NationStates Jolt Archive

No. Actually I'm correct because I do not have to disprove a negative. A negative has no evidence. The notion of god has no evidence. So I'm correct and i'm not ignorant. So you are wrong.

You see, you did it AGAIN. You automatically assume that you are correct and you do not take in the possibility that you are wrong. You deny that anyone who disagrees with you could possibility be right. That is closer to flaming than anything Prospero has said about you.

You see, you did it AGAIN. You automatically assume that you are correct and you do not take in the possibility that you are wrong. You deny that anyone who disagrees with you could possibility be right. That is closer to flaming than anything Prospero has said about you.

No. Again I'm stating the reality. There is no evidence for god, therefore it is a negative. I do not have to disprove a negative. You keep ranting on but I assume that your beliefs have something to do with fact distortion.

Indeed, let us fight to make sure that the Ancient Egyptian story of world creation through masturbation is taught to our wide-eyed children.Coming [edit: no, no, no, no, no... no pun intended] late to this, and with getting on 200 messages still unread in this thread which may precurse what I say, I distinctly remember being taught this (though perhaps not as explicitly described).

Can't remember now whether it was in R.E. or History that I learnt it, but I got a fairly well-rounded education in both, at least as far as western/near-eastern religions for the former and perhaps clumped towards the middle-ages for the later, which delved into ancient cicilisations and the Edwardian era, but having surprisingly little 'modern history, like WW2 despite a bit of 'mid war' and depression-era social analysis (unless it was in English Literature and upn the back of the study of Of Mice And Men, etc, that we learnt about the Depression and the Dust Bowls and the like that caused itinerants such as Lenny and George to exist).

Anyhow. I imagine (hope) tjhat the conversation has moved on, but I had a point... Erm. Must have been that a well rounded edcation into diverse believes is possible, and yet it was not done in a science lesson and nor did it make me religous, nor areligious because of it.

Indeed, let us fight to make sure that the Ancient Egyptian story of world creation through masturbation is taught to our wide-eyed children.Why not? I think if they boys spent more time 'jerking the trigger' on their own 'pistols', they might be less inclined to pack guns and pull the trigger on those. Besides, you're delusional if you think that kids don't already have most of that figured out by the time they hit grade 3. Better to tech them how their 'equipment' works, and tech them responibility, then to hide it and let them figure it out for themselves, I think.And, as a semi-followup to my other message, let me tell you that the explicit biological side of this premise I actually learnt in biology.

Not in the lesson proper, but from the other boys... No, it was by word of mouth [EDIT: no allusion to that intended, either] but enough to get me started... (I also never used to fart, and it's arguable how much of either of these are due to biological imperative or psychosomatic since I've known it's possible... ;))

(Yes, I was incredibly niaive and actually knew nothing of masturbation. I won't dignify any enquiry as to whether this has taken over my life with an answer... :))

You mean like when the Humians conquered all of Scotland and began the athiest crusades, throwing to the sword and the fire all in Continental Europe who would not renounce their heretical faiths and embrace the truth of Secular Inhumanism?Try replacing the words 'Humians' and 'Scotland'/'Continental Europe' with the words 'atheist ideologues' and ''USSR/China'.While no particular expert myself, I've heard it put more realistically (in my mind, at least) that the 'religion' was specifically communism, rather than generally atheism. Worship of a power, that power being whatever Socialist leader existed of the place and time (Lenin/Stalin/Mao/Castro) , taking the place and usurping the idols and symbolism of the actual (mystical) religions and idols and imagery that pre-existed are were ousted.

But I bet someone elsse has put it better than I.

Once again your folly shows; Science explains how , but it fails to explain why.

Science is not the be all and end all.

Terrible argument. Science explains how and why. Things happen because of natural and physical laws.

Religion on the other hand does not explain why or you tell me, why god created universe. Religion states facts without trying to prove anything. That's it, I have nowhere seen in bible that it would try to explain why things happened as their happened, while scientists always ask why and go deeper. That's progress you know

It seems to me that the arguments here are based around "faith" and not religion per say. Athesim requires as much faith as any religion, as a typical atheist believes, without evidence to support their claim, that "There is no God".

Using science to justify arguments against the existence of a God is not useful and often irrelevant in any case. Einstein was a Deist, was he not?

Many of the arguments here seem to be against the Biblegod. This completely discounts any philosophies that have a higher being as their God, such as Deism, Transcendentalism and Panotheism to name but a few. So while I myslef may concur that the idea of a Biblegod is abhorrent, I do not discount that idea that a God may indeed exsist. I am therefore agnostic.

Also, hello! I have never had such an interesting first post to write in any forum yet, thanks!

If you want to consistently ignore what I said I'm done with you

The only thing you have said about this is that I'm claiming it's "my way or the highway", yet are you not doing the same. Even when Magick Isles asked you, you dodged the question!



