NationStates Jolt Archive

I know that this topic is killed to death every week, But I came up with this idea while reading some of the other posts, and I felt that it merited its own post.

In browsing and posting on numerous boards where religious debates are a common theme, I have come across one very common feature. Nine times out of ten, the starter of a thread asking about Christianity is an Atheist, looking to insult someone’s beliefs. Their arguments always follow one of several patterns:

-If God is all knowing and all powerful, how can he allow pain and suffering in the world?

-If God Created the universe, who created God?

-If God created everything, why did he create organs that have no purpose to modern man?

These questions all have one thing in common, they are questions of confusion on the part of mankind rather than reasons for/against God’s existence. It is a rare event that any atheist will ever state why they believe without taking a dig at Christianity as part of his platform.

So I pose to you a challenge:

Without using any religious Crutch (ie, you cannot say I am an atheist because the concept of God is stupid..) explain using your ever present logic and scientific fact why there is no creator. This means: No questions of morality, or the nature of God himself. You should only use “secular” reasoning. If atheism is indeed correct, you should not need to rely on the beliefs of others to back up your claims. Can you do it? Can you explain to us why you are an atheist without referring to God specifically?

Some may say that this is an unfair question, so please, allow me to clarify. I do not mean that you cannot mention god, only that you cannot use your opinion on divine morals to disprove Him. Many of you claim that Christianity has no logic to it, so use logic to define your beliefs. Use hard evidence that is hard to refute, instead of questions of morals which vary from person to person. Use science over religion, basically what you are always requesting that Christians do in the threads that your peers start.

Do not turn this into a Christianity bashing thread, in fact no one mention Christianity at all (sans this post, because I have to define the terms of the question). In the responses of believers, I do not want to hear any of the reasoning that I have just asked the atheist to avoid. If I am asking them to hold to this standard, I should only expect that we (Christians) should be held to the same standard. Do not attack atheism in this thread, it is a belief system that many people on this board agree with and attacking something someone hold dear will never make them sympathetic to your beliefs. Use logic, not bible verses if you want to argue a point that they bring up. This is not a thread about Christianity, so do not make it one. This is a thread about science and reason, so keep both sides of the argument to this standard.

Oh, and since evolution will invariably be mentioned, I might as well state this as to avoid later question. Since many Christians believe in Creationism, their first reaction on how to refute a post about evolution will be with intelligent design. I ask you to avoid this. If an atheist posts a missing link, try to show why it is not a missing link instead of saying why intelligent design is superior. For those of you who want to look more into the scientific side of creationism, I suggest www.wasdarwinright.org, www.icr.org (or it possibly could be .com) and www.answersingenesis.org . They may help you discuss some of the issues raised on a “logic” level.

As I said, please keep religion out of this thread. I am requesting logic and scientific that atheism is correct, I am not asking you to tell me why Theism is wrong.

If there are Mods that will haunt this thread, I would ask for your help to insure that religion stays out of the thread for as long as possible. Thank you.

Simple, you don't need God to explain anything, so he's a needless extra term in any given equation. Therefore, Parsimony says he's unnecessary.

Quoting Stardestroyer.net here: [http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Occam.html]

Sorry, but at the risk of offending some, I have to point out that religion is an excellent case study for Occam's Razor. In fact, not to belabour the point, but I must repeat myself in saying that Occam himself was a theologian, and used Occam's Razor as one of his spiritual arguments. Think of our entire worldview as a huge theory which exists in order to explain the universe. This gives you two competing theories:

1. The universe exists. It has natural laws that govern the behaviour of the world.
2. God exists, and created the universe, which has natural laws that govern the behaviour of the world. God is inscrutable.

Note the commonalities: in both theories, we have the universe and its natural laws. The second theory merely adds the "God" term, which cannot be evaluated because he's inscrutable. So the question becomes: how does the second theory outperform the first one? Once again, let us model this as a pair of competing theories which are expressed in equation form:

[Eq 1]

P = N [where P is phenomena and N is Nature]

[Eq 2]

P = N + G [where G (God) is a mysterious unknown]

In this case, the problem is rather obvious: the religious explanation merely adds a mystery term which cannot be evaluated in any way. This is the inherent problem with using an inscrutable God to explain mysteries: you cannot explain anything with an inscrutable answer, any more than you can solve a mathematical equation by simply saying "unknown". And this, said William of Ockham, is why believers must rely on faith.

OK...secularism is the modern form of athiesm, and it came around because people decided that religion is a bunch of BS and that it paved the way for ignorance and intolerance of other people. It was also a way of uniting people and showing that it can be done if there is no form of religion involved.

So...that's not why I'm an athiest (see above); I'm an athiest because I do not believe that we are ruled by a supreme being... but, I do believe in this (and you did ask for a secular argument :D)... I believe in athiesm because I do not believe there is a life force superior to ours (note: no mention of THAT FORBIDDEN WORD *looks around to make sure it's not raining fire and brimstone*), but I do believe that there is a spiritual realm and that we were not born and we won't die, but in fact, we are merely reincarnations of earlier life forms.

I believe this because it makes the most sense to me.

HA! There... I followed the guidelines!!!

Simple, you don't need God to explain anything, so he's a needless extra term in any given equation. Therefore, Parsimony says he's unnecessary.

Quoting Stardestroyer.net here: [http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Essays/Occam.html]

But would that not only make you an agnostic?


Note the commonalities: in both theories, we have the universe and its natural laws. The second theory merely adds the "God" term, which cannot be evaluated because he's inscrutable. So the question becomes: how does the second theory outperform the first one? Once again, let us model this as a pair of competing theories which are expressed in equation form...

In this case, the problem is rather obvious: the religious explanation merely adds a mystery term which cannot be evaluated in any way

I fail to see how that proves that there is no God, but is just shows that you cannot prove that he exists.

p=n+g and p=n are two equations that supposedly have the same answer. am I correct in this assumption? math was never my strong suite, but i think I got this much correct. So I am assuming that this would have several plausable outcomes.

n=0 is false becuase without g, p would not exist. n is irrelevent ot the equation

g=0 because n already equals p. but since you stated that God is inscrutable (this may or may not be true, depending on how you look at it, but lets assume that it is for this illustration) If this is the case, then you cannot say that this equation is false because there is an unknown that is unquantifiable.

g=o because n=p without needing g. In this case, let us assume that God is not inscrutable. thus He did not take part in the creation (evolution) of life. However, you cannot say with absolute certainty that g does not exist, you would have merely shown that he did not partake in our evolution.

However, if we are talking about a god that people believe to be inscrutable, and he is indeed inscrutable, then this equation would merely give more weight to the thought that god, if he exists is beyond what we know as Law in the universe. Some may argue that it is impossible to say that g is inscrutable because that would be a statement of convienence, however that does not negate that that statement might indeed be true. Thus, I think that this evidence would give you support for agnostism, but not explicitly atheism.

(on a side note, I love stardestroyer.net. I really enjoy reading his fan fiction. star trek v star wars)

OK...secularism is the modern form of athiesm, and it came around because people decided that religion is a bunch of BS and that it paved the way for ignorance and intolerance of other people. It was also a way of uniting people and showing that it can be done if there is no form of religion involved.

So...that's not why I'm an athiest (see above); I'm an athiest because I do not believe that we are ruled by a supreme being... but, I do believe in this (and you did ask for a secular argument :D)... I believe in athiesm because I do not believe there is a life force superior to ours (note: no mention of THAT FORBIDDEN WORD *looks around to make sure it's not raining fire and brimstone*), but I do believe that there is a spiritual realm and that we were not born and we won't die, but in fact, we are merely reincarnations of earlier life forms.

I believe this because it makes the most sense to me.

HA! There... I followed the guidelines!!!

You can mention the term God, along with Godess, supreme being, whatever. the intent of that "rule" was to avoid someone justifying thier belief in atheism by saying that christianity, or religion in general is stupid. we are not debating the existance of the christian God, just merely a supreme being of some sort, be it God, or Krishna, or something that we do not even know about yet.

I fail to see how that proves that there is no God, but is just shows that you cannot prove that he exists.

Exactly. Why believe in something there is no evidence for? If I told you there was an invisible pink unicorn only I could see sitting in the palm of my hand and my hand was empty, would you surmise that there might be such a creature?

g=0 because n already equals p. but since you stated that God is inscrutable (this may or may not be true, depending on how you look at it, but lets assume that it is for this illustration) If this is the case, then you cannot say that this equation is false because there is an unknown that is unquantifiable.

If God was not inscrutable, we wouldn't be having this debate. And an unquantifiable unknown is useless in an equation, that's the whole point. If you simply write the solution to a mathmatical problem as 'X' where X is unquantifiable you haven't solved anything because you've just written 'I don't know' as 'X' [or 'God.']. As a result, the equation is useless, not false.

g=o because n=p without needing g. In this case, let us assume that God is not inscrutable. thus He did not take part in the creation (evolution) of life. However, you cannot say with absolute certainty that g does not exist, you would have merely shown that he did not partake in our evolution.

But if we can't show he ever did anything and the universe seems to get on perfectly well without him, why is there any point in assuming he exists?

First - why is it incumbent on the atheist to disprove God? Why must we be able to explain the creation of the universe as the only way to validate our disbelief in your eyes?

Stating "I don't know how the universe came into existance" no more proves the existance of God than stating "I don't know how the internal combustion engine functions" does. We are a learning species, and our knowledge has grown exponentially over the past few centuries. It was no so long ago that it was believed that the Sun rotated around the earth. Not so long ago that the ability to create and harness electricty was learned. Not so long ago that the secrets of the DNA double-helix were found. And this without yet really venturing from our planet.

Because I state that we do not yet know for sure how the universe was created does not mean that we will never know this. It is no more indicitive of the existence or non-existance of God that our forefathers not knowing how diseases spread.

Dismissing the existance of God quite simply does not imply that we humans have all the answers. We recognize the limitations of the scope of human knowledge. But why does that somehow validate your beliefs? However our dismissal also does not imply that we feel that we will never be able to learn some of the secrets you ask for today.

Perhaps we just have more faith in ourselves as a race than you do.

-Z-

Exactly. Why believe in something there is no evidence for? If I told you there was an invisible pink unicorn only I could see sitting in the palm of my hand and my hand was empty, would you surmise that there might be such a creature?

I can reverse your question. why believe in anything that there is no evidence against?

Actually if you were shown to be mentally stable (whatever that means) and you were not high/drunk when you had this revelation. there is not really a reason for me to deny that the pink unicorn exists. though in your example, you mention that one person (you) has seen the unicorn, while in many religions, God is not seen by anyone, or he is seen by many. So that does make your case differ. but in a world of unknowns, I cannot prove that the unicorn does not exist with total assurence. If I told you right now that I had a blue marker stuck up my nose, you would have no evidence to believe me save my own word. you could not see me, nor the supposed marker, but that does not mean that it does not exist. It is the same, to an extent as your unicorn. There is no way I could tell you with 100% certainty that the unicorn does not exist, jsut as you cannot tell me with absolute certainty that the blue marker does not exist.

If God was not inscrutable, we wouldn't be having this debate. And an unquantifiable unknown is useless in an equation, that's the whole point. If you simply write the solution to a mathmatical problem as 'X' where X is unquantifiable you haven't solved anything because you've just written 'I don't know' as 'X' [or 'God.']. As a result, the equation is useless, not false.

If he/she/it is an unknown, that does not automatically mean that he/she/it does not exist. were not atoms thought to be the smallest particle in the universe until very recently? But there are quarks and protons now, and who knows what may be discovered in the future. there was no evidence for a long time to prove that they existed. yet there are very fundemental ways that they infulence our world, and have influenced us, even when we thought that they did not exist. Lack of evidence does not prove lack of existance, unless all evicence is known (which we are very far from). Therefore there is a possibility that the evidence that is needed to show how he/she/it effects N and P, is out there, but we are not yet at a point where we can notice it.



But if we can't show he ever did anything and the universe seems to get on perfectly well without him, why is there any point in assuming he exists?
I am not asking you to assume that he/she/it exists. I am merely saying that by using your logic you cannot prove that he/she/it does not exist. Assuming his existance or lack there of, is just that, a belief that you hold that goes beyond what we currently know. Both sides, atheism and theism/deism require a certain amount of faith to accept them.

First - why is it incumbent on the atheist to disprove God? Why must we be able to explain the creation of the universe as the only way to validate our disbelief in your eyes?

Stating "I don't know how the universe came into existance" no more proves the existance of God than stating "I don't know how the internal combustion engine functions" does. We are a learning species, and our knowledge has grown exponentially over the past few centuries. It was no so long ago that it was believed that the Sun rotated around the earth. Not so long ago that the ability to create and harness electricty was learned. Not so long ago that the secrets of the DNA double-helix were found. And this without yet really venturing from our planet.

Because I state that we do not yet know for sure how the universe was created does not mean that we will never know this. It is no more indicitive of the existence or non-existance of God that our forefathers not knowing how diseases spread.

Dismissing the existance of God quite simply does not imply that we humans have all the answers. We recognize the limitations of the scope of human knowledge. But why does that somehow validate your beliefs? However our dismissal also does not imply that we feel that we will never be able to learn some of the secrets you ask for today.

Perhaps we just have more faith in ourselves as a race than you do.

-Z-

the "incumbent" is on you because in many other threads the "burden of proof" has been up to the theists to provide. I am merely reversing the question to you so that you can provide your opinions without merely replying to our "reasoning."

I am asking you to disprove God because I have yet to read an effective argument that does anything more than call his/her existance into question. you are right, it is possible that we will one day know everything about the universe. But until that point, you cannot fully rule out a "creation theory" can you? Even ones that are considered lunacy, ie "a giant Farfquad farted to create the big bang," can not truthfully be ruled out until you know everything about the begining of the universe.

That being said, I do not see how anyone can truly be an atheist unless it is through an act of faith, that their view of the non-existance of god is the correct one. Just like I, as a theist, must have faith to believe the way I do. agnostics are the ones that do not want to commit the faith to either side. I am not saying this is wrong, in fact, it is a very logical stance. they do not know, so they do not pass judgment.

The point of this thread was to help me find a reason, if any exist, that atheism does not require faith of some form. It is not an attempt to convert, nor am I trying to say that my side is right. I am just searching for answers, and for logic. I do not intend to attack a belief or call it stupid, but I will pose questions where I see them.

erm, i guess then this means that we all need to find logical ways to prove that invisible, all-powerful turtles aren't secretly behind the physical laws of the universe, right? since there is just as much evidence for and against them as there is for God, i don't see why there would be any distinction between the two questions.

therefore i put it to you, thread founder, to disprove invisible magic turtles, if you expect atheists to disprove God.

furthermore, you need to give a definition of God that is comprehensive if you want anybody to disprove it. otherwise you can always just say "oh, but God is love, and love exists, so God is real" or something like that.

Question: Would not the systematic interaction of our universe (rotation of planets, etc.), earth's climatic cycles, the systems of our own bodies and the cycles of our lives indicate a logical plan put into place by an higher intelligence?

I can reverse your question. why believe in anything that there is no evidence against?
Evidence is a pre-requisite for rational assent.

Actually if you were shown to be mentally stable (whatever that means) and you were not high/drunk when you had this revelation. there is not really a reason for me to deny that the pink unicorn exists.
...except for the lack of evidence for. A person's say-so isn't evidence.

though in your example, you mention that one person (you) has seen the unicorn, while in many religions, God is not seen by anyone, or he is seen by many. So that does make your case differ.
No, actually it doesn't. A million people who claim something silly doesn't make it any less silly, does it?

but in a world of unknowns, I cannot prove that the unicorn does not exist with total assurence. If I told you right now that I had a blue marker stuck up my nose, you would have no evidence to believe me save my own word. you could not see me, nor the supposed marker, but that does not mean that it does not exist.
You're going on the argument from ignorance fallacy.

If he/she/it is an unknown, that does not automatically mean that he/she/it does not exist. were not atoms thought to be the smallest particle in the universe until very recently?
Ah, but no one was making claims about quarks and such prior to having some evidence for them.

But there are quarks and protons now, and who knows what may be discovered in the future. there was no evidence for a long time to prove that they existed. yet there are very fundemental ways that they infulence our world, and have influenced us, even when we thought that they did not exist. Lack of evidence does not prove lack of existance, unless all evicence is known (which we are very far from).
Or where evidence is to be, such as the claim that there is a a watch on my left wrist is shown false by looking and seeing no watch.

I am not asking you to assume that he/she/it exists. I am merely saying that by using your logic you cannot prove that he/she/it does not exist. Assuming his existance or lack there of, is just that, a belief that you hold that goes beyond what we currently know. Both sides, atheism and theism/deism require a certain amount of faith to accept them.
No. Only theism. Atheism is a lack of belief, hence no faith needed. Do bear that in mind.

Question: Would not the systematic interaction of our universe (rotation of planets, etc.), earth's climatic cycles, the systems of our own bodies and the cycles of our lives indicate a logical plan put into place by an higher intelligence?
No more than stones washing up on a beach do. IOW: causality is part of the universe and is not indicative of any intelligent plan.

Question: Would not the systematic interaction of our universe (rotation of planets, etc.), earth's climatic cycles, the systems of our own bodies and the cycles of our lives indicate a logical plan put into place by an higher intelligence?

how so? the properties of matter and energy make all those things necessary, make it so there is no other possible way for the universe to structure itself. how does that support intelligent design?

Question: Would not the systematic interaction of our universe (rotation of planets, etc.), earth's climatic cycles, the systems of our own bodies and the cycles of our lives indicate a logical plan put into place by an higher intelligence?

Argument by Design? Compelling, but not ultimately satisfying, in and of itself. What about systems that don't work? What about systems that are broken? If someone designed it, then why isn't that same someone making sure it continues running?

The reason I am an atheist. Hmm.

I like science. If used properly, it's an interesting admittance of ignorance in order to gain knowledge. Science is a way of saying, "I don't know how the universe works, but I'll attempt to find out".

I don't find the idea that a supreme being waved a magic wand and created us so appealing. To me, it looks like a kind of wilful effort to remain ignorant, a refusal to find out how the universe works by claiming to already know.

Either way I'm ignorant, but at least with science there's the hope that I might be able to become less so.

I don't think I've broken the rules. Sorry if I have.

Simple, you don't need God to explain anything, so he's a needless extra term in any given equation. Therefore, Parsimony says he's unnecessary.

However, you've failed to show that P = N. It may be that there is phenomena out there that is beyond our experience.

The systems, when healthy and in good order, work well and often perfectly. Break the chain or leave out a step and the whole thing falls apart. It started with all the links in the chain. Things do wear out and break. We have minds and the ability to learn. Some things we can fix for ourselves. Didn't say the higher intelligence was a caretaker. Who knows, maybe it fixes what it wants to and ignores what it doesn't want to. Benign neglect...or maybe the plan included "watching the ant farm" to see what it would do with itself.

OK...secularism is the modern form of athiesm, and it came around because people decided that religion is a bunch of BS and that it paved the way for ignorance and intolerance of other people....
HA! There... I followed the guidelines!!!

Not really. Tilgith said, "you cannot say I am an atheist because the concept of God is stupid...", which is basically equivalent to "religion is a bunch of BS." ;)

Alright Mr. Athiest Challanger.

I ask you this then. Prove to me God DOESN'T exist using science. You see, no matter how good science is, it is by nature not assuredly correct (5 years of science class speaking here) and nothing can be proven unless done an infinite number of times. Gravity may not always work, 2+2 does not always equal four (clock mathmatics) and the speed of light may not necessarily be the fastest thing (current tests with energized electrons hitting a barrier but being forced through at faster than light speeds).

So therefore, you are asking me to describe to your perfection with something that I myself would never take as absolute proof. I could deny that you even exist with such phalacies.

So I bring up this. God is by definition a metaphysical being. I cannot go to God's house on fifth street, knock on the door and ask God to appear at a seminar to proove he exists. God may be there, but not in a visible form. At this point, all I can show you that is physical is myself, 2 billion other followers and a book called the Bible. Why, if all of this is fake, and atheists have had two millenia to proove it wrong, does it still exist?

Why did I, a hardened atheist and victor of many debates against the faith, switch?

Why is it that when I ask you to show me one born again Christian that turned to atheism that I can show you 10,000 atheists that turned Christian?

Why is it that you can ask me to prove God exists with numbers, when man cannot even calculate why parachutes work with numbers?

Your answer to all these scientific things "We've tested it time and again, and each time there is the same result. It just works, it's a common occurance."

My responce to you on God "We've tested God time and again, and each time there is the same result. God just works, it's a common occurance."

You can respond to my other name: United Christiandom

-Fury

There was a creator.Something was created.Just don't think that it was some bearded all knowing superman who did the creating.

Argument by Design? Compelling, but not ultimately satisfying, in and of itself. What about systems that don't work? What about systems that are broken? If someone designed it, then why isn't that same someone making sure it continues running?

Just which systems are not working and/or have broken down? What would such a system even look like?

Sorry, just realized what you were responding to, which answered the question, more or less.

The reason I am an atheist. Hmm.

I like science. If used properly, it's an interesting admittance of ignorance in order to gain knowledge. Science is a way of saying, "I don't know how the universe works, but I'll attempt to find out".

I don't find the idea that a supreme being waved a magic wand and created us so appealing. To me, it looks like a kind of wilful effort to remain ignorant, a refusal to find out how the universe works by claiming to already know.

Either way I'm ignorant, but at least with science there's the hope that I might be able to become less so.

I don't think I've broken the rules. Sorry if I have.

You're assuming that science is necessarily contrary to religionists. After all, theists can try to get a better understanding of how the universe works just as well as atheists.

Your implied contention that large numbers of people believe in a god or have switched from atheism to theism has absolutely no bearing on this debate.

A popular notion is not always correct, and even if support of this notion is unanimous, it still proves nothing.


Why did I, a hardened atheist and victor of many debates against the faith, switch?

Why is it that when I ask you to show me one born again Christian that turned to atheism that I can show you 10,000 atheists that turned Christian?

Why is it that you can ask me to prove God exists with numbers, when man cannot even calculate why parachutes work with numbers?

Your answer to all these scientific things "We've tested it time and again, and each time there is the same result. It just works, it's a common occurance."

