[quote]smh23 wrote:
[/quote]
I don’t consider the movement of electrons around the nucleus of an atom to set in motion by an external force. I believe your premise is flawed. It is true for Newtonian physics, but not cosmology.
[quote]davidcox1 wrote:
It is true for Newtonian physics, but not cosmology.[/quote]
Cosmology ostensibly adheres to the principles of physics unfailingly and eternally. “Cosmology” is, after all, just a word we use to describe the comings and goings of big rocks and balls of fire in space. They operate under the governance of physical law in the same way that pool balls do.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]davidcox1 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Ironically, without god, discrimination against atheists can’t be called bad.[/quote]
Why is that? Because then everyone would be an atheist?[/quote]
Because in a world without the supernatural good and bad don’t exist. No one outcome can be said to be any better than another.
[/quote]
That’s not true.
Living in a society we would come to the conclusion certain acts are good and others are bad. I don’t want to have my possessions stolen and you don’t either so we would agree stealing is bad and thus enforce a law against theft.
You don’t need some supernatural god to tell you what is good and what is bad.[/quote]
I never said a god had to tell you anything. I said good and bad themselves are supernatural. You can come to the conclusion that genetics and evolution arrived at our current behavior and view, but you cannot value anything over anything else without and appeal to the supernatural.
Believing in good and bad is the same as believing in god. It isn’t real. It isn’t a part of the universe. It isn’t based on logic or reason. It does not exist as part of a supernatural-less universe. Period. I’m am only stating a fact. If you are really an atheist, you must deny good and evil.[/quote]
Sure I can value things over others things.
I make choices based on what brings me the most happiness and what minimizes my suffering. Living in a society I give value to things that increase the happiness of society (including myself), and minimize suffering.
I don’t believe in good and bad supernatural forces being at work.
[/quote]
Why is happiness good and suffering bad?
Without the supernatural, you cannot call them good or bad, you can only answer you tend toward one over the other due to genetics and conditioning. One is not more desirable, because you have reduced desire to a chemical reaction and NOTHING more.[/quote]
Happiness is good and suffering is bad because I decided so with my mind.
I think you’re just harping on wording. Good and Bad are used in regular everyday language to describe many things without the intention of referring to anything supernatural.
[/quote]
So, you are your own god…?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
If you tell your family you love them instead of “I have an evolutionary developed chemical reaction in my brain that makes me tend to want to protect you and being around you releases a chemical that makes me feel like I?m eating a lot of chocolate”, you aren?t a real atheist.[/quote]
lol
This so dumb, just because I recognize emotions are nothing more than a chemical reaction does not mean i have to avoid the words love, hate or whatever else. That’s just asinine.[/quote]
It means you are misleading people when you use them because you don’t mean them as commonly used. When you tell someone you love them, you refer to the basic chemical reaction in your brain, and not to the supernatural romantic definition of love?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]davidcox1 wrote:
[quote]talldude wrote:
[quote]davidcox1 wrote:
[quote]talldude wrote:
It’s like saying “I reject that there can be intelligent life outside of our planet because we haven’t found it yet!”[/quote]
It’s more like saying “I reject that Santa Claus delivers gifts to everyone on Christmas because I haven’t seen any evidence that he does.”[/quote]
If we take the “father in the sky” view, then yes, I would agree with you.
If we take a wider view of god as just the creator of the universe, your statement doesn’t hold anymore. We can observe that santa doesn’t bring gifts. We cannot observe that there is no god. In order to prove there is no god, you would essentially have to know how the universe came to be.[/quote]
I cannot prove a negative (i.e.,that there is no god, or that Santa does not bring gifts). No one can prove a negative. It is a logical fallacy to require anyone to do so. If there is a god, however, there should be some proof. Just like if Santa brings gifts, there should be proof. [/quote]
‘I cannot prove a negative’ is bullshit. Well maybe you cannot, but I bet your finances can prove a negative real quick. A little hard luck and you are in the negative, and that would be provable.
aside from that, basic math, proves negatives everyday. Negatives are ‘something’ what you cannot prove is ‘nothing’ and then something.[/quote]
Although math is not a good example, you do you have point. Here’s a good discussion of the principle.
