NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been wondering why there are so few agnostics around - everyone always goes all out atheist, and I just can't seem to make any sense of it.

These people who are atheist and go around yelling "science! science! science!" really need to take a good look at themselves and their argument. If you're an atheist, that means you actively believe that there is no god whatsoever. Now, I'm not going to say there is, nor am I saying that the opposite view is any better, but you guys really don't look any better than the IDers when you pull this crap. How can you possibly be atheist and still call yourself a scientist? What scientific proof do you have that there is no god-like entity which exists whatsoever? What evidence do you have, and what are you basing this belief on? Atheists are pulling this "I know there is no god" crap right out of their asses, just like every single religious nut pulls "I know there is a god" out of theirs. There is no scientific evidence, no proof, no nothing to show either that god does or does not exist, so how can you possibly believe either one and still call yourself a scientist? If you call yourself an atheist, you are being just as close-minded as any conservative wingnut and are not a scientist, period. It is a scientist's job to constantly question everything, to never allow himself to have unfounded beliefs that might bias his theories and experimental results, to never take anything for granted, and to not believe anything until he has been shown irrefutable proof that it is true. Not one person on this planet has been shown irrefutable proof that god does or does not exist and so you cannot claim that either is true. Just take a look at Stephen Hawking: he hypothesized a while back that black holes emitted no radiation whatsoever, but that didn't mean he didn't question that hypothesis - he did question it, and prodded it, and poked at it until he found evidence that his hypothesis was wrong, and when he did, he admitted so. He didn't limit himself by saying "I'm right, nyah nyah," he accepted the possibility that he might have been wrong, and it was because of that that we now know more about black holes than we did before. He realized that he couldn't possibly know whether or not his hypothesis was right until he tested it, and so he did. Right now, we can not test either the hypothesis that god does exist or the hypothesis that he does not, and so until we are able to, there is no way we can possibly know which is the case, and there is no basis whatsoever for either of the two beliefs.

This is also true of other things, as well, for example, questions like "Is there intelligent life elsewhere in the universe?" At this point in time, we do not have anywhere near the amount of information we need to determine the true probabilities of it being out there, so anyone who says they believe x or y is basing that belief on absolutely nothing. We don't know what the probability is of a solar system having a habitable planet is, we don't know what the probability is of earth-like life arising on a given planet is (and determining that is an experiment which could easily take millions of years at the very least.) And we don't even know what other possible types of life there could be. We simply do not have enough pieces of the puzzle to even have a rough idea of what the whole picture is, so anything that anybody says at this point is completely meaningless. You can talk about how many billions of billions of stars there are until you're blue in the face, but unless you know the probability of life arising in a given star system, it is all completely meaningless.

So to put it bluntly, if you want to call yourself a scientist, or be a proponent of science, you must be willing to face the fact that any unproven hypothesis has the potential to be proven wrong and that it is foolish to have unfounded beliefs about anything.

In the words of Socrates, "Wisest is he who knows he knows nothing."

*applause*

I'm an atheist because I have faith that if a god did exist it would leave evidence either on purpose or inadvertantly, and so since there's no evidence I don't beleive gods exist. If a god does exist and it's made sure to leave behind no evidence then it doesn't care about us, so it's as good as no god IMHO.

DCD, I will point out, as many before me have, that lack of evidence is not evidence of lacking.

Furthermore, why the hell does everybody persist in having this idea that if God exists, he must be some physical entity always nosing into our lives? Why are people so arrogant as to believe that the entity which created this universe, if there is one, would give a rat's ass about the inhabitants of a single planet in that immense universe? What gives you the idea that if it exists, this entity did or planned to do anything other than just create the universe in the first place, and possibly set the processes required for life to arise in motion? You may be able to say that because you cannot see any evidence of god's influence on the universe, then that means that your god as you define him doesn't exist, but that doesn't rule out every single other possible definition of god.

I've been wondering why there are so few agnostics around - everyone always goes all out atheist, and I just can't seem to make any sense of it.

These people who are atheist and go around yelling "science! science! science!" really need to take a good look at themselves and their argument. If you're an atheist, that means you actively believe that there is no god whatsoever. Now, I'm not going to say there is, nor am I saying that the opposite view is any better, but you guys really don't look any better than the IDers when you pull this crap. How can you possibly be atheist and still call yourself a scientist? What scientific proof do you have that there is no god-like entity which exists whatsoever? What evidence do you have, and what are you basing this belief on? Atheists are pulling this "I know there is no god" crap right out of their asses, just like every single religious nut pulls "I know there is a god" out of theirs. There is no scientific evidence, no proof, no nothing to show either that god does or does not exist, so how can you possibly believe either one and still call yourself a scientist? If you call yourself an atheist, you are being just as close-minded as any conservative wingnut and are not a scientist, period. It is a scientist's job to constantly question everything, to never allow himself to have unfounded beliefs that might bias his theories and experimental results, to never take anything for granted, and to not believe anything until he has been shown irrefutable proof that it is true. Not one person on this planet has been shown irrefutable proof that god does or does not exist and so you cannot claim that either is true. Just take a look at Stephen Hawking: he hypothesized a while back that black holes emitted no radiation whatsoever, but that didn't mean he didn't question that hypothesis - he did question it, and prodded it, and poked at it until he found evidence that his hypothesis was wrong, and when he did, he admitted so. He didn't limit himself by saying "I'm right, nyah nyah," he accepted the possibility that he might have been wrong, and it was because of that that we now know more about black holes than we did before. He realized that he couldn't possibly know whether or not his hypothesis was right until he tested it, and so he did. Right now, we can not test either the hypothesis that god does exist or the hypothesis that he does not, and so until we are able to, there is no way we can possibly know which is the case, and there is no basis whatsoever for either of the two beliefs.

This is also true of other things, as well, for example, questions like "Is there intelligent life elsewhere in the universe?" At this point in time, we do not have anywhere near the amount of information we need to determine the true probabilities of it being out there, so anyone who says they believe x or y is basing that belief on absolutely nothing. We don't know what the probability is of a solar system having a habitable planet is, we don't know what the probability is of earth-like life arising on a given planet is (and determining that is an experiment which could easily take millions of years at the very least.) And we don't even know what other possible types of life there could be. We simply do not have enough pieces of the puzzle to even have a rough idea of what the whole picture is, so anything that anybody says at this point is completely meaningless. You can talk about how many billions of billions of stars there are until you're blue in the face, but unless you know the probability of life arising in a given star system, it is all completely meaningless.

So to put it bluntly, if you want to call yourself a scientist, or be a proponent of science, you must be willing to face the fact that any unproven hypothesis has the potential to be proven wrong and that it is foolish to have unfounded beliefs about anything.

In the words of Socrates, "Wisest is he who knows he knows nothing."

Agnostics are people with no balls.

I'm an atheist because I have faith
This is exactly the kind of attitude I'm against here and is exactly the reason that people like you are anti-scientific. Having "faith" in something does not make you right. Having irrefutable proof does. You're just as bad as any Christian who says he believes in God because he has "faith."

Agnostics are people with no balls.
So that'd be women, then?
If pushed, I say I'm agnostic, but my real stand on religion is that I don't give a flying fuck one way or the other whether or not god/s exist/s.

DCD, I will point out, as many before me have, that lack of evidence is not evidence of lacking.

Furthermore, why the hell does everybody persist in having this idea that if God exists, he must be some physical entity always nosing into our lives? Why are people so arrogant as to believe that the entity which created this universe, if there is one, would give a rat's ass about the inhabitants of a single planet in that immense universe? What gives you the idea that if it exists, this entity did or planned to do anything other than just create the universe in the first place, and possibly set the processes required for life to arise in motion? You may be able to say that because you cannot see any evidence of god's influence on the universe, then that means that your god as you define him doesn't exist, but that doesn't rule out every single other possible definition of god.
Please notice that I did mention faith in my response.

This is exactly the kind of attitude I'm against here and is exactly the reason that people like you are anti-scientific. Having "faith" in something does not make you right. Having irrefutable proof does. You're just as bad as any Christian who says he believes in God because he has "faith."
Well the attitude I'm against is the attitude that both religion and lack of religion need to be based upon science. What does science have to do with the supernatural anyway?

If you're going to be against something then be against the liars and morons who think science justifies the existance or non-existance of god. Leave those of us who just happen to beleive one way or another alone.

It be clichéd to say that I might or might not be Agnostic, but that I'm not sure how I could tell... ;)

In reality, I'm sort of a weak atheist (no belief in any higher being, rather than having a definite conviction that there is none) combined with weak agnosticism (rather than being determined that there is no provable way of confirming or denying the existence of said being(s) I'm on the "who should care, anyway" side of the argument).

In truth, I don't believe it's a singel spectum fom (strong|weak) theism, across agnosticism, then through (weak|strong) atheism. It's more like an 'A', where one leg is rooted in strong theism, the other in strong atheism, they (don't quite) meet at the apex with the vague "I've never really been indoctrinated in [a]theism but it's how I live my life", and degrees of agnosticism can be represented by a personal datumpoint being dragged off either of the two [a]theistic baselins and into the triangle bounded by the 'agnostic limit'.

Admitedly, that is an explanation more fitted to the character symbolism and maybe a greek capital delta (full triangle, where all points but the lowest vertexes can be 'dropped' into agnostic space) would be better than 'A' (suggests that there's significant, even an entire half, amount of [a]theism, towards the stronger ends, where there's no room for a "but I don't know why I should believe this" flexibility.

Or maybe it's like a box of choclates. Or a bowl of petunias. Or an eggwhisk. I'd be particularly interested in any theory of religious [dis]belief and indifference that can be explained convincingly in the form of an eggwhisk... ;)

Agnostics are people with no balls.

No...Agnostics have one of the most noble missions on Earth; to sow confusion.

"I have no idea! And neither do you!"

No...Agnostics have one of the most noble missions on Earth; to sow confusion.

"I have no idea! And neither do you!"
Have stolen all my replies from my brain and posted them five minutes before me? I swear I'm going to wonder over to II and find you alreayd mvoing my troops onto the battlefeild.

Although I cannot begin to see what might have spawned the writing of this, I tend to agree with you.

I am what you call a "rare" person who actually claims to be agnostic. It is absolutely foolish to think everything is a black/white, right/wrong issue. There are quite a lot of things in this world that are not explainable. Until we find a way to explain them there just isn't a scientific answer. Hence, people find an answer to fill the void. Whatever that might be is their best solution. We can agree with it or find our own. It is a beautiful thing. :)

Just do me a favor and don't try to interview Tom Cruise. He tell you to put your manners back in! hahaha

No...Agnostics have one of the most noble missions on Earth; to sow confusion.

"I have no idea! And neither do you!"
That made me chuckle.

I am an agnostic for multiple reasons. First off, I don't really believe any thing so to say. But, I think that most of the religions, in terms of figures, history and happenings, are full of shit. Again, that's just an idea/opinion of mine. Second off, I do think there might have been some kind of devine force, be it God, Godess, Gods, Divine entity, that started Existance in itself. But, in terms of my views on Religon, I don't really like the idea of other people telling you what is right and reading out of a book about all kinds of miracles and all that good stuff. I think it's just better to have your own ideas about, with lack of any word, God.

I've been wondering why there are so few agnostics around - everyone always goes all out atheist, and I just can't seem to make any sense of it.

These people who are atheist and go around yelling "science! science! science!" really need to take a good look at themselves and their argument. If you're an atheist, that means you actively believe that there is no god whatsoever. Now, I'm not going to say there is, nor am I saying that the opposite view is any better, but you guys really don't look any better than the IDers when you pull this crap. How can you possibly be atheist and still call yourself a scientist?
Because we are taking a scientific standing.
What scientific proof do you have that there is no god-like entity which exists whatsoever? What evidence do you have, and what are you basing this belief on?
Sorry, but it is the other way round. Until there is some evidence for god(s) that stand up to scientific investigation how can you expect us to believe in fairy stories?
Atheists are pulling this "I know there is no god" crap right out of their asses, just like every single religious nut pulls "I know there is a god" out of theirs. There is no scientific evidence, no proof, no nothing to show either that god does or does not exist, so how can you possibly believe either one and still call yourself a scientist?
Because you cannot prove god(s) do not exist. It is up to religion to provide the proof and they can't.
If you call yourself an atheist, you are being just as close-minded as any conservative wingnut and are not a scientist, period. It is a scientist's job to constantly question everything, to never allow himself to have unfounded beliefs that might bias his theories and experimental results, to never take anything for granted, and to not believe anything until he has been shown irrefutable proof that it is true. Not one person on this planet has been shown irrefutable proof that god does or does not exist and so you cannot claim that either is true.
After this length of time, given that there is zero evidence for the need for a god, let alone the existance of one, the atheists have won by default.
Just take a look at Stephen Hawking: he hypothesized a while back that black holes emitted no radiation whatsoever, but that didn't mean he didn't question that hypothesis - he did question it, and prodded it, and poked at it until he found evidence that his hypothesis was wrong, and when he did, he admitted so. He didn't limit himself by saying "I'm right, nyah nyah," he accepted the possibility that he might have been wrong, and it was because of that that we now know more about black holes than we did before. He realized that he couldn't possibly know whether or not his hypothesis was right until he tested it, and so he did. Right now, we can not test either the hypothesis that god does exist or the hypothesis that he does not, and so until we are able to, there is no way we can possibly know which is the case, and there is no basis whatsoever for either of the two beliefs.
In effect he was both right and wrong, and in reality I can see you have misunderstood the science behind black hole evaporation.