My responce to you on God "We've tested God time and again, and each time there is the same result. God just works, it's a common occurance."

An agruement could be made that certain illness are system failure. It could also be argued that illness is also part of a plan. If a person is run over by a truck, bodily systems break down and fail. And it looks bad, messy...
And there are those who would argue that this might also be part of the plan.
We (living flesh and bone types) weren't made to be indistructable.

I'm very much an atheist, but yes, I'm willing to agree that it is just as impossible to absolutely disprove the existence of a "god" (higher, guiding intelligence) as it is to prove, because of the limitations of our perception.

Therefore yes, I also agree that a-theism is just as much an act of faith as theism, if we define "faith" as the holding of the opinion that a certain set of "apparent facts" are "absolute facts".

But as I'm sure everyone here can relate to - we don't really need an absolute proof to be convinced one way or the other, do we? We just need either (1) to think it's an absolute proof, or (2) to render in our own minds that an absolute proof is impossible and go with the side that "makes more logical sense".

So in a way, the argument between theism and atheism is a battle between yearnings for absolute proof and logical explanation.


I hope this sort of gives an answer to what you were after...

An agruement could be made that certain illness are system failure. It could also be argued that illness is also part of a plan. If a person is run over by a truck, bodily systems break down and fail. And it looks bad, messy...
And there are those who would argue that this might also be part of the plan.
We (living flesh and bone types) weren't made to be indistructable.

Then explain pain. Explain evil. Explain why half of the species of the world live by eating the other half. Explain why, if a Creator is responsible for all this, it didn't create something better or at least something comprehensible to the creations moving within it.

Mind you, I'm a theist myself, so this is partly devil's advocate. However, Argument by or from Design has always seemed shockingly inadequate.

So in a way, the argument between theism and atheism is a battle between yearnings for absolute proof and logical explanation.


To add to this, by "absolute proof" I also mean "selective logic" used in order to enforce a pre-drafted "goal proof", and by "logical explanation" I more accurately mean "open-ended logic" that looks at the different little sources of information, pits them in full-scale battle against each other and makes special note of the facts that emerge unscathed by excessive contradiction.

And yeah, there have been plenty of times when people of both camps have been guilty of using selective logic to prove that "OMG GOD DOES/NOT EXIST!!!1" So yeah it's a bit unfair of me to say that theism is all about one and atheism the other. The distinctions are much more blurred in reality. =/

Alright Mr. Athiest Challanger.

I ask you this then. Prove to me God DOESN'T exist using science.
Fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

You see, no matter how good science is, it is by nature not assuredly correct (5 years of science class speaking here)
Yes. I love that. "Science". That's good.

and nothing can be proven unless done an infinite number of times. Gravity may not always work, 2+2 does not always equal four (clock mathmatics) and the speed of light may not necessarily be the fastest thing (current tests with energized electrons hitting a barrier but being forced through at faster than light speeds).
Gravity always works (spacetime warpage), 2+2=4 always (you just have to use modular arithmetic sometimes), and lightspeed is the lower bound for tachyons.

So much for your "5 years of science".

So I bring up this. God is by definition a metaphysical being.
Do you even know what metaphysics is?

I cannot go to God's house on fifth street, knock on the door and ask God to appear at a seminar to proove he exists. God may be there, but not in a visible form. At this point, all I can show you that is physical is myself, 2 billion other followers and a book called the Bible. Why, if all of this is fake, and atheists have had two millenia to proove it wrong, does it still exist?
Ask yourself the same of the Hindu vedas, which have been around for longer. Then ask yourself why 2/3 of the human population are not xer.

Why did I, a hardened atheist and victor of many debates against the faith, switch?
Ummmm...because you're like C.S. Lewis and Josh McDowell: lying that you were an atheist.

Why is it that when I ask you to show me one born again Christian that turned to atheism that I can show you 10,000 atheists that turned Christian?
Because you can't.

Why is it that you can ask me to prove God exists with numbers, when man cannot even calculate why parachutes work with numbers?
Because man can do so.

Do you have a problem being truthful?

My responce to you on God "We've tested God time and again, and each time there is the same result. God just works, it's a common occurance."
Presupposes god.

Now could you be bothered to put something forth that is 1)honest and 2)on-topic?

It seems you want an explanation as to why a benevelant loving parental God would allow bad things to happen to his/her children. I make no arguement for religion. I only make a case for a higher intelligence, making a plan, implementing it and sitting back and watching the action. Maybe, just maybe, if we have the courage to ask for assistance from this higher intelligence, we'll get it. Maybe not. I don't claim to know all the details of the plan. I just see that something as seemingly as simple as our eco-system makes sense. And cannot see it as an accident. To me it appears to be an intelligent plan. (And yes I know we're doing our best to screw it up and apparently whatever powers that be are not "fixing" it.) I don't find science and the belief in a Creator to be mutually exclusive.

I will humbly admit to being inadiquate. Isn't one of the reason we have these discussions is to learn from one another?

I simply have another belief. I believe ther is no god(so technically im an atheis) but the biblical figures(i.e. Moses, Jesus, Muhammed from the Koran) are all a part of some sort of master race of aliens that came to educate humans. Which is why the beliefs of Christianity,Judaism and Islam are pretty similiar. Tings like God striking people down with lightning can be attributed to some futuristic weapons (like concentrated energy beams). THe ancient egyptian religion aslo supports this theory. I dont believe that some mstical being created the universe though.

Question: Would not the systematic interaction of our universe (rotation of planets, etc.), earth's climatic cycles, the systems of our own bodies and the cycles of our lives indicate a logical plan put into place by an higher intelligence?

Answer: No.

Unless you think mathematics is a higher intelligence!

Mathamatics is the origin??????

Without using any religious Crutch (ie, you cannot say I am an atheist because the concept of God is stupid..) explain using your ever present logic and scientific fact why there is no creator. This means: No questions of morality, or the nature of God himself. You should only use “secular” reasoning. If atheism is indeed correct, you should not need to rely on the beliefs of others to back up your claims. Can you do it? Can you explain to us why you are an atheist without referring to God specifically?

Some may say that this is an unfair question, so please, allow me to clarify. I do not mean that you cannot mention god, only that you cannot use your opinion on divine morals to disprove Him. Many of you claim that Christianity has no logic to it, so use logic to define your beliefs. Use hard evidence that is hard to refute, instead of questions of morals which vary from person to person. Use science over religion, basically what you are always requesting that Christians do in the threads that your peers start.

This looks like an attempt to discredit athiesm by misrepresenting the argument. It's basically saying 'Prove athiesm without using 80% of the supporting opinions'. Since atheism is a statement of disbelief, a lot of the arguments will necessarily be attempts at disproving the arguments that uphold that belief.

You cannot prove or disprove the existence of gods. That said, it takes a lot more faith to believe in gods, than not to believe in them, simply because their existence is not apparent, obvious or evident, and alternate answers can be found that do not involve them. I'd rather minimise the amount of faith I have in unknowables, so I choose atheism. It makes more sense to me, than the line of thought that goes "I don't know (or can't understand modern scientific theory pertaining to) how stars form (or some other natural phenomena), therefore... gods!"

There was a creator.Something was created.Just don't think that it was some bearded all knowing superman who did the creating.

What created the creator?

If you answer "another creator, higher in power than that one", then what stops the series?

If you answer "nothing", then you don't need a creator because the universe could come into existence from nothing more easily than something capable of creating a universe.

Mathamatics is the origin??????

No, but with it you can explain all those things you mentioned without needing a creator.

I simply have another belief. I believe ther is no god(so technically im an atheis) but the biblical figures(i.e. Moses, Jesus, Muhammed from the Koran) are all a part of some sort of master race of aliens that came to educate humans. Which is why the beliefs of Christianity,Judaism and Islam are pretty similiar. Tings like God striking people down with lightning can be attributed to some futuristic weapons (like concentrated energy beams). THe ancient egyptian religion aslo supports this theory. I dont believe that some mstical being created the universe though.
That's a bit of a weird thing to say...

Next rampant flaming argument to be made; proof that Moses, Jesus and Muhammed are Aliens, and lazors are being used to strike people down with lightning.

These beliefs are similar because they have all evolved from the same root mythology.

No, but with it you can explain all those things you mentioned without needing a creator.

How? Not just the events themselves, or even the laws, but how did the laws come into being?

Not really. Tilgith said, "you cannot say I am an atheist because the concept of God is stupid...", which is basically equivalent to "religion is a bunch of BS." ;)
It is! All of them say the same thing but then comden their counterparts as being the wrong path and then war breaks out, and people kill each other in the name of religion....... :headbang:

It is! All of them say the same thing but then comden their counterparts as being the wrong path and then war breaks out, and people kill each other in the name of religion....... :headbang:
You're thinking of extremists here. Some theists aren't raving lunatics.
EDIT: Plus, once again, you're basing this on a moralistic explanation, not a logical one. Try again, foo.

It is! All of them say the same thing but then comden their counterparts as being the wrong path and then war breaks out, and people kill each other in the name of religion....... :headbang:

That's a generalization. Not all of them do that, not even most of them. Besides, it's not the religion at fault, it's the people using it to justify their own bloodlust. People are perfectly capable of finding reaons to be hideous to each other without religion, just that matters of faith are a convenient god-mod justification because you can never prove either side is right or wrong. Take religion out of the picture and you still have just as much hatred and anger, but just in different channels.

...except for the lack of evidence for. A person's say-so isn't evidence.


Good point here.... since 'say-so' is all the evidence that Christianity (and all the other religions) have ever offered.

Why is Atheism held up to a double standard?

To be honest - Atheists should not NEED to prove their 'belief', because the matter actually hinges on what they DON'T believe.

See if you can see the difference between the two following statments:

a) I believe that God is not real.

b) I do not believe in gods.

In a) we set up a specific theism, by referring to the 'God' spelling co-opted by judeo-christians. We specifically deny his existence. That would be the equivalent of an act of Faith, since we could be argued as believing in the very thing we disbelieve, in order to give a frame of reference.

In b) It is a simple statement that I have no belief in gods. This is not an argument FOR anything - so what is there to prove?

I have never seen a muffin that ate people. My logical brain says such a thing is unlikely. My friend says he has SEEN a muffin eating a person, but I still do not believe... WHO should present evidence in this scenario?

The Muffins-eat-people theorist? or the I'm-not-buying-that-story theorist?

Hmm...the original post asked Athiests to prove that no higher being exists without referring to "God" which really is just a generic term for a Supreme being...after all, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe "Allah" isn't specifically the Muslim God, rather the Arabic word for "God." So, I challenge the thread starter to prove the existence of a supreme being without referring to "God."

NOTE: The fact of the matter is, there is no proof one way or the other and no matter what you believe, it is just that, a belief. It is absurd to expect atheists to prove their beliefs and it is absurd to expect theists to proves their beliefs. Anyone who thinks there is proof, feel free to try proving it, but I can just about garuntee you every argument you make will be shot down.

NOTE: The typical atheist remark (or a good one anyway) would be "Seeing as there is no proof for the existence of a God, and no proof against it, the logical, simple answer is that there is no God." --however, this argument works the exact same for a theist if you change the last "no" to "a."

This (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6807858&postcount=42) will be bookmarked next time someone asks me to prove something that is similiar to this situation.

Hmm...the original post asked Athiests to prove that no higher being exists without referring to "God" which really is just a generic term for a Supreme being...after all, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe "Allah" isn't specifically the Muslim God, rather the Arabic word for "God." So, I challenge the thread starter to prove the existence of a supreme being without referring to "God."

NOTE: The fact of the matter is, there is no proof one way or the other and no matter what you believe, it is just that, a belief. It is absurd to expect atheists to prove their beliefs and it is absurd to expect theists to proves their beliefs. Anyone who thinks there is proof, feel free to try proving it, but I can just about garuntee you every argument you make will be shot down.

NOTE: The typical atheist remark (or a good one anyway) would be "Seeing as there is no proof for the existence of a God, and no proof against it, the logical, simple answer is that there is no God." --however, this argument works the exact same for a theist if you change the last "no" to "a."
Agreed.

Unfortunately, no one else will.

Hmm...the original post asked Athiests to prove that no higher being exists without referring to "God" which really is just a generic term for a Supreme being...after all, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe "Allah" isn't specifically the Muslim God, rather the Arabic word for "God." So, I challenge the thread starter to prove the existence of a supreme being without referring to "God."

NOTE: The fact of the matter is, there is no proof one way or the other and no matter what you believe, it is just that, a belief. It is absurd to expect atheists to prove their beliefs and it is absurd to expect theists to proves their beliefs. Anyone who thinks there is proof, feel free to try proving it, but I can just about garuntee you every argument you make will be shot down.

NOTE: The typical atheist remark (or a good one anyway) would be "Seeing as there is no proof for the existence of a God, and no proof against it, the logical, simple answer is that there is no God." --however, this argument works the exact same for a theist if you change the last "no" to "a."


Except that atheists don't have to DISBELIEVE God, they just don't BELIEVE in him/her/them. It's not an ACT of disbelief, it's the absence of ACTS of belief.

The thing about atheists is, for the most part (I'd hate to generalise and then be proved wrong): Atheism is just an aspect of their lives... it's not something they DO. They don't wake up and drop to their knees to thank 'nobody' for the wonderful day, heading off to work, where they 'preach' non-existence at the Secular Cathedral. They don't get to the snakc machine to find a blueberry muffin (I like muffins...) at the front, and thank 'nobody' for arranging it that way. They don't go to war, to the clarion call "For Country and Nobody"...

The dichotomy in the system is that other areas of the 'theism' terrain insist that atheism is a religion. It doesn't want to be. Sure, You might believe in Evolution... but you believe in it because it makes sense to you, not because it fits in with the "Atheists' Creed". Why do you believe in the Big Bang? Because it says so in the Atheist's Bible...

In fact... maybe I should start an Atheist church... you don't get special 'breaks' for being an atheist. There are no 'special jewellery for atheist' codes in workplaces, there is no 'atheist' dresscode that is allowable because it is part of your religion. Basically - atheists get bugger all. And then they have to defend their right not to believe...

Except that atheists don't have to DISBELIEVE God, they just don't BELIEVE in him/her/them. It's not an ACT of disbelief, it's the absence of ACTS of belief.

The thing about atheists is, for the most part (I'd hate to generalise and then be proved wrong): Atheism is just an aspect of their lives... it's not something they DO. They don't wake up and drop to their knees to thank 'nobody' for the wonderful day, heading off to work, where they 'preach' non-existence at the Secular Cathedral. They don't get to the snakc machine to find a blueberry muffin (I like muffins...) at the front, and thank 'nobody' for arranging it that way. They don't go to war, to the clarion call "For Country and Nobody"...

The dichotomy in the system is that other areas of the 'theism' terrain insist that atheism is a religion. It doesn't want to be. Sure, You might believe in Evolution... but you believe in it because it makes sense to you, not because it fits in with the "Atheists' Creed". Why do you believe in the Big Bang? Because it says so in the Atheist's Bible...

In fact... maybe I should start an Atheist church... you don't get special 'breaks' for being an atheist. There are no 'special jewellery for atheist' codes in workplaces, there is no 'atheist' dresscode that is allowable because it is part of your religion. Basically - atheists get bugger all. And then they have to defend their right not to believe...
If it's an absence of acts of belief, that means that you do not believe in a world with or without God. You have no faith and you can only base the world what's plainly in front of you. You cannot understand anything past what you see.

Ah well, it saves you from believing in some crackpot religion, 'cept if they turn out to be real. Then you're in the sh*tter.

This (http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=6807858&postcount=42) will be bookmarked next time someone asks me to prove something that is similiar to this situation.


Is that a good thing?

Or can I expect death by Indiana Jones style huge rolling muffin next time I leave my front-door?

If it's an absence of acts of belief, that means that you do not believe in a world with or without God. You have no faith and you can only base the world what's plainly in front of you. You cannot understand anything past what you see.

Ah well, it saves you from believing in some crackpot religion, 'cept if they turn out to be real. Then you're in the sh*tter.

Not at all - you can still believe in a world without god. You can believe in a world that you can experience and validate. Is gravity real? Drop something... either there is gravity, or the earth sucks... either way, interaction with your environment gives you measurable, predictable responses.

Atheists still have the capacity to 'understand' what they don't see... many atheists believe in ghosts - for which there is vanishingly small evidence - so they are not ENTIRELY above superstition.

And you would only be in the shutter? shotter? shatter? (I give up...) if the religion that finally proved true DEMANDS belief. If it turned out that the religion embraced everyone, believers and sceptics, you all go to Heaven (or nearest direct equivalent), then you are sound as a pound.

You're assuming that science is necessarily contrary to religionists. After all, theists can try to get a better understanding of how the universe works just as well as atheists.

You're assuming I was assuming something I'm not. There are plenty of theist scientists. All I was trying to explain was that all the religious theories I've heard stretch my credibility.

Except that atheists don't have to DISBELIEVE God, they just don't BELIEVE in him/her/them. It's not an ACT of disbelief, it's the absence of ACTS of belief.

Of course you do. Otherwise you're an agnostic.

Of course you do. Otherwise you're an agnostic.

Not at all. The definition of Atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods - which is what I was describing.

The definition of Agnosticism is that it is impossible to know whether there is/are god/gods. Agnostics may be Atheistic, or they could be Theistic... they argue that the knowledge of god/gods existing is beyond human comprehension.

I could go find a dictionary, if you'd like.

I believe in G-d because that's one of the things I've built my life around. It is not, however, incumbent or neccesary on anyone else's part to believe in G-d. My belief in G-d, however, is not like the Christian belief in G-d. I don't have to believe in G-d in order to not suffer eternal damnation. I am a Jew, I don't believe in a hell. I also believe that athiests are not "damned" for their beliefs. They go where everyone else goes when they die - to a Jew like me, we just refer to it as "the other world." We're not a death-obsessed people. I believe in G-d because there's a lot of stuff in the world that science can't explain...yet. But Science and spirituality work together to create our world - which is why I have no trouble believing evolution or the big bang. I hold no animosity to athiests whatsoever, and I celebrate their understanding of humanity as much as I do my own. So to all of you, whatever your path, be it athieism, Buddhism, Wicca, Christianity or whatever. Blessings to all. Shalom.

Not at all - you can still believe in a world without god. You can believe in a world that you can experience and validate. Is gravity real? Drop something... either there is gravity, or the earth sucks... either way, interaction with your environment gives you measurable, predictable responses.

Atheists still have the capacity to 'understand' what they don't see... many atheists believe in ghosts - for which there is vanishingly small evidence - so they are not ENTIRELY above superstition.

And you would only be in the shutter? shotter? shatter? (I give up...) if the religion that finally proved true DEMANDS belief. If it turned out that the religion embraced everyone, believers and sceptics, you all go to Heaven (or nearest direct equivalent), then you are sound as a pound.
Sorry, I just like to provide ominous exaggerations. I can't quite understand people, even Atheists, who believe in things like ghosts and humanoid aliens; sure, I briefly consider them, but they don't entirely make sense. Religion is different, because not only does it not make perfect sense, but it covers an aspect of life that will never make perfect sense.

Even though Catholics maintain that only Extremist Christians go to Heaven, I personally believe everyone does.

As for sh*tter, I just believe it's good to provide a small amount of censorship at all times. Keeps the kids off The Drugs.

[The following is a commentary on the opening post only.]
In browsing and posting on numerous boards where religious debates are a common theme, I have come across one very common feature. Nine times out of ten, the starter of a thread asking about Christianity is an Atheist, looking to insult someone’s beliefs. Their arguments always follow one of several patterns:

-If God is all knowing and all powerful, how can he allow pain and suffering in the world?

-If God Created the universe, who created God?

-If God created everything, why did he create organs that have no purpose to modern man?

These questions all have one thing in common, they are questions of confusion on the part of mankind rather than reasons for/against God’s existence. It is a rare event that any atheist will ever state why they believe without taking a dig at Christianity as part of his platform.

First of all, you're being insulting to atheists (or me, at least) by generalizing. These boards may be one thing or another (which doesn't much matter in the long run, because your participation is voluntary), but you are characterizing all of atheism based on a pattern you say you have found on these boards. I doubt you would like it if I described my many personal experiences in which several of my Christian peers were dumbfounded by my atheism and ended up calling me a faggot; followed by me using this to sum up Christianity. (It's not something I would do, by the way.)

Without using any religious Crutch (ie, you cannot say I am an atheist because the concept of God is stupid..) explain using your ever present logic and scientific fact why there is no creator. This means: No questions of morality, or the nature of God himself. You should only use “secular” reasoning. If atheism is indeed correct, you should not need to rely on the beliefs of others to back up your claims. Can you do it? Can you explain to us why you are an atheist without referring to God specifically?

You seem to think it is neccessary to explain one's beliefs without referring to other beliefs. In case you didn't know, there are many different beliefs that are labeled as "atheism". It seems that you're trying to turn someone's belief of atheism into a little contest in which either they explain why God absolutely cannot exist, or they admit they're wrong. I'm sure that you would love it if someone asked (insultingly challenged, actually!) you to explain why God absolutely does exist. Quite a bit of society tends to go with the theological tolerance of "agreeing to disagree", or, as I like to put it, "We may not believe the same things, but I'm not going to challenge you to prove your beliefs.
In my case, my answer to your question ("challenge") is a simple "No, not really. Atheism to me seems more plausible than any religion I have thus far examined."

I believe in G-d because that's one of the things I've built my life around. It is not, however, incumbent or neccesary on anyone else's part to believe in G-d. My belief in G-d, however, is not like the Christian belief in G-d. I don't have to believe in G-d in order to not suffer eternal damnation. I am a Jew, I don't believe in a hell. I also believe that athiests are not "damned" for their beliefs. They go where everyone else goes when they die - to a Jew like me, we just refer to it as "the other world." We're not a death-obsessed people. I believe in G-d because there's a lot of stuff in the world that science can't explain...yet. But Science and spirituality work together to create our world - which is why I have no trouble believing evolution or the big bang. I hold no animosity to athiests whatsoever, and I celebrate their understanding of humanity as much as I do my own. So to all of you, whatever your path, be it athieism, Buddhism, Wicca, Christianity or whatever. Blessings to all. Shalom.
Nicely done. Even as a Christian, I agree. I do believe in Hell, but I don't believe in that everyone goes there, or anyone; according to the Bible, Jesus died for our sins so that no one would have to go to hell. Good job.

