Teaching science to the religious? Focus on how theories develop

Feb 19, 2012

Vicious, winner-take-all competition in nature is an essential pillar of evolutionary theory, but it frequently describes the mindset people have about how, or whether, to teach the subject. Religious students sometimes come to class thinking that science and religion are in deliberate opposition, like two lionesses fighting over a kill. When Brown University biologist and practicing Catholic Kenneth Miller teaches evolution, he also teaches that such a zero-sum mindset just isn't warranted.

"I think it's really unnecessary," Miller said. "What's extremely unfortunate right now is that, not just , but whole areas of have been sucked into the culture wars argument and it's been taken for granted, therefore, that science takes a particular position in the left-right spectrum."

Because Miller is a leading textbook author and a frequent contributor to the , he takes flak from partisans on both sides who disagree about evolution but share the view that religion and science are intellectually incompatible. In the classroom, however, Miller and thousands of other educators are still left with a more pragmatic challenge. Evolution will be taught to millions of who are religious — 75 percent, according to a recent Pew survey of college students. At the AAAS conference, Miller will speak about how he teaches science to religious students.

Miller's basic approach is to help students trace the development of a scientific theory, rather than to present it as some kind of finished doctrine that must be believed because it has evidentiary support.

"I don't ask students to believe in education because I don't ask them to believe in DNA either," Miller said. "To me the word 'believe' means to accept something beyond question. In science there are no facts or theories that are beyond question. What I do urge students to do is to learn about the evidence and understand why the scientific community finds it persuasive."

Explaining science, such as evolution, as a process can help religious students accept science in two ways, Miller said. First of all, it's often important to point out that religious people have long been instrumental in driving the scientific process. A scientist's goal is to better understand the natural world, not to destroy religious faith, Miller said. History is replete with examples of religious people who carried out the goal of exploring nature in entirely scientific ways — from Copernicus, to Mendel, to Francis Collins.

"The birth of the scientific revolution was in large measure funded by the church because early universities, early scientific investigations, almost universally were done by individuals who thought that exploring nature was a way of praising God," Miller said. "It was and is philosophically consistent to be a person of faith and also a scientist."

Secondly, when science is presented as a rational process, rather than as doctrine to be accepted, students can consider its logic and its evidentiary support, before feeling pressure to reconcile the complete idea's philosophical implications.

Darwin himself laid out the theory of evolution in The Origin of Species this way. Before he presents the bottom line, his first four chapters offer the series of observations about species diversity and the struggle to survive that led him to the theory.

"The best way to approach deeply religious students on a scientific issue is to develop the scientific background, to show that science doesn't grow out of some sort of anti-theological or political perspective, but out of a very human drive to understand ourselves and the world around us," Miller said. "They see that it is not an a priori cultural and social conclusion for which you are trying to find a justification but rather the logical outcome of being curious about nature and trying to find out how it works."

There is good news about how effective evolution education can be in the research of Roger Williams University Professor Avelina Espinosa. She's found that whether students are religious or not, politically conservative or liberal, their acceptance of evolution increases the more science classes they take, Miller said. That doesn't mean that all religious students come to accept the theory, though.

Early in his teaching career at Brown, Miller delivered a biology lecture to his class on Ash Wednesday — this year it's Feb. 22 — and then headed off to Brown's Manning Chapel to pray. On his way out of services he ran into one of his students, who looked amazed to see the evolutionist lecturer emerge with ash on his forehead.

He recalled, "She waited for me and came up to me and said, 'Hi, Professor Miller, what are you doing here?' My answer was 'I'm doing the same thing you are.' And she said, 'But, you can't. I'll give you a book tomorrow that explains why no person who accepts evolution can possibly be a person of faith.'

"That, to me, was a shock," Miller said.

The student brought the book and the two met and talked, but never came to a philosophical agreement. Mindsets are not easy to change, but teaching methods can create the right conditions for reasonableness to evolve.

"There are ways to reach religiously oriented students with respect to science," Miller said.

Explore further: Data indicate there is no immigration crisis

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Study: Evolution losing favor in U.S.

Aug 11, 2006

The United States ranks near the bottom, just ahead of Turkey, in a new survey measuring public acceptance of evolution in 34 countries.

Recommended for you

Data indicate there is no immigration crisis

9 hours ago

Is there an "immigration crisis" on the U.S.-Mexico border? Not according to an examination of historical immigration data, according to a new paper from Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy.

Combating bullying in New Zealand

12 hours ago

Victoria University of Wellington's Accent Learning is rolling out a new bullying prevention programme for schools—a first for the Southern Hemisphere.

Why has Halloween infiltrated Australian culture?

14 hours ago

Halloween appears to have infiltrated Australian culture, and according to a University of Adelaide researcher, the reason for its increasing popularity could run much deeper than Americanisation.

The hidden world of labor trafficking

14 hours ago

When it comes to human trafficking, we often hear about victims being kidnapped or violently taken from their homes. But what about people who are forced into labor in the U.S.?

User comments : 619

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dogbert
1.9 / 5 (17) Feb 19, 2012
Religion and science are not at odds. As the article notes, the science we all accept grew out of the efforts of religious individuals and religious institutions.

It is the worship of nature as god which is resisted by Christians.

Allow natural processes to be studied as natural processes and allow god to be studied as god.

There is no rational reason to invest belief in any theory. But many theories have proven to be quite useful.
julianpenrod
1.6 / 5 (19) Feb 19, 2012
To begin with, the very premise of religion keeping students from learning science is a lie at best. The most religious students can pick up mathematics, mechanics, electromagnetics, chemistry as well as anyone else. The article is deliberately painting religious students as morons! It is not science that is the sticking point. It is evolution. And the only question there is how soul arises. How can the alteration of a few physical genes create soul? How can a blind, physical process be credited with the Will of God expressing itself?
But, note, the so-called open minded, scientific "defenders of freedom" pointedly refuse to admit this and, instead, calculatedly characterize all religious people as imbeciles! A premise that needs to be promoted with a lie is a lie itself! They disprove "eviolution" by their own machinations!
julianpenrod
1.3 / 5 (14) Feb 19, 2012
As iuf any other evidence was necessary to prove that those promoting "science" as the only truth and religion an obstruction, consider the unnatural tendency of all such defenders of "science" to refer to God using a lower case "g". dogbert is only one in an all but infinite list. Every time they refer to God, the Allmighty, they insist on using the word with a lower case "g". they will say it's because they don/t believe, but the fact is, God is a name applied to a particular individual as a concept. It is a proper name! They refer to the individual as a concept, so they are obligated, at least linguistically, to use the capitalized name! They are illiterate in that respect, if nothing else. Nothing justifies arbitrarily using a lower case initial for a proper name. Consider that this machination achieves nothing in the end and you can see what limited mentality such defenders of "science" display.
Skepticus
2.6 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2012
Logic and evidences of sciences over thousands of years of investigation and discoveries of mortal, ordinary beings against "I was told to believe so" propaganda, brainwasing crap from a nobody. I rest my case against human stupidity.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (15) Feb 19, 2012
It is the worship of nature as god which is resisted by Christians.
Naw if you think about it dog you may realize that it is the acceptance of what is real, which is resisted by you guys. Nature is not the pleasant compliant environment which god modifies for your own edification. It is firstly indifferent to either believer or unbeliever and doesnt care whether you or I worship it or not. And it exists only of what is; no hidden refuges, no etherial planes, no place to go on living after you cease to live.

Nature is cold, unmoving, resolute. It does what it will do no matter how much you beg. No matter what your priests and books tell you. But therein lies our salvation; unlike your gods, nature is fully dependable and understandable. We can learn to use it to our advantage if we can only resist the temptation to believe it is anything other than what it IS. This takes maturity, patience, and hard work. And the courage to discard your comfortable superstition.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (15) Feb 19, 2012
Religion and science are not at odds. As the article notes, the science we all accept grew out of the efforts of religious individuals and religious institutions.
Science has disproved all the fantastical lies described in your books. Archeology has shown that most of what they describe never happened. Physics says that your miracles didnt occur. Evolution disproves creation. Etc. Scientific revelation diametrically opposed to religious revelation. Science reveals the artifice in religious dogma.

How could you be more wrong?

Further, science shows us exactly how religions endanger peace in the world today by explaining the dangers of unrestricted population growth, and by showing us that religion-mandated overgrowth is the worst. Statistics show a direct correlation between regions in the throes of religions and endemic violence, starvation, and misery.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (15) Feb 19, 2012
It was the religious who taught the science in the first place.
Gregor Mendel's genetics.
And prior to Mendel, monks kept meticulous records to improve their grape yields.
"Father Cyprian found that, historically, many of the people involved in early stem-cell research and regeneration were, in fact, priests.

Some of the people who did the earliest experiments on the regeneration of limbs in frogs were Italian priests in the Middle Ages, he said. There were many ordained priests who worked in science. "
http://archive.th...051/144/

"In science there are no facts or theories that are beyond question."
Except for AGW.
chromosome2
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2012
Faith is the idea that we should allow our hopes to affect our beliefs and science is the idea that we should design our exploration of the world such that they absolutely cannot affect our results. All religious books make many testable claims, many of which are contrary to eachother; science is the merciless arbiter of truth. I have allowed it to shatter my delusions, and I will use it to silence yours.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (15) Feb 19, 2012
Gregor Mendel's genetics.
And prior to Mendel, monks kept meticulous records to improve their grape yields.
"Father Cyprian found that, historically, many of the people involved in early stem-cell research and regeneration were, in fact, priests.
And yet religious dogma directly contradicts the scientific method, which has no room for faith in god within it whatsoever. Just consider the absurd idea of scientists praying for an experiment to function properly.

The more science teaches us the sillier religion looks.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (14) Feb 19, 2012
Faith is the idea that we should allow our hopes to affect our beliefs and science is the idea that we should design our exploration of the world such that they absolutely cannot affect our results. All religious books make many testable claims, many of which are contrary to eachother; science is the merciless arbiter of truth. I have allowed it to shatter my delusions, and I will use it to silence yours.

Don't know much about quantum mechanics?
Faith and belief DO affect the results.
Some have called it the Blind Spot.

This is what Max Planck said:
"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature. And that is because, in the last analysis, we ourselves are a part of the mystery that we are trying to solve."

Read more: http://www.brainy...mrovmsLL
kochevnik
2.3 / 5 (10) Feb 19, 2012
It was the religious who taught the science in the first place. Gregor Mendel's genetics.
On a related note, the first men were monkeys. /s
julianpenrod
1.7 / 5 (17) Feb 19, 2012
Again, notice the lemming like insistence of the anti-religious to refer to God with a lower case "g". They claim to respect intelligence and free will, yet all march in absolute lock step to the unavailing and therefore "scientifically" insipid tactic of misspelling the name of God. So much like C. S. Lewis' "That Hideous Strength", where the "scientist" orders the man to spit on a crucifix to prove it has no meaning. But, if it has no meaning, why is it significant to spit on it? Why not focus on the supposed meaning in the "science" and achieving all the great marvels instead of engaging in a gratuitous act of derision?
Because the anti-religious are not automatically in favor of science. They are all hate filled, spiteful individuals who cannot abide the thought of real contact with others.
julianpenrod
1.8 / 5 (16) Feb 19, 2012
To be fair, the issue of proof and evidence has meaning. The problem is that, to receive evidence of the presence of God, you have to deserve it. It doesn't necessarily present itself the way simple physical laws do. And, to be worthy of receiving evidence of God's presence acting outside automatic physical law, you have to undergo the sea change, of foregoing life as devotion to just aimless, self defined diversions, of embracing life which appreciates meaning, with meaning including improving the world for all, not just a few, and to do it without fear or the desire to be rewarded, but because you know it's right. Then, you will be afforded manifestations unseen to those who are absolutely self-absorbed. The proof is there, it's just that many refuse to do what's necessary to see it. There is no absolute experiment you can perform in a mine that proves the existence of the sun, but climbing out gives you the proof.
kochevnik
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 19, 2012
@julianpenrod Romans did not employ a crucifix to punish criminals. Criminals in Rome were strung to trees. What you xtians call a cross is actually a tropihome (sp?), which is a wax casting of the Roman emperor with two shields. Of course lunatic early xtians high on opium and a diet of locusts could hallucinate a wooden cross out of a wax figure, I guess. Like the rays of the setting sun form a penis, which became the obelisks you keep at the Vatican and anywhere xtians colonized. That's why you give all your prayers to "Amen" aka Amun Ra, the shape-shifting son of Atun who created your universe by masturbating.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (13) Feb 19, 2012
Just give up on the religiously indoctrinated children as lost and concentrate on the rest.

There will be enough jobs for unskilled labor.

Either they will figure it out for themselves at some point or not. But that's not something that can be taught.

Science, as opposed to religion, doesn't work by indoctrination. It can't - as that would be self defeating for the purposes of fostering an inquisitive mind.

It was and is philosophically consistent to be a person of faith and also a scientist

Nope. Because a religious person says that god(s) have or had some effect upon the world/universe at some time - while science says that this is no so. Any in depth study of ANY subject will sooner or later get to the point where the two clash.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (14) Feb 19, 2012
"to show that science doesn't grow out of some sort of anti-theological or political perspective"
Good luck with that.
From what I read here, most are anti-theological. But maybe that is because they are socialists? Lenin stated all communists must be atheists.

Any in depth study of ANY subject will sooner or later get to the point where the two clash.

Like how the universe was created? It seems those who are studying the origins of the universe are more open to the theological.
For some reasons those in the biology field are very closed to such concepts.
kochevnik
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 19, 2012
From what I read here, most are anti-theological. But maybe that is because they are socialists? Lenin stated all communists must be atheists.
And notice that he was replaced by a true communist? A catholic jesuit-trained student who went on to kill 100million? Lenin's failing was that he believed in enterprise, not outright catholic fascism.
Like how the universe was created?
By what? A selfish god that created a crazy whore on welfare and her child-molesting/murdering spouse as the prophets of robber-baronism?
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (13) Feb 19, 2012
From what I read here, most are anti-theological. But maybe that is because they are socialists? Lenin stated all communists must be atheists.
And notice that he was replaced by a true communist? A catholic jesuit-trained student who went on to kill 100million? Lenin's failing was that he believed in enterprise, not outright catholic fascism.

Weren't you a communist Koch? You claimed to be from the USSR? If so don't you bear the guilt of Stalin? If not, how are Catholics responsible for Stalin?
It is the socialist that eschews the individual and absolving him from personal responsibility.
In my faith, individuals are responsible for their actions and to seek and accept absolution of their sins.
But blaming others for their problems is exactly what Obama and the immature do everyday.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (11) Feb 19, 2012
It seems those who are studying the origins of the universe are more open to the theological.
For some reasons those in the biology field are very closed to such concepts.

Because tehy are scientists?

It's not really a matter of being closed to a concept. It's that even the most ludicrous crank theory is more plausible than 'god did it'. So before we consider the god hypothesis we should first exhaust all these possibilities (like unicorn farts and Santa Clause)

But basically considering 'god is it' is where inquisitiveness stops. All skepticism, experiment, falsifiability, indpendent repeatability...basically anything that makes science science stops.

A mind that considers faith a viable alternative is a closed mind.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (13) Feb 19, 2012
A mind that considers faith a viable alternative is a closed mind.

"Anybody who has been seriously engaged is scientific work of any kind realizes that over the entrance to the gates of the temple of science are written the words: 'Ye must have faith.'"
"Whence come I and whither go I? That is the great unfathomable question, the same for every one of us. Science has no answer to it.

Read more: http://www.brainy...msHHClLK
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (12) Feb 19, 2012
Because tehy are scientists?

Because they are biologists.

But I am not the only one who has made this observation.

The author of "The Demon and the Quantum: From the Pythagorean Mystics to Maxwell's Demon and Quantum Mystery" made the same observation.

http://www.wiley....883.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 19, 2012
Don't know much about quantum mechanics?
Faith and belief DO affect the results.
Some have called it the Blind Spot.
NO they DONT. This is just another lie the religious tell each other in order to try to make themselves believe they are relevant. They are irrelevant no matter what they think.
This is what Max Planck said:
"Science cannot solve the ultimate mystery of nature.
The ultimate mystery of nature. The Ultimate Mystery of Nature -? What do you think he meant by this? Certainly nothing scientific.

Planck 1944: "We must assume behind [the atomic] force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter."

-So Planck believed in intelligent design.
cont
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (14) Feb 19, 2012
Planck also said: "the knowledge of nature... has made it utterly impossible for a person possessing some training in natural science to recognize as founded on truth the many reports of extraordinary contradicting the laws of nature, of miracles which are still commonly regarded as essential supports and confirmations of religious doctrines...The belief in miracles must retreat step by step before relentlessly and reliably progressing science and we cannot doubt that sooner or later it must vanish completely."

-So while this intelligent designer can create the laws of nature which science elucidates daily, he is not able to alter those laws to create the miracles which lie at the foundation of all religions. Planck retreats to the safety of the Ursache, leaving his chosen field intact and preserving his hope in an afterlife.

Typical. Religionists create god in whatever image it takes to make him believable. Immortality is THAT important.
ormondotvos
3 / 5 (2) Feb 19, 2012
A muslim and a catholic walked into a nursery.
RobertKarlStonjek
3.9 / 5 (12) Feb 19, 2012
Religious base their belief in God on a feeling, like indigestion ... Unfortunately, there is no antacid medication for stupidity...
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (12) Feb 19, 2012
To be fair, the issue of proof and evidence has meaning. The problem is that, to receive evidence of the presence of God, you have to deserve it.
In other words it doesnt work unless you believe it does.
Again, notice the lemming like insistence of the anti-religious to refer to God with a lower case "g".
Ha! Naw its just easier to use lower case. Besides how can you respect something that isnt there?

And if you sir had the proper respect for your deity you would spell his name G_d. Because you know even electronic letters can get discarded in some fashion.
The proof is there, it's just that many refuse to do what's necessary to see it.
Indeed it is. The epiphany and the release from fear and guilt are quantifiable phenomena and wholly explainable in physiological terms.

One can completely understand the effects of religious belief, of 'letting go and letting god'. Scientifically that is. It is like any other addiction.
julianpenrod
2.2 / 5 (13) Feb 19, 2012
Note, again, the need for the haters of God to use illegitimate non-arguments to promote their case. TheGhostofOtto1923 mischaracterizes my statement by saying, "In other words it doesn't work unless you believe it does." Only the delusionally devoted would describe my statements as that it doesn't work unless you believe it does. In fact, I didn't require belief! I said you would receive proof! The very demand that the ilk of TheGhostofOtto1923 makes I tell them they would receive. Proof. But I didn't say you had to believe first. I said you had to make the decision to live accepting the idea of scrupulous honor, not devoting youself to self-centered diversions, but working to improve all the world. And that you do it because you consider it right. But, as with all who promote lies, TheGhostofOtto1923 can't fight what I say, they have to fabricate an "argument" and oppose that!
kochevnik
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 19, 2012
Weren't you a communist Koch? You claimed to be from the USSR? If so don't you bear the guilt of Stalin? If not, how are Catholics responsible for Stalin?
Anyone who wasn't a communist under Stalin was a corpse. So you are stating that citizens of CCCP are the guilty party? How does that mesh with the prodigal son of communism being raised catholic by jesuits? How do most communists like Castro, Mao etc happen to be jesuit schooled? Jesuits invented communism in Paraguay, yet you wonder why their form of economics, utterly right-wing in implementation, can be later traced to them? Well I take some solace in the fact that, like them, you're not human but merely a posting robot that puts up links from google.
@julianpenrod Note, again, the need for the haters of God to use illegitimate non-arguments
Which god are you referring to? Amun-Ra, to whom you deliver your prayers? Son of Atun, the Amen is "the beginning of the creation of god" to quote your bible.
kochevnik
2.9 / 5 (10) Feb 19, 2012
Typical. Religionists create god in whatever image it takes to make him believable. Immortality is THAT important.
Notice ryggesogn2 tells tales of some biblical god, then gushes on about his godess Ana Rand which is at the diametrically opposite end of the theological spectrum, besides being an atheist. Psychosis is at the heart of christianity.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (10) Feb 19, 2012
"And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globethe belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God."
http://www.bartle...s56.html

And are still at issue in the USA.

What happened the democrats?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (12) Feb 19, 2012
mischaracterizes my statement by saying, "In other words it doesn't work unless you believe it does."
No, again, it REALLY doesnt work unless you BELIEVE it does.
I didn't require belief! I said you would receive proof!
-As in 'proof!' Is this proof something tangible? Something outside your own experience I mean? Besides a flushing of the face, a discernible twitching, speaking in tongues perhaps?
scrupulous honor, not devoting youself to self-centered diversions, but working to improve all the world. And that you do it because you consider it right.
And people dont need your religion to do these things. Religions work to ruin the world by emphasizing differences between each other and by insisting their adherents try to outreproduce the competition.

These things are dishonorable in the extreme.

Then you all turn to the nasty chapters for explicit instructions on just who is responsible for your resulting misery and exactly what you should do about it.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 19, 2012
"In 1763, The Reverend James Manning, a Baptist minister and an alumnus of the College of New Jersey (predecessor to today's Princeton University), was sent to Rhode Island by the Philadelphia Association of Baptist Churches in order to found a college."
"The college's mission, the charter stated, was to prepare students "for discharging the Offices of Life with usefulness & reputation" by providing instruction "in the Vernacular and Learned Languages, and in the liberal Arts and Sciences.""
http://en.wikiped...iversity

Maybe Brown needs to study its history.
julianpenrod
2.1 / 5 (11) Feb 19, 2012
I never said you need to believe in order for what I said about God to work. The GhostofOtto1923 did misquote me, saying that's what I said. I accused them of it, and they reply, "No." They will deny it, but TheGhostofOtto1923 is desperate for excuses to condemn what I say.
And the proof that will come when you make the sea change will be tangible and not something which can be explained away as something else. Benefits outside the realm of what others obtain, what would be considered at variance with the defined physical form of things. But they will include real things.
And TheGhostofOtto1923 can prate illiterately that "people dont [sic] need your religion" to act in the honorable way I described, but there is no sign that any are motivated toward this by "science". TheGhostofOtto1923 wouldn't be constantly misquoting me if "science" led them to act honorably.
And The GhostofOtto1923 says God "isn't there". What is their "proof" of that?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (12) Feb 19, 2012
Maybe Brown needs to study its history
Maybe you do?

"The Taiping Rebellion was a widespread civil war in southern China from 1850 to 1864, led by heterodox Christian convert Hong Xiuquan, who, having received visions, maintained that he was the younger brother of Jesus Christ, against the ruling Manchu-led Qing Dynasty. About 20 MILLION people died, mainly civilians, in one of the deadliest military conflicts in history."

-Brought to you by Baptist missionaries.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (12) Feb 19, 2012
I never said you need to believe in order for what I said about God to work.
So youre [sic] saying that I can be an atheist and still 'make the decision to live accepting the idea of scrupulous honor, not devoting youself to self-centered diversions, but working to improve all the world. And that you do it because you consider it right.'

Great! Then we can dispense with all the nonsense about miracles and wish-granting and immortality and chosen people and all, and concentrate on what is actually possible?

Uh do all your buds down at the mission know you think this way? Some of you hold a dim view of apostasy you know.
but there is no sign that any are motivated toward this by "science".
This is because you dont know science and refuse to learn.
cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (12) Feb 19, 2012
"There can be no doubt that a tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to give aid to each other and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection" (Darwin, 1871)

-You see we were selected for moral strength. Morality is biological, just as immoral actions toward perceived enemies is entirely moral. This is described in your book.

"So they sent twelve thousand warriors to Jabesh-gilead with orders to kill everyone there, including women and children. "This is what you are to do," they said. "Completely destroy all the males and every woman who is not a virgin." judges10

-Many many more as you know. Jesus fulfills the law.

"34 Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."

-And we have seen the results.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (12) Feb 19, 2012
link for the above darwin quote
http://rechten.el...RID2.pdf

-This paper shows what science can explain where religion can only fabricate. Happens a lot.
animah
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 19, 2012
not devoting youself to self-centered diversions, but working to improve all the world.


Yet science is the ultimate altruistic enterprise, devoting a lifetime to discovery and exploration, and publishing your findings away for all the world to use. Accepting you are giving them away to the industries that profit from them even though they would pay you far more to work in their R&D Departments.

Einstein summed it up:

"Concern for man and his fate must always form the chief interest of all technical endeavors. Never forget this in the midst of your diagrams and equations."

Science cures cancer. It saves millions ever day. It has saved you multiple times already. What have you given back?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 19, 2012
How much were the Soviet scientists paid for their discoveries?
If Tesla hadn't been paid, quite well, for his R&D, how long would it have taken for someone else to have 'donated' them to the world?
animah
3.8 / 5 (10) Feb 19, 2012
insistence of the anti-religious to refer to God with a lower case "g"


We use the word with a lowercase, not to spite you but because discussions with your kind are never about God, but about your god.

We write it like that because we refuse to participate in your delusion that You're Special, Somehow Gifted and Utterly Superior.

This is the mother of all divisive ideas, one that has led to war throughout history. It all starts with your vengeful insistence that it's not god but God, despite all the dictionaries we have saying it ain't so.
julianpenrod
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 19, 2012
All atheists stand by "science", including the requirement for proof. No atheist has ever provided proof there is no God. All atheists insist there is no God. Therefore, atheists, by their nature, violate the very principles they claim to respect and follow. Therefore, no atheists are honorable or ever will be.
TheGhostofOtto1923 insisted that God "isn't there", yet still refuses to provide their proof of that statement.
What is the proof that individuals ever were motivated toward such abiding concern and compassion for others by "science". "Scientists" devote their lives to, for them, the fun of sitting in a laboratory, funded from the outside, taking readings, writing notes. To say that they work "altruistically", "for the good of mankind" is as laughable as that corporations are in business only to improve people's lives. Corporations want to make money and they don't make money selling people things to ruin their lives!
animah
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 19, 2012
If Tesla hadn't been paid, quite well, for his R&D, how long would it have taken for someone else to have 'donated' them to the world?


Quite possibly forever: Tesla ended up losing his financial backing because he refused to orient his research exclusively towards profit-making. See wiki about how JP Morgan killed funding Wardenclyffe Tower because it undermined existing electrical distribution industries.

Tesla died a destitute because he put all his money back into his science. Talk about altruism.

Never forget: Electricity could just as well have ended up in an industrial monopoly. This problem endures today, and there is a reason so many scientists fight tooth and nail against the patenting of genes. You could be a bit more appreciative.
julianpenrod
2 / 5 (12) Feb 19, 2012
Yet more provable lies from those who are against God. animah "explains", "We use the word with a lowercase, [sic] not to spite you but because discussions with your kind are never about God, but about your god". animah says I am claiming I am "Special, Somehow Gifted and Utterly Superior". I said any others could attain the same! That's not necessarily elevating myself. With the fact that those promoting "science" anoint themselves as the only ones with reason, they seem more guilty.
Add the old atheist lie that all wars are started through religion. Monetary and political greed started all the wars, but don't expect atheist liars to admit that.
And no God hater ever phrased it as "your god", they always used the lower case word as a contemptuous substitute for God's name! animah is a liar.
animah
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2012
No atheist has ever provided proof there is no God (...) Therefore, no atheists are honorable


Russell's teapot - disproved as a bogus argument 150 years ago!

http://en.wikiped...s_teapot

This is formally known as "negative proof" or evidence of absence and is a known impossibility, just as Julian can't prove UFOs don't exist:

http://en.wikiped..._absence

What can and has been demonstrated many times however, is that the existence of your particular brand of god (or UFOs) is so statistically improbable as to be safely ignored.
animah
4 / 5 (9) Feb 20, 2012
God hater


Consider the flood and the book of revelations. Genocide against the human race. Twice. The ultimate crime against humanity.

Even if your particular god existed, he would still be the Callous Enemy of Man. Thank god he doesn't :-)
animah
3.2 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2012
animah says I am claiming I am "Special, Somehow Gifted and Utterly Superior". I said any others could attain the same!


Thank you for confirming my point then, that you believe Xian believers are "Special, Somehow Gifted and Utterly Superior".

Do you? Because that's a scientifically testable assertion.
julianpenrod
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 20, 2012
Another bogus non-argument. Atheists state unequivocally, with no qualification whatsoever, that God does not exist. That is what "atheist" means. That means, if they respect the idea of proof, that they must state a proof of this or admit they are dishonorable and liars. And, of course, they always back up their cravenness with "excuses". animah invokes the idea of a "negative proof" or the hoary claim, "you can't prove a negative". Among other considerations, proving a negative of a statement is the same as proving the positive of the opposite of the statement. You can prove a chair is not blue by proving it is red, white, black, green, purple, orange, yellow, brown or a combination. And the atheists do not say you can't prove a positive. So they say God definitely does not exist, but worm around what proves it by saying you can't prove it. And that is the height of cravenness.
Guy_Underbridge
4 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2012
juli, your argument is weak, and your argumentation more so.
CardacianNeverid
3.6 / 5 (12) Feb 20, 2012
animah invokes the idea of a "negative proof" or the hoary claim, "you can't prove a negative" - pulianpenTard

Well then tardboy, why don't you have a go at proving a negative? Prove that three breasted unicorns don't exist.

Among other considerations, proving a negative of a statement is the same as proving the positive of the opposite of the statement - pulianpenTard

Poor, clueless tard.
julianpenrod
2 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2012
If someone simply wants to keep an argument going, to pretend they have something worthwhile to say, there are any of a number of ways to do it. Some can be as simple as just saying, "But how do you really, really, really know?", or even just, "I still don't believe you." Just plain nattering. Offering nothing of value, talking just to hear themselves talk. A characteristic of the New World Order God haters, to get the last word, since the dull witted they see as their target audience can be convinced that just getting the last word "proves" you're right. If someone lived at the bottom of a mine and refused to come out, they could raise any number of objections to the claim there is a sun. They could keep an argument going by nattering, but they wouldn't be right.
Turritopsis
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2012
Teaching science to the religious? Focus on how theories develop.


You run into a paradox.

Did God create science?

At which point the two aren't at odds.

Maybe God wants humans to know a different story than the real one of the universe. Maybe God has been molding the universe, refining it, evolving it.

Maybe the God of man is a subset of a higher dimensional multiverse?

Science has already proved that life can be synthesized from inorganic matter.

There is a difference between science and religion. They don't come at odds as one is based on faith and belief and the other is based on proof, logic and reason.

The only conclusive way of proving God's existence would be proof positive. It is impossible to prove God doesn't exist.

The only way of bringing God into Science is by reproducing Godly things. If we can create life with selfevolving, or non-selfevolving features we prove the possibility (and increase probability) of us being created.
Turritopsis
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2012
And you always run into another unprovable.

The direct translation from God. All ink is mans.

You can't prove that God didn't give them the information he did. Maybe God was playing with them?

I can't say God doesn't speak to other people just because he doesn't to me.

So yeah, either make a date with God...

Or live and let live.
kochevnik
2.4 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2012
Add the old atheist lie that all wars are started through religion. Monetary and political greed started all the wars, but don't expect atheist liars to admit that.
So explain the sacking of Constantinople and the other crusades
CardacianNeverid
3.9 / 5 (14) Feb 20, 2012
Offering nothing of value, talking just to hear themselves talk. A characteristic of the New World Order God haters - julianpenTard

Nope, it's a characteristic of cranks of all persuasions that don't have a chance in hell of making a contribution to scientific literature (coz they is stupid), so instead they get their jollies by blighting science based fora.
animah
4.1 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2012
If we can create life with selfevolving, or non-selfevolving features we prove the possibility (and increase probability) of us being created.


Or it increases the probability that god is not necessary to the process. I think it's the other way around: Only by proving it is absolutely impossible to create life from inorganic matter could you then maybe justify invoking the supernatural.

Only we know we can, and creating life doesn't require breaking the laws of mundane physics at all. A perfectly natural process, no magic required.

That said, I agree with live and let live. So let science textbooks contain no magic. And I would add science forums, but then Physorg posted this article about religion in the first place...
animah
4.6 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2012
On second thoughts, I am more than a little conflicted about the "live and let live" thing. Believers and atheists alike should read this little section of article:

http://en.wikiped...Genocide

I would be genuinely interested in what Xians have to say about it (assuming they are capable of confronting it at all).
CardacianNeverid
3.3 / 5 (12) Feb 20, 2012
You run into a paradox.

Did God create science?

At which point the two aren't at odds.

Maybe God wants humans to know a different story than the real one of the universe. Maybe God has been molding the universe, refining it, evolving it.

Maybe the God of man is a subset of a higher dimensional multiverse? - TurritopsisTard

Maybe your brain was replaced with leprechaun's from the Mystical Charms multiverse? Poor tard, chasing his own tail, ta be sure, ta be sure.
Turritopsis
2 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2012
A muslim and a catholic walked into a nursery.


I know how this ends, someone gets blown.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 20, 2012
On second thoughts, I am more than a little conflicted about the "live and let live" thing. Believers and atheists alike should read this little section of article:

http://en.wikiped...Genocide

What to atheist socialists think of this:
"Governments have murdered hundreds of millions of their citizens and those under their control. "
http://hawaii.edu...RDER.HTM
I would be genuinely interested in what Xians have to say about it (assuming they are capable of confronting it at all).
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 20, 2012
As for Rwanda, why did the UN fail to get involved? Where was the almighty govt to save the people?
"Responsibility for the failure to halt the 1994 genocide in Rwanda lies with the UN system, "
http://www.un.org...eac2.htm
antialias_physorg
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2012
Where was the almighty govt to save the people?


Where was the almighty god to save people.

There. Fixed it for you.

(Note: People make mistakes. Governments are made up of people. Gods, supposedly, make no mistakes -so there is no way to get them off the hook on that one)
djr
4 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2012
Science - not religion developed the computer (just an example). Can religious people use a computer? Well of course. Does that say anything about the validity of religion? Of course not. Science and religion are two different ways of thinking. Science has gotten us computers, cars, refrigerators etc. etc. etc. Religion has gotten us rivers of blood. This morning I watched the debate about Israel and Iran. It is possible the world I live in will be destroyed soon - over what? My god is bigger than your god! It saddens me that so many are still susceptible to the nonsense of religion. It sickens me that so many still die over the nonsense of religion - and yes - Israel may strike Iran - and Russia may get into the fight - and we may all fry.
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2012
Science and religion are two different ways of thinking.

Yes. One tells you: just read the bible long enough - the answers ae in there
The other one tells you: use your own head and come up with new answers if you have a new problem.

How anyone can say that these two approaches don't exclude one another is beyond me.

If you feel like a smile: Here's what John Cleese has to say on this (sit through it: the last comment makes it worthwhile)
http://www.youtub...fv3U_ysc
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (4) Feb 20, 2012
Teaching science to the religious? Focus on how theories develop
The same approach I'm using often for teaching of dense aether model, because the proponents of mainstream science are quite religious and they do believe often, many connections are following directly from underlying theories (compare the recent misinterpretation of cosmological constant with dark energy). So they tend to ignore many mistakes and conceptual reversals, which lead into acceptance of contemporary theories throughout the history.
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (11) Feb 20, 2012
Religion and science are not at odds.

They are fundamentally at odds. Religion teaches dogma, to remain rigid in your beliefs in the face of new evidence that contradicts it. Science abhors dogma, it is the antithesis of dogma.

As the article notes, the science we all accept grew out of the efforts of religious individuals and religious institutions.

Everyone was "religious" not too long ago, this doesn't mean anything.

It is the worship of nature as god which is resisted by Christians.

So you don't like pantheists or panentheists? Great, I'll keep that in mind if I ever meet one.

Allow natural processes to be studied as natural processes and allow god to be studied as god.