You are wrong. First off, atheists do not need evidence to disprove the existence of something that can't even be proven. Like I don't need to provide evidence that the Easter bunny doesn't exists. You reject common logic and the fact that people do not have to disprove negatives.

If you are implying that negatives cannot be disproved, they can. Implying that you don't need to is irrelevent because it is not humanly possible to find evidence, either way, you would be subscribing to the fallacy of untestability:


Definition:

We test a theory by means of its predictions. For example, a theory may predict that light bends under certain conditions, or that a liquid will change colour if sprayed with acid, or that a psychotic person will respond badly to particular stimuli. If the predicted event fails to occur, then this is evidence against the theory.
A thoery cannot be tested when it makes no predictions. It is also untestable when it predicts events which would occur whether or not the theory were true.


The argument from ignorance is "false"? An insult? It's a logical fallacy, end of story. If you choose to be insulted by that, it's your own fault; I did not create the fallacy, nor did I put it into this thread to call you ignorant.

Atheitism-ism...ism....exist because people smart people exist.

Why is that particular ocean salty...um we can't figure it out...so GOD TURNED PEOPLE INTO SALT BLOCKS!

Riiiiight.

Atheism exists because humans think they are the gods, therefore they don't need others.

Atheism exists because humans think they are the gods, therefore they don't need others.

I am an Aetheist..but allso see no diference between man and any other animal..i do not for one moment see the human species with more right to live than say..a llama...the two are the same to me, however i beleive that looking at the power the human race holds, it should protect the other residence of the planet with the same care and atention as one treats ones god freinds.

I am an Aetheist..but allso see no diference between man and any other animal..i do not for one moment see the human species with more right to live than say..a llama...the two are the same to me, however i beleive that looking at the power the human race holds, it should protect the other residence of the planet with the same care and atention as one treats ones god freinds.

Atheism exists because humans think they are the gods, therefore they don't need others, but E Blackadder is an atheist because...?

Atheism exists because humans think they are the gods, therefore they don't need others, but E Blackadder is an atheist because...?

because i do not beleive in any religion and base my veiws on sience and logic

because i do not beleive in any religion and base my veiws on sience and logic
Okay.

Atheism exists because humans think they are the gods, therefore they don't need others, but E Blackadder is an atheist because humans think they are gods and can explain everything with "science" and "logic", despite the fact that "science" is imperfect and "logic" is subjective.

Okay.

Atheism exists because humans think they are the gods, therefore they don't need others, but E Blackadder is an atheist because humans think they are gods and can explain everything with "science" and "logic", despite the fact that "science" is imperfect and "logic" is subjective.

this of course works both ways...there is as usual no proof to declare either side the "winner" we shall only continue in the same tiresome refrain. However your argument is purely based on ones personal defenition of "god" which to me is

being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.


in no way does the human species reflect this defentition

this of course works both ways...there is as usual no proof to declare either side the "winner" we shall only continue in the same tiresome refrain.

Wow, I'm glad to see someone recognises this!

Wow, I'm glad to see someone recognises this!

when one has taken part in so many of these Aetheism vs everyone else threads...it sinks in quite quikly that neither side can prove their own beleif as fact.

because i do not beleive in any religion and base my veiws on sience and logic

If you shorten that to

It exist because I do not believe in any religion.

That would work to. Screw if you have science and logic.

Put it this way if you and a friend (say that friend is Jesus) are getting chased by a lion, you don't have to out run the lion, just out run Jesus. The fact you don't believe in a God defeats there whole arguemnet thus leaving them mawled by there own lion :)

You hit the nail right on the head there, but not quite. This is my point exactly, you and Mesa are trying to look for finite evidence of a trans-finite concept (or being, if you will). This is simply not possible. Ditto for your argument on the soul.
.

That which is trans-finite does not exist (keep reading).


Logical fallacies are not simply limited to the physical world. Where did you get this idea?
.

From the truth that the physical world is the only world. I believe Vetalia summed it up best (which is why you probably chose to ignore him/her)

"In certain types of logic; however, in mathematical logic the lack of proof for even the trivial case means the proposition is untrue until proven in at least one case. Since the "n=1" case of God's existence is unproven, the entire proposition is untrue until that trivial case is established.

That leads to the question of what form of logic is the proper kind for determining the existence of God (a debate in itself)."


By the way I notice that throughout the tread you make numerius arguements from ignorance, that is you hold that since there is no proof of the non-existance of god (which is untrue, as mentioned above) that god exists....


I believe in God, and I thoroughly detest atheism
.


Strange, you justify your belief in god with agnostic arguments, which would support reserving judgement (relativism), yet you believe in god (an absolute). You don't appear to believe your own arguments, they are a smoke-screen (a poor one I might add), in other words, sophistry. How about we hear what you really think....

While I'm on the subject of logical fallacies, you also made an appeal to authority at one point. Just pointing that out....