Here's something for you:


Quoted from Opal Isle
NOTE: The typical atheist remark (or a good one anyway) would be "Seeing as there is no proof for the existence of a God, and no proof against it, the logical, simple answer is that there is no God." --however, this argument works the exact same for a theist if you change the last "no" to "a."

The syntax of that sentance disproves God more. "No proof against it" and "No proof for it" both prove the Atheist point.

Being an Athiest (of some sort), no proof against it is actually proof against it. If you don't like something then you find out why you don't like it. I can't tell you why any Atheist doesn't like the idea of God, because there isn't one, and that's exactly the point.

Here's something for you:



Being an Athiest (of some sort), no proof against it is actually proof against it. If you don't like something then you find out why you don't like it. I can't tell you why any Atheist doesn't like the idea of God, because there isn't one, and that's exactly the point. .

No proof against something is proof against it?
What?
Isn't no proof against something 0 proof against it?
I don't understand.

No proof against something is proof against it?
What?
Isn't no proof against something 0 proof against it?
I don't understand?
I think he tried to be clever and failed miserably.

Not at all. The definition of Atheism is a lack of belief in god or gods - which is what I was describing.

The definition of Agnosticism is that it is impossible to know whether there is/are god/gods. Agnostics may be Atheistic, or they could be Theistic... they argue that the knowledge of god/gods existing is beyond human comprehension.

I could go find a dictionary, if you'd like.

Don't bother, got one right here. :)

According to Merriam-Webster, atheism is "a disbelief in the existence of deity". Whereas agnostic is, broadly, "one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god."
I don't want to turn this into a Dictionary Duel.

The point is, athiesm requires an active disbelief in the concept of divinity whereas to neither believe nor disbelieve in a God as any such God is fundamentally unprovable is agnostic.

Don't bother, got one right here. :)

According to Merriam-Webster, atheism is "a disbelief in the existence of deity". Whereas agnostic is, broadly, "one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god."
I don't want to turn this into a Dictionary Duel.

The point is, athiesm requires an active disbelief in the concept of divinity whereas to neither believe nor disbelieve in a God as any such God is fundamentally unprovable is agnostic.
Wrong.

Atheism is the lack of belief, and disbelief can also be passive.
Agnosticism is orthogonal to atheism and theism.

You can't not be atheist or theist. It's one or the other. There is NO MIDDLE GROUND.

Unless someone shows a middlle between having and not having, on and off, existing and nonexisting, the point stands.

Wrong.

Atheism is the lack of belief, and disbelief can also be passive.
Agnosticism is orthogonal to atheism and theism.

You can't not be atheist or theist. It's one or the other. There is NO MIDDLE GROUND.

Unless someone shows a middlle between having and not having, on and off, existing and nonexisting, the point stands.

Take it up with Merriam-Webster, then.

Without using any religious Crutch (ie, you cannot say I am an atheist because the concept of God is stupid..) explain using your ever present logic and scientific fact why there is no creator. This means: No questions of morality, or the nature of God himself. You should only use “secular” reasoning. If atheism is indeed correct, you should not need to rely on the beliefs of others to back up your claims. Can you do it? Can you explain to us why you are an atheist without referring to God specifically?

As I said, please keep religion out of this thread. I am requesting logic and scientific that atheism is correct, I am not asking you to tell me why Theism is wrong.

Sorry. Not my job.

I'm an agnostic not an atheist, but the burden of proof is on the believer.

If I believe that the moon is home to invisible pink-and-purple minature elephants who live underground and smoke ganja, then it's my job to prove that I am correct, not the job of the scientific community to disprove my belief. I hold the belief, I have to back it up. Skeptics are in the clear here.

So, the question that should be asked is: Can theists prove to me or any other agnostic/athiest why God DOES exist, without using claims in the Bible, Koran, Torah, or any other religious text?

My reason for not believing in God is simple: God is not necessary to explain how the universe works. Every aspect of the universe can be explained scientifically without resorting to a higher power. These scientific explanations are internally consistent, and furthermore, they *work* for bending the universe to our will. When was the last time that praying to God resulted in the creation of a light bulb?

Yes, there are still things that science has not yet explained. (Which is not to be confused with things that science has explained, but you are too lazy to read the paper in which this was done.) However, that does not mean you immediately have to run back to God and use him as an explanation any more than you would blame the tooth faerie for lost socks.

Of course, this does not conclusively prove the nonexistance of God. Nothing ever will. However, I follow Occam's Razor: always use the simplest possible explanation. If the same thing can be explained both with and without the interference of an all-powerful deity, then it's obvious that the no-interference explanation is simpler. Until I witness something that obviously cannot happen except by divine intervention, I will continue to believe that God does not exist.

Well, I'm an Atheist (big suprise there), but I can't prove to you that God doesn't exist, just like how no one can prove to me that one does. It really is just a matter of belief. All I can do is try to explain what I feel and why. I have no ill will toward the followers christianity or any religion for that matter. Yes I have problems with organized religion, but my feelings for that extend only to the orginization, not the actual members of them. So when I see things about how "Atheists bash Christianity," that somehow I or people like me picked this fight, it hurts. All I'm saying is I don't believe in God, I'm not saying anything about the validity of one claiming that God does exist. If I were a Jew or a Muslom, I feel that there would be fewer people concered over my beliefs. So why is it that when I'm labeled as an "atheist", that it becomes discovered that I don't believe in the existence of some divine being, why is it then that people suddenly care?

I don't get it, I really don't. I don't care if you believe in god or not. I don't care if you follow Jesus or Mohammad or Krishna. I don't care if on sunday's you go and listen to a priest, or if on saturday you observe a day of rest. So why does it seem that people care so much that I don't? I don't go and pick fights with Christians, and I don't know any atheist who does. Typically I find that when conservetive christians find out my beliefs, they condem me for not believing in their god. And then I write them off as people, who however good they are or how well I liked them, who are not worth my time to associate with if all I'll here from them is how I'm Damned for not believing the word of christ. Now grated, for the vast majority of people this is never a problem, and it fact has only ever been a problem a handful of times in my life, and because of that I have no bitterness for christianity.

Christianity has it's purpose I believe. The Bible I feel is a valuable source for inspiration and moral guidance, for those who want to use it that way. But I also feel that the Bible was never meant to be a historical record, and I absolutely hate it when others try to push their beliefs on me. I can not believe that God created the universe in 6 days and rested on the seventh. I can not believe that God created man specifically in his own image. I can not believe that God's Son came to earth and died for my sins just to rise from the grave. I can not believe it. In my head it's like trying to jam a squared peg through a round hole. But the important thing to remember is that is how it is in my head.

I can't describe or explain all the things that go on in my head that lead me to be an atheist. All I can do is show you a picture and quote to you from a book that feels like it sums up how I feel. It's an argument that appeals to your sense of logic, you sense of the probability of things, and though it may not convince you, perhaps you can see, if just for a momment, how I see the world. Life believing that there is no god is not sad, I'm not depressed by it. I feel no despair at being tiny and insignificant and in no way chosen to be special, because a snowflake in a blizzard is still something special.

http://photojournal.jpl.nasa.gov/jpegMod/PIA00452_modest.jpg

"... Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there - on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam."

"Look back agian at the pale blue dot of the preceeding chapter. Take a good long look at it. Stare at the dot for any length of time and then try to convince yourself that God created the whole Universe for one of the 10 million or so species of life that inhabit that speck of dust. Now take it a step further: Imagine that eas made just for a single shade of that species, or gender, or ethnic or religious subdivision. If this doesn't strike you as unlikely, pick another dot. Imagine it to be inhabited by a different form of intelligent life. They, too, cherish the notion of a God who has created everything fot their benefit. How seriously do you take their claim?" - Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot

Wrong.

Atheism is the lack of belief, and disbelief can also be passive.
Agnosticism is orthogonal to atheism and theism.

You can't not be atheist or theist. It's one or the other. There is NO MIDDLE GROUND.

Unless someone shows a middlle between having and not having, on and off, existing and nonexisting, the point stands.
Take it up with Merriam-Webster, then.
No need. M-W agrees. Recall: disbelief has a passive voice. M-W also shows the etymology for atheist/atheism.

If there is an intelligent designer, he should be fired (http://www.freewebs.com/oolon/SMOGGM.htm).

The God concept is meaningless at its core. It is only definable by negation such as immaterial (not material), supernatural (not natural), omnipotent (not limited in the capacity to act) and others of that nature or in secondary attributes (what he does i.e. created the universe.)

We cannot know what God is ( i.e. what he consists of) and therefore we cannot know whether we can meaningfully apply any attributes to it.

Consider:
1. This ball is red.
2. This sound is red.

We know a ball can be red because balls are made of solid materials such as plastic, which can take a colour.
You can obviously say that 2 is false since we know that sounds are waves (virbrations.)

We cannot make the same distinctions for God due to our lack of knowledge.

... and when does a dictionary dictate what I believe?

... and when does a dictionary dictate what I believe?
It doesn't. However, when you've decided what you believe, the dictionary dictates which word describes that belief.

Consider:
1. This ball is red.
2. This sound is red.

We know a ball can be red because balls are made of solid materials such as plastic, which can take a colour.
You can obviously say that 2 is false since we know that sounds are waves (virbrations.)


Well light is a wave too, remember that from Highschool Physics? The concept of color itself is limited only to the observer. The Wavelength of light doesn't literally have color, color only exists when we transform those wavelengths to mean something in our brains. The idea that we transform light into color is really just about as unlikely as people turning sound into color. So from one point of view, that sound you mentioned could very well appear red, to the correctly organized brain.

Why there cannot be an omnipotent being:

1) An omnipotent being is capable of doing anything (let us represent anything with the variable "A", which will represent any possible action).
2) One action that is possible is to limit future action (i.e., I choose to never drink alcohol again). Therefore, I allow A to represent forbidding action "B."
3) B is now forbidden--the omnipotent being cannot perform B, but the definition of omnipotent is being capable of doing anything (see #1), therefore, if the omnipotent being is not capable of doing B, then the omnipotent being is not capable of doing anything.

Therefore, it is impossible for any being to be omnipotent. This, obviously, does not mean that there is/are no God(s). It is still possible for (a) god(s) to exist, they just cannot be omnipotent.

For example, we could change the definition of the Christian god to, "A being that is capable of doing anything except limiting itself." This argument also has no effect on pagans, because pagans believe in multiple gods who are not omnipotent.

However, the principle method used to show that the Christian God is not just a empty principle is that the Christian God is the first cause--the cause of everything else. After all (most Christians contend), the Universe must have come from somewhere, and only an omnipotent being could have come into existence from nothing.

But, as I have shown, an omnipotent being is impossible. Therefore, the chances of any being being a first cause, and coming into existence from nothing is small. I do not pretend that it does not exist--obviously, it is possible that God exists.

But how likely is it?

Because I do not fear death I have no need for a religion. Religion is merely a prop used by people to explain things away including oblivion. I embrace oblivion because I believe in making an end when the time comes. I do so hope this fits into your little challenge guidelines.

Bravo Alfred.
This paradox reminds me of that barber one, i'm sure you've heard of it.
But wouldn't An omnipotent being be able to change everything in some inconceivable way so the paradox never existed?
That's the problem with the omnipotent being idea.
It can do anything.

Bravo Alfred.
This paradox reminds me of that barber one, i'm sure you've heard of it.
But wouldn't An omnipotent being be able to change everything in some inconceivable way so the paradox never existed?
That's the problem with the omnipotent being idea.
It can do anything.

I have heard of it. You're referring to the one by Bertrand Russell, I presume? The "but who shaves the barber?" one?

As to your other point: the omnipotent being still wouldn't be able to exist with the paradox. Which is something that an omnipotent being, which is capable of doing anything, must be able to do, in order to be able to do anything.

That's the problem with the omnipotent being. It has to be able to do anything and everything, yet doing anything and everything is impossible. Even if it were capable of changing the rules, it still would have to be able to exist in the set of rules that we know. So, with your solution, the being would still no longer be omnipotent.

If God was not inscrutable, we wouldn't be having this debate. And an unquantifiable unknown is useless in an equation, that's the whole point. If you simply write the solution to a mathmatical problem as 'X' where X is unquantifiable you haven't solved anything because you've just written 'I don't know' as 'X' [or 'God.']. As a result, the equation is useless, not false.

I admit having no clue about Occam and his shaving habits or logic itself, but this sounds interesting.

Wasn't the "I don't know X" always put into equation to determine it? What I wonder is: if I put an inscrutable god in an equation, don't I make him scrutable then? Since G = P - N. And in an simplified assumption that N gets ever greater/closer to P with time a.k.a. humanity's growing knowledge about the laws of nature, the true question would be whether G can reach zero or always closes, but never reaches it.

So the 2nd equation would outperform the 1st since the 1st one just assumes that N = P without any further ado, while the 2nd one still leaves open the option that possibly G > 0.

Well light is a wave too, remember that from Highschool Physics?

Not so simple. Light is actually a series of propogating electric and magnetic fields: electromagnetic radiation.

The wave/particle nature of light lends to being able to see it, when the specific photons react our with retina and we translate that into colour.

However, sound is a series of compression waves; changes in the density of the medium which it is in. There is no single wave of sound.

-
It doesn't. However, when you've decided what you believe, the dictionary dictates which word describes that belief.

Ah, but langauge is by no means absolute, dictionary is nothing more than a series of common agreements on the meaning of a word so we can communicate effectively with each other. This changes over time.

As well, atheists go back to the greek meaning of the term which is:
a - without
theos - god

Sorry. Not my job.

I'm an agnostic not an atheist, but the burden of proof is on the believer.

If I believe that the moon is home to invisible pink-and-purple minature elephants who live underground and smoke ganja, then it's my job to prove that I am correct, not the job of the scientific community to disprove my belief. I hold the belief, I have to back it up. Skeptics are in the clear here.

So, the question that should be asked is: Can theists prove to me or any other agnostic/athiest why God DOES exist, without using claims in the Bible, Koran, Torah, or any other religious text?

That'd be good... see if any of the 'high and mighty' can prove existence without resorting to obviously biased texts.

They wouldn't even dare to try...

Sorry. Not my job.

I'm an agnostic not an atheist, but the burden of proof is on the believer.

If I believe that the moon is home to invisible pink-and-purple minature elephants who live underground and smoke ganja, then it's my job to prove that I am correct, not the job of the scientific community to disprove my belief. I hold the belief, I have to back it up. Skeptics are in the clear here.

So, the question that should be asked is: Can theists prove to me or any other agnostic/athiest why God DOES exist, without using claims in the Bible, Koran, Torah, or any other religious text?
That would make sense if Agnostics and Atheists weren't the ones who always brought up the debate for or against God; NOT the debate about why you're an atheist, or why you can logically prove the non-existence of God, but the actual debate about whether he exists or not. Why bring it up if people can't explain it in the first place? Furthermore, why can't Atheists provide information as to why they disbelieve, considering that is a belief itself?

why God would have sent his son only to Palestine and didn't showed the truth to african, asian and south/north American civilizations?

after all not revealing his existance to these pour souls he doomed to hell millions of people before diffusion of Christianism.

that would be mean from him, no?

so, or he is not absolute good (thus invaliding what God should be) or he simply does not exist.

Cheers

Ah, but langauge is by no means absolute, dictionary is nothing more than a series of common agreements on the meaning of a word so we can communicate effectively with each other. This changes over time.

As well, atheists go back to the greek meaning of the term which is:
a - without
theos - god

That definition, I like.

Atheists are without god.

That pretty much describes it - you don't believe, you have no 'god' interactivity... you are 'atheist'.

You can neither prove nor disprove God without being omniscient, in which case you would be God.

But you can argue!

That would make sense if Agnostics and Atheists weren't the ones who always brought up the debate for or against God

if it was a believer to brought the debate about the actual existence of God or not he should not be considered a believer anymore, don't you think?

he just need to have faith.

so it's obvious that agnostics and atheists bring out that topic.

cheers

why God would have sent his son only to Palestine and didn't showed the truth to african, asian and south/north American civilizations?

after all not revealing his existance to these pour souls he doomed to hell millions of people before diffusion of Christianism.

that would be mean from him, no?

so, or he is not absolute good (thus invaliding what God should be) or he simply does not exist.

Cheers
You did a lot of things wrong here.

1. You made a specific reference to the Christian God.
2. You made an argument based on the moralistic element of religion.
3. How many sons is God going to have!? I think one to send the message is enough. Let North and South America figure out when the Europeans decide to colonise it.
4. I, personally, do not believe every non-Christian goes to Hell. That doesn't make much sense, especially 'cause the New Testament Bible says that Jesus died for ALL of our sins, not just for the Christians, like Catholics would have you know.

if it was a believer to brought the debate about the actual existence of God or not he should not be considered a believer anymore, don't you think?

he just need to have faith.

so it's obvious that agnostics and atheists bring out that topic.

cheers
No, it makes most sense for Agnostics to bring out the topic because they need to make a decision. It makes equal sense for Atheists and believers to bring about the debate so they can convince the other side.

Fool.

My reason for not believing in God is simple: God is not necessary to explain how the universe works. Every aspect of the universe can be explained scientifically without resorting to a higher power. These scientific explanations are internally consistent, and furthermore, they *work* for bending the universe to our will. When was the last time that praying to God resulted in the creation of a light bulb?

Yes, there are still things that science has not yet explained. (Which is not to be confused with things that science has explained, but you are too lazy to read the paper in which this was done.) However, that does not mean you immediately have to run back to God and use him as an explanation any more than you would blame the tooth faerie for lost socks.

Of course, this does not conclusively prove the nonexistance of God. Nothing ever will. However, I follow Occam's Razor: always use the simplest possible explanation. If the same thing can be explained both with and without the interference of an all-powerful deity, then it's obvious that the no-interference explanation is simpler. Until I witness something that obviously cannot happen except by divine intervention, I will continue to believe that God does not exist.
Occam's Razor is to use the simplest POSSIBLE explanation. If, for some reason, the Universe can't create itself (which is, ironically, up for debate), then it isn't a possible explanation. Sure, it might be simpler, but if it's not possible, then you'll have to go with a bit more difficult explanation. That's like saying 1+1=4 because it takes longer to say 1+1+1+1=4; there's even one that's just as simple AND possible.

As such, to use Occam's Razor, you'd actually have to have a choice in whether or not the universe has a God, and you'd need to be a God to make that decision.

You did a lot of things wrong here.

1. You made a specific reference to the Christian God.
2. You made an argument based on the moralistic element of religion.
3. How many sons is God going to have!? I think one to send the message is enough. Let North and South America figure out when the Europeans decide to colonise it.
4. I, personally, do not believe every non-Christian goes to Hell. That doesn't make much sense, especially 'cause the New Testament Bible says that Jesus died for ALL of our sins, not just for the Christians, like Catholics would have you know.

right it was said to not talk about religion, my fault.

1)take any god and ask urself: "why he did not show the truth to the others?"

2)yeah, but science has nothing to do with religion, so i didn't know what other element u could take.

3)He is God. he could have sent the same one in different places or 2 different or his cousin, who knows.

4) Jesus died to help us to clear the original sin, but that alone isn't enough.
u need to be baptised (i hope i didn't mispelled it), to get rid of the original sin.

before christ in the chactolic idea every pagan goes to hell.

Cheers

That would make sense if Agnostics and Atheists weren't the ones who always brought up the debate for or against God; NOT the debate about why you're an atheist, or why you can logically prove the non-existence of God, but the actual debate about whether he exists or not. Why bring it up if people can't explain it in the first place? Furthermore, why can't Atheists provide information as to why they disbelieve, considering that is a belief itself?

No... there is a difference between NOT believing in something, and having a different belief.

An atheist may not believe in god, that doesn't mean it is 'replaced' with another belief.

Unless you actively BELIEVE that you don't believe... or something.... but, I just don't see it that way.

Not so simple. Light is actually a series of propogating electric and magnetic fields: electromagnetic radiation.

The wave/particle nature of light lends to being able to see it, when the specific photons react our with retina and we translate that into colour.

However, sound is a series of compression waves; changes in the density of the medium which it is in. There is no single wave of sound.

You've failed convince me. Yes light is a much more complicated entity that "Oh, light = waves", which can pretty much be seen reflected in your use of the word "photons". Yes, Light is a series of electric and magnectic fields, that exist at right angles to each other. Yes the nature of light lends itself to our eyes seeing it, but why is that? Light existed before the first eye ever did, therefore the eye must have adapted to the nature of light. It's not a happy accident, we can see light because we 'grew up' that way. But through all of this, Light can still be expressed as a wave, as it exhibits the properties of a wave. All waves are inheirently similiar, there is an osciallation that corresponds to energy moving through a medium. In fact that's important to remember, the wave itself is energy, not matter. Changing in density of a medium is how the wave propogates, not what it is. It's still fundemntally energy. Sound as a compression wave is quite different from light which acts like a transverse wave. But the idea that Sound is a wave without waves, confuses me. Of course there are singular waves of sound. And if you won't believe it in normal everyday sounds, then perhaps a tuning fork will convince you. That has the sound wave oscillate in a uniform way. No, Sound may not have quanta, I'm not sure if there is a photon-like eqivilent for sound, though we're pretty safe in betting if it does exist, no one's found it yet. But I don't need to hear the entirety of the sound to know i'm hearing something. One Crest is enough. A whole wavelength is even better. A continous sound, like a tuning fork, is best. So how do you contend that a constant tone, acting much like a constant wavelength of light, could not, agian in the properly organized brain, be transformed into color?

No... there is a difference between NOT believing in something, and having a different belief.

An atheist may not believe in god, that doesn't mean it is 'replaced' with another belief.

Unless you actively BELIEVE that you don't believe... or something.... but, I just don't see it that way.
Well, if you simply have no belief in God, it means you've never heard of Him before.

No, it makes most sense for Agnostics to bring out the topic because they need to make a decision. It makes equal sense for Atheists and believers to bring about the debate so they can convince the other side.

Fool.

maybe they want u to avoid to waste ur time on believing something that doesn't exist.

for what it cares to me it's my choice, if i am wrong i'll go to hell, i am not there will be nothing, it's just already sad.