This is also true of other things, as well, for example, questions like "Is there intelligent life elsewhere in the universe?" At this point in time, we do not have anywhere near the amount of information we need to determine the true probabilities of it being out there, so anyone who says they believe x or y is basing that belief on absolutely nothing. We don't know what the probability is of a solar system having a habitable planet is, we don't know what the probability is of earth-like life arising on a given planet is (and determining that is an experiment which could easily take millions of years at the very least.) And we don't even know what other possible types of life there could be. We simply do not have enough pieces of the puzzle to even have a rough idea of what the whole picture is, so anything that anybody says at this point is completely meaningless. You can talk about how many billions of billions of stars there are until you're blue in the face, but unless you know the probability of life arising in a given star system, it is all completely meaningless.
Hehehehehe, I'm getting the real impression that you understand sweet FA about science.
So to put it bluntly, if you want to call yourself a scientist, or be a proponent of science, you must be willing to face the fact that any unproven hypothesis has the potential to be proven wrong and that it is foolish to have unfounded beliefs about anything.
Every scientific theory is based on facts. Find some facts about a god and science will investigate.
In the words of Socrates, "Wisest is he who knows he knows nothing."
And wiser still is he who does not rely on faith.

DCD, I will point out, as many before me have, that lack of evidence is not evidence of lacking.
Lack of ANY evidence, not one single jot of evidence after all this time (15 billion years) is very telling.

Furthermore, why the hell does everybody persist in having this idea that if God exists, he must be some physical entity always nosing into our lives? Why are people so arrogant as to believe that the entity which created this universe, if there is one, would give a rat's ass about the inhabitants of a single planet in that immense universe? What gives you the idea that if it exists, this entity did or planned to do anything other than just create the universe in the first place, and possibly set the processes required for life to arise in motion? You may be able to say that because you cannot see any evidence of god's influence on the universe, then that means that your god as you define him doesn't exist, but that doesn't rule out every single other possible definition of god.
We have to deal with what religion gives us in their fairy stories.

Agnostics are people with no balls.

Ahhh, but at least we have brains.

By the way, nice post, poster. Especially this:

If you call yourself an atheist, you are being just as close-minded as any conservative wingnut and are not a scientist, period.

That's the point I make pretty much every time I talk to an atheist that hates Bible thumpers. They annoy the hell out of me, too. Until solid proof comes out one way or another, I'll be here on the fence. But I doubt that will ever happen.

Lack of ANY evidence, not one single jot of evidence after all this time (15 billion years) is very telling.

No, not in the fucking least. Not a shred of evidence regarding the existence of atoms was discovered for 15 billion years. That never meant atoms didn't exist.

Lack of evidence is reason enough to assume nonexistance until evidence can be found.

I know that there is no little man standing on my keyboard because there is no evidence whatsoever of him being there. If he were there, there would be something I could see, touch, smell, taste, and hear.

Contrast this to a person who tells me that I am being unscientific for saying that there is no little man standing on my keyboard when we really can only say "it is impossible to know if there is a little man standing on my keyboard", or "I don't know if there is a little man standing on my keyboard".

Yes, I know this analogy isn't a 1:1 correlation. That's why it's an analogy.

Alternately:

When a scientist makes an assertion, he says "This is the way it is." for the sake of convenience. He means "To the best of my knowledge, this is the way it is." Lack of evidence being evidence for lack, as described above, we conclude that "To the best of my knowledge, there is no god", and simplify to "There is no god."

DCD, I will point out, as many before me have, that lack of evidence is not evidence of lacking.

Do you understand the difference between not believing in a god and believing there are no gods?

I'm an agnostic, although I don't believe god exists. I recognize that I merely have a belief, and can not prove it.

There is plenty evidence that there may be a higher power. For one, the idea of the Unmoved Mover (if everything is causality, all events had to come from something that wasn't caused, and thus there had to be some sort of creator) shows that we can't, at the current time, explain things we know have to be true according to the atomic theory. Decarte's famous statement also gives weight to the argument - the idea of consciousness is a huge contradiction to modern science. According to the current major scientific beliefs, my life should just happen as a huge chemical reaction, yet I am aware of myself. Atheism is not scientifically superior.

Me myself, I don't care if there's a God or Heaven. If there is, awesome. If there isn't, I won't be around to complain. It's not gonna change the way I live my life, so there's no reason to have any belief on the existence of God. Whatever helps me live my life better.

Lack of evidence is reason enough to assume nonexistance until evidence can be found.

But not reason enough to assume that said object's nonexistence is fact.

I know that there is no little man standing on my keyboard because there is no evidence whatsoever of him being there. If he were there, there would be something I could see, touch, smell, taste, and hear.

Really? All of these things at once? So if something is odorless, or if something makes a sound that measures below 20 Hz or above 20000 Hz, you know for sure that it doesn't exist?

Contrast this to a person who tells me that I am being unscientific for saying that there is no little man standing on my keyboard when we really can only say "it is impossible to know if there is a little man standing on my keyboard", or "I don't know if there is a little man standing on my keyboard".

Anyway, on to this "little man" concept. The thing is, nobody knows what form a higher power might take, so to assume that it is tangible, or more importantly nearby at all, is a bad way to make an analogy for reality as you perceive it vs. supernatural deities of sorts.

Yes, I know this analogy isn't a 1:1 correlation. That's why it's an analogy.

Normally analogies fit a lot better than this.

Alternately:

When a scientist makes an assertion, he says "This is the way it is." for the sake of convenience. He means "To the best of my knowledge, this is the way it is." Lack of evidence being evidence for lack, as described above, we conclude that "To the best of my knowledge, there is no god", and simplify to "There is no god."

Except that A: some scientific facts aren't meant to be assumed as possible incorrect, and B: atheists don't follow the scientific trend of "to the best of my knowledge," they follow the religious trend of, "this is the way it is, and if you disagree, you're being obstinate and you're wrong."

Because we are taking a scientific standing.
Baseless belief in the idea that god does not exist is not a scientific standing.

Sorry, but it is the other way round. Until there is some evidence for god(s) that stand up to scientific investigation how can you expect us to believe in fairy stories?
Ahem... I don't, I expect you to not believe anything until you have reliable evidence for it. Learn to read.

Because you cannot prove god(s) do not exist. It is up to religion to provide the proof and they can't.

After this length of time, given that there is zero evidence for the need for a god, let alone the existance of one, the atheists have won by default.
Burden of proof arguments don't get you anywhere.

In effect he was both right and wrong, and in reality I can see you have misunderstood the science behind black hole evaporation.
And I can see you missed the entire bloody point of my post by miles. Way to go.[/QUOTE]


Hehehehehe, I'm getting the real impression that you understand sweet FA about science.
Good thing I'm not getting paid to do physics research in the at one of Canada's top universities then. Wait a minute...

Every scientific theory is based on facts. Find some facts about a god and science will investigate.
Find some evidence that god doesn't exist and I'll give it some thought.

And wiser still is he who does not rely on faith.
Hey, you are capable of posting something intelligent!

I'm currently agnosto-atheist that worships the sun a little.(don't ask). I believe there is circumstantial evidence for the possibility of some sort of deity, possibly in the fourth dimension.

Agnostics unite! I too am an Agnostic, formerly a Roman Catholic, until I decided that I wasn't comfortable believing in an entity that I wasn't sure actually existed. As Neo said in The Matrix, "I don't like the idea that I'm not in control of my own destiny." [Or something very similar.] Put another way, "If you do believe in God and he does exist, you're fine. If you do believe in God and he doesn't exist, you'll face some embarrassment at believing in a non-existent entity. If you don't believe in God and he doesn't exist, you'll have the satisfaction of having been proven right. If you don't believe in God and he does exist, you're fucked."

Good thing I'm not getting paid to do physics research in the at one of Canada's top universities then. Wait a minute...
Hahahaha! This made me laugh so much, I'm going to have to take it on faith that you're telling the truth.

Anyway, I'm devoutly agnostic. I don't see the point in being dogmatic about seeing no reason to believe there's a god - when it comes down to it, I'm not going to know. So why pretend I do?

Agnostics unite! I too am an Agnostic, formerly a Roman Catholic, until I decided that I wasn't comfortable believing in an entity that I wasn't sure actually existed. As Neo said in The Matrix, "I don't like the idea that I'm not in control of my own destiny." [Or something very similar.] Put another way, "If you do believe in God and he does exist, you're fine. If you do believe in God and he doesn't exist, you'll face some embarrassment at believing in a non-existent entity. If you don't believe in God and he doesn't exist, you'll have the satisfaction of having been proven right. If you don't believe in God and he does exist, you're fucked."
you know if I am wrong as a Christian and there is no God, when I die then there won't be any reason to be embarassed as there won't be any me. (no God no afterlife.) seems like I have the good end of the deal.... live a short time with people thinking I am an idiot and an eternity after that with God, or live a short time with people thinking I am an idiot and then nothing. I really don't see a downside. ;)

you know if I am wrong as a Christian and there is no God, when I die then there won't be any reason to be embarassed as there won't be any me. (no God no afterlife.) seems like I have the good end of the deal.... live a short time with people thinking I am an idiot and an eternity after that with God, or live a short time with people thinking I am an idiot and then nothing. I really don't see a downside. ;)

What if there is another God that isn't yours and you end up going to hell either way?

Anyway, I'm devoutly agnostic. I don't see the point in being dogmatic about seeing no reason to believe there's a god - when it comes down to it, I'm not going to know. So why pretend I do?

Exactly. :p

you know if I am wrong as a Christian and there is no God, when I die then there won't be any reason to be embarassed as there won't be any me. (no God no afterlife.) seems like I have the good end of the deal.... live a short time with people thinking I am an idiot and an eternity after that with God, or live a short time with people thinking I am an idiot and then nothing. I really don't see a downside. ;)

That's because there isn't one. :p

If there is an afterlife with God, I personally hope He won't look too unfavorably upon us Agnostics. Of course, there could be some sci-fi-esque "afterlife" without God, whereby our souls become forms of light and pure radiation, able to slip between the layers of space-time like air through the fabric of clothing...wouldn't that be nice.

What if there is another God that isn't yours and you end up going to hell either way?
oh didn't think of that. well from what I know of most other religions (the major ones anyway) all the good people go to heaven and most don't even believe in hell, so since I am already striving to live sin free as a Christian I should be okay.

If however some minor unknown religion happens to be the true one and that god doesn't like me then sure I am screwed.....

oh didn't think of that. well from what I know of most other religions (the major ones anyway) all the good people go to heaven and most don't even believe in hell, so since I am already striving to live sin free as a Christian I should be okay.

If however some minor unknown religion happens to be the true one and that god doesn't like me then sure I am screwed.....


Best to go out fighting and hope for Valhalla then. :p

oh didn't think of that. well from what I know of most other religions (the major ones anyway) all the good people go to heaven and most don't even believe in hell, so since I am already striving to live sin free as a Christian I should be okay.

Well, then you should be alright in that regard. :)

If however some minor unknown religion happens to be the true one and that god doesn't like me then sure I am screwed.....

At least you're not going to be alone.

You said:


Atheists are pulling this "I know there is no god" crap right out of their asses, just like every single religious nut pulls "I know there is a god" out of theirs. There is no scientific evidence, no proof, no nothing to show either that god does or does not exist, so how can you possibly believe either one and still call yourself a scientist? ... Not one person on this planet has been shown irrefutable proof that god does or does not exist and so you cannot claim that either is true.

But you also said:


What scientific proof do you have that there is no god-like entity which exists whatsoever? What evidence do you have, and what are you basing this belief on?

Well, I ask you the same questions: what scientific proof do you have that not one person on this planet has been shown irrefutable proof that god does exist? What evidence do you have, and what are you basing this belief on? In your own words, "you are being just as close-minded" as those other groups of people whom you yourself have accused. You, of all people, if you can still claim to call yourself a scientist, should know to constantly question everything and never take anything for granted.

So, just because you are of the opinion that we can not test either the hypothesis that god does exist or the hypothesis that he does not--and therefore can never possibly know which is the case--, that doesn't mean that you're right. In fact, like Stephen Hawking, you should admit the possibility that you are wrong until you have the opportunity test your ideas rather than simply express them.

This is also true of other things, as well, for example, questions like "Is there intelligent life elsewhere in the universe?" At this point in time, you do not possess anywhere near the quantity of information you need to determine whether or not you have the amount of information you need to know the true probabilities of it being out there, so you and anyone else who says that the people who believe x or y is basing that belief on absolutely nothing are in fact the ones who don't know anything. You simply do not have enough pieces of the puzzle to even have a rough idea of what the whole picture is. So anything that you might have to say on these points is completely meaningless. You can talk about scientific proof and testing of hypotheses until you are blue in the face, but unless you are omniscient, anything you have to say is completely meaningless.