Er, the common sense to blatantly ignore the conclusion that minds greater than ours have reached?
.


If you meant Descartes, he was disproved long ago.... Or do you mean some of the fellows of the ID movement?


Again, no. The idea of God and the concept of religion are not mutually inclusive. This is not talking in circles, it's logic. Claims of religious people has nothing to do with the existence of God. God's existence does not necessarily mean Moses parted the Red Sea, and vice versa.
.

Under the arguments that you have advocated, the only arguments you could advocate, they are mutually inclusive. All I have done is point that out. You are still repeating possibilities in a circular manner (this time dragging Moses into it). You still avoid answering my question concerning the 9/11 hyjackers as you cannot answer without also destroying your rationel based on infinite possibilities. This is a moot point anyway as you do not seem to believe the what you have said anyway... it has all been sophistry.

when one has taken part in so many of these Aetheism vs everyone else threads...it sinks in quite quickly that neither side can prove their own beleif as fact.

Ugh, yes how true. It's just a shame that there are still individuals from both sides who fail to recognise this.

If you shorten that to

It exist because I do not believe in any religion.

That would work to. Screw if you have science and logic.

Put it this way if you and a friend (say that friend is Jesus) are getting chased by a lion, you don't have to out run the lion, just out run Jesus. The fact you don't believe in a God defeats there whole arguemnet thus leaving them mawled by there own lion :)

firstly i wouldnt be-freind jesus

Einstein was a Deist, was he not?


No, Einstein was an Atheist. He considered religion/god est. as "a lie that is being systematically repeated". His "God does not play dice with the Universe" was a metaphor.

Just correcting that point...

Ugh, yes how true. It's just a shame that there are still individuals from both sides who fail to recognise this.

I have repeatedly pointed out the truth to you, yet you dismiss it with sophist statements (which you do not even believe).

Not that I'm actually trying to convince you (that seemed a lost cause from the start, although it would have been nice). This is partly for my own enjoyment (I argue/debate by hobby) and mainly to present the truth out there for the entire world to see, so others can see us and no longer dismiss/persecute us.

Way to be off-topic, evey1! I can't wait 'til I start a favorite music thread, so you can all discuss welfare! :rolleyes:

Amestria']That which is trans-finite does not exist

Once again, no. We don't have any proof because it is not possible to find proof, if you were to say that this is circular, you would be entirely right! One needs proof to definitively state that God does or does not exist, yet it's not possible to find this proof.



From the truth that the physical world is the only world. I believe Vetalia summed it up best (which is why you probably chose to ignore him/her)

Uh-huh, I ignored him? Allow me to do a "snip"

In certain types of logic

In certain types of logic, yes, the argument from ignorance does not apply. Vetalia admitted this brings up another debate on exactly which system of logic we should apply. However, as I pointed out to Mesa, any conclusion we reach is tentative, because we are making an inductive inference either way, an inference that under-determines the conclusion.

By the way I notice that throughout the tread you make numerius arguements from ignorance, that is you hold that since there is no proof of the non-existance of god that god exists

Numerous? I was stating my personal opinion on the subject, not making a claim of truth.


Strange, you justify your belief in god with agnostic arguments, which would support reserving judgement (relativism), yet you believe in god (an absolute)

Again, the existence of God has nothing to do with relativism, it is an ontological claim.


While I'm on the subject of logical fallacies, you also made an appeal to authority at one point

It would only be an appeal to authority if I claimed that you are definitively wrong because they are right. Which I didn't. By saying that, I was referring to how people appear to be excluding the fact that this debate has been gone over before.



Under the arguments that you have advocated, the only arguments you could advocate, they are mutually inclusive. All I have done is point that out.

Well I must be missing something then, would you please point out to me how claims of God's existence, and claims of religion are mutually inclusive?


You still avoid answering my question concerning the 9/11 hyjackers as you cannot answer without also destroying your rationel based on infinite possibilities.


I answered your question - religious claims and the existence of God are not mutually inclusive. I do not know why you cannot understand how religious claims and God's existence are not mutually inclusive.

Way to be off-topic, evey1! :

Where actually still on topic, the debate and direction has just shifted from the origional post


I can't wait 'til I start a favorite music thread, so you can all discuss welfare! :rolleyes:

That would be funny if that actually happened... :D

Amestria']No, Einstein was an Atheist. He considered religion/god est. as "a lie that is being systematically repeated". His "God does not play dice with the Universe" was a metaphor.

Just correcting that point...

Initially, Einstein did indeed have viewpoints that were atheistic. I however would feel that from reading his later quotations and letters that he became more Deist in later life. Two quotations I would offer are:

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)

The most beautiful and most profound experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the sower of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms - this knowledge, this feeling is at the center of true religiousness.
( Albert Einstein - The Merging of Spirit and Science)

This is essentially Deism, the believe in a "higher being or power" (in the loosest sense of the term). Einstein was also very positive about Religion in any case, often directly praising religions for the development of moral codes in todays societys. As such, I withdraw my use of Einstein in my argument as a biased source!