Cheers.
Ps: i am not a relative of yours. don't make me complain with moderators about that "fool". i am using a decent language and like to see a decent answer.

Well, if you simply have no belief in God, it means you've never heard of Him before.

if u don't believe in Santa Claus, it means u never heard him before.

that does much sense? it's the same for God.

cheers

You've failed convince me. Yes light is a much more complicated entity that "Oh, light = waves", which can pretty much be seen reflected in your use of the word "photons". Yes, Light is a series of electric and magnectic fields, that exist at right angles to each other. Yes the nature of light lends itself to our eyes seeing it, but why is that? Light existed before the first eye ever did, therefore the eye must have adapted to the nature of light. It's not a happy accident, we can see light because we 'grew up' that way. But through all of this, Light can still be expressed as a wave, as it exhibits the properties of a wave. All waves are inheirently similiar, there is an osciallation that corresponds to energy moving through a medium. In fact that's important to remember, the wave itself is energy, not matter. Changing in density of a medium is how the wave propogates, not what it is. It's still fundemntally energy. Sound as a compression wave is quite different from light which acts like a transverse wave. But the idea that Sound is a wave without waves, confuses me. Of course there are singular waves of sound. And if you won't believe it in normal everyday sounds, then perhaps a tuning fork will convince you. That has the sound wave oscillate in a uniform way. No, Sound may not have quanta, I'm not sure if there is a photon-like eqivilent for sound, though we're pretty safe in betting if it does exist, no one's found it yet. But I don't need to hear the entirety of the sound to know i'm hearing something. One Crest is enough. A whole wavelength is even better. A continous sound, like a tuning fork, is best. So how do you contend that a constant tone, acting much like a constant wavelength of light, could not, agian in the properly organized brain, be transformed into color?

What's it called? Synthasia? Where people perceive the stimuli with the wrong sense?

What's it called? Synthasia? Where people perceive the stimuli with the wrong sense?

umm...maybe?

I Without using any religious Crutch (ie, you cannot say I am an atheist because the concept of God is stupid..) explain using your ever present logic and scientific fact why there is no creator. This means: No questions of morality, or the nature of God himself. You should only use “secular” reasoning. If atheism is indeed correct, you should not need to rely on the beliefs of others to back up your claims. Can you do it? Can you explain to us why you are an atheist without referring to God specifically?

I fail to see why one cannot use any of the above as a valid argument. But as none are absolutely needed, I'll simply say this:

I'm atheist because I disbelieve in the existence of any or all Gods.

That was rather easy.

right it was said to not talk about religion, my fault.
No harm done. Just pay a bit more attention next time.
1)take any god and ask urself: "why he did not show the truth to the others?"
Once again, this is the moralistic element.
2)yeah, but science has nothing to do with religion, so i didn't know what other element u could take.
I'm not gonna debate this, but if you're right, then that defeats the purpose of the topic; the beginning of the thread says that we must explain using science why God does not exist.
3)He is God. he could have sent the same one in different places or 2 different or his cousin, who knows.

4) Jesus died to help us to clear the original sin, but that alone isn't enough.
u need to be baptised (i hope i didn't mispelled it), to get rid of the original sin.
Baptised is spelt right. Yay.
Is baptism getting rid of the original sin? I thought it was simply a ritual of sorts to induct you into the church. And since Christianity did not exist before Christ, wouldn't that mean everyone Before Christ goes straight to Hell?
before christ in the chactolic idea every pagan goes to hell.
Yeah, but I'm protestant, and one of the rights given by the Protestant Church is freedom to interpret the Bible in any way you want. I choose to believe that Jesus died for All of our sins. Furthermore, wouldn't this mean everyone Before Christ goes to hell with no option?
Cheers
Sure.

BAAWA, there is a third element in the Atheist <---> Theist chain; Undecided. That does not mean you actively believe, disbelieve or even hold an opinion about God, so you're basically right. Someone who's undecided evidentally should do nothing more than watch just to see if one can MAKE a decision.

if u don't believe in Santa Claus, it means u never heard him before.

that does much sense? it's the same for God.

cheers
Nah, at that point [that you know of Santa Claus], it's Disbelief.
There is Belief, Disbelief (which is believing that it does not exist; what else could it mean!?), Undecided and Without Knowledge.

maybe they want u to avoid to waste ur time on believing something that doesn't exist.

for what it cares to me it's my choice, if i am wrong i'll go to hell, i am not there will be nothing, it's just already sad.

Cheers.
Ps: i am not a relative of yours. don't make me complain with moderators about that "fool". i am using a decent language and like to see a decent answer.
Sorry, Fool was just a joke. I do that sometimes. I apologise.
Why'd you call me a relative, though?

And who's "they?"
Edit: I believe Atheists are they, correct? Anyway, both would want to convince the other; Theists that there is a God; Atheists that there isn't. Why do Atheists always try to convince the Theists without a proper explanation? If a Theist tries to bring it up, then it's THEIR turn to explain. So far, I have only read topics that, despite beginning with something like "wutz u fav clr?", begin the argument with a Theist saying something like "Bah, religion is stupid. Shut up."

Because I do not fear death I have no need for a religion. Religion is merely a prop used by people to explain things away including oblivion. I embrace oblivion because I believe in making an end when the time comes. I do so hope this fits into your little challenge guidelines.

i dont agree.

religion and superstition is a brace against the horrifying randomness of the universe. its not so much (our own) death as lack of control that drives us into the lap of belief

lets use hurricane charley as an example of what i mean. there it was bearing down on MY SISTER. her lameassed husband had done so little prep that their house would have been seriously damaged if the hurricane had hit them.

so it made a huge turn and killed someone else instead.

it leaves the human mind to wonder WHY. why was my sister spared, did she do something RIGHT? why were other poor souls killed, does the universe hate them? some people turn to superstition in the face of randomness like tht, some turn to religion. its can be very hard to face on your own.

the other point is not the oblivion of our own deaths but the wrenching heartache of the death of others around us

as people you love die, its very hard to deal with knowing that you will never ever see them again. my parents died 10 years ago. i still miss them. there are days when i have that overwhelmingly sad feeling of "havent you been dead long enough??" and i long to be one of those people who have been fighting with their parents for 10 years so i can call them up and make up with them.

in the face of that kind of pain people cling to the raft of religion to keep them afloat. its so much easier to believe that there is another world out there where "the circle will be unbroken"

I'm not gonna debate this, but if you're right, then that defeats the purpose of the topic; the beginning of the thread says that we must explain using science why God does not exist.

u r right, but forgive me for 2 reasons :)
1) english isn't my native language so i can miss the point sometimes
2)i tend to become quite polemic at every topic i touch :)

thinking in that why, using science i would say:

cause science has not proven it.

but that's just another religion.

so i could say cause i don't think he exists. i don't think there's a way to explain the non existance of God without talking about moralism or God itself.
so u beated me on that challenge. that doesn't prove that God Exists or Not Btw. when we will die we will found out, every discussion here is just chatting.

[quote]
Baptised is spelt right. Yay.
Is baptism getting rid of the original sin? I thought it was simply a ritual of sorts to induct you into the church. And since Christianity did not exist before Christ, wouldn't that mean everyone Before Christ goes straight to Hell?

yes. it's in that way.


Yeah, but I'm protestant, and one of the rights given by the Protestant Church is freedom to interpret the Bible in any way you want. I choose to believe that Jesus died for All of our sins. Furthermore, wouldn't this mean everyone Before Christ goes to hell with no option?

what interpretation a church gives to the bible isn't relevant or not into the existance of God or Not. if he exists i don't think he will look for people for how strictly they looked the rules of their churches.

and yes, everyone before christ goes to a "special" hell. they have done nothing and doesn't suffer from hell sufferings, but they will never see God.
and that's for a religious man should be a good suffering.


Cheers

So how do you contend that a constant tone, acting much like a constant wavelength of light, could not, agian in the properly organized brain, be transformed into color?

The problem is that sound does not exist independently of the vibrating atoms. It is not energy in the way light is, per se. Seeing sound seems like trying to see motion independant of the moving object.

Edit: I think I see what you mean. Perhaps a certain wavelength could trigger a colour response, but it is not the sound itself that is a certain colour.

Sorry, Fool was just a joke. I do that sometimes. I apologise.[quote]

no problem, it's just that i didn't expected that

[quote]
Why'd you call me a relative, though?

it's a saying here.
it's like: "i am not your cousin so you cannot call me fool" dunno if u got what i mean, wasn't offensive btw.


Edit: I believe Atheists are they, correct? Anyway, both would want to convince the other; Theists that there is a God; Atheists that there isn't. Why do Atheists always try to convince the Theists without a proper explanation?

in my opinion even if i am atheist it's unfair to try to convince someone about being atheist or theists.

u should always think "and if i am wrong?"

so i keep it as a personal choice. having an atheist more near me doesn't make me happy, as i think the atheist way it's Sad in the End, and having someone with ur same ideas wouldn't help making u feel better about what's out when you die.

cheers

yes. it's in that way.
what interpretation a church gives to the bible isn't relevant or not into the existance of God or Not. if he exists i don't think he will look for people for how strictly they looked the rules of their churches.
and yes, everyone before christ goes to a "special" hell. they have done nothing and doesn't suffer from hell sufferings, but they will never see God.
and that's for a religious man should be a good suffering.
Cheers
I don't think you understand what I mean. I, as a protestant, do not believe that every non-believer goes to hell. That's a personal belief. If I have to say this enough times, I'm gonna start up a Semi-Christianity religion that is identical in every way, except Jesus paid for all our sins and we don't have to worry about it.

Personally, I think that makes more sense, especially since God wants us to have some free will, even if that means not enforcing the Bible with an Iron-Fisted Gestapo of the Unrising Sun.

Don't worry about being particularly Polemical; everyone here is, that's why they're arguing.

Honestly, we cannot settle a debate using Modern Science, because the things in the Universe that we do not understand, such as its creation, were covered up by Religion because we cannot truly understand the Universe. Modern science is just what we can comprehend; beyond it into things like omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent beings and the creation of the Universe, we may never understand. The only thing I have is Religion, which I consider a metaphor to what we cannot understand.

Personally, I think that makes more sense, especially since God wants us to have some free will

that's also a good way to avoid to convince atheist or theists about who's right or wrong.

everyone will get his choice using his free will.

cheers

S N I P
Just like I, as a theist, must have faith to believe the way I do. agnostics are the ones that do not want to commit the faith to either side. I am not saying this is wrong, in fact, it is a very logical stance. they do not know, so they do not pass judgment.

I consider myself agnostic and feel the need to clarify what you represent in your statement. I am not ambivilent nor am I concillatory in my sentiment and thought on the issue. I refute the use of "faith" (a presumptive conclusion in the absence of facts) as a means to arrive at a conclusion whether for or against the existence of that which is unquantifiable. I do agree with your thesis that arguments from either end of the spectrum require such "faith".

The only thing I have is Religion, which I consider a metaphor to what we cannot understand.

That's the problem see I with religion, you cannot solve a mystery with a mystery.

That's the problem see I with religion, you cannot solve a mystery with a mystery.
Is Religion a mystery? It is simply an explanation. You cannot understand the explanation; you can only believe it or not believe it. Your choice.

Is Religion a mystery?
You cannot understand the explanation;

That's my point. How is it an explanation if it can not be understood?

Edit: I slaughtered the grammar on that one.

Is Religion a mystery? It is simply an explanation. You cannot understand the explanation; you can only believe it or not believe it. Your choice.
A baseless explanation is no explanation at all.

I am an atheist simply because I dont need to rely on anyone else to give me peace, life, pleasure, sadness, grief, etc. Why should I trouble my head about a "spirit dude" when I like everyone else am pretty capable of doing things for myself. I dont bother going to church because I ridicule the bible and its "stories" which I discovered is really offensive to others who need someone else to rely on. When we die I believe we go into the next astral world. Thats why ghosts,poltergeists etc exist. If no-one on this planet cannot explain this then why should we be worrying so much about it. The real reason why people need to believe in something that is bigger and better than them and can apparently help them in their time of need is because they may be insecure, cant deal with simple everyday life and I find that this is a really huge trend going around- they need someone else to blame for their mistakes/mishaps.
Is my opinion acceptable or way too critical.

I am an atheist just because there is nothing in this universe that requires supernatural explanation.

Is my opinion acceptable or way too critical

I agree that the decision for religious belief is an emotional decision. It is comforting. Heh, it's "death insurance."

The problem is that sound does not exist independently of the vibrating atoms. It is not energy in the way light is, per se. Seeing sound seems like trying to see motion independant of the moving object.

Edit: I think I see what you mean. Perhaps a certain wavelength could trigger a colour response, but it is not the sound itself that is a certain colour.

Cool, finally getting somewhere....actually is seems sorta pointless now, but it was fun. Yeah I understand what you mean by sound energy and light energy are not the same, but on a fundmental level, they are both energy. Although on your edit note, I think i sorta see what you're saying there, but when you say "it is not the sound itself that is a certian colour" it makes me think, well the light has no certian color either. It's all about perception is what I was getting at, If i can remember back that far. Saying "the ball is red" is saying "The ball is reflecting a certian wavelength of light, that when it reacts with my eyes and brain I percieve the color red." But you could also very well say "the sound is red" and mean "When organized compression waves of air molecules interacts with my ears and my brain, I percieve the color red." I guess what my real point was Color is not an intrinsic property of anything, which makes it not very good for those sorts of examples.

Some of you claim that God can be neither proven nor disproven. Now, I am inclined to agree with you. However, I CAN prove to you that none of the "scientific alternatives" to the idea of a supreme being work. The only alternative I know of being evolution. However, I have already posted on this subject many times, and would prefer not to have to do all that typing. Therefore, if I could prove to you that evolution does not work, nor the Big Bang theory, would that prove to you that a superior being must, in fact, exist? If you wish I will type out this info right now.

I guess what my real point was Color is not an intrinsic property of anything, which makes it not very good for those sorts of examples.

Well, red simply means "wavelength of 700 nm." While the photon may have this wavelength, sound comes from a particle virbrating at this wavelength not out of sound itself. Which is, of course, why sound does not travel in a vacuum.

It's always good to give the brain a little workout.

We've still managed to establish the point. It was through understanding the nature of light, sound and sense perception that we were able to discuss this. We cannot say the same about God. He cannot be tested.

It's always good to give the brain a little workout, but we're still managed to establish the point. It was through understanding the nature of light, sound and sense perception that we were able to come to this point. We cannot say the same about God. He cannot be tested.

Which really is the root of the problem. You can't test theories about God. Which, being the physicist I am, relegates God to the back burner of philosophy. Either way you feel (exist or not) you can't prove it. I'm never going to be able to convince who believes in god that he doesn't exist, and nobody who believe and god can ever prove to me that he does. Either way you choose, it is in a sense a "leap of faith". I personally see the lack of experimental evidence as a lack of existance, but that's my personal belief and I would never force it on anyone. In fact I can not conclusively rule out a Creator, because when you really look deeply at things like Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, there is a place for a deity...you just need to look for it.


But on another note: why does anyone care if I'm an atheist? and why am I always told that Atheists pick the fight between atheists and theist (notably christians)? And why should I believe people when they tell me that I and people like me pick this fight when all I've ever seen is the exact opposite?

Well, red simply means "wavelength of 700 nm." While the photon may have this wavelength, sound comes from a particle virbrating at this wavelength not out of sound itself. Which is, of course, why sound does not travel in a vacuum.

Ok red corresponds to 700nm, but 700nm doesn't correspond to 'red', do you understand what I mean? and how to you separate the idea of 'sound' and 'vibration'? The particle vibrates at a fequency, and therefore has a wavelength. It would only make sense that I could transform that wavelength into a color, because it's fundamentaly similar to light in that regard.

In fact I can not conclusively rule out a Creator, because when you really look deeply at things like Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, there is a place for a deity...you just need to look for it.
It's not that hard to find. Quantum mechanics is essentially random. Nothing is ever certain, rather, possible states of the world have a certain chance to be true. However, even outcomes with incredibly small chances can still happen. A deity could cause "miracles" by influencing these chances, using the equivalent of loaded dice - and no one would ever be able to prove it, because it MIGHT still have happened without the deity's interference.

I still don't believe that this is the case, however.

I would say it's because faith is a suspension of logic. When people refuse to 'take the leap', refuse to accept that it's necessary to 'take it on faith.' Their decision is undermined. They feel threatened.

Atheists are different from those other theists (and we know they have problems living with them), even perhaps alien to them.

It's not that hard to find. Quantum mechanics is essentially random. Nothing is ever certain, rather, possible states of the world have a certain chance to be true. However, even outcomes with incredibly small chances can still happen. A deity could cause "miracles" by influencing these chances, using the equivalent of loaded dice - and no one would ever be able to prove it, because it MIGHT still have happened without the deity's interference.

I still don't believe that this is the case, however.

oh yeah you could say that, but you know QM doesn't exactly work that way. I mean i see what your saying but i was thinking more about the creation of a highly ordered universe, which in and of itself is so incredibly unlikely that one could surmise the hand of god at work then.

I like the idea that despite what Einstein said, God does play dice, and the dice are loaded.

I'm with you in not believing that this is the case though, I'm just saying that's all it is: Belief. I can't prove it cause I think there's still room for the possibility.

Ok red corresponds to 700nm, but 700nm doesn't correspond to 'red', do you understand what I mean? and how to you separate the idea of 'sound' and 'vibration'? The particle vibrates at a fequency, and therefore has a wavelength. It would only make sense that I could transform that wavelength into a color, because it's fundamentaly similar to light in that regard.

I see your point.

What I was aiming at in my example was more to the idea that we can't percieve the 'redness' of sound in the way we percieve the 'redness' of the ball and with our innocent human bias we wouldn't attribute redness to the sound.

I think I'll reform the example I used in my argument.
1. This desk is solid.
2. The number five is solid.

I think I'll reform the example I used in my argument.
1. This desk is solid.
2. The number five is solid.

Ah cool, I like those examples much better.

Reminds me of AP Physics when our teacher tried convincing us that the number '2' didn't really mean anything, that there was no such thing as '2'. Then we called him a witch and all had a good laugh...ah those were the good old days...

Then explain pain. Explain evil. Explain why half of the species of the world live by eating the other half. Explain why, if a Creator is responsible for all this, it didn't create something better or at least something comprehensible to the creations moving within it.

Mind you, I'm a theist myself, so this is partly devil's advocate. However, Argument by or from Design has always seemed shockingly inadequate.

That is an argument based on morality, so I cannot answer it in this thread, however it is an interesting one to talk about, though it has already been discussed many times.

On to others:

The point of this thread was to show that you cannot logically disprove God, just the same that you cannot logically prove him. either extreme is an act of faith on the part of the indevidual. So in reference to a previous poster, no you cannot disprove the existance of invisible turtles unless you have some method to view things that are 1)invisible and 2) have some way of capturing that evidence to show others as hard proof. That is why you cannot absolutly know of a god's existance, because (as of right now) we have no way to "see" it, nor do we have a way to record this viewing in a way that the "proof" would be undeniable.

I sincerely do not care if there is a god, God or Gods. I do not care what you believe as long as you don't bother me or anyone else with your theology or let it taint your relationships with others. I do strongly believe that organized religions and the self assurance of their adherents cause the vast majority of the world's problems.

Therefore the terms agnostic or atheist may not best describe my "beliefs". Possibly I should be considered an anti-theist.

I fail to see why one cannot use any of the above as a valid argument. But as none are absolutely needed, I'll simply say this:

I'm atheist because I disbelieve in the existence of any or all Gods.

That was rather easy.

exactly "I Believe". that is what I was getting at. that is what it comes down to, the indevidual themselves making that step of faith from agnostism to one end or the other (belief or belief against)

You are right it is simple.

you cannot use the morality argument becuase morality is largely based on society, and its infusion of its own concept of right and wrong into its people. this means that morals can be argued, and both sides can still be wrong, or right as the case may be. I wanted scientific reasons because that is what is often asked of theists to prove that there is a god, so I just flipped the question and asked it back to atheists in general, so that they could tell me why they believe the way they do.

Sorry. Not my job.

I'm an agnostic not an atheist, but the burden of proof is on the believer.

If I believe that the moon is home to invisible pink-and-purple minature elephants who live underground and smoke ganja, then it's my job to prove that I am correct, not the job of the scientific community to disprove my belief. I hold the belief, I have to back it up. Skeptics are in the clear here.

So, the question that should be asked is: Can theists prove to me or any other agnostic/athiest why God DOES exist, without using claims in the Bible, Koran, Torah, or any other religious text?

That is the point, it is up to the indevidual. you see, as a believer or an atheist, you will see certain things as evidence in the natural realm, but they will not be proof to someone who does not want to see them as such. to absolutly believe or disbelieve you need to have faith. So, you are right, the burden of proof is on the believer, but in this argument both atheist and theists are believers becuase they both require you to make a decision on something that will not be proven or disproven until possibly when we die, if there is an afterlife.

BAAWA, there is a third element in the Atheist <---> Theist chain; Undecided.
That person is an atheist.

There are 2 options. That's it. Atheist. Theist. No more. No less. Having belief or lacking belief. There is no middle ground.

exactly "I Believe". that is what I was getting at. that is what it comes down to, the indevidual themselves making that step of faith from agnostism to one end or the other (belief or belief against)

You are right it is simple.

you cannot use the morality argument becuase morality is largely based on society, and its infusion of its own concept of right and wrong into its people. this means that morals can be argued, and both sides can still be wrong, or right as the case may be. I wanted scientific reasons because that is what is often asked of theists to prove that there is a god, so I just flipped the question and asked it back to atheists in general, so that they could tell me why they believe the way they do.

I didn't say I believed. I said I disbelieve. Hence putting I believe in quotation marks is a bit misrepresentative.

Religion has failed to prove the existence of God, so I do not believe. The lack of belief is not faith, any more than the lack of water constitutes a lake. Disbelief is the opposite of faith, much as a desert is the opposite of an abundance of water.

My stance on God is what could be casually called anti-faith/belief.

On a side note, morals can be used to argue the existence of God, infused by society or not (though that is a vast oversimplification; humans are not monkeys, and have free will and choice).