God cannot be studied. There is no evidence of god, there is no physical reality to god.

There is no rational reason to invest belief in any theory. But many theories have proven to be quite useful.


It is rational to believe in theories, theories are supported by evidence.
Deathclock
2.6 / 5 (11) Feb 20, 2012
It is not science that is the sticking point. It is evolution.


Evolution is science, it is one of the best supported ideas in modern science... Evolution is the epitome of science.

And the only question there is how soul arises. How can the alteration of a few physical genes create soul?


There is no such thing as a soul... "soul" is a concept used to refer to a collection of traits that exist physically as distinct entities.

How can a blind, physical process be credited with the Will of God expressing itself?


It isn't by anyone who's opinion matters.

But, note, the so-called open minded, scientific "defenders of freedom" pointedly refuse to admit this and, instead, calculatedly characterize all religious people as imbeciles! A premise that needs to be promoted with a lie is a lie itself! They disprove "eviolution" by their own machinations!


Now you've gone full retard, or are we playing count the non-sequiturs?
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2012
"Responsibility for the failure to halt the 1994 genocide in Rwanda lies with the UN system" You may well be right - the UN seems to have been impotent in many conflicts around the world - what does that have to do with a discussion about religion? The UN's failure does not negate culpability of other groups - as discussed in the Wiki article "He argues that both Catholic and Protestant churches helped to make the genocide possible by giving moral sanction to the killing"
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2012
There is no rational reason to invest belief in any theory. But many theories have proven to be quite useful.

That's what theories are supposed to be: useful. It is rational to believe in things which are demonstrably useful.

This is why it's not rational to believe god(s). they are not useful. Unless you count the fact that they allow certain psychological escape mechanisms (E.g. projection of own fault ont an invisible friend by claiming that it's 'his' will. Escapism from fear of death. Inability to cope with not being in full control of ones' life. Inability to come to grips with the size of the universe and the relative insignificance of an individual therein. Etc. )
Deathclock
2 / 5 (9) Feb 20, 2012
As iuf any other evidence was necessary to prove that those promoting "science" as the only truth and religion an obstruction, consider the unnatural tendency of all such defenders of "science" to refer to God using a lower case "g". dogbert is only one in an all but infinite list. Every time they refer to God, the Allmighty, they insist on using the word with a lower case "g". they will say it's because they don/t believe, but the fact is, God is a name applied to a particular individual as a concept. It is a proper name! They refer to the individual as a concept, so they are obligated, at least linguistically, to use the capitalized name! They are illiterate in that respect, if nothing else. Nothing justifies arbitrarily using a lower case initial for a proper name.


I am an atheist and I always capitalize God... but what kind of ridiculous point did you think you were making?

*edit* oops, actually I didn't in my last post, but that was an accident, I *usually* do.
julianpenrod
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 20, 2012
kochevnik offers "the sacking of Constantinople and the other crusades [sic]" as examples of wars supposedly not cause by economical or political greed. "Sacking" means "plundering", to steal riches and property. And it is generally taken the the Crusades were inspired by Western concern over Muslim monopoly of many lucrative trade routes and their holding of significant tracts of land. Yes, it was aimed at Muslims, but not based on their religion, but because they were a group, separate from the European nations, that exercised control over valuables.
And a point about atheist machinations to weasel out of applying their demand for proof to their core tenet that God does not exist. They always fall back on the hoary "excuse", "you can't prove a negative". They never say you can't prove a positive. In fact, papers generally refer to one phenomenon implying another without qualification. So what is their proof that non-living, discompassionate laws control everything?
Deathclock
2.6 / 5 (10) Feb 20, 2012
All atheists stand by "science", including the requirement for proof.


Science does not, cannot, and does not try to prove anything. "Proof" is only meaningful relative to a context derived from initial assumptions.

You really have no idea what you are babbling on about.

No atheist has ever provided proof there is no God.


In light of what I said above, proving God, even if that proof is only relative to certain initial assumptions, is impossible due to the ill-defined nature of God. If you assert that God is omnipotent, then God could always perfectly obscure itself from detection, and therefor be impossible to find evidence for. Even if it were not omnipotent, the entity can exist anywhere in the universe, or not even be corporeal... such a thing CANNOT be disproven, and that is a weakness in terms of it's credibility, not a strength.
mrcoldheart
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2012
Way too many ignorant claims in this discussion for me to quote.

Religion is at odds with science and history is littered with examples from the past to the present.

ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 20, 2012
Tesla died a destitute because he put all his money back into his science. Talk about altruism.

Tesla wasted his money living well.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 20, 2012
This is why it's not rational to believe god(s). they are not useful.

They are for millions of people.
That's the challenge for the scientist. How to objectively measure yourself.
Napoleon Hill, with the support of Andrew Carnegie, spent 20 years interviewing successful people and wrote a book about it, Think and Grow Rich.
Science really can't explain gravity, but we observed and use its effects.
Whether science can explain the power of positive thought and faith in God is immaterial if it works.
Should the physicians use the placebo effect when it has been demonstrated to be effective?
Atheists must have as much faith,or more, in their beliefs as a Christian in his. The only honest position for an atheist is to be agnostic, if he really questions the existence of God.
"I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist"
http://www.christ...pd/45619
Callippo
1.5 / 5 (4) Feb 20, 2012
That's what theories are supposed to be: useful
This is one of reason, why some ideas are refused to being considered a theories - they cannot help the physicists in the same way, like the cold fusion finding. The fact, such a models can help many other people doesn't mean very much for close selfish community of physicists, which has different utilitarian criterions. For physicists the useful things are only these, which bring another grants and formalism into their community, i.e. which enables to generate another publications. Instead of it, the cold fusion can just marginalize many research positions dealing with alternative research, so its ignored heartily.

So that the utilitarian criterion is essentially correct, but we should always ask "useful? useful for whom"? What is useful for physicists may not still useful for the rest of society and vice-versa.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 20, 2012
"Under the Treaty of Versailles the former German colony of Rwanda-Urundi is made a League of Nations protectorate to be governed by Belgium. The two territories (later to become Rwanda and Burundi) are administered separately under two different Tutsi monarchs.

Both Germany and Belgium turned the traditional Hutu-Tutsi relationship into a class system. The minority Tutsi (14%) are favored over the Hutus (85%) and given privileges and western-style education. The Belgians used the Tutsi minority to enforce their rule. "
"1926 Belgians introduce a system of ethnic identity cards differentiating Hutus from Tutsis."
pbs frontline
Looks like the problem lies at the doorstep of the 'progressives' discrimination for the purposes of dividing and conquering and controlling the population.
Deathclock
3 / 5 (10) Feb 20, 2012
The only honest position for an atheist is to be agnostic, if he really questions the existence of God.
"I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist"
http://www.christ...pd/45619


Twisting what the word Atheist means is not a good way to make a point. An atheist is anyone who does not believe in God, period. There is nothing more to it than that.

So much nuttery on this site...
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2012
No atheist has ever provided proof there is no God.

No atheist has also proven that unicorns don't exist.

The onus of first proof is always on the one making the claim.
Otherwise you must agree that Santa Claus exists because I say he does and you haven't disproven him. See how ridiculous that would be if any unfounded statement would have to be considered true until proven false?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 20, 2012
No atheist has ever provided proof there is no God.

No atheist has also proven that unicorns don't exist.

The onus of first proof is always on the one making the claim.
Otherwise you must agree that Santa Claus exists because I say he does and you haven't disproven him. See how ridiculous that would be if any unfounded statement would have to be considered true until proven false?

Those who believe in God have no need to prove God exists to anyone. He exists in their lives.
It is like Jodi Foster's character in Contact. She had direct communications with an alien but had no way to document that communication. Others had to believe her, or not.
Maybe that is God's purpose in promoting faith. In order for humans to join the universe we will have to have faith that some may be able to communicate with other intelligences in a way 'modern' science can't explain or understand.
Deathclock
2.3 / 5 (10) Feb 20, 2012
Those who believe in God have no need to prove God exists to anyone. He exists in their lives.


Yet they try to all the time... if you can't show me tangible evidence for God then don't proselytize yourself to me.

It is like Jodi Foster's character in Contact. She had direct communications with an alien but had no way to document that communication. Others had to believe her, or not.
Maybe that is God's purpose in promoting faith. In order for humans to join the universe we will have to have faith that some may be able to communicate with other intelligences in a way 'modern' science can't explain or understand.


That was a crappy movie and faith is always irrational.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 20, 2012
Yet they try to all the time... if you can't show me tangible evidence for God then don't proselytize yourself to me.

I have a right to speak.
You don't have to listen.
But it is interesting how some atheists are so evangelical in their faith. Maybe their faith may be a bit weak?
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2012
Those who believe in God have no need to prove God exists to anyone. He exists in their lives.

If they can't put up then they should shut up. If they only know him in their hearts then that's a personal thing and should have no bearing on anyone else (least of all should they try to push their way of thinking on societies)

No problem with people groveling on their knees at home (except that it's a shame about all the children having to live with nutcases as parents - and that's what these people are. Hearing voices that you can't demonstrate makes you a medical nutcase).

But thinking that what they can't demonstrate has any bearing on, well, anything real? That's a contradiction in terms.
Turritopsis
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2012
The people on here discussing the existence of God are being ridiculous.

You can't have rational discussions about matters of faith.

It is just stupid.

Choose to believe whatever you like and drop these stupid unanswerable discussions.

There is no place for God in science. The two fields are polar opposites.

Religion is based on belief and faith (an atheist has a bias towards no God, a theist has a bias towards God).

Science is supposed to be unbiased.

A true scientist (an unbiased individual) will alway take an agnostic stance.

Neither theism or atheism has any place in science.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 20, 2012
I suspect the evangelical atheists motivation is the same as Lenin's when he stated that all communist party members must be atheists.
There can be no power higher than the state.
A faith in God, or a higher power cripples the socialist's quest for power over his fellow humans.
The Declaration of Independent stated the axiom that human rights are inherent and unalienable and the govt is derived from the consent of the governed.
Socialists can't accept that axiom as it is the govt that grants rights to individuals with or without consent.
kaasinees
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2012
Science is supposed to be unbiased.


Thus agnostics are the true scientific answer, not atheists or theists.
kaasinees
2.4 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2012
Lenin's when he stated that all communist party members must be atheists.

No, he banned the practice of religion. He never said you can not believe in god. And in fact this makes much sense.
I bet the only reason you are "religious" is because you get tax exemption and other rewards. I doubt you have faith in god, either way it perfectly explains all of your shit posts.
Deathclock
2.2 / 5 (9) Feb 20, 2012
Science is supposed to be unbiased.


Thus agnostics are the true scientific answer, not atheists or theists.


Atheists simply do not believe in God... Why can't people get this through their thick skulls? Atheist and Agnostic are not mutually exclusive labels.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 20, 2012
A true scientist (an unbiased individual)

Such a creature, an unbiased individual, cannot exist.
The challenge for the true scientist is to identify and understand his bias.
"The Blind Spot reveals why our faith in scientific certainty is a dangerous illusion,"
http://books.goog...13r0IgYC
kochevnik
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2012
I have a right to speak.
You are a posting robot. You have no rights at all, except the right to be unplugged should your associate professor have better things to do.
Deathclock
3.2 / 5 (11) Feb 20, 2012
"The Blind Spot reveals why our faith in scientific certainty is a dangerous illusion"


Who has faith in scientific certainty? I know I don't... Furthermore, science is not certain, ever, that is one of it's primary attributes, that anything it says can be overturned with new evidence.

No, faith and (unfounded) certainty describe rigid religious dogma, not science.
djr
4.3 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2012
"A true scientist (an unbiased individual) will alway take an agnostic stance." That is total crap - you don't know what you are talking about. I do not believe in homeopathy -does that make me not a 'true scientist?' No - it means I ask for the evidence. Science is an evidentiary based way of thinking. A scientist is biased towards the truth. So what is truth? That which can be demonstrated repeatedly. If Shirley Mclain claims she has a spirit guide who sits on her shoulder and talks to her - as a supporter of science - I ask for the evidence. No evidence - then I aint buying. Same thing with your god - no evidence - then I aint buying. Now you can buy what ever you want. However - when you f**k with other people as a result of your nonsense - then I take issue. You want to see the story of the children recently beaten and ostracized by christian churches because they are witches? http://articles.c...hanage?_
Turritopsis
2.3 / 5 (12) Feb 20, 2012
Science is supposed to be unbiased.


Thus agnostics are the true scientific answer, not atheists or theists.


Atheists simply do not believe in God...


Precisely Deathclock. Atheists simply do not "believe" in god.

Which make atheism a belief system.

A religion in its own right.

Antireligious belief. Religious antibelief.

Atheism is just a form of religion. An antireligion.
kochevnik
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 20, 2012
Atheists simply do not "believe" in god. Which make atheism a belief system.
Non-belief isn't a belief. Basic set theory, people.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 20, 2012
Lenin:
"Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, i.e., to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule. "
http://www.marxis...c/03.htm
Lenin proclaimed the socialist is, by definition, an atheist.
Turritopsis
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 20, 2012
Theism can't be proven.

Atheism can't be proven.

You can place the onus of proof on whomever you like, the fact remains: neither side can prove either claim.

The theist can't prove the claim.

The atheist can't prove the anticlaim.

Drop the nonsense.

Why is this article on PhysOrg anyways?
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (12) Feb 20, 2012
I have a right to speak.
You are a posting robot. You have no rights at all, except the right to be unplugged should your associate professor have better things to do.

Again, a typical socialist response, censorship.
djr
4 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2012
"Precisely Deathclock. Atheists simply do not "believe" in god. Which make atheism a belief system." So if I don't believe in the tooth fairy - does that make me religious? I looked at this definition of religion - and I don't think it applies to me. http://dictionary...religion I dont really care what you call me - asshole works fine for me - but I think you are being very lazy with your thinking. The only thing I may have in common with another athiest - is that we both do not believe in god. Non participation in a community - does not make one a member of a non community - just lazy thinking.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2012
Thus agnostics are the true scientific answer, not atheists or theists.

No. Agnostic WERE the stance if gods were even an issue. Atheism is the stance that gods are not even an issue (much like a-Santa Clausism is the natural stance - not Santa Claus-agnosticism).

Until there is any indication that gods are an issue whatsoever (i.e. until there is a reasonable chance that gods exist.)

That there are two alternatives does not mean that the alternatives are automatically 50/50. And in this case there aren't even two alternatives - only some people who say that there are.
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (12) Feb 20, 2012
"Precisely Deathclock. Atheists simply do not "believe" in god. Which make atheism a belief system."


Are you hearing yourself? You just said that the lack of a belief is a belief system?

There are infinite things that I do not believe in, like the loch ness monster or leprechauns, are these also belief systems? Good to know I have infinite belief systems based on my infinite non-beliefs.

Do you realize how ridiculous your statement was now?
djr
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2012
Hey Rygg - let me give some cognitive dissonance - I am an athiest - and I am not a socialist! Chew on that one for a while...
Turritopsis
3 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2012
Well the issue has been brought up. It's here. It is real.

I can't prove whether God does or doesn't exist.

Maybe you can:

Provide proof for either claim below.
Deathclock
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2012
Hey Rygg - let me give some cognitive dissonance - I am an athiest - and I am not a socialist! Chew on that one for a while...


Same, I am also an agnostic :zomg:

In fact, I am very conservative on matters of fiscal policy and very much support free market capitalism and doing away with social services and entitlements.
Deathclock
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2012
Well the issue has been brought up. It's here. It is real.

I can't prove whether God does or doesn't exist.

Maybe you can:

Provide proof for either claim below.


1. You can't prove anything in the general sense. Basic epistemology. Your entire perception of reality MAY be illusory and you would have no way of knowing.

2. An entity defined to be omnipotent cannot be dis-proven, because that property of omnipotence allows it to perfectly occlude itself from all efforts of detection.

3. An entity that can exist anywhere in the universe in any form or no form (non-corporeal) cannot be dis-proven.

4. The fact that God is defined such that it is impossible to disprove its existence is not a strength, it is a great weakness. The strength of a scientific theory is based on how easy it is to falsify if it were to be incorrect. Something that is non-falsifiable cannot be a theory, or it is an infinitely weak theory.

5. Stop being moronic, these are simple concepts, learn them.
Turritopsis
3 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2012
"Precisely Deathclock. Atheists simply do not "believe" in god. Which make atheism a belief system."


Are you hearing yourself? You just said that the lack of a belief is a belief system?

There are infinite things that I do not believe in, like the loch ness monster or leprechauns, are these also belief systems? Good to know I have infinite belief systems based on my infinite non-beliefs.

Do you realize how ridiculous your statement was now?


Wrong. A lack of belief is not synonymous with antibelief.

Zero belief resides between at the zero point of the axis.

Antibelief can be visualized as the negative side of the belief axis. Belief is found on the positive side of the axial point.

Neutrality is found in the middle (neither belief nor antibelief).

An agnostic is neutral on the matter he has no proof of.

Agnosticism lies between theism and atheism.
Deathclock
2.1 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2012
Wrong. A lack of belief is not synonymous with antibelief.


Anti-belief does not describe all atheists, only some. Atheist simply means a lack of belief in God.

Agnosticism lies between theism and atheism.


No, it doesn't. Gnosticism refers to knowledge of God, Theism refers to belief in God, knowledge and belief are two different things.

I am an Agnostic, I am also an Atheist.

You are welcome for the free education.
Turritopsis
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2012
An atheist doesn't believe in theism.

An atheist doesn't say that God may/may not exist, but takes a firm stance in the belief that there is no God.

Atheism is nothing more than a belief system without any proof.

Agnostics may have theistic or antitheistic beliefs but they understand the limitations of their belief.

You can be agnostic and be a believer in atheism.

You can be agnostic and be a believer in theism.

There is no proof for either claim, but one is free to believe whatever one chooses.
Deathclock
2 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2012
Furthermore, when it comes to believing something, you either do or you do not... it is a dichotomy, there is no third option.

It is false to claim that there is positive and negative belief. The word belief has meaning, and either that meaning describes your opinion of something or it does not.

If you don't believe something then you simply do not believe it. Believing the opposite of it is something completely different.

Atheists do not believe that God does not exist, that is not what the word means. Atheists simply do not believe that God exists.
Deathclock
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 20, 2012
Don't you understand the absurdity of a religious person forcefully telling an Atheist what the word Atheist means?

That's like a straight person arguing with a homosexual about what the word gay means.

You are wrong. I am an Atheist because I do not believe in God. I cannot say that God does not exist, because it is fundamentally impossible to know that, but as a matter of knowledge that refers to gnosticism, which is why I am ALSO agnostic.

Stop being arrogant.
Turritopsis
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2012
I am an Atheist because I do not believe in God.


There. You don't "believe" in God.

Belief is a faith based system. You don't know, but you have faith in there being no God.

That's your religion. Your belief system. You are entitled to believe whatever you like.

And, exactly at which point in time did I say that I'm not an atheist?
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 20, 2012
I am an Atheist because I do not believe in God.


There. You don't "believe" in God.


You're right, I don't believe in God... I have maintained this throughout the discussion.

Belief is a faith based system. You don't know, but you have faith in there being no God.


What the hell are you talking about? Faith is a subset of belief, specifically faith is belief without or in spite of evidence.

That's your religion. Your belief system. You are entitled to believe whatever you like.


A non-belief is not a belief. A non-belief is not a belief system. It is not even close to a religion. It's almost as if you do not speak this language.

And, exactly at which point in time did I say that I'm not an atheist?


It's obvious. If you are, you are the least rational, least intelligent Atheist I have ever met.
kochevnik
3.5 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2012
Hey Rygg - let me give some cognitive dissonance - I am an athiest - and I am not a socialist! Chew on that one for a while...
Rygg's heroine godess Ayn Rand claimed to not be a socialist yet was an atheist. Rygg clearly has gone into christ psychosis and may get a schizoid embolism (or the posting robot equivalent) if he keeps it up.
Neutrality is found in the middle (neither belief nor antibelief).
Yes, commonly known as the origin. That's why doing maths at such a point will yield a singularity, meaning your mapping is non-sequitor. It means you have to look for another classification for non-believers.
kochevnik
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2012
Belief is a faith based system. You don't know, but you have faith in there being no God.
A lack of something does not posit that something. You are caught within a Hegelian dialectic and have not properly identified the antithesis.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (11) Feb 20, 2012
Therefore, no atheists are honorable or ever will be.
TheGhostofOtto1923 insisted that God "isn't there", yet still refuses to provide their proof of that statement.
Sorry julia the god in your books doesnt exist - that has been demonstrated scientifically time and again. No moses, no exodus, no genocidal joshuan rampage, no parting of the sea of reeds, no great solomonic/davidic kingdoms, despite what josephus the myth-perpetuator says. Science says these things did not happen.

Therefore the god character present in these myths doesnt exist either and never did.

Not to mention the flood. There was none. And as you know your mythical account of it was actually stolen verbatim from far earlier storybooks.

And your godman? You know, the mithras/dionysus/horus/heracles/robin hood retread? Watch this and weep:
http://www.youtub...pp_video

-So pray/beg all you want. I guarantee you are doing it all wrong.
Turritopsis
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2012
You're meeting at the cross.

X axis is faith based religion [positive x value is belief in theism, negative is atheism]

Y axis is knowledge based science [positive y value is Gnosticism, negative is Anti-Gnosticism (knowledge that God doesn't exist, not to be confused with agnostic which is as you say a singularity)]

Anti-Gnosticism is always a hidden variable, a negative y value is always imaginary.

The belief system only interacts with the knowledge system at point zero.

Science and religion don't mix.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2012
I think you don't understand atheism. To an atheist god isn't an issue. It's a NON-issue. It's completely irrelevant. It's not worth being AGAINST because it is nothing worth thinking about.

Atheism is not the stance against god. It's the absence of a stance on gods. There's no belief involved just like when you have zero ice cream cones there is no ice cream involved.

Agnosticism, on the other hand, is the stance that gods MIGHT be real but no decision will be made until evidence rolls in one way or the other. An agnostic acknowledges that gods MAY be an issue.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Feb 20, 2012
Science and religion don't mix.
From strictly formal perspective the transverse and longitudinal waves are of the dual nature and as such completelly different. But real waves at the water surface are always mixture of boths. This is just a difference between formal (low-dimensional) and realistic (hyperdimensional) approach. In reality most of mainstream theories relies on postulates like on the subject of belief. For example the Big Bang theory is based on belief in initial singularity containing the mass of th whole Universe in a single point - such a thing cannot indeed exists, but the physicists are apparently believe it can. From dense ather model follows, the more we are extrapolating from our everyday reality, the more the ratio of rational and religious approach in science converges to 1:1 ratio in similar way, like the CMBR noise, which is 1:1 mixture of transverse waves of light and longitudinal gravitational waves.
Turritopsis
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2012
The connection between religion and science is always a singular point.

You can have a positive value for x and a positive value for y but at that point you're at an imaginary point, one not directly corresponding to either axis.

You cannot blend the two axis.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Feb 20, 2012
The longitudinal waves correspond the holistic religious approach in dense aether model. The transverse waves are of deterministic nature and they correspond rational approach. Note that you can never have transverse wave of finite amplitude, which wouldn't penetrate the underwater at least a bit. And vice versa: every underwater longitudinal wave manifests itself at the water surface at least a bit. So you can never have pure transverse or longitudinal wave. This approach can be formalized easily with implicate topology, where postulates (religious conjenctures) correspond the scalar, i.e. zero-rank tensors in causal space, the deductions (logical implications) correspond the vectors (higher-rank tensors). You can never have predictable theory composed of fully consistent postulates, or you could substitute one postulate with another one and you would get a singular tautology. In this sense, every formally logical theory must remain inconsistent a bit for to remain predictable.
Deathclock
3.2 / 5 (9) Feb 20, 2012
I wish I could hide posts based on keyword, I would ignore all posts with the word "aether".
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Feb 20, 2012
The deterministic theories are evolving in similar way, like the ripples at the water surface. At the beginning the human understanding of reality is fuzzy and chaotic and it corresponds the Brownian noise at the short scale. With increasing distance from origin the character of surface waves changes into transverse one, the character of which is the most pronounced at the 2 cm distance and it corresponds the physics of the last century based on the duality of two deterministic, yet mutually incompatible theories. But when the wavelength of surface ripples increases even more, then their character becomes longitudinal again. It corresponds the situation in contemporary physics, where the number of deterministic theories increases (L-theory, K-theory, F-theory, M-theory..), so that their decision becomes just a matter of subjective belief again. What we need to do is to find the common aspects of all theories and reduce their number again.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Feb 20, 2012
I would ignore all posts with the word "aether"
But the particle model is the simplest, if not the only way, how to reconcile two dual concepts, views and/or perspectives: transverse and longitudinal waves, relativity and quantum mechanics, matter and energy, religion and rational stance, socialism and capitalism, female and male principle, yin and yang etc. We recognized these dualities in nearly all aspects of life and science. The mutual geometry of these two dualities is always the very same and it can be imagined easily. You're not required to call it an aether, if you don't want to.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 20, 2012
Atheism is not the stance against god. It's the absence of a stance on gods.
And how can any atheist have an absence of a stance on gods? Especially when religionists hate them most of all?

"Violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children: organized religion ought to have a great deal on its conscience."
Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

"Who are your favorite heroines in real life? The women of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran who risk their lives and their beauty to defy the foulness of theocracy. Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Azar Nafisi as their ideal feminine model."
Christopher Hitchens, Hitch-22

Take a stand.
http://en.wikiped...religion
Skepticus
3.6 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2012
Yup. After reading (and eyes glazed) over the steadfast posts of believers in God, I can summarize their stand points:
1- God exists, no if, no but, and non-disprovenable.
2- They believe and follow God's words. No ifs, no buts.
3- "Exemplary" Faithful Followers ' words are to be followed as God's words themselves.
4- Grabbing land for yourselves, or to kill all infidels in the name of God, that's all fine. Human moral judgements are all irrelevant.
5- Wars are the fastest mean to sort out the faithful from the non-believers, the surest, to honor the glory, the power, and the righteousness of your God over the enemies'

And so over the eons, countless humans ( or infidel dickheads???) have died for The Just Cause. Their sinful bodies are recycled into the earth, to grow mor food for the next generations to die the same way. That's the way of religions.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Feb 20, 2012
The dense aether model is hidden behind the dialectical Hegelian transition from quantity to quality. The scientific theories evolve through phase transform of random empirical knowledge during which the number of empirical insights increases to the point, from which the deterministic patterns, i.e. theories can be postulated. Later the new insights are collected, which fragment the existing theories, introducing subtheories and their mutations up to the point, when new phase transform occurs and new level of metatheory emerges. This is apparently a mechanism of nested condensation of droplets inside of dense particle environment. The computer programming or internet protocol evolved in similar hiearchical way: the machine code programming condensed into assembly language, assembly languages condensed into higher level functional programming (C, Pascal..), which evolved further into OOP and intepreted languages (Java), later into scripted environments.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Feb 20, 2012
atheism is not the stance against god. It's the absence of a stance on gods
The atheists tend to deny the existence of God. The absence of stance is agnosticism. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."
The dense aether model is unpleasant for science in the same way, like the deism in its assumption of deeper underlying reality, which could be equated to God. But science converges to this view too (I mean all these parallel universes, quantum vacuum, hidden dimensions, holograms, etc..). So I presume, the concept of aether will become more palatable even for formally thinking people soon. It's simply the model of the hidden underlying reality based on nested fluctuations of Boltzmann particle gas. Many people are believing in quantum vacuum, string net fluids and fabric of space - so why not in the dense particle fluid? Such a fluid even contains the space-time foam and strings assumed with another popular theories.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Feb 20, 2012
The atheists tend to deny the existence of God.
They deny it when asked about it.

But ask yourself this: What were people before the first guy invented gods? Gods were a non-issue. That's EXACTLY what it would be like if all the religious people would disappear tomorrow and only the former 'atheists' remained. No one would actively go around proclaiming "gods don't exist". No one would try to disprove gods. It would just not be pushed on them as a false dichotomy (the false dichotomy being: "you either believe gods exist or you believe that they don't exist")
It's one of the most basic philosophical/logical fallacies.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Feb 20, 2012
My opinion is, the evidence of hidden underlying reality may change our understanding of God too. In AWT the God manifests with CMBR noise like the abstract omnipresent, omnipotent and infinitely dimensional, i.e. complex and possibly intelligent existence. It's extrapolation of our everyday knowledge into pure randomness, which is representing the space-time at the extreme small and large scales. Such an environment may be formed with whatever. For example, here you can read about spontaneous evolution of cooking recipes in abstract environment of cooking books or sharing networks. These recipes evolve here like memes or genes inside of living bacteria. If we would create a sufficiently large sharing network and got enough time, these recipes could evolve into independent intelligent virtual creatures. At this level of abstractness the nature of evolutionary environment is irrelevant.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2012
I think you should take your meds. That is the most incoherent set of jumbled ideas I have ever heard.

Wow. Just ...wow.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2012
To an atheist god isn't an issue. It's a NON-issue. It's completely irrelevant. It's not worth being AGAINST because it is nothing worth thinking about.

Lenin thought it worth thinking about.
Wonder why?
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Feb 20, 2012
The important aspect of AWT geometry is, every duality becomes blurred at the extreme limit of observable reality. For example, at the sufficient distance from source of all ripples at the water surface converge into fuzzy mixture of transverse and longitudinal waves, similar to CMBR noise, which mediates the most distant areas of Universe for us.

Now, the cars of planes are apparently a products of intelligent design, but they evolved gradually too as a product of natural selection at free market. The older objects we handle, the more the influence of random selection is apparent into account of intelligent design. So, if we extrapolate our experience to evolution of whole Universe, we could get easily into conclusion, that the probability of the creation of Universe and its spontaneous evolution is indistinguishable each other and essentially fifty-fifty. Until we get some smarter idea, than the AWT and its analogies with water surface waves, of course.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2012
Lenin thought it worth thinking about.
Wonder why?

Religious people are an (unfortunate) reality. It always pays to deal with reality. Ignoring them doesn't make them go away.
Maybe one day we'll find a cure. Education and adequate quality of living seems to do the trick.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Feb 20, 2012
That is the most incoherent set of jumbled ideas I have ever heard
For our animal pets most of our intelligent sentences would probably sound as an incoherent babling as well: the difference in intelligence is simply too high here. After all, heavily negentropized, i.e. effectively packed computer program of high information density wouldn't differ from random sequence of bytes even for qualified computer professional. My point therefore is, the highest possible intelligence is indistinguishable from pure randomness and the higher difference in intelligence and information density between speaker and listener is, the more some intelligent idea would appear like mumbo jumbo for low-dimensional primitive creatures. So that until we find the way, how to decipher such a randomness, then the CMBR noise can be the manifestation of God as easily, like the randomly packed bytecode can be source of your operating system.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Feb 20, 2012
Note that the quantum mechanics is not based on the absence of hidden variables because these variables don't actually exist, but because they're effectively unmeasurable. This is indeed a difference. You can believe in existence of hidden variables or not, but until you cannot decipher the quantum noise, you have no other option, than just a statistical description. So that the belief in God is substantiated as well, like the Einstein's belief in existence of hidden variables or belief of string theorists in the existence of strings. For me all these interpretations are extrapolations of the same category.

After all, as Isaac Asimov once said, every sufficiently advanced technology would be indistinguishable from magic. Doesn't it imply, a lotta magic can be based on technology, which is too advanced for our contemporary understanding? You may say, you don't believe in magic anyway - but which experimental evidence do you actually have for your stance?
kochevnik
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2012
What were people before the first guy invented gods? Gods were a non-issue.
Humans are one of the first animals to become aware of their own demise. Most animals simply expire and turn back into soil without undue commotion. But sapiens are crazy apes. They can't deal with the stark naked inevitability of their demise. There is an impetus in everyone to reason out the injustice of it all to their egos. Great minds of their day think up philosophies and platitudes, and pen these metaphors. Then inferior beings who take things literally, known as conservatives or priests, distill this collected wisdom into a set of pious rules. They establish penalties and enemies who don't abide by these rules. Then war and genocide are a simple decision for the unwashed masses to obey unquestioningly, which they call 'faith.' In peacetime the priests proclaim the enemy to be within, whereby inquisitions and "wars on terror" ensue. Regardless how they go out, humans return to dirt.
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2012
My point therefore is, the highest possible intelligence is indistinguishable from pure randomness and the higher difference in intelligence and information density between speaker and listener is,

You might wanna revisit an introductory course on information theory. A completely random signal (noise) carries no information.

Man, you are a poster-boy for the Dunning-Kruger Effect. It would be funny if it weren't so sad.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2012
Education and adequate quality of living seems to do the trick.

How does that heal a soul?
Many are well educated and make a good living and are miserable resorting to drugs, alcohol and other escapes.
kochevnik
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2012
To an atheist god isn't an issue. It's a NON-issue. It's completely irrelevant. It's not worth being AGAINST because it is nothing worth thinking about.

Lenin thought it worth thinking about.
Wonder why?
Because Lenin was capable of reason and saw the good side of man. He understood the value of commerce and progress. He didn't kill orthodox heretics of the Vatican the way Stalin would. Stalin did little more than lead the Vatican's Inquisition in Russia, collecting the single largest body of heretics for the Pope. It was the Vatican's follow up to the sacking of Constantinople. We see this even today with the oppressive austerity disproportionately targeting orthodox Greece.
Callippo
1 / 5 (4) Feb 20, 2012
The dodecahedron used as the symbol fifth element, aether or Universe brings the resemblance of structure of dark matter (Poincare dedecahedral space) and heteorotic condensation of quantum foam into hiearchical space-times. It would point to cosmological origin of many symbols of sacred geometry. In connection to newly revealed rectangular shape of Milky Way galaxy the following question arises: wasn't the swastika used as a "wheel of suns", i.e. cosmic symbol in eastern countries?

http://en.wikiped...Swastika

Ouroboros archetype has a good connection to cyclic Universe models, described with Klein bottle topology. The Kaballah numerology has many connections to hyperdimensional geometry of Lie group. The notion of God can serve as an allegory of CMBR noise. My point is, the religion and mysticism contain many insights of supermodern physics, which aren't fully accidental.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2012
"The central scientific focus of Theology and Science is on developments in physics, cosmology, evolutionary biology, and genetics, with additional topics in the neurosciences, the environmental sciences, and mathematics. "
http://www.ctns.o...nce.html

Callippo
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2012
A completely random signal (noise) carries no information
This is just an tautology: the random signal is recognize just by its absence of apparent information. But we could construct such a random signal from byte code of computer language. How could you distinguish it from random noise after then if you would have no decompiler? It's information is still there, despite you have the key for it or not. This principle has a good application in steganography, for example.
Callippo
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2012
You're saying, the CMBR noise has no information, but you have no evidence for it. Briefly speaking, until you have no reliable proof for exclusion all possible sources of information in the random noise, then this noise can be computer program in the same way, like the omnipresent God lurking from vacuum fluctuations. Maybe it contains all information for intelligent design of our reality in the same way, like genetic code of DNA (which appears random at the first or even second sight too).

The purpose of this approach is to demonstrate, that the evolutionary principle is not actually superior to intelligent design at the very general scales. They're both dual observational perspectives, which are indistinguishable each other with the same relevance.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 20, 2012
Education and adequate quality of living seems to do the trick.

How does that heal a soul?
Many are well educated and make a good living and are miserable resorting to drugs, alcohol and other escapes.
Who, you mean these guys?
http://en.wikiped...ristians

Bodies can be healed, souls dont exist. Religionists waste time while people suffer. This is why educated people invent things like 12 step programs. Because religions FAIL to heal.