Amestria']Where actually still on topic, the debate and direction has just shifted from the origional post

It wasn't supposed to!

Amestria']That would be funny if that actually happened... :D

No, it wouldn't.

firstly i wouldnt be-freind jesus
Aww my mexican gardener is very upset by that.

Aww my mexican gardener is very upset by that.


..My gardener is welsh....

Initially, Einstein did indeed have viewpoints that were atheistic. I however would feel that from reading his later quotations and letters that he became more Deist in later life. Two quotations I would offer are:

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)
Well, that would indicate that he is Deist all along.

..My gardener is welsh....
Ya know they say the Virgin Mary was Welsh.

Ya know they say the Virgin Mary was Welsh.
be pretty difficult considering it was meant to have hapened in the mid east....and welsh public transport is terrible

be pretty difficult considering it was meant to have hapened in the mid east....and welsh public transport is terrible

It's just as difficult believing she was a virgin.

It wasn't supposed to!
.

To bad, such things happen


No, it wouldn't.

Well thats your opinon.... I wonder could such a thing happen, favorite music thread to welfare debate, hmmmmm.... :D

Okay.

Atheism exists because humans think they are the gods, therefore they don't need others, but E Blackadder is an atheist because humans think they are gods and can explain everything with "science" and "logic", despite the fact that "science" is imperfect and "logic" is subjective.

But Theism is always informed by holy books or oral history, which are far more imperfect and subjective than science and logic. Theism is placing blind faith in the books and institutions of a religion, while at least science and logic use principles that allow for improvement and development of ideas.

Atheism is no better as there is no justification to really believe that no deity exists. I am an agnostic because I don't think that question can be answered, but I am convinced that all religions are wrong. It's too easy to see where religions have been shaped by human understanding and culture, and the world is full of religions that completely contradict each other.

Okay.

Atheism exists because humans think they are the gods, therefore they don't need others, but E Blackadder is an atheist because humans think they are gods and can explain everything with "science" and "logic", despite the fact that "science" is imperfect and "logic" is subjective.

I have never met an Atheist that thought he/she was 'a god'.

The idea is ridiculous, I'm afraid... since any Atheist can tell you that they don't believe in gods... thus - any Atheist that decided he/she was 'a god' would instantly disappear in a puff of logic.

Atheism exists because not everyone accepts the same explanations for anything.

Prospero:

If you are implying that negatives cannot be disproved, they can. Implying that you don't need to is irrelevent because it is not humanly possible to find evidence, either way, you would be subscribing to the fallacy of untestability:

Negatives are not proven to exist, therefore cannot be disproven. However that doesn't meant they exist. Furthermore, I do not subscribe to any logical fallacies. Only you are.

Dragons Bay:

Atheism exists because humans think they are the gods, therefore they don't need others, but E Blackadder is an atheist because humans think they are gods and can explain everything with "science" and "logic", despite the fact that "science" is imperfect and "logic" is subjective.

This shows why you know next to nothing about atheism. Atheists do not think they are gods. We can explain most things with science and logic, and leave illogical religion out of it. If science and logic are imperfect and subject.. I wonder what religion is?

But Theism is always informed by holy books or oral history, which are far more imperfect and subjective than science and logic. Theism is placing blind faith in the books and institutions of a religion, while at least science and logic use principles that allow for improvement and development of ideas.
Have you studied the books? Have you felt a religion? Have you heard from other people who have also felt the religion? You will realise that it religion, at least Christianity, is very very consistent. God is predictable and establishes order, and therefore is also logic. The only thing about God is that He cannot be proven with the five senses, but why have we limited our exploration of the world to those five limited senses?

Atheism is no better as there is no justification to really believe that no deity exists. I am an agnostic because I don't think that question can be answered, but I am convinced that all religions are wrong. It's too easy to see where religions have been shaped by human understanding and culture, and the world is full of religions that completely contradict each other.


I still have yet to understand what "agnostic" means...if you pretty please? :D

I have never met an Atheist that thought he/she was 'a god'.

The idea is ridiculous, I'm afraid... since any Atheist can tell you that they don't believe in gods... thus - any Atheist that decided he/she was 'a god' would instantly disappear in a puff of logic.

Atheism exists because not everyone accepts the same explanations for anything.

Oh no. You don't have to consciously "think" that you are a god to be a god. When are you absolutely certain that what you're doing is right and will not put whatever it is in the hands of somebody else, you have taken control and you have acted like a god. Ultimately, a "god" is a being that has full control of something, usually your desires and thoughts. So it's not the common concept of "gods" I'm talking about, like having the ability to zap people with lightning (Zeus).