"So to put it bluntly," and in your own words, "if you want to call yourself a scientist, or be a proponent of science, you must be willing to face the fact that any unproven hypothesis has the potential to be proven wrong and that it is foolish to have unfounded beliefs about anything."

In the words of New Quezon, "Wisest is He who knows all. Second wisest is he who knows that He-who-knows-all knows all. Third wisest is he who knows that he knows not all."

As for me, I do call myself a scientist. Also, I say that God is the Ultimate Scientist; and although the "scientific method" we follow is pretty handy, it is just a cardboard tube in comparison with the Advanced Active Optics Telescope of God's science. (Don't get carried away: it's just an analogy.)

No, not in the fucking least. Not a shred of evidence regarding the existence of atoms was discovered for 15 billion years. That never meant atoms didn't exist.

The universe proves atoms exist.

SnipWhat is it with people who choose not to read half of my bloody post? I expressly said things like "At this point in time" and "Right now" for a bloody reason. For the last time, learn to read.

I'm an atheist because I have faith

This is exactly the kind of attitude I'm against here and is exactly the reason that people like you are anti-scientific. Having "faith" in something does not make you right. Having irrefutable proof does. You're just as bad as any Christian who says he believes in God because he has "faith."

Define "irrefutable proof." Certainly you don't mean empirical evidence, after all, the senses can be deceived. Also, any theory can be made compatible with any empirical observation by the addition of suitable ad hoc hypotheses. Quine and Duhem advanced this idea, and it is agreed upon by the scientific comunity in general. So, I say again: define "irrefutable proof."

Baseless belief in the idea that god does not exist is not a scientific standing.
A scientific standing is to look at the evidence, nobody has yet been able to come up with any for the existance of a god.


Ahem... I don't, I expect you to not believe anything until you have reliable evidence for it. Learn to read.
Find me some evidence for the existance of a god and I will be happy to read it.


Burden of proof arguments don't get you anywhere.
Yes it does, it get me where I want to be - on the side of science.


And I can see you missed the entire bloody point of my post by miles. Way to go.
I got your idea, but your total failure to understand science means you fail to make your point.


Good thing I'm not getting paid to do physics research in the at one of Canada's top universities then. Wait a minute...
Then you will now admit your statement regarding black holes was factually incorrect.


Find some evidence that god doesn't exist and I'll give it some thought.
It is up to you, and those that believe in fairy stories, to offer proof for the existance of a god.


Hey, you are capable of posting something intelligent!
Well at least I understand science.

Hahahaha! This made me laugh so much, I'm going to have to take it on faith that you're telling the truth.
I doubt he is as he doesn't understand black hole evaporation theory.

I really don't care much for religion and enjoy poking fun at whiny atheists and religious people.

The way I look at it is; there's no proof that a god exists, but the possibility can never be ruled out. Agnosticism therefore seems to me to be the most logical and truthful stance, until someone prooves conclusively that there is or isn't a god (something that's harder for me to imagine than the existence of a god in the first place).

Snip

What is it with people who choose not to read half of my bloody post? I expressly said things like "At this point in time" and "Right now" for a bloody reason. For the last time, learn to read.

First of all, I read your entire, "bloody" post. Several times.
Secondly, your qualifications "At this point in time" and "Right now" have nothing to do with whether or not I read your post.
Further, these same qualifications are still assumptions by you that you have no way of proving: i.e. by saying that something is not possible "[a]t this point in time" or that we don't have what we need to do something else "[r]ight now", you are admitting the future possibility of your claims being wrong, but at the same time have already claimed absolutely that you are not wrong now.

Which I beleive was your whole point about never limiting yourself by saying "I'm right."

Lastly, you haven't even really thought about what I've said, yet, have you?

For fuck's sake, I feel like I'm talking to a three year old with selective hearing and it's really starting to get annoying.

A scientific standing is to look at the evidence, nobody has yet been able to come up with any for the existance of a god.
Exactly why I do not believe in god.

Find me some evidence for the existance of a god and I will be happy to read it.
If you had even the tiniest bit of intelligence you would realize that half of my point is that there is no evidence for the existence of god.

Yes it does, it get me where I want to be - on the side of science.Let me rephrase: The burden of proof argument is not a valid one. If you want to know why, take a philosophy class.

I got your idea, but your total failure to understand science means you fail to make your point.
And exactly what part of my post gives you the idea that I do not understand science? I highly doubt that with a GPA of 4.24 and a full scholarship that I "fail to understand science." You, however, need to learn how to read, as well as basic comprehension skills. That paragraph had nothing at all to do with the physics of black holes, and if you had any bit of sense, you would realize that my point was about Stephen Hawking admitting he was wrong.

Then you will now admit your statement regarding black holes was factually incorrect.
What statement regarding black holes? The only statement that I made about black holes is that Hawking originally hypothesized that they emit no radiation. I then explained that the hypothesis turned out to be false. Learn to read.

It is up to you, and those that believe in fairy stories, to offer proof for the existance of a god.
I have to ask: Are you mentally retarded? Did you not read my post at all? WHEN did I say that I believed in any religion, or that I believed that god existed?

Well at least I understand science.
Good, maybe next you can concentrate on learning to read.

The universe proves atoms exist.

You completely missed my fucking point. By your logic, until we proved that atoms did exist, we knew that they did not. Guess what? We were wrong. How can you not admit that it is just as likely that you are wrong about a higher power as it is likely that you would have been wrong about atoms a thousand years ago? Neither had yet been proven to exist. Evidence had not been found of either. Thus, according to you, atoms did not exist. Period.

If in five hundred years we find out that a higher power does, in fact, exist, it would make just as much sense to say, "The universe proves [insert random deity] exists." That doesn't explain shit. That's just a baseless, inane reply to make for someone who can't think of anything else to say. I'm sure you're much smarter than that, so please do act like it.

A scientific standing is to look at the evidence, nobody has yet been able to come up with any for the existance of a god.

And nobody has been able to come up with any to negate the possibility of the existence of a god, either. Thus, scientifically, neither can be claimed as fact. Atheists go against this.

Find me some evidence for the existance of a god and I will be happy to read it.

Prove that a god does not exist and any agnostic will be happy to read it. That's the point of being an agnostic.

Yes it does, it get me where I want to be - on the side of science.

You're not.

I got your idea, but your total failure to understand science means you fail to make your point.

He's not the one failing to understand science.

Then you will now admit your statement regarding black holes was factually incorrect.

How so?

It is up to you, and those that believe in fairy stories, to offer proof for the existance of a god.

Wrong, it's up to you, who believe that god most definitely does not exist, or the religious, who believe that god most definitely does exist, to prove to us, those that are undecided, one way or another.

Well at least I understand science.

First of all, apparently not. Second of all, that's the best comeback I've ever seen. Ever.

First of all, I read your entire, "bloody" post. Several times.
Secondly, your qualifications "At this point in time" and "Right now" have nothing to do with whether or not I read your post.
Further, these same qualifications are still assumptions by you that you have no way of proving: i.e. by saying that something is not possible "[a]t this point in time" or that we don't have what we need to do something else "[r]ight now", you are admitting the future possibility of your claims being wrong, but at the same time have already claimed absolutely that you are not wrong now.

Which I beleive was your whole point about never limiting yourself by saying "I'm right."

Lastly, you haven't even really thought about what I've said, yet, have you?
And what, exactly is wrong with that? 2000 years ago, the greeks (Democritus, specifically, if I'm not mistaken) hypothesized the existence of the atom, but they had absolutely no evidence to show whether or not it existed, therefore, at that point in time, there was no way to know whether or not the atom existed. Later on, we did find evidence for its existence, and eventually enough that its existence was essentially "proven." People didn't discount the possibility of future discoveries 2000 years ago, but that didn't change the fact that then they had no way of knowing which was true. In the same way, right now there are no facts and no evidence to show either that god exists or that he does not. There may be in the future, but that does not change the fact that right now, there is no way we can know which is the case.

Because you cannot prove god(s) do not exist. It is up to religion to provide the proof and they can't.


If you call yourself an atheist, you are being just as close-minded as any conservative wingnut and are not a scientist, period. It is a scientist's job to constantly question everything, to never allow himself to have unfounded beliefs that might bias his theories and experimental results, to never take anything for granted, and to not believe anything until he has been shown irrefutable proof that it is true. Not one person on this planet has been shown irrefutable proof that god does or does not exist and so you cannot claim that either is true.


After this length of time, given that there is zero evidence for the need for a god, let alone the existance of one, the atheists have won by default.


The whole point that I believe Brockadia was trying to make is that, in Brockadia's humble opinion, NOBODY has ANY proof. Therefore, NOBODY can make any absolute claim to being correct. Even the atheists.
In fact, I think the biggest thing you've missed is that the atheists have the furthest to go to prove their claim, and thusly the least credibility to their claim, by the simple fact that in order to prove God does not exist, you have to demonstrate with sufficient evidence that God does not exist in any cubic nanometer of THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE. The people who have to prove that God exists can stop looking once they find God; the atheists can't stop looking until every single stone (so to speak) has been turned.

Do yourself a favor and think about this before you reply, Brenchley.

Agnosticism is just another name for weak Atheism(does not assert that god doesn't exist, but does not believe that god does). Strong atheism is far more absurd than theism as it claims that a being which has been designed to not make any obervable difference on the world does not exist. Of course they have nothing but their faith to go on as do theists.

I think Agnostics should join up in the same general camp as the Atheists, as we are combating an institutionalized illogical system of belief that in many cases is harmful to society. Of course the illogic presented by strong Atheists is also harmful, as it displays a narrow-minded apporach to philosophical questions, but in most debate it is the theists, not the atheists, who are trying to assert their beliefs(arguably) to the detriment of society and to reasonable culture.

The truth of the whole matter is clearly that noone has a clue, and that people who claim they do only do so out of ignorance, or out of a desire for power.

Im agnostic because I just don't care. People can do and believe whatever they want. I personally do not believe that there is a god, but hey, what do I know right? If I'm wrong, I'll find out when I'm dead. No point in worrying about it now, as I feel like living my life to the fullest. If I spend my time in church, or argueing with people about god, I feel it is a waste of my time.

But thats just me; If someone believes in god, power to them. Just don't force it on me.

And what, exactly is wrong with that? 2000 years ago, the greeks (Democritus, specifically, if I'm not mistaken) hypothesized the existence of the atom, but they had absolutely no evidence to show whether or not it existed, therefore, at that point in time, there was no way to know whether or not the atom existed. Later on, we did find evidence for its existence, and eventually enough that its existence was essentially "proven." People didn't discount the possibility of future discoveries 2000 years ago, but that didn't change the fact that then they had no way of knowing which was true. In the same way, right now there are no facts and no evidence to show either that god exists or that he does not. There may be in the future, but that does not change the fact that right now, there is no way we can know which is the case.

You are obviously intelligent. (I wish I could say the same for Brenchley.) And the fact of the matter is that there is very little wrong with admitting that the future may hold unknown possibilities. In fact, there are so many right things about that point of view.
The only thing that IS wrong with the point of view that the future may hold unknown possibilities is that it assumes that the possibilities spoken of do not already exist.
You say that there are no facts and no evidence to show either that god does exist or that he does not. You say that there is no way we can know which is the case. The fact of the matter is that the facts and evidence may be out there, and simply because you haven't found them yet doesn't mean they don't exist--just as you argue that we can't say absolutely that God doesn't exist simply because we haven't found him yet.
As a side note, the only reason I feel that I can say the atheists are flat out wrong, is that the only evidence they can provide to support their claim is a report of the search of every single cubic nanometer in the entire Universe; and, although I can not make this claim absolutely, I'd bet my life that the atheists haven't finished their search of the Universe yet.

In summary, just because YOU don't have evidence that God exists doesn't mean that someone else doesn't.

I'm not religious for the very reason's the original poster made. I think that any religious belief is a fool's game.

EDIT: Taking any stand on the existence of a higher power that is.

I want to continue with the questions of the original poster and ask if any atheists feel that atheism is falsifiable.

These people who are atheist and go around yelling "science! science! science!" really need to take a good look at themselves and their argument. If you're an atheist, that means you actively believe that there is no god whatsoever. Now, I'm not going to say there is, nor am I saying that the opposite view is any better, but you guys really don't look any better than the IDers when you pull this crap. How can you possibly be atheist and still call yourself a scientist?

Being a scientist does not mean that you use the scientific method in everything. It means that you use the scientific method where it belongs - in science.

A person's own introspective views and beliefs, the things they base upon their person experience, which cannot possibly be empirically measured, are not sceince. Scientists realize this. That doesn't keep us from engaging in thought outside of science. A scientist can, for instance, discuss philosophy, which is not constrained by the scientific method, and still be a scientist.

Atheists are pulling this "I know there is no god" crap right out of their asses, just like every single religious nut pulls "I know there is a god" out of theirs.

How wonderful for you to be such a bigot that you think you can ascribe motive to everything everyone else does.

There is no scientific evidence, no proof, no nothing to show either that god does or does not exist, so how can you possibly believe either one and still call yourself a scientist?

You have seen nothing that is evidence to you that God exists or does not exist. You have experienced nothing that is evidence to you that God exists or does not exist. However, the fact that there is no scientific evidence does not mean that there is no evidence - no reason to believe.