And AS YOU KNOW, many more religionists in prison.
animah
4 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2012
ryggesogn2 on Lenin and communism


ryggesogn2, I share your hatred of dictatorships. I really do.

But dictators rarely pick up a gun. It's the millions of their people who make the horror happen - in Russia as in Germany and Rwanda, the people are responsible and no one else.

These countries are peppered with churches. So after centuries of faith, the Germans somehow forgot their faith in Sept. 1939 and then found it again in Aug. 1945? No, these people had it all along. Religion stopped nothing, it made no difference. It is clearly not the rampart you think.

Regardless, your cold war vision is old. Nazism is dead and communism is dying - with China changing rapidly, only a few (e.g. Cuba and North Korea) are still holding out and probably not for long.

In today's world, the rising threat is the proliferation of rogue religious regimes.

And your belief is not immune. Christian militias are on the rise worldwide.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2012
the people are responsible and no one else.


"First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me."

And Christians are responsible for changing laws banning slavery.

animah
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2012
So I showed your faith is fanning the flames of war worldwide, *today*, and is part of the problem, not the solution.

Meanwhile in the developed world:

The G10's least religious country, Japan (85% atheists) has the 2nd lowest murder-per-capita rate in the world.

http://en.wikiped...in_Japan

The G10's most religious country, the US, ranks in murder-per-capita with... Lebanon!

Psychosis? Absolution too easy? I don't know but never mind past history, facts demonstrate that in today's world religion increases violence.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 20, 2012
facts demonstrate that in today's world religion increases violence.

I guess this depends upon the religion.
The religion of socialism is quite violent in DPRK, in China, etc.

"thousands die each year and where prison guards stamp on the necks of babies born to prisoners to kill them. "
"Mervyn Thomas, chief executive of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, said: 'For too long the horrendous suffering of the people of North Korea, especially those imprisoned in unspeakably barbaric prison camps, has been met with silence "
http://www.guardi...rthkorea
animah
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2012
"First they came for the Communists, but I was not (...)


You make my point: "they" is also the people.

And Christians are responsible for changing laws banning slavery.


Err... in the US that would be 100 years after everybody else. I believe Southern cotton lords were very religious indeed. They used bible verses justifying slavery as State justification till the very end.
kochevnik
3 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2012
And Christians are responsible for changing laws banning slavery.
Xtians created modern slavery by makeing it inheritable. Earlier slaves could earn their way out of servitude and their children were free, at least until their town was sacked by invaders. The Pope turned his own Irish people into slaves by diverting all foods away from Ireland, and readying ships to a promised land for the price of indentured servitude. The US slave states are by far the most frenetically xtian: The so-called bible belt.
animah
3.3 / 5 (4) Feb 20, 2012
The religion of socialism is quite violent in DPRK, in China


As I said, I agree. But you missed the rest of the argument. The cold war is over. Communism has been receding worldwide for decades.

Today the rising global threat clearly is religious violence. Just switch on a TV and open your eyes.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2012


Err... in the US that would be 100 years after everybody else. I believe Southern cotton lords were very religious indeed. They used bible verses justifying slavery as State justification till the very end.

It was Christians in UK that led the effort and Christians in the USA persisted for decades to end slavery.

ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 20, 2012
Communism has been receding worldwide for decades.

Not in DPRK.
The theocracies in the middle east are little different than communists.
Syria and Iraq were/are Stalinist regimes.
Socialism is expanding around the world, not receding.
animah
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2012
The theocracies in the middle east are little different than communists.


LOL theocracies are atheistic? OK now you've just lost the entire argument. Without recourse.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Feb 20, 2012
The theocracies in the middle east are little different than communists.


LOL theocracies are atheistic? OK now you've just lost the entire argument. Without recourse.

Authoritarian dictators use whatever ideology works to keep them in power.
animah
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2012
Authoritarian dictators use whatever ideology works to keep them in power.


Therefore communist dictatorship has nothing to do with atheism. Thank you for further undermining your own argument!
kochevnik
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2012
It was Christians in UK that led the effort and Christians in the USA persisted for decades to end slavery.
Your points are pathetic. The Roman Catholic Church invented the very concept of the "serf", from 560 to the reformation. More recently until 1975 the Catholic Church forced women to live and work as virtual slaves in various church enterprises for profit including the Magdalene Laundries and Magdalene asylums. Over 20,000 women were deliberately and consciously enslaved by the Catholic Bishops of Ireland and their clergy. Many hundreds of these women were systematically tortured, raped and sometimes murdered as mere sex slaves for many of the local priests and leaders of the church. Neither the Church of Ireland, nor the Vatican have apologized or compensated families for this medieval barbarism.
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (11) Feb 21, 2012
The atheists tend to deny the existence of God. The absence of stance is agnosticism. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."


What do I have to do to make people understand that this is wrong?

Gnosticism refers to KNOWLEDGE of God, Theism refers to BELIEF in God. An Agnostic would say "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you.", you are right about that, BUT SO WOULD AN ATHEIST.

An Atheist would say the same thing, because that statement speaks to the persons KNOWLEDGE OF GOD (I cannot KNOW...). Theism refers to a persons BELIEF in God. Belief and knowledge are not the same thing.

I am an Atheist, I am also an Agnostic. I am Atheist because I do not BELIEVE in God, I am an Agnostic because I do not claim to have KNOWLEDGE of God.

I explain this over and over and over again...

T.H.I.S I.S N.O.T C.O.M.P.L.I.C.A.T.E.D
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2012
Koch:
"On Sunday 28 October 1787 Wilberforce wrote in his diary: God Almighty has set before me two great objects: the suppression of the slave trade and the Reformation of society. "
"Abolishing the slave trade became for William the grand object of my parliamentary existence to be the instrument of stopping such a course of wickedness and cruelty asdisgraced a Christian country. "
http://www.reform...very.htm

"Studying the Old Testament story of the tribes of Israel and their liberation from slavery in Egypt, as well as the teachings of Jesus Christ, both Finney and Weld came to a common conclusion: slavery was sin. Therefore, it had to be rooted out and destroyed immediately. It could not be tolerated, not even temporarily. Slavery, according to Finney and Welds view, must be attacked and overthrown by the power of Gods Holy Spirit in the believers life."
http://www.foreru...0537_Chr
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2012
Authoritarian dictators use whatever ideology works to keep them in power.


Therefore communist dictatorship has nothing to do with atheism. Thank you for further undermining your own argument!

Except for the fact that communist dictators required party members to be atheist.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2012
Lenin thought it worth thinking about.
Wonder why?
I don't know if anyone ever pointed this out to you, but communism in Eurasia was essential in ending the medieval religionist cultures which would have prevented what was to follow.

Religionist-enforced aggressive population growth based upon 2000 year-old attrition rates, were at that point causing continuous war among cultures. The only reason for the relative quiet in europe in the early 1800s was the horrendous bloodletting of revolution and the napoleonic wars. This alone enabled the industrial revolution to occur.

But revolution and war followed immediately as medieval repro rates caused pops to swell yet again. This conflict did not cease until after the world wars when the northern Eurasian cultures had finally been destroyed, and family planning efforts including abortion, could be employed.

Enduring peace would not exist in northern Eurasia had not Stalin and Mao and yes hitler been Allowed to do their Work.
kochevnik
4 / 5 (2) Feb 21, 2012
Except for the fact that communist dictators required party members to be atheist.
That was the Vatican's move to destroy Orthodox Christianity, in furtherance of the sacking of Constantinople.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2012
ONE BILLION ABORTIONS worldwide in the last 100 years, mostly in china and the soviet union. Upwards of half of all russian pregnancies are aborted, countless more prevented through contraception. All those people and their descendants to 3 gens and more never existed to grow up hungry, angry, and willing to fight to survive.

No religionist culture existing before ww2 and Designed to maximize growth, would have allowed this. This is why they had needed to be destroyed at all costs. World wars with nuclear weapons was NOT an option; but religions would have made this Inevitable.

The same conditions exist today throughout southern Asia and Africa. What do you think will be Done in order to save the world from religion AGAIN?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2012
"On Sunday 28 October 1787 Wilberforce wrote in his diary: God Almighty has set before me two great objects: the suppression of the slave trade and the Reformation of society. "
"Abolishing the slave trade became for William the grand object of my parliamentary existence to be the instrument of stopping such a course of wickedness and cruelty asdisgraced a Christian country. "
Ha. It was about time that xians came out against slavery as they had condoned, and encouraged, and participated in the practice for centuries.
"Studying the Old Testament story of the tribes of Israel and their liberation from slavery in Egypt, as well as the teachings of Jesus Christ, both Finney and Weld came to a common conclusion: slavery was sin.
Except that the god in your book condones and encourages and REQUIRES slave ownership for it's chosen people, as you well know. As always, thanks for the opportunity to point these things out.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2012
The bible and slaves:
http://etori.trip...ses.html
http://www.evilbi...very.htm

And even while euro xians were condemning slavery, euros like cecil rhodes and king leopold were buying them from chieftans in eastern and south Africa. And Moslems were gleefully gathering them up in eastern Africa. Because their god condoned, encouraged, and REQUIRED the practice in their books.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2012
From the article:
"In science there are no facts or theories that are beyond question. "
This appears to be in dispute among those claiming to be atheists/ scientists/AGWites posting here.
Turritopsis
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2012
Religion doesn't enslave people, people enslave people.

Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.

Everytime you say that religion started wars and killed people, you take the guilt away from the people responsible.

Religion is what the religious use as a scapegoat.

Why are the non-religious using it as a scapegoat as well?

When you start placing blame on religion, the people that commit evil acts are absolved.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2012
Why are the non-religious using it as a scapegoat as well?


To absolve the evil acts committed by statists/socialists/'progressives'.
Deathclock
2 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2012
Religion doesn't enslave people, people enslave people.

Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.

Everytime you say that religion started wars and killed people, you take the guilt away from the people responsible.

Religion is what the religious use as a scapegoat.

Why are the non-religious using it as a scapegoat as well?

When you start placing blame on religion, the people that commit evil acts are absolved.


What the hell are you talking about?

If someone commits an atrocity DUE to a religious tenet then both the person AND the religion were responsible for that atrocity. No one is saying only ONE person or thing can be responsible for something...

You don't have an ounce of sense in that head of yours do you?
Deathclock
2 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2012
Your God commands you to kill anyone who works on Sunday... It is written in black and white, I have read it. Suppose someone starts going around murdering everyone he finds working on Sunday, you wouldn't blame the ridiculous religion AS WELL AS the individual for those murders?

I really hate it when people try to paint things as if they were black or white or falsely dichotomous. One or MANY things can be responsible for an action. The person ultimately pulled the trigger, but they did so because of what was written in their holy book as the word of their God. The blame is on the religion as well as the individual.

What makes me angry is that I don't think you're being an idiot... ignorance and irrationality are excusable, I think you're being a weasel and intentionally painting things in a favorable light even though you know your arguments are ridiculous.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2012
Religion doesn't enslave people, people enslave people.

Religion doesn't kill people, people kill people.

Everytime you say that religion started wars and killed people, you take the guilt away from the people responsible.

Religion is what the religious use as a scapegoat.

Why are the non-religious using it as a scapegoat as well?

When you start placing blame on religion, the people that commit evil acts are absolved.
No, religions create the very conditions which make conflict inevitable. ALL surviving religions are those which were best at outgrowing their rivals and overrunning them. ALL relegate women to producing and raising children.

Religions ALL say they are the rooting of good, and that their rivals are exactly the opposite. But ALL are responsible for the overpopulation which makes evil inevitable. ALL. Including yours.

And when evil becomes necessary your books tell you exactly how to go about it in service to your god.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2012
What the hell are you talking about?
And what the hell are you talking about?
Gnosticism refers to KNOWLEDGE of God, Theism refers to BELIEF in God. An Agnostic would say "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you.", you are right about that, BUT SO WOULD AN ATHEIST.
You tend to ramble on with little substance, and make stuff up, as Ethelred tried to tell you. Gnosticism is just another religion. It doesn't MEAN anything either way.
http://en.m.wikip...osticism

-Do a little research before wasting space and time.
What makes me angry is that I don't think you're being an idiot... ignorance and irrationality are excusable, I think you're being a weasel
Who cares?
Turritopsis
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2012
No. Religious tenets are used by religious people to justify their actions.

Religion is not a living thing, it commits no acts, it has no responsibilities.

No one commits atrocities due to religion. They commit atrocities because they're atrocious.

There are bad people everywhere (some religious, some not).

If they say that their killing was necessary and allowed by their God, and you believe them, their actions become Gods will.

Bad people do bad things. Religion does nothing at all.

Religion is responsible for nothing.
Deathclock
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2012
You tend to ramble on with little substance, and make stuff up, as Ethelred tried to tell you. Gnosticism is just another religion. It doesn't MEAN anything either way.
http://en.m.wikip...osticism


"Gnosticism, from the Greek word for KNOWLEDGE"

Thank you and goodnight.

Gnosticism WAS a sect of Christianity that claimed to KNOW God... Hence Gnostics claim to KNOW God. Agnostics, where the prefix a- means not or the negation of, means that you don't claim to KNOW God.

You are wrong, you have always been wrong, and I have explained this to you many times now.

Who cares?


I do.

Turritopsis
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2012
No, religions create the very conditions which make conflict inevitable.


True. But so do country borders.

Religions cause secularization, separation.

Any time people are divided they fight.

Different villages. Different cities. Different countries. Different religions. Different whatever...

The problem is division.
Deathclock
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2012
No. Religious tenets are used by religious people to justify their actions.

Religion is not a living thing, it commits no acts, it has no responsibilities.

No one commits atrocities due to religion. They commit atrocities because they're atrocious.

Bad people do bad things. Religion does nothing at all.

Religion is responsible for nothing.


This is just stupid... If I write a book that urges people to commit atrocities and then a bunch of people do so I, as the author of the book, WILL be held liability in a court of law.

The authors of your ridiculous book, the book that tells people to murder anyone working on Sunday, share the culpability for the atrocities committed in the name of that religion. Since the author is supposed to be God, then your God is responsible, and since your God exemplifies the religion they are one in the same.
Turritopsis
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2012
Now the people of the atheist religions are waging a war on the people of the theist religions.

Same shit, different pile.
Calenur
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2012
The problem is division.


And religion creates, then reinforces divisions. Religion does more to polarize groups of people than anything else.
Deathclock
2.6 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2012
Now the people of the atheist religions are waging a war on the people of the theist religions.

Same shit, different pile.


Atheism is not a religion you lunatic, everything you say is painfully ignorant.

Let's go through this again in case you missed it on the last page:

- God wrote the bible (supposedly, through the hands of man)

- God wrote that people who work on sunday should be put to death

- Man reads the bible

- Man obeys God (as he was trained to do) and puts someone to death for working on Sunday.

Your God (and thus your religion) are MORE responsible for that murder than the man who pulled the trigger was, it's called coercion. Threat of eternal damnation in Hell qualifies as coercion.
Turritopsis
2 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2012
If you don't know that God doesn't exist (agnosticism), but still believe he doesn't (aka atheism), then that is your religious belief.
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 21, 2012
If you don't know that God doesn't exist (agnosticism), but still believe he doesn't (aka atheism), then that is your religious belief.


Atheism is a LACK of belief... you keep trying to assert that a lack of a belief is a belief.

If a lack of money were money I would be rich. If a lack of pie was pie I would be obese... If a lack of sense were sense you would make some.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 21, 2012
This is just stupid...
Typical insightful eloquence.
"Gnosticism, from the Greek word for KNOWLEDGE"
So fucking what? Bible is Greek for book -? How many more Greek words do you know?
Any time people are divided they fight.
No, any time they come into contention over resources they fight. Overpopulation causes conflict over resources. Religions demand reproduction rates which cause overpopulation. They are all Designed to make conflict inevitable.

"Be fruitful and fill up the earth (with more of us and fewer of them)."

The 5 pillars of Islam are expressly configured to maximize growth. Etc.
Turritopsis
2 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2012
"Religions demand reproduction rates which cause overpopulation."

Yeah, because people wouldnt have sex if religion wasn't forcing them to. Lol.

Religion is the excuse for not using condoms (scapegoat), but we all know sex feels better without them.
Deathclock
2 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2012
Religion is the excuse for not using condoms (scapegoat), but we all know sex feels better without them.


Christianity TEACHES people to not use them...

You are in denial and not worth any more of my time.
Calenur
4 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2012
Religion is the excuse for not using condoms (scapegoat), but we all know sex feels better without them.


I want to believe you're just a really committed troll, and not actually this retarded. Religion isn't the excuse, religion demands you NOT use contraceptives or you'll spend an eternity in misery. Religion threatens the ultimate punishment for not reproducing.
Deathclock
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2012
This is just stupid...
Typical insightful eloquence.


Couldn't care less.

"Gnosticism, from the Greek word for KNOWLEDGE"
So fucking what?


Conveniently don't respond to the rest of what I wrote...

The Gnostics were a sect of Christianity that claimed to have KNOWLEDGE of God. They claimed to KNOW God, to have personally experienced the presence of God. Agnostics are anyone who is not a Gnostic... since the only defining quality of Gnostics is that they claim to KNOW God then Agnostics are those that don't claim to KNOW God.

Notice that in that description I did not use the word BELIEF. Belief is not the same as knowledge.
Turritopsis
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2012
But atheists 'believe' there is no God.

Or are you trying to say that atheism is agnosticism? Because its not.

If you're willing as an 'atheist' to say that God may or may not exist then what you are is an agnostic.

An atheist doesn't believe in God.

Your clock is running too slow.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2012
No, religions create the very conditions which make conflict inevitable.


True. But so do country borders.

Religions cause secularization, separation.

Any time people are divided they fight.

Different villages. Different cities. Different countries. Different religions. Different whatever...

The problem is division.


Good fences make good neighbors.

As for populations, you atheist had better start having children as the Catholics, Mormons and Muslims have not stopped.
and/or, you had better stop promoting socialism, which kills economic growth. Prospering people tend to have fewer children.
Deathclock
1.3 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2012
But atheists 'believe' there is no God.


So what? I do not believe in God, that doesn't mean I claim that God does not exist. I don't KNOW whether or not God exists, but I don't BELIEVE in any God.

KNOWLEDGE and BELIEF are very different things. You are confusing them as so many people do.
Turritopsis
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2012
Good fences make good neighbors.


No. Good neighbors make good neighbors.
Turritopsis
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2012
Religion is belief in the absence of proof.

Atheism is a religion.
Deathclock
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2012
Religion is belief in the absence of proof.

Atheism is a religion.


Where did you get that stupid definition?

There is no such thing as proof... I've explained this dozens of times. "Proof" of ANYTHING is ALWAYS relative to a context defined by initial assumptions.

The concept of proof in the general sense (not relative to assumptions) is USELESS, because it is IMPOSSIBLE. You cannot prove that your entire perception of reality is not illusory, so you cannot prove anything objectively in the general case.

EVIDENCE is what is important, not proof.

Rational belief is belief in accordance with the evidence. Irrational belief (aka faith) is belief in the absence of (or in opposition to) the evidence.
Turritopsis
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2012
All right.

As long as you realize that your religion -Atheism- is based on proofless suppositions.
Turritopsis
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2012
You cannot prove that your entire perception of reality is not illusory


Maybe a delusional schizophrenic such as yourself can't.

To me, reality is what it is.
Turritopsis
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2012
Proof is very much a real thing.

When you build a car you put it through tests to prove that it works.

If experiments show positive results you have proved that the car works.
Calenur
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2012
Proof is very much a real thing.

When you build a car you put it through tests to prove that it works.

If experiments show positive results you have proved that the car works.


http://en.wikiped...c_method

Just......fucking read -_-

This argument has devolved to the same trite nonsense which always happens with creationists. Your biggest problem is a lack of education in definition...it's realy no different than those who say evolution is "only a theory, not a law", without any idea of what those words mean.

It's always easier to argue when you keep your arguments vague, and religion is very damn good at that.
Deathclock
1.9 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2012
Proof is very much a real thing.

When you build a car you put it through tests to prove that it works.

If experiments show positive results you have proved that the car works.


You can't objectively prove that the car exists, you can't objectively prove that it is not a figment of your imagination. You have no understanding of epistemology or likely any other branch of philosophy and you play fast and loose with your definitions. You are unequipped and ill prepared to have this discussion.

As long as you realize that your religion -Atheism- is based on proofless suppositions.


Atheism is patently not a religion, by all coherent definitions of the word.

Atheism is not concerned with proof, since the meaning of the word is anyone who does not hold a belief in God... I don't see where that definition has anything to do with proving anything or not proving anything...
Deathclock
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2012
Maybe this will help you understand...

The last 14 some odd billion years of gravity functioning as it does is not PROOF that it will function tomorrow.

The fact that my brain interprets electrochemical signals from my sensory organs and tells me that I am holding an apple is NOT PROOF that I am holding an apple.

You are using the word "proof" loosely, without regard to the importance of it's meaning. Proof means something IS. You can't tell me what is, because you are INHERENTLY subject to the limitations of the mechanisms by which you perceive reality... what you perceive may not be reality, it may have never been reality, you have no idea.

Is this a far out concept? Of course. Does this have any practical bearing on day to day life? No... but it is important to keep in mind when you go throwing around the word "proof" as if it meant little more than observation.

Turritopsis
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2012
"what you perceive may not be reality, it may have never been reality, you have no idea."

LOL!

You, sir, need help!

Whatever the underlying mechanics are is irrelevant.

Reality is what it is.

Go see a professional.
Deathclock
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2012
"what you perceive may not be reality, it may have never been reality, you have no idea."

LOL!

You, sir, need help!

Whatever the underlying mechanics are is irrelevant.

Reality is what it is.

Go see a professional.


Epistemology, ever heard of it?
University, ever been to one?

You laugh at a concept that has been considered for hundreds of years, and that which the scientific method itself is based.

You're ignorant, luckily for you are too ignorant to understand the level of your own ignorance.
Turritopsis
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2012
You state that 'reality may not be reality'

Are you high?
Deathclock
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2012
You state that 'reality may not be reality'

Are you high?


I didn't state that.

I stated that what you perceive may not be reality. The concept is illustrated in the movie The Matrix, but it has been well understood for millenia. I don't BELIEVE that what I perceive to be reality is an illusion, but I respect the fact that it MAY be. The primary practical result of this is that you cannot know something to be true with 100% certainty, which means there is no such thing as objective proof. The scientific method takes this into account, never relying on proof but merely the support of evidence. Science doesn't proof things, it creates explanations that fit the evidence. If new evidence doesn't fit with a previous explanation that explanation is re-examined and revised.
Deathclock
2.1 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2012
Even if you ignore the possibility of illusion, the concept of proof is still almost useless. If you say it is proven that something is the case, what happens when we find out you were wrong? The word proof loses all meaning if there is any possibility at all for you to be wrong... but how do you know if there is a possibility for you to be wrong? You don't. You can think that something is the case 100% and be as certain of it as you are your hand in front of your face and still wind up being wrong... so when you said you had proven that thing that ended up being wrong anyway you destroyed the value of the word "proof". There is no getting around this. The only way "proof" is a meaningful concept is when it is used relative to a set of initial assumptions in the form of "If X then Y".
Turritopsis
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2012
If your Deathclock runs out tomorrow and you meet God, would His existence be proven?

If you take that apple and let it go mid air, have you proven attraction?

Gravity is a theory of attraction (theories aren't certainties). The attraction is proven when that apple falls to the ground (experiment).
Deathclock
2 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2012
If your Deathclock runs out tomorrow and you meet God, would His existence be proven?


Nope, could I not be dreaming or hallucinating? Could I not be subject to an illusion produced in my brain by a superior intelligence?

If you take that apple and let it go mid air, have you proven attraction?


No, the apple might not exist... do you know how perception works?

Gravity is a theory of attraction (theories aren't certainties). The attraction is proven when that apple falls to the ground (experiment).


You aren't understanding this at all, I suspect you simply are incapable of thinking on a deeper level than you are accustom.
Turritopsis
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2012
You state that 'reality may not be reality'

Are you high?


I didn't state that.


You don't have to. I can tell you are.
Calenur
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 21, 2012
You're hopeless.
Deathclock
2 / 5 (9) Feb 21, 2012
You state that 'reality may not be reality'

Are you high?


I didn't state that.


You don't have to. I can tell you are.


Dumb.

I've smoked pot once in my life when I was a teenager and didn't much care for it. I am 30 years old and hold a masters degree and another bachelors degree in a related field. I have thousands of hours of formal education in the natural sciences, how about you?
Turritopsis
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2012
Nope, could I not be...hallucinating?


I'm not questioning it.
Deathclock
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 21, 2012
You've resorted to acting like a child, we are done here. Enjoy your life, I've heard ignorance is bliss... though contrary to popular belief money DOES buy happiness, and intelligence leads to money... so I guess we'll both be happy either way :)
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2012
Deathclock:
If a lack of money were money I would be rich.


intelligence leads to money


Lol. See, proof is a real thing.

You've effectively proved your own intelligence.

Have a fun day in your Atheist church.
Deathclock
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 21, 2012
Cite a joke as "Proof"

Unwittingly demonstrate the opposite side of what you've been arguing about for hours.
kochevnik
3.7 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2012
@Turritopsis But atheists 'believe' there is no God.
Atheists are nonbelievers. Man you are thick.
@Deathclock Belief is not the same as knowledge.
That's insulting to idiots who believe belief is superior to competence.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2012
Anything can be used for evil, religion is no exception.

Gravity is necessary for life, without gravity there'd be no Earth and no people.

Take a blackhole and bring it to a living thing and gravity will destroy life.

Gravity is both good for life and bad for life.

Same as religion. It can be good by bringing people together. But when one religion (such as theism) sucks you in and another religion (such as atheism) sucks someone else in, you two are divided.

A blackhole has extreme gravitational forces.

Some religious people are extreme.

Religious extremists destroy other religious people. Just like a blackholes extreme gravitational field destroys the Earths gravitational field.

It is not religions that are bad. It is the extremist followers.
Turritopsis
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2012
Atheists are actively looking to destroy theism.

Theists are actively looking to destroy atheism.

Both groups have extremists within them that go to extreme measures to win their cause.

They are the problem, not religion itself.
kochevnik
4.4 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2012
Anything can be used for evil, religion is no exception.
Evil is relative between humans, and meaningless in nature.
It is not religions that are bad. It is the extremist followers.
Without an intellectual leash to restrain behavior, there is no limit to religious extremism. Only opportunity. Even the most moderate of religious followers can be brought to bestial behavior because he lacks the intellectual scaffolding to reason.
Atheists are actively looking to destroy theism.
Theism destroys itself, because it is self-contradictory, fantasy, and an abomination to nature.
Turritopsis
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2012
An intellectual leash holds nobody.

Only real physical leashes do. Us regular folk call these physical leashes prisons and jails.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2012
Evil is relative between humans,

Ends justify the means?
Pol Pot wasn't evil murdering millions just as Stalin wasn't evil murdering his millions.
They were just trying to create paradise.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2012
Theism destroys itself, because it is self-contradictory, fantasy, and an abomination to nature.

How long will this destruction take?
The Jews have been around for over 5000 years. Christians over 2000, Muslims 1400 years.
Greek, Roman, Spanish, British, Soviet...empires have collapsed in much less time.
Callippo
2.3 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2012
Theism destroys itself, because it is self-contradictory
This is just an atheistic religion/propaganda. The belief seeks for contradictory phenomena instead, with compare to science, which seeks for things, which fit the rational, i.e. noncontroversial thinking. In this sense the belief fits the Popper's methodology based on falsification better, than the science itself.

For example, the increase in the Christian population is growing at even higher rate than the world population 1.3 percent per year, when the total world population increased with 1.2 percent. The Christian population in Asia and Africa had the highest growth with 2.6 percent and 2.4 percent, respectively. In 2010, there were 2.30 billion Christians in the world, an increase of 150 million from two billion in 2005. http://en.wikiped...n_growth
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 21, 2012
It is not religions that are bad. It is the extremist followers.
Moderates are only dormant extremists. Your pleasant indulgences enable 'extremists'. You believe in your god. This allows them to believe in theirs. By not renouncing the god delusion you are sharing in the responsibility for what they do. You are encouraging it. Dont both gods demand the same things?

After all it is only what you yourself would do if you were in their place, your family was starving, and your priests and clerics told you that this was the fault of infidels and heathens.

Your books all DEMAND extremism in defense of your faith. And as you are just as human as they, and just as deluded as they, you will do what you are supposed to, just like them.
Evil is relative between humans, and meaningless in nature.
There is an exact definition of good and evil. Good is what benefits your tribe and harms your enemies. Evil is what harms your tribe and benefits your enemies.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2012
Evil is relative between humans,

Ends justify the means?
Pol Pot wasn't evil murdering millions just as Stalin wasn't evil murdering his millions.
They were just trying to create paradise.
Like I say, this is what it takes to destroy religionist cultures.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 21, 2012
They are the problem, not religion itself.
ACKNOWLEDGE that overpopulation is the problem. Acknowledge that the surviving religions all CAUSE overpopulation. Acknowledge that religions are thus RESPONSIBLE for the misery, suffering, and war in the world today.

"3Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward.

4As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth.

5Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate." psm127

"2 Now Balak son of Zippor saw all that Israel had done to the Amorites, 3 and Moab was terrified because there were so many people. Indeed, Moab was filled with dread because of the Israelites.

4 The Moabites said to the elders of Midian, "This horde is going to lick up everything around us, as an ox licks up the grass of the field." num22

-Needless to say, Balak and the Moabites were toast.
Turritopsis
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2012
ACKNOWLEDGE that overpopulation is the problem.

No. The problem is inadequate planning, not preparing for the size of the population and their requirements.

Acknowledge that the surviving religions all CAUSE overpopulation.

So female religion is approached by male religion and the male is like "wanna do it?" the female religion says we can't, us religions are not alive, we don't have sexual organs!

People have sex and make babies.

Religions don't have sex.

Acknowledge that religions are thus RESPONSIBLE for the misery, suffering, and war in the world today.

No. People are responsible for those things.
Deathclock
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2012
Atheists are actively looking to destroy theism.


You're an idiot.

You make the word "Atheist" mean whatever you want it to mean to suit your agenda, with no regard to what those who call themselves atheists actually mean by it.

There can be no reasoned debate nor rational discussion with someone who is only interested in proselytizing, propagandizing, and otherwise pushing their own agenda.
kochevnik
4.4 / 5 (5) Feb 21, 2012
Greek, Roman, Spanish, British, Soviet...empires have collapsed in much less time.
Rome collapsed under Constantine in 325AD when he banned tolerance for all the religions of Rome and combined them into the Roman Catholic church. Catholic means unified. This Frankenstein amalgamation of Roman religions became the religion of intolerance. The Jews were a nondescript body of boat people in Rome called the Christos. Caesar respected their worldly view given they were traveling merchants. Thus in Rome there were allowed to flourish until Constantine made them killers of his fairy-tale Jesus, who was ironically also a Jew. Under christianity Rome fell from a republic with liberal tolerance to an intolerant democracy. Democracy means "rule by the mob. All 3 Abrahamic religions are characterized by intolerance, and xtians are taught to spread like a virulent virus.
Ends justify the means?
That's an excellent synopsis of the old testament.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2012
Koch, so after 5000 years, when will the Judea-Christian faith collapse?

If you want to know what God thought of govt, read 1 Samuel 8: 11-20.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 21, 2012
There can be no reasoned debate nor rational discussion with someone who is only interested in proselytizing, propagandizing, and otherwise pushing their own agenda.


Like evangelical atheists?

"It seems that because many vocal atheists cite "the end of faith" as their goal, atheism is often perceived as being actively anti-religious to the point of being almost evangelical."
"It is no exaggeration to describe the movement popularized by the likes of Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens as a new and particularly zealous form of fundamentalism -- an atheist fundamentalism. "
"When a large and vocal number of atheists say that their number one goal is convincing people to abandon their faith, it comes as no surprise that our community is construed as extreme and aggressive."
http://www.huffin...379.html
Turritopsis
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2012
Ok.

Belief spectrum.

HighLimit is infinite belief.
LowLimit is infinite disbelief.

Neutral is middle spectrum. Neither belief nor disbelief.

-----

A theist believes in God. HighLimit

An atheist doesn't believe in God. LowLimit.

An agnostic doesn't know what to think. Neutral.

----

An atheist doesn't believe in God.

That is an unknown variable.

The atheist stance is in direct opposition to the theist stance.

If one is unknown then so is the other.

They are belief. Faith. Religion.

Both, Theism, and Atheism.

They reside on the same belief spectrum.

Deathclock
1.9 / 5 (7) Feb 21, 2012
Koch, so after 5000 years, when will the Judea-Christian faith collapse?


http://lmgtfy.com...stianity
CardacianNeverid
4 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2012
Atheists are actively looking to destroy theism -TurritopsisTard

A most worthy goal.

Theists are actively looking to destroy atheism -TurritopsisTard

More accurately - theists are actively looking to destroy critical thinking. Look no farther than the tea party brethren and their retarded ideologies.

Both groups have extremists within them that go to extreme measures to win their cause -TurritopsisTard

One group is constructive, while the other is destructive. I'll let you figure which is which tardboy.

They are the problem, not religion itself -TurritopsisTard

Ignorance and self imposed stupidity is the problem, ergo organized religion IS the problem.
kochevnik
3.8 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2012
HighLimit is infinite belief. LowLimit is infinite disbelief.
Infinite disbelief is infinity x zero in scale. In other words, atheism is not on your map. It's a root, around which your map is molded.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2012
HighLimit is infinite belief. LowLimit is infinite disbelief.
Infinite disbelief is infinity x zero in scale. In other words, atheism is not on your map. It's a root, around which your map is molded.


No. Both theism and atheism are a deviation from neutral state.

[Pure disbelief] is a [negative infinite value for belief]. [Pure belief] is a [positive infinite value for belief].

The neutral point resides perfectly centered between the two extremes.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2012
No. Both theism and atheism are a deviation from neutral state.

Nope. Ask yourself this: What's the difference between the atheist and someone who has never heard of the concept of gods as regards their actions, beliefs, attitude towards the universe?

None whatsoever.

Atheism IS the neutral state.

Atheism is not 'Contra-theism'. It is simply the lack of theism.

Atheisem is not an activity gearede towards combatting theists. It is a stance that favors dropping the issue of theism altogether.
Kinedryl
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2012
Atheism IS the neutral state. Atheism is not 'Contra-theism'. It is simply the lack of theism.
Then the agnosticism is still more neutral - it does allow the both. Actually, many atheists like Dawkins are more loud and militant, than the religious people in their "a-theism". They're apparently negativistic.
antialias_physorg
4.8 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2012
Then the agnosticism is still more neutral

I disagree. Because for agnosticism you actively have to acknowledge that theism is an issue at all and that a decision on this issue is either relevant or necessary in the future (i.e. that this issue somehow has an effect on reality either way).

But are you an active agnostic when it comes to unicorns, hobgoblins or fradommeldums?

You are not a fradommeldum agnostic. You are an a-fradommeldummist*
(* because I just made that type of entity up and you weren't aware of the concept before just now).

But just because I just made it up does NOT mean that you have to accord it an (agnostic) status like: "I'll wait until evidence of fradommeldums comes in - until then I'm undecided".
You would (rightly) say that fradommeldums are STILL no issue to you as regards reality, at all.

To spell it out: Just because someone made gods up does not mean that gods are an issue as regards reality.
kochevnik
3.6 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2012
No. Both theism and atheism are a deviation from neutral state.

[Pure disbelief] is a [negative infinite value for belief]. [Pure belief] is a [positive infinite value for belief].