Have you studied the books? Have you felt a religion? Have you heard from other people who have also felt the religion? You will realise that it religion, at least Christianity, is very very consistent. God is predictable and establishes order, and therefore is also logic. The only thing about God is that He cannot be proven with the five senses, but why have we limited our exploration of the world to those five limited senses?

The notion of god is not logic. And this universe is anything but predictable. The fact remains god is not a proven, therefore that is why atheism exists. Christianity consistent? That'll be the day. I can bring up all the biblical contradictions again.

Oh no. You don't have to consciously "think" that you are a god to be a god. When are you absolutely certain that what you're doing is right and will not put whatever it is in the hands of somebody else, you have taken control and you have acted like a god. Ultimately, a "god" is a being that has full control of something, usually your desires and thoughts. So it's not the common concept of "gods" I'm talking about, like having the ability to zap people with lightning (Zeus).
So all of us that are in full controll of our motor vehicles are thinking we are gods?

(and are you saing god has full controll of us ... if so what about free will?)

Oh no. You don't have to consciously "think" that you are a god to be a god. When are you absolutely certain that what you're doing is right and will not put whatever it is in the hands of somebody else, you have taken control and you have acted like a god. Ultimately, a "god" is a being that has full control of something, usually your desires and thoughts. So it's not the common concept of "gods" I'm talking about, like having the ability to zap people with lightning (Zeus).

Isn't that what christians do all the time? Act like gods? Look we as humans do in fact have full control of how we live. That doesn't make us gods.

The notion of god is not logic. And this universe is anything but predictable. The fact remains god is not a proven, therefore that is why atheism exists. Christianity consistent? That'll be the day. I can bring up all the biblical contradictions again.

If the universe was not predictable, why are we so sure that gravity works 100% of the time given the parameters? Why do water always evaporate given the parameters? If the universe wasn't predictable the natural sciences wouldn't have existed. I don't get your point. :confused:

As for the Bible "contradictions", not tonight, thank you. I'm a bit tired. :p

So all of us that are in full controll of our motor vehicles are thinking we are gods?

(and are you saing god has full controll of us ... if so what about free will?)

Yeah, I have to limit the parameters further. A god can only be a god of something biological. Or else it's called "ownership" or "user".

Well, God has full control - but He can also choose to exercise it or not, no? If He wanted, wouldn't all of us be just dummies mindlessly "worshipping" Him? Of course! But why doesn't He do that? Well, it's a question for God.

If the universe was not predictable, why are we so sure that gravity works 100%
We arnt ... it may work 99.99999 percent of the time but a scientist understands that the paramiters may be off and is always looking for differing data

If the universe was not predictable, why are we so sure that gravity works 100% of the time given the parameters? Why do water always evaporate given the parameters? If the universe wasn't predictable the natural sciences wouldn't have existed. I don't get your point. :confused:

As for the Bible "contradictions", not tonight, thank you. I'm a bit tired. :p

The universe is chaotic. First off, gravity doesn't work 100% of the time (that explains why there is little to no gravity on other planets). My point is the universe is chaotic and unpredictable (explains certain catastrophic events like super novas).

Isn't that what christians do all the time? Act like gods? Look we as humans do in fact have full control of how we live. That doesn't make us gods.

No. Christians are supposed to serve other people. I'm sorry if you've had unpleasant experiences with Christians, but I can't do anything about that. Lol.

It does. Because we aren't used to, and will be very reluctant, to give up control of our lives. That's why totalitarianism fails and liberal democracy is gaining popularity.

Yeah, I have to limit the parameters further. A god can only be a god of something biological. Or else it's called "ownership" or "user".

Well, God has full control - but He can also choose to exercise it or not, no? If He wanted, wouldn't all of us be just dummies mindlessly "worshipping" Him? Of course! But why doesn't He do that? Well, it's a question for God.
I can in essence have full controll over my cat ... I also choose not to excercize it

does that make me a god?

Yeah, I have to limit the parameters further. A god can only be a god of something biological. Or else it's called "ownership" or "user".

Well, God has full control - but He can also choose to exercise it or not, no? If He wanted, wouldn't all of us be just dummies mindlessly "worshipping" Him? Of course! But why doesn't He do that? Well, it's a question for God.

Atheists are not gods. And that is the final point I'm making.

Man, you're too religious for me to talk to.

We arnt ... it may work 99.99999 percent of the time but a scientist understands that the paramiters may be off and is always looking for differing data
"given the set of parameters", I said.

Moreover, gravity doesn't "disappear". The gravity is still there, only that another force acts upon it, and therefore the effect of gravity disappears. The force of gravity is still acting upon the object.

No. Christians are supposed to serve other people. I'm sorry if you've had unpleasant experiences with Christians, but I can't do anything about that. Lol.

It does. Because we aren't used to, and will be very reluctant, to give up control of our lives. That's why totalitarianism fails and liberal democracy is gaining popularity.