It is a scientist's job to constantly question everything, to never allow himself to have unfounded beliefs that might bias his theories and experimental results, to never take anything for granted, and to not believe anything until he has been shown irrefutable proof that it is true.

Wow, you have no idea what science actually is, do you? In science, nothing can ever be "irrefutable proof" that something is true. The entire point of the scientific method is that everything is falsifiable. It is a scientist's job - and a scientist's method - to question everything which can be logically questioned using the method. The question of the existence or non-existence of God, by definition, logically falls outside that which science can examine. Thus, some other method of examination must be used.

Meanwhile, many people do apply some scientific principles to their reliigon (or lack thereof). Many are constantly questioning, examining and doing away with their biases, being careful never to take anything for granted, etc.

Right now, we can not test either the hypothesis that god does exist or the hypothesis that he does not, and so until we are able to, there is no way we can possibly know which is the case, and there is no basis whatsoever for either of the two beliefs.

It has nothing to do with "right now." It is logically impossible to test for an entity that lies outside the rules of the universe. Thus, some other method of examination must be used if one is to determine whether or not one exists.

So to put it bluntly, if you want to call yourself a scientist, or be a proponent of science, you must be willing to face the fact that any unproven hypothesis has the potential to be proven wrong and that it is foolish to have unfounded beliefs about anything.

It is logically untrue to say that any hypothesis has the potential to be proven wrong. There are limits to the scientific method and on what basis it can be used. It is logically true to say that any scientific hypothesis can be proven wrong - this is the basis of science.

It is also redundant to say "unproven" hypothesis. If we are talking about science, all hypotheses are unproven, and always will be. They may be supported, but will never be proven - as they are always open to be disproven.

It is also rather silly to say, "If you are a scientist, you must apply science to every possible thing about your existence." It is like saying, "If you are a teacher, all you can do in your entire life is teach. You can never learn. You can never dance the jig. You can never be introspective."

Cant proove a negative

It is logically impossible to test for an entity that lies outside the rules of the universe.


THANK YOU!!!!!!!!
Jeez, I wish more people on this board would take the time out to think about this....

You are obviously intelligent. (I wish I could say the same for Brenchley.) And the fact of the matter is that there is very little wrong with admitting that the future may hold unknown possibilities. In fact, there are so many right things about that point of view.
The only thing that IS wrong with the point of view that the future may hold unknown possibilities is that it assumes that the possibilities spoken of do not already exist.
You say that there are no facts and no evidence to show either that god does exist or that he does not. You say that there is no way we can know which is the case. The fact of the matter is that the facts and evidence may be out there, and simply because you haven't found them yet doesn't mean they don't exist--just as you argue that we can't say absolutely that God doesn't exist simply because we haven't found him yet.
As a side note, the only reason I feel that I can say the atheists are flat out wrong, is that the only evidence they can provide to support their claim is a report of the search of every single cubic nanometer in the entire Universe; and, although I can not make this claim absolutely, I'd bet my life that the atheists haven't finished their search of the Universe yet.

In summary, just because YOU don't have evidence that God exists doesn't mean that someone else doesn't.
You are correct, I don't know what evidence every other person on earth has, and therefore I can only truly speak for myself. However, I also believe that if anyone on the planet ever got a hold of any hard evidence for either hypothesis, it wouldn't be long before everyone else found out about it.
Also, I didn't mean to say that the evidence wasn't there. There has always been evidence of the existence of atoms, we just weren't aware of that evidence 2000 years ago.

Also, on searching every cubic nanometer (perhaps that should read every cubic planck length?) of the unverse for God, that isn't quite as important as analyzing every bit of information from each of those tiny areas. There are many processes we don't yet understand (ie. the whole dark matter thing) and many theories still to work out on the laws which govern matter and energy in the universe. There may be room for god in theories such as quantum mechanics and there might not: that will be up to physicists to determine.

I want to continue with the questions of the original poster and ask if any atheists feel that atheism is falsifiable.


This whole argument is completely insane. Trying to prove that anything does not exist is an exercise in futility, but that does not make atheists any less credible. I will never, in my lifetime, be able to scour the entire ocean to prove once-and-for-all that mermaids don't exist. Does that make a belief in the existence of mermaids any less ridiculous than it is? Of course not. Yet somehow when this same logic is applied to God people just don't seem to get it.

I've yet to meet an atheist that says point-blank God does not exist. What we atheists do say is that we don't believe God exists.

Wow, you have no idea what science actually is, do you? In science, nothing can ever be "irrefutable proof" that something is true. The entire point of the scientific method is that everything is falsifiable. It is a scientist's job - and a scientist's method - to question everything which can be logically questioned using the method.
Alright, I'm sorry, I used poor wording there. Would you be happier with the words "reliable evidence?"

The question of the existence or non-existence of God, by definition, logically falls outside that which science can examine. Thus, some other method of examination must be used.
It has nothing to do with "right now." It is logically impossible to test for an entity that lies outside the rules of the universe. Thus, some other method of examination must be used if one is to determine whether or not one exists.
How can you claim to know what god, if it exists, is? How can you say that God falls outside of that which science can examine? Maybe one definition of God does, but another may not. It may at some point in the future be possible to find evidence either for or contrary to god's existence. It may be that, as you say, such evidence doesn't exist. At this point in time, however, we don't know, and we have no evidence either way, so we cannot know which hypothesis is true.

This whole argument is completely insane. Trying to prove that anything does not exist is an exercise in futility, but that does not make atheists any less credible. I will never, in my lifetime, be able to scour the entire ocean to prove once-and-for-all that mermaids don't exist. Does that make a belief in the existence of mermaids any less ridiculous than it is? Of course not. Yet somehow when this same logic is applied to God people just don't seem to get it.

I've yet to meet an atheist that says point-blank God does not exist. What we atheists do say is that we don't believe God exists.
If you simply don't believe that god exists, I would call you an agnostic. Others might call you a weak/mild/passive atheist.
If you actively believe that god does not exist, then I would call you atheist. Others might call you strong/active atheist.

I have nothing against passive atheists, it's the active ones I'm concerned about here.

You are correct, I don't know what evidence every other person on earth has, and therefore I can only truly speak for myself. However, I also believe that if anyone on the planet ever got a hold of any hard evidence for either hypothesis, it wouldn't be long before everyone else found out about it.
Also, I didn't mean to say that the evidence wasn't there. There has always been evidence of the existence of atoms, we just weren't aware of that evidence 2000 years ago.

Also, on searching every cubic nanometer (perhaps that should read every cubic planck length?) of the unverse for God, that isn't quite as important as analyzing every bit of information from each of those tiny areas. There are many processes we don't yet understand (ie. the whole dark matter thing) and many theories still to work out on the laws which govern matter and energy in the universe. There may be room for god in theories such as quantum mechanics and there might not: that will be up to physicists to determine.

Though I may not agree with the details, I do tend to agree with your line of thinking. As I said before, you must be an intelligent person.
Two parting points: 1) When you said, "I also believe that if anyone on the planet ever got a hold of any hard evidence for either hypothesis, it wouldn't be long before everyone else found out about it," I tend to agree with you: anyone who has evidence must be trying to share it. I believe the only point that we would disagree on is how to define evidence. I still maintain that scientific evidence is not the only evidence of proof in existence. Perhaps you would not agree with that. Maybe you never will. And I respect that. 2) Perhaps rather than cubic nanometer or cubic planck length we should just say point. I mean as long as we're talking about the infinite, we might as well make it doubly so, right?

Alright, I'm sorry, I used poor wording there. Would you be happier with the words "reliable evidence?"

Certainly, although, if you mean "empirical evidence" when you say "reliable evidence", then you are still limiting yourself to the realm of science. Like I said, everything a scientist does is not science. A scientist is still a human being. We still feel things, we still love, and we still examine our own experiences and feelings in ways other than science.

How can you claim to know what god, if it exists, is?

The definition of the word necessitates an aspect of the supernatural. If something were found within nature that were "imitating" God, as it were, it would not meet the definition of god, as it would be natural.

How can you say that God falls outside of that which science can examine? Maybe one definition of God does, but another may not.

If your "God" is bound by the rules of the universe, then it is simply a natural entity, like all of us, and is not "God".

It may at some point in the future be possible to find evidence either for or contrary to god's existence. It may be that, as you say, such evidence doesn't exist. At this point in time, however, we don't know, and we have no evidence either way, so we cannot know which hypothesis is true.

I'm not saying that evidence for or contrary to god's existence doesn't exist. I am saying that empirical evidence doesn't exist, as God is impossible to test for using the scientific method.

If you are going to claim to be a scientist (I don't know if you are doing so or not), then you are going to have to read a bit about the scientific method, and the logic it uses. Science is intentionally limited. There isn't much (at least that we know of) outside the realm of science, but some things certainly are. A scientist must know what the limitations of science are.

Meanwhile, you are correct in saying that we cannot know, with 100% certainty, that God exists or does not exist. In truth, we can't know anything with that type of certainity. What we do know is what experiences we have had in our own lives, and the conclusions that those experiences tend to lead us to.

*snip*
The problem I have with agnotics is it essentially amounts to the statement: "I do not trust myself to come to valid conclusions about reality." I used to be an agnostic until I decided that my mind was capable of solving problems. Now, instead of repeating the above quotation to myself, I say "I trust my ability to solve dilemmas, and the conclusions I come to concerning reality and its nature are valid."

In the words of Socrates, "Wisest is he who knows he knows nothing."
Wait, what? I know a lot of things; anyone who opens their eyes and takes a look around knows things. I've never been terribly impressed with Socrates as a philosopher, and this quote is hardly an exception. What a goddamn putz.

Fuck that.

Alright, I'm sorry, I used poor wording there. Would you be happier with the words "reliable evidence?"



How can you claim to know what god, if it exists, is? How can you say that God falls outside of that which science can examine? Maybe one definition of God does, but another may not. It may at some point in the future be possible to find evidence either for or contrary to god's existence. It may be that, as you say, such evidence doesn't exist. At this point in time, however, we don't know, and we have no evidence either way, so we cannot know which hypothesis is true.

How about this for how someone can say that God falls outside of that which science can examine?
(Courtesy of Wikipedia.org)
"Indeterminacy of theory under empirical testing:
The Quine-Duhem thesis points out that any theory can be made compatible with any empirical observation by the addition of suitable ad hoc hypotheses. This is analogous to the way in which an infinite number of curves can be drawn through any set of data points on a graph.

This thesis was accepted by Karl Popper, leading him to reject naïve falsification in favour of 'survival of the fittest', or most falsifiable, of scientific theories. In Popper's view, any hypothesis that does not make testable predictions is simply not science. Such a hypothesis may be useful or valuable, but it cannot be said to be science. Confirmation holism, developed by W. V. Quine, states that empirical data is not sufficient to make a judgement between theories. A theory can always be made to fit with the available empirical data.

That empirical evidence does not serve to determine between alternate theories does not imply that all theories are of equal value. Rather than pretending to use a universally applicable methodological principle, the scientist is making a personal choice when she chooses some particular theory over another.

One result of this is that specialists in the philosophy of science stress the requirement {here's the important part} that observations made for the purposes of science be restricted to intersubjective objects. That is, science is restricted to those areas where there is general agreement on the nature of the observations involved. It is comparatively easy to agree on observations of physical phenomena, harder for them to agree on observations of social or mental phenomena, and difficult in the extreme to reach agreement on matters of theology or ethics."

As for not being able to know which is true, the existence of God or not, you're still talking science and you're still only talking from your own limited experience and acquired knowledge. Just because you don't know doesn't mean that nobody else does either.

The problem I have with agnotics is it essentially amounts to the statement: "I do not trust myself to come to valid conclusions about reality." I used to be an agnostic until I decided that my mind was capable of solving problems. Now, instead of repeating the above quotation to myself, I say "I trust my ability to solve dilemmas, and the conclusions I come to concerning reality and its nature are valid."


The thing is you can't make a valid conclusion on something you know NOTHING about.

In truth, we can't know anything with that type of certainity. What we do know is what experiences we have had in our own lives, and the conclusions that those experiences tend to lead us to.
I'm not going to argue about the definition of God because I know that that will inevitably lead nowhere, but I couldn't help but pounce on this quote.

There are some things we can know with that type of certainty, following Cartesian logic: I know that I exist, I know that I experience things, and I know what I have experienced. You can continue to expand on that, but you won't get too far. There is very little that we can know with 100% certainty, but such things do exist.

The thing is you can't make a valid conclusion on something you know NOTHING about.
Don't tell me what I know and what I don't, thankyourivethrough. If this is the best you've got, you should quit while you're ahead. If it's not, I guarantee you'll be prying a size 12 boot out of your mouth within 2 more posts anyway. Please don't test my patience with provocative replies like this. I'm more familiar with the contents and capabilities of my own mind than you will ever be. Just because you choose to know nothing about it doesn't mean the rest of us are damned to the same standard of ignorance.

So is everyone, whether they realize it or not. You don't know for sure whether god(s) exists or not. Atheists and theists alike just pretend that they know. As an admitted agnostic, I'm above all of them.