The neutral point resides perfectly centered between the two extremes.
Congratulations, you failed topology.
Turritopsis
2 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2012
Ask yourself this: What's the difference between the atheist and someone who has never heard of the concept of gods as regards their actions, beliefs, attitude towards the universe?


Atheism didn't exist before the concept of theism.

Only after the first person said there is a God did the concept of no God emerge.

Neither can be proven. They sprung from the same neutral state.
Turritopsis
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2012
Do you understand that if theism can't be proven (can't prove that there is God) then atheism can't be proven (can't prove there is no God)?

Agnostics understand there is no proof (though some exceptions still choose to believe in theism, and some choose not to believe in theism (aka atheism)).
kochevnik
4 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2012
Atheism didn't exist before the concept of theism.
Atheism is the lack of something. It doesn't exist. Earlier you agreed that it is infinite nothingness. That means it isn't on your map, unless you've taken the mathematical world by storm and developed a way to map singularities beyond topology.
Turritopsis
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2012
Since logic isn't getting through, let me ask you:

If atheism is the lack of something, what are you fighting for? Nothing?

Earlier you agreed that it is infinite nothingness.


Where?

You're either making this up, or you failed to correctly interpret something I said.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2012
[
Koch, so after 5000 years, when will the Judea-Christian faith collapse?


http://lmgtfy.com...stianity


"The number of Christians around the world has nearly quadrupled in the last 100 years, from about 600 million in 1910 to more than 2 billion in 2010. But the worlds overall population also has risen rapidly, from an estimated 1.8 billion in 1910 to 6.9 billion in 2010. As a result, Christians make up about the same portion of the worlds population today (32%) as they did a century ago (35%). "
"At the same time, Christianity has grown enormously in sub-Saharan Africa and the Asia-Pacific region, where there were relatively few Christians at the beginning of the 20th century. The share of the population that is Christian in sub-Saharan Africa climbed from 9% in 1910 to 63% in 2010, while in the Asia-Pacific region it rose from 3% to 7%. Christianity today unlike a century ago is truly a global faith. "
http://www.pewforum.org/
Turritopsis
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2012
for agnosticism you actively have to acknowledge that theism is an issue


False again. Atheists acknowledge theism is an issue.

Agnostics come in two forms when it comes to God.

1. They have never given theism a thought.
2. They have given it a thought and have come to realize that no answer can emerge.

On the other hand, atheists have all given theism a thought. An atheist chooses not to believe in God.

I don't have a problem with theism or atheism. People should be free to believe whatever they like.

Personally, I don't like to follow blindly. I don't know whether God does or doesn't exist, therefore I won't say I don't believe (atheism) or that I believe (theism).

That's neutral.
Turritopsis
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2012
Theism is much more beautiful than Atheism, though.

There is no proof for either. If I were to choose to follow one of the two it would definitely be theism. I'm not that type though. If I can't measure the validity I don't choose. Both are immeasurable.

Theism is beautiful though.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2012
Neither can be proven. They sprung from the same neutral state.

Nothing NEEDS to be proven for atheism. State without god is the natural state (as you yourself admitted). Anyone who claims that this state is not correct must therefore deliver an indication why this should not be so (i.e. evidence). The onus of evidence is on he theists, because they first went from the non-issue state to a claim in one direction. It wasn't those that hold a belief in no gods existing that made that claim from the non-issue state.

Do you understand that if theism can't be proven (can't prove that there is God) then atheism can't be proven

Do you understand that if fradommeldum can't be proven then a-fradommeldum can't be proven? So? What does that change? Just because an IMAGINARY concept can't be proven or disproven does not mean that that IMAGINARY concept must therefore be accorded even the possibility of being REAL (nor that anyone should have to take a stance for/against)
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2012
we don't have sexual organs!
Well you said it not me.

The religious cultures which have survived are all based upon relegating women to reproducing and raising children. This is how they survived; they were better at this than the religions they overran.

The US was quickly filled to capacity by fundamentalists who practiced exactly this sort of proscribed growth. Their books told them exactly how to do it.

I can post links and info which convincingly supports my position (the obvious) But I am sure you will disregard it. So why bother?
cont
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2012
Because combatting religionist oppression is the right thing to do, is why.

"The Muslim world has one of the world's highest rate of population growth if not the highest. This is causing increasing human pressures upon a region of the globe that has suffered from millennia of abuse and degradation. Perhaps for this region, the Muslim world has been involved in more armed conflicts (mainly along the interface between the Muslim and non-Muslim worlds) than any other region of the world. (Africa has a similar rate of population growth and a similar number of armed conflicts.) "Islam has bloody borders (93H1)." Examples of sites of armed conflicts include Lebanon, Albania, Bosnia, Sarajevo, Serbia, Armenia, Bulgaria, Russia, Chechnya, Dagestan, the Caucasus, Pakistan, India, Burma, China, Thailand, the Philippines, Indonesia, Eritrea/ Ethiopia, Sudan and other northeast African countries, Nigeria, Mauritania, and Algeria."

Etc.

http://home.winds...lim.html
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2012
False again. Atheists acknowledge theism is an issue.

Nope. They just say theists are idiots for thinking their fantasy is real. Gods are such a laughable concept that there's no reason actually DISbelieving it. Atheists don't spend one second of their lives wasting time DENYING gods intheir heads. Just like you have never spent one second actively denying unicorns.

Theism is much more beautiful than Atheism, though.

Sure. Just like being on drugs makes you see prettier colors. and for exactly the same reason, too.
Being unable to cope with reality always leads to people having to invent fantasies to be able to not kill themselves out of despair. Voila: religion

More beautiful for these people? Sure.

Delusional? Indubitably.

Are who don't operate on reality dangerous to those who do? Most certainly.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2012
1. They have never given theism a thought.
2. They have given it a thought and have come to realize that no answer can emerge.
Religionists never consider what their selfish indulgences are doing to the world. Like any addiction... your hobby might not be harming your lifestyle. You can handle it right? Love thine enemies and all.

But elsewhere this addiction is causing massive death and destruction. Your indulgence supports this.
cont
Turritopsis
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2012
Antialias,

Prove that theism as a concept is "IMAGINARY".

State without god is the natural state


That's an unknown.

If God is real then that is the Natural state.

If God isn't real then that is the Natural state.
---
You can't know either.

I will never question a persons Faith.

If you tell me you're an atheist I will accept your belief. But if you say theism is wrong I will ask you for proof, because I know that your atheist belief cannot be proven.
kochevnik
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2012
Since logic isn't getting through, let me ask you:

If atheism is the lack of something, what are you fighting for? Nothing?
Freedom from tyranny and intolerance, known as religion. Religion is outright fascism. The etymology of the word religion is religare in Latin, which means to re-bind.
What do you re-bind it to? A fascio. What is a fascio? It is a bundle of sticks: the Roman symbol of fascism adopted by Hitler and all fascists since Rome.
Earlier you agreed that it is infinite nothingness.

You're either making this up, or you failed to correctly interpret something I said.
You wrote "Zero belief resides between at the zero point of the axis." later you claimed it was infinitely negative in magnitude. So you made a singularity that's not on your map. You need to learn some math.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2012
Here is an interesting and telling excerpt from the article I posted:

"One additional reason for the Muslim world's declining fertility is economic. A generation ago, 63% of Middle Eastern men in their mid- to late 20s were married. That figure has dropped to nearly 50% across the Middle East...In Iran, 38% of the 25- to 29-year-old men are not married, one of the largest pools of unattached males in Iran's history...Marriage in Egypt costs about $6000, 11 times annual household expenditures per capita. However this problem has spawned a side effect - the young are becoming more religious."

-The implications are clear. Religion has caused a large surplus of poor, angry young people who naturally turn to their religion for direction. We see the vast throngs rioting in the streets, joining rebel armies, and dying in droves.

This is not equilibrium - these are pops which have SURGED past the carrying capacity of the areas in which they live. All CAUSED by typical religionist culture.
kochevnik
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2012
Christianity today unlike a century ago is truly a global faith.
Yes, a global pandemic of christ psychosis.
@Turritopsis Do you understand that if theism can't be proven (can't prove that there is God) then atheism can't be proven (can't prove there is no God)?
That's not a logical inference at all. You're failing logic as well as maths.
kochevnik
5 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2012
"One additional reason for the Muslim world's declining fertility is economic. A generation ago, 63% of Middle Eastern men in their mid- to late 20s were married. That figure has dropped to nearly 50% across the Middle East...In Iran, 38% of the 25- to 29-year-old men are not married, one of the largest pools of unattached males in Iran's history...Marriage in Egypt costs about $6000, 11 times annual household expenditures per capita. However this problem has spawned a side effect - the young are becoming more religious."
Yes they are becoming more religious and turning to child molestation, as mating with females becomes expensive and precarious. Abraham religions are tightly intertwined with child sex. The Afghan leaders supported by the USA walk with troves of young boys kept as a harem. One bright point is this population boom becomes a self-limiting process as homosexuality is a reproductive dead-end.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2012
You all can waste time in unending debate about whether or not god exists and what it means exactly to believe in him or not. People have lived and died debating these things while religions go on doing what they do, causing conflict and death.

"Relentless Syrian shelling Wednesday in the opposition stronghold of Homs has killed at least 19 people including two Western journalists, as government forces escalated attacks on rebel bases."

"...six people were shot dead and dozens wounded in protests over the burning of copies of the Koran, Islam's holy book, at NATO's main base in the country."

"Nepal - A 40-year-old mother of two was burned alive in central Nepal after she was accused of being a witch, police said Saturday."

"Al-Shabab, which has recently joined al-Qaeda, confirmed that it had withdrawn its forces from Baidoa...The takeover does not mean that the enemy will enjoy the city, there will be more bloodshed," said Sheikh Mohamed Ibrahim, an al-Shabab commander."
Turritopsis
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2012
Freedom from tyranny and intolerance, known as religion.


Religion isn't a tyrant or intolerant.

A person can be a Tyrant, a person can be intolerant.

While you place blame on an abstract concept (religion), I place blame on those individuals responsible.
antialias_physorg
4.3 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2012
Prove that theism as a concept is "IMAGINARY".

It has nothing to support it. Something that has nothing to support it is imaginary.

Let ME ask YOU this: Do you feel the need to prove unicorns don't exist? And if not - why not?
If you don't feel the need to find proof that unicorns don't exist then you understand why atheists have no need to find proof that gods don't.

State without god is the natural state
That's an unknown.


Nope. The first organism certainly didn't believe in gods (it had no brain cell to believe anything with). The capacity to believe (anything) came later in evolution. So there must have been some point when the first organism (probably something humanoid) formulated a belief in gods.

You can't know either.

I don't need to. As with fradommeldums, gods are not an issue for me. No need to waste time on them either way.

Stupid people who believe in them, however, are an issue for me. Because these people are, unfortunately, real.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.2 / 5 (11) Feb 22, 2012
It has nothing to support it. Something that has nothing to support it is imaginary.

Let ME ask YOU this: Do you feel the need to prove unicorns don't exist? And if not - why not?
You understand that religious dogma is expressly Designed to spark this unending sort of unresolvable debate? Religion has had millenia to enshroud itself in this deception. You have been caught up in an endless do-loop.

Focus on what religion DOES, not what it SAYS.
kochevnik
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2012
Freedom from tyranny and intolerance, known as religion.
Religion isn't a tyrant or intolerant.
You just failed entomology as well. What school did you go to? I'll avoid traveling within 1000km of it like a black hole.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (9) Feb 22, 2012
Freedom from tyranny and intolerance, known as religion.
Religion isn't a tyrant or intolerant.

A person can be a Tyrant, a person can be intolerant.

While you place blame on an abstract concept (religion), I place blame on those individuals responsible.
God IS a Tyrant. God IS Intolerant.

"23 Then he said to them all: "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. 24 For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will save it." luke9

-To inspire martyrs.

"You are my battle-ax and sword," says the LORD. "With you I will shatter nations and destroy many kingdoms. With you I will shatter armies, destroying the horse and rider, the chariot and charioteer. With you I will shatter men and women, old people and children, young men and maidens. With you I will shatter shepherds and flocks, farmers and oxen, captains and rulers." jer51

-To inspire those who kill martyrs.
Turritopsis
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2012
Kochevnik,

Zero belief is a neutral point.

Neither belief, nor disbelief.

Disbelief is negative. Belief is positive.

Zero is neither positive nor negative.

Both belief and disbelief arise from zero point.

As you pull towards positive by one unit, you create one unit of negative.

So the singularity resides between belief and disbelief.

I would have defined LowLimit as infinitesimal belief if the value were infinitely approaching zero.

I was correct, you misinterpreted what I said.
Turritopsis
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2012
We could make disbelief point zero.

At that point the neutral point is belief divided by two.

Half way between zero and infinity.

I hope you can see why I didnt define it like this.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (10) Feb 22, 2012
Zero belief is a neutral point.

Neither belief, nor disbelief.

Disbelief is negative. Belief is positive.

Zero is neither positive nor negative.

Both belief and disbelief arise from zero point.

As you pull towards positive by one unit, you create one unit of negative.
That makes sense...oh wait. No it doesn't. None. Whatsoever.

Point being: By making something up and believing in something you don't suddenly move the people that weren't concerned with the issue up to that point into an area of disbelief. They're still just unconcerned with the issue.
Calenur
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2012
Turritopsis, the point is we're not on the graph.
Turritopsis
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2012
"They're still just unconcerned with the issue."

You're an atheist, right?

So why are you discussing a non-issue?

If this truly wasn't an issue for you, you would have left theism alone long ago.

An atheist opposes theism, an atheist makes theism an issue.

Not only does an atheist make theism an issue, he rejects it without proof.

An atheist "believes" not in God.
Deathclock
2.3 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2012
Kochevnik,

Zero belief is a neutral point.

Neither belief, nor disbelief.

Disbelief is negative. Belief is positive.


What the hell?

Zero belief IS disbelief... "I have zero belief in god", "I do not believe in God"... These two statements are equivalent.

You seem to think that belief has more than 2 possible states, it doesn't. Either you believe something or you do not.
Calenur
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2012
We're making theists the issue, not theism, which has no merit. Theists are a constant annoyance (as is currently being demonstrated), and it's irresponsible to sit idly by and let them force dogma into society.
Turritopsis
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2012
Not only do atheists have no proof, but they put the onus of proof on the theists.

They deem theists as intellectually inferior.

Then why don't you atheists, the intellectually superior beings, prove theists wrong.

Why wait for "idiots", as you call them, to prove this?

Man up, or shut up.

Atheists, prove to me that there is no God.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2012
We're making theists the issue, not theism, which has no merit.

Millions disagree.
But in this matter, the majorities' opinions are disregarded by the socialists.
antialias_physorg
3.8 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2012
You're an atheist, right?

So why are you discussing a non-issue?

Because theist have made it one. If someone comes up to you in the street and hits you in the face then you have little choice but to deal with it - even though hitting/being hit wasn't an issue to you a minute earlier. You have to make clear to the perp that hitting/being hit SHOULD NOT be an issue to better society.

Theists have MADE me be an atheist - just like the beater MADE the beaten person a victim. I didn't chose to be an atheist.

Not only does an atheist make theism an issue, he rejects it without proof.

How can you reject something that doesn't even exist. There's no need to even reject it. It hasn't been injected.

AGAIN I ask you (and I'll keep doing so until you quit evading): Why do you not feel the need to go out and find proof against unicorns?

Millions disagree.

Billions of flies think shit tastes great. Millions thought the earth was flat. Your point?
kochevnik
3.8 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2012
@ryggesogn2 Millions disagree. But in this matter, the majorities' opinions are disregarded by the socialists.
Millions of people believe in communism. So communism is the best thing, right?
Atheists, prove to me that there is no God.
You can't prove a negative. Again, you're failing logic 101.
Calenur
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2012
Not only do atheists have no proof, but they put the onus of proof on the theists.

They deem theists as intellectually inferior.

Then why don't you atheists, the intellectually superior beings, prove theists wrong.

Why wait for "idiots", as you call them, to prove this?

Man up, or shut up.

Atheists, prove to me that there is no God.


If you can't understand why the onus is on theists, then I'm not sure why you're even on a science website. If you make an extraordinary claim, it's your responsibility to back it up with testable evidence. Somebody had to invent the idea of a god for others to make a claim that there wasn't, so the onus has been on theists from the beginning.

You struggle with definition, the scientific method, and basic reasoning. I'm not sure what you're after here.
Turritopsis
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2012
You seem to think that belief has more than 2 possible states, it doesn't. Either you believe something or you do not.


Or. Because you know the limitations of belief you choose the third option: Neither.

I can't side with theists because they can't prove there is a God.

I can't side with atheists because they can't prove there isn't a God.

So a third option exists. One of neutrality.

I don't blindly believe, which means I can't blindly disbelieve either.
Deathclock
2.5 / 5 (10) Feb 22, 2012
Not only do atheists have no proof


HAVE NO PROOF OF WHAT?

Atheists, prove to me that there is no God.


Why the hell would I? I never said I can or that I want to, and there is certainly no reason that I would be compelled to... what is wrong with you?

You keep saying this nonsense, even though several Atheists here have told you that Atheism doesn't require "proof" of anything... I do not believe in God, therefore I am an Atheist... what do you want me to prove, that I don't believe in God? You're going to have to take my word for that /rolleyes
Deathclock
2.2 / 5 (10) Feb 22, 2012
You seem to think that belief has more than 2 possible states, it doesn't. Either you believe something or you do not.


Or. Because you know the limitations of belief you choose the third option: Neither.


Neither? What do you mean neither? You either believe something or you do not... you either have a penny or you do not... you either have a vagina or you do not... you either have belief in something or you do not...

Again, why is this so hard? What is wrong with you? Please tell me so I can look it up in a psychiatric journal.

I can't side with atheists because they can't prove there isn't a God.


THEY DON'T TRY TO, THEY DON'T CLAIM TO BE ABLE TO... every single Atheist here will tell you the same thing.

You are seriously confused.
Turritopsis
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2012
Not only do atheists have no proof


HAVE NO PROOF OF WHAT?

Atheists, prove to me that there is no God.


Why the hell would I? I never said I can or that I want, and there is certainly no reason that I need to... what is wrong with you?

You keep saying this nonsense, even though several Atheists here have told you that Atheism doesn't require "proof" of anything... I do not believe in God, therefore I am an Atheist... what do you want me to prove, that I don't believe in God? You're going to have to take my word for that /rolleyes


Theism doesn't require "proof" either. You're both in the "belief" boat. Which is fine with me. Until you start attacking one another. None of you have proof and yet you fight those of opposing "beliefs".

Do you understand the problem?

It is not what you choose to "believe", I could care less, but when you start saying that somebody elses "belief" is wrong because your "belief" is right, well at that point I call BS.
Deathclock
2.8 / 5 (11) Feb 22, 2012
Theism doesn't require "proof" either. You're both in the "belief" boat. Which is fine with me.


NO... Theists believe, Atheists do NOT believe... NOT having a belief in something is not the same as having a belief in something.

One is a belief, the other is NOT.

You are confused as shit about what these words mean. The disturbing thing is I feel I have had this exact same discussion before, probably with one of your AE's (sockpuppets) and you STILL aren't getting it.
Deathclock
2.3 / 5 (9) Feb 22, 2012
As Antialias says, to an Atheist God is as much of a non-issue as leprechauns or giants or dragons... It is the people that believe in those things that are the problem.

There are an infinite number of things I can make up that have no evidence, such as the flying spaghetti monster or Russel's teapot, would you expect me to be able to prove that those don't exist? Failing to prove they don't exist, should you believe they do?

There are billions of things that I don't believe in, God just happens to be one of them, and is NO MORE SIGNIFICANT than any other, including faeries and unicorns and intelligent YEC's.
Turritopsis
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2012
You don't have to believe in God. Just understand that your belief is your opinion. Belief is subjective.

Both Theist and Atheist beliefs are subject exclusive.

If you want to say that Atheism is a valid belief - I agree.

If you want to say that theism isn't a valid belief - I'll tell you, realistically, it is as valid as yours is.
Deathclock
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2012
I believe that a bunch of tiny purple men called "Smurfs" exist and they are eternal and are the "uncaused first cause" and they created the universe and everything in it in 3 days and they reside in a parallel dimension and cannot be detected...

PROVE THAT SMURFS DON'T EXIST, OH WAIT, YOU CAN'T? THEN YOU'RE IRRATIONAL FOR NOT BELIEVING IN THEM!

(^^^ That was my impression of you ^^^)
EverythingsJustATheory
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2012

Not only does an atheist make theism an issue, he rejects it without proof.


Bullshit. He rejects it without evidence. As it has been discussed earlier in this thread, proof is impossible.
Calenur
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2012
You don't have to believe in God. Just understand that your belief is your opinion. Belief is subjective.

Both Theist and Atheist beliefs are subject exclusive.

If you want to say that Atheism is a valid belief - I agree.

If you want to say that theism isn't a valid belief - I'll tell you, realistically, it is as valid as yours is.


Not true, because in this case, Christians have made testable claims about their God. The bible is so rife with errors it's comical, so the christian god as described in their own book, isn't real. So no, theism in this case is not as valid.

I hate to have even brought this up, because I know you're going to construe it as me agreeing with your completely distorted view of belief and nonbelief being the same.
Deathclock
2 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2012
If you want to say that Atheism is a valid belief - I agree.


Atheism is not a belief... you still aren't getting this.

If you want to say that theism isn't a valid belief - I'll tell you, realistically, it is as valid as yours is.


It depends on what you mean by valid...

Is it a belief? Of course it is.
Is it rational? Absolutely not.

I'll tell you realistically, having belief in God and not having belief in God are not equal in merit.
kaasinees
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2012
As Antialias says, to an Atheist God is as much of a non-issue as leprechauns or giants or dragons... It is the people that believe in those things that are the problem.

In other words you believe in an absence of a deity.
Whereas an Agnostic believes there is no way to prove or disprove a deity. A deity is s much as a possibility as a dragon is, it might exist, we just have evidence that the only "dragons" that are real are animals who are named after it. The difference is there is no way to dis/prove a deity.
And i might want to add that some people believe that God means love, or crazy shit like that. Of course that doesn't make a fairy tale book the "truth" still.

There are an infinite number of things I can make up

Wow you have infinity brain capacity? And you are supposed to be math literate or something? Certainly your logic fails in order to be considered a good programmer.
EverythingsJustATheory
5 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2012
It's really quite simple...science thinking minds follow observation and evidence. Because there is no evidence or observation to support the belief in a god, we don't.

ALL observations and evidence point to there not being a supreme being, or at least if it does exist, doesn't interact with our universe in any observable way.
Deathclock
2.1 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2012
I don't believe in Atheism, I am an Atheist because I do not believe in God.

I don't have to believe ANYTHING to be an Atheist, so how can it be a belief?

All babies are Atheists until they LEARN about the idea of God and form a positive belief in his/her/its existence.

If a baby grows into an adult and NEVER hears about "God" (pretty much impossible in today's world) then that person remains an Atheist.

Atheism is the DEFAULT position, because it is the LACK of belief in something. Everyone starts out with a complete LACK of beliefs...
Turritopsis
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2012
You're acting in retaliation to religion.

You say that theists try to force their beliefs onto you. (even though they have no proof)

You atheists are now trying to force your beliefs (that there is no God) onto those that believe in Him. (even though you have no proof)

How are you acting any better?
kochevnik
3 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2012
If you want to say that Atheism is a valid belief - I agree.
You earlier worte that atheism is nonbelief. Now you're even failing yourself!
Deathclock
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2012
In other words you believe in an absence of a deity.


/facepalm

Believing in the absence of something IS NOT the same as not believing in that thing.

This is what me and several others have been trying to get across to you people for pages and pages (and in my case, YEARS) now.

Whereas an Agnostic believes there is no way to prove or disprove a deity.


Atheists would say the EXACT same thing. I am an Atheist and I know there is no way to provide proof that God does not exist.

How many times do people have to say these things before you guys stop asking? I feel like I have answered the same question and cleared up the same misconception over and over and over again with the same people and they still INSIST on being wrong about it... what is the goddamn point anymore?
EverythingsJustATheory
5 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2012
You're acting in retaliation to religion.

You say that theists try to force their beliefs onto you. (even though they have no proof)

You atheists are now trying to force your beliefs (that there is no God) onto those that believe in Him. (even though you have no proof)

How are you acting any better?


We don't want to force anything on anyone. You are free to continue your delusions, just don't try and make them public policy like religion likes to do.

That's our problem, because WE have been persecuted and OUR rights infringed upon by religion.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2012
Just understand that your belief is your opinion.

get this through your head

Atheism. Is. Not. A. Belief.
Not a single brain cell is used to be an atheist (yeah, yeah, misinterpret that, but the literal meaning of this is what I'm getting at). No mental effort is expenden. No idea is formed to be an atheist. No stance or attitude is attained. it is the ABSENCE of a stance.

It's like having zero elephants. If I have zero elephants then 'elephants' is NOT an attribute of what I have. If i have zero belief in something then I do NOT hold a belief. None whatsoever. Not even the one that says: It could be true or it could be false that gods exist.

In other words you believe in an absence of a deity.

No. No belief is involved. Theism is just along the lines of: "This issue makes no sense. Next"
Calenur
4 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2012
You're acting in retaliation to religion.

You say that theists try to force their beliefs onto you. (even though they have no proof)

You atheists are now trying to force your beliefs (that there is no God) onto those that believe in Him. (even though you have no proof)

How are you acting any better?


Oh, I dunno, we keep our nose out of what women do with their vaginas?
Turritopsis
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2012
All babies are agnostic.

They don't believe in God but they also don't believe not in God. To babies the concept has no meaning.

When a baby is introduced to the concept of God, the baby either chooses to believe (becomes a theist) or chooses not to believe (becomes an atheist), or chooses to believe nothing that there is no proof of (stays an agnostic).
antialias_physorg
4.5 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2012
You atheists are now trying to force your beliefs (that there is no God) onto those that believe in Him.

Nope. We just say: "Go away. You're crazy. Be crazy at home."

As soon as crazy people, however, start raising children it's a bit more tricky. The defenseless should be protected from crazy people, agreed?

And as soon as crazy people start shaping politics on their crazy fantasies we have to intervene - for the common good and the survival of the species. Because nature does not reward species that don't believe in reality. It makes them go extinct.
Deathclock
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2012
Now, I wasn't going to say this because judging by their demonstrated level of critical thinking it would probably just confuse these guys further, but I'm beyond the point of caring about them so...

I am an Atheist, which means I do not believe in God... however I also believe that there are no Gods for the exact same reason that I believe that there are no Dragons. Keep in mind that that IS a belief, and it is NOT a requirement of Atheism.

Also keep in mind that I am not claiming to KNOW that there are no Gods and that I am not claiming to be able to PROVE that there are no Gods.
Deathclock
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2012
All babies are agnostic.

They don't believe in God


Let me stop you right there... THAT IS WHAT IT MEANS TO BE AN ATHEIST. You just stated that all babies are ATHEISTS.

but they also don't believe not in God.


Read this aloud and you'll come to the realization that you're not making any sense at all. (Hint: you haven't been for a long time)
Deathclock
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2012
When a baby is introduced to the concept of God, the baby either chooses to believe (becomes a theist)


Good so far...

or chooses not to believe (becomes an atheist), or chooses to believe nothing that there is no proof of (stays an agnostic).


...and now you done fucked up... These are the SAME THING. If you don't believe in God then you don't believe in God... both of these options describe someone who does not believe in God... why is this so fucking difficult for you?
Deathclock
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2012
I need to enforce a limit on the number of posts I allow myself to make before I give up on somebody and assume they are trolling or just incapable of understanding what I think is a very simple concept, because this is just getting ridiculous.
Turritopsis
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2012
All babies are agnostic.

They don't believe in God but they also don't believe not in God. To babies the concept has no meaning.

When a baby is introduced to the concept of God, the baby either chooses to believe (becomes a theist) or chooses not to believe (becomes an atheist), or chooses to believe nothing that there is no proof of (stays an agnostic).

Deathclock
2.3 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2012
Did you mean to quote yourself?

In any case, it's a good opportunity to bring this up again:

"They don't believe in God but they also don't believe not in God."

Does that sentence not tell you that aren't making any goddamn sense?

"They also don't believe not in God"... Double negative, so you're saying they also DO believe in God? So after resolving the double negative your sentence reads:

"They don't believe in God, but they also DO believe in God".

Genius, you are the next Einstein, sir!
Turritopsis
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2012
Babies equally believe and not believe in God.

Belief is a bias towards an unknown.

You're biased towards there being no God. But you know nothing.
Deathclock
2.3 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2012
Babies equally believe and not believe in God.

Belief is a bias towards an unknown.

You're biased towards there being no God. But you know nothing.


This is wrong.

I've sufficiently explained why it is wrong, as have others participating in this discussion.

Belief is not a trichotomy, it is a dichotomy.

You either have a belief in something or you do not. You either have a brain or you do not (you do not).

Furthermore, babies cannot believe in ANYTHING before they learn about it, and that applies to the idea of God. They DO NOT believe in God and CANNOT believe in God until they LEARN about the concept of God.

This is really quite self evident. I have to believe you are either an idiot of the highest order or you are trolling me.
Turritopsis
1.5 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2012
A baby is not a theist or an atheist.

If you want to, go conduct an experiment.

Go to the newborn ward and ask the newborns:

'Excuse me Mr. infant, would you be able to prove a theory of mine? Are babies atheists?'

Waaaaa!
----
Dumbass.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2012
Belief is a bias towards an unknown.

Do you have a bias towrads frodudledums?
Did you have before I told you about them?
What exactly changed in between you not knowing about them and me telling you about them?
And why do you think your stance on frodudeldums (presumably that they don't exist) requires proof BEFORE I tell you why I think they do exist?

And if you don't feel the need for proof, then would you aquiesce for me to
1) Reshape the world in the spirit of frodudeldums?
2) Mandate that all children be taught about them as a viable option for belief? That they are a source of knowledge about reality above and beyond anything (including science)
3) Wage wars against those that don't believe in them?
4) Make rules based on my understanding of them?

No?

Congratulations. You are now officially an atheist.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2012
You don't have to believe in God. Just understand that your belief is your opinion. Belief is subjective.
I believe in the objectivity of evidence presented by archeologists which show that no 2M jews ever lived in goshen, nor that they could have ever traveled for 40 years throughout egypt-owned and occupied sinai and the levant.

I believe in objective scientific evidence which shows that no genocidal joshuan rampage through palestine ever occured, nor that there were ever any kingdoms of david and solomon; because I believe archeologists when they say they have looked and have found only small hill settlements from that time.

I believe that when I find these things stated as such in your book, which is supposedly the word of god, then either this god was made up or he was a liar.
Turritopsis
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2012
Do you have a bias towards aliens?

There's no proof of alien intelligence, there's also no proof that aliens don't exist.

Some people choose to believe in aliens. Some choose not to.

I choose to wait for proof. I don't know and will not take a stance either way. Maybe aliens exist, maybe they don't.

Could the believers be right? Absolutely.
Could the non-believers be right? Absolutely.

As of yet there is no proof. A neutral state resides between believing and not-believing.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2012
There's no proof of alien intelligence, there's also no proof that aliens don't exist.
There is a great deal of 'proof' that the god in your bible did not exist. Maybe you want to make up something a little mors science-proof? Good luck.
As of yet there is no proof. A neutral state resides between believing and not-believing.
Why would you continue to believe in something which scientists have disproved? That is irrational.
Turritopsis
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2012
Otto,

First off, the bible may have been written purely by man. (not dictated to man from god)-unknown

Second, if God did dictate the bible, what requires him to tell the truth? Maybe he chose to lie. Maybe he wanted to leave mystery for man to discover through science?

Third, if you were to dictate human knowledge to an ant, how exactly would that work?
EverythingsJustATheory
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2012
Do you have a bias towards aliens?

There's no proof of alien intelligence, there's also no proof that aliens don't exist.

Some people choose to believe in aliens. Some choose not to.

I choose to wait for proof. I don't know and will not take a stance either way. Maybe aliens exist, maybe they don't.

Could the believers be right? Absolutely.
Could the non-believers be right? Absolutely.

As of yet there is no proof. A neutral state resides between believing and not-believing.


Yes, but aliens can exist completely within the defined theories of physics and the natural world, whereas god cannot.
Deathclock
2 / 5 (10) Feb 22, 2012
A baby is not a theist or an atheist.

If you want to, go conduct an experiment.

Go to the newborn ward and ask the newborns:

'Excuse me Mr. infant, would you be able to prove a theory of mine? Are babies atheists?'

Waaaaa!
----
Dumbass.


So, something has to answer a question for me to know a property of it?

"Excuse me Mr. Rock, are you igneous, metamorphic, or sedimentary?"

*crickets*

"Well, I guess you aren't any of those things"

What a goddamn moron you are... I am done with you.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 22, 2012
Second, if God did dictate the bible, what requires him to tell the truth? Maybe he chose to lie. Maybe he wanted to leave mystery for man to discover through science?
So you acknowledge that the bible is full of lies. Thats a start. Everything you know about god comes from the bible. This is your next step.

Third, if you were to dictate human knowledge to an ant, how exactly would that work?
And why would I try to do that? If thats what god was trying to do with us then he was stupid as well as dishonest.

We do so much better without the lessons in your book, obviously. Perhaps god is the ant? The mouse that roared?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2012
Do you have a bias towards aliens?

No. But we do know that life exists (us) so there is an indication (nay, proof) that life, under certain conditions CAN exist. So we already have one positive data point. The concept of life is not made up (unlike the concept of gods). So aliens are an issue we should be concerned with (either by finding out where they are or finding out why there aren't any anywhere).

It is still uncertain how precisely these conditions have to be maintained, but given the variability in Earth's past (and the time life has been around) there is cause for speculating that life could exist if similar conditions prevail elsewhere (and there is no reason why they could not). So there could be aliens (or maybe there aren't)

And quit evading and answer the questions put to you, will you?
kochevnik
5 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2012
Do you have a bias towards aliens?
I have no belief in aliens, in contrast to your assertion. If an alien comes to my door then I will have KNOWLEDGE. I do not make the positivist assertion that since no aliens have yet been observed, there are none. It is quite possible the Earth is unimportant and insignificant to any existent advanced civilizations. In contrast, an omnipotent xtian god should manifest here on Earth, yet has to date utterly failed to do so. Regardless, belief NEVER enters into the equation. Only positivism.
Turritopsis
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2012
I don't believe the bible to be the direct translation from God. (how could I? I'm an agnostic?)

But, it could be. An all powerful God could do whatever he chose to. He could change evidence at will.

Do you really want to get into that? I don't.

I believe in science and physical proof.

The thing is though, if God created all, then physical proof is something He has command over.

Let's stop talking about this nonsense.

God may/may not exist. There is no proof from either side.
kochevnik
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2012
God may/may not exist. There is no proof from either side.
So far positivism would conclude he don't. Every moment that goes by without an appearance just adds to the mountain of evidence in favor of the null hypothesis.
Calenur
5 / 5 (6) Feb 22, 2012
There is TONS of evidence the christian god doesn't exist. Good enough for me.
Deathclock
1 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2012
I don't believe the bible to be the direct translation from God. (how could I? I'm an agnostic?)

But, it could be. An all powerful God could do whatever he chose to. He could change evidence at will.

Do you really want to get into that? I don't.

I believe in science and physical proof.

The thing is though, if God created all, then physical proof is something He has command over.

Let's stop talking about this nonsense.

God may/may not exist. There is no proof from either side.


I've got news for you, you may be an Agnostic but you are ALSO an Atheist.