Although we can draw inferences from the absence of evidence (or even from the existence of evidence), and we can call these inferences “proof”, the inferences may not always be correct.
So to be clearer, what I really mean is that you cannot prove something does not exist as easily as you can prove something exists. Since it is easier to prove something exists (the available evidence would not necessarily involve any inferences), I’m content to allow the burden of proof to rest on those who claim god exists. I remain unconvinced.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]davidcox1 wrote:
It is true for Newtonian physics, but not cosmology.[/quote]
Cosmology ostensibly adheres to the principles of physics unfailingly and eternally. “Cosmology” is, after all, just a word we use to describe the comings and goings of big rocks and balls of fire in space. They operate under the governance of physical law in the same way that pool balls do.[/quote]
Black holes, space/time warps and cosmic inflation are hardly about a bunch of rocks floating around space. These concepts are part of cosmology. Throw in super string theory and physics gets tossed on its head. Indeed, physics begins to look very religious at that point.
I haven’t read through the entire thread ( only the first two pages ) but I wanted to give my input in what I thought of the terms " atheist" and “agnostic”.
Atheist reject all claims of the supernatural. This does not mean that they claim they can prove that God does not exist, simply that there is no good reason to believe that he does.
An analogy - Someone says to you while driving “the next car that we pass will be driven by a man from Italy who is 6’3” tall and weighs 197.5 lbs, he will have a tattoo on his right arm of a cross, have short brown hair and green eyes". Obviously it would be unreasonable to believe such an assertion. At the same time though only a fool would say that he can actually DISPROVE it. This is an important distinction. Atheist SHOULDN’T say " I know with absolute certainty that God doesn’t exist" but instead should say “There is no good reason for me to believe in the existence of a god”
Agnostics on the other hand actively believe in a supernatural god/entity of some sort, they do not simply claim that there could or could not be a God. But that there IS a god/being and that they are unable to tell who/what he is how he operates etc.
This is just how I have always understood the terms; I’m making no claims of authority here.
I consider myself an Atheist.
[quote]tmay11 wrote:
I haven’t read through the entire thread ( only the first two pages ) but I wanted to give my input in what I thought of the terms " atheist" and “agnostic”.
Atheist reject all claims of the supernatural. This does not mean that they claim they can prove that God does not exist, simply that there is no good reason to believe that he does.
An analogy - Someone says to you while driving “the next car that we pass will be driven by a man from Italy who is 6’3” tall and weighs 197.5 lbs, he will have a tattoo on his right arm of a cross, have short brown hair and green eyes". Obviously it would be unreasonable to believe such an assertion. At the same time though only a fool would say that he can actually DISPROVE it. This is an important distinction. Atheist SHOULDN’T say " I know with absolute certainty that God doesn’t exist" but instead should say “There is no good reason for me to believe in the existence of a god”
Agnostics on the other hand actively believe in a supernatural god/entity of some sort, they do not simply claim that there could or could not be a God. But that there IS a god/being and that they are unable to tell who/what he is how he operates etc.
This is just how I have always understood the terms; I’m making no claims of authority here.
I consider myself an Atheist. [/quote]
The meanings we assign to terms are not absolute. I accept your definitions, but I don’t share them. As I understand them, both terms are used by most people only to describe the existence of a creative intelligence. As an atheist, I quite understand that there are phenomena that science cannot explain (some might call these phenomena supernatural), but I still don’t believe in god. I believe science will explain the unexplainable eventually, even if I’m not around to learn about it. The fact that I don’t know everything does not make me an agnostic.
[quote]davidcox1 wrote:
[quote]tmay11 wrote:
I haven’t read through the entire thread ( only the first two pages ) but I wanted to give my input in what I thought of the terms " atheist" and “agnostic”.