Atheists serve other people too. Most of my atheist friends are always trying to help other people.

No it doesn't. Again use common logic. Atheists are NOT gods, and they don't raise themselves to that level. I'm not giving up control to my lives to some fallacious religion that can screw me over and tell me I'm going to hell.

I can in essence have full controll over my cat ... I also choose not to excercize it

does that make me a god?

In a way, yes. If you have full control, you have some degree of equal power as to God. You don't have supernatural powers, no. But you are in control.

Negatives are not proven to exist, therefore cannot be disproven

Positive claim: If someone claims that the electromagnetic force exists everywhere in the universe, this is a positive claim.

Negative claim: If someone claims that the electromagnetic force does not exist everywhere in the universe, this is a negative claim.


The positive claim can only be proven by an all-inclusive search of the universe to make sure that there is not some pocket somewhere where the electromagnetic force does not exist. The negative claim, on the other hand, can be proven true by finding just one place where the force does not exist.

Negatives can be proven to exist. As I said.

Atheists are not gods. And that is the final point I'm making.

Man, you're too religious for me to talk to.
Suit yourself.

In a way, yes. If you have full control, you have some degree of equal power as to God. You don't have supernatural powers, no. But you are in control.

That's wrong and fallacious. Just because you have control of yourself does not mean you have power equal to god.

The positive claim can only be proven by an all-inclusive search of the universe to make sure that there is not some pocket somewhere where the electromagnetic force does not exist. The negative claim, on the other hand, can be proven true by finding just one place where the force does not exist.

Negatives can be proven to exist. As I said.

No, again you are invoking logical fallacies to help your weak argument. The negative point: god exists.. cannot be p-roven. Therefore I do not need to disprove it.

Atheists serve other people too. Most of my atheist friends are always trying to help other people.

No it doesn't. Again use common logic. Atheists are NOT gods, and they don't raise themselves to that level. I'm not giving up control to my lives to some fallacious religion that can screw me over and tell me I'm going to hell.

You are still not comprehending what I'm saying. The power for humans to say: "No. I don't believe in that rubbish." is enough to classify us as "gods". Because we are in control of our and others' destinies. God, on the other hand, has far more power and intelligence than that. God - and god. You get it?

That's wrong and fallacious. Just because you have control of yourself does not mean you have power equal to god.

See the difference:

God = the Almighty One, not only with the power to determine destinies but also the power to create and destroy anything and everything at will.

a "god" = one that only has the power to determine destinies.

You are still not comprehending what I'm saying. The power for humans to say: "No. I don't believe in that rubbish." is enough to classify us as "gods". Because we are in control of our and others' destinies. God, on the other hand, has far more power and intelligence than that. God - and god. You get it?

Actually you are not comprehending what I'm saying at all. No it does not make us gods, so please stop abusing that word. I'm sorry but atheists do not raise themselves to gods, we help other people. GOT IT?!!?!??!?? And you keep talking about this god that has far more power and intelligence, prove it.

In a way, yes. If you have full control, you have some degree of equal power as to God. You don't have supernatural powers, no. But you are in control.
So I take on aspects of a god

Just by being a good pet owner ... now you made it out to be a bad thing earlier that atheists did the same thing

Isn't that what christians do all the time? Act like gods? Look we as humans do in fact have full control of how we live. That doesn't make us gods.

About the bible contradictions, you have to bear in mind that the bible was written by humans, and every book if not chapter in some cases different people. Also the ones that distributed the bible were the ones in power at the time, god did not directly write the bible.

Anyway - gotta go to bed now. Enjoyed this a lot! Good night!

Way to be off-topic, evey1! I can't wait 'til I start a favorite music thread, so you can all discuss welfare! :rolleyes:

I wanted to reply to your post yesterday and wow should've done it then. but anyway what I wanted to say was I think it was Jefferson or someone who said "That every atrocity in in history is eventually made even" Or something along those lines...

Did you know that in the Battle of Gettysburg during the Civil War more people died than in WWI? It was something like 44 million. That war retributions for slavery? Possibly...

And so I personally believe that the Israeli's now are seeing the consequences of the violence of the yester-centuries. All those people persecuted and entire civilizations they destryoed. Hitler was only the beginning. And let's not forget the irony of the Christians and Muslims sharing the same religious and real history. Do I personally endorse this violence? No, but these people have set what is happening now in motion thousands of years ago and nothing and no one is going to be able to stop it. The blood in that land of the sand of the Middle East is way to thick. Even their god cannot help them...

what I really don't understand is how someone could actually devote their life to something that doesn't have any reason to exist other than that people want it to. but, hypothetically, we don't have any reason to exist other that that "god" wants us too. religion in general was created for security, and explanation. but if religion creates "god", does "god" still create us? in thousands of years, christianity will simply be an old world pagan relic of a religion, gone the way of shamanism. there aren't very many shaman's in new york. if "god" still exists, will he still be the same "god"? and while we're on the subject, why would "god" need to exist, if they are shaped by the masses like that?