I am an Atheist, and I agree with everything you just said. In fact, it might be the most sense you have made in the entire discussion.
Deathclock
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2012
Maybe this will help you...

Would you state for the record that you believe in God? Would you say these words truthfully: "I believe in God"

If the answer is yes, if you would say those words, then you are a Theist.

However, if the answer is no, if you would not say those words, then you ARE an ATHEIST.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (3) Feb 22, 2012
Atheism is the DEFAULT position, because it is the LACK of belief in something. Everyone starts out with a complete LACK of beliefs...

Circular reasoning.
As you said the baby has no concept of believe or deities.
So how can the baby say he chooses to be an Atheist?
This is stereotyping.

Word Origin & History

atheist
1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist."
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2012
Atheists may be right.

Theists may be right.
------
I'm going to be wrong no matter the case.
------
If God is real, I'm wrong for not being a theist.

If God isn't real, I'm wrong for not being an atheist.
Deathclock
1.7 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2012
Circular reasoning.
As you said the baby has no concept of believe or deities.
So how can the baby say he chooses to be an Atheist?
This is stereotyping.


Simple, you don't choose to be an Atheist, you simply ARE one if you don't believe in God. Since you CANNOT believe in something before you are aware of it as a concept, and babies are unaware of the concept of God before they can be taught about it, then babies INHERENTLY do not believe in God and are Atheists.

Word Origin & History
atheist
1570s, from Fr. athéiste (16c.), from Gk. atheos "to deny the gods, godless," from a- "without" theos "a god" (see Thea). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from It. atheo "atheist."


Let's not play the dictionary game. I could post definitions from dictionaries that support me too, common dictionaries are practically useless in matters of philosophy.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2012
I have no belief in aliens

What are you talking about? Aliens are a big problem today, they are being used for cheap labor and tax evasion.
And if you meant E.T. life, it is possibility, i guess i am agnostic about it ;)

Here is the basic difference between atheists and agnostics:
Agnostics consider it as a possibility that needs either to be dis/proven.
Atheists do not consider it a possibility.
Either way they are based on belief.
Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true.


Discussion ends here by my hand.
kochevnik
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 22, 2012
Circular reasoning. As you said the baby has no concept of believe or deities.
Babies are born positivists. They employ facts and reality to learn. Only after they are TAUGHT blind belief does their learning rate drop precipitously. They cease curiosity and begin the painful withdrawal into religious retardation and compliance with authoritarianism.
Deathclock
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2012
There is no circular reasoning there unless you fail to understand the words I am using. If that is the case let me know what your native language is and we can proceed from there.
Deathclock
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 22, 2012
Atheists do not consider it a possibility.


This is false, you are wrong.

Want proof? I am an Atheist, and I consider the existence of God or a god-like to be a possibility.

People are so stupid I can't stand it, like Professor Farnsworth said about creationist ideas, "I don't want to live on this planet anymore". I feel like a business man in the middle of a three ring circus.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (4) Feb 22, 2012
Want proof? I am an Atheist, and I consider the existence of God or a god-like to be a possibility.

If you consider a deity as a possibility you are agnostic.
And atheist denies the possibility of a deity, hence the a-theist?
How much more simple can it get?
Maybe do more reading in the history of these words.
Deathclock
2 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2012
Want proof? I am an Atheist, and I consider the existence of God or a god-like to be a possibility.

If you consider a deity as a possibility you are agnostic.
And atheist denies the possibility of a deity, hence the a-theist?
How much more simple can it get?
Maybe do more reading in the history of these words.


Who do you think you are to tell me what I am?

The prefix a- means NOT or the opposite of. Anyone who is NOT a theist is an atheist. I am not a theist, because a theist believes in God... I am an Atheist.

Don't be so presumptuous as to tell me what I am, asshole.
Deathclock
2 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2012
"Atheism" has many meanings, all of which are related to an absence of belief in the existence of a god, a goddess, gods, goddesses, or combinations of supernatural entities.

The MOST COMMON MEANING AMONG ATHEISTS THEMSELVES refers to a weak, negative, soft, or skeptical Atheist: one who lacks a belief in any supernatural entities whatsoever."

-http://www.religi...eist.htm

Consider yourself educated. I am sure I will see you saying the same incorrect bullshit over and over again though, because for some reason people cannot get these concepts through their thick skulls.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2012
Deathclock,

I have an absence of belief and disbelief in God. That's agnosticism.

You have an absence of belief in God. That's atheism.

A Theist has an absence of disbelief in God. That's theism.

It forms a belief axis. One end Belief. One end Disbelief. And Both or Neither (axis centre).

Belief is a subjective thing. When talking science beliefs are bad, they are biases. But Religion isn't a Scientific field.

The belief axis and physical axis don't merge. They only share the observer. That's the singularity.

You can't use logic and reason when speaking of matters of Faith. The two are different paradigms.

But you as an Atheist have just as much physical proof against God as a Theist has for Him.

So you see, we're talking belief here, you'll find that word hidden in your quotes.
CardacianNeverid
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2012
@Turritopsis

After carefully reading all of your comments, taking into consideration your perspective and the supportive arguments which you have brought to the discussion table, including logic, critical reasoning and epistemology, I have come to the considered conclusion that you are a fucking numbskull. Carry on.
Turritopsis
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2012
Thanks for the analysis Miss Kardashian. I sure appreciate the consideration.

Good day, Ma'am.
CardacianNeverid
4 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2012
Thanks for the analysis Miss Kardashian. I sure appreciate the consideration -Turnip

Prove me wrong.
Deathclock
1 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2012
Turritopsis:

Everyone is calling you dumb, everyone has carefully explained why you are wrong, yet you persist... you'd make an interesting case study for any psychologist.

What do you have to gain by preaching to a room of people who not only know that you are wrong, but also lack any respect at all for your intellectual capacity, and are on the verge of throwing rotten tomatoes at you?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2012
Everyone is calling you dumb,

Not I.

I thought what made science so special is a single individual can discover a truth regardless of any prevailing consensus.

It may be a badge of honor given who is calling whom dumb.

It is interesting why the atheists here are so upset at their belief being called a belief or a faith.
If they believe they can be 100% objective in all matters, they have much to learn about such an impossibility.
Larkus
Feb 23, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Deathclock
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2012
I thought what made science so special is a single individual can discover a truth regardless of any prevailing consensus.


What does this have to do with what we are talking about.

It may be a badge of honor given who is calling whom dumb.


If that makes you feel better...

It is interesting why the atheists here are so upset at their belief being called a belief or a faith.


Atheism is not a faith or a belief... I get upset when people say it is for the same reason that I get upset when someone says "irregardless".

Turritopsis
1 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2012
Atheism is not a faith or a belief... I get upset when people say it is


Truth is what it is.

Irregardless of the way it makes you feel, Atheism is a belief.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2012
Atheism is not a faith or a belief..

Of course it is.
If you respect science you must have a faith that the process will discover things you can't ever imagine in your wildest dreams.
To categorically claim God does not and can not exist must be a belief.
Larkus
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2012
Atheism is a belief.


You're wrong.

As I mentioned before, !b(G) != b(!G) .
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2012
To categorically claim God does not and can not exist must be a belief.

I think you should read the thread before posting stuff that has already been adressed about 10 times already.
kochevnik
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2012
Irregardless of the way it makes you feel, Atheism is a belief.
"Irregardless" is not an English word. And that's not a belief.
knowalot
1 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2012
There is good evidence for the existence of God. On the other hand, there is no evidence that classical atheism is true.

To redefine atheism as a personal psychological state (as some kind of mental absence), places it beyond any form of validation, and thus irrelevant for truth.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2012
There is good evidence for the existence of God

There is? And that would be... we're all ears!

there is no evidence that classical atheism is true.

It doesn't need to be. Until any evidence for gods exists atheism has to prove nothing. you, too, need to reread this thread. This has been explained numerous times already.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2012
If you have no proof against the existence of God then saying there is no God is your belief.

There's no getting around this.

I've been repeating over and over the very same thing.

You may be right in your "belief".

But until you can qualify your belief wrt physical reality you don't know.

Sorry to burst your atheist bubble. Atheism is proof-less. 

It is your personal belief that God doesn't exist.

Is this that hard to comprehend?

Irregardless, it is the truth.
kochevnik
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2012
If you have no proof against the existence of God then saying there is no God is your belief.
No, it's actually a solid positivist position, if one chooses to be a positivist. All the anecdotes of a god involving itself in human affairs have been falsified or remain untenable. Claims of ESP, telekinesis and ghosts are more substantiated that the personal xtian god that bothers itself with the folly of humankind.
knowalot
1 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2012
Dawkins bus campaign said: there is probably no God. A probability implies evidence. Dawkins main evidence for his atheism is the problem of evil (see: the God delusion). That has been answered well since the time of Augustine.
Xbw
1.3 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2012
Atheists - Please prove to me that God does not exist.
Believers - Please prove to me he does.

Larkus
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2012
If you have no proof against the existence of Santa Claus then saying there is no Santa Claus is your belief.

There's no getting around this.

I've been repeating over and over the very same thing.

You may be right in your "belief".

But until you can qualify your belief wrt physical reality you don't know.

Sorry to burst your a-clausist bubble. A-Clausism is proof-less.

It is your personal belief that Santa Claus doesn't exist.

Is this that hard to comprehend?

Irregardless, it is the truth.
kochevnik
3 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2012
Dawkins bus campaign said: there is probably no God. A probability implies evidence. Dawkins main evidence for his atheism is the problem of evil (see: the God delusion). That has been answered well since the time of Augustine.
Augustus was the "son of god", Julius Caesar. He forgave the sins of Rome against his father, and became the "forgiver of sins" in your xtian religion slammed together by Constantine when he made your copy-and-paste Abrahamic religion of intolerance. Perhaps ryggesogn2 is his descendant? They seem to have much in common, although ryggesogn2 is on the opposite end of the power curve.
If you have no proof against the existence of Santa Claus then saying there is no Santa Claus is your belief.
No, Father Frost is the true giver of presents and vodka! The atheists cannot prove us wrong! Millions of people agree with me, especially with two New Years and two christmas holidays. Even the atheists party, which proves they are hypocrites.
Deathclock
2 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2012
Dawkins bus campaign said: there is probably no God. A probability implies evidence.


This is stupid.

There are probably no unicorns... There are probably no leprechauns... there is probably no Russel's Teapot.

I can make all of these claims because there is no evidence that they exist, not because I have evidence that they DON'T exist...

You don't understand the purpose of the burden of proof or the null hypothesis, therefor you don't understand science.
knowalot
1 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2012
The existence of Santa Claus is not beyond validation through simple human observation. One only needs to travel to the north pole, and visit all the possible hideouts. During Christmas time, people should monitor chimneys and check for flying moose. After some time, the evidence against the existence of santa will be mounting to warrant disbelief (asantaclausism).

God however is defined as a spiritual being that cannot be directly observed. Like dark matter and black holes, the existence of God can only be established through indirect means through observation of the secondary effects he has on the material universe.
Deathclock
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2012
Atheists - Please prove to me that God does not exist.


Someone tell me why I bother... /sigh

Atheism does not require or claim to have proof of anything. Proof has nothing to do with it, you don't know what the word means, read the thread.
kochevnik
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2012
Atheists - Please prove to me that God does not exist.
That's not an atheist's job. That's positivism. And to date positivists have done a damn fine job of squashing your fairy-tale psychosis.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2012
If you have no proof against the existence of [Santa Claus] then saying there is no [Santa Claus] is your belief.

There's no getting around this.

I've been repeating over and over the very same thing.

You may be right in your "belief".

But until you can qualify your belief wrt physical reality you don't know.

Sorry to burst your [a-clausist] bubble. [A-Clausism] is proof-less.

It is your personal belief that [Santa Claus] doesn't exist.

Is this that hard to comprehend?

Irregardless, it is the truth.


Still true. Although finding evidence of someone who makes it through billions of chimneys in a single night may be a little easier then finding someone who exists in an outworldly realm. The probability for Santa Clauses existence is very low. I wish someone else would pay for my kids Christmas presents.

Just saying.
knowalot
1.2 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2012
It is also very implausible that Russels Teapot would exist. There are good grounds in simple physics to justify a disbelief in flying teapots.

There however is no law in physics to make disbelief in God any more likely than the opposite. In fact the beginning of physics itself points to a metaphysical origin of physics, which could be such a thing as God.
kochevnik
3 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2012
In fact the beginning of physics itself points to a metaphysical origin of physics, which could be such a thing as God.
Actually god is hiding at the end of the rainbow, along with the leprechaun and his pot of gold.
Deathclock
1 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2012
If you have no proof against the existence of God then saying there is no God is your belief.

There's no getting around this.


There is no need to get around that, no one here is claiming that God does not exist. I'm certainly not. In fact, I said EXPLICITLY that God MAY exist.

You either don't read what we write or you intentionally ignore it. You are useless to discuss these things with.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2012
Atheism does not require or claim to have proof of anything.


That's because it is a personal belief.

Can you read????

Even Dawkins knows that Atheism is his belief.

You're free to believe what you like!
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2012
God however is defined as a spiritual being that cannot be directly observed.

So first you say there is plenty evidence.

Then you say there's no evidence.

Erm. Liar?

You sir, are either the most stupid liar imaginable or you are deeply schizophrenic
Deathclock
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2012
Atheism does not require or claim to have proof of anything.


That's because it is a personal belief.

Can you read????


YOU KEEP CLAIMING IT DOES. CAN YOU READ?

Jesus christ with you idiots...
Larkus
4 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2012
The existence of Santa Claus is not beyond validation through simple human observation. One only needs to travel to the north pole, and visit all the possible hideouts. During Christmas time, people should monitor chimneys and check for flying moose. After some time, the evidence against the existence of santa will be mounting to warrant disbelief (asantaclausism).

God however is defined as a spiritual being that cannot be directly observed. Like dark matter and black holes, the existence of God can only be established through indirect means through observation of the secondary effects he has on the material universe.


That only disproves clausism that relies on literal interpretations of Christmas narratives. But only fundamentalist clausists believe in that anymore. Mainstream clausism today has a more refined clausology. Santa Claus is a spiritual being whose existence can only be established indirectly by observation of the the secondary effects he has on the universe.
kochevnik
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2012
Atheism does not require or claim to have proof of anything.
That's because it is a personal belief.
Yes, and reading shows that you're self contradictory. Kind of like that zombie Jew on a stick that was his own father.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2012
Atheism does not require or claim to have proof of anything.


That's because it is a personal belief.

Can you read????


YOU KEEP CLAIMING IT DOES. CAN YOU READ?

Jesus christ with you idiots...


Thank you.

You finally get it.

Atheism is unfounded belief just as same as theism is.

Neither can be proven (it is unknown whether God does/doesn't exist).

Theists have their Faith (belief system). Theism.

Atheists have their Faith (belief system). Atheism.
EverythingsJustATheory
5 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2012
To sum the last 5 days of repetition:

Atheism - To not believe in god. This is not saying that an atheist believes there is no god, though a positive atheist would take that stance.

Agnostic - To not know god, or that god is unknowable.

Theism - To be a lemming
Deathclock
2 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2012
Atheism does not require or claim to have proof of anything.


That's because it is a personal belief.

Can you read????


YOU KEEP CLAIMING IT DOES. CAN YOU READ?

Jesus christ with you idiots...


Thank you.

You finally get it.


It's like we're not even speaking the same language, this is fucking pointless.

Atheism is having no belief in God. If you want to think that having no belief is the same as having a belief then that's your choice as much as it is your choice to remain ignorant and to constantly speak nonsense.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2012
I have an absence of belief and disbelief in God due to a lack of physical proof. That's agnosticism.

An atheist has an absence of belief in God. That's atheism.

A Theist has an absence of disbelief in God. That's theism.

It forms a belief axis. One end Belief. One end Disbelief. And Both or Neither (axis centre).

Belief is a subjective thing. When talking science beliefs are bad, they are biases. But Religion isn't a Scientific field.

The belief axis and physical axis don't merge. They only share the observer. That's the singularity.

You can't use logic and reason when speaking of matters of Faith. The two are different paradigms. 

But Atheists have just as much physical proof against God as Theists have for Him.
EverythingsJustATheory
5 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2012
Positive atheism is a belief (and the only type of atheism that is), however, at least its foundation is constructed on a plethora of evidence that supports its assertion. Theism is completely based on belief even when there is no evidence to support it.
Deathclock
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2012
"A Theist has an absence of disbelief in God. That's theism."

An absence of disbelief? God dammit you're an idiot... /facepalm
EverythingsJustATheory
5 / 5 (1) Feb 23, 2012
But Atheists have just as much physical proof against God as Theists have for Him.


Bullshit. First off we've been over this 16 times already. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE THAT GOD DOESN'T EXIST, because there are infinite possibilities in which it could exist. And unless you can disprove every possibility, one cannot PROVE it.

It would be quite easy for theists to prove god exists. Just one miracle, say having it rain frogs would do.

And to state that the evidence is equal is just plain dishonest. One side has a work of fiction that has completely been disproven as having any historical accuracy. The other side has every scientific measurement ever made without showing evidence of an external influencer.
Larkus
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 23, 2012
[...] finding evidence of someone who makes it through billions of chimneys in a single night may be a little easier then finding someone who exists in an outworldly realm. The probability for Santa Clauses existence is very low.


It's not that easy, see my post above. If all that it takes to 'disprove' the existence of entities from old legend is finding evidence against a literal interpretation of events in these legends, then 'disproving' the existence of God is easy.

The creation of the world according to Genesis, Noah's flood and the Babylonian cofusion are all examples of events that never happened as described in the Bible, according to our best scientific and historic evidence.

Does that make the probability of God's existence very low?
knowalot
1 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2012
So first you say there is plenty evidence.

Then you say there's no evidence.


No that is not what I said...There is no evidence through direct observation, but lots by indirect observation, induction, deduction...all valid forms of evidence. Gods existence can be established through all forms of evidence except for direct observation of his being.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2012
The creation of the world according to Genesis, Noah's flood and the Babylonian cofusion are all examples of events that never happened as described in the Bible, according to our best scientific and historic evidence.

Does that make the probability of God's existence very low?


But, an all powerful God has command over ALL "scientific and historic evidence".

See, back to square one.

You can't have a rational discussion on matters of Faith.
Turritopsis
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2012
Faith and Science don't mix.

Theism and Atheism are both unscientific.

Atheists base their "beliefs" on physical evidence. If God exists, though, physical evidence is something he can change.

Atheism is just a belief system, Faith.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2012
The only rational stance on the matter is saying "I don't know."

I can't prove God is real, but I also can't prove he isn't.

This is called being an agnostic.

I'm not going to believe God exists, but I'm not going to believe He doesn't either.

I won't judge you for your beliefs, though, I am wrong either way. If God doesn't exist I'm wrong, if He does I'm still wrong.

I'm not judging either side because theists may be right, or atheists may be right.

I don't know.
kochevnik
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2012
No that is not what I said...There is no evidence through direct observation, but lots by indirect observation, induction, deduction...all valid forms of evidence. Gods existence can be established through all forms of evidence except for direct observation of his being.
Wow. Observation, induction, deduction CAN BE properly done THEREFORE my sky-fairy imaginary friend is ruler of the universe. In between some "kind of miracle" happens which is a black box no human can comprehend or observe.

Time for a visit to the funny farm.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2012
God exists... in your head only.
You believe in him without having any evidence of him.
That is just crazy.
Deathclock
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2012
The only rational stance on the matter is saying "I don't know"


That speaks to your KNOWLEDGE (you used the word "know"... you can't deny that you are referring to your KNOWLEDGE of God since you used the word "know")

Theism and Atheism has nothing to do with your KNOWLEDGE of God... the two terms relate to your BELIEF in God.

Do you understand the difference between knowledge and belief? It's evident that you do not.

If I ask "Do you you believe in God" and you answer "I don't know" I am going to respond "I didn't ask what you know, I asked what you believe".

You are confused about almost every single goddamn term you are using. You are careless with your words and your ideas. You routinely employ double negatives that make no fucking sense whatsoever, you routinely confuse knowledge for belief, and belief for faith. You continually confuse Atheism as something that requires or desires proof...

You are useless and hopeless.
Deathclock
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2012
I can't prove God is real, but I also can't prove he isn't.

This is called being an agnostic.


No it is not. Neither Agnosticism nor Atheism have anything to do with what you can or cannot prove...

You are severely confused, and you are too proud and stubborn to shut the fuck up and listen to the dozen or so people that have told you so in this discussion.

Before I started posting in this thread I did not know you. I quickly came to realization that you had the wrong ideas about these concepts, but I still had a high regard for you. I wrote thousands of words explaining how your understanding was inconsistent. You argued about this for some time and my opinion of you fell somewhat, but I still thought there was some hope... but now you are basically ignoring that EVERYONE is telling you that you are wrong and you are continually and forcefully echoing your original nonsensical ideas. I have lost all respect for you in the short span of this discussion.

Well done.
Deathclock
1.6 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2012
The saddest part is, we basically agree on a lot of things.

I, like you, agree that the ONLY reasonable position concerning God is to to state that I don't know if God exists. I, like you, understand that it is not possible to prove that God does not exist. I, like you, admit that God may exist. I, like you, consider myself an Agnostic.

However, that is where the similarities end. I know what the words Agnostic and Atheist mean, and you do not. I understand that one refers only to your belief in God and the other refers only to your knowledge of God. I understand that knowledge and belief are very different things. I understand that believe is dichotomous, not trichotomous. I understand that one can be an Atheist and an Agnostic AT THE SAME TIME, because the two words are NOT mutually exclusive of one another, since one refers to knowledge and the other to belief, which are not mutually exclusive either.

I, unlike you, have been considering these concepts for DECADES. I am old.
kaasinees
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2012
No it is not. Neither Agnosticism nor Atheism have anything to do with what you can or cannot prove...

Go read, you illiterate.
I, unlike you, have been considering these concepts for DECADES. I am old.

Remember how i called you an old fart when you appeared out of nowhere on this website? I could tell very well.

The point is, it doesn't matter if you thought about it for decades. The very basic definition of agnosticism is that the statement that a deity exists or not cannot be proven true or false. Where is in atheism they believe that the statement that a deity exists can be proven false.

These are the very first philosophical definitions of these words, there is no arguing about it. A belief system means that you think that a statement can be proven true.

Read more.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2012
Deathclock
1.6 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2012
Unknown OR unknowable...

What is unknown has nothing to do with what can or cannot be proven, as I stated.

Furthermore, if you want to be technical, what is unknowable has nothing to do with what can or cannot be proven either. Knowledge is not the same thing as proof.

NONE of you take care with the words you use... you haphazardly consider certain words to be synonymous when they are not. Knowledge is not the same as proof, and it is not the same as belief... that is why they are three different words.
Deathclock
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2012
It is completely impossible to discuss philosophy when you are so careless with the language. "Proof" is a useless concept and the word should not even be used in this discussion at all...

Most of you are not prepared to discuss these matters. I would guess that very few of you have studied epistemology at all.

I don't know why I keep trying, you can't teach calculus to someone who doesn't know algebra and you can't teach matters of philosophy to someone that doesn't know the language.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2012
What is unknown has nothing to do with what can or cannot be proven, as I stated.


How can you know something when it is not proven(albeit personally)?

from dictionary.com
To know is to be aware of something as a fact or truth: He knows the basic facts of the subject. I know that he agrees with me.


To know something relies on the fact that something can be proven.

Lets deduce.

He knows the basic facts of the subject(The basic facts have been proven to him). I know that he agrees with me.(By what he has said or done it is proven to I that he agrees.)


from dictionary.com
to establish the truth or genuineness of, as by evidence or argument: to prove one's claim.


To know the truth thus it has been proven.

It is completely impossible to discuss philosophy when you are so careless with the language. "Proof" is a useless concept and the word should not even be used in this discussion at all...


Nah.. and you try hammering me for my language?
kochevnik
2.3 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2012
How can you know something when it is not proven(albeit personally)?
Knowledge can come from positivism, while proof always involves predication. Yet one can know that quasars exist but not predicate the time or place of one being discovered. Or the reverse, supersymmetry may predicate, or prove, a particle capable of existing but it has never been observed.
Larkus
3 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2012
But, an all powerful God has command over ALL "scientific and historic evidence".

Ah, I see, a radical sceptic.

Yes, God could have put fossils into the ground to test our faith. Just as Santa is testing our faith by hiding his North Pole base before our eyes and by appearing to be too fat for chimneys.

Clausism and A-Clausism are both unscientific.

A-Clausists base their "beliefs" on physical evidence. If Santa Claus exists, though, physical evidence is something he can change.

A-Clausism is just a belief system, Faith.


A possibility, that agnostics have to consider, too, is that [i]God[/i] is changing the physical evidence for Santa's existence, or for that matter, for anything else's existence.

So your claim, that the probability of Santa Claus's existence is very low, doesn't hold up under scrutiny.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2012
"Willpower is a quality that can be in short supply in all of us but its one that, as we report in this weeks TIME, is increasingly seen as cultivatable."
"Whats more, neurologists and behavioral psychologists generally think of willpower as whats known as domain general, which means that the more you practice it to control one behavior say, overeating the more it starts to apply itself to other parts of your life like exercising more or drinking less."
"That sense of conscious adherence and regular practice is precisely the reason religious observances that prescribe strict rituals of self-denial can be so powerful."
"
The best thing about religion is that the very absence of that certainty is what requires and gives rise to deep feelings of faith. Lent and Ramadan and Yom Kippur teach both."

Read more: http://ideas.time...nJ7beiR7
Deathclock
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2012
How can you know something when it is not proven(albeit personally)?


Nothing you think you know is "proven"... The dictionary definition you provided didn't help your case at all, I don't know why you posted it.

To know something relies on the fact that something can be proven.


Nothing can be proven... Knowledge is relative to axioms, assumptions.

Lets deduce.

from dictionary.com


Dictionary.com is utterly useless when discussing philosophy. You sound like a grade school student.

"Proof" is a useless concept and the word should not even be used in this discussion at all...
Nah...


Yeah...
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2012
"The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: Why dont you call yourself an agnostic? Prof Dawkins answered that he did. "

"An incredulous Sir Anthony replied: You are described as the worlds most famous atheist.

Prof Dawkins said that he was 6.9 out of seven sure of his beliefs.

I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low, he added. "
http://www.telegr...ist.html
Deathclock
1 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2012
ryggesogn... I'd like to know why you posted that, what meaning you think it has or what point you are trying to make with it... because I see none.

Richard Dawkins is ONE man. He certainly has HIS OWN beliefs. He beliefs that God does not exist, but that is NOT a requirement for calling yourself an Atheist. An Atheist is someone who does not belief in God.

Not believing in God is different than believing there are no Gods. The prior is the DEFINITION of Atheism, the former is an ADDITIONAL belief that has no bearing on whether or not you are an Atheist.
Deathclock
1 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2012
I don't believe in any God. This is not a belief, it is the absence of a belief.

If someone asked me "Do you believe in God" I would answer "No". (Note: this IS a yes or no question, there are no other options).

However, I ALSO believe that there no Gods. This IS a belief, and it is NOT required in order to call yourself an Atheist.

When you are careful with your usage of words and give close consideration for their meaning things start to make a lot more sense.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2012
I, unlike you, have been considering these concepts for DECADES. I am old.
This would explain your rambling flooding and lack of substance?
I don't believe in any God. This is not a belief, it is the absence of a belief.
Youre pretty haphazard with words yourself. I guess its easier to keep talking than to stop sometimes isnt it?
Deathclock
1 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2012
I don't believe in any God. This is not a belief, it is the absence of a belief.
Youre pretty haphazard with words yourself. I guess its easier to keep talking than to stop sometimes isnt it?


Explain yourself. There is nothing wrong with my statement.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2012
The probability for Santa Clauses existence is very low.
How about this... Santa claus exists because there is an xmas. If there were no xmas then there would be no santa claus. No one would be talking about the possibility of the existance of santa because there would be no reason for him to exist in the first place.

Similarly, god exists solely to serve religion. Without religion no one would be considering the possibility of a supreme commander because there would be no reason for him to exist. Philos have only wrestled with the concept in deference to their sponsors, the religion-controlled, funded, and legitimized political and educational institutions which gave them Purpose.

So religion is the cause of god. Without religion there would be no god. And as religion is such a critical danger to the future of civilization, obviously, then the sooner we can do away with religion the sooner we can stop wasting time on the non-issue of god.

Thoughts? Comments?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2012
I don't believe in any God. This is not a belief, it is the absence of a belief.
Youre pretty haphazard with words yourself. I guess its easier to keep talking than to stop sometimes isnt it?
Explain yourself. There is nothing wrong with my statement.
Lets see. In your own words it was 'useless and hopeless'. Oh and 'stupid'.

I thought a few pages ago you said you were 'done with turroptosis -? Yet more dumping to do though it seems?
Deathclock
1 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2012
I don't believe in any God. This is not a belief, it is the absence of a belief.
Youre pretty haphazard with words yourself. I guess its easier to keep talking than to stop sometimes isnt it?
Explain yourself. There is nothing wrong with my statement.
Lets see. In your own words it was 'useless and hopeless'. Oh and 'stupid'.

I thought a few pages ago you said you were 'done with turroptosis -? Yet more dumping to do though it seems?


Oh, you're only criticizing me for continuing to post here when I have already said it was pointless, I see.
knowalot
1 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2012
Time for a visit to the funny farm


Perhaps. Whenever I watch "Through the wormhole" I notice how scientists continually work with unproven assumptions about the universe. Some believe in extra dimensions, others do not. Some think the speed of light is constant, some don't. Some think the universe oscillates, some do not. None of them have any direct evidence for their beliefs. The inflation theory was even called a hypothesis without any form of proof.

If this is science, I think it is perfectly ok to defend a personal belief in God even without any direct evidence, but for instance based on personal experiences.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2012
If this is science, I think it is perfectly ok to defend a personal belief in God even without any direct evidence, but for instance based on personal experiences.
Well, if we consider the fact that god doesnt exist then we can begin to look for more mundane and useful and realistic explanations for these personal experiences. They ARE guaranteed to exist, whether or not we ever discover them, and only they can lead to real insight.
antialias_physorg
3 / 5 (2) Feb 24, 2012
None of them have any direct evidence for their beliefs.

Those with the best models do - because they can make predictions about future observations. Sometimes they can make predictions about weird stuff (like time dilation) which turns out to be true. This marks the best theories.

(And no: Science is not a belief. Stop saying that. It makes you look dumber than you are - if that is at all possible)

Back to the article: "Teaching science to the religious"

As can bee seen in this thread: First step is to help religious people to see that they are fooling themselves. This does not require teaching. It requires therapy.
kochevnik
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2012
Those with the best models do - because they can make predictions about future observations.
Fundies also make predictions, which are invariably 100% wrong. That is statistically impossible given pure chance. Obviously hidden within the body of religious text is information that yields consistent predictive capability. Exploring their world can lead to real insight. Simply chucking their texts on the dung heap could destroy science as we know it. /s
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (1) Feb 24, 2012
Obviously hidden within the body of religious text is information that yields consistent predictive capability.

You mean predictive incapability.

Being consistently wrong is not impossible since there is only one way to be right but virtually infinite ways to be wrong. Starting from wrong premises WILL assure wrong outcomes (in programming terms this is called GIGO: Garbage In - Garbage Out)

Exploring their world can lead to real insight

Agreed. Research into psychosis, delusion and schizophrenia benefits immeasurably.

Simply chucking their texts on the dung heap could destroy science as we know it

Hint: Science chucked these texts on the dung heap 2000 years ago - with no ill effects to science at all.
dogbert
1 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2012
It is instructive to observe how an article with the word "religions" deteriorates rapidly into an attack on God and Christianity -- 16 pages worth now.

The article itself was quite reasonable, but the comments, as usual, are all about lauding atheism and attacking God.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2012
Those with the best models do - because they can make predictions about future observations.
Fundies also make predictions, which are invariably 100% wrong. That is statistically impossible given pure chance. Obviously hidden within the body of religious text is information that yields consistent predictive capability. Exploring their world can lead to real insight. Simply chucking their texts on the dung heap could destroy science as we know it. /s

The Bible keeps recounting how His people prosper when they follow God and are conquered and enslaved when they don't.
Of course one can say that when any culture follows moral principles, they prosper and when they don't, they fail.
Deathclock
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 24, 2012
It is instructive to observe how an article with the word "religions" deteriorates rapidly into an attack on God and Christianity -- 16 pages worth now.

The article itself was quite reasonable, but the comments, as usual, are all about lauding atheism and attacking God.


If that's all you got from this discussion then I feel sorry for you.
knowalot
1 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2012
Dear antialias,

I do not know your personal background, but from your comments I can tell you lack empathy more than anything else. You fail to realize how tragic an illness like schizophrenia is for sufferers and their loved ones.

Perhaps then you would be more careful with your words. I also do not understand why you keep on labeling people who have some form of belief in God as mentally ill. These remarks are very foolish as well as very hurtful.

Your kind of commenting is consistently below normal levels of decency however. I also take issue with the way you cut and twist my and other people's comments. I believe in God, but I am certainly not a mental patient. I am a father, a husband and a respected member of society.

I also fail to understand why Physorg allows your kind of comments to pollute their otherwise quite reasonable site. What is the point of a debate if you are deliberately abrasive towards others? What is so difficult about giving some respect to others?
antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2012
You fail to realize how tragic an illness like schizophrenia is for sufferers and their loved ones.

I do realize it. I saw churches full of it.

why you keep on labeling people who have some form of belief in God as mentally ill

People who deny reality, claim to behave logically, but act illogically (and demand illogical things of others) are - in the most literal sense of the word - IN-sane. That their form of in-sanity fits all the prerequisites of established, medical psychoses is not my doing. I just use the label that fits best.

I believe in God, but I am certainly not a mental patient.

Contradiction in terms. The fact that you don't even see it makes it all the more saddening.

What is the point of a debate if you are deliberately abrasive towards others?

Point being: This is a science site. Take your religious drivel elsewhere. Plenty of sites where you can post on how much you love your invisible sky fairy. Not here. Here it's off topic.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2012
knowalot (oh, what irony)
it seems I have to spell it out a bit more: religious people can never get what science is about. Religious people always arrive sooner or later at the 'god did it' point (otherwise they would not be believers). This is incompatible with science.

If you notice: The very first post on this thread was a religious nutcase post.

People come here to discuss science. It is incomprehensible why people who cannot get science (for the above reason) are even here. They only troll and never contribute anything worthwhile.
It would be nice if they'd just go away (in real life, too, but that is probably too much to ask).

They should just let people who are interested in science peruse a science site to talk about science. Is that too much to ask? we don't spam religious sites with scientific debate - do we? No. So extend us the same courtesy.
knowalot
1 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2012
Dear antialias,

It's clear that you are snubbing my comments. And it is also sad that you refuse to snap out of your superiority-stupor. This is the kind of behavior one would expect from an obstinate teenager, but not someone who claims maturity in science.

Do you have any people of faith amongst your family or peers? Do you label them as mentally ill as well? Perhaps your professor or boss believes in God. Is he/she sick as well you think? Which president are you planning to vote for? Should all the candidates (including the incumbent) be put in a mental hospital because they believe in God or the Bible?

I would like to challenge you to try and show the same level of decency you exibit in daily life when you talk to human beings. Neither atheism nor religion have all the answers to life. As you grow older you will learn this eventually. Using real arguments instead of verbosity and insults is more difficult and scary, but more rewarding in the long run. Try it I say.
dogbert
1 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2012
antialias,
Take your religious drivel elsewhere. Plenty of sites where you can post on how much you love your invisible sky fairy. Not here. Here it's off topic.