Don't tell me what I know and what I don't, thankyourivethrough. If this is the best you've got, you should quit while you're ahead. If it's not, I guarantee you'll be prying a size 12 boot out of your mouth within 2 more posts anyway. Please don't test my patience with provocative replies like this. I'm more familiar with the contents and capabilities of my own mind than you will ever be. Just because you choose to know nothing about it doesn't mean the rest of us are damned to the same standard of ignorance.

Then please, Melkor, enlighten us. What do you KNOW about the existence of god? What empirical evidence do you have for or against god's existence?

Don't tell me what I know and what I don't, thankyourivethrough. If this is the best you've got, you should quit while you're ahead. If it's not, I guarantee you'll be prying a size 12 boot out of your mouth within 2 more posts anyway. Please don't test my patience with provocative replies like this. I'm more familiar with the contents and capabilities of my own mind than you will ever be. Just because you choose to know nothing about it doesn't mean the rest of us are damned to the same standard of ignorance.
Tell me how you know more about the possiblity of a god then I do? Go ahead, we are all waiting! Please 'enlighten' me!

I've been wondering why there are so few agnostics around - everyone always goes all out atheist, and I just can't seem to make any sense of it.

These people who are atheist and go around yelling "science! science! science!" really need to take a good look at themselves and their argument. If you're an atheist, that means you actively believe that there is no god whatsoever. Now, I'm not going to say there is, nor am I saying that the opposite view is any better, but you guys really don't look any better than the IDers when you pull this crap. How can you possibly be atheist and still call yourself a scientist? What scientific proof do you have that there is no god-like entity which exists whatsoever? What evidence do you have, and what are you basing this belief on? Atheists are pulling this "I know there is no god" crap right out of their asses, just like every single religious nut pulls "I know there is a god" out of theirs. There is no scientific evidence, no proof, no nothing to show either that god does or does not exist, so how can you possibly believe either one and still call yourself a scientist? If you call yourself an atheist, you are being just as close-minded as any conservative wingnut and are not a scientist, period. It is a scientist's job to constantly question everything, to never allow himself to have unfounded beliefs that might bias his theories and experimental results, to never take anything for granted, and to not believe anything until he has been shown irrefutable proof that it is true. Not one person on this planet has been shown irrefutable proof that god does or does not exist and so you cannot claim that either is true. Just take a look at Stephen Hawking: he hypothesized a while back that black holes emitted no radiation whatsoever, but that didn't mean he didn't question that hypothesis - he did question it, and prodded it, and poked at it until he found evidence that his hypothesis was wrong, and when he did, he admitted so. He didn't limit himself by saying "I'm right, nyah nyah," he accepted the possibility that he might have been wrong, and it was because of that that we now know more about black holes than we did before. He realized that he couldn't possibly know whether or not his hypothesis was right until he tested it, and so he did. Right now, we can not test either the hypothesis that god does exist or the hypothesis that he does not, and so until we are able to, there is no way we can possibly know which is the case, and there is no basis whatsoever for either of the two beliefs.

This is also true of other things, as well, for example, questions like "Is there intelligent life elsewhere in the universe?" At this point in time, we do not have anywhere near the amount of information we need to determine the true probabilities of it being out there, so anyone who says they believe x or y is basing that belief on absolutely nothing. We don't know what the probability is of a solar system having a habitable planet is, we don't know what the probability is of earth-like life arising on a given planet is (and determining that is an experiment which could easily take millions of years at the very least.) And we don't even know what other possible types of life there could be. We simply do not have enough pieces of the puzzle to even have a rough idea of what the whole picture is, so anything that anybody says at this point is completely meaningless. You can talk about how many billions of billions of stars there are until you're blue in the face, but unless you know the probability of life arising in a given star system, it is all completely meaningless.

So to put it bluntly, if you want to call yourself a scientist, or be a proponent of science, you must be willing to face the fact that any unproven hypothesis has the potential to be proven wrong and that it is foolish to have unfounded beliefs about anything.

In the words of Socrates, "Wisest is he who knows he knows nothing."

i don't believe that there is a giant invisible unicorn in my garage. is that more or less rational than the person who believes that there is indeed a giant invisible unicorn in my garage?

i'm agnostic, by the way... i just see where the hardcore atheists are coming from.

There are some things we can know with that type of certainty, following Cartesian logic: I know that I exist, I know that I experience things, and I know what I have experienced.

You know that you exist with very near 100% certainty, but not 100%. You could be someone's AI simulation and you're personality is constructing much of what happens to you. You could be a character in someone else's dream. Are these possibilities great? Of course not (at least, not as far as we can tell), but they are conceivable possibilities.

However, you certainly do not know what you have experienced. You know what you think you have experienced, and you can say with a great deal of certainity that you have truly experienced those things. However, human beings have been made to believe they experienced things they didn't. Those people "knew" they had experienced something, but they had actually not experienced it. People on drugs have such experiences, as do people under hypnosis. In a dream, you "know" that you are experiencing something, but you are actually not.

The certainty to which we can say that we "know" what we have experienced is great, but definitely not absolute.

Meanwhile, if you think you know what you have experienced, what makes you able to say that others don't know the same about themselves? Why do you discount their own personal experience as a tool in describing the world around them?

i don't believe that there is a giant invisible unicorn in my garage. is that more or less rational than the person who believes that there is indeed a giant invisible unicorn in my garage?

i'm agnostic, by the way... i just see where the hardcore atheists are coming from.
The thing is, the giant invisible unicorn in your garage didn't alledgedly create the universe.

i don't believe that there is a giant invisible unicorn in my garage. is that more or less rational than the person who believes that there is indeed a giant invisible unicorn in my garage?

That depends. Have either of you actually had some personal experience which would lead you to believe that there is or is not a giant invisible unicorn in your garage?

If neither of you have any experience or evidence that would lead you to believe one or the other, then neither of you would be more or less rational than the other. Now, in this case, we know that unicorns, when discussed, are generally discussed in a fictional sense. We know that unicorns, even in a fictional sense, are generally not giant or invisible. We also know that unicorns, even in fiction, are bound by the rules of the universe and thus would be measurable if they were there. Because of these things, most would be led to the conclusion that there is not a giant invisible unicorn in your garage and, unless further evidence arose, would stick by that conclusion.

Then please, Melkor, enlighten us. What do you KNOW about the existence of god? What empirical evidence do you have for or against god's existence?

First of all, Comp's statement was in direct reference to my knowledge about reality, the God issue wasn't actually addressed at all in either of my posts: to tell you the truth I'm kind of amused that the two of you lept to this conclusion. It tells me a lot. I didn't even say the word God, and I made no stipulations whatsoever on my beliefs on that particular subject. How stupid would you feel right now if I told you I w as a devout Christian?

But, to answer your question, God is not an issue I deem worthy of rational debate. God, or a supernatural creator entity, is beyond the realm of proof. One can no more prove the existence of God than he can prove [using logic, nevermind instruments] that Sirius is a host star to massive colonies of gremlins. Essentially, it boils down to an arbitrary statement, reducing both sides to screaming: "Prove God!" "Disprove God" at each other as you've been kind enough to do to me.

In short, God is an irrelevant issue to me. If you 'feel' his presence, then fine. I don't, so get off my ass.

Dempublicents: You seem to have some trouble understanding some concepts, which I won't hold against you.
You know that you exist with very near 100% certainty, but not 100%. You could be someone's AI simulation and you're personality is constructing much of what happens to you. You could be a character in someone else's dream. Are these possibilities great? Of course not (at least, not as far as we can tell), but they are conceivable possibilities.
And every one of those possibilities involves me existing. Nowhere did I say that I am a human being or that I exist in this universe. I simply stated that I exist.

However, you certainly do not know what you have experienced. You know what you think you have experienced, and you can say with a great deal of certainity that you have truly experienced those things. However, human beings have been made to believe they experienced things they didn't. Those people "knew" they had experienced something, but they had actually not experienced it. People on drugs have such experiences, as do people under hypnosis. In a dream, you "know" that you are experiencing something, but you are actually not.
If I smoke (or whatever people do with) LSD and start hallucinating, and I see a giant purple dragon flying around, I have experienced that. That doesn't mean there was a giant purple flying dragon, it means I experienced the sight of one flying around. There's a HUGE difference between something happening and me experiencing something. I DO know what I experience with 100% certainty, what I do not know with 100% certainty is that those things actually happened or were real.

Meanwhile, if you think you know what you have experienced, what makes you able to say that others don't know the same about themselves? Why do you discount their own personal experience as a tool in describing the world around them?
Umm, when did I do this?

First of all, Comp's statement was in direct reference to my knowledge about reality, the God issue wasn't actually addressed at all in either of my posts: to tell you the truth I'm kind of amused that the two of you lept to this conclusion. It tells me a lot. I didn't even say the word God, and I made no stipulations whatsoever on my beliefs on that particular subject. How stupid would you feel right now if I told you I w as a devout Christian?
The problem I have with agnotics is it essentially amounts to the statement: "I do not trust myself to come to valid conclusions about reality." I used to be an agnostic until I decided that my mind was capable of solving problems. Now, instead of repeating the above quotation to myself, I say "I trust my ability to solve dilemmas, and the conclusions I come to concerning reality and its nature are valid."
...

So is atheism falsifiable?

Yeah? And? Saying I used to be an agnostic does nothing to denote what my views at present are.

How's that boot taste?

I know most of you are going to be tempted right now to argue the reasons for why what I'm about to propose can't possibly be, but when I ignore these comments, understand that it's not because you're right. It's because I'm saying "What if...?" Which means I'm not arguing whether or not it is possible, I'm saying for the sake of arguement let's all pretend for a little while that we agree that it is possible.
OK.
Here goes: What if it were possible to know something absolutely 100%?

And every one of those possibilities involves me existing. Nowhere did I say that I am a human being or that I exist in this universe. I simply stated that I exist.

You are using a different definition of the word "exist" than most people. In fact, most people describe "existence" as being that which is within the universe, as we cannot assume that there is anything outside the universe. *shrug* If existence is "anything that we can conceive of," it becomes a rather pointless word.

Most people would say, for instance, that Harry Potter does not exist. He is a ficitional character in a book. By the logic you have just used, Harry Potter does exist, because we thought of him. Of course, by that logic, God does exist and you cannot say that God does not exist, since God has been thought of and written about.

If I smoke (or whatever people do with) LSD and start hallucinating, and I see a giant purple dragon flying around, I have experienced that. That doesn't mean there was a giant purple flying dragon, it means I experienced the sight of one flying around. There's a HUGE difference between something happening and me experiencing something. I DO know what I experience with 100% certainty, what I do not know with 100% certainty is that those things actually happened or were real.

And now you are using "experience" different from most people. Most people would say that you can only experience something that actually happens. In the case of the giant purple dragon, you didn't experience a giant purple dragon flying around, you experienced a drug-induced hallucination.

Again, if "experience", is "anything which I perceive", then it becomes a pointless word. At that point, anything which can be conceived of can, and has, been experienced.

Umm, when did I do this?

You did this the minute you assumed that no one could possibly examine their personal experiences and come to the rational conclusion that there is a God. If you would like to recant, and say that one can have knowledge based on personal experience, and not empirical evidence, by all means do so.

Here goes: What if it were possible to know something absolutely 100%?

Wouldn't that be wonderful?

First of all, Comp's statement was in direct reference to my knowledge about reality, the God issue wasn't actually addressed at all in either of my posts: to tell you the truth I'm kind of amused that the two of you lept to this conclusion. It tells me a lot. I didn't even say the word God, and I made no stipulations whatsoever on my beliefs on that particular subject. How stupid would you feel right now if I told you I w as a devout Christian?

Reality......REALity..hmm. We are not debating the existince of a can of coke or a car. We are debating something that is we have no evidence for and have no way ~ as of yet to find any evidence of such a thing. We ALL( not just you) have no bases for even a guess. We are essentially stabing in the dark.

Yeah? And? Saying I used to be an agnostic does nothing to denote what my views at present are.

How's that boot taste?
Oh, but it does. It tells me you are not agnostic. Then, compuq in clear reference to agnosticism (This is a thread about agnosticism, after all,) says that you cannot make a conclusion on something you know nothing about, and then you say that he cannot tell you what you do and do not know. You can't just go back and say "Oh, but I wasn't talking about that" when you start losing an argument, and when "that," based on a good deal of precedent, is clearly what you were talking about.

We ALL( not just you) have no bases for even a guess. We are essentially stabing in the dark.

What an arrogant statement! What makes you think that you are personally infallible and thus are aware of what everyone else knows and does not know, what basis everyone else in the world has and does not have?

Reality......REALity..hmm. We are not debating the existince a can of coke or a car. We are debating something that is we have no evidence for and have no way ~ as of yet to find any evidence of such a thing. We ALL( not just you) have no bases for even a guess. We are essentially stabing in the dark.
Read my post again, Lepton: I already said there's no evidence. Once you decide that you're actually going to read and understand my posts rather than rebut them as a matter of pride, give me a call. Until then, you can just keep chewing on that footwear.

Until then, you can just keep chewing on that footwear.

mmmm nike tastes like burning.

What an arrogant statement! What makes you think that you are personally infallible and thus are aware of what everyone else knows and does not know, what basis everyone else in the world has and does not have?
How can you know?