It is entirely plausible that one can expect a God to hold certain principles. A God is portrayed as all-knowing, all-seeing, all-understanding. One would expect certain moral tendencies of an all-powerful creature. If they do not exhibit these tendencies, one can argue they are not all-knowing, all-seeing, nor all-understanding, and thereby not a God.

It's a tenuous argument, but much of science started that way (or still is today).

I have experienced God. Yep, one great big shaft of light engulfed my body, travelled up my spine, entered my brain, expanded my mind til I felt like I was all one with the Universe and stuff like that... watch that Tool music video, its called Parabola and its near the end, that's a pretty good demonstration of it.

I wasn't on drugs btw. My mind wasn't in any altered consciousness of any sort unless you count sitting still in a meditation pose as some kind of practice that would invalidate my empirical evidence. I ain't some loony, just ur typical Uni student, studying Commerce, play soccer etc etc... I know I can't prove anything to you guys, but if my honest experience and thousands like mine (yes, my experience wasn't unique at all) can't sway you guys, then nothing will. Rational arguments are just running around in circles.

I have a few ideas to offer btw. Life is good AND bad. Most people always focus so much on the good, yet don't see how much of the bad (ie. practicing your hobby or your sport, commiting to your relationship) it took to get there. Good and evil, pleasure and pain, it's all relative in the same kind of way. Stating that God didn't create this Universe perfectly based on any of those grounds don't really have anything to stand on upon further analysis. It's all cause and effect man, there's always a sense deep down to it all if you look at it long-term, in a detached kind of manner and try to look beneath the surface.

Hope I don't sound like an arrogant ass. I don't go around preaching everywhere in real life, but hell it's a forum here noone knows me, and I couldn't resist adding my opinion :)

That person is an atheist.

There are 2 options. That's it. Atheist. Theist. No more. No less. Having belief or lacking belief. There is no middle ground.
how so? just because somebody hasn't made up their mind doesn't make them an atheist, any more than my indecision about whether or not i like Africa (largely due to the fact that i have never experienced it) makes me anti-Africa.

also, i'm most certainly neither atheist nor theist, and i believe both are irrational positions. for you to claim that my beliefs do not exist (since you say i MUST be either atheist or theist) is not only insulting but also extremely funny. i think i will now state that it is ONLY possible to be white skinned or black skinned, and therefore anybody who isn't white skinned MUST be black. there are only those two options, because i say so.

That person is an atheist.

There are 2 options. That's it. Atheist. Theist. No more. No less. Having belief or lacking belief. There is no middle ground.

Good point...if you are unsure, that makes you a theist...so says I

Good point...if you are unsure, that makes you a theist...so says I

How did you reach this conclusion?

Why do I not believe in a God?

I don't believe in anything unless I have at least a tiny bit of evidence to suggest that it might exist, this includes:

werewolves
vampires
ghosts
santa clauss
god
James Bond

Lets take the example of Bond.....

I mean don't get me wrong, Bond is awesome, some of the stuff he pulls of in some of the later movies can be described as nothing short of miracles.

Did anyone see the one where he was surfing on the roof of his car in which he had just outraced some magnification of the sun on some glacier? I think it was the last Bond flick. BADASS!

But that's no reason to believe it really happened, I only believe in something if there is tangible evidence to prove it. Being cool just doesn't cut it!

The very energy of creation and composition! The "godsource" if you choose. Our very beginning in its most basic and purest form! This led to more realization, that in fact that which people call god is in fact the very energy of all things. ALL things are composed of this energy, and all are one, connected through this very energy. (atoms and molecules that compose all things living and non). Through this common bond, all things also are a part of one another, sharing this common energy between us. Further, all things are a part of this energy, "god, if you so choose", and "god" (this energy) is in all things! ALL ARE ONE, just as one is a part of the ALL! The rocks, the trees, the animals, the people, in fact.. the very earth and sky itself are all intertwined through this energy, and part of each other.

While in different shape and form, they are all STILL the same energy!

"God and heaven is around us and within us..." in fact, this is true. We are all "god and heaven", as much a part, and within us and surrounding us as the very energy that is all things!

"Believe and you shall have everlasting life...." true too. Life is as eternal as the very energy that we are composed of. This energy takes physical shape at conception, and grows and gathers more energy from around us throughout life by the very magnetic attraction that is the property of this energy, forming and changing with every passing day. I have also realized that death is NOT the end. While we may lose this physical shape, the energy that composes us is still present. This energy may decompose from its physical form, and dissipate back into the whole of the energy that surrounds us, but it IS STILL PRESENT!

It may not be in the form we saw and knew, but it is still there and lives on beyond our death, and therefore, so too do we live on. Eternal life indeed!

This brings forth yet a further understanding, that through this energy, all are one. Therefore, with every action we make, we directly and indirectly effect all things and all others who surround us and co-inhabit this world we live in. What does this mean? Well, to put it simple, when you harm another, you in effect harm yourself and all the other beings in this universe, since they are all a part of the whole. This means when we steal from another, we also take from all as well as ourselves, with all feeling the effects of this action. You may think not, but it is true. Look around us, look at the state of the world today as compared to long ago. We live in a world of crime and hatred now, with laws and rules guiding our every step. This is the result of our own actions. Those that steal, kill, and commit other crimes have in fact effected us all, as well as themselves. When you take the time to really read the message behind the words in the bible as well as MANY other texts, both religious and philosophical, you find this common message appearing in virtually all of them.

This message: "Live and let live, treat others as you too wish to be treated".

Think before you act, because whether you realize it or not, it DOES effect you too! Try showing some compassion towards others for a change. Help those who desire help, and in turn help yourself and all things to create a better life and existence for the all collectively.

Can you imagine the result? What a beautiful and harmonious world this would be!

So now, you have seen within my thoughts. While you may or may not agree, these thoughts are truth for me. They are as individual to myself as the individual that I am. I hope in some way my thoughts may encourage you to seek and think about your own personal truth, and help you to also become enlightened to the real meaning of life that exists behind the obvious and within and between the written and spoken words you are so accustomed to seeing and hearing as you journey through the eternity of life as a part of the ALL!

In closing, I wish you one and all- "Peace, love and light!" Be well!


You've got your phenomenon on one hand. Concrete and knowable. On the other hand you've got the incomprehensible. You call it God, but to me, God or no, it remains just that, the unknowable. Robin Green and Mitchell Burgess

Hey everyone, I'm new here. I'm an atheist... I think. I'm the one who just doesn't believe in it. I'm not sure if that's atheist or agnostic. I don't go around trying to convince believers that there is no god or anything like that.

Personally, I find the whole idea of one thing creating something silly (same goes for the big bang theory). Also for arguments people give for the exsistence of god (that I've heard) are;
a) The bible
b) evolution is wrong

I don't think the bible counts a legit source because it was written about 500 years after Jesus' death right? So I think Jesus was probably a cool dude and the whole bible thing that came out was the result of really long game of telephone.

And for the evolution thing. I've seen more examples of evolution than of creationism. I've seen the evolution of behaivior, germs, your appendix and tonsels were phased out by evolution etc.

*gestures back to his first post*

You people remind me about how I used to act... (yesterday?!)... but seriously, it's not that it's rude to talk about religion, it's that it's annoying and gets you nowhere.
You either like having mental delusions or don't. I happened to grow out of them. But you can't really force it on anyone. Even with all the ample evidence contrarywise, it's impossible.

Unless you are dealing with people who are easy to brainwash and bully. Usually they become Amish and move to a farm where they are given a wife. That happened to my adopted cousin, apparently. (It's true.) Yeah, frightening, eh? I just learned about it from my dad.

That person is an atheist.

There are 2 options. That's it. Atheist. Theist. No more. No less. Having belief or lacking belief. There is no middle ground.

That is complete and utter bullshit. An atheist is not lacking belief, he believes god does not exist but cant prove that. Everyone else who does not believe in god and does not actually seek to disapprove of his existence is an agnostic.

Here are the articles of "faith" from my church. ;)


1. The existence of a Supreme Being is unknown and unknowable.

To believe in the existence of a god is an act of faith. To believe in the nonexistence of a god is likewise an act of faith. There is no evidence that there is a Supreme Being nor is there evidence there is not a Supreme Being. Faith is not knowledge. We can only state with assurance that we do not know.

2. If there is a Supreme Being, then that being appears to act as if apathetic to events in our universe.

All events in our Universe, including its creation, can be explained with or without the existence of a Supreme Being. Thus, if there is indeed a God, then that god has had no more impact than no god at all. To all appearances, any purported Supreme Being is indifferent to our Universe and to its inhabitants.

3. We are apathetic to the existence or nonexistence of a Supreme Being.

If there is a God, and that God does not appear to care, then there is no reason to concern ourselves with whether or not a Supreme Being exists, nor should we have any interest in satisfying the purported needs of that Supreme Being. However, our apathy to the question of God's existence does not necessarily mean we are apathetic about promoting agnosticism.

I know that this topic is killed to death every week, But I came up with this idea while reading some of the other posts, and I felt that it merited its own post.

In browsing and posting on numerous boards where religious debates are a common theme, I have come across one very common feature. Nine times out of ten, the starter of a thread asking about Christianity is an Atheist, looking to insult someone’s beliefs. Their arguments always follow one of several patterns:

-If God is all knowing and all powerful, how can he allow pain and suffering in the world?

-If God Created the universe, who created God?

-If God created everything, why did he create organs that have no purpose to modern man?

These questions all have one thing in common, they are questions of confusion on the part of mankind rather than reasons for/against God’s existence. It is a rare event that any atheist will ever state why they believe without taking a dig at Christianity as part of his platform.

So I pose to you a challenge:

Without using any religious Crutch (ie, you cannot say I am an atheist because the concept of God is stupid..) explain using your ever present logic and scientific fact why there is no creator. This means: No questions of morality, or the nature of God himself. You should only use “secular” reasoning. If atheism is indeed correct, you should not need to rely on the beliefs of others to back up your claims. Can you do it? Can you explain to us why you are an atheist without referring to God specifically?

Some may say that this is an unfair question, so please, allow me to clarify. I do not mean that you cannot mention god, only that you cannot use your opinion on divine morals to disprove Him. Many of you claim that Christianity has no logic to it, so use logic to define your beliefs. Use hard evidence that is hard to refute, instead of questions of morals which vary from person to person. Use science over religion, basically what you are always requesting that Christians do in the threads that your peers start.

Do not turn this into a Christianity bashing thread, in fact no one mention Christianity at all (sans this post, because I have to define the terms of the question). In the responses of believers, I do not want to hear any of the reasoning that I have just asked the atheist to avoid. If I am asking them to hold to this standard, I should only expect that we (Christians) should be held to the same standard. Do not attack atheism in this thread, it is a belief system that many people on this board agree with and attacking something someone hold dear will never make them sympathetic to your beliefs. Use logic, not bible verses if you want to argue a point that they bring up. This is not a thread about Christianity, so do not make it one. This is a thread about science and reason, so keep both sides of the argument to this standard.

Oh, and since evolution will invariably be mentioned, I might as well state this as to avoid later question. Since many Christians believe in Creationism, their first reaction on how to refute a post about evolution will be with intelligent design. I ask you to avoid this. If an atheist posts a missing link, try to show why it is not a missing link instead of saying why intelligent design is superior. For those of you who want to look more into the scientific side of creationism, I suggest www.wasdarwinright.org, www.icr.org (or it possibly could be .com) and www.answersingenesis.org . They may help you discuss some of the issues raised on a “logic” level.

As I said, please keep religion out of this thread. I am requesting logic and scientific that atheism is correct, I am not asking you to tell me why Theism is wrong.

If there are Mods that will haunt this thread, I would ask for your help to insure that religion stays out of the thread for as long as possible. Thank you.

The problem with this entire premise is that faith is necessary for everything and everyone, just in different ways. Religious people have faith that there is a high power of one sort or another that either created, controls, or does both to the universe. Atheists have faith that there is no creator and that instead the universe was created spontaneously or is eternal (a spontaneously generated or eternal creative force or a spontaneously generated or eternal universe is necessary, logically, for the universe to exist as we presume it does, though we can make that assumption easily based on "cogito ergo sum"). Most people trust their senses and have faith that what their parents and teachers tell them is the truth. Everything we believe is based on faith. We even use the same word, believe, to describe our thoughts about the common world as well as the spiritual. No word or idea can be considered entirely secular or entirely religious, all concepts are too thoroughly entwined to allow for that sort of simple dichotomy. In general nothing is as black and white as some people wish it to be. The difference between a theist and an atheist is not a fundamental difference in the perception of the universe as much as a difference in the internal burden of proof required for the belief in a deity. This burden of proof is affected strongly by a person's upbringing and general base of knowledge, for instance, someone raised in a highly religious family will have a low burden of proof when it comes to questions of religion because they have been raised in an environment favorable to religious thinking and have been conditioned through years of experience to trust spiritual leaders while a person raised in a highly scientific family might be more skeptical of the truth of religion while accepting without significant that the claims made by scientists (before anyone gets angry about this (like that'll happen) it is important to understand that the scientific method insists that we take nothing for granted and that every finding be repeatable so that trust in an individual or the senses at a specific time, or even trust in the consistency of the laws that govern our universe need not be factored into a test for the truth of a finding). Essentially every person is going to believe what they hear from sources they consider trustworthy and since each person's trust is different each person's sources and truths are different. Because of this difference it is not meaningful to ask a person to prove one way or the other what is clearly impossible to prove. Accept that it is an act of faith both to believe in a deity and to disbelieve and everyone will get along much better.

Anybody think paragraphs might be good?

That person is an atheist.

There are 2 options. That's it. Atheist. Theist. No more. No less. Having belief or lacking belief. There is no middle ground.

Ever heard of an agnostic, someone who is unsure of their belief in a deity, or unsure in which deity they believe? There is definitely a middle ground, nothing is as simple as "one or the other."

That is complete and utter bullshit. An atheist is not lacking belief, he believes god does not exist but cant prove that. Everyone else who does not believe in god and does not actually seek to disapprove of his existence is an agnostic.

Here are the articles of "faith" from my church. ;)

Atheism simply means 'a lack of theism' ie 'a lack [or absense] of belief in a god or gods.' It does not necessarily mean you believe there is no god or gods, merely that you do not actively believe there is. In this way, agnosticism is a form of atheism.

That is complete and utter bullshit. An atheist is not lacking belief, he believes god does not exist but cant prove that. Everyone else who does not believe in god and does not actually seek to disapprove of his existence is an agnostic.


ummm An Atheist is not the one who needs the "proof".... (if something does not exist THERE IS NO PROOF!!!!) *because there is NOTHING TO prove*

The point of this thread was to show that you cannot logically disprove God, just the same that you cannot logically prove him. either extreme is an act of faith on the part of the indevidual. So in reference to a previous poster, no you cannot disprove the existance of invisible turtles unless you have some method to view things that are 1)invisible and 2) have some way of capturing that evidence to show others as hard proof. That is why you cannot absolutly know of a god's existance, because (as of right now) we have no way to "see" it, nor do we have a way to record this viewing in a way that the "proof" would be undeniable.

Yes, actually, you can disprove the existence of invisible turtles, if you manage to prove that it is impossible for anything to be invisible.

And, as I proved in my previous post, it's possible to disprove (the standard Xian) God by logic--all you have to do is show that it's impossible for a being to be omnipotent.

Ergo, you do not need to see something to prove that it exists.

ummm An Atheist is not the one who needs the "proof".... (if something does not exist THERE IS NO PROOF!!!!) *because there is NOTHING TO prove*


One could also argue that a believer does not need proof to have faith either. I will never deny that belief in a God of some sort requires a lot of faith. Human minds tend to like rational answers that they can wrap thier minds around. In anchient times, this was fulfilled by the presense of Gods, beings who would have attributes discribed to them. it worked for a simple people. Nowadays, in the "age of technology" our minds search for evidence over convienence (which is a positive move, IMO) But this leads to interesting problems when we try to deal with "God." Because God, in many mythologies is something that is unatainable by human means anyway. (dont call this a convienent rationalization please. that is what the faiths state, whether you believe it or not is your choice, but that is what they say) SO this leaves us with a problem. We see no "evidence" for a Creator of any type, so people assume that there is none. That is where faith comes in. To borrow a famous quote, faith is belief in the evidence of things unseen.

If you are a believer of some sort, you will see evidence because your mind will interpret things differently than someone who does not believe that there are gods. that is why when they try to offer proof, it will never make sense to the other person, unless they are willing to try to look at it from the other point of view.

Quite a few people have asked why I created this thread. The answer is very simple. I wanted to try to show that you cannot prove one way or another that God is absolutly true or absolutly false using logic and science. I think that most people will agree with me on this, regardless of your beliefs, or lack thereof. Basically, to choose to be a Hindu, Christian, Muslim, etc, it requires a "leap of faith." Also, to choose to absolutly that there is a god, or gods, it also requires a similar leap, because both sides are not fully substantiated by the data we have (currently).

Please do not ask Theists to Prove to you that "Gods" exists because unless you are willing to believe that they do exist, the theists can never provide data that will sway your opinion. THis goes for the theists as well. DO not ask atheists to prove that God doesnt exist, becuase you will not accept anything they give to you unless you are willing to believe that information. and no, my last statement was not a double standard on my part. Becuase I was not truly asking you to prove anything, but I was trying to get you to see that Proving God, one way or another is a pipe dream. Going either direction requires faith, and a willingness to believe that the other side could infact be correct.

Quite a few people have asked why I created this thread. The answer is very simple. I wanted to try to show that you cannot prove one way or another that God is absolutly true or absolutly false using logic and science.

The existence of God is not, however, logically necessary to explain anything, so with parsimony you lose on the logic front.

The fact that something cannot be absolutely disproven doesn't necessarily make it a reasonable theory. For example, it's also impossible to prove we're not a bunch of talking fleas living in Santa Claus' underwear and deluding ourselves into thinking we're human, but that's hardly a reasonable theory.

The existence of God is not, however, logically necessary to explain anything, so with parsimony you lose on the logic front.

The fact that something cannot be absolutely disproven doesn't necessarily make it a reasonable theory. For example, it's also impossible to prove we're not a bunch of talking fleas living in Santa Claus' underwear and deluding ourselves into thinking we're human, but that's hardly a reasonable theory.

I never tried to win on the logic front. Belief comes from FAITH. If you do not already at least admit that God could exist, there is no way that you can believe in God by merely looking at logic because on the surface a creator does seem improbable to you. However, to me, a theist, the things you see as wonders of nature, I see as evidence to a creator. I am trying to show that there is a fundemental differnece in how a believer percieves information than that of an atheist. I am not even trying to say which one is better.

I am only asking atheist to stop asking for proof of God's existance unless they are willing to believe that the proof that we, as theists, offer could be true. If you think that there is no way that a diety could exist, no amout of data we provide will sway your opinion becuase you already have a different interpretation of what we offer. Vice Versa, it is the same with "proof" you provide. Unless a theist is willing to believe that there might not be a supreme being, your proof would also be rejected because theists have a different way to interpret that proof.

Good point...if you are unsure, that makes you a theist...so says I
No, it makes you an atheist, since you do not have the belief that it exists.

God is an answer to the question of everything, and I'm staying open minded.

That simple. I'm not taking sides.

That person is an atheist.

There are 2 options. That's it. Atheist. Theist. No more. No less. Having belief or lacking belief. There is no middle ground.
how so?
Because that person does not have belief in god, which is all that is for being an atheist.

And yes, you are either an atheist or a theist. Show me a middle. Now. Show that there is a middle between having and lacking, for that is what you are claiming. You either have something or you do not have something. There are no other alternatives, get it?

That person is an atheist.

There are 2 options. That's it. Atheist. Theist. No more. No less. Having belief or lacking belief. There is no middle ground.
That is complete and utter bullshit. An atheist is not lacking belief,
Atheism is lacking or being without the belief in the existence of a god or gods. That's it. It's not strictly saying that there is no such thing as god, although such people are a subset of the primary definition.

It breaks down like this: atheos + ism --> a + theos +ism. Atheos is Greek for "godless" and it comes from the privative prefix a being attached to theos, which is god or gods. Note that "godless" is the same as without god. It doesn't mean "denial of god", although, as I said, someone can deny that there are any gods and of course be an atheist, because that person is without the belief in the existence of a god or gods.

So...you were saying something?

That person is an atheist.

There are 2 options. That's it. Atheist. Theist. No more. No less. Having belief or lacking belief. There is no middle ground.
Ever heard of an agnostic,
Agnosticism is orthogonal to atheism and theism.

There is definitely a middle ground, nothing is as simple as "one or the other."
Oh really?

On/Off
Have/Lack

Care to retract your stupid claim?

Because that person does not have belief in god, which is all that is for being an atheist.

And yes, you are either an atheist or a theist. Show me a middle. Now. Show that there is a middle between having and lacking, for that is what you are claiming. You either have something or you do not have something. There are no other alternatives, get it?

atheism is disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods, or the doctrine that there is no God or gods. you are trying to give it a different definition that includes agnosticism, but that is simply not what the term means.

agnosticism is NOT the same as atheism, since agnosticism is the doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge, and therefore there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

atheism and agnosticism are often mutually exclusive. they can be functionally similar, but that doesn't mean they are the same thing.

Because that person does not have belief in god, which is all that is for being an atheist.

And yes, you are either an atheist or a theist. Show me a middle. Now. Show that there is a middle between having and lacking, for that is what you are claiming. You either have something or you do not have something. There are no other alternatives, get it?

From Yahoo, using the American Heritage® Dictionary
Define Atheist:
atheist: NOUN: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Define Theism:
theism: NOUN: Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.
OTHER FORMS: theist, theistic, theistical, theistically

Define Agnostic:
agnostic: NOUN: 1a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God. b. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
OTHER FORMS: agnostically

It seems that there is a difference. Believing that something could be false is different than not believing in something.

ahh, but who are we to rely on the puny words of dictionaries, when Almighty BAAWA is here to tell us what words really mean?

From Yahoo, using the American Heritage® Dictionary
Define Atheist:
atheist: NOUN: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Highlightest section means agnosticism can be included in atheism. 'Disbelief' does not mean you do not believe something, merely that you're skeptical.