It is hardly off topic to discuss an article on physorg. Note that the title of this article is:
Teaching science to the religious? Focus on how theories develop


It is a good article. You should read it.

antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2012
This is the kind of behavior one would expect from an obstinate teenager,

No. This is the kind of behavior who is deeply disgusted by (most) religious people. (there are a few exceptions. Mostly those that can treat religion as something that is personal and doesn't belong in the public space)
Do you have any people of faith amongst your family or peers?

Yes I do. These are the above mentioned exceptions. they, however, don't make illogical claims or demand illogical things of me.
Which president are you planning to vote for?

You mean if I were a US citizen? What has that got to do with anything? Politicians will profess to any faith that gives them the most votes. We all know they lie. None of them believe in a god (and no leaders of other nation do - nor the heads of any religions). So I could vote for any of them (if that were the sole criterion)
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2012
Neither atheism nor religion have all the answers to life.

I can't speak for all atheists (since atheism is not an activity and hence this is not a group that has anything in common. Not being an activity it is also especially not concerned with finding answers). But I could rephrase your comment as:
"Neither science nor religion have all the answers to life."
I agree that science doesn't have all the answers (but it has some, and at least it has a method of getting at more).
Religion, on the other hand, has none and no way of getting any.

Using real arguments instead of verbosity and insults is more difficult

If you've read the past 17 pages you will notice that that has been tried by numerous people. Resulting in religious posters sticking their fingers in their ears and going "lalala".
knowalot
1 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2012
Dear antialias,

As for your comment that this is a science site, you are correct. However this very article deals with the tension between science and religion. That does warrant comments analyzing this relationship. Most scientists do not see any dichotomy between science and religion, even atheists. To say that only science can establish truth is of course establishing a circular argument, because such a statement itself cannot be scientifically proven.

Furthermore, science rests on important concepts that science cannot explain, but are simply accepted as basic truths. Things like the nature and existence of reality, the reliability of our senses and memory, and the human ability for logic reasoning are beyond scientific proof. To claim that the concept of God has no place in science is arbitrary and therefore unscientific. Like inflation and black holes, God could well exist, but his existence cannot be proven through direct observation of nature.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2012
Most scientists do not see any dichotomy between science and religion

That is one bold faced lie.
I have NEVER met a scientist in the physical sciences who does not see the dichotomy here. And I dare say I know a few more than you do.

To say that only science can establish truth

Mind pulling those fingers out of your ears and stop singing "lalala"? It has been repeated numerous times on this very thread that science isn't about finding truth. It's about finding what works. Truth is something for lala-land. You, again, try to demand illogical things. Think first before you type. Please. Do.

are beyond scientific proof.

Dear Lord. How often do we have to repeat this? Science doesn't prove.
Do you see why we're so exasperate? You come to a science site to discuss science - but you show at every turn that you do not have ab inkling of a clue what scienec is.

It's like talking to a child that won't listen and persist in repeating the false things it thinks is
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2012
Actually, you know what? The past 2 pages of discussion are very relevant to the article. They show EXACTLY why it is so hard to teach science to religious people. Religious people don't understand what science is in the first place - as I pointed out a few posts back.

You have, at every turn, made my point for me. Perfect.
The vexing thing is: you won't understand that you have.
knowalot
1 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2012
Dont turn this into a linguistic game please. I have worked as a scientist in academia and am MSc in two science disciplines. Your characterization of science is just one of many shades of grey. Science usually involves making assumptions about reality and testing them. One could call that a search for truth, or at least a perceived truth. At CERN people are trying to find evidence for the existence of the Higgs. For most of them the Higgs is not just a piece in a some mathematical puzzle, but part of reality. As soon as they have collected enough evidence, they will call that proof, at least in a statistical sense. The word proof is quite all right if understood in the correct context.
knowalot
1 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2012
So you would vote for a liar but not for someone who believes in God. Is that rational? Anyway, I now read that you are indeed making an exception. Not all people that believe in God are insane after all. It's just the ones you do not know personally that may be labeled as such, safely behind the anonymous keyboard. Not really consistent with your earlier confidence.

For you religion is ok as long as is remains hidden. That position is a violation of basic human rights as outlined in the UDHR article 18, which states that every human being has the right to practice their religion freely and publicly within the bounds of law. Your opinion would be more consistent with dictatorial regimes such as the former USSR ,where religion was banned from public space. Is that your idea of academic freedom? To never be confronted with unwelcome views?
juanko
1 / 5 (3) Feb 24, 2012
a friend's sister-in-law makes $65 hourly on the laptop. She has been laid off for 6 months but last month her pay was $19426 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Go to this web site and read more NuttyRich dot com
Deathclock
1 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2012
The word proof is quite all right if understood in the correct context.


Agreed.

(I felt the need to comment since I am the one constantly harping on the improper use of the word here)
kochevnik
3 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2012
Of course one can say that when any culture follows moral principles, they prosper and when they don't, they fail.
Like being your own robber baron and being a welfare queen while preaching that it's evil alongside your boyfriend who strangled little girls before being enlightened by the righteousness of pure selfishness?
I do not know your personal background, but from your comments I can tell you lack empathy more than anything else.
You pious xtian comments roll off us like teflon. Your hurt-feelings strawman probably doesn't exist any more than your imaginary friend.
kochevnik
3 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2012
It's clear that you are snubbing my comments. And it is also sad that you refuse to snap out of your superiority-stupor.
Of course he's superior. He not an animal forced to blindly believe, nor a religious psychotic slaved to superstition. He's more evolved than you. You spend your waking moments dwelling on him as the embodiment of your deficiencies, while he has no such burden. That's why xtians are always questioning atheists. They can't comprehend that their entire world framework amounts to absolute nothing. What a pathetic waste of time you've exercised. No different than any mentally ill person, though. Except they seek help. Perhaps we should establish licensed atheist therapists for recovering xtians. Much healing remains to be done.
kochevnik
3.4 / 5 (5) Feb 24, 2012
Your opinion would be more consistent with dictatorial regimes such as the former USSR ,where religion was banned from public space. Is that your idea of academic freedom? To never be confronted with unwelcome views?
I am thankful every day that the church was expelled from academics. Now they are busy dumbing down Russia with xtian retardation, and some sadly are weak enough to fall for their mythos. Believers in Zagorsk look at me as if I am the embodiment of all they hate. Freedom of religion means freedom FROM religion.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Feb 24, 2012
I have NEVER met a scientist in the physical sciences who does not see the dichotomy here. And I dare say I know a few more than you do.

You need to get out more often.

"In 1979, shortly after Jane and I moved to Gaithersburg, we joined Fairhaven United Methodist Church. We had not been regular church-goers during our years at MIT, but Ed and Jean Williams invited us to Fairhaven and there we found a congregation whose ethnic and racial diversity offered an irresistible richness of worship experience."
William Phillips, Nobel Physics 1997.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2012
"that science has its own faith-based belief system. All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldnt be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. When physicists probe to a deeper level of subatomic structure, or astronomers extend the reach of their instruments, they expect to encounter additional elegant mathematical order. And so far this faith has been justified."
"The job of the scientist, we were told, is to discover the laws and apply them, not inquire into their provenance. The laws were treated as given imprinted on the universe like a makers mark at the moment of cosmic birth and fixed forevermore. Therefore, to be a scientist, you had to have faith that the universe is governed by dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an unspecified origin. "
http://www.nytime...nted=all
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2012
"because the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way."
"the laws should have an explanation from within the universe and not involve appealing to an external agency. The specifics of that explanation are a matter for future research. But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus."
http://www.nytime...nted=all
Deathclock
1.4 / 5 (9) Feb 25, 2012
New York Times op-ed pieces? Really?

you might as well quote Harry Potter books to make your point...
CardacianNeverid
5 / 5 (2) Feb 25, 2012
So you would vote for a liar but not for someone who believes in God. Is that rational? - knownothing

Yes. Everyone lies - everyone. At least if they don't believe in magical figures, that is one less thing they can lie about.

For you religion is ok as long as is remains hidden. That position is a violation of basic human rights - knownothing

WTF? Are you insane?

...every human being has the right to practice their religion freely and publicly within the bounds of law - knownothing

Or any other half-assed belief system that doesn't break the law. What is your point?

Your opinion would be more consistent with dictatorial regimes such as the former USSR - knownothing

Jump to conclusions much? Oh, wait, you do!

I have worked as a scientist in academia and am MSc in two science disciplines - knownothing

I call BS. Else state your full scientific qualifications.
knowalot
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 25, 2012
I am just baffled by the level of anger and frustration coming from some of the participants towards people of faith. You would think they suffer from some kind of extensive childhood trauma to exhibit this kind of behavior.

What on earth does a comment like "are you insane" or "take your drivel elsewhere" do in a rational and civilized discussion between educated people? You would expect that kind of mud slinging in a market place or coming from an angry mob. Not from people that had the privilege to be put through university at taxpayer cost. If this poor level of rationality and social skills truly represents the next generation of scientists then I fear the worst for western society in the near future. I am thinking about science and philosophy all wasted on a generation that is self-deluded to think that debating is all about shouting and voting down opponents.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2012
New York Times op-ed pieces? Really?

you might as well quote Harry Potter books to make your point...

The author of the editorial, Paul Davies:
"I am a theoretical physicist and cosmologist by profession,"
http://cosmos.asu.edu/
kochevnik
3 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2012
Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine
In other news, the first men were monkeys. Besides, absolute frames of reference aren't central to physics, but only Newtonian mechanics. FAIL
But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus."
So why are libertarians cutting funds to NASA and Fermilab? You agree they have much work remaining to do!
Deathclock
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 25, 2012
Not from people that had the privilege to be put through university at taxpayer cost.


I worked two jobs and attended school full time, nice to know that you got a free ride though, maybe that's why you are all "live and let live", because you didn't have to work to get to where you are so you place no value in it and therefore feel no compelling reason to defend it from the ignorant majority that attacks it on a daily basis at every level of our society.
kochevnik
3 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2012
@knowalot I am just baffled by the level of anger and frustration
In short, you're a sore loser who has been utterly decimated and defeated at every turn. We're still awaiting transport to the underverse by your invisible superfriend, but you keep holding back. Sour grapes make good wine?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2012
So why are libertarians cutting funds to NASA and Fermilab?

Notice that it the 'liberal'/socialists who are in control of the US govt budget now.
kochevnik
3 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2012
Notice that it the 'liberal'/socialists who are in control of the US govt budget now.
What does that have to do with your anti-science, counterreformationsit libertarian stance? Nada. Zip.
Deathclock
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 25, 2012
"But until science comes up with a testable theory of the laws of the universe, its claim to be free of faith is manifestly bogus."
http://www.nytime...nted=all


This person does not know what the word faith means, the scientific method is free of faith BY DEFINITION.
dogbert
1 / 5 (8) Feb 25, 2012
knowalot,
I am just baffled by the level of anger and frustration coming from some of the participants towards people of faith. You would think they suffer from some kind of extensive childhood trauma to exhibit this kind of behavior.


Not really. The activist atheists who continually make such comments are just zealous in their religion. Unfortunately, they lack the grace and compassion of other religions having learned no restraint from their own.

They worship nature by many names: Nature, Science, Evolution, Gaia, etc. They hate all other religions but particularly the God of Abraham and Christians.

They cannot discuss science as science because they see science as god. That is why they turn all discussions to religion and why they attack all other religions.

They particularly hate Abrahamic religions because it is difficult to worship the creation and not worship the creator. The existence of God is inconvenient for them.
kochevnik
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2012
They particularly hate Abrahamic religions because it is difficult to worship the creation and not worship the creator. The existence of God is inconvenient for them.
If Napoleon in exile were alive today, he too would be ranting and raving on the Internet from his barren rock in the midst of a vast ocean.

Hmm, sour grapes!
Larkus
3 / 5 (2) Feb 25, 2012
deleted
Turritopsis
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 25, 2012
The atheists are just pissed because consciously they've come to the realization that Atheism is just another Religion.

They thought themselves intellectually superior and are now realizing that their superiority is just a complex.

It is hard, sometimes, coming to terms with reality.

Reality is what it is, though.

Atheism is a belief that there is no God(s).
Turritopsis
1.5 / 5 (8) Feb 25, 2012
I shouldn't generalize.

Most atheists understand the limitations of their belief.

The atheists expressing anger on this thread are coming to terms with reality.

You can't prove Gods existence, the religious understand this, they have Faith.

You can't prove God doesn't exist, if you still believe he doesn't, well, without physical proof, all you got is Faith.
Larkus
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2012
Indeed, Turritopsis,

all those people that assert without physical proof, that Santa Claus does not exist should realize that they really only have created a new religion of A-Clausism.

They thought themselves intellectually superior and are now realizing that their superiority is just a complex.

It is hard, sometimes, coming to terms with reality.

Reality is what it is, though.

A-Clausism is a belief that there is no Santa.
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 25, 2012
The atheists are just pissed because consciously they've come to the realization that Atheism is just another Religion.

Atheism is as much a religion as 'not eating anything' is like consuming food. You are WAY off track (as usual)

They thought themselves intellectually superior and are now realizing that their superiority is just a complex.

Well, if atheists understand what atheism is and they als understand what religion and belief is - while religiosu people obviously understand only what belief is...then yeah: atehists are obviously intellectually superior.

It is hard, sometimes, coming to terms with reality.

Says the guy believing in a fantasy. Do you even know how unintentionally ironic your postings are?
kochevnik
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 25, 2012
Atheism is a belief that there is no God(s).
So says Turritopsis the completely discredited poet of self-contradictory polemics.
kaasinees
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 25, 2012
Nothing can be proven... Knowledge is relative to axioms, assumptions.

You are confusing between the contexts of absolute and abstract.
If what you are saying is true, nothing can be proven(which is a false statement according to the definition of proof) science is useless.

Way to undermine a conversation by switching from abstraction to absolution.

Science relies on abstract truth(proof). Religion claims to know the absolute truth(as most isms do) that's the main difference.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2012
Atheism is as much a religion as 'not eating anything' is like consuming food. You are WAY off track (as usual)


I can prove to you that as a creature of sustenance, without food you will wither and die.

Now it's your turn, prove to me that Atheism is not a matter of Belief.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2012
Atheism is as much a religion as 'not eating anything' is like consuming food. You are WAY off track (as usual)

Many philosophers that coined the word describe it as denying religious beliefs, denying god etc. Tell me who changed it to mean something in the lines of agnosticism?
Atheism is a belief just like all other isms.
The wikipedia page in my language also splits atheism into groups, weak and strong atheism. Even though the original philosopher described it as denying god. But we could both be right.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2012
An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God. Period.

A soft atheist is like a soft penis. It stands for nothing.

What? You only believe in God a little?
kochevnik
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2012
Many philosophers that coined the word describe it as denying religious beliefs, denying god etc.
Then they were bad philosophers because atheism isn't NECESSARILY positivism, no matter how much you muddled brain would wish otherwise. Sure there are positivist atheists, due to overwhelming evidence. Intelligence includes the ability to make proper distinctions.
A soft atheist...
That's WAY too much information about your personal issues.
Larkus
3 / 5 (2) Feb 25, 2012
Turritopsis wrote:
An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God. Period.


Finally he gets it.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2012
Notice that it the 'liberal'/socialists who are in control of the US govt budget now.
What does that have to do with your anti-science, counterreformationsit libertarian stance? Nada. Zip.

You assert libertarians are 'liberals'?
Again, it is the socialists (Obama regime) that are cutting funds to NASA and are anti-science if your accusations are to be considered accurate.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (8) Feb 25, 2012
I am just baffled by the level of anger and frustration coming from some of the participants towards people of faith. You would think they suffer from some kind of extensive childhood trauma to exhibit this kind of behavior.
Ah yes. The pious religionist highground. Its easier to talk that way with your nose in the air isnt it? Easier to remain calm and collected while under the influence of your drug of choice?

Religionists exude this persona to impress the audience. I remember reading comments from a fence sitter who finally chose religion because religionists were so much NICER. What does nice have to do with it? You guys smile pleasantly while lying through your teeth. This would enrage anybody and rightfully so.

Antireligionists have moral outrage on their side. They are perfectly correct in expressing it when they read about religion-caused misery in the world. You gentlemen can leer from behind your glassy-eyed epiphany-induced stupor all you want.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2012
They are perfectly correct in expressing it when they read about religion-caused misery in the world.

But they ignore the misery created by socialists, which is significantly greater in quantity and quality.
But then socialism is a religion, too.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2012
atheism isn't positivism


Atheism negates Theism.

Therefore, from a theists perspective and the perspective of a neutral party (an agnostic), atheism is negativism.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2012
"KABUL, Afghanistan Two American officers were shot dead inside the Interior Ministry building here on Saturday, and NATO responded by immediately pulling all military advisers out of Afghan ministries in Kabul, in a deepening of the crisis over the American militarys burning of Korans at a NATO army base."

-You god addicts are directly responsible for this. What do you have to say for yourselves?
But they ignore the misery created by socialists, which is significantly greater in quantity and quality.
But then socialism is a religion, too.
Precisely. So you are saying that 2 wrongs make a right?
Larkus
3 / 5 (2) Feb 25, 2012
Turritopsis wrote:
An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God. Period.


Finally he gets it.


Without proof, therefore it is a matter of Faith.

Case closed.


To the same extent that not believing in Santa is a matter of Faith.

Indeed, case closed.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2012
The advantages of the god religions are their ability to convince people that they can provide eternal life in paradise for believers and their loved ones and also grant wishes.

These things are obviously far more powerful in making people do truly horrendous things. Socialism can only ever make things better in this life. Unless it too is god-based at the core? Did marx ever use the word spirit??
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (7) Feb 25, 2012
Why yes indeed does marx speak of the spirit and the soul:

"The representation of private interests ... abolishes all natural and spiritual distinctions by enthroning in their stead the immoral, irrational and soulless abstraction of a particular material object and a particular consciousness which is slavishly subordinated to this object."

Marx, On the Thefts of Wood, in Rheinische Zeitung (1842)

-Could it be that socialism is only another way of offering favoritism and immortality?

So rygge the thing which you hate is apparently the image in the mirror.
Deathclock
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 25, 2012
Nothing can be proven... Knowledge is relative to axioms, assumptions.

You are confusing between the contexts of absolute and abstract.
If what you are saying is true, nothing can be proven(which is a false statement according to the definition of proof) science is useless.

Way to undermine a conversation by switching from abstraction to absolution.

Science relies on abstract truth(proof). Religion claims to know the absolute truth(as most isms do) that's the main difference.


You don't know what science is. Science doesn't try to PROVE anything. The scientific process includes gathering evidence, forming hypotheses, testing hypotheses, gathering more evidence, forming theories, testing predictions made by those theories. That is science, it has NOTHING to do with "proof".

I'm so fucking sick of the idiots that post on this site. You can (and I have) tell them the same things over and over again and they just ignore it in favor of their own stupidity.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 25, 2012
atheism isn't positivism


Atheism negates Theism.

Therefore, from a theists perspective and the perspective of a neutral party (an agnostic), atheism is negativism.
Only in the sense that a plug is the negative of a hole.
Deathclock
2.3 / 5 (10) Feb 25, 2012
Proof is dogmatic. Once something is "proven" there is no reason to question it. Science is not dogmatic, that is the antithesis of science. Science doesn't consider ANYTHING to be proven, we reserve doubt in EVERYTHING, anything else is ignorant.

The very idea of proof is folly. Dogma is the enemy of reason.

If you think the scientific method is concerned with proof or proving things then you're a fucking idiot and I don't care how many negative ratings that gets me, someone needs to say it.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Feb 25, 2012
Science doesn't consider ANYTHING to be proven, we reserve doubt in EVERYTHING, anything else is ignorant.

Except for AGW, that 'science' is 'settled'.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2012
Proof is dogmatic. Once something is "proven" there is no reason to question it.
Think about this statement and ask yourself why you thought it was worth saying. And then saying something like
The very idea of proof is folly.
You have a compulsion to post and a compulsion to say things like 'fucking idiot'.
Deathclock
1 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2012
Notice the quotes around "proven" Otto...?
kaasinees
1 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2012
Proof is dogmatic. Once something is "proven" there is no reason to question it. Science is not dogmatic, that is the antithesis of science. Science doesn't consider ANYTHING to be proven, we reserve doubt in EVERYTHING, anything else is ignorant.

The very idea of proof is folly. Dogma is the enemy of reason.

If you think the scientific method is concerned with proof or proving things then you're a fucking idiot and I don't care how many negative ratings that gets me, someone needs to say it.

Alright then. Since proof is useless, what are you trying to prove with your post?
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2012
If what you are saying is true, nothing can be proven(which is a false statement according to the definition of proof) science is useless.

Science proves nothing - but it is far from worthless. If a scientific analysis can give you an indication (through repeated tests and observation) that the likelyhood of a certain event taking place will be 99.99999999999...% then that knowledge is useful to you in making a decision. It can be so useful that you build entire machines on such a process and trust your life to them.

E.g. getting a fuel molecule and an air molecule together and supplying some thermal energy will very likely - but not absolutely always - result in an explosion which will drive your jet engine forwards. This is so likely that you entrust your life to jet engines NOT going out in mid flight. So was finding out that fuel burns most of the time? Surely it was. Is it proven that it always does? No.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2012
Science is about testing a theory against physical reality.

If the theory fits reality your theory is proven realistic.

This doesn't mean that your theory can't be wrong, but it does fit the real criteria you test for.

This is how a theory is qualified. You attempt to falsify it and it fails falsification.
------
Now give me a way of falsifying the theory of God.

You can't. No such thing exists.

You can't falsify that God exists. You can't falsify that He doesn't.
------
Theists believe in God. They have Faith, no falsification method exists to prove this belief.

Atheists believe there is no God. They have Faith, no falsification method exists to prove this belief.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2012
You don't need theories to conduct scientific research, however.

The laws of interactions require no theory, only measurements.

You don't need a theory of gravity.
------
Take a rock.

Hold it 1 meter above ground.

Let it go.

You have proven (with 100% certainty) that the rock falls to the ground.
----

No theory involved at all.

Real life physical PROOF of interaction.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2012
The fully abstract concept of God indeed cannot be proven, neither disproved - but at the moment when you attribute some particular properties to Him, you will make the whole concept testable. And this is just a problem of God hypothesis: it continuously recedes in neverending defensive, because the science just replaces another and another subjects of belief with testable hypothesis.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2012
From this reason I presume, the concept of God can be replaced with random Universe hypothesis: we don't know, how the Universe appears and from what it's made, but the random solution is simply most probable solution from all proposals available. Why should be Universe zero at its very beginning? Why not three, four or some other number? The eternal, infinite random state is the most viable hypothesis here, because it doesn't brings any other questions and it requires least number of introductory postulates - which is a great advantage with respect to Occam's razor criterion. I do perceive the notion of God rather as an subconscious expression of this fundamental principle inside of human minds. The people somehow guessed, that the observable reality has no actual limit, so they invented the concept of God to describe it intuitively.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2012
E.g. getting a fuel molecule and an air molecule together and supplying some thermal energy will very likely - but not absolutely always - result in an explosion which will drive your jet engine forwards. This is so likely that you entrust your life to jet engines NOT going out in mid flight. So was finding out that fuel burns most of the time? Surely it was. Is it proven that it always does? No.

That depends entirely on a number of factors. Pressure, velocity, inertia, temperature etc. of those particular molecules and i am sure i am forgetting a lot of other factors that i don't even know of.
And this is exactly what i am trying to say, the proof is not absolute, it is abstract. We leave out numerous of factors because they don't matter in the average action of the jet engine. It simplifies the formula, and it will be proven in the abstract.
If we take this formula in the absolute, of course it will never be proven true because first of all those factors are missing.
antialias_physorg
4 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2012
Theists believe in God. They have Faith, no falsification method exists to prove this belief.

Atheists believe there is no God. They have Faith, no falsification method exists to prove this belief.

Erm. No? That's not how it works. You just can't make up something nonsensical (like gods) and then claim it makes sense because you have made it up in a way that it cannot be tested.

That's like me making up a frodudeldum and saying: "Show me it's not real. You can't. Therefore it is possibly real"
See how that is completely insane? There is no logic to it.

And this is exactly what i am trying to say, the proof is not absolute, it is abstract.

Science doesn't prove. Get this through your head. You're making nonsensical demands of science that are completely fabricated by you.

The only thing I just proved is that your statement "science is useless" is false.

kochevnik
3 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2012
Atheism negates Theism. Therefore, from a theists perspective and the perspective of a neutral party (an agnostic), atheism is negativism.
Only in the sense that a plug is the negative of a hole.
More like the entire universe is the negative of that tiny xtian hole.
Erm. No? That's not how it works. You just can't make up something nonsensical (like gods) and then claim it makes sense because
This is exactly what theists do, and distrubingly it's not limited to their god. They are in the habit of creating crap out of thin air. So to put antialias in a bad light they summon up an army of "marganalized schitzophrenics" who are wounded by some statement. Or they breathe life into a word. "Atheist" is not something and it doesn't exist. It's a characterization. Yet they pump up the word with so much hot air you would think atheists are on a united front per se, instead of being united by the outright intolerance and fascism of the absolutist theists.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2012
Science doesn't prove. Get this through your head. You're making nonsensical demands of science that are completely fabricated by you.


Sigh, stop your dogmatism. I thought you were intelligent.

http://dictionary...?q=proof

Now what is your definition of proof?
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2012
That's like me making up a frodudeldum and saying: "Show me it's not real. You can't. Therefore it is possibly real" See how that is completely insane? There is no logic to it.
The dense aether model or quantum mechanics is indeterministic by its very nature. The fact, the deterministic surface ripples don't spread trough underwater is, this environment is too chaotic for them. If we would live at the water surface, we would have no idea about the underwater. Nevertheless, from more general perspective such an environment still does exist. Therefore the lack of logics may be simply a product of your low-dimensional perspective of seeing of things. For example, for our animal pets most of what we are doing has absolutely no logics. My dog can see me programming, but he has absolutely no idea of what I'm doing. The lack of logics in my activity still doesn't make this activity less real.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2012
IMO the common ignorance if not negativism of both proponents of mainstream physics, both religious people with respect to dense aether model may indicate, the point of their mutual misunderstanding is right here...;-) Because in AWT the random reality is neither logical, neither fully indeterministic. Even the most random environment which you can imagine has a some rudimentary laws and distributions hardwired in it. For example, inside of random environment the states of the same energy are less frequent, than the states of different energy. The sequence of the same dice throws in line is less probable, than the sequence of random numbers. This is indeed not a random behavior. This is a law - so we cannot invent fully random environment without any determinism in it.
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Feb 25, 2012
The really weird thing on this thread is:

- Religious people thinking they know what atheism is more so than atheists do.

- Non-scientists thinking they know what science is more so than scientists do.

It's the Dunning Kruger effect to an extreme
http://en.wikiped...r_effect

You sound like armachair coaches/atheletes who think that they would be all-stars and/or brilliant strategists without ever having played the game (and without even knowing what game you are talking about)

Now what is your definition of proof?

What does it matter? Science isn't concerned with proof or truth

But my definition of proof would be:
"an information carrying statement arrived at from rigidily defined axioms via manipulation according to the rules of logic"
(i.e. that which happens in math).

But again: this (proof/truth) has no bearing on the issue of science or atheism whatsoeve
kochevnik
3 / 5 (6) Feb 25, 2012
Science doesn't prove.
Sigh, stop your dogmatism. I thought you were intelligent. http://dictionary...?q=proof
That's a very sophomoric definition for physical sciences: "a fact or piece of information which shows that something exists or is true"
First, something exists if it is in space. So by that alone, there is no god and theists are lunatics. What's more pressing in maths is the ability to exist whatsoever. Yet we understand that a formal system like maths is not applicable to a physical system without extensive testing. Even then, a better understanding or formalism may come along at some future time which makes better predictions.
So even with a formal proof, applicability is subject to question in the physical sciences. Now if your god only exists within maths, he could perhaps hide there for a long time. That may be the ultimate refuge for the theists: god is num
Deathclock
1 / 5 (4) Feb 25, 2012
Science is about testing a theory against physical reality.

If the theory fits reality your theory is proven realistic.

This doesn't mean that your theory can't be wrong, but it does fit the real criteria you test for.

This is how a theory is qualified. You attempt to falsify it and it fails falsification.
------
Now give me a way of falsifying the theory of God.

You can't. No such thing exists.

You can't falsify that God exists. You can't falsify that He doesn't.
------
Theists believe in God. They have Faith, no falsification method exists to prove this belief.


Correct.

Atheists believe there is no God. They have Faith, no falsification method exists to prove this belief.


Incorrect.

You're so close! Fix that last bit and we can be friends and play xbox together!
Deathclock
1 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2012
You don't need theories to conduct scientific research, however.

The laws of interactions require no theory, only measurements.

You don't need a theory of gravity.
------
Take a rock.

Hold it 1 meter above ground.

Let it go.

You have proven (with 100% certainty) that the rock falls to the ground.
----

No theory involved at all.

Real life physical PROOF of interaction.


It is only "proof" RELATIVE TO MANY ASSUMPTIONS. That's not proof, that is "proof".

One assumption that you just made (without even realizing it I bet) is that the rock will fall to the ground AGAIN next time. Another assumption is that your perception of the rock falling to the ground was not an illusion or a hallucination.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that either of these are not the case... therefor it is impossible to prove what you just claimed to have proven.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Feb 25, 2012
Religious people thinking they know what atheism is more so than atheists do.

- Non-scientists thinking they know what science is more so than scientists do.

Dawkins knows nothing of atheism or science?
"Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist "
http://www.telegr...ist.html

Or Paul Davies?
"Taking Science on Faith "
http://www.nytime...nted=all
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2012
- Religious people thinking they know what atheism is more so than atheists do.

- Non-scientists thinking they know what science is more so than scientists do.
LOTS of atheists and antireligionists know far more about religion than the typical religionist does. On the whole we're more educated yes, but mainly we're not afraid to look. We've got nothing to lose you see.
knowalot
1 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2012
Some atheists will try to rephrase their worldview into an unverifiable position involving an absence of belief. This supposedly makes their atheism neither right nor wrong, but some kind of personal psychological state. With this definition however, atheists are not in any position to claim that God does or does not exist.

The question is if their lack of belief equals a rational position. Do they think their atheism is correct? If evidence for the existence of God is presented, they will have to consider this evidence. Then the question can be asked if based on the evidence they believe that God's existence is more likely than the opposite. Their answer will then finally "collapse the wave function" and reveal their true beliefs.

Ultimately (and I have seen this in every debate) it turns out that their atheims equals a belief that God does not exist. This belief is reveals itself in every other aspect of their life, such as a belief in naturalism and moral relativism.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2012
If evidence for the existence of God is presented, they will have to consider this evidence.

Sure. Bring some. We'll consider it.

But until you do the state of gods being a non-issue persists.

This belief is reveals itself in every other aspect of their life, such as a belief in naturalism and moral relativism.

Atheism isn't a belief (it is an absence of belief as has been explained to you numerous times by atheists. And I would hazard that atheists know a lot more what atheims is than you do. You really should take their word for it.)
Atheims cannot 'lead' to other beliefs. You can't build anything on atheism. How can you build anything on an absence?

Naturalism or moral relativism are just things that come out of an acceptance of reality 'as is'. I.e. without any psychotic or neurotic distortions put in the way (like religion or brain damage...same thing, really). This has nothing to do with atheism.
Larkus
3 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2012
"If evidence for the existence of God is presented, they will have to consider this evidence."

You already have been asked to present that evidence, if it exists. So far you have failed to do so. If no evidence is given, then no evidence can be considered.
Deathclock
1 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2012
Some atheists will try to rephrase their worldview into an unverifiable position involving an absence of belief. This supposedly makes their atheism neither right nor wrong, but some kind of personal psychological state. With this definition however, atheists are not in any position to claim that God does or does not exist.


Atheists don't make such claims... way to not know what atheism means despite the fact that a dozen Atheists have been telling you what it means for a week now in this thread.

I am an Atheist and I do not know whether or not God exists, but I do not BELIEVE in God(s).

Atheism refers to your BELIEF in God... Why is it so hard for you people to understand this?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2012
"If evidence for the existence of God is presented, they will have to consider this evidence."

You already have been asked to present that evidence, if it exists. So far you have failed to do so. If no evidence is given, then no evidence can be considered.

That is the challenge is it not? Just like Jody Foster's character in Contact, what evidence can she present that is acceptable?
The faithful have sufficient evidence which reinforces their faith. Some, like Job, had strong faith in the face of being challenged.

The challenge now to advance science is to rigorously investigate anomalous observations until fully and positively understood. Many are afraid of such effort because of peer pressure or because they are afraid of the implications.
Amateur scientist dare to investigate where the professionals fear to explore. All progress is made by the unreasonable.
knowalot
1 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2012
God either exists or He does not, that is a fact. Based on the evidence a person has access to, he will either believe one proposition or the other to be more plausible. An atheist will believe "God does not exist" to be more plausbile than "God does exist". However, he can never be a 100% sure, but he believes that he is correct based on the consideration of the available evidence (even if that evidence is zero).

Any pre-existing absence of personal belief in God is completely irrelevant during this time, because a certain mental state (like dullness being an absence of enthousiasm) should not be part of a rational thought process. Personal feelings and states of mind are neither right nor wrong, and have no place in a rational debate.
Larkus
3 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2012
"Just like Jody Foster's character in Contact, what evidence can she present that is acceptable?"

The videotape, for starters.

Then someone could have repeated the experiment with a different person.
knowalot
1 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2012
For example, one could consider the ontological argument for the existence of God. This argument (you may look it up yourself) depends on the premise that it is possible that God exists in some world.

Based on the ontological argument (or any other piece of evidence), two propositions could be formulated.

1. Is is more plausible that God exists
2. It is more plausible that God does not exist

Which proposition do you consider to be true? A personal lack of belief of course is irrelevant to this choice, because a mental state is not evidence for anything.
Larkus
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2012
The ontological argument for the existence of God begs the question and is therefore not convincing to someone, that doesn't already believe in God.

The ontological argument didn't achieve to affect my probability asessment regarding God's existence. It's the same as before. And I still don't believe in God.
Callippo
1 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2012
The ontological argument for the existence of God is based on understanding, human knowledge is always limited and every answer brings a new questions. In particular, the contemporary science, which is driven with deterministic formalism piled up a unsolved problems, following just from duality of holistic and casual approach. As the result, the contemporary science presents the current world a much more complex, than it really is at the conceptual level. Which is the stance which helps the employment of many theorists - on the other hand it increases the distrust in science and the interest about religious questions between laymans. The ignorance of dense aether model comes at its price even for mainstream science - after all, in the same way, like the ignorance of cold fusion: it enables to keep the jobs for the contemporary generation of physicists, but it makes the survival more difficult for future generations due the growing economical problems from fossil fuel crisis.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2012
"Just like Jody Foster's character in Contact, what evidence can she present that is acceptable?"

The videotape, for starters.

Then someone could have repeated the experiment with a different person.

That is what Jesus did. Performed miracles witnessed by a few.
If a different person repeated the experiment, why would the be believed?
knowalot
1 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2012
deathclock,

Your personal beliefs or the lack of them are not really relevant in a rational debate or thought experiment.

Based on the evidence (such as the ontological argument or other forms of evidence known to you), do you think that God's existence is more or less plausible than His non-existence?
knowalot
1 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2012
Hi Larkus,

At least your atheism is based on an honest assessment of the available evidence and can be considered rational. (as opposed to a mental inablity to believe in God due to some psychological lack.)