Atheist reject all claims of the supernatural. This does not mean that they claim they can prove that God does not exist, simply that there is no good reason to believe that he does.
An analogy - Someone says to you while driving “the next car that we pass will be driven by a man from Italy who is 6’3” tall and weighs 197.5 lbs, he will have a tattoo on his right arm of a cross, have short brown hair and green eyes". Obviously it would be unreasonable to believe such an assertion. At the same time though only a fool would say that he can actually DISPROVE it. This is an important distinction. Atheist SHOULDN’T say " I know with absolute certainty that God doesn’t exist" but instead should say “There is no good reason for me to believe in the existence of a god”
Agnostics on the other hand actively believe in a supernatural god/entity of some sort, they do not simply claim that there could or could not be a God. But that there IS a god/being and that they are unable to tell who/what he is how he operates etc.
This is just how I have always understood the terms; I’m making no claims of authority here.
I consider myself an Atheist. [/quote]
The meanings we assign to terms are not absolute. I accept your definitions, but I don’t share them. As I understand them, both terms are used by most people only to describe the existence of a creative intelligence. As an atheist, I quite understand that there are phenomena that science cannot explain (some might call these phenomena supernatural), but I still don’t believe in god. I believe science will explain the unexplainable eventually, even if I’m not around to learn about it. The fact that I don’t know everything does not make me an agnostic.[/quote]
Science by definition can’t even pursue metaphysics. Many unknowns must necessarily never be known by science.
[quote]davidcox1 wrote:
[quote]tmay11 wrote:
I haven’t read through the entire thread ( only the first two pages ) but I wanted to give my input in what I thought of the terms " atheist" and “agnostic”.
Atheist reject all claims of the supernatural. This does not mean that they claim they can prove that God does not exist, simply that there is no good reason to believe that he does.
An analogy - Someone says to you while driving “the next car that we pass will be driven by a man from Italy who is 6’3” tall and weighs 197.5 lbs, he will have a tattoo on his right arm of a cross, have short brown hair and green eyes". Obviously it would be unreasonable to believe such an assertion. At the same time though only a fool would say that he can actually DISPROVE it. This is an important distinction. Atheist SHOULDN’T say " I know with absolute certainty that God doesn’t exist" but instead should say “There is no good reason for me to believe in the existence of a god”
Agnostics on the other hand actively believe in a supernatural god/entity of some sort, they do not simply claim that there could or could not be a God. But that there IS a god/being and that they are unable to tell who/what he is how he operates etc.
This is just how I have always understood the terms; I’m making no claims of authority here.
I consider myself an Atheist. [/quote]
The meanings we assign to terms are not absolute. I accept your definitions, but I don’t share them. As I understand them, both terms are used by most people only to describe the existence of a creative intelligence. As an atheist, I quite understand that there are phenomena that science cannot explain (some might call these phenomena supernatural), but I still don’t believe in god. I believe science will explain the unexplainable eventually, even if I’m not around to learn about it. The fact that I don’t know everything does not make me an agnostic.[/quote]
I agree.
I like the term - " god of the gaps " .
[quote]tmay11 wrote:
[quote]davidcox1 wrote:
[quote]tmay11 wrote:
I haven’t read through the entire thread ( only the first two pages ) but I wanted to give my input in what I thought of the terms " atheist" and “agnostic”.
Atheist reject all claims of the supernatural. This does not mean that they claim they can prove that God does not exist, simply that there is no good reason to believe that he does.
An analogy - Someone says to you while driving “the next car that we pass will be driven by a man from Italy who is 6’3” tall and weighs 197.5 lbs, he will have a tattoo on his right arm of a cross, have short brown hair and green eyes". Obviously it would be unreasonable to believe such an assertion. At the same time though only a fool would say that he can actually DISPROVE it. This is an important distinction. Atheist SHOULDN’T say " I know with absolute certainty that God doesn’t exist" but instead should say “There is no good reason for me to believe in the existence of a god”
Agnostics on the other hand actively believe in a supernatural god/entity of some sort, they do not simply claim that there could or could not be a God. But that there IS a god/being and that they are unable to tell who/what he is how he operates etc.