Highlightest section means agnosticism can be included in atheism. 'Disbelief' does not mean you do not believe something, merely that you're skeptical.
sorry, the dictionary doesn't support you.

Disbelieve: to refuse belief or credence to; to hold not to be true or actual. OR (from Websters) to reject as false; refuse to accept

to refuse belief doesn't mean "to be skeptical," it means to make an active choice to reject believing.

Highlightest section means agnosticism can be included in atheism. 'Disbelief' does not mean you do not believe something, merely that you're skeptical.



Unless of course the person does not disbelieve. an agnostic could not be sure if a diety existed, but that does not always mean that they doubt that one could exist.

sorry, the dictionary doesn't support you.

Disbelieve: to refuse belief or credence to; to hold not to be true or actual. OR (from Websters) to reject as false; refuse to accept

to refuse belief doesn't mean "to be skeptical," it means to make an active choice to reject believing.

Skeptic is defined here [Chambers Dictionary] as 'a person who tends to disbelieve, so welcome to square one.

Unless of course the person does not disbelieve. an agnostic could not be sure if a diety existed, but that does not always mean that they doubt that one could exist.

If you are not sure then you must doubt it exists!

Skeptic is defined here [Chambers Dictionary] as 'a person who tends to disbelieve, so welcome to square one.
interesting. i don't have anything like that in my dictionaries...i get:

One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.

Someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs

One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons.

that last one seems to directly contradict the definition of "disbelieve," so i don't know how your dictionary could have that included in the definition of "skeptic."

There are 2 options. That's it. Atheist. Theist. No more. No less. Having belief or lacking belief. There is no middle ground.

There's a name for this kind of thinking.

Two-tone perception disorder. The idea that everything can be simplified into two groups. Say, either left or right in politics, or maybe guilty or not guilty is the most prevalent example.

When dealing with opinions, it's never black and white. Shades of grey always need to bridge the divide between the two extremes. Another example. There's a lot of debate about when a fetus stops becoming a collection of cells inside the mother, and start becoming a child. There is no dividing line. At one end there's cells, at the other, a child. Point out the exact moment when the former becomes the latter for me, please.

Everyone has their own private belief system. This can be a complete lack of belief, or absolute faith in whatever religion. But some belief systems don't fit into one or the other. No matter how much you don't like it, there has to be some room for fence-sitters.

Atheism is lacking or being without the belief in the existence of a god or gods. That's it. It's not strictly saying that there is no such thing as god, although such people are a subset of the primary definition.

It breaks down like this: atheos + ism --> a + theos +ism. Atheos is Greek for "godless" and it comes from the privative prefix a being attached to theos, which is god or gods. Note that "godless" is the same as without god. It doesn't mean "denial of god", although, as I said, someone can deny that there are any gods and of course be an atheist, because that person is without the belief in the existence of a god or gods.

snip
Atheism is lacking or being without the belief in the existence of a god or gods. That's it. It's not strictly saying that there is no such thing as god, although such people are a subset of the primary definition.

It breaks down like this: atheos + ism --> a + theos +ism. Atheos is Greek for "godless" and it comes from the privative prefix a being attached to theos, which is god or gods. Note that "godless" is the same as without god. It doesn't mean "denial of god", although, as I said, someone can deny that there are any gods and of course be an atheist, because that person is without the belief in the existence of a god or gods.

I've yet to see this challenged or refuted.

interesting. i don't have anything like that in my dictionaries...i get:

One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.

Someone who habitually doubts accepted beliefs

One who is yet undecided as to what is true; one who is looking or inquiring for what is true; an inquirer after facts or reasons.

that last one seems to directly contradict the definition of "disbelieve," so i don't know how your dictionary could have that included in the definition of "skeptic."

Um, 'disagree' up there has roughly the same effect.

Also, if we're doing semantics, the real meaning of 'Atheism' is simply 'a lack of theism' and thus can encompass skeptical forms as well as outright atheism. The only think more bizarre than fundamentalists or militant atheists is the lengths agnostics are prepared to go to to avoid being called atheists too.

There are 2 options. That's it. Atheist. Theist. No more. No less. Having belief or lacking belief. There is no middle ground.
There's a name for this kind of thinking.
Yes: correct thinking.

Unless, of course, you can show me a middle between having and lacking. Think you can do that?

Atheism is lacking or being without the belief in the existence of a god or gods. That's it. It's not strictly saying that there is no such thing as god, although such people are a subset of the primary definition.

It breaks down like this: atheos + ism --> a + theos +ism. Atheos is Greek for "godless" and it comes from the privative prefix a being attached to theos, which is god or gods. Note that "godless" is the same as without god. It doesn't mean "denial of god", although, as I said, someone can deny that there are any gods and of course be an atheist, because that person is without the belief in the existence of a god or gods.

I've yet to see this challenged or refuted.

you've been refuted by the dictionary. the Latin roots of words in the English language do not equate to the modern meanings or use of the terms, so the discussion of the origins of "atheism" the word are irrelevant.

the dictionary says one thing, you say another...oh, who am i to trust?!

On/Off
Have/Lack

Care to retract your stupid claim?

Rather than retracting anything, I'll ammend my statement to be more semantically accurate: Nothing except those concepts specifically concieved to create perfect dichotomies create perfect dichotomies.

sorry, the dictionary doesn't support you.

Disbelieve: to refuse belief or credence to; to hold not to be true or actual. OR (from Websters) to reject as false; refuse to accept
Main Entry: dis·be·lieve
Pronunciation: -'lEv
transitive senses : to hold not worthy of belief : not believe
intransitive senses : to withhold or reject belief

It means to not believe, or also withholding belief, in this case. Not believing isn't an action, though.

Also, if we're doing semantics, the real meaning of 'Atheism' is simply 'a lack of theism' and thus can encompass skeptical forms as well as outright atheism. The only think more bizarre than fundamentalists or militant atheists is the lengths agnostics are prepared to go to to avoid being called atheists too.

the "real" meaning of atheism? you mean the Latin root of the word, which is not the meaning in the English language? sorry, but Latin roots are often very different from the full meaning of a word in English, and we use dictionary definitions rather than the linguistic root-terms to establish what English words mean.

i am not going to extreme lengths, i am simply stating the truth. i am not atheist, because i do not DISBELIEVE. i am also not theist because i do not BELIEVE. there's no great length involved in stating the obvious. it seems to me more like atheists trying to broaden their term to cover anybody who isn't religious...why is that? feeling lonely are we?

Proving or disproving God's existence comes down to an individual's desire to believe one argument over the other. In other words, I break it down to the Fox Mulder argument.

In the X-Files, Mulder has a poster in his office with a UFO with a caption that reads, "I want to believe." This is not an indication of a total belief in something paranormal, its a desire to believe and find proof of the existence of the paranormal. Mulder has his skeptical agent, Scully. Scully only looks at what can be experienced and what is known and knowable.

Granted, the X-Files was a fictional show, but it is a useful metaphor for those that believe in supernatural/paranormal things versus those that are skeptical and want proof.

The best defense I've heard for Christians or believers of any religion is that they don't need proof, they only need their faith. Faith becomes the element which keeps people locked into a religious mind frame. Try and argue with a "true believer" in any religious faith, and you may as well try and talk to your cat. The problem with blind faith is that it leads to religious zealotry, which gives us things like wacked out terrorists hijacking planes and killing innocent people, or bombing abortion clinics. History is filled with examples of religious zeal and its sinister consequences.

Now atheists are natural born skeptics. (Usually.) Skepticism and the desire for empirical evidence are what they seek in the universe. Show them the facts and proof, and you'll have them on your side. They're more open to reasonable and factual arguments than appeals to emotion. The extreme version of atheists miss out on the poetry of the universe.

The bottom line is it all comes down to what someone wants to believe. All the evidence and proof in the world won't change a "true believers" mind one iota, atheists are reluctant to put blind faith into anyone or anything.

Now if you want to shoot down the existence of God using philosophy, I'd recommend reading Jean Paul Sartre's, "Being and Nothingness." He exposes the reasoning for God's existence as a circular argument. However, as Spock once said, "There are always possiblities."

Main Entry: dis·be·lieve
Pronunciation: -'lEv
transitive senses : to hold not worthy of belief : not believe
intransitive senses : to withhold or reject belief

It means to not believe, or also withholding belief, in this case. Not believing isn't an action, though.

none of my dictionaries hold that definition. what are you using? and how is "to withhold or reject belief" in line with your theory? are we just going to ignore the fact that three of the four definitions you just gave refute your theory? it seems your own dictionary support the connotation of "disbelieve" that i have given.

Atheism is lacking or being without the belief in the existence of a god or gods. That's it. It's not strictly saying that there is no such thing as god, although such people are a subset of the primary definition.

It breaks down like this: atheos + ism --> a + theos +ism. Atheos is Greek for "godless" and it comes from the privative prefix a being attached to theos, which is god or gods. Note that "godless" is the same as without god. It doesn't mean "denial of god", although, as I said, someone can deny that there are any gods and of course be an atheist, because that person is without the belief in the existence of a god or gods.

I've yet to see this challenged or refuted.
you've been refuted by the dictionary.
Actually, the dictionary agrees with me.

Try again.

the Latin roots of words in the English language do not equate to the modern meanings or use of the terms, so the discussion of the origins of "atheism" the word are irrelevant.
Except that it is wholly relevant. The roots allow us to discern what it means, m'laddio. And it means "without or lacking the belief in the existence of a god or gods." Far too often people narrowly define atheism as the strict denial that there are any gods, which, as I pointed out, is merely a subset of not having belief in the existence of a god.

Ball. In Court. Yours.

i am not going to extreme lengths, i am simply stating the truth. i am not atheist, because i do not DISBELIEVE. i am also not theist because i do not BELIEVE.

You thus refuse belief, therefore you disbelieve. Go back and read your own definition.

there's no great length involved in stating the obvious. it seems to me more like atheists trying to broaden their term to cover anybody who isn't religious...why is that? feeling lonely are we?

Why would I be? I'm not an atheist.

none of my dictionaries hold that definition. what are you using?
m-w.com

and how is "to withhold or reject belief" in line with your theory?
To withhold means to simply not believe.

are we just going to ignore the fact that three of the four definitions you just gave refute your theory?
They don't.

it seems your own dictionary support the connotation of "disbelieve" that i have given.
And it supports mine. Looks like you're stuck.

*sigh*

i've supplied you with the refutation, BAAWA, but if it makes you feel good to tell other people what they believe then that's you're problem. you can call me atheist if you want, just like the crazy old man nextdoor calls me Nadia, and it won't change who or what i really am. i seem to remember you and i having this same discussion once before, and all that happened is we got to this same point and stalled, so i'm done with it right now...we're just going nowhere. there seem to be several other people interested in refuting you anyhow, and i will pass the buck to them because (frankly) my playstation is calling to me...have fun, all!

I know that this topic is killed to death every week, But I came up with this idea while reading some of the other posts, and I felt that it merited its own post.

In browsing and posting on numerous boards where religious debates are a common theme, I have come across one very common feature. Nine times out of ten, the starter of a thread asking about Christianity is an Atheist, looking to insult someone’s beliefs. Their arguments always follow one of several patterns:

-If God is all knowing and all powerful, how can he allow pain and suffering in the world?

-If God Created the universe, who created God?

-If God created everything, why did he create organs that have no purpose to modern man?

These questions all have one thing in common, they are questions of confusion on the part of mankind rather than reasons for/against God’s existence. It is a rare event that any atheist will ever state why they believe without taking a dig at Christianity as part of his platform.

So I pose to you a challenge:

Without using any religious Crutch (ie, you cannot say I am an atheist because the concept of God is stupid..) explain using your ever present logic and scientific fact why there is no creator. This means: No questions of morality, or the nature of God himself. You should only use “secular” reasoning. If atheism is indeed correct, you should not need to rely on the beliefs of others to back up your claims. Can you do it? Can you explain to us why you are an atheist without referring to God specifically?

Some may say that this is an unfair question, so please, allow me to clarify. I do not mean that you cannot mention god, only that you cannot use your opinion on divine morals to disprove Him. Many of you claim that Christianity has no logic to it, so use logic to define your beliefs. Use hard evidence that is hard to refute, instead of questions of morals which vary from person to person. Use science over religion, basically what you are always requesting that Christians do in the threads that your peers start.

Do not turn this into a Christianity bashing thread, in fact no one mention Christianity at all (sans this post, because I have to define the terms of the question). In the responses of believers, I do not want to hear any of the reasoning that I have just asked the atheist to avoid. If I am asking them to hold to this standard, I should only expect that we (Christians) should be held to the same standard. Do not attack atheism in this thread, it is a belief system that many people on this board agree with and attacking something someone hold dear will never make them sympathetic to your beliefs. Use logic, not bible verses if you want to argue a point that they bring up. This is not a thread about Christianity, so do not make it one. This is a thread about science and reason, so keep both sides of the argument to this standard.

Oh, and since evolution will invariably be mentioned, I might as well state this as to avoid later question. Since many Christians believe in Creationism, their first reaction on how to refute a post about evolution will be with intelligent design. I ask you to avoid this. If an atheist posts a missing link, try to show why it is not a missing link instead of saying why intelligent design is superior. For those of you who want to look more into the scientific side of creationism, I suggest www.wasdarwinright.org, www.icr.org (or it possibly could be .com) and www.answersingenesis.org . They may help you discuss some of the issues raised on a “logic” level.

As I said, please keep religion out of this thread. I am requesting logic and scientific that atheism is correct, I am not asking you to tell me why Theism is wrong.

If there are Mods that will haunt this thread, I would ask for your help to insure that religion stays out of the thread for as long as possible. Thank you.

For starters, atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of one.

I believe there is no god because there is absolutely no hard evidence for the existence of one. Everything that is has an scientific explanation, we just haven't found it yet. We used to believe the Earth was flat. Now we know for a fact it isn't because we have advanced. The few major issues which don't have scientific explanations are simply too complex for it to explain at this point in time. Religion originated as an explanation for why things happened. Eventually someone hit upon the idea of asking this unexplained force for things. We used to need god to explain why plants grew, then we discovered that they were alive in the same way we are. We used to need god to explain why life existed, then we discovered evolution. It continues like that.

*sigh*

i've supplied you with the refutation, BAAWA, but if it makes you feel good to tell other people what they believe then that's you're problem. you can call me atheist if you want, just like the crazy old man nextdoor calls me Nadia, and it won't change who or what i really am. i seem to remember you and i having this same discussion once before, and all that happened is we got to this same point and stalled, so i'm done with it right now...we're just going nowhere. there seem to be several other people interested in refuting you anyhow, and i will pass the buck to them because (frankly) my playstation is calling to me...have fun, all!
Agreed.

BAAWA:

You are trying to cover a very broad spectrum of beliefs with one term. Maybe you would be interested in hearing this: Do you know that Christians were once called Atheists by the Romans because they did not believe in the Roman gods and Caeser? How does that go into your origins of the word? The English Language is really messed up, period. Add that to the fact that people today often apply different meanings to words (IE gay now means something other than happy, catholic means: catholic: ADJECTIVE: 1. Of broad or liberal scope; comprehensive: “The 100-odd pages of formulas and constants are surely the most catholic to be found” (Scientific American).
OTHER FORMS: catholically (k-thlk-l but people think of it as a Denomination, etc) everything is not black and white, there are always things that do not fit into a little box. I call myself a Christian, but someone else could call themsevles that and we would have two very different meanings.

Everything that is has an scientific explanation, we just haven't found it yet.

That, my friend, is what you believe. And before you start assuming things, I'm an atheist, mind you. ;)

EDIT: Or so I used to consider myself... now I'm not sure anymore whether I am an atheist, or an agnostic, or just a skeptic...

For starters, atheism is not a belief. It is a lack of one.

I believe there is no god because there is absolutely no hard evidence for the existence of one. Everything that is has an scientific explanation, we just haven't found it yet. We used to believe the Earth was flat. Now we know for a fact it isn't because we have advanced. The few major issues which don't have scientific explanations are simply too complex for it to explain at this point in time. Religion originated as an explanation for why things happened. Eventually someone hit upon the idea of asking this unexplained force for things. We used to need god to explain why plants grew, then we discovered that they were alive in the same way we are. We used to need god to explain why life existed, then we discovered evolution. It continues like that.

*sigh* Evolution is a Theory. no self respecting scientist will say that it is a fact. it is a proposed explaination, supported by "evidence" as to how life came to be. Over time, the evolutionary theory has changed as its evidence was refuted, redefined, or new "evidence" was found. Some of the old evidence:
Reliability of carbon dating (Time magazine ran an article about a living shellfish dated at 25k years)
Nebraska/Pitdown man: proposed missing links that turned out to be something else.

I am not trying to tell you that evolution is false, merely that it has not been proven, so it cannot be truly seen as evidence against the existance of a supreme being. It is an opinion, that if true, would, but as I said, it is still a theory.


Religion came around (if we follow an atheistic POV) because, as you said, people needed a reason to explain things. However, it has also been shown that when people meditate, be this catholic monks or Buddist monks, the part of thier mind that seperates reality from unreality becomes much thinner, allowing for "spiritual" experiences. this "hardwiring" for the supernatural (something beyound the natural) would naturally lead to the belief in some higher power. If you follow a theist POV, all of this remains the same, however there was a time when the supreme being answered back to the questions. from that contact, all forms of belief have sprung. Religion has been used to explain a lot of things, some of which it was not needed to explain. However, there are some instances yet today (like the creation/evolution of life, life after death, etc) where it still offers explainations that have yet to be totally refuted. They could end up being false, but we, as of now, have no way of knowing that.

*sigh* Evolution is a Theory. no self respecting scientist will say that it is a fact. it is a proposed explaination, supported by "evidence" as to how life came to be. Over time, the evolutionary theory has changed as its evidence was refuted, redefined, or new "evidence" was found. Some of the old evidence:
Reliability of carbon dating (Time magazine ran an article about a living shellfish dated at 25k years)
Nebraska/Pitdown man: proposed missing links that turned out to be something else.

I am not trying to tell you that evolution is false, merely that it has not been proven, so it cannot be truly seen as evidence against the existance of a supreme being. It is an opinion, that if true, would, but as I said, it is still a theory.

Well, yes, I'll concede that. Scientifically nothing is ever proven, you're right about that. But evolution is as close as anything to being proven. And if I'm both arguing scientifically and not using unproven evidence, I cannot use anything as evidence.

In addition to what Tiligth pointed about Evolution being a theory, I still don't see how it explains why life exists, as Nehek said. If anything, it tries to give an explanation about "how", but not about "why".

Sorry, Nehek, it's just business, not personal ;)

Well, yes, I'll concede that. Scientifically nothing is ever proven, you're right about that. But evolution is as close as anything to being proven. And if I'm both arguing scientifically and not using unproven evidence, I cannot use anything as evidence.

that you can. but as it is frequently shown on these forums, you evidence does not have to be accepted the same way that you see it. I just wanted to make sure that you were aware of that. because I do not see Evolution in the same light that you do, and I know that you see things differently than me.

*sigh* Evolution is a Theory. no self respecting scientist will say that it is a fact.

False, it's a theory and a fact. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA201.html

it is a proposed explaination, supported by "evidence" as to how life came to be.

False, evolution does not describe how life 'came to be,' only how it changes.

Over time, the evolutionary theory has changed as its evidence was refuted, redefined, or new "evidence" was found.

You're saying that like it's a bad thing. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA250.html

And the 'evidence' you mentioned:

Carbon dating: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html & http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_1.html
Piltdown Man: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC001.html
Nebraska Man: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC002.html

I am not trying to tell you that evolution is false, merely that it has not been proven, so it cannot be truly seen as evidence against the existance of a supreme being.

Evolution is a fact, both micro and macroevolution have been observed on numerous occasions and the fossil record speaks for itself. This does not serve as any kind of evidence against a Supreme Being.

It is an opinion, that if true, would, but as I said, it is still a theory..

Bullshit. Firstly, it's a scientific theory supported by reams of evidence and not an opinion. Secondly, the only thing evolution would be evidence against is creationism or 'intelligent design,' there is nothing in the theory of evolution of species that precludes a Supreme Being starting the whole thing.

In addition to what Tiligth pointed about Evolution being a theory, I still don't see how it explains why life exists, as Nehek said. If anything, it tries to give an explanation about "how", but not about "why".

You might as well criticise maths or gravity for not saying 'why' we exist. Why should a theory aiming to describe a process have to throw in philosophy with it?

You know, he's right. I mean there is a difference between Theory and Fact. Evolution is Theory, that doesn't make it bad though. Gravity is theory, but I don't thing anyone (save me) will argue it's not going on. Those theories just hold up really really well. And there is tons of evidence to support them. But in the same vein, there's still room for error, they could be wrong. That possiblilty exists, and when talking science you have to admit that. But the tons of supporting observations just makes it too hard to ignore. It's really good at explaining the observations and predicting results.

You might as well criticise maths or gravity for not saying 'why' we exist. Why should a theory aiming to describe a process have to throw in philosophy with it?

Did I criticise anything? Well, if I did, it wasn't Evolution. It was what Nehek said -once again, nothing personal, pal:


We used to need god to explain why life existed, then we discovered evolution. (My bold.)

I disagree. Evolution does not explain why. On the other hand, it does not need to. Happier, now that it's a bit clearer? :)

You know, he's right. I mean there is a difference between Theory and Fact. Evolution is Theory, that doesn't make it bad though. Gravity is theory, but I don't thing anyone (save me) will argue it's not going on. Those theories just hold up really really well. And there is tons of evidence to support them. But in the same vein, there's still room for error, they could be wrong. That possiblilty exists, and when talking science you have to admit that. But the tons of supporting observations just makes it too hard to ignore. It's really good at explaining the observations and predicting results.
There is a tiny possiblity that it is incorrect. As there is a tiny possibility that most scientific ideas might be incorrect and need revising. However, evolution is so strongly supported and that the chances of it being wholy incorrect are virtually nil, meaning it can (and is) in essense be accepted as fact.

You know, he's right. I mean there is a difference between Theory and Fact. Evolution is Theory, that doesn't make it bad though. Gravity is theory, but I don't thing anyone (save me) will argue it's not going on. Those theories just hold up really really well.