Oh, but it does. It tells me you are not agnostic.
Point.

Then, compuq in clear reference to agnosticism (This is a thread about agnosticism, after all,) says that you cannot make a conclusion on something you know nothing about, and then you say that he cannot tell you what you do and do not know.
Good so far....

You can't just go back and say "Oh, but I wasn't talking about that" when you start losing an argument, and when "that," based on a good deal of precedent, is clearly what you were talking about.
If you can find a debate instructor in the country who will tell you that I'm 'losing this argument,' I will mail you my next paycheck. If you'd take the time to actually address the meat and bones of my argument, and ignore the petty semantics, you would find there is no conceivable evasion to my statements on the subject.

You asked for clarification, and I gave it to you. If you'd like to challenge my clarification, then go ahead. Short of that, what have we got to talk about?

Read my post again, Lepton: I already said there's no evidence. Once you decide that you're actually going to read and understand my posts rather than rebut them as a matter of pride, give me a call. Until then, you can just keep chewing on that footwear.Oh yeah, you SO got me good ^0)

Alright, Dempublicents1, this has already been fairly well established in philosophy, but I'll go through it.

Right now, I am pondering my existence.
In order for me to be able to ponder anything, I must first exist.
Therefore, I exist. Period.
I know I exist, and that is something I know with 100% certainty. I also know that the manner in which I exist is such that I am able to ponder my own existence.

Harry Potter is a fictional character. He is not able to ponder his existence. This alone doesn't mean he doesn't exist, but it also doesn't prove that he does exist. This logic does not extend to Harry Potter. This is because I am proving my existence by the fact that I am thinking, and not the fact that I am being thought of. Harry Potter can be thought of all he wants, but until he thinks for himself, his existence hasn't been proven.

As far as experiences, it is most certainly you who has a definition which differs from that of most people (or at least from that of the majority of philosophers.) If I smoke some LSD and see that purple dragon, the purple dragon is part of what I *experience* as opposed to something which actually happens. I can go into a holodeck and experience a murder-mystery while none of it actually happens. I could be in "The Matrix" and be experiencing my life, while none of it is actually happening. This doesn't change the fact that I am experiencing things, nor does it change what I experience. You really should read up on the definition of experiences.

Point.


Good so far....


If you can find a debate instructor in the country who will tell you that I'm 'losing this argument,' I will mail you my next paycheck. If you'd take the time to actually address the meat and bones of my argument, and ignore the petty semantics, you would find there is no conceivable evasion to my statements on the subject.

You asked for clarification, and I gave it to you. If you'd like to challenge my clarification, then go ahead. Short of that, what have we got to talk about?
I cannot believe I am reading this. Which one of us resorted to petty semantics? I rebutted your argument and you suddenly come up with this "Oh I wasn't arguing about that" when you clearly were. You are beginning to act like a child.
Now, if YOU would stop evading the argument and tell us what the "meat and bones" of yours is - you've changed it enough times already,- then I'll refute it. Until then, I'll keep calling you on your petty attempts to avoid the argument.

Wouldn't that be wonderful?

No. Seriously.
What if it were possible to know something 100%? What if there was a way and it was the only way and if you didn't know something by this way of--shall we call it Knowing? (capitalized, to diferentiate; creative, huh?)--anyway, if you hadn't had this Knowing experience, then anything you knew you couldn't know 100%; but anything you did know from Knowing you would know 100%.
What if only about 1% of the population Knew things? Or less? What if the rest of the world that didn't Know things didn't think it was possible to Know things just because they'd never had the Knowing experience themselves? What if people could only know whether or not God existed through this Knowing experience? Then isn't it possible that people could Know that God exists while the rest of the world didn't agree, and not only didn't agree but didn't even think that it could be possible to Know?

Now, don't get all crazy on me or automatically read spirituality into this. It's still just a hypothetical question; it's still just talking about a form of reliable evidence or proof, just one that theoretically would not be accepted by everyone due to the nature of the observability of this hypothetical evidence.

Well, is it possible?

No. Seriously.
What if it were possible to know something 100%? What if there was a way and it was the only way and if you didn't know something by this way of--shall we call it Knowing? (capitalized, to diferentiate; creative, huh?)--anyway, if you hadn't had this Knowing experience, then anything you knew you couldn't know 100%; but anything you did know from Knowing you would know 100%.
What if only about 1% of the population Knew things? Or less? What if the rest of the world that didn't Know things didn't think it was possible to Know things just because they'd never had the Knowing experience themselves? What if people could only know whether or not God existed through this Knowing experience? Then isn't it possible that people could Know that God exists while the rest of the world didn't agree, and not only didn't agree but didn't even think that it could be possible to Know?

Now, don't get all crazy on me or automatically read spirituality into this. It's still just a hypothetical question; it's still just talking about a form of reliable evidence or proof, just one that theoretically would not be accepted by everyone due to the nature of the observability of this hypothetical evidence.

Well, is it possible?

Again,
I know I exist with 100% certainty. YOU do not know that I exist. Just because I say so does not make it so. You do, however know that YOU exist with 100% certainty. You couldn't be thinking and reading this otherwise.
I also know that I experience things. I exist and I am experiencing things right now.
I also know what I am experiencing. Again, this doesn't mean I know that what I am experiencing is true, it just means I know what it is that I am experiencing.
These three things I know 100%.
There are other things that I think I could know 100%, but because of my limited experience with philosophy, I am not certain that my reasoning for those things is flawless. The first three, however, are fairly well established in philosophy. The first person to do so, I believe, would have been Descartes.

Again,
I know I exist with 100% certainty. YOU do not know that I exist. Just because I say so does not make it so. You do, however know that YOU exist with 100% certainty. You couldn't be thinking and reading this otherwise.
I also know that I experience things. I exist and I am experiencing things right now.
I also know what I am experiencing. Again, this doesn't mean I know that what I am experiencing is true, it just means I know what it is that I am experiencing.
These three things I know 100%.
There are other things that I think I could know 100%, but because of my limited experience with philosophy, I am not certain that my reasoning for those things is flawless. The first three, however, are fairly well established in philosophy. The first person to do so, I believe, would have been Descartes.

Thanks, but you're still just trying to prove your own point instead of actually thinking about what I've said and responding to my question. Try again, if you want. Or not. Your choice.

I cannot believe I am reading this. Which one of us resorted to petty semantics? I rebutted your argument and you suddenly come up with this "Oh I wasn't arguing about that" when you clearly were. You are beginning to act like a child.
You have done precisely nothing to rebut my argument, which appears AGAIN for your conveinence below. I have not seen it quoted or replied to, I have not seen ANY of the concepts I mentioned brought up again in any of your posts since.

Now, if YOU would stop evading the argument and tell us what the "meat and bones" of yours is - you've changed it enough times already,- then I'll refute it. Until then, I'll keep calling you on your petty attempts to avoid the argument.
Give him a hand folks, he's great isn't he? I haven't avoided a god damned thing, pal. My statements are there, in black and white, for anyone to read. You claim that I'm avoiding the issue when all you've chosen to address so far were my "I used to be an agnostic" and "I haven't clarified my position" statements.

But, to answer your question, God is not an issue I deem worthy of rational debate. God, or a supernatural creator entity, is beyond the realm of proof. One can no more prove the existence of God than he can prove [using logic, nevermind instruments] that Sirius is a host star to massive colonies of gremlins. Essentially, it boils down to an arbitrary statement, reducing both sides to screaming: "Prove God!" "Disprove God" at each other as you've been kind enough to do to me.

That was my actual argument in response to your question. As of this writing, you have said nothing to address it. Instead, you chose to attack my [somewhat false] statement that I had not come out and stated my position on the matter. What ensued after that was little more than bickering, and you still failed to answer to any of this, which was, actually the answer to your questions.

[b]Who's acting like the child now?

How can you know?

I am not the one saying that I have personal knowledge of what everyone else does and does not know - that's your bag.

Alright, Dempublicents1, this has already been fairly well established in philosophy, but I'll go through it.

Philosophy is a lot of talking. You said something about hard evidence. Philosophy is not hard evidence. In fact, if you accept philosophy, you cannot reject religion offhand, as religion is part of philosophy, and the two work under the same mechanisms.

Harry Potter is a fictional character. He is not able to ponder his existence.

A person that exists solely within a dream is no less fictional than Harry Potter. They cannot ponder their existence, the dreamer is pondering it - and it seems as if the person is pondering it. Earlier, you stated that, should you be a part of someone else's dream, you would still exist. Thus, your logic extends to all types of fictional characters, be they in a dream or in a book.

No. Seriously.
What if it were possible to know something 100%? What if there was a way and it was the only way and if you didn't know something by this way of--shall we call it Knowing? (capitalized, to diferentiate; creative, huh?)--anyway, if you hadn't had this Knowing experience, then anything you knew you couldn't know 100%; but anything you did know from Knowing you would know 100%.
What if only about 1% of the population Knew things? Or less? What if the rest of the world that didn't Know things didn't think it was possible to Know things just because they'd never had the Knowing experience themselves? What if people could only know whether or not God existed through this Knowing experience? Then isn't it possible that people could Know that God exists while the rest of the world didn't agree, and not only didn't agree but didn't even think that it could be possible to Know?

Now, don't get all crazy on me or automatically read spirituality into this. It's still just a hypothetical question; it's still just talking about a form of reliable evidence or proof, just one that theoretically would not be accepted by everyone due to the nature of the observability of this hypothetical evidence.

Well, is it possible?

If this "Knowing" experience existed, then yes, it would possible to know. Of course, your whole question is rather masturbatory. It is like saying, "If I could fly, would I be able to fly?"

Now, is it possible for a some people to have an experience that others do not have? Of course! Is it possible for many people to have the same experience but come to a different conclusion from it? Of course! One of these is why we have the debate over God vs. no-God.

I believe in God because I have had experiences which lead me to believe that there is a God. I recognize that all people may not have had these experiences, or that they may have had them and interepreted them differently, dismissing them as something else. It is certainly possible for someone to know something that someone else does not know (with or without the caps). However, every human being must realize that they may be wrong about everything they think they know.

There are other things that I think I could know 100%, but because of my limited experience with philosophy, I am not certain that my reasoning for those things is flawless. The first three, however, are fairly well established in philosophy. The first person to do so, I believe, would have been Descartes.

So philosophy is the ultimate form of gaining knowledge and every conclusion reached using philosophy is 100% true?

Holy crap! Philosophy has been used to "prove" God! That means God exists!

Once upon a time, it was fairly well established in science that the atom was the smallest particle possible. However, we knew that this idea might be wrong, and eventually found evidence that it was wrong.

Is philosophy not open to the possibility of being wrong?

Who's acting like the child now?

And the winner is...both of you have been for at least 2 or 3 pages now.

I am not the one saying that I have personal knowledge of what everyone else does and does not know - that's your bag.
If no one has anymore evidence then you and me then how can their guess be any worse or any better?

And the winner is...both of you have been for at least 2 or 3 pages now.
That's nice. Typically, if your statement has nothing to contribute to the topic at hand [like this one], it's a good idea to not post it. I'm not allowed to self-moderate, but this statement [and Brock's initial accusation to that effect] could be construed as flamebait. I'm not going to do anything about it, but next time you're tempted to post something like this, think twice.

But, to answer your question, God is not an issue I deem worthy of rational debate. God, or a supernatural creator entity, is beyond the realm of proof. One can no more prove the existence of God than he can prove [using logic, nevermind instruments] that Sirius is a host star to massive colonies of gremlins. Essentially, it boils down to an arbitrary statement, reducing both sides to screaming: "Prove God!" "Disprove God" at each other as you've been kind enough to do to me.That was my actual argument in response to your question. As of this writing, you have said nothing to address it.
Of course I have said nothing to address that argument, because it is the same as mine. Maybe you should go back and read the very first post in this thread.
Instead, you chose to attack my [somewhat false] statement that I had not come out and stated my position on the matter. What ensued after that was little more than bickering, and you still failed to answer to any of this, which was, actually [believe it or not] the answer to your questions.

... Let's see...
The problem I have with agnotics is it essentially amounts to the statement: "I do not trust myself to come to valid conclusions about reality." I used to be an agnostic until I decided that my mind was capable of solving problems. Now, instead of repeating the above quotation to myself, I say "I trust my ability to solve dilemmas, and the conclusions I come to concerning reality and its nature are valid."
You, asserting in more ways than one that you disagree with agnosticism.
The thing is you can't make a valid conclusion on something you know NOTHING about.
Compuq, refuting that assertion.
Don't tell me what I know and what I don't, thankyourivethrough. If this is the best you've got, you should quit while you're ahead. If it's not, I guarantee you'll be prying a size 12 boot out of your mouth within 2 more posts anyway. Please don't test my patience with provocative replies like this. I'm more familiar with the contents and capabilities of my own mind than you will ever be. Just because you choose to know nothing about it doesn't mean the rest of us are damned to the same standard of ignorance.
Your rebuttal of that refutation.
Then please, Melkor, enlighten us. What do you KNOW about the existence of god? What empirical evidence do you have for or against god's existence?
My response to your rebuttal
First of all, Comp's statement was in direct reference to my knowledge about reality, the God issue wasn't actually addressed at all in either of my posts: to tell you the truth I'm kind of amused that the two of you lept to this conclusion. It tells me a lot. I didn't even say the word God, and I made no stipulations whatsoever on my beliefs on that particular subject. How stupid would you feel right now if I told you I w as a devout Christian?

