Those who consider themselves atheists are making the assertion that they do not need a god and that they are not convinced of the existence of such a thing. [/quote]

Maybe I am wrong about what atheist and agnostic means. I thougt an atheist where someone who claimed to know that god did not exist and that an agnostic claimed to not know, therefor not making any claim about his existence at all.

The reason I claimed that an agnostic approach where most scientific are not based on an assumption that there will never be any evidence that will disprove or prove his existence, but that up to date there are no evidence to exam an therefor it is best to claim that we dont know if god exist or not. Do you disagree with this?

510

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
If I believe that there is an uncaused cause that cannot be known (don’t know if it’s a thing, being, framework that’s always been), and I believe that moral law comes from this uncaused cause in a similar way the laws of physics do, then what does that make me? Is that deism or just a more faith oriented type of atheism? Just a question of definitions really.[/quote]

I think this places you in the same company as long time former atheist Antony Flew who now believes that there was a cause and he has called it God. And it also places you light years ahead of people like Cap and forlife who may have deeper issues.

I think that forlife at least argues vehemently that there is no God, for a reason. He could not rationalize his homosexuality and remain a Christian. I am not trying to mock him in any way. But eventually since those two things do not mix (cognitive dissonance) one had to be dropped. (yes I know there are so called Christian churches that accept homosexuals, but most intelligent people know better). He either had to become an atheist, or stop being a homosexual. Now in order to rationalize his lifestyle he needs to keep pounding on God. It’s almost like a young child after a scary movie, “there’s no monster’s huh mom? Huh? Monsters that’s impossible, how silly, no way…yeah.” Keep in mind I have no doubt that this has been painful for him.

God only knows what’s happened in Cap’s life to drive him to be so excessively anti-Christian but I assure you it was something. I think there is a difference between someone who is comfortable in their own skin and walks the path of the atheist and these two people (and others as well). Again I do not say that in to degrade either of them. But when all is said and done there are not many people (in this country at least) who feel that have to be as “in your face” about their atheism as these guys. Then again this is a message board they’re probably not like this in person.

Okay my arm chair psychology class is over, there will be a test on Monday.

:slight_smile:
[/quote]

Zeb, I’ll say it again;

You don’t know what you think you know about people.

if you keep persisting in arguing against straw men, you will keep looking stupid. [/quote]

You seem to be guilty of what you are accusing me of. You are implying that you know all about forlife and Cap, do you? No. Therefore, even though you don’t know anything about them your rushing to a false conclusion that I am wrong (straw man anyone?). If you persist in talking about things you know nothing about (yeah you’ll look stupid but there are things more important than that)you will continue to amuse me, so carry on.
[/quote]

He’s actually read my responses to your accusations in the past, so yes he does know more about me than .[/quote]

I do know more about you than swoleupinya.

(Edit: Dang how did that happen?)

511

[quote]florelius wrote:

The reason I claimed that an agnostic approach where most scientific are not based on an assumption that there will never be any evidence that will disprove or prove his existence, but that up to date there are no evidence to exam an therefor it is best to claim that we dont know if god exist or not. Do you disagree with this?[/quote]

We may not agree on spiritual matters but you are very smart guy.

512

Hey, just have a look at these vaginas and how similar they are to depictions of Mary Magdelene.

Isn’t that something [nsfw]: http://i.imgur.com/0QOq0.jpg

513

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

The reason I claimed that an agnostic approach where most scientific are not based on an assumption that there will never be any evidence that will disprove or prove his existence, but that up to date there are no evidence to exam an therefor it is best to claim that we dont know if god exist or not. Do you disagree with this?[/quote]We may not agree on spiritual matters but you are very smart guy.
[/quote]This is true of most of these guys. I haven’t seen any morons in any of these threads. I consider most of them at least my intellectual equal or better and they all have more formal education than I do. None of that is the point. The theology of the bible is at bottom all about being born into death and born again into life or not. Intelligence has nothing to do with it where it counts most. Not that you were saying it did.

EDIT: even Ephrem when he’s trying a little harder.

514

lol!

515

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:

The reason I claimed that an agnostic approach where most scientific are not based on an assumption that there will never be any evidence that will disprove or prove his existence, but that up to date there are no evidence to exam an therefor it is best to claim that we dont know if god exist or not. Do you disagree with this?[/quote]

We may not agree on spiritual matters but you are very smart guy.
[/quote]

thank you ZEB.

516

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
If I believe that there is an uncaused cause that cannot be known (don’t know if it’s a thing, being, framework that’s always been), and I believe that moral law comes from this uncaused cause in a similar way the laws of physics do, then what does that make me? Is that deism or just a more faith oriented type of atheism? Just a question of definitions really.[/quote]

I think this places you in the same company as long time former atheist Antony Flew who now believes that there was a cause and he has called it God. And it also places you light years ahead of people like Cap and forlife who may have deeper issues.

I think that forlife at least argues vehemently that there is no God, for a reason. He could not rationalize his homosexuality and remain a Christian. I am not trying to mock him in any way. But eventually since those two things do not mix (cognitive dissonance) one had to be dropped. (yes I know there are so called Christian churches that accept homosexuals, but most intelligent people know better). He either had to become an atheist, or stop being a homosexual. Now in order to rationalize his lifestyle he needs to keep pounding on God. It’s almost like a young child after a scary movie, “there’s no monster’s huh mom? Huh? Monsters that’s impossible, how silly, no way…yeah.” Keep in mind I have no doubt that this has been painful for him.