Wrong. When you let go of an object and see it drop, you are observing the fact of gravity. The theory of gravity is what scientists use to explain the mechanisms behind gravity. So gravity is both a theory and a fact.

Same with evolution.

There is a tiny possiblity that it is incorrect. As there is a tiny possibility that most scientific ideas might be incorrect and need revising. However, evolution is so strongly supported and that the chances of it being wholy incorrect are virtually nil, meaning it can (and is) in essense be accepted as fact.

I'm not sure if i made it clear that I support Evolution, but I do.

"Virtually nil" That's important. It means that the Chances of evolution being incorrect are non-zero. It's that last little bit that will alwasy keep it "The Theory of Evolution" and not "The Fact of Evolution". That's the point. Facts have 0 chance of being wrong, Theories have non-zero chances of being wrong.

I'm honestly curious, GMC... how did anyone observe evolution? I mean, besides the fossile evidence... Please don't interprete this as a criticism, I really want to know.

I'm honestly curious, GMC... how did anyone observe evolution? I mean, besides the fossile evidence... Please don't interprete this as a criticism, I really want to know.

Listing of observed examples of macroevolution here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html [several links to more examples]

Wrong. When you let go of an object and see it drop, you are observing the fact of gravity. The theory of gravity is what scientists use to explain the mechanisms behind gravity. So gravity is both a theory and a fact.

Same with evolution.

Look, I can go over this all day, and hell I'd like to if it weren't for the fact that I just did this yesterday. When you drop the object, you do not see gavity. You see motion (Fact), which must be cause by a force (Fact). That force is Gavity (Theory). Why is it theory? Cause there's no direct evidence, just indiret evidence of it. I would challenge anyone to show me 'Gravity', pure gravity, direct, irrefutable gravity.

Listing of observed examples of marcoevolution here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html [several links to more examples]
Thanks for the link, GMC, I'll take a look at it as soon as I've got the time.

Look, I can go over this all day, and hell I'd like to if it weren't for the fact that I just did this yesterday. When you drop the object, you do not see gavity. You see motion (Fact), which must be cause by a force (Fact). That force is Gavity (Theory). Why is it theory? Cause there's no direct evidence, just indiret evidence of it. I would challenge anyone to show me 'Gravity', pure gravity, direct, irrefutable gravity.

Semantics. Why shouldn't we call the force gravity?

Semantics. Why shouldn't we call the force gravity?

I never said we shouldn't, All I said was it's theory. There is a non-zero chance that that force cause the object to move is not "gravity" that's all. But the Theory is so very very very good. It explains all the observations and makes excellent predictions, but it could be wrong, and thus can't really be called "fact".

I never said we shouldn't, All I said was it's theory. There is a non-zero chance that that force cause the object to move is not "gravity" that's all. But the Theory is so very very very good. It explains all the observations and makes excellent predictions, but it could be wrong, and thus can't really be called "fact".

Correct. However, that doesn't stop gravity being a fact if you call the 'force which acts' gravity.

Correct. However, that doesn't stop gravity being a fact if you call the 'force which acts' gravity.

Are you saying that gravity is synonomus with the force which acts? I mean sure you could call the "force that acts" "gravity". You could also very well call it "blue". Then "blue" is fact by your definition. Now you're just messing around with the concept of words. It's what saying "the force acting is gravity" means that matters.

Are you saying that gravity is synonomus with the force which acts? I mean sure you could call the "force that acts" "gravity". You could also very well call it "blue". Then "blue" is fact by your definition. Now you're just messing around with the concept of words. It's what saying "the force acting is gravity" means that matters.

In other words, gravity is a fact but the theory of how it works is only a theory, which is what I said in the first place.

*sigh* Evolution is a Theory. no self respecting scientist will say that it is a fact. it is a proposed explaination, supported by "evidence" as to how life came to be. Over time, the evolutionary theory has changed as its evidence was refuted, redefined, or new "evidence" was found. Some of the old evidence:
Reliability of carbon dating (Time magazine ran an article about a living shellfish dated at 25k years)
Nebraska/Pitdown man: proposed missing links that turned out to be something else.
I am not trying to tell you that evolution is false, merely that it has not been proven, so it cannot be truly seen as evidence against the existance of a supreme being. It is an opinion, that if true, would, but as I said, it is still a theory.

One thing I really REALLY dislike immensely is anti-evolutionaries who constantly bring up the word 'Theory' to 'prove' that it isn't fact. Do a bit a research here, pls. You'll find that there are no facts in Science - only theories. This is becasue we can only deduce something as fact if we subject it to an infinite number of tests (a philosophical agrument put forward by Wittgenstein I think). Since this is an obvious impossibility we have to accept some things as Absolute Truths (eg that 1+1=2) because they have been accepted as such. However they are still viewed as 'theories' by scientists, simply because such accepted ideas have not been tested to infinity. They are accepted because they form the bedrock of the Weltanschauung we build our world around.
Theory does have many meanings. The one used by Scientists is:
"The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis."
The one used by creationists is:
"Speculation".
Well:
Gravity is a theory
Electromagnetic radiation is a theory
Electricity is a theory
Our cardio-respiratory system is a theory
Do you get the idea?
If all scientific theories 'speculation', do me a favour and sleep with some weapons grade plutonium so you can prove to me that radiation poisoning is just a 'theory'
Or next time there's a thunderstorm, go out into a empty field holding a large metal rod over your head to prove that electricity is just a 'theory'.
Or stop breathing to prove that the need for air is a 'theory'.
Ok I'll stop with the 'theory' stuff now.
I think you'll find that while 'no self respecting scientist will say that it is a fact', you won't find one who will dismiss it as fiction.

One thing I can't quite understand about having a God who create everything is this:
God is above all human needs and sins (eg the sin of pride, avarice, etc)
God created the Universe, which is bloody enormous;
Not content with this, God created a world in the outer arm of one non-descript galaxy amongst the billions;
Then God created humans on this planet;
And God expects us to worship him and do His bidding;
If we do, we will spend eternity with Him - otherwise we burn in Hell.

Now, doesn't it seem a bit arrogant and well, needy to create a planet of ppl whose main purpose is to tell you what a awesome guy you are? And if you don't, you'll suffer for eternity? Isn't that rather vengeful and petty? Personally if I was powerful enough to create a whole universe, I'd feel pretty good about myself. I wouldn't feel the need to create a bunch of ppl to tell me this. I don't think I've ever seen anyone explain why God felt the need to create us in the first place: Why? God doesn't need the company, God doesn't need reassurance (else He wouldn't be God now would he?). So Why create us?

Semantics. Why shouldn't we call the force gravity?


and why should we call it gravity? also, there could be somewhere in the universe where gravity (as we call it) is different, or non-existant, yet all conditions that would allow it are present. since we do not know everything about every part of the universe, we do not know for a fact that Gravity is a Law of the universe.

I do not dispute Microevolution, in fact I believe that it is true. Look at how many different species of dogs there are, many of them man-made, through selective breeding. Micro evolution has been observed. macro evolution has not, I'll go in to this further down.

Evolution a fact? that sight you sent has several issues:

1: it is a site that promotes evolution and does not allow for a true alternative
Creationism is neither theory nor fact; it is, at best, only an opinion. Since it explains nothing, it is useless.
Creationism is a theory, because it is an attempt to explain how the world came to be. Just because it has its roots in a religion does not automatically make it useless. such strong absolutes immeadiety lowered my expectations for this site. By denying that creationism is not a viable theory, it is essentially trying to set up its preffered reason as the only one available. it does mention other theries, but as this site is set up to discuss the "creation/evolution controversy" It can be assumed that most of the people visiting the site will be interested in one of the two alternative, intstead of one of the others offered. if this were not the case, then the site would be a discussion of all popular origins. Just because something is religious does not mean that it is automatically false. surely you do not believe that.

2: its "evidence" for marcoevolution show variation in a species, not a new species all together. variation is still microevolution.


Incipient speciation, where two subspecies interbreed rarely or with only little success, is common. Here are just a few examples:


Rhagoletis pomonella, the apple maggot fly, is undergoing sympatric speciation. Its native host in North America is Hawthorn (Crataegus spp.), but in the mid-1800's, a new population formed on introduced domestic apples (Malus pumila). The two races are kept partially isolated by natural selection. [Filchak et al. 2000]
The mosquito Anopheles gambiae shows incipient speciation between its populations in northwestern and southeastern Africa [Lehmann et al. 2003; Fanello et al. 2003].
Silverside fish show incipient speciation between marine and estuarine populations [Beheregaray and Sunnucks 2001].

How is a new sub-species a different species entirely. there has still been no confirmed evidence to show that A turns into B, only that A can become A1 or A2. there may be some differences, but it is the same species. One could argue using this remark that skin color is a result of Speciation because people with darker skin color were originally congregated in an area where the sunlight was more intense. someone of lighter skin would suffer many health problems in an area where they are constantly under the equator's Sun. Just like someone of darker skin would find it hard to maintain health (especially vitamin d) where there is less sunlight. But does this mean that we are different species? of course not. We are one and the same. of course this is a different case than what your site lists, but if one difference does not a new species make, then how many will it take. what about Down syndrome and other "mutations" where our DNA is not even the same? are they a new species?

this is like the peppered moth idea. a change of a species charictoristics does not mean that it will lead to a totally different species altogether. also, this site still states that evolution is not based on observed evidence alone, but rather on things from the fossil record. the fossil record is constantly changing, also if someone is looking to the fossil record to prove something, they will interpret all of the date they recieve in favor of that belief (IE they see a tooth, they think it is a missing link, turns out to be a pig) these things can be later disproven. who is to say that the new evidence will not turn out to be disproven in the future? New things are discovered about Evolution every day. the fact that the current evidence is currently true does not automatically make it a fact.

Macro evolution will be very hard to obeserve (IE one SPECIES forming into a fundementally different SPECIES, such as a aomeba (sp) becomeing a multicelled organism with different traits from its predecessor, let alone an aomeba evolving into some form of intelligent life.) the time periods proposed my evolution make this observation very hard to do, should humanity even survive that long. Also, the theory is a logic loop when it comes to the issue of new life being formed today, since conditions today are different than the onces that existed billions of years ago. Would not different conditions equate different forms of life? or are they saying that only carbon based life as we know it is the only one possible?

I will post some more when i have time, But I have to get some sleep now. Evolution is still a theory, it is not a fact, and it is very unlikely that it will be because:
1-there is a very small chance we will ever observe true macroevolution, even if it exists
2-fossils need specific conditions to form, so finding the missing links will be pretty hard to find.

That's the misunderstanding people have of science. Science is not about certainty. All laws in science are reached by induction.

Evolution is not "just a theory", it is a scientific theory. By which I mean:

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena. Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=theory)

ITS IMPOSSIBLE TO PROVE GOD DOESENT EXIST. It cant be done. Even if you had all the logic and all the scientific prove in the world you could simply say "god made it". Like when evolution proved the bible wrong in so many ways, dumbass christians say "well, maybe god made evolution." Or when we proved the earth was 4 billion years old instead of 4,000 years old like it said in the bible, idiot christians say "well, maybe by 4,000 years.....he ment 4 billion years".

Imagine this, i say Santa Clause exists.....try and prove me wrong. I think he is invisible, has magical elves and flying raindeer and can control what people think and do. It cant be done.

I dont believe in god because I cant imagine it, its beyond my realm of comprehension. If you choose to beleve in the easter bunny, Santa Clause, Leppercans, gnomes, Kebbler Elvs or Jesus your just stupid.

Keebler elves are real. And Jesus is real too. He leaves down the streets with his homes man. Paco and Rico.

One thing I really REALLY dislike immensely is anti-evolutionaries who constantly bring up the word 'Theory' to 'prove' that it isn't fact. Do a bit a research here, pls. You'll find that there are no facts in Science - only theories. This is becasue we can only deduce something as fact if we subject it to an infinite number of tests (a philosophical agrument put forward by Wittgenstein I think). Since this is an obvious impossibility we have to accept some things as Absolute Truths (eg that 1+1=2) because they have been accepted as such. However they are still viewed as 'theories' by scientists, simply because such accepted ideas have not been tested to infinity. They are accepted because they form the bedrock of the Weltanschauung we build our world around.
Theory does have many meanings. The one used by Scientists is:
"The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis."
The one used by creationists is:
"Speculation".
Well:
Gravity is a theory
Electromagnetic radiation is a theory
Electricity is a theory
Our cardio-respiratory system is a theory
Do you get the idea?
If all scientific theories 'speculation', do me a favour and sleep with some weapons grade plutonium so you can prove to me that radiation poisoning is just a 'theory'
Or next time there's a thunderstorm, go out into a empty field holding a large metal rod over your head to prove that electricity is just a 'theory'.
Or stop breathing to prove that the need for air is a 'theory'.
Ok I'll stop with the 'theory' stuff now.
I think you'll find that while 'no self respecting scientist will say that it is a fact', you won't find one who will dismiss it as fiction.

One thing I can't quite understand about having a God who create everything is this:
God is above all human needs and sins (eg the sin of pride, avarice, etc)
God created the Universe, which is bloody enormous;
Not content with this, God created a world in the outer arm of one non-descript galaxy amongst the billions;
Then God created humans on this planet;
And God expects us to worship him and do His bidding;
If we do, we will spend eternity with Him - otherwise we burn in Hell.

Now, doesn't it seem a bit arrogant and well, needy to create a planet of ppl whose main purpose is to tell you what a awesome guy you are? And if you don't, you'll suffer for eternity? Isn't that rather vengeful and petty? Personally if I was powerful enough to create a whole universe, I'd feel pretty good about myself. I wouldn't feel the need to create a bunch of ppl to tell me this. I don't think I've ever seen anyone explain why God felt the need to create us in the first place: Why? God doesn't need the company, God doesn't need reassurance (else He wouldn't be God now would he?). So Why create us?

Could he not get Lonely? also, just because you cannot understand something does not mean that it is false. your right, everything is a theory, but
Gravity (or the effects) have been observed.

our cariovascular system has been observed.
etc
Macroevolution (IE one species begetting another) has not been observed.

Evolution has not been proven as the true way that we we evolved, and I highly doubt it ever will be (see previous post). I have Evolutionists saying that creationism is not a theory because it is based off of a religion. so what? its still a theory on how life came to be. I have never once said that evolution is absolutly false, because I do not know that, but I do not see why it is pushed as the only theory for how life came to be. Even the site I responded to in the previous posts mentions other theries. why am I taught evolution as if it were the only theory, and that there were no others (even discounting "religious" ones)

By the way, on the hole gravity thing...

You can prove that gravity exists and is real. Drop something, which way does it go? Grab it again and drop it again, does it go the same way? Drop it millions of times and see if it ever goes in a different direction. There, you just proved that gravity does exist (which is comparable to asking athiests that God exists), however the probably with gravity is that you can't really explain (nor can any scientist to this date) why it exists or what causes it. So here I have to ask why you're getting mad about this. No one asked anyone to explain why God exists, they just were asked to prove God's existence (or non-existence), which can't be done because He is an intangible.

Creationism is a theory, because it is an attempt to explain how the world came to be. Just because it has its roots in a religion does not automatically make it useless. such strong absolutes immeadiety lowered my expectations for this site. By denying that creationism is not a viable theory, it is essentially trying to set up its preffered reason as the only one available. it does mention other theries, but as this site is set up to discuss the "creation/evolution controversy" It can be assumed that most of the people visiting the site will be interested in one of the two alternative, intstead of one of the others offered. if this were not the case, then the site would be a discussion of all popular origins. Just because something is religious does not mean that it is automatically false. surely you do not believe that.

Yes, it's a theory in the loosest possible sense of the term.. But for it to be a "scientific theory", it must be testable. Design an experiment that tests for spontaneous creation of matter from an agency functioning outside of the known physical realm. Or indeed, come up with an experiment that can be used to verify any part of Creation Theory. Until you can devise a repeatable, independently verifiable experiment to test your hypothesis, it's not scientific.

Evolution has not been proven as the true way that we we evolved
Evolution is the only way that anything can evolve pal...fix your wording.

and why should we call it gravity? also, there could be somewhere in the universe where gravity (as we call it) is different, or non-existant, yet all conditions that would allow it are present. since we do not know everything about every part of the universe, we do not know for a fact that Gravity is a Law of the universe.

Argument from ignorance. Show such a place exists.

I do not dispute Microevolution, in fact I believe that it is true. Look at how many different species of dogs there are, many of them man-made, through selective breeding.

Those are breeds, not species.

Micro evolution has been observed. macro evolution has not, I'll go in to this further down.

And get your science wrong. Wait for it...

Evolution a fact? that sight you sent has several issues:

1: it is a site that promotes evolution and does not allow for a true alternative

Ad hominem. Who cares? Creationism isn't a scientific alternative to evolution, and it does address the common creationist arguments. Including that one.

Creationism is a theory, because it is an attempt to explain how the world came to be. Just because it has its roots in a religion does not automatically make it useless. such strong absolutes immeadiety lowered my expectations for this site.

It is useless, because it can't predict anything. Unless you're suddenly claiming to understand an inscrutable God's mechanisms.

2: its "evidence" for marcoevolution show variation in a species, not a new species all together. variation is still microevolution.

Do you even know what a 'species' is?

How is a new sub-species a different species entirely. there has still been no confirmed evidence to show that A turns into B, only that A can become A1 or A2. there may be some differences, but it is the same species. One could argue using this remark that skin color is a result of Speciation because people with darker skin color were originally congregated in an area where the sunlight was more intense.

Garbage. People with darker skin can still interbreed with people with lighter skin and produce fertile offspring, therefore they are the same species. Again, do you know what 'species' actually means?

also, this site still states that evolution is not based on observed evidence alone, but rather on things from the fossil record. the fossil record is constantly changing, also if someone is looking to the fossil record to prove something, they will interpret all of the date they recieve in favor of that belief (IE they see a tooth, they think it is a missing link, turns out to be a pig) these things can be later disproven.

The fossil record is not 'constantly changing,' and since nobody really took Nebraska Man seriously in the first place, your 'pig's tooth' point is just sophistry.

who is to say that the new evidence will not turn out to be disproven in the future?

I've already addressed this argument once, and it's another 'from ignorance' fallacy.

New things are discovered about Evolution every day. the fact that the current evidence is currently true does not automatically make it a fact.

Makes it a hell of a lot better than creationism, a theory supported by a old book and a big stack of bad science.

Macro evolution will be very hard to obeserve (IE one SPECIES forming into a fundementally different SPECIES, such as a aomeba (sp) becomeing a multicelled organism with different traits from its predecessor, let alone an aomeba evolving into some form of intelligent life.)

Except that's not what we need to observe to prove macroevolution, merely a species diverging to the point where the two forms can no longer produce fertile offspring. That's the definition of a species, you see.

the time periods proposed my evolution make this observation very hard to do, should humanity even survive that long. Also, the theory is a logic loop when it comes to the issue of new life being formed today, since conditions today are different than the onces that existed billions of years ago. Would not different conditions equate different forms of life? or are they saying that only carbon based life as we know it is the only one possible?

Go find a chemistry textbook and look at covalent bonds off anything other than carbon. You tell me.

I will post some more when i have time, But I have to get some sleep now. Evolution is still a theory, it is not a fact, and it is very unlikely that it will be because:

No, it's a fact and theory, for reasons already outlined. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

1-there is a very small chance we will ever observe true macroevolution, even if it exists

Explain why, given that macroevolution is a lot of microevolution, there would be any obstacle to it's occurance. Also explain why since we have observed speciation there is a 'very small chance' of observing it.

2-fossils need specific conditions to form, so finding the missing links will be pretty hard to find.

There's more than enough transitional fossils, actually. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

In other words, gravity is a fact but the theory of how it works is only a theory, which is what I said in the first place.

Gravity is considered a very reliable theory, backed up by thousands of years of empirical evidence. That does not make it a fact in the scientifical sense.

About the question if there is only theism or atheism, i stand by my word that this is bs. Getting into ethymology doesnt help when the modern day dictionary definitions are quite clear. But lets try to look at it by an example that doesnt evoke as many emotions as God.

Do you believe the Steelers can snatch the Superbowl within the next three seasons?
A. Yes, i do.
B. No way, the Steelers suck.

C. Huh?
D. What Steelers?
E. Superbowl? Thats football, right?
F. Sorry, i dont speak english!?
G. To be honest, i dont care about bloody football.
H. Can be, lets see another season before i decide on that.
I. Whatever, im in a hurry, so please leave me alone.

ad infinitum

So, i ask once again: Is there only black and white?

Gravity is considered a very reliable theory, backed up by thousands of years of empirical evidence. That does not make it a fact in the scientifical sense.

You're confusing fact and theory. The fact of gravity is that when you hold an object in the air and release it, a force [gravity] will act on it and cause it to fall. The theory of gravity attempts to define what this force is and work out rules to predict it. Thus, it is both theory and fact.

As another example, Newton knew the apple had fallen [fact], he then asked why the apple had fallen [theory].

*sigh*

i've supplied you with the refutation, BAAWA,
If you had, then the dictionary wouldn't support my position. But it does.

but if it makes you feel good to tell other people what they believe
No, that's what you're doing.

Agreed.

BAAWA:

You are trying to cover a very broad spectrum of beliefs with one term.
Nope. Just a lack of belief.

Maybe you would be interested in hearing this: Do you know that Christians were once called Atheists by the Romans because they did not believe in the Roman gods and Caeser?
I knew that, actually.

How does that go into your origins of the word?
It doesn't. Thanks for playing.

Did you have a point?

*sigh* Evolution is a Theory. no self respecting scientist will say that it is a fact.
Except that they do, and a theory isn't a guess.

it is a proposed explaination, supported by "evidence" as to how life came to be.
That's abiogenesis, not evolution.

Over time, the evolutionary theory has changed as its evidence was refuted, redefined, or new "evidence" was found. Some of the old evidence:
Reliability of carbon dating (Time magazine ran an article about a living shellfish dated at 25k years)
Carbon dating was never supposed to be used on shellfish. Bad example.

Nebraska/Pitdown man: proposed missing links that turned out to be something else.
Shown by scientists to be frauds. Bad example.