But, to answer your question, God is not an issue I deem worthy of rational debate. God, or a supernatural creator entity, is beyond the realm of proof. One can no more prove the existence of God than he can prove [using logic, nevermind instruments] that Sirius is a host star to massive colonies of gremlins. Essentially, it boils down to an arbitrary statement, reducing both sides to screaming: "Prove God!" "Disprove God" at each other as you've been kind enough to do to me.

In short, God is an irrelevant issue to me. If you 'feel' his presence, then fine. I don't, so get off my ass.
Your evasion to my previous question, followed by your agreeing to what I had said in my original post. I called you on the evasion, and ignored the rest because it clearly was not in argument to anything I had ever said.

Read my post again, Lepton: .

Somebody just watched Little Man Tate! :D

If this "Knowing" experience existed, then yes, it would possible to know. Of course, your whole question is rather masturbatory. It is like saying, "If I could fly, would I be able to fly?"

Wow. How eloquent.
Anyway, it may seem "masturbatory" to you, but I'm not done. If you willingly admit that if it were possible to Know, and if there were actually people who Knew that God existed and also other people who not only didn't Know but also didn't believe it was even possible to Know, then isn't it possible that this way of Knowing could actually be real and not just a hypothetical?

So philosophy is the ultimate form of gaining knowledge and every conclusion reached using philosophy is 100% true?

Holy crap! Philosophy has been used to "prove" God! That means God exists!

Once upon a time, it was fairly well established in science that the atom was the smallest particle possible. However, we knew that this idea might be wrong, and eventually found evidence that it was wrong.

Is philosophy not open to the possibility of being wrong?
Philosophy in general, yes. These particular tenets, no. I cannot think if I do not exist. This is a fundamental truth, just as 1+1=2, or the fact that in heating something from 20C to 50C you must pass 30C. If I am not experiencing anything, then you might as well be talking to a computer. If you are not experiencing anything, then I might as well be talking to a computer. Furthermore, what I experience is what I experience. Whether or not it is the truth, that is what I experience. The same goes for you, if in fact you do experience anything. However, and this may be a little bit confusing, just because something says that it experiences things doesn't mean that it does. I can only know that I am thinking, that I exist, and that I experience things, and you can only know that you are thinking, that you exist, and that you experience things, but these are fundamental truths for each person who does think, exist and experiences things.

Of course I have said nothing to address that argument, because it is the same as mine. Maybe you should go back and read the very first post in this thread.

And so, after all that, we discover that we don't actually disagree? So what, then, was the point of all this? I suspect the main culprit is testosterone.

As to the rest of your post, I find it rather odd that your only 'rebuttal' to my postulation was "then please, Melkor, enlighten us. What do you KNOW about the existence of god? What empirical evidence do you have for or against god's existence?"

The rest of the quotes you list are either me, or Compuq [who, interestingly enough, has said nothing to me for at least a page]. And I'm somehow "losing this argument?" An argument that, by your own admission, you have no complaint with?

Seriously dude, wtf?

And so, after all that, we discover that we don't actually disagree? So what, then, was the point of all this? I suspect the main culprit is testosterone.

As to the rest of your post, I find it rather odd that your only 'rebuttal' to my postulation was "then please, Melkor, enlighten us. What do you KNOW about the existence of god? What empirical evidence do you have for or against god's existence?"

The rest of the quotes you list are either me, or Compuq [who, interestingly enough, has said nothing to me for at least a page]. And I'm somehow "losing this argument?" An argument that, by your own admission, you have no complaint with?

Seriously dude, wtf?
The reason I said you were "losing the argument" was because you never responded to that question, but rather evaded it with your "that wasn't what I was talking about" statement. But we seem to agree with one-another anyway, so it doesn't matter.

That's nice. Typically, if your statement has nothing to contribute to the topic at hand [like this one], it's a good idea to not post it. I'm not allowed to self-moderate, but this statement [and Brock's initial accusation to that effect] could be construed as flamebait. I'm not going to do anything about it, but next time you're tempted to post something like this, think twice.

Hey, all I did was respond to a question that was posted.

Who's acting like the child now?
If you don't like my answer, don't ask the question. Or if you want it put more technically, if a post has nothing to do with the topic at hand yet was only posted as an answer to a question, then wouldn't that mean that the question asked had nothing to do with the topic at hand and whoever posted that question shouldn't have posted it in the first place? And don't tell me that just because Brock initiated it and you merely flipped it back at him that you're innocent. Don't try to tell me either that because most of your message was topic related that this statement, as part of your whole message, isn't off topic: it could easily have been left off. You chose to type the words yourself.
You can't have it both ways: either all three of us "had nothing to contribute to the topic at hand" and "could be construed as flamebait[ing]" or none of us were. We're all in the same boat. Except that the only difference with me is that I didn't know better, and obviously you did.
Maybe you need to think twice before you post.

But, I'm willing to put the whole thing behind us right now if we just drop it and move on without any further wasted time on the subject and get back to the forum.

[who, interestingly enough, has said nothing to me for at least a page]
You haven't directed a comment at me.......

The reason I said you were "losing the argument" was because you never responded to that question, but rather evaded it with your "that wasn't what I was talking about" statement. But we seem to agree with one-another anyway, so it doesn't matter.

Which question? Your first?

And Compuq, I know I haven't been talking to you, the point I was trying to make in pointing that out was that Brock was relying on someone else's posting history and their responses rather than his own. I wasn't trying to imply any fault on your part. Sorry if that's the impression you got; I didn't mean it like that.

The problem I have with agnotics is it essentially amounts to the statement: "I do not trust myself to come to valid conclusions about reality." I used to be an agnostic until I decided that my mind was capable of solving problems. Now, instead of repeating the above quotation to myself, I say "I trust my ability to solve dilemmas, and the conclusions I come to concerning reality and its nature are valid."


Philosophical Skepticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism) and agnosticism are two different things. An agnostic individual can believe that while it is certainly possible to have valid knowledge of the nature of reality (thus rejecting philosophical skepticism), there is simply a lack of conclusive evidence either favoring or not favoring the existance of a god. According to Wikipedia, agnosticism is divided between two main schools, strong - "the view that the question of the existence of deities is unknowable by nature or that human beings are ill-equipped to judge the evidence" - and weak - "the view that the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is currently unknown but isn't necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgement until more evidence is available." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism ).

Which question? Your first?

And Compuq, I know I haven't been talking to you, the point I was trying to make in pointing that out was that Brock was relying on someone else's posting history and their responses rather than his own. I wasn't trying to imply any fault on your part. Sorry if that's the impression you got; I didn't mean it like that.
ok, thats cool.

Well, i am signing off from this debate...for now. I am getting sleepy.

We're all agnostics as none of us know if god(s) exist.

Some of us are admitted agnostics in that we're honest enough to admit this lack of knowledge.

I am an agnostic atheist. I don't know if god(s) exist but, with out some evidence in their favour, I must assume they don't. To do otherwise means I must believe in all gods that humanity has created as well as every other imaginary being ever concocted.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence but, that's the only reasonable and logical conclusion.

Philosophical Skepticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_skepticism) and agnosticism are two different things. An agnostic individual can believe that while it is certainly possible to have valid knowledge of the nature of reality (thus rejecting philosophical skepticism), there is simply a lack of conclusive evidence either favoring or not favoring the existance of a god. According to Wikipedia, agnosticism is divided between two main schools, strong - "the view that the question of the existence of deities is unknowable by nature or that human beings are ill-equipped to judge the evidence" - and weak - "the view that the existence or nonexistence of God or gods is currently unknown but isn't necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgement until more evidence is available." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism ).
Well, Skepticism is close enough in philosophical theory to the general tenets of 'strong' agnoticism [at least in a theological sense] that I generally [and admittedly, perhaps falsely so] answer to both of them in one fell swoop when possible. Most of the agnostics I've met also happened to be Skeptics, so I think my error was an honest one.

Being that I'm an Objectivist [and I'm fairly close to orthodox Objectivism], I'm sure you can understand the problems I might have with not knowing things. The distinction, now that you point it out, is fairly obvious. I did not, however, know of the 'strong' and 'weak' designations of agnosticism. I guess I learned two things today!

I am an agnostic atheist. I don't know if god(s) exist but, with out some evidence in their favour, I must assume they don't. To do otherwise means I must believe in all gods that humanity has created as well as every other imaginary being ever concocted.

Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence but, that's the only reasonable and logical conclusion.

If the assumption is fallacious ("absense of evidence isn't evidence of absense" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)), how can it possibly be reasonable and logical? :confused:

If the assumption is fallacious ("absense of evidence isn't evidence of absense" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance)), how can it possibly be reasonable and logical? :confused:

Apparently I wasn't clear, the statement makes more sense verbally than typed.

I'm saying that even though "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," the only logical and reasonable conclusion is absence.

I'm saying that even though "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," the only logical and reasonable conclusion is absence.

I'm still seeing a contradiction here. Why do you believe your conclusion is "logical and reasonable?"

For fuck's sake, I feel like I'm talking to a three year old with selective hearing and it's really starting to get annoying.
If you can't face up to scientific debate then why bother to start the thread?

If you had even the tiniest bit of intelligence you would realize that half of my point is that there is no evidence for the existence of god.
And without that evidence anyone with a scientific outlook on the matter has to conclude there are no gods.

Let me rephrase: The burden of proof argument is not a valid one. If you want to know why, take a philosophy class.
The provision of evidence is a prerequisite of any scientific debate. Until the pro god numpties stop relying on fairy stories and start finding exidence then the athiests have the high ground.


And exactly what part of my post gives you the idea that I do not understand science? I highly doubt that with a GPA of 4.24 and a full scholarship that I "fail to understand science." You, however, need to learn how to read, as well as basic comprehension skills. That paragraph had nothing at all to do with the physics of black holes, and if you had any bit of sense, you would realize that my point was about Stephen Hawking admitting he was wrong.
Well we can start with you daft idea that scientist should consider something (again) that has already been rejected because there is zero evidence for it.


What statement regarding black holes? The only statement that I made about black holes is that Hawking originally hypothesized that they emit no radiation. I then explained that the hypothesis turned out to be false. Learn to read.
That is where you showed your lack of understanding of black holes.
Nothing, not even radiation, can escape the event horizon of a black hole. SH discovered a way in which small black holes can lose energy but (despite the name) the loss does not involve radiation.


I have to ask: Are you mentally retarded? Did you not read my post at all? WHEN did I say that I believed in any religion, or that I believed that god existed?

Read and reread. You ask for people to accept that god can exist, yet you fail to provide any evidence. Why?


Good, maybe next you can concentrate on learning to read.
And maybe you will learn something about one of the subject you attemp to use to promote your ideas. It isn't hard, there are a lot of very good books that explain modern cosmology to the less scientifically minded - I know, I've proofread a few.

Alright, Brenchley, here we go.
Humans currently have no evidence whatsoever to tell us whether or not there are one or more planets orbitting the star we call Canopus. Does that automatically mean that there exists no planet orbitting Canopus? How can you not acknowledge the possibility that there is a planet in orbit of Canopus?
Humans, 2000 years ago, had no evidence whatsoever that atoms existed. Would you like to go back and tell Democritus that since he had no evidence that atoms existed, surely that automatically means that his hypothesis must have been wrong and that they did not exist? Are you saying that Democritus should not have acknowledged the possibility that atoms could exist simply due to the fact that he had no evidence?
Right now I have no evidence that there is anything but a dim-witted computer sitting a few hundred or thousand miles away from me having this argument with me. Since I have no empirical evidence that you are in fact a human, does that mean that you are not? Does that automatically make my hypothesis that you are human incorrect?
Finally, you have your own hypothesis: That is that god does not exist. You have no empirical evidence pointing to the fact that he does not exist, so by your logic, that automatically makes you wrong, and he must exist. Of course, that is not the case, but that is because your logic is completely invalid. You can no more say that lack of evidence proves God's non-existence than you can say that lack of evidence proves that no planet exists around Canopus or that lack of evidence 2000 years ago proved that atoms did not exist.
It has been correctly stated time and time again that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and that is something that you need to get through that thick skull of yours.

No, not in the fucking least. Not a shred of evidence regarding the existence of atoms was discovered for 15 billion years. That never meant atoms didn't exist.
There's no evidence that while you're asleep and nobody's looking your furniture doesn't come to life and conduct strange mystical ceremonies either. There's also no evidence that it doesn't, since the ceremonies produce magic to hide all traces of their existance. Are you agnostic about that too? Or do you make the leap of faith that your furniture is inanimate?

Do you understand the difference between not believing in a god and believing there are no gods?
From the way you worded it I'm not sure. Please explain further.