No, again you are invoking logical fallacies to help your weak argument.

What logical fallacy would this be?

The negative point: "god exists" cannot be proven. Therefore I do not need to disprove it.

Is this just a typo, or are you asserting that the negative claim is that "god exists"? I was under the impression that was the positive claim...

On your "negatives" statement, there are two things you need to consider:

A) Disproving negative existence claims can be done with simple counter-factuals, by demonstrating an absurdity of such a claim by pointing out a contradiction.

Example:
1. There are no chickens. (Ax)(~x)
2. Here's a chicken. (Ex)(x)
3. 2 contradicts 1. 1 is false

B) Suggesting you can find finite evidence of a transfinite being is subscribing to the fallacy of untestability.

Any conclusion we may reach is tentative at best, because we can only make inductive inferences, and these inferences under-determine the conclusion.

What about intelligent design theory?

I hope that Wendy Nothcutt doesn't mind me taking her words and using them on NationStates...

This is from The Darwin Awards II book by Wendy Northcutt

'Religious critics of evolution champion creationism--the idea that a literal interpretation of the bible offers a more accurate account of human origins than does Darwininian theory. (skipping 2 paragraphs)

Critics of Darwinism have increasingly hard-pressed to support their objections. Enter Intelligent Design theory, or IDT. This "theory" was not brought to light in a reputable scientific journal, but rather by a self-described "intelligent design think tank" in Washington called The Discovery Institute. They argue that extremely complex systems, such as those with multiple interrelated parts like the lens and retina of an eye, or wings and feathers, could not have arisen spontaneously--and therefore must be the work of a supernaturally powerful designer.

After all, a watch doesn't repair itself.

Hypothesis (n) A attentive explanation for an observation that can be tested by further investigation.

Theory (n) A explanation for a set of facts that has been repeatedly tested, is widely accepted, and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

Irreducible complexity is the cornerstone of IDT. They are referring to complexity too mind-boggling to have been created from infrequent random genetic mutations shaped by the pull of natural selection over billions of years—features that are obviously irreducibly complex and thus cannot have occlude without intelligent intervention.

At what point does one decide that a feature is irreducibly complex, proving that an unimaginably intelligent designer intervened? How do we know that human eyes, for example, are too complex to have evolved but for the intervention of an “intelligent designer”? Scientists can formulate persuasive explanations for the development of the eye, beginning as a light-sensitive patch of cells, but even the best attempts to explain any given complex system cannot disprove IDT.

The problem the idea of irreducible complexity is that it is not testable. And the cornerstone of science is that a hypothesis must be testable in order to determine how well it fits the facts. Because IDT is not testable, it will never achieve acceptance as a scientific theory.

The idea of an intelligent designer is alluring to those who believe in a literal interpretation of theological texts. But IDT cannot compete with the theory of evolution, an explanation for the diversity of life that is supported by extensive probing from the scientific community, and the contents of a vast experimental knowledge base.

Because it is not testable, the latest version of creationism—Intelligent Design Theory—is any thing but.'

So, did i just kill this thread?

Sorry if i did. :confused:

No, don't worry, you didn't kill it. ;)
Go back a few pages, when the arguments concerning ID were raging.

As far as I can tell, IDT is the same old Creationism except that they've learned to talk like scientists. The argument about the eye being too complex to occur in nature is old and was disproven a while ago. The rest of the theory is really vague. They claim that some microorganisms are too complex to have evolved, but don't actually provide any proof of this.

I was reading about this in Time, apparently the new strategy is to emphasise the 'flaws' in evolution by natural selection. What I don't understand is why creationists think that creationism would replace evolutionary theory if it were disproven. It just isn't an alternative scientific theory.

Prospero is now on my block list. The guy has an issue with listening to what I am saying and understanding. He's stretching everything. I don't have anythign else to say to him.

Intelligent Design is just creationism in a veil of "science". Christian fundamentalists have attempted to use it, but really it is fatally flawed like creationism.

Riiiight, I have a problem with understanding that simple denial is not a refutation?...

Once again your folly shows; Science explains how , but it fails to explain why.

Science is not the be all and end all.



whoa whoa whoa....

for the Big Bang example. Scientist try to find how it happened, and by finding how it happens they find the different situations and conditions under which it did happen, leading us to why it happened (because A and B mixed in these ratios... for example).

Before we try to find WHY something happens, we must first determine HOW, WHEN, and WHERE. Then when we can reconstruct and simulate WHAT exactly did happen, we can determine WHY... or what caused it to happen.

it is the logical order of thinking. Science is an ever-evolving study, and though you may not find it very concrete evidence-wise (in any arguement), the purpose of science is to hypothesize, and experiment, and find substantial PROOF. Whereas in religion, there is rarely any tangible or substantial proof, only ancient beliefs and writings that have been passed down for thousands of generations and have been altered at almost each stage.