I am not trying to tell you that evolution is false, merely that it has not been proven,
But it has been.

so it cannot be truly seen as evidence against the existance of a supreme being. It is an opinion, that if true, would, but as I said, it is still a theory.
Gravity is a theory.

Religion came around (if we follow an atheistic POV) because, as you said, people needed a reason to explain things. However, it has also been shown that when people meditate, be this catholic monks or Buddist monks, the part of thier mind that seperates reality from unreality becomes much thinner, allowing for "spiritual" experiences. this "hardwiring" for the supernatural (something beyound the natural) would naturally lead to the belief in some higher power. If you follow a theist POV, all of this remains the same, however there was a time when the supreme being answered back to the questions. from that contact, all forms of belief have sprung. Religion has been used to explain a lot of things, some of which it was not needed to explain. However, there are some instances yet today (like the creation/evolution of life, life after death, etc) where it still offers explainations that have yet to be totally refuted.
They aren't explanations; they are rationalizations. Learn the difference.

No, that's what you're doing.
Lol, NUH-UH, you are!

You sound very silly.

Look, I can go over this all day, and hell I'd like to if it weren't for the fact that I just did this yesterday. When you drop the object, you do not see gavity. You see motion (Fact), which must be cause by a force (Fact). That force is Gavity (Theory). Why is it theory? Cause there's no direct evidence, just indiret evidence of it. I would challenge anyone to show me 'Gravity', pure gravity, direct, irrefutable gravity.
Gravity is defined as the warpage of spacetime around matter, which has been shown.

our cariovascular system has been observed.
etc
Macroevolution (IE one species begetting another) has not been observed.
Yes, it has. And links to where you can find the info have been provided for you.

I know that this topic is killed to death every week, But I came up with this idea while reading some of the other posts, and I felt that it merited its own post.

In browsing and posting on numerous boards where religious debates are a common theme, I have come across one very common feature. Nine times out of ten, the starter of a thread asking about Christianity is an Atheist, looking to insult someone’s beliefs. Their arguments always follow one of several patterns:

-If God is all knowing and all powerful, how can he allow pain and suffering in the world?

-If God Created the universe, who created God?

-If God created everything, why did he create organs that have no purpose to modern man?

These questions all have one thing in common, they are questions of confusion on the part of mankind rather than reasons for/against God’s existence. It is a rare event that any atheist will ever state why they believe without taking a dig at Christianity as part of his platform.

So I pose to you a challenge:

Without using any religious Crutch (ie, you cannot say I am an atheist because the concept of God is stupid..) explain using your ever present logic and scientific fact why there is no creator. This means: No questions of morality, or the nature of God himself. You should only use “secular” reasoning. If atheism is indeed correct, you should not need to rely on the beliefs of others to back up your claims. Can you do it? Can you explain to us why you are an atheist without referring to God specifically?

Some may say that this is an unfair question, so please, allow me to clarify. I do not mean that you cannot mention god, only that you cannot use your opinion on divine morals to disprove Him. Many of you claim that Christianity has no logic to it, so use logic to define your beliefs. Use hard evidence that is hard to refute, instead of questions of morals which vary from person to person. Use science over religion, basically what you are always requesting that Christians do in the threads that your peers start.

Do not turn this into a Christianity bashing thread, in fact no one mention Christianity at all (sans this post, because I have to define the terms of the question). In the responses of believers, I do not want to hear any of the reasoning that I have just asked the atheist to avoid. If I am asking them to hold to this standard, I should only expect that we (Christians) should be held to the same standard. Do not attack atheism in this thread, it is a belief system that many people on this board agree with and attacking something someone hold dear will never make them sympathetic to your beliefs. Use logic, not bible verses if you want to argue a point that they bring up. This is not a thread about Christianity, so do not make it one. This is a thread about science and reason, so keep both sides of the argument to this standard.

Oh, and since evolution will invariably be mentioned, I might as well state this as to avoid later question. Since many Christians believe in Creationism, their first reaction on how to refute a post about evolution will be with intelligent design. I ask you to avoid this. If an atheist posts a missing link, try to show why it is not a missing link instead of saying why intelligent design is superior. For those of you who want to look more into the scientific side of creationism, I suggest www.wasdarwinright.org, www.icr.org (or it possibly could be .com) and www.answersingenesis.org . They may help you discuss some of the issues raised on a “logic” level.

As I said, please keep religion out of this thread. I am requesting logic and scientific that atheism is correct, I am not asking you to tell me why Theism is wrong.

If there are Mods that will haunt this thread, I would ask for your help to insure that religion stays out of the thread for as long as possible. Thank you.

simple... the duck billed platypus

simple... the duck billed platypus

You're an atheist because 'the duck billed platypus?'

Yes: correct thinking.

Unless, of course, you can show me a middle between having and lacking. Think you can do that?

Well, you don't seem to have paid much attention to anybody else's perfectly valid arguments for classifying people as agnostics. So, this is probably pointless. Never mind.

A "pure" theist, as I understand it, would be one who has total blind and unquestioning faith in their particular system of beliefs. Whereas an atheist, in the strictest sense, would refuse to believe in anything beyond the physical realm.

Do I have to point out how many people don't fit into either category?

Edit: Wait, why am I getting so worked up on this tangent? It doesn't make a blind bit of difference either way if one person refuses to believe in agnostics. It's just funny. Right, I'm off to do something useful.

By the way, on the hole gravity thing...

You can prove that gravity exists and is real. Drop something, which way does it go? Grab it again and drop it again, does it go the same way? Drop it millions of times and see if it ever goes in a different direction. There, you just proved that gravity does exist (which is comparable to asking athiests that God exists), however the probably with gravity is that you can't really explain (nor can any scientist to this date) why it exists or what causes it. So here I have to ask why you're getting mad about this. No one asked anyone to explain why God exists, they just were asked to prove God's existence (or non-existence), which can't be done because He is an intangible.
I believe Einstein proved it, but with a really wacky theory that doesn't really make sense unless you have in-depth knowledge on the subject.

I leave for one minute and you people go crazy with the physics. *sigh*
I'm glad to see that at least Jester III up there sees my point on the difference of fact and theory.

BAAWA - Nice try to to define gravity as the warpage of spacetime, but you're wrong. Remember the entire idea of warping spacetime comes from Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Yes, there is strong evidence for this theory, much better evidence than what there was for Newton's theory. But it's still theory. Yeah, they showed their predictions that starlight is "warped" by the mass of the Sun, but the room for error still exists. Something else could be going on. Nice shot, try agian next time.

Now on to Opal Isle - Drop something over and over, and that proves gravity? I'm sorry I don't see it. I don't hear it. I don't feel it. All you've proved is that when released there is motion, there is a phenomon taking place, there is a force acting on the body. There's no direct evidence of what that force is. On a side note, go look at the theories of gravity; it's sorta cool when you look at them cause there's no mention of time. Gravity works cause it explains everything we've ever seen, but you know maybe that millionth the apple will go the other way. You never know...and then we'd have to rework the theory.

GMC - I don't think that we're confusing the fact of gravity and the theory of gravity. Because there is no fact of gravity. What you described as fact was the phenomonon. Something is happening, that's a fact. The Apple moved to the Earth (for the sake of argument), that's a fact. As soon as you apply any thing to how or why it happened, it become theory. As soon as you apply the word gravity you have a theory. You have no evidence that that's really what's going on. But that's the beauty of scientific theories: They don't care if it's the truth or not, so long as it explains observation.

Edit - Miratha - Relativity isn't really all that wacky, it's just not intuitive cause it works on such alien scales. It takes a little getting used to, but it makes sense in the end.

GMC - I don't think that we're confusing the fact of gravity and the theory of gravity. Because there is no fact of gravity. What you described as fact was the phenomonon. Something is happening, that's a fact. The Apple moved to the Earth (for the sake of argument), that's a fact. As soon as you apply any thing to how or why it happened, it become theory. As soon as you apply the word gravity you have a theory. You have no evidence that that's really what's going on. But that's the beauty of scientific theories: They don't care if it's the truth or not, so long as it explains observation.

Nope. You can say 'the apple falls. This is clearly because of gravity, which is what makes things fall,' because you can observe that feathers, cannonballs and cars all fall too, so there must be some outside force making them fall.

You start talking theory when you start trying to describe or predict the force, simply giving it a name isn't theorising at all.

i am an athiest because i require proof and there is none. this lack of proof is most likely explained by their being no god to provide it.

what i dont understand is why y'all end up arguing evoloution time after time using the same arguments over and over.

im not saying that y'all dont make sense but does any one of you think that the points are going to be DIFFERENT this time than they were the last 100 times you have debated it? do you really never tire of making the same points?

the dictionary arugment is even worse. since WHEN is the dictionary the boss of me? it could be that the compilers of the various dictionaries arent master philosophers and theologians. so who cares what they think?

Nope. You can say 'the apple falls. This is clearly because of gravity, which is what makes things fall,' because you can observe that feathers, cannonballs and cars all fall too, so there must be some outside force making them fall.

You start talking theory when you start trying to describe or predict the force, simply giving it a name isn't theorising at all.

ok you can say the apple falls, i'll concede that for the sake of argument. But as soon as you say it's because of gravity because gravity makes things fall, you're compiling a theory as to what's going on. You going beyond the direct observation: something is falling.

ok you can say the apple falls, i'll concede that for the sake of argument. But as soon as you say it's because of gravity because gravity makes things fall, you're compiling a theory as to what's going on. You going beyond the direct observation: something is falling.

Nonsense. Saying 'this object is falling, since it is impossible that this object is falling on it's own there must be a force acting on it' isn't a theory because you can't make any predictions based on it. Calling the force gravity doesn't allow predictions to be made either.

Your entire 'point' is semantics.

Okay, I'm just a layman, but I thought that gravity was supposed to be the least powerful attractive force in the universe, an aspect of electro-magnetism.

Nonsense. Saying 'this object is falling, since it is impossible that this object is falling on it's own there must be a force acting on it' isn't a theory because you can't make any predictions based on it. Calling the force gravity doesn't allow predictions to be made either.

Your entire 'point' is semantics.

Theories don't have to make predictions, just explain observation. You explain the observation by saying there's a force and speculating as to what that force is.

Of course it's semantics, the whole "point", as you put it, is that there is fundamental difference between 'fact' and 'theory' and that calling Evolution 'fact' is misleading because it is very obviously 'theory'. Then we moved on to gravity as a way to show the difference between fact and theory, yet you don't seem capable of seperating the two.

Yes: correct thinking.

Unless, of course, you can show me a middle between having and lacking. Think you can do that?
Well, you don't seem to have paid much attention to anybody else's perfectly valid arguments for classifying people as agnostics.
There are no valid arguments, especially since you haven't shown that there is a middle between having and lacking.

A "pure" theist, as I understand it, would be one who has total blind and unquestioning faith in their particular system of beliefs. Whereas an atheist, in the strictest sense, would refuse to believe in anything beyond the physical realm.
Nope. You're seriously conflating terms here. You're conflating atheism and hard materialism, for starters. Don't do that. I don't know any atheist who denies that there are such things as thoughts and concepts, which is what your "atheist in the strictest sense" is about.

Do I have to point out how many people don't fit into either category?
0.

Show me the middle between having and lacking. When you can, you will have a valid point. Until then, you've got nothing.

Okay, I'm just a layman, but I thought that gravity was supposed to be the least powerful attractive force in the universe, an aspect of electro-magnetism.

Yeah, you're on the right track. Gravity is incredible weak, it's not really had to beat gravity. You're doing it right now sitting in that chair. The repulsion of the electrons in your body and in the chair is easily defeating gravity's pull on you. But the interesting thing about gravity is 1) why is it so weak? and 2) Why is it only attractive, unlike electromagnatism which both attracts and repulses?

. BAAWA - Nice try to to define gravity as the warpage of spacetime, but you're wrong. Remember the entire idea of warping spacetime comes from Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. Yes, there is strong evidence for this theory, much better evidence than what there was for Newton's theory. But it's still theory.
Ummm...no. It was proven back in 1919. Try again when you know what the fuck is going on.

Show me the middle between having and lacking. When you can, you will have a valid point. Until then, you've got nothing.

Well I give you an example of something both having and lacking: Schroddinger's Cat. The cat is both having of and lacking of life at the same time. It requires some understanding of probability and Quantum Mechanics, but I can assure you the cat is in a state of both having and lacking, which in my oppinion seems to inbetween them.

Theories don't have to make predictions, just explain observation. You explain the observation by saying there's a force and speculating as to what that force is.

No, a scientific theory cannot simply be an explanation, otherwise creationism is a scientific theory. Which it, um, isn't.

Of course it's semantics, the whole "point", as you put it, is that there is fundamental difference between 'fact' and 'theory' and that calling Evolution 'fact' is misleading because it is very obviously 'theory'. Then we moved on to gravity as a way to show the difference between fact and theory, yet you don't seem capable of seperating the two.

Or to be more exact, you don't seem to know the correct scientific definition of a 'theory' or a 'fact.'

In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Thusly, both gravity and evolution are facts.

Yeah, you're on the right track. Gravity is incredible weak, it's not really had to beat gravity. You're doing it right now sitting in that chair. The repulsion of the electrons in your body and in the chair is easily defeating gravity's pull on you. But the interesting thing about gravity is 1) why is it so weak?
The counterintuitive answer: because it acts over the longest distances.

and 2) Why is it only attractive, unlike electromagnatism which both attracts and repulses?
Think of a 3-dimensional mass of rubber, and then stick items into that mass of rubber (which, for space, isn't a mass, but you get the picture). The items will dent the rubber, which causes them to come together.

Show me the middle between having and lacking. When you can, you will have a valid point. Until then, you've got nothing.
Well I give you an example of something both having and lacking: Schroddinger's Cat. The cat is both having of and lacking of life at the same time.
No, it's either dead or alive. We just don't know until we open the box and "collapse the probability waveform".

Try again.

Well, Schrodinger's cat will DEFINITELY be dead if you leave it in the box too long. And kinda ripe, too.

Ummm...no. It was proven back in 1919. Try again when you know what the fuck is going on.

Oh hey thanks man, I was you know complementing you on your knowledge, yet i had to correct you cause you were wrong. But hey you want to come back and tell me i don't know what's going on, that's cool. Nice too, when it's pretty damn obvious I do know what's up.

Einstein's General Theory of Relativity was printed in 1916 in Annlen Der Physik. In that theory the man postulated that gravity could be explained by the warping of spacetime in the presence of matter. It's hard to do an experiment to test this prediction because it requires a lot of mass. But they were lucking cause a total Solar Eclipse was coming up in 1919. So Physicsts worked out Einstein's equations to figure out how much starlight would bend around the Sun, as according to the theory it would bend along the warps in spacetime. Then when the eclipse came, they measures the observed positions of the stars and compared them to where the stars should have been without the presence of the Sun. Lo and Behold, the observations matched the predictions. A cheer went up in the scientific community. The Observations lended incredible support to Einstein's theory. A patent clerk from Bern re-invented gravity.

The observations are compatable with the theory, they support. But note: They do not make the theory fact, they only make it good.

Next time how bout you come back when you have your facts straight. You seem like a smart guy, you brough up Einstein of course and I like that. But how bout next time you don't just go jumping down my throat when I tell you you're wrong?

And watch the language, there are children about.

The counterintuitive answer: because it acts over the longest distances.

No it's not counter intuitve. You're way to simple on the issue. When I stick 2 atoms togther they're more likely to repulse that attract. Why they both have mass, they both have gravity. OH that's right electricity is many powers stronger than gravity, that's why the atoms don't fall in on each other.

No, it's either dead or alive. We just don't know until we open the box and "collapse the probability waveform".

Try again.

No actually, the Cat can be thought of as existing in a state of both alive and dead as the probablity of each is equal. You're right though as soon as you open the box the wave collapes, and it's either alive or dead, but in the box it can be considered both.

I spent some time this summer reading 'Worlds in Collision' by Immanuel Velikovsky- interesting stuff. Some of it is pretty out-of-date now, but I found the core of it- catastrophism vs. gradualism- very thought-provoking.

Of course, no-one in academia ever gave Velikovsky any breaks, but that's religious fundamentalism for you. Too bad the establishment won't give the time of day to anyone without strings of letters attached to their names.

No, a scientific theory cannot simply be an explanation, otherwise creationism is a scientific theory. Which it, um, isn't.



Or to be more exact, you don't seem to know the correct scientific definition of a 'theory' or a 'fact.'



Thusly, both gravity and evolution are facts.

Creationism isn't a scientific theory because it doesn't explain all the observations. And of course a theory can be an explanation, only if it explains all the observations. Look at astronomy and you'll see what I mean. It's hard to do experiments with stars, usually observation is all we got.

Yeah, obviously i can't see the correct idea of what's a theory and what's fact. Cause it seems to me that if there's room for other explantion, it's not "FACT", no matter how prophetic the theory.

Oh hey thanks man, I was you know complementing you on your knowledge, yet i had to correct you cause you were wrong.
Except that I wasn't.

Einstein's General Theory of Relativity was printed in 1916 in Annlen Der Physik. In that theory the man postulated that gravity could be explained by the warping of spacetime in the presence of matter. It's hard to do an experiment to test this prediction because it requires a lot of mass. But they were lucking cause a total Solar Eclipse was coming up in 1919. So Physicsts worked out Einstein's equations to figure out how much starlight would bend around the Sun, as according to the theory it would bend along the warps in spacetime. Then when the eclipse came, they measures the observed positions of the stars and compared them to where the stars should have been without the presence of the Sun. Lo and Behold, the observations matched the predictions. A cheer went up in the scientific community. The Observations lended incredible support to Einstein's theory. A patent clerk from Bern re-invented gravity.

The observations are compatable with the theory, they support. But note: They do not make the theory fact, they only make it good.
And all further observations show that it works, especially wrt the Lorentz transformations (which go right along with the warpage idea). Therefore, it's the way it is.

Oh, did I mention gravity waves?

When you've proven me wrong, you can jump for joy. Until then....

And watch the language, there are children about.
Tough. They shouldn't be here.

No actually, the Cat can be thought of as existing in a state of both alive and dead as the probablity of each is equal.
But it is one or the other. We just don't know at that moment, which gives rise to the probabilities. But either way, the cat is one or the other.

You're taking the probabilities and making them into realities at the same time in the absence of the notion of suspending the cat in a though experiment. Can't do that.

Except that I wasn't.


And all further observations show that it works, especially wrt the Lorentz transformations (which go right along with the warpage idea). Therefore, it's the way it is.

Oh, did I mention gravity waves?

When you've proven me wrong, you can jump for joy. Until then....


Tough. They shouldn't be here.

Yeah, all further observation show that the theory is good, not that that is exactly what's going on. Oh yeah the Grav waves? the idea that gravity travels at the speed of light and that it was recently proven to travel at exactly that speed? Yeah, Agian great support for Einstein's theory, and yet not actually proof of what really is going on in the universe. Only for the most part physics doesn't really care it that's exactly how it works, only that the theory does work, and that it works well, which Einstein's does.

But it is one or the other. We just don't know at that moment, which gives rise to the probabilities. But either way, the cat is one or the other.

You're taking the probabilities and making them into realities at the same time in the absence of the notion of suspending the cat in a though experiment. Can't do that.

No, because QM doesn't work that way. The cat can be thought of as both living and dead. It doesn't have to be anything until you observe it. And the theorys show that in fact the doesn't chose either way until the momment you observe it.

Yeah, all further observation show that the theory is good, not that that is exactly what's going on.
The observations support it. Which in this case means hard evidence for.

Oh yeah the Grav waves? the idea that gravity travels at the speed of light and that it was recently proven to travel at exactly that speed? Yeah, Agian great support for Einstein's theory, and yet not actually proof of what really is going on in the universe.
Hard evidence for.

No, because QM doesn't work that way. The cat can be thought of as both living and dead.
No, it cannot. It is either living or dead. The cat you speak of is hypothetical. It's a gedanken cat. It's something used as a tool until we come to the real cat, which of course is either dead or alive.

It doesn't have to be anything until you observe it. And the theorys show that in fact the doesn't chose either way until the momment you observe it.
A little different take on the current Copenhagen.

I've always wondered why peopl;e say its either Creationism or Evolution, why are they mutally exclusive?
I've always thought the Law of our beings was both theories were correct.
God created us and we are to evolve into perfect beings simple lol
Well, its a bigger Law but you get gist, and I don't want to bore you with whole explaination.

The observations support it. Which in this case means hard evidence for.

I don't think you're getting my arguement. Yes hard evidence that supports Einstein. Hard, hard stuff. But at the end of the day, Einstein's theory doesn't necessarily reflect what really is happening. It does a damn good job of explaining observations and makng predictions, but that doesn't make it fact.

I don't think you're getting my arguement. Yes hard evidence that supports Einstein. Hard, hard stuff. But at the end of the day, Einstein's theory doesn't necessarily reflect what really is happening. It does a damn good job of explaining observations and makng predictions, but that doesn't make it fact.
Oh I get what you're saying: conditional support in light of current knowledge and such. But that doesn't change anything.

No, it cannot. It is either living or dead. The cat you speak of is hypothetical. It's a gedanken cat. It's something used as a tool until we come to the real cat, which of course is either dead or alive.

Fine want to change it to Photon Spin? cause it works on the same principle. The photon has to spin one way or another right? But the theories show that the photon doesn't actually choose which way to spin until the moment you look at it.

Oh I get what you're saying: conditional support in light of current knowledge and such. But that doesn't change anything.

what do you mean conditional support in light of current knowledge?

No, it cannot. It is either living or dead. The cat you speak of is hypothetical. It's a gedanken cat. It's something used as a tool until we come to the real cat, which of course is either dead or alive.
Fine want to change it to Photon Spin? cause it works on the same principle.
Not quite. Let's look at why...

The photon has to spin one way or another right? But the theories show that the photon doesn't actually choose which way to spin until the moment you look at it.
Ah, but with Heisenberg, we know that we influence what the photon does by our attempt to observe it due to our methods to attempt to observe it. No such thing happens with the cat when we go to observe it in the box, because the cat in the box in the first place is 1)living 2)conscious 3)has some sort of volition and 4)is a cat and will do what it damn well pleases in the first place.

So it's apples-oranges.