This is just how I have always understood the terms; I’m making no claims of authority here.
I consider myself an Atheist. [/quote]
The meanings we assign to terms are not absolute. I accept your definitions, but I don’t share them. As I understand them, both terms are used by most people only to describe the existence of a creative intelligence. As an atheist, I quite understand that there are phenomena that science cannot explain (some might call these phenomena supernatural), but I still don’t believe in god. I believe science will explain the unexplainable eventually, even if I’m not around to learn about it. The fact that I don’t know everything does not make me an agnostic.[/quote]
I agree.
I like the term - " god of the gaps " . [/quote]
except that many gaps in science are permanent.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]tmay11 wrote:
[quote]davidcox1 wrote:
[quote]tmay11 wrote:
I haven’t read through the entire thread ( only the first two pages ) but I wanted to give my input in what I thought of the terms " atheist" and “agnostic”.
Atheist reject all claims of the supernatural. This does not mean that they claim they can prove that God does not exist, simply that there is no good reason to believe that he does.
An analogy - Someone says to you while driving “the next car that we pass will be driven by a man from Italy who is 6’3” tall and weighs 197.5 lbs, he will have a tattoo on his right arm of a cross, have short brown hair and green eyes". Obviously it would be unreasonable to believe such an assertion. At the same time though only a fool would say that he can actually DISPROVE it. This is an important distinction. Atheist SHOULDN’T say " I know with absolute certainty that God doesn’t exist" but instead should say “There is no good reason for me to believe in the existence of a god”
Agnostics on the other hand actively believe in a supernatural god/entity of some sort, they do not simply claim that there could or could not be a God. But that there IS a god/being and that they are unable to tell who/what he is how he operates etc.
This is just how I have always understood the terms; I’m making no claims of authority here.
I consider myself an Atheist. [/quote]
The meanings we assign to terms are not absolute. I accept your definitions, but I don’t share them. As I understand them, both terms are used by most people only to describe the existence of a creative intelligence. As an atheist, I quite understand that there are phenomena that science cannot explain (some might call these phenomena supernatural), but I still don’t believe in god. I believe science will explain the unexplainable eventually, even if I’m not around to learn about it. The fact that I don’t know everything does not make me an agnostic.[/quote]
I agree.
I like the term - " god of the gaps " . [/quote]
except that many gaps in science are permanent.[/quote]
Everything in science can be challenged with new evidence. In that sense, nothing in science is permanent.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]davidcox1 wrote:
[quote]tmay11 wrote:
I haven’t read through the entire thread ( only the first two pages ) but I wanted to give my input in what I thought of the terms " atheist" and “agnostic”.
Atheist reject all claims of the supernatural. This does not mean that they claim they can prove that God does not exist, simply that there is no good reason to believe that he does.
An analogy - Someone says to you while driving “the next car that we pass will be driven by a man from Italy who is 6’3” tall and weighs 197.5 lbs, he will have a tattoo on his right arm of a cross, have short brown hair and green eyes". Obviously it would be unreasonable to believe such an assertion. At the same time though only a fool would say that he can actually DISPROVE it. This is an important distinction. Atheist SHOULDN’T say " I know with absolute certainty that God doesn’t exist" but instead should say “There is no good reason for me to believe in the existence of a god”
Agnostics on the other hand actively believe in a supernatural god/entity of some sort, they do not simply claim that there could or could not be a God. But that there IS a god/being and that they are unable to tell who/what he is how he operates etc.
This is just how I have always understood the terms; I’m making no claims of authority here.