- Snip -
Irreducable complexity in the Intelligent Design context is flawed because it assumes that irreducable things cannot be created by undivine means. Systemic behaviour between cells (taken to mean any biological structure rather than just single nuclei surrounded by cytoplasm, mitochondria and membrane; arguably, it could be shown to apply to base matter too) can create complex results that are greater than the sum of the parts.

If something within an object is lost when you try to take the thing apart, the object can be therefore said to have irreducable complexity, correct? It's the idea that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Such behaviour, however, can be seen throughout the world. Ants are a pretty good example; there is a systemic nature and behaviour of an ant colony that is lost if you scatter all the ants within it. Animal cells are a good example; one cell by itself doesn't do much, but stick them together and you have tissue! It has an altogether separate sense of feedback than the individual cells within it. And again, stick tissue together and you get organs! Another separate feedback system. Stick organs together and you have an Organism with yet another set of input-output reactions with the world around them. Even Quarks/Baryons/Atoms/Molecules have the same idea behind them. When things congregate, a new layer of emergence is created.

Irreducable Complexity, though irreducable and not explained through dividing its parts, analysing them separately, Can be created by base matter, and is done so on a sub-secondly basis.

So while irreducable complexity certainly exists within the Universe, it is not the Cornerstone for Intelligent Design, and certainly not valid in an ideological argument.

Is this just a typo, or are you asserting that the negative claim is that "god exists"? I was under the impression that was the positive claim...

On your "negatives" statement, there are two things you need to consider:

A) Disproving negative existence claims can be done with simple counter-factuals, by demonstrating an absurdity of such a claim by pointing out a contradiction.

Example:
1. There are no chickens. (Ax)(~x)
2. Here's a chicken. (Ex)(x)
3. 2 contradicts 1. 1 is false

B) Suggesting you can find finite evidence of a transfinite being is subscribing to the fallacy of untestability.

Any conclusion we may reach is tentative at best, because we can only make inductive inferences, and these inferences under-determine the conclusion.

Wait one moment. Let's take a step back here. All right, when you get down to it anything is possible. BUT (and this is a very large but here) we only have reason to believe a very, very small portion of those possibilities. Theories are formed based on evidence. One doesn't just come up with something out of thin air and then seek to test it.

I have never seen any evidence of the supernatural. There is no reliable, recorded evidence of the supernatural. Does this mean the supernatural does not exist? No. But it does mean that we have absolutely no reason to believe it does!


I can't prove that trolls do not exist. However, there is no evidence --- not just a lack of proof here, but no evidence at all -- that they do. We have no reason to consider the possibilty of trolls, just as we have no reason to believe in the existence of a god. This is not a matter of what we can prove.

And it doesn't work the other way! You can't turn it around and say, "There's no reason to believe that God does not exist," because the lack of evidence for a god is in itself is a reason not to consider it!

It's not about keeping an open mind. If one is open to any idea, evidence or no, one cannot function. If evidence presents itself, then yes, you must consider the possibility. But not until then.

Wait one moment. Let's take a step back here. All right, when you get down to it anything is possible. BUT (and this is a very large but here) we only have reason to believe a very, very small portion of those possibilities.


Yes, anything is possible, but reasonable chance is not certainty. It just helps us cope with the limitless possiblity.


I have never seen any evidence of the supernatural. There is no reliable, recorded evidence of the supernatural. Does this mean the supernatural does not exist? No.

Before we go any farther, I have to ask: are you using the term "supernatural" to mean the same as "God"?
For the time being I'll assume you are....

However, there is no evidence --- not just a lack of proof here, but no evidence at all -- that they do. We have no reason to consider the possibilty of trolls, just as we have no reason to believe in the existence of a god. This is not a matter of what we can prove.

A current absence of compelling evidence does not disprove the existence of God. It simply proves a lack of compelling evidence to that effect. Evidence of existence is not existence itself, and confusing the two is a mistake, especially when dealing with trans-finite ontologies.

There will never be compelling evidence for the existence of God as any and all evidence underdetermines God's existence.


And it doesn't work the other way! You can't turn it around and say, "There's no reason to believe that God does not exist," because the lack of evidence for a god is in itself is a reason not to consider it!

But it's not just a lack of evidence, it's logic: any evidence we could find under-determines God's existence, and any logical claim we make, either for or against existence, is an inductive inference.

...the forum seems to have eaten my response. :rolleyes: I'm feeling a bit too feverish to feel like rewriting it just now, but chances are es didn't make much sense in my current state anyway. Consider yourself lucky. (Both that you didn't have to decipher what I wrote and that you don't have to put up with my obstinance until I feel up to being obstinant again. :p)