The ontological argument is not circular. It is a logically valid argument, albeit a not very appealing one to most people due to it's abstractness.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2012
1. Is is more plausible that God exists
2. It is more plausible that God does not exist


I've explored both options. I was an atheist as a kid. One day I realized that even though I thought my atheist view point was THE rational one, I realized that I had no proof for my belief that the universe (and mans) existence, was not the work of a supreme quantum computer programmer. (assuming reality is made of quantum bits, atoms and ions and photons and such things).

I rejected my disbelief in God (atheism) on the basis of a lack of physical proof. I was no longer an atheist by choice. I could've continued to disbelieve in the absence of proof. (because Atheism doesn't require any by the very definition of the word).

So did I all of a sudden become a Theist? No. The same reason that got me to reject Atheism was still present. I couldn't prove God didn't exist. Nor that He did.

I could choose to believe in the absence of proof, but I don't.

I'm an agnostic.
knowalot
1 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2012
Larkus,

The Christian faith is not a blind faith. It is not a faith in delusional man made gods. In fact such a faith is forbidden in the Bible. The Christian faith is evidence based. Some of that evidence is objecticve, some comes from sience, some of it is historical and some is personal. None of it constitutes conclusive proof, but it is valid evidence.

Unless atheism is able to refute all the evidence as false and provide credible evidence for atheism itself, one should conclude that theism is more rational than atheism.

(if atheism is redefined as a personal lack, atheism becomes irrelevant, being a feeling/mental state instead of a logical argument. In that case theism is the more rational worldview by default because only theism rests on valid and verifiable evidence)
Larkus
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2012
Hi knowalot,

well, I disagree with your assessment of the ontological argument, and even Plantinga himself admits as much that his argument begs the question.

Plantinga about his own modal ontological argument in "God, freedom and evil", page 112:
http://books.goog...;f=false
"Here we must be careful; we must ask whether this argument is a successful piece of natural theology, whether it [i]proves[/i] the existence of God. And the answer must be, I think, that it does not."
For an analysis of the ontological argument:
http://analyticab..._14.html

You are right that is not very appealing, due to it's abstractness, but it also has serious flaws, most notably begging the doxastic question. http://www.spring...79337j0/
Circular arguments [i]are[/i] valid, they just aren't convincing.
Deathclock
1.6 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2012
deathclock,

Your personal beliefs or the lack of them are not really relevant in a rational debate or thought experiment.


I am an atheist, I was explaining to you what that word means...

Based on the evidence (such as the ontological argument or other forms of evidence known to you), do you think that God's existence is more or less plausible than His non-existence?


I recognize ZERO evidence for the existence of God... I consider the possibility of the existence of God to be roughly equivalent to the possibility of the existence of anything else for which there is zero evidence. It is possible that any of these things exist, but there is no reason to believe that that is the case.
Deathclock
1 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2012
1. Is is more plausible that God exists
2. It is more plausible that God does not exist


I've explored both options. I was an atheist as a kid. One day I realized that even though I thought my atheist view point was THE rational one, I realized that I had no proof for my belief that the universe (and mans) existence, was not the work of a supreme quantum computer programmer. (assuming reality is made of quantum bits, atoms and ions and photons and such things).

I rejected my disbelief in God (atheism) on the basis of a lack of physical proof. I was no longer an atheist by choice. I could've continued to disbelieve in the absence of proof. (because Atheism doesn't require any by the very definition of the word).
I could choose to believe in the absence of proof, but I don't.

I'm an agnostic.


You never even knew what the word meant... /sigh.

"Do you believe in God" If you answer yes you're a theist, if you answer no you're an atheist. Which are you?
Deathclock
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2012
Larkus,

The Christian faith is not a blind faith. It is not a faith in delusional man made gods. In fact such a faith is forbidden in the Bible. The Christian faith is evidence based. Some of that evidence is objecticve, some comes from sience, some of it is historical and some is personal. None of it constitutes conclusive proof, but it is valid evidence.

Unless atheism is able to refute all the evidence as false and provide credible evidence for atheism itself, one should conclude that theism is more rational than atheism.

(if atheism is redefined as a personal lack, atheism becomes irrelevant, being a feeling/mental state instead of a logical argument. In that case theism is the more rational worldview by default because only theism rests on valid and verifiable evidence)


Provide any of this evidence that you are claiming to have... The ontological argument is not evidence, it is stupidity.
Deathclock
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2012
I rejected my disbelief in God (atheism) on the basis of a lack of physical proof.


BELIEF IS NOT ABOUT PROOF, IT IS ABOUT EVIDENCE. EVIDENCE DETERMINES WHAT IS A RATIONAL BELIEF. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, SO BELIEF IN GOD IS IRRATIONAL. IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD YOU ARE AN ATHEIST.

You are so confused, and I feel so bad for you, but when many of us try to help you better understand things you simply ignore us, which makes me angry rather than having pity for you.
Deathclock
2 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2012
Evidence leads to belief. If you can prove something you no longer have to believe in it, because you KNOW it.

When someone like Turitopsis says something like "I changed my belief because I had no proof" it means they have no clue what belief is. Your beliefs are based on EVIDENCE, not on proof. If you have proof you don't need belief because you KNOW.

If I believe something to be true then I don't KNOW that it is true, but the evidence I have is sufficient to form a rational belief in that thing. If I KNOW something is true (which is fallacious, but just for the sake of argument) then I KNOW it, I don't need to have belief in it because I have knowledge of it.

Turritopsis has demonstrated that he has no idea what the words belief, proof, knowledge, atheism, and agnosticism mean. He is seriously confused about these terms and concepts and I would urge any silent readers of this thread to not take what he says seriously, because he has no idea what he is talking about
Turritopsis
Feb 26, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2012
The question is if their lack of belief equals a rational position. Do they think their atheism is correct?
I BELIEVE scientists when they tell me they have scoured areas described in the bible and have found NONE of what was described. No Moses, no exodus, no Joshua, no Solomon, no David, no Jesus. Just little villages and empty space.

Therefore I BELIEVE that the bible is full of lies, the religions based on those lies false, and the god as described therein NONEXISTANT.

Morality preceded religion. Science tells us this. The universe was not created the way your book says it was. These are all rational conclusions. Your continued belief in said god in light of these FACTS, is not rational.

You agree?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2012
To put your god in perspective:

Most people do not much care that there is a giant black hole in the center of our galaxy. Most people don't care that we are in a galaxy at all. Most people don't care if we ever get to mars or not. Most don't even care if we ever found other intelligent beings. They have other mote pressing things to worry about.

And most people would not give the idea of god a second thought AT ALL if he didn't offer immortality or special favors in return for your fawning and indulgence. God would be as uninteresting to moat as aliens on the other side of the galaxy.

You only care so much about the myth because the potential reward is so great. Scientists do not care either way; drawing conclusions before any evidence whatsoever is found, is irrational. Similarly, believing and worshipping and fighting without any evidence for, and a great deal against, is irrational. So is doing backflips for biscuits. But you are so well-trained.
dogbert
1 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2012
Ghosty,
And most people would not give the idea of god a second thought AT ALL if he didn't offer immortality or special favors in return for your fawning and indulgence.


You keep making assertions which are not true until eventually someone has to say you are full of it.

People believe in reality because it is sane to believe in reality. Reward and punishment have nothing to do with reality nor with the acceptance of reality.

It is not about reward or punishment. If it were, everyone would want a share of the wealth. It is simply about recognizing what is real and what is not.

Also, the prospect of immortality is very scary. Most people would not invent such a concept and seek it. However, since that is the world we live in, we must accept it or choose to live in a fantasy world like you do.
kochevnik
3 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2012
@knowalot God either exists or He does not, that is a fact.
This is typical xtain dualism, which is the key thought pattern behind your intolerance. Some examples: you're either with u or against us. There are only winners and losers.
Reality is three valued logic.
@knowalot Some atheists will try to rephrase their worldview into an unverifiable position involving an absence of belief.
So you've learned something.
This supposedly makes their atheism neither right nor wrong, but some kind of personal psychological state.
Yes, a state of correctness.
@knowalot With this definition however, atheists are not in any position to claim that God does or does not exist.
That's because it's impossible to prove a negative. You're just restating what's already been discussed.
This belief is reveals itself in every other aspect of their life, such as a belief in naturalism and moral relativism.
Nonbelief isn't a belief, fundie. You fail again.
kochevnik
3 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2012
@knowalot The Christian faith is not a blind faith. It is not a faith in delusional man made gods. In fact such a faith is forbidden in the Bible.
You bible says in Kings 1 verse 36 that the god you revere had as his god the Egyptian god AMEN. That's why they call it the old and new TEST-AMEN-T. That's why you designate AMEN as the recipient of all the power of your prayers. And AMEN's god is ATUN, who created the world by masturbating.

FURTHERMORE:
Revelation 3:14-22
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

14And to the angel of the church of Laodicea, write: These things
saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, who is the beginning of the creation of God:

So your god is the creation of Amun-RA, the shape shifting god that lives in your xtian obelisks, which are giant stone penises in tribute to ATUN
Deathclock
2 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2012
Forget it.


Do you believe in God, yes or no?

Don't answer "I don't know"... because I didn't ask you what you know, I asked you what you believe.
kochevnik
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2012
Osiris is the god who was ritually murdered and dismembered into fourteen pieces by Seth. Isis then spent much time looking for all the pieces before bringing him back to life.

The pyramids functioned as the most important and secret ceremonies associated with "re-birth" of a human being into a living god, emulating the stories of Osiris being brought back to life by Isis. The cult of Osiris is unquestionably the oldest and most important ritual sacrifice system.

Blood traveled down to the tomb of the Queen where the initiate was then anointed in the blood.

The xtian variation is the sacred slaughter of the innocent and then the mixing of their blood into unleavened bread or oats which is then consumed as the sacred Eucharist. This became the Passover ceremony introduced by around 455 CE.

It is unknown if the Catholic Church still practices ritual slaughter and incorporation into human blood in the production of Catholic Eucharist anymore as the process is highly secretive
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2012
"from its unification around 3100 B.C. to its conquest by Alexander the Great in 332 B.C.ancient Egypt was the preeminent civilization in the Mediterranean world."
http://www.histor...nt-egypt
In 20 centuries humans went from that technology to walk in the moon.
What was different from the previous 30 centuries?

Western civilization used to be taught is schools and the Holy Roman Empire and Protestantism was a significant part of that history.
kochevnik
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2012
A Papal Bull is a formal document issued by a Roman Cult Pontiff upon a major act of law, curse or claim to extend the power of the molestation cult over its claimed domination of the world, all nations, all people, all law and all religions. All legitimate Papal Bulls were issued on human skin, usually the skin of a sacrificed child, or some famous heretic.

The skins of those murdered by the Cult - especially children - have been preserved as they remain the foundation of the Roman Cult and a core source of their supernatural power.

The use of human skin is a fundamental prerequisite for a Papal Bull to have power as this is a concept of necromancy inherited through the Rabbi of Venice, the successors of the Sarmatians, themselves the successors of the Scythians and Tarsus, the successors of Mari and the amurru, the city founded itself from exiles of Ur.

Instead of using the word "child skin", the word "kid" was used. Today, the word "kid" is accepted as a word for child.
kochevnik
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2012
The same ritual appears in Grimoires of black magic published by the Popes and the introduction to the specifics of the ritual may be viewed in Arthur Edward Waite's Book of Ceremonial Magic Pg 171:
Concerning the Victim of the Art
Take your kid (child); place it on a block with the throat turned upward, so that it may be easier for you to cut it; be ready with your knife, and cut the throat with a single stroke, pronouncing the name o the Spirit whom you wish to invoke. For example, say: "I slay thee, N. (name of child) in the name and to the honor of N. (name of spirit)". Have a care that two blows not be needed, but let it die at the first; then skin with the knife and while skinning it make the following Invocation...

Under all western law, the highest form of law and literally the highest form upon which any writing exists is a Papal Bull based on parchment, being the skin of sacrificed children. No other document can claim higher higher standing.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2012
Doggy
you are full of it.

People believe in reality because it is sane to believe in reality.
But you guys believe that some mythical vaporgod will give you stuff just because you beg and tell him you fear/love him. This is not reality.
It is not about reward or punishment. If it were, everyone would want a share of the wealth.
Well they do. How could they not? 'Dear god give me everything I ever wanted. Amen.'
about recognizing what is real and what is not.
God is not real. And if you didnt expect to be rewarded for believing in him then it wouldnt matter if he was there or not. Except as a curiosity.
Also, the prospect of immortality is very scary.
No, the prospect of you never seeing your dead relatives again is scary. The idea of suffering imaginable pain at the end of your life is scary. The end of your life is scary. 'Valley of the Shadow of DEATH.' Without your god drug these prospects would drive most people crazy.

Read your book. Heaven is really nice.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2012
The xtian variation is the sacred slaughter of the innocent and then the mixing of their blood into unleavened bread or oats which is then consumed as the sacred Eucharist. This became the Passover ceremony introduced by around 455 CE.
This is also in a very esoteric way why martyrdom is sacred to them. Willing sacrifice by the millions in the streets and on the battlefields. No more messy smelly temples.

So rygge you havent responded to my revelation of marxism being a purveyor of the immortal soul myth and the supernatural source of morality, exactly as your religion is. Arent you shocked? How else was marx (or mao or hitler) going to get throngs to fall for their stuff, if it didnt offer the same things? If it aint broke dont fix it -? A sucker born every minute -? Big enough lie, etc.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2012
Although here I think you got it a little wrong...

"Arthur Edward Waite's Book of Ceremonial Magic Pg 171:
Concerning the Victim of the Art
Take your kid (child)..."

-Back when this was written, 'kid' did not mean child? This is about goats and making parchment. Google the original book and read the context.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2012
What was different from the previous 30 centuries?
Well once we were able to dig ourselves out from the religionist oppression which began with constantine adopting xianity and plunging europe into darkness, quite a bit actually.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2012
Im sitting here listening to paul davies trying to figure out whether he is an atheist or not.
http://www.youtub...amp;NR=1

-It occurs to me that the god concept is antimathematical. Math begins with 1 plus 1 = 2. God is 1 and all. As soon as you begin to contemplate math you want to consider if there is anything but god. God wont let you do this however. And so the whole of math begins to unravel from here as a fundamental explanation of how physical laws work. God IS cause and effect.

This is another way in which science is anathema to god.
Deathclock
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2012
Ah, but 1 plus 1 only equals 2 because we have systems of classification that allow the existence of a set with a cardinality greater than 1 (this actually allows the existence of sets in general...). Had we not invented such a system of classification then 1 plus 1 would only ever equal 1 plus 1.

Example: 1 rock plus 1 rock only equals 2 rocks because we have invented the concept of a rock which serves to classify unique objects into a set with defined properties (the properties that define the concept of "rock"). Without this classification 1 rock and 1 other rock only ever equals one rock and one other rock.
Deathclock
2 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2012
Can anyone tell me why the various ontological arguments are even worthy of having a name or being mentioned? They sound like the ravings of lunatics or idiots... Let's examine Plantinga's:

A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W;


What the hell is maximal excellence? Excellence is a subjective valuation, it has no objective meaning. Similarly, what is "wholly good" supposed to mean? What is good is subjective, there are many circumstances in which the "most good" option is not clear and no mutual conclusion can be made... this is why the study of ethics exist, it's as if this fool Plantinga thinks like a 5 year old and completely ignores the complexities of ethics...
Deathclock
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2012
A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.


Oh so maximal greatness is defined as maximal excellence in every possible world? Did he just pull that out of his asshole? Define greatness and/or excellence in objective terms. You can't, Plantinga, you are a fool.

It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)


No, it isn't, because you cannot even provide a concise and objective definition of these terms. Even if you could you have not come anywhere close to proving that a being could exist that objectifies this perfection...

Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.


"Possibly it is necessarily true"? Really? You think you can claim that an omniscient and omnipotent entity must exists ONLY because you claim to have proven that it can exist (which is also false, or at least has not been shown at all).
Deathclock
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2012
Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.


False and patently stupid.

Why do people listen or give any consideration to this horseshit?
Deathclock
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2012
Here is another one by Mulla Sadra, let's see how stupid this one is:

There is existence
Existence is a perfection above which no perfection may be conceived


What does this even mean? What is perfection in objective terms, you have to define these things, they are not self evident and I assert that they are meaningless in objective terms.

God is perfection and perfection in existence


Why is God perfection, because you say so? What does perfection mean, are you saying it is a synonym for God? Then you have to prove that perfection exists, which it does not.

Existence is a singular and simple reality; there is no metaphysical pluralism


I'd agree with this part at least...

That singular reality is graded in intensity in a scale of perfection.


Complete nonsense.

That scale must have a limit point, a point of greatest intensity and of greatest existence.
Hence God exists.


Nope, since the previous claim is utter nonsense.
Deathclock
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2012
Every single one of these "ontological arguments" relies on what I like to call "mental diarrhea", wherein someone uses vague terms that are really meaningless to attempt to prove something. If you want to use concepts such as objective good or objective perfection you have to first provide evidence that those things EXIST... because everything we know suggests that they do not, otherwise the study of ethics would be completely unnecessary.
kochevnik
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2012
-Back when this was written, 'kid' did not mean child? This is about goats and making parchment. Google the original book and read the context.
No Waite wrote his book in mid 19th century. The Papal Bulls and other spells were made at the beginning of the 13th Century. Parchment is inferior and the Vatican forbid writing from human skin to parchment. No other documents could claim "human personality" and therefore real spiritual life. All legitimate Bulls were written on the skin of sacrificed innocent children. They were cursed, sodomized and then butchered. No document has higher "life" that a Papal Bull which is a curse and binding using the flesh of innocents to "trap their soul" to the ink.

Under Western law, legally Papal Bulls technically stand as the highest form of original law. What they say (always written in Latin) is technically the law.
Deathclock
2 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2012
Here is the first ontological argument by Anselm:

Our understanding of God is a being than which no greater can be conceived.


What does "greater" mean? Greater in what regard, according to who's standard?

The idea of God exists in the mind.


Sure, even though the definition of existence is unclear here...

A being which exists both in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind.


What does "greater" mean? Greater by what standard? Greater in what regard? Why is it "greater" to exist in both reality and the mind than just in the mind?

If God only exists in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater beingthat which exists in reality.


You still haven't defined what greater means, there is no objective standard of what is "greater" or "lesser"... these are subjective valuations that are relative to individual standards.

We cannot be imagining something that is greater than God.
Therefore, God exists.


Same problem.
kochevnik
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 26, 2012
Why do people listen or give any consideration to this horseshit?
Unlike other animals, the realization of their own demise and the fact that as an animal they have no control over that inevitability. Most animals I've seen die peacefully accepting their situation. Mothers are viscous, but animals don't develop christ psychosis obsessing about the finiteness of life.
Deathclock
2 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2012
Now let's look at the stupid cosmological argument:

Every finite and contingent being has a cause.


We don't even have to go any further, since this is a baseless assumption.

Ignoring the qualifiers "finite and contingent being" (because they are meaningless), it is not known that ANYTHING has a cause. According to the first law of thermodynamics matter (which is energy per mass-energy equivalency) cannot be created or destroyed. We have never witnessed the creation of matter/energy. We have NO observational evidence that this occurs. For all we know everything is eternal.

You might say, "well, a person isn't eternal, people are born and die"... Sure, but a "person" is nothing but a defined assemblage of matter/energy...

A causal loop cannot exist.


Why? Unfounded assumption.

A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.


Why? Unfounded assumption.

These "arguments" for God are invariably infantile and worthless.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2012
Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.


False and patently stupid.

Why do people listen or give any consideration to this horseshit?
Why do people give you high ratings for such brainless comments? They must be brainless I guess. Go play in traffic flooder.
These "arguments" for God are invariably infantile and worthless.
Oh and also infantile and worthless. And just stupid. Seriously, it's obvious you have run out of worthwhile things to say. What makes you think namecalling is worth cluttering up the thread for?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2012
No Waite wrote his book in mid 19th century. The Papal Bulls and other spells were made at the beginning of the 13th Century.
Right. You're saying popes were sacrificing 'kids' when the term 'kid' referred to goat, not child. Waite adulterated the thing later on by misinterpreting it. Right?

" [Kid] in its informal meaning 'child' (He's only a kid / He came with his wife and kids), has a long history, being first recorded in the 17th century..."
kochevnik
2 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2012
No Waite wrote his book in mid 19th century. The Papal Bulls and other spells were made at the beginning of the 13th Century.
Right. You're saying popes were sacrificing 'kids' when the term 'kid' referred to goat, not child. Waite adulterated the thing later on by misinterpreting it. Right?

Yes many of the key Papal Bulls are missing (such as 1249 where the Pope owns everyone and everything in England) and most have been deliberately forged over the centuries onto calf or sheep skin, to re-write history and hide their original form on human skin. But the originals must be preserved as they have the necromonger power to form innocent souls into law. Pope Honorius III in the 13th Century wrote in the Grimoire the means to sacrifice skin. Instead of explicitly using the word "human child", the word "kid" is used.
kochevnik
2 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2012
Because the original necromonger Papal Bulls are not the ones displayed in public, Vatican Trust law is build upon lies and forgeries. The words inaccurately represent the the original content. The published and "official" version of most Papal Bulls prior to the 19th Century are deliberate fakes.

This creative rewriting is a breach in trust laws created by the Papacy. Thus the continuation of obeyance to Vatican authority is a fraud. The entire world is caught in a web of fraud as the rules of trusts and property are invalid. Unless the Vatican reveals the original molestation Bulls it has no authority. If it does it will be revealed as a cannibalistic cult which molests and murders children for their god Moloch.

Either way, the Vatican and it's tentacles the United Nations, the Bank for International Settlements, the Federal Reserve owning 1/2 the planet's gold are destined to be revealed as fraud.
knowalot
1 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2012
Deatclock,

So reviewing all the evidence from cosmology, science and philosophy (some of which you mentioned yourself), which proposition do you consider more plausibly true:

1. God does exist
2. God does not exist

(just based on the evidence, so no need to mention any of your personal feelings, brain states, thoughts, psychological lacks or absences, deep felt beliefs etc. All these things should not be part of a rational discussion because they are subjective and beyond validation)
Larkus
3 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2012
Hi knowalot,

you wrote:
"The Christian faith is evidence based. Some of that evidence is objecticve, some comes from sience, some of it is historical and some is personal. None of it constitutes conclusive proof, but it is valid evidence."
I found the evidence for Christianity (or other religions) unimpressive so far. On the other hand, there is good evidence against Christianity.

Just out of curiosity, what do you consider the most convincing evidence for Christianity for yourself, and what do you consider the evidence that has the best chance of convincing atheists like me of your faith?
dogbert
1 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2012
Just out of curiosity, what do you consider the most convincing evidence for Christianity for yourself, and what do you consider the evidence that has the best chance of convincing atheists like me of your faith?


You have identified yourself as an atheist. That is, someone who has decided that there is no god. There is no evidence of anything which will convince someone who has already decided.

antialias_physorg
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2012
You have identified yourself as an atheist. That is, someone who has decided that there is no god. There is no evidence of anything which will convince someone who has already decided.

*cough* cop out *cough*
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2012
The 'heat' in this discussion shows a disturbing trend among those claiming to be scientists in that they want to stifle debate, with insults, in a valid research area in which they are uncomfortable.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (5) Feb 28, 2012
those claiming to be scientists
Scientists use arguments instead of anonymous downvoting and attacking of opponents. Actually, I never met with any real scientist at the anonymous discussions. The contemporary people simply cannot think and oppose logically, they're not educated for it due the huge amount of facts, which the educational system loads their brains: they're just adhere on some opinions, actually the more, the less arguments are able to bring for it. With increasing number of informations the people are gradually more and more separated from their evolution and logical reasoning, which actually makes them more religious and based on belief, than the medieval people.

Do modern people understand the nature of photon, electron, the magnetic field or cosmology? Of course not, they're just forced to believe in it, so they're religious by their very nature. They know about huge amount of facts but about very low number of logical connections between them.
knowalot
1 / 5 (3) Feb 28, 2012
Hi Larkus,

For me personally no single piece of evidence stands out as decisive. It is the whole body of evidence that should convince one to become a Christian. Collectively the evidence from church history, Bible hermeneutics, science and philosophy is vastly superior to anything else any other world view has to offer, especially atheism.

If I have to mention a personal favourite though I would say the person of Jesus Christ and all that He stands for. His revealed identity, His claims, His character and life story and so unique and awe-inspiring, that I think every human being should thorougly investigate them for himself before life is over.

What do you consider the strongest evidence against Christianity if I may ask?
Larkus
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 28, 2012
Hi knowalot,

I already considered the evidence that you mentioned, and as I said, that evidence didn't impress me.

Concerning the strongest evidence *against* Christianity, I could of course also point to "everything collectively", but I'll restrict it to the piece of evidence that convinced me that something must be wrong with the teachings of Christianity. It was of course not the only reason, but one of the most important reasons for me.

It was basically the fact, that there are countless religions, that make contradictory claims. Even the three Abrahamic religions denounce each other as false, although they worship the same God. And even more egregiously, Christianity is divided into countless denominations that denounce each other as false, although they belong to the same religion, and as you know, if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.

This disqualified organized religion for me and set me on my way towards atheism.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Feb 28, 2012
I'm not an antidisestablishmentarianist. I believe the church needs to be separated from the state. I also like you, Larkus, feel that there is something wrong with organized religion. Faith is a matter of belief. Organized religion teaches you what to believe. I feel this to be wrong. I think a persons belief in God needs to come from within, not from preachings of others. On the other hand, I believe people should have the right to practice whatever they choose, as long as they don't try and force it down the throats of those who choose to believe differently. Let them have their church. Afterall, we can't be 100% certain that their religion isn't the 100% truth. Maybe they're right. Maybe not.

Regardless of all else, matters of faith fall upon the individuals belief. And that is subjective. There exists no known way of objectively deciphering this from our perspective in the physical realm.
knowalot
1 / 5 (3) Feb 28, 2012
Hi Larkus,

Your argument against Christianity is called the religious pluralism objection. Although it can be a strong emotional hinderance towards accepting Christ as only way to salvation, it is by no means a valid logical objection.

For one, the religious pluralist also thinks he alone is correct. But philosophically speaking, it is in fact logical for truth to be exclusive. Paris only is the capital of France for instance.

Secondly, religious pluralism commits the genetic fallacy. The origin or development of a religion does not determine if it is true or false.

But I can appreciate the mental burden. A house divided against itself cannot stand. But what is the house? Jesus Himself in fact predicted that this would happen to the churches. The apostles were alone, 12 men with the rest of the world standing in opposition. The same can be said of many men in the Bible: Abraham, Elijah, Samson, David to name but a few. Faith is not about appeasing the majority opinion.
kochevnik
3 / 5 (2) Feb 28, 2012
Again, notice the lemming like insistence of the anti-religious to refer to God with a lower case "g".
Actually you are committing the worst of sins by daring to write the name of your god, who has 72 names related by the Flower of Life in the Transgrammaton, or what you call the bible which means "book." The opening pages of the bible state the writings are concerning the Transgrammaton. What does your god Moloch, god of child molestation and immolation who catholic Hitler revered at Auschwitz have to say bout your trespasses?
Larkus
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 29, 2012
Hi knowalot,

first of all, thanks for acknowledging that my stated reason is a strong hindrance towards "accepting Christ as only way to salvation". But you apparently missed, that it's an even more serious hindrance than that. If Christians want to convert unbelievers, then they have to overcome this strong hindrance. Just pointing out, that it is logically possible, that one of the countless Christian sects is right doesn't prove which, if any, of these sects is in fact right and thus fails to convert the unbeliever. Suppose I would be willing to "accept Christ as only way to salvation". *Which* Christian sect should I choose in order to be saved? Jehovahs Witnesses? Calvinism? Catholicism? Which sub-group? Or maybe I should choose Mormonism? Christian sects have made conflicting doctrinal claims and denounced each other throughout church history as herectic and bound to hell, and still do that today. This doesn't exactly inspire confidence in Christianity.
Larkus
3 / 5 (2) Feb 29, 2012
Rather, Christianity gives the impression of a house divided against itself.

Let's express it in valid logical form:
If a house is divided against itself, that house cannot stand.
Christianity is a house divided against itself.
Therefore, Christianity cannot stand.

The fragmentation of Christianity is evidence against Christianity. Claiming that the fragmentation of Christianity is evidence for Christianity, because "Jesus predicted it" seems to me like the attempt to explain inconvenient facts away by predicting the fragmentation of Christianity after the event.

For another take on this problem, see:
http://www.youtub...-5jD_oaQ
ProfMTH explains this problem with respect to John 17:
20Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
Larkus
3 / 5 (2) Feb 29, 2012
Secondly, religious pluralism commits the genetic fallacy. The origin or development of a religion does not determine if it is true or false.

How good that I don't make such an argument.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Feb 29, 2012
Organized religion teaches you what to believe. I feel this to be wrong.

Do you feel the same about organized, state run education?
With most religions in the USA at least, one has a choice among denominations, different churches, etc.
Few have similar choices regarding what k-12 school to attend.

My organized religion doesn't teach me what to believe. They teach what they believe and why and it is my choice whether to join. But I can still join and disagree as I then become an opportunity for the church to persuade.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Feb 29, 2012
The fragmentation of Christianity is evidence against Christianity.

The fragmentation of humanity is evidence against humanity.
(Unless, of course, united under a socialist regime where everyone must BE the same, unfragmented.)
Larkus
3 / 5 (2) Feb 29, 2012
Ah come on ryggesogn, at least try to read the other commenters charitably.

But just for you I clarify the sentence:
"The fragmentation of Christianity is evidence against the truth of Christianity."
dogbert
1 / 5 (4) Feb 29, 2012
Larkus,
Pull ten random people off the street and you will likely find ten different opinions about any subject.

It its human nature to have conflicting perceptions and opinions. The message is the same for everyone, but human nature creates denominations.

God is unchanging, but human beings are unable to fully perceive him.

The nature and limitations of humanity is not a valid argument against God.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Feb 29, 2012
Ah come on ryggesogn, at least try to read the other commenters charitably.

Why?
You were not being very charitable to Christians.
And as I pointed out, the comment is ignorant.
knowalot
1 / 5 (3) Feb 29, 2012
Hi Larkus,

You have made a good point and I fully agree that traditional (or even modern) Christianity has failed to present a unified Biblical answer to this question. Christians are at times the gospel's worst enemy, because they have behaved themselves completely contrary to everything Jesus stands for.

But let me add that the prediction regarding this fragmentation in the Bible is not meaningless. The letters and gospels were written at a time where doctrinal differences were minute compared to what we face now. Jesus His own prediction about false prophets has been confirmed powerfully throughout history.

Having said that, I think one must simply look beyond the sects and denominations. They are all of human making, often the result of pride and a love for positions and power. On the other hand, look at the mega churches in the US. They appear unified, but is Spirit of Christ present? Jesus said: the kingdom is within you. The Word of God should be the real foundation.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Feb 29, 2012
Typical xian 'evidence':

"The so-called Jesus Family Tomb is located approximately 200 feet from this latest find. The Jesus tomb is so named because ossuaries...inscribed names: Jesus, Mary, Joseph and Maria. Some scholars have suggested that this means it could be the final resting place of Jesus and his family...The idea of resurrection is one of the most common beliefs at the time, we have it in many [ancient] Jewish texts," Eric Meyers a professor at Duke University who specializes in early biblical research and archaeological studies, told FoxNews.com. "So there's nothing to be surprised about the inscription."

"Some critics charge that Tabor and Jacobovici are just trying to sell their book, The Jesus Discovery, and promote a forthcoming documentary."
http://www.foxnew...sciples/

-Xian evidence tainted by question-begging and book-promoting.
cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Feb 29, 2012
the sects and denominations. They are all of human making, often the result of pride and a love for positions and power.
-Including yours. You and most all religionists always leave this caveat out.

As your own belief system is wholly human-derived, it can be expected to be just as tainted as the others. And this is as painfully obvious to all those other religionists, as their glaring flaws are to you.

So. Considering all the 1000s of religious sects and denominations around the world, all of which are offering EXACTLY the same things as yours (ie wish-granting and immortality), the possibility that YOURS is the only one that got it right is diminishingly slim.

This is no specious argument. This speaks to the very nature of the religious fantasy. You all believe that yours is the only path to salvation, and that these beliefs are so vitally IMPORTANT that you would be willing to kill and die to preserve them.

Will the right one win out? That too is extremely unlikely.
Kinedryl
1 / 5 (3) Feb 29, 2012
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Feb 29, 2012
Organized religion teaches you what to believe. I feel this to be wrong.

Do you feel the same about organized, state run education?


Falsifiability.

I've never believed anything an educator has ever told me. I've questioned everything and have put all information ever given to me through rigorous testing before agreeing with anything that educator claimed as proven. If the information presented didn't agree with reality I threw the information out the classroom door and out of my brain.

I can prove an educator right or wrong. That's the difference. Religion isn't falsifiable.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (2) Feb 29, 2012
I threw the information out the classroom door


Which, coincidentally, is exactly what the educator did to me. Lol.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (7) Feb 29, 2012
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html
"According to Richard Dawkins, a distinction between agnosticism and atheism is unwieldy and depends on how close to zero we are willing to rate the probability of existence for any given god-like entity. Since in practice it is not worth contrasting a zero probability with one that is nearly indistinguishable from zero, he prefers to categorize himself as a "de facto atheist".

"About himself, Dawkins continues that "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden.""
http://en.wikiped...osticism
Turritopsis
1.8 / 5 (5) Feb 29, 2012
Atheism is just as baseless as Theism. Both centre around an unfalsifiable claim: Existence of God. The only realistic stance that can be taken on the matter is one of neutrality. Agnosticism.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Feb 29, 2012
Atheism is just as baseless as Theism...The only realistic stance that can be taken on the matter is one of neutrality. Agnosticism.
"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists." wiki

"In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively."

-But as dawkins states, since the possibility of the existance of god is diminishingly small, a rational person can choose to reject the possibility entirely. And in light of all the damage this belief causes, we are morally obligated to do just that.
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Feb 29, 2012
Dawkins is saving face. He's always presented himself as a full on Atheist (which is why he is regarded as one of the most famous atheists of our time). He's obviously come to the realization that an atheistic viewpoint is unscientific. He's retracting.

And he's got the belief system unbalanced. No belief, no anti-belief, is point zero (Agnosticism, beliefless viewpoint, zero belief, zero anti-belief). No belief is a negative value (Atheism). No anti-belief is a positive value (Theism)..
Turritopsis
1 / 5 (3) Feb 29, 2012
I challenge you, Richard Dawkins, to a discussion on atheism. Particularly pertaining to your 6.9/7 probability that there is no God. I say you are full of it Professor Dawkins, and I believe you to be intelligent enough to know exactly why no such value can be deduced.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 29, 2012
Dawkins is saving face...He's obviously come to the realization that an atheistic viewpoint is unscientific. He's retracting.
No he is being a scientist. There are very few absolutes in science. A great deal of it involves probability and potential. Dawkins is taking the only correct position which is that since the possibility of god is diminishingly small we can disregard it entirely.
And he's got the belief system unbalanced. No belief, no anti-belief, is point zero (Agnosticism, beliefless viewpoint, zero belief, zero anti-belief). No belief is a negative value (Atheism). No anti-belief is a positive value (Theism)
You are entirely too full of words. If I were to argue these things with you I would only quote more informed sources
http://en.wikiped...osticism
http://en.wikiped.../Atheism

-Where people use more appropriate words to describe more meaningful concepts.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 29, 2012
I challenge you, Richard Dawkins, to a discussion on atheism. Particularly pertaining to your 6.9/7 probability that there is no God. I say you are full of it Professor Dawkins, and I believe you to be intelligent enough to know exactly why no such value can be deduced.
Come on. He knows much better words than you. Besides I would tell him that you believe in dense space and you will have lost all credibility from the beginning. hahaha
knowalot
1 / 5 (4) Feb 29, 2012
The fact that many religious sects and movements exist, all propagating their diverse religious doctrines, does not invalidate the claims of Jesus in the Bible at all. There is simply no logical connection there. Again, all the religious pluralism objection presents is an emotional argument, and a rather weak one, because instinctively people can discern right from wrong and false from true.