I consider myself an Atheist. [/quote]
The meanings we assign to terms are not absolute. I accept your definitions, but I don’t share them. As I understand them, both terms are used by most people only to describe the existence of a creative intelligence. As an atheist, I quite understand that there are phenomena that science cannot explain (some might call these phenomena supernatural), but I still don’t believe in god. I believe science will explain the unexplainable eventually, even if I’m not around to learn about it. The fact that I don’t know everything does not make me an agnostic.[/quote]
Science by definition can’t even pursue metaphysics. Many unknowns must necessarily never be known by science.[/quote]
The scientific method can be used to test any hypothesis, even metaphysical hypotheses. See Scientific method - Wikipedia. Indeed, the scientific method has been applied to prayer. See Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer - The New York Times.
[quote]davidcox1 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]davidcox1 wrote:
[quote]tmay11 wrote:
I haven’t read through the entire thread ( only the first two pages ) but I wanted to give my input in what I thought of the terms " atheist" and “agnostic”.
Atheist reject all claims of the supernatural. This does not mean that they claim they can prove that God does not exist, simply that there is no good reason to believe that he does.
An analogy - Someone says to you while driving “the next car that we pass will be driven by a man from Italy who is 6’3” tall and weighs 197.5 lbs, he will have a tattoo on his right arm of a cross, have short brown hair and green eyes". Obviously it would be unreasonable to believe such an assertion. At the same time though only a fool would say that he can actually DISPROVE it. This is an important distinction. Atheist SHOULDN’T say " I know with absolute certainty that God doesn’t exist" but instead should say “There is no good reason for me to believe in the existence of a god”
Agnostics on the other hand actively believe in a supernatural god/entity of some sort, they do not simply claim that there could or could not be a God. But that there IS a god/being and that they are unable to tell who/what he is how he operates etc.
This is just how I have always understood the terms; I’m making no claims of authority here.
I consider myself an Atheist. [/quote]
The meanings we assign to terms are not absolute. I accept your definitions, but I don’t share them. As I understand them, both terms are used by most people only to describe the existence of a creative intelligence. As an atheist, I quite understand that there are phenomena that science cannot explain (some might call these phenomena supernatural), but I still don’t believe in god. I believe science will explain the unexplainable eventually, even if I’m not around to learn about it. The fact that I don’t know everything does not make me an agnostic.[/quote]
Science by definition can’t even pursue metaphysics. Many unknowns must necessarily never be known by science.[/quote]
The scientific method can be used to test any hypothesis, even metaphysical hypotheses. See Scientific method - Wikipedia. Indeed, the scientific method has been applied to prayer. See Long-Awaited Medical Study Questions the Power of Prayer - The New York Times. [/quote]
The belief in a god is defined as something outside the universe. The scientific process can only investigate concepts internal to it.
No, test of the supernatural can have a control. You cannot by definition remove god from the equation.
So answer me a question, why do masses attract one another?
Or even more simply, design me a scientific study to investigate that question.
It’s so cute. The believers always insist “science will never answer everything!!!1!” and then failing that, they will try to drag lack of belief in a personal God into the dirt with belief in a personal God.
It’s also kind of sad. And it’s always the same people.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]davidcox1 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]davidcox1 wrote:
[quote]tmay11 wrote:
I haven’t read through the entire thread ( only the first two pages ) but I wanted to give my input in what I thought of the terms " atheist" and “agnostic”.
Atheist reject all claims of the supernatural. This does not mean that they claim they can prove that God does not exist, simply that there is no good reason to believe that he does.
An analogy - Someone says to you while driving “the next car that we pass will be driven by a man from Italy who is 6’3” tall and weighs 197.5 lbs, he will have a tattoo on his right arm of a cross, have short brown hair and green eyes". Obviously it would be unreasonable to believe such an assertion. At the same time though only a fool would say that he can actually DISPROVE it. This is an important distinction. Atheist SHOULDN’T say " I know with absolute certainty that God doesn’t exist" but instead should say “There is no good reason for me to believe in the existence of a god”
Agnostics on the other hand actively believe in a supernatural god/entity of some sort, they do not simply claim that there could or could not be a God. But that there IS a god/being and that they are unable to tell who/what he is how he operates etc.