God only knows what’s happened in Cap’s life to drive him to be so excessively anti-Christian but I assure you it was something. I think there is a difference between someone who is comfortable in their own skin and walks the path of the atheist and these two people (and others as well). Again I do not say that in to degrade either of them. But when all is said and done there are not many people (in this country at least) who feel that have to be as “in your face” about their atheism as these guys. Then again this is a message board they’re probably not like this in person.

Okay my arm chair psychology class is over, there will be a test on Monday.

:slight_smile:
[/quote]

Zeb, I’ll say it again;

You don’t know what you think you know about people.

if you keep persisting in arguing against straw men, you will keep looking stupid. [/quote]

You seem to be guilty of what you are accusing me of. You are implying that you know all about forlife and Cap, do you? No. Therefore, even though you don’t know anything about them your rushing to a false conclusion that I am wrong (straw man anyone?). If you persist in talking about things you know nothing about (yeah you’ll look stupid but there are things more important than that)you will continue to amuse me, so carry on.
[/quote]

He’s actually read my responses to your accusations in the past, so yes he does know more about me than .[/quote]

I do know more about you than swoleupinya.

(Edit: Dang how did that happen?)[/quote]

According to you, you know me better than I know myself. Swole gets it, but you are the self-proclaimed expert on my life.

It’s ok though…I had a pretty high opinion of what I knew as well, back when I was a Christian. Admitting what you don’t know is the first step toward true wisdom. There’s a word for admitting what you don’t know, and I’ll give you a hint: it’s not theism or atheism.

517

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
<<< Still the most scientific claim we can make is this: We cant say if God exist or not, becuase there are no evidence to exam to prove or disprove his existence. agnostisism is the most scientific way to go.
[/quote]This is great!!! Keep em comin guys.
[/quote]

Sorry Florelius, but agnosticism is the opposite of the most scientific way to go. Agnosticism depends on the fundamental assumption that the existence of a god cannot be proven or disproved. Science is about things that can be proven or disproved. This is why most non-believing scientists consider themselves atheists.

Perhaps, it would help to understand that the label atheist means; “without god.” It does not mean “anti god” or “there’s no such thing as god.” Those who consider themselves atheists are making the assertion that they do not need a god and that they are not convinced of the existence of such a thing. [/quote]

Maybe I am wrong about what atheist and agnostic means. I thougt an atheist where someone who claimed to know that god did not exist and that an agnostic claimed to not know, therefor not making any claim about his existence at all.

The reason I claimed that an agnostic approach where most scientific are not based on an assumption that there will never be any evidence that will disprove or prove his existence, but that up to date there are no evidence to exam an therefor it is best to claim that we dont know if god exist or not. Do you disagree with this?[/quote]

Those are popular perceptions of the two terms, but they are not necessarily valid. Ultimately we are talking about semantics here. Though, I think it IS important to have agreed upon labels for things.

Okay, I agree with your second point… this time. The first time you presented it, you made the claim that there would NEVER be any evidence to prove or disprove the existence of a god. I have stated in these threads many times that I do not claim to know either way. What I do know is that I do not NEED a god or faith, or belief for that matter. I also posit that the christian theology is highly improbable.

518

[quote]kamui wrote:
there’s no god called Vishna.
it’s Vishnu.
and the followers of Vishnu aren’t universalist. like most polytheists, they don’t think everyone should worship him, and they don’t try to convert people.(except the recent “Hare Krishna” cult).
they don’t believe in damnation either.

[/quote]

I think he was just using it as en example to make another point. Substitute vishnu with allah, for example.

519

[quote]forlife wrote:
Swole gets it, but you are the self-proclaimed expert on my life. [/quote]

(Yawn) Yes he gets it because he does not acknowledge a God JUST LIKE YOU. WOW what a coincidence. LOL stop it you’re embarrassing yourself.

If I recall correctly you are the one all over the board with your endless pontificating. “Bla bla science says…bla bla the odds of there being a God…bla bla”. Constantly sticking your face in every spiritual thread on the forum. Trying (and failing) to belittle people for their religious views. Why? Because YOU KNOW BETTER!

You are the epitome of someone who thinks he knows everything. And quite frankly it makes for a great time around here so keep it up :slight_smile:

520

1000×1160 205 KB

[quote]florelius wrote:

[quote]swoleupinya wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]florelius wrote:
<<< Still the most scientific claim we can make is this: We cant say if God exist or not, becuase there are no evidence to exam to prove or disprove his existence. agnostisism is the most scientific way to go.
[/quote]This is great!!! Keep em comin guys.
[/quote]

Sorry Florelius, but agnosticism is the opposite of the most scientific way to go. Agnosticism depends on the fundamental assumption that the existence of a god cannot be proven or disproved. Science is about things that can be proven or disproved. This is why most non-believing scientists consider themselves atheists.

Perhaps, it would help to understand that the label atheist means; “without god.” It does not mean “anti god” or “there’s no such thing as god.” Those who consider themselves atheists are making the assertion that they do not need a god and that they are not convinced of the existence of such a thing. [/quote]

Maybe I am wrong about what atheist and agnostic means. I thougt an atheist where someone who claimed to know that god did not exist and that an agnostic claimed to not know, therefor not making any claim about his existence at all.

The reason I claimed that an agnostic approach where most scientific are not based on an assumption that there will never be any evidence that will disprove or prove his existence, but that up to date there are no evidence to exam an therefor it is best to claim that we dont know if god exist or not. Do you disagree with this?[/quote]