In fact it is equally likely that the various versions of atheism are wrong, or that religious pluralism itself is wrong! To say that religious pluralism refutes Biblical Christianity is simply self-defeating. So what any rational person would do is to look at the evidence and decide for himself what is true or not. The religious pluralism argument is philosopically lazy and irrational. Truth is not a question of probability, but a question of intellectual integrity. I believe that those looking for truth will find themselves gravitating towards the Jesus of the Bible.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 29, 2012
invalidate the claims of Jesus in the Bible at all.
Alas, there is nothing there to validate jesus any more so than any of the others either... and a very great deal to summarily invalidate it. For instance embarrassing plagiarism and precedent.
http://www.youtub...pp_video

-Absolutely no way to explain all THIS but by more magic. But even without this, there is SO MUCH MORE. How do you explain such greats as the obviously phoney ending tacked onto mark?

You should be ashamed for falling for such transparent flummery; And then again for not denouncing it when the ruse has been shown to you.

NO moses NO 2M jews in goshen NO exodus through egypt-occupied sinai NO genocidal joshuan rampage NO kingdoms of david and solomon etc.

Both scientists and scads of desperate religionists have scoured the holy land. Nothing there but deception and souvenir stands. And empty sands.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (7) Feb 29, 2012
Truth is not a question of probability, but a question of intellectual integrity.
The people who wrote the bible lacked intellectual integrity. Did you know that many of the works claimed to have been written by paul, were in fact written by others? Science has revealed this to us.
http://news.disco...518.html

Further, the deception is in many cases not particularly hard to uncover. Books accepted as canon by the church include OBVIOUS mistakes, adulterations, and graffiti.

-Biblical authors were unethical. And you are unethical for continuing to claim that they were.
knowalot
1 / 5 (4) Feb 29, 2012
One could try and make uninformed statements about ancient history or archeology. Virtually no serious scholar believes in the Jesus-is-myth myth, which is totally baseless. No Moses? The carefully transmitted and textually reliable documents of the OT are indeed the only written record of the Biblical Moses.

There is indeed no convenient 3500 year old inscription ever found that said "Moshe was here" or something similar. But the same can be said of Alexander the great, Socrates, Plato and many great people of the ancient world. We know them through writings that are considered reliable historical documents, just as with the OT.

To suggest that archeology somehow refutes the Bible is just patently false. In fact many finds in archeology solidly support the Biblical record, and more and more evidence has emerged even recently about the reign of David. From the Ebla clay tables to the Tel Dan steele, archeology supports the Bible rather than the opposite.
knowalot
1 / 5 (4) Feb 29, 2012
Alternatively one could resort to gross exaggerations and distortions. "Science" has not refuted any NT documents as false at all. There is a scholar called Bart Ehrman (an ex Christian turned against his former faith) who has written a book about NT textual reliability. Erhman is also someone with an agenda.

Bart Erhman is an excellent scholar and a fine writer, but his work on the supposed corruption of scripture is accepted only by a small minority of NT scholars. In fact Ehrman has received massive critcism from peers for his one sides methodology and poor reasoning. He does make several interesting observations, but his general conclusions are not warranted by the facts. These are not my assertions, but those of several NT scholars.
CardacianNeverid
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2012
The nature and limitations of humanity is not a valid argument against God - doggybreath

The nature and limitations of humanity IS a valid argument for god (and other nonsense).
dogbert
1 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2012
CardacianNeverid,
The nature and limitations of humanity IS a valid argument for god


Glad you find human nature a valid argument for god.

CardacianNeverid
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2012
CardacianNeverid,
The nature and limitations of humanity IS a valid argument for god


Glad you find human nature a valid argument for god -doggyBreath

Why? Human nature based on primitive & indiscriminate pattern matching can be corrected by applying the scientific method. More people need to be uplifted so - try it yourself, you need it.
Larkus
3 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2012
Quick annotation on Bart Ehrman:

His work is pretty much mainstream.
knowalot
1 / 5 (2) Mar 01, 2012
Hi Larkus,

Ehrman himself is quite mainstream indeed, in the sense that he is a well established scholar. He does belong to one ideological "camp" however with his quite radical position.

The majority of Bible scholars do not share his views. Even among those who do, his methodology has been the subject of criticism, because his far reaching conclusions are generally not supported by the evidence and examples he presents.

Having said that, he does have a point with some of the examples he mentions, and over all I find his writings an enrichment of the field. His conclusions however are largely his own, and based on his personal beliefs about what Bible inerrancy should be.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2012
I was watching our dog bury a bone. We acquired him as a puppy and we have no other dogs.
Why does he bury bones? Who taught him and why?
There must be some type of ROM, inherited genetic memory in all creatures.
Maybe hardwired for God, too.
Calenur
not rated yet Mar 01, 2012
Fine...you all win, God is real. Let us all leave this awful website to their "Science" whilst we go discuss God stuff at http://bibleforums.org/. First one there gets to ride shotgun with Jesus.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2012
Virtually no serious scholar believes in the Jesus-is-myth myth, which is totally baseless.
Now see this is what i mean by deception from religionists. Scholarly proponents of the jesus myth are easy to find, which I  sure Julian is familiar with; or if not, he should be, so as to avoid making such misleading statements
http://en.wikiped...le_site 
The carefully transmitted and textually reliable documents of the OT are indeed the only written record of the Biblical Moses.
And you're missing the point. The film I linked above describes the many 'moses' precursors from earlier times. But archeology tells us that there were no 2M people in goshen at the time of the exodus; only a few little villages. And it tells us also that during the time of exodus the entire route was dotted with Egyptian military outposts. The Sinai and Palestine were firmly Egyptian. This in addition to NO independent written record.
knowalot
2 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2012
Of course there are scholars that peddle the belief that Jesus is not a historical person. The substance of that theory is virtually missing however. The claim that Jesus is some superposition of various mythological characters is not based on any credible documentary, archeological or historical proof. There is not a shred of evidence that Jesus was cunningly assembled from ancient myths.

These writers do not even represent a minority opinion in academia, but are operating on the fringe, often seeking attention and book sales. They include self-styled experts as Earl Doherty, apostate Christians like Robert Price and new age author Archaya s. Hardly credible and objective sources.

To say that the Jesus-is-myth thesis is a credible scholarly position because some scholars believe in it, is the same as claiming that God must have created the universe in six days because some biologists believe in a literal Genesis. Pseudo science simply is pseudo science in every field.
EverythingsJustATheory
4 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2012
Are u kidding? Horus, was born of a virgin, healed the sick and blind, raised a person whose name translates to Lazarus, was cruxified, and resurrected on the third day, etc... And he was worshiped by egyptians 500 to 1000 years before christ supposedly lived.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2012
The substance of that theory is virtually missing however. The claim that Jesus is some superposition of various mythological characters is not based on any credible documentary, archeological or historical proof. There is not a shred of evidence that Jesus was cunningly assembled from ancient myths.
There is, and this has been very clearly presented to you. If you cannot accept this it means that 1) you are seriously detached from reality or 2) you still hope to deceive others into accepting your point of view by denying the obvious.

So which is it? A little of both? A LOT of both? You do understand that your recalcitrance only hurts your position in the eyes of others. Even firmly religionist scholars who look at this evidence will admit to their veracity. Even the vatican has done this.

The bible as a reliable source for much of anything, is seriously untrustworthy. Most scholars do agree on this.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2012
Torahtosis writes;
...why youre opposed with religion. Your belief is that religion causes wars, right? And you believe wars are necessary for life as a way of sustaining equilibrium, correct? So doesn't religion satisfy that requirement?
Wars are Inevitable, given our tropical rate of growth coupled with reduced attrition rates and doubled lifespans compared to our Pleistocene forebears.

And war, more than any other event, threatens the Progress and Stability which makes the continued survival of our civilization possible. It threatens our accumulated store of knowledge, humanitys most prized possession. History records how this store was lost time and again.

Religions were commandeered and reconfigured as a way of spreading Order over larger, disparate groups of people. The best Designed are the ones that survived.

But as the world is now Conquered, religions no longer serve a Purpose. Their ruthless aggression is now an extreme danger to civilization. Their Time is past.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2012
Torahtosis continues;
Shouldn't you be pro religion if you believe it causes wars and you are pro war (as a way of population control)?
I am pro-Design. Humans plan and cooperate. We are tribal. Wars are an unavoidable occurance - an unfortunate effect of the human condition.

Wars which are allowed to happen by themselves can destroy all. Wars which are Planned, Scheduled, Managed, and most importantly, Configured to achieve a Predetermined outcome, can be unimaginably beneficial.

Spring floods were horrific things to valley dwellers until they learned to anticipate the deluges, plan and prepare for them, and appreciate the benefits of rejuvenated cropland and irrigation. Floods the became a Necessity in places like the nile and indus valleys.

The monotheistic religions swept the pagan world clean. In the 1700s the great revolutions destroyed monarchism. The great wars in the 1900s destroyed nationalism. I should think the next Great Purge will be the destruction of religion.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2012
Population control is a misconception. Wars can destroy the cultures which make uncontrolled population growth Inevitable. The west has been able to establish a culture over a greater part of the world whose growth is in keeping with its ability to provide for itself. This is unprecedented in human history.

We are approaching a Time where war can at last be eliminated. This was only achieved through Constructive war and revolution. Curiously enough, the Old Testament describes succinctly how to wage a protracted war of conquest. And The New Testament explains how to instigate rebellion.

Believers think the bible is all about saving their souls... but the People who wrote that book cared nothing about dead people. They cared a great deal however about what people would do while they were alive.

The bible is about how to get people to fight and suffer and die in the Process of spreading Order throughout the world. In this it is a brilliant work beyond compare.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Mar 01, 2012
"16For God so loved the WORLD, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17For God sent not his Son into the WORLD to condemn the WORLD; but that the WORLD through him might be saved." john3

-Note the repetition of 'world'. Unfettered humanity threatened the entire WORLD. This was painfully obvious even thousands of years ago, and we have the writings of rulers which indicate their concerns. I believe they set about finding ways of saving the world from the people upon it. And They were willing to promise the people absolutely anything, up to and including everlasting life, in order to do this.

Of COURSE they would never have to deliver; THAT is the absolute BEAUTY of the Concept, yes? So much Brilliance in that book. The bible absolutely IS all about Salvation, isnt it?
knowalot
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2012
The alleged analogies between Christ and mythical gods represent distortions, and break down under serious scrutiny. They make interesting story telling and attract sensationalist press, but intellectually honest people will dismiss them.

The Horus analogy for instance. There are numerous conflicting versions of Horus mythology. There is no account of Horus being crucified however, and he did not raise any dead. The self-impregnation of Isis is completely different from the virgin birth of Mary.

Many religions contain stories of dying and "resurrecting" gods, but all are completely different from the Biblical account. The rising Egyptian gods are more similar to zombification, since they roam around as spirits in the underworld. None of them die for the sins of others, and certainly no scholar believes they represent a historical fact.

In contrast, the crucifixion of Jesus is considered a historical fact by the vast majority of scholars, and it only is supported by evidence.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2012
The alleged analogies between Christ and mythical gods represent distortions, and break down under serious scrutiny.
No, they are reinforced under further scrutiny.
There are numerous conflicting versions of Horus mythology. There is no account of Horus being crucified however, and he did not raise any dead. The self-impregnation of Isis is completely different from the virgin birth of Mary.
So because the myths evolved over time, which is easy to demonstrate, and were retailored to fit contemporary sociopolitical needs, this means they are unconnected? I think this means that just the opposite is true.

The same general themes and various specific details are common across many religions. Christ worship is just one of them. The commonality is profound and indisputable. Your myth is a forgery.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2012
The rising Egyptian gods are more similar to zombification, since they roam around as spirits in the underworld.
"The earth shook, the rocks split 52 and the tombs broke open. The bodies of many holy people who had died were raised to life. 53 They came out of the tombs after Jesus' resurrection and went into the holy city and appeared to many people." matt27

-This sounds a lot more like zombies to me.
In contrast, the crucifixion of Jesus is considered a historical fact by the vast majority of scholars, and it only is supported by evidence.
No, the vast majority of impartial and professional scholars who stand to gain nothing personal from the support of the religious agendas of the institutions they work for, regard the resurrection as a mythical retread, adapted for use by a state-sponsored religion. Because this is the only conclusion that a careful examination of the evidence will allow.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2012
Here is a vid for your entertainment pleasure. Make you a little squeamish maybe?
http://www.youtub...pp_video

A gentleman you ought to be familiar with:
http://en.wikiped...n_Cupitt

And here is your religion as it was just yesterday, and might well be tomorrow. The potential exists within all the surviving religions:
http://www.youtub...aynext=1

"21 "Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death." matt10

"For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will find it." matt16

"...and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman." 2 Chron 15:12-13
knowalot
1 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2012
Now you shift the focus to the resurrection, but we were discussing the existence of Jesus Christ as a person of history. The fact is that the majority of scholars does regard that as historically true. This includes even big Bible skeptics like Harnack.

If you decide to believe the Jesus-is-myth myth, then that is your free personal choice. As I have demonstrated however, there is simply no piece of evidence to support such a belief. There just does not exist any old text, piece of pottery or even a second hand account from the time of the apostles that would warrant such a wild theory. If you do not agree, then I challenge you to produce such evidence. If not, then the conclusion must be that your belief is blind, as is usually the case with accounts derived from pseudo-science such as with these vague analogies.

The belief that Jesus was a real person who was born, lived and died at the hand of the Roman authorities through crucifixion is supported by a vast body of evidence.
Deathclock
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 02, 2012
If you decide to believe the Jesus-is-myth myth, then that is your free personal choice. As I have demonstrated however, there is simply no piece of evidence to support such a belief.


Wait, did you just say that there is no evidence that Jesus did NOT exist? That's not how evidence works...

There just does not exist any old text, piece of pottery or even a second hand account from the time of the apostles that would warrant such a wild theory.


Yep, you're nuts... what would those old texts have to say in order to be evidence that Jesus didn't exist? Any MENTION of the man would be evidence of the opposite... you cannot provide evidence for the NON-existence of something, only for the existence of something.

The null hypothesis is that something is NOT, evidence is used to falsify the null hypothesis by showing that it IS. That is how evidence works.
knowalot
1 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2012
No, that was not what we were discussing. Your assertion was that Christianity is a carefully constructed hoax, wilfully cobbled together from ancient myths. If that is indeed the case, there should be evidence for such a theory. But we do not find any document or testimony that warrants such a belief at all.

Contrary, we do have a lot of actual evidence from Christian texts and secular history that Jesus indeed existed as a real person, that He had a ministry with disciples, that He performed miracles and was eventually crucified by Pilate based on false accusations.

If you now change your mind and try to take the escape route of the "null hypothesis" (very popular on this site lately), then you are not only going against the majority opinion of historians as well as ignoring the evidence, but more importantly you are implicitly assuming that Christianity was started based on a delibarate deception. For that belief exists zero evidence, and is therefore a case of blind faith.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2012
Your assertion was that Christianity is a carefully constructed hoax, wilfully cobbled together from ancient myths.
No that is my personal belief which I expressed in a few posts in response to a PM from turatopsis. You and I were discussing something different.
If that is indeed the case, there should be evidence for such a theory. But we do not find any document or testimony that warrants such a belief at all.
If that indeed was the case, as I believe it was, then you can imagine that the People who constructed your religion were not about to expose the fact to the public, and would be extremely careful to conceal their efforts. But there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence...

1) The few centuries worth of intense discussions re Council of Nicaea, during which weak points were eliminated, earlier pagan traditions were incorporated (trinity) and errant beliefs declared heresy.
cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2012
2) The long process of determining biblical canon (unalterable word of god) which we know was nevertheless extensively altered, according to exegesis and hermeneutical analysis. This Handbook was obviously a product of endless discussion as to what would best serve the intended purposes for this new state religion.

3) The Effects of this religion, which were primarily to counter judaic proselytism around the mediterranean and to unite gentile tribes throughout europe. We can gauge these effects, and then revisit the bible with the idea that it was composed to Produce them. And we can see how the jews were vilified specifically in john, and we can discern all the pagan elements inserted (solar holidays, trinity, earth mother mary, etc) which facilitated the transition.

4) And we can examine the earlier Iterations and see how these common elements were used in other regions, among earlier peoples, to produce the same Effects. We can discern an EVOLUTION of a singular religious theme.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2012
But we also KNOW that your religion is speaking to you in EXACTLY the same way as earlier religions addressed their constituents. We Know that somewhere in egypt 3000 years ago, someone exactly like you was believing the same things about his god, as you are about yours.

He believed with exactly the same fervor and conviction that HIS god was the only source of the exact same brands of goodness, mercy, immortality, and special dispensation as you believe yours to be. The details of the dogma are unimportant.

This also holds true among your fellow participants in all religions existing today. Your counterparts are as certain that their gods are the only true source of these things. If we are lucky, you would remain annoyances to one another. But history, and the news, tells us otherwise.

Your selfishness invariably leads to conflict, pogrom, and war as you desperately attempt to outgrow and overrun those who simply dont deserve the world as much as you do. Your gods ALL demand this.
knowalot
1 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2012
The facts are that well before the end of the first century, all the writings of what would later be called New Testament were in existence, the Christian message of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ was firmly established, the apostles and many followers were persecuted and died for their faith, and churches existed as far removed from Jerusalem as Rome and Paris.

These facts demand an explanation. If you believe that the Christian faith was a deliberate fraud then you must offer some more plausible explanation for aforementioned facts than the null-assumption that the main facts about Jesus are simply true.

All the straw men you present in your little list (Nicaea, Trinity, Canon, emergence of Catholic church, Mariology etc) are events hundreds of years removed from the apostolic age, and simply fall short as credible alternative explanation for the fact of 1st/2nd century Christianity. That is the type of rationality which separates pseudo science from real science.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2012
The facts are that well before the end of the first century, all the writings of what would later be called New Testament were in existence
-But were being fiddled with long after, and werent canonized for a few hundred years later on:

"The Gospel of Mark...Two different secondary endings were affixed to this gospel in the 2nd century"

"Many scholars consider the epistle [of James] to be written in the late 1st or early 2nd centuries"

-But who knows? Earliest known NT fragments were 100s of years later.
http://en.wikiped...he_Bible

the Christian message of the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ was firmly established
In some sects. Not settled until ad325.
http://en.wikiped...f_Nicaea
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2012
many followers were persecuted and died for their faith
Indeed, both before and after nicaea. Roman emperors nero and justinian and others were busy tailoring the emerging state religion by judicious weeding. Plenty of arian martyrs and lion food to go around.
http://en.wikiped...troversy
and churches existed as far removed from Jerusalem as Rome and Paris.
-And just as far removed from orthodoxy.
http://en.wikiped...stianity
http://en.wikiped...osticism
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2012
That is the type of rationality which separates pseudo science from real science.
Naw here is an example of the type of science which makes the bible look contrived:

"[Dever] used his extensive background in Near Eastern field archaeology to argue, in Did God Have a Wife ? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel (2005), for the persistence of the veneration of Asherah in the everyday religion..."

"Originally I wrote to frustrate the Biblical minimalists; then I became one of them, more or less."
http://en.wikiped...G._Dever

-See this is what happens when one decides to examine the evidence SUBJECTIVELY. But I can understand your confusion; I google 'biblical archeology' and am confronted with pages of links to religionist sutes repeating the same, long-age debunked falsehoods. The james ossuary. The Tel Dan Stele. The josephus references. Kathleen Kenyons jericho. Etc.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2012
"...prominent scholars have expressed diametrically opposing views [to biblical literalism]: "[T]he stories about the promise given to the patriarchs in Genesis are not historical, nor do they intend to be historical; they are rather historically determined expressions about Israel and Israel's relationship to its God, given in forms legitimate to their time, and their truth lies not in their facticity, nor in the historicity, but their ability to express the reality that Israel experienced." Thompson, Thomas (2002)

-I think he was maybe being tactful?
http://en.wikiped...mpson-15
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2012
"There is no evidence of a United Monarchy, no evidence of a capital in Jerusalem or of any coherent, unified political force that dominated western Palestine, let alone an empire of the size the legends describe. We do not have evidence for the existence of kings named Saul, David or Solomon; nor do we have evidence for any temple at Jerusalem in this early period. What we do know of Israel and Judah of the tenth century does not allow us to interpret this lack of evidence as a gap in our knowledge and information about the past, a result merely of the accidental nature of archeology. There is neither room nor context, no artifact or archive that points to such historical realities in Palestine's tenth century. One cannot speak historically of a state without a population. Nor can one speak of a capital without a town. Stories are not enough." Thomas L. Thompson

-Here is somewhat less tact, no? Theyve looked. Instead of kingdoms and cities they find robber bands and little villages.
knowalot
1 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2012
You can repeat your claims and provide more wikipedia links, but that cannot hide that you have no plausible alternative explanation for these facts about the early church during the apostolic and post-apostolic age.

Most NT scholars agree that the books of the NT all existed before 100 AD, and almost all the letters of Paul and the synoptic gospels before 70 AD. The consensus among scholars is that the NT has a very high level of textual integrity, despite some flaws (as indicated by Ehrman and others). There is zero evidence however that NT books were deliberately tampered with or extensively corrupted. The main narrative of the gospel has always been the same since the time of the apostles.

All the features you mention, like gnosticism, arianism, trinitarianism, Constantine, canonization etc are later developments that are too far removed in time or substance from the first century to be useful as a basis for the emergence of the gospel and the early church.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2012
If you believe that the Christian faith was a deliberate fraud then you must offer some more plausible explanation for aforementioned facts
Well I have but I dont really need to as I am speculating, which I am allowed to do. As for the veracity of the godman myth, that is something different. See all the above references and arguments.
than the null-assumption that the main facts about Jesus are simply true.
The null assumption is that, in light of the FACT that the bible is a critically and demonstrably FLAWED document it is thus unreliable as a source of info on the godman. And, as there exists absolutely NO other source of info (revelations, hot flashes and pat robertson dont count) we can dismiss him as myth.
http://www.youtub...rNqS0lyE

'The lord SAID...'
knowalot
1 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2012
Now you are jumping back to OT archeology... I can give you quotes from scholars that contradict these statements. OT archeology is not an exact science, and there is room for endless interpretation. Most scholars consider the Tel Dan steele conclusive evidence for the historicity of king David for instance. Recent excavations in Israel have unearthed the possible location for his palace and the city of David. The quotes from Thompson are those of a Bible skeptic. One should not be surprised to find such statements.

I would say that OT archeology is not decisive with regards to the claims of Christianity. Archeology cannot prove the Bible is true, but neither has it disproved the Bible.

The Christian faith however is a consistent message that without essential alteration has been the same since the time of Jesus, and is based on valid evidence. The theories of new age type analogies between Jesus, Buddha and Osiris are not. That is the essential difference you keep on overlooking.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2012
Most NT scholars agree
You keep saying that but I dont see any refs?
that the books of the NT all existed before 100 AD, and almost all the letters of Paul and the synoptic gospels before 70 AD.
Would that include all those claimed in the bible to have been written by paul but which were actually written by others?
The consensus among scholars is that the NT has a very high level of textual integrity
I have provided scholarly evidence which shows that the opposite is true.
All the features you mention, like gnosticism, arianism, trinitarianism, Constantine, canonization etc are later developments
gnosticism and arianism preceded your 'jesus is god' stuff. We have shown you that trinitarianism began in egypt, if not before. In a religion which was the precursor to yours. Per the evidence.
the gospel and the early church.
Again which church was that? The gnostic church? The arian church? Some augustinian Manichaean derivative? Winners werent chosen until nicaea.
knowalot
1 / 5 (3) Mar 02, 2012
No, the null assumption is of course the best and most plausible explanation for the facts of early Christianity: the NT documents, the writings of early Christians, reports of secular historians, the emergence and persecution of the early church and the dedication of the apostles to their unwelcome message. This null hypothesis is NOT a 350 year long conspiracy theory involving everthing but the kitchen sink, but simply the truth of the gospel as history.

Your assertion however is a giant non sequitur cobbled together from blind faith in fringe authors and Bible skeptics with an agenda.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2012
Now you are jumping back to OT archeology...
The book claims itself to be the exact word of god. If one part can be discredited then the whole thing is suspect.
Most scholars consider the Tel Dan steele conclusive evidence for the historicity of king David for instance.
But its not. Your religionist scholars are not objective are they?
Archeology cannot prove the Bible is true, but neither has it disproved the Bible.
Yes it can. It has shown that jerusalem for instance was a little village when it was supposed to have been a walled city. Jericho was abandoned by the time that joshua supposedly got there. There is plenty of conflicting evidence where biblical evidence should be. This is what made dr thompson change his stance from a believer to a debunker.
The Christian faith however is a consistent message that without essential alteration has been the same since the time of Jesus
Nope sorry they all preached the exact same things your favorite godman did.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2012
but simply the truth of the gospel as history.
Again the gospels are seriously, critically flawed, which has been shown to you. Mark was ADULTERATED a century or 2 after is was written. That is NOT a small thing.
Your assertion however is a giant non sequitur cobbled together from blind faith in fringe authors and Bible skeptics with an agenda.
And again, the authors and skeptics referenced here are respected authorities. You saying that they are not doesnt change that. New books coming out all the time by respected scholars which lend further doubt as to the idea that the omniscient creator of everything that is and ever was, had to send his son when he could have come here himself and done the job right (but it WAS him, wasnt it? Im confused)

-And all those holyman zombies wandering around jerusalem... whats up with that? That would have scared the bejezus out of me for sure.
knowalot
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2012
For instance Bruce Metzger (Ehrmans mentor), Jaroslav Pelican, Daniel B. Wallace, Adolf Harnack, FF Bruce Carl Barth, Hans Kueng etc. Your source regarding NT text has been Ehrman. His theories are flawed as discussed earlier.

The doctrine that Jesus is God in the flesh can be found in the letters of Paul, dated to 45-65 AD. Early Christian writers like Ignatius confirm this (100 AD). Gnosticism did not produce any text before 150 AD (gospel of Thomas). Arianism started with Arius around 300 AD. Trinitarianism around 200 AD with Tertullian.

The early church was simply apostolic, based on the life, death and resurrection of Christ. The earliest Christian text, 1 Cor 15, mentions the resurrection in a fragment that has been traced back by scholars to the '30's (of the 1st century). Still the best explanation for these facts is the truth of the gospel, not a giant conspiracy lasting centuries for which there is no evidence.
knowalot
1 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2012
The ending of Mark issue does not disprove the integrity of the Bible at all. Even without Mark 9-16, no essential Christian doctrine is missing from the gospel, including the resurrection.

The best explanation for the ending of Mark is that the original text was lost, but added from memory by scribes at a later point (F.F. Bruce). At no time did copyists try to hide the fact that the longer ending was an interpolation, which demonstrates their integrity. Please study these topics before quoting them out of context.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 02, 2012
Bruce Metzger - seminarian/religionist
Jaroslav Pelican - ordained lutheran pastor
Daniel B. Wallace - seminarian/religionist
Adolf Harnack - 19th century theologian
FF Bruce - "one of the founders of the modern evangelical understanding of the Bible" - oh come on
Carl Barth - Swiss Reformed theologian
Hans Kueng - Swiss Catholic priest ahaahahaha

-You didnt even try to find such courageous religionist skeptics as Thompson or Don Cupitt. How are we not to conclude that the religionists on your list wouldnt be even a little prone to selling the standard dogma? That is how they earn a living isnt it?

And those from before archeology and exegesis has revealed to us the biblical flaws that only THEY were aware of at the time - they of course dont count.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 02, 2012
The ending of Mark issue does not disprove the integrity of the Bible at all. Even without Mark 9-16, no essential Christian doctrine is missing from the gospel, including the resurrection.
-Except the very important event where the women rushed out to tell the world of the wonderous resurrection, instead of telling no one as the original author wrote -? The one that bible alterers thought important enough to change the word of god to include?? Or maybe god had second thoughts and commandeered another scribe???
added from memory by scribes at a later point
-Except that bruce the evangelist "viewed the New Testament writings as historically reliable and the truth claims of Christianity as hinging on their being so."

-In other words he was sadly prone to making the evidence fit the conclusion. We know these alterations occured a century at least after the book was written. Mark was the first book; the others copied from it. Bruce didnt know this.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 02, 2012
"8 Trembling and bewildered, the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." mark16

-This is how the original author intended the book to end. It gives the gospel an entirely different meaning. The adulterers wanted the book to resemble the others and so added the rest. Obviously.
http://www.amazon...434654#_
knowalot
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 02, 2012
Your comments about the longer ending of Mark are pure speculation. The fact is that this issue does not refute any doctrine of the Bible. The apostle Paul wrote about the resurrection before the gospels were written. Luke and John represent different textual traditions from Mark and Matthew. They are based on their own, independent sources.

The assertion about F.F. Bruce and the ad hominems against these Bible scholars are rather childish. All are NT scholars and eminent theologians from prestigious universities. People like Barth (and Bonhoeffer) were men of personal and intellectual integrity, even standing up against the nazi's by their Christian faith.

In conclusion, I think you have failed to offer any argument that warrants the belief that the best explanation for the Christian faith is not the veracity of the gospel but some unknown giant conspiracy. Many thanks for the comments indeed, I found them interesting and at times amusing.
Deathclock
2 / 5 (4) Mar 02, 2012
Deny deny deny, deny as fast as you can!
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2012
The nature of the gospels is especially revealing.

"The majority view today is that Mark is the first gospel, with Matthew and Luke borrowing passages both from that gospel and from at least one other common source, lost to history, termed by scholars 'Q'...some scholars have concluded that the gospels provide no historical information about Jesus life since the first gospel accounts (Mark) only appeared 40 years after Jesus's death."

-This is in contrast to the 'Two Gospel Hypothesis' long propounded by the church:

the two-gospel hypothesis concludes that the traditional accounts of the gospels (order and date of publication, as well as authorship) are accurate...The early church didn't just testify as to who wrote the gospels, in what order, and when they wrote them, it also testified on the specific circumstances surrounding the creation of each gospel."
cont
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2012
"Many generic arguments in favor of Markan Priority and/or Two-source hypothesis also work as arguments against the two-gospel hypothesis."

-The rest can be found here:
http://en.wikiped...riticism

-So for centuries the church maintained that matthew was the first gospel, which contained the post-resurrection return of jesus (but then he left AGAIN -?), and mark followed, also with the post-resurrection visitation. But we now know mark came first and the visitation ending was added a century later.

Could it be that, after much discussion during the composition of the jesus myth, it was realized that it would not be enough to have the gospels proclaim that he had risen; but that he actually had to return to DEMONSTRATE the fact to the disciples? The people would be more apt to accept the story if it had a jesus arisen from the dead, alive in the presence of his followers, replete with nail holes.
cont
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 03, 2012
But the gospel of mark had already been written. So ex post facto it was revised to include this new twist. As it was done by people of the 2nd century, they were perhaps not skilled enough to obscure this fact by emulating the style of the original gospel.

Later still the church realized the transparency of this and sought to disguise it by rearranging the order of the gospels. Also clumsy and easy to discern today.

The bible is full of such amateurish fiddlings. It is also full of extreme brilliance, which I described many posts ago. Were church fathers clumsy at times on Purpose? The Deception could not last forever; it is too easy to uncover with a more complete knowledge of the pre-xian religions and the tools of hermeneutics and exegesis at hand.

This must have been obvious to the People who composed it. They did not intend this Institution to last forever because They knew full well how dangerous it would be in a fully-Conquered world. It includes the Seeds of its own demise.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2012
Your comments about the longer ending of Mark are pure speculation.
I like to regard it as forensics. Just as yours and the churches efforts throughout the ages are called apologetics. With our knowledge of earlier religions and the nature of similar such artifice in the bible we come to expect deception and obscurantism.

I am offering a very plausible explanation for this particular mystery, and it is in keeping with the idea that the bible and the religion were composed to facilitate the Salvation of western civilization, which is after all a far more noble goal than the preservation of your soul or mine.

We do have evidence that our civilization prevails. We have absolutely none that souls exist or that entreating and supplicating and genuflecting would have any effect whatsoever on their future beyond the grave.
Larkus
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2012
Concerning Bart Ehrman, again:

James White about Bart Ehrman in a debate about "Misquoting Jesus":
"We need to understand this evening, that as Dr. Ehrman has stated over and over again, there isnt anything really new in his book, Misquoting Jesus. Any person with sufficient interest and availability of scholarship has known about the *factual issues* he raises all along."

As you see, even conservative Christian apologists can agree with him on that.
Larkus
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2012
The majority of Bible scholars do not share his views.


Contrast that with what Ehrman writes (About his book "Jesus, Interrupted"):
http://www.npr.or...#excerpt
"The perspectives that I present in the following chapters are not my own idiosyncratic views of the Bible. They are the views that have held sway for many, many years among the majority of serious critical scholars teaching in the universities and seminaries of North America and Europe, even if they have not been effectively communicated to the population at large, let alone among people of faith who revere the Bible and who would be, presumably, the ones most interested."

Can you substantiate your assertions?
Larkus
3 / 5 (2) Mar 03, 2012
Hi knowalot,

are there any Christian sects, that are bound for hell? If yes, which sects and why are they bound for hell?
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 03, 2012
Contrast that with what Ehrman writes (About his book "Jesus, Interrupted")
I just watched a debate by Bart Ehrman and Craig Evans on the historical accuracy of the NT.
http://www.youtub...=related

Synopsis: Ehrman - errors mean the bible cant be trusted. Evans - errors have no effect on the essential message of the NT.

Evans acknowledges things like the trinity addition to james 1 but continues to cite josephus as independent corroboration, which has been similarly exposed. tsk tsk.
knowalot
2 / 5 (4) Mar 04, 2012
Ehrman does present some valid facts. That I have never denied. His conclusions are way off however, because they go much beyond the evidence. A lot is based on speculation and his personal opinion of what Bible inerrancy should be.

I think you are referring to I John 5:7, not James. Most scholars indeed agree that was an interpolation that found it's way into Jerome's text through a glosse of Cyprian. Most modern Bibles do not have it, but the KJV does. No single translation of the Bible is perfect, as is the case with any old text. But overall, and certainly compared to other ancient documents, the Bible has a very high level of textual integrity. The essential message of the Bible is indeed not in any way affected by Ehrman's examples.

(Daniel B. Wallace, The Gospel according to Bart: A Review Article of Misquoting Jesus by Bart Ehrman, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 49 (2006) 327-49.)
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 04, 2012
The essential message of the Bible
-is that if you believe you will 1) have your wishes granted, 2) be able to shed guilt and regret and 3) get to live forever. These are all guaranteed by a god of which we have absolutely NO evidence for, except for pronouncements in a single, highly flawed and obviously contrived collection of songs and stories.

Like I say, the potential rewards are so great that those who believe they are possible are willing to overlook ALL the MANY reasons to conclude that the book is nonsense.

It doesnt matter what it says does it? You all just skip to the goody parts and ignore the rest. But it DOES MATTER as ehrman says. It MATTERS to the people who sincerely want to know if it is real, and accept the possibility that it CAN be false.

And if the low level of integrity of all those who had a hand in writing this book and of selling it through the years is any indication, it is NOT REAL. The sorry state of your book stands as direct evidence for this.