This is just how I have always understood the terms; I’m making no claims of authority here.
I consider myself an Atheist. [/quote]
The meanings we assign to terms are not absolute. I accept your definitions, but I don’t share them. As I understand them, both terms are used by most people only to describe the existence of a creative intelligence. As an atheist, I quite understand that there are phenomena that science cannot explain (some might call these phenomena supernatural), but I still don’t believe in god. I believe science will explain the unexplainable eventually, even if I’m not around to learn about it. The fact that I don’t know everything does not make me an agnostic.[/quote]
Science by definition can’t even pursue metaphysics. Many unknowns must necessarily never be known by science.[/quote]
The scientific method can be used to test any hypothesis, even metaphysical hypotheses. See Scientific method - Wikipedia. Indeed, the scientific method has been applied to prayer. See http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html. [/quote]
The belief in a god is defined as something outside the universe. The scientific process can only investigate concepts internal to it.
No, test of the supernatural can have a control. You cannot by definition remove god from the equation.
So answer me a question, why do masses attract one another?
Or even more simply, design me a scientific study to investigate that question.[/quote]
Alright, you’ve convinced me. Gravity proves there is a god.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
It’s so cute. The believers always insist “science will never answer everything!!!1!” and then failing that, they will try to drag lack of belief in a personal God into the dirt with belief in a personal God.
It’s also kind of sad. And it’s always the same people.[/quote]
My favourite part is how you can’t tell someone you love or hate them as an atheist because it is misleading.
I use a calendar system that’s based around the life of Jesus Christ. Not a true atheist!!!
[quote]davidcox1 wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]davidcox1 wrote:
It is true for Newtonian physics, but not cosmology.[/quote]
Cosmology ostensibly adheres to the principles of physics unfailingly and eternally. “Cosmology” is, after all, just a word we use to describe the comings and goings of big rocks and balls of fire in space. They operate under the governance of physical law in the same way that pool balls do.[/quote]
Black holes, space/time warps and cosmic inflation are hardly about a bunch of rocks floating around space. These concepts are part of cosmology. Throw in super string theory and physics gets tossed on its head. Indeed, physics begins to look very religious at that point.[/quote]
I am unaware of a single instance in the history of scientific observation which could give credence to the notion that motion, or energy, or matter could have arisen unprompted by an external force.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]talldude wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Lots of things exist outside of time. Cosmology answers the question necessarily. There is nothing, not one tiny thing about the known universe that violates theism in any way. Atheism on the other hand violates everything known about the universe for it requires that randomness and ‘stuff’ exists with out reason or contingency. The problem is, there is not one single solitary shred of evidence to support this assertion. It violates the basic tenets of logic.
[/quote]
The existence of god requires that he spontaneously appeared at some point…you cannot argue that the universe must have been created by a god unless you also accept that by the same logic god must have been created.[/quote]
No, the concept of a god is something that is outside of the universe. You cannot apply constraints of the universe to something outside it. It is flawed logic.[/quote]
Correct. If something makes the rules it is not bound by them. The NFL can make the rule, but only the players are required to follow them.
And no, the existence of God does not required that he popped into existence at some point. The would mean that an all powerful God is subject to the rules of the universe he created. It does not work that way. [/quote]
If god can exist without a cause, why not the universe?
You’ll notice I’m arguing both sides of this - I do not know if there is a god. I remain open to the possibility, but currently we do not have any proof positive of the existence of a creator.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I am unaware of a single instance in the history of scientific observation which could give credence to the notion that motion, or energy, or matter could have arisen unprompted by an external force.[/quote]
That is because everything in our observable universe has a cause. However, is it possible that something would happen without a cause?
There is absolutely no logical basis for there HAVING to be a cause for the existence of the universe. But we cannot rule out a cause either.