There's no evidence that while you're asleep and nobody's looking your furniture doesn't come to life and conduct strange mystical ceremonies either. There's also no evidence that it doesn't, since the ceremonies produce magic to hide all traces of their existance. Are you agnostic about that too? Or do you make the leap of faith that your furniture is inanimate?
No leap of faith is required for this one. There is plenty of scientific evidence which shows that the furniture is inanimate. On the other hand, there is none which shows that god either does or does not exist.
Right now, there may or may not be a star orbiting Canopus. As of this moment, unless there is someone studying the star as I speak, there is no evidence either for or contrary to the hypothesis that there is a planet there. That does not mean there is no planet, it simply means that we do not know whether or not it exists. If you can accept the idea that until we have evidence showing one or the other, we truly have no clue as to whether or not there is a planet there, then why can you not accept the idea that until we have evidence showing either that god exists or does not, we truly have no clue as to whether or not he is there?

No leap of faith is required for this one. There is plenty of scientific evidence which shows that the furniture is inanimate. On the other hand, there is none which shows that god either does or does not exist.
Right now, there may or may not be a star orbiting Canopus. As of this moment, unless there is someone studying the star as I speak, there is no evidence either for or contrary to the hypothesis that there is a planet there. That does not mean there is no planet, it simply means that we do not know whether or not it exists. If you can accept the idea that until we have evidence showing one or the other, we truly have no clue as to whether or not there is a planet there, then why can you not accept the idea that until we have evidence showing either that god exists or does not, we truly have no clue as to whether or not he is there?
Supernatural furniture would not be subject to scientific testing any more than god would. It's a better analogy than a planet orbiting Canopus, because while we have experience with known planets, we have no experience with known gods or supernatural chairs. To put it another way, we know that planets exist, which makes the possibility of one orbiting Canopus, even though we have no evidence for that particular planet, more likely. We don't know if any gods exist, so the absence of any evidence for god makes it, in my estimation, less likely.

I'm not saying conclusively that there are no gods, I'm just saying that in the absence of evidence I BELEIVE that there are none.

If you simply don't believe that god exists, I would call you an agnostic. Others might call you a weak/mild/passive atheist.
If you actively believe that god does not exist, then I would call you atheist. Others might call you strong/active atheist.

I have nothing against passive atheists, it's the active ones I'm concerned about here.

To distinguish between passive and active atheists is ridiculous. If you don't believe God exists you're an atheist. If you think you can prove it beyond any shadow of a doubt you're not an atheist...you're an idiot!

You completely missed my fucking point. By your logic, until we proved that atoms did exist, we knew that they did not. Guess what? We were wrong. How can you not admit that it is just as likely that you are wrong about a higher power as it is likely that you would have been wrong about atoms a thousand years ago? Neither had yet been proven to exist. Evidence had not been found of either. Thus, according to you, atoms did not exist. Period.

If in five hundred years we find out that a higher power does, in fact, exist, it would make just as much sense to say, "The universe proves [insert random deity] exists." That doesn't explain shit. That's just a baseless, inane reply to make for someone who can't think of anything else to say. I'm sure you're much smarter than that, so please do act like it.

I miss no point.

The existance of the universe is proof that atoms exist, we needed the existance of atom to explain the universe we see before us.

We do not see, anywhere, anything that needs the existance of a god to explain its existance. If, after 15billion years, there is nothing in the universe that offers a scrap of evidence for the "need" for a god to exist, let alone evidence that a god actually does exist, then I think it is fairly safe to say that no such god does exist.

The whole point that I believe Brockadia was trying to make is that, in Brockadia's humble opinion, NOBODY has ANY proof. Therefore, NOBODY can make any absolute claim to being correct. Even the atheists.
In fact, I think the biggest thing you've missed is that the atheists have the furthest to go to prove their claim, and thusly the least credibility to their claim, by the simple fact that in order to prove God does not exist, you have to demonstrate with sufficient evidence that God does not exist in any cubic nanometer of THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE. The people who have to prove that God exists can stop looking once they find God; the atheists can't stop looking until every single stone (so to speak) has been turned.

Do yourself a favor and think about this before you reply, Brenchley.

If people want us to believe in what we consider fairy stories then it is up to them to provide evidence that will stand up to scientific investigation.

Since there is zero evidence for the need for a god to exist, and of course no evidence for the existance of god, then the atheist case wins by default.

you can't say there is no evidence for a God...you can't say there is no reliable evidence for a God...and you can't say God hasn't left us indications of His existence. Agnostics are mostly atheist trying to sound open minded. Personally, I like atheists better...they state their point of view and stick with it. Agnostics just spend all their time telling everybody else that there is no point of view, and getting mad at them for having one. Just because something can't be proven, as the existence or non-existence of God caanot be proven, does not make it unreasonalbe to believe one side or the other. You go with whatever makes the most sense...and right now, at least in my opinion, there is more evidence for than against God, and so I believe in Him.

If people want us to believe in what we consider fairy stories then it is up to them to provide evidence that will stand up to scientific investigation.

Since there is zero evidence for the need for a god to exist, and of course no evidence for the existance of god, then the atheist case wins by default.
We provide plenty of evidence...but no matter what we say, or calculate, or do, or give links to, or dig up, or anything, atheists continue to say the it is all irrevevant, falsified evidence, and that we're stupid for believing it. That's still better, however, than telling everybody that they're stupid ofr believing anything. In my opinion, and this is just my opinion, nothing more, Christians are people who have decided, on their own, that the evidence opints towards a God, and have found that to be an agreeable belief. Atheists are people who don't want to have to accept that their is a God, because that would mess with their wonderfully fun, immoral lives. And agnostics are people who don't want to think about it. That's just my opinion...I'm probably wrong. But whatever.

We provide plenty of evidence...but no matter what we say, or calculate, or do, or give links to, or dig up, or anything, atheists continue to say the it is all irrevevant, falsified evidence, and that we're stupid for believing it. That's still better, however, than telling everybody that they're stupid ofr believing anything. In my opinion, and this is just my opinion, nothing more, Christians are people who have decided, on their own, that the evidence opints towards a God, and have found that to be an agreeable belief. Atheists are people who don't want to have to accept that their is a God, because that would mess with their wonderfully fun, immoral lives. And agnostics are people who don't want to think about it. That's just my opinion...I'm probably wrong. But whatever.

Or athiests are people who have decided on their own that the evidence points towards there not being a god, and agnostics are people who have decided on their own that the evidence doesn't prove or disprove a god/entity from existing. That's just my opinion. I'm probably wrong, but whatever.

Atheists are people who don't want to have to accept that their is a God, because that would mess with their wonderfully fun, immoral lives.

Give me an example of what is inherently immoral about being an atheist.

Alright, Brenchley, here we go.
Humans currently have no evidence whatsoever to tell us whether or not there are one or more planets orbitting the star we call Canopus. Does that automatically mean that there exists no planet orbitting Canopus?
No, while it now appears that most stars will have planets there is no way to know for certain until we are able to observe Alpha Carinae. We know planets exist, we have a lot of evidence for them, therefore it is reasonable to postulate the existance (or not) of a planet around one particular star.

There is no evidence for the existance of a god.
How can you not acknowledge the possibility that there is a planet in orbit of Canopus?
Humans, 2000 years ago, had no evidence whatsoever that atoms existed. Would you like to go back and tell Democritus that since he had no evidence that atoms existed, surely that automatically means that his hypothesis must have been wrong and that they did not exist? Are you saying that Democritus should not have acknowledged the possibility that atoms could exist simply due to the fact that he had no evidence?
Atoms have existed from the dawn of time (or at least very shortly after). Evidence for the existance of atoms was known over 2000 years ago and the concept of the atom was needed to explain the universe the ancient greeks sought to explain.

However, there is no need to postulate the existance of a god to explain the universe, we have outgrown the need for fairy stories.
Right now I have no evidence that there is anything but a dim-witted computer sitting a few hundred or thousand miles away from me having this argument with me. Since I have no empirical evidence that you are in fact a human, does that mean that you are not? Does that automatically make my hypothesis that you are human incorrect?
Finally, you have your own hypothesis: That is that god does not exist. You have no empirical evidence pointing to the fact that he does not exist, so by your logic, that automatically makes you wrong, and he must exist. Of course, that is not the case, but that is because your logic is completely invalid. You can no more say that lack of evidence proves God's non-existence than you can say that lack of evidence proves that no planet exists around Canopus or that lack of evidence 2000 years ago proved that atoms did not exist.
It has been correctly stated time and time again that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and that is something that you need to get through that thick skull of yours.
I do think you should go back to school and learn a little science. You never know, one day you may have people prepared to pay you to give lectures on the subject or even edit/proofread books.

If no one has anymore evidence then you and me then how can their guess be any worse or any better?

How do you know that I don't have more evidence than you? How do I know that you don't have more evidence than me? How do any of us know that the person down the street doesn't have more evidence than either of us.

Your problem is in assuming that everyone else has had the exact same life experiences as you, no more and no less, and thus has the exact same level of evidence as you.

And agnostics are people who don't want to think about it. That's just my opinion...I'm probably wrong. But whatever.

Funny, most agnostics I know are deaply spiritual people aware of human falubility. As a friend of mine (who routinely picked out the wrong clothes to wear in the morning) is fond of saying, "Most days I'm not sure what shirt I'm picking out, and you want me to be sure of my ideas on the Divine? I'm deffinately not smart enough or stupid enough for that."

Do you understand the difference between not believing in a god and believing there are no gods?From the way you worded it I'm not sure. Please explain further.

Don't know if this will help but, here is how someone on another board explained it.

Theist: "I believe gods exist."
Weak Atheist: "As there is no evidence, I cannot assent to your claim. I do not believe gods exist."
Strong Atheist: "There is no evidence supporting any theist claims and the evidence available contradicts their claims. I believe gods do not exist."

Note that the Theist and Strong Atheist both make positive assertions and thus bear the burden of proof in a formal argument. The Weak Athiest makes a negative assertion and all a theist has to do is provide evidence to invalidate that assertion.

Like the possibility of planet(s) around Canopus, scientifically we must assume there are none until we have evidence for them (gods or planets.) we can admit to the possibility, and for planets around Canopus, this is a logical possibility as we know planets do exist around stars (even if we're only certain of one example.) For gods, the possibility is still there but, as we have no scientifcally valid evidence of any gods, it si not a logical or reasonable asertion.

you can't say there is no evidence for a God...you can't say there is no reliable evidence for a God...and you can't say God hasn't left us indications of His existence.

I can, and do. I also go further and say there is nothing that even needs the existance of a god to explain it.

Wow. How eloquent.
Anyway, it may seem "masturbatory" to you, but I'm not done. If you willingly admit that if it were possible to Know, and if there were actually people who Knew that God existed and also other people who not only didn't Know but also didn't believe it was even possible to Know, then isn't it possible that this way of Knowing could actually be real and not just a hypothetical?

Of course it is possible that something could be real. It is possible that anything could be real.

The fact remains, however, that, in the span of human existence, we look at something and try to explain it. We don't just have things pop into our heads that we simply know. If you find me a person who simply knows everything, with no need to observe and learn, then you will have shown evidence that it is possible. Simply saying, "Well, it could possibly maybe be isn't evidence of something."

Philosophy in general, yes. These particular tenets, no.

Well, that's rather illogical. It's like me saying, "Science is generally open to question. However, the Big Bang theory is not."

I cannot think if I do not exist.

And idea thought up by people before you, not a fundamental truth, as you want to claim. Nothing that we have thought of is a "fundamental truth". That which we can measure may or may not be fundamental truth.

This is a fundamental truth, just as 1+1=2, or the fact that in heating something from 20C to 50C you must pass 30C.

These analogies do not work. 1+1=2 specifically because we have defined it that way. Same for the rise in temperature - we have defined 20, 30, and 50 such that you cannot heat to 50 without going through 30.

Are you suggesting that human beings have defined thinking and existing such that you cannot think if you don't exist?

We provide plenty of evidence...but no matter what we say, or calculate, or do, or give links to, or dig up, or anything, atheists continue to say the it is all irrevevant, falsified evidence, and that we're stupid for believing it. That's still better, however, than telling everybody that they're stupid ofr believing anything. In my opinion, and this is just my opinion, nothing more, Christians are people who have decided, on their own, that the evidence opints towards a God, and have found that to be an agreeable belief. Atheists are people who don't want to have to accept that their is a God, because that would mess with their wonderfully fun, immoral lives. And agnostics are people who don't want to think about it. That's just my opinion...I'm probably wrong. But whatever.

In the 40 odd years I've been asking for evidence not one single person has come forward with a single scrap. Care to put some evidence forward?

Christians are people who lack the knowledge (or guts) to stand on their own two feet. Instead they need a /god/ act as their crutch through life rather than facing up to reality.

And by the way, morality (or lack of it) has sweet FA to do with religion. Morality is the product of society.

That's nice. Typically, if your statement has nothing to contribute to the topic at hand [like this one], it's a good idea to not post it. I'm not allowed to self-moderate, but this statement [and Brock's initial accusation to that effect] could be construed as flamebait. I'm not going to do anything about it, but next time you're tempted to post something like this, think twice.

LOL!

Melkor: suggestion that Brockadia is being childish.
Other person: Suggestion that both Melkor and Brockadia are childish.
Melkor: Stop flamebaiting!

Surely, logic would dictate that if him calling you childish is flamebait, you calling Brockadia childish is equally flamebaiting?

If people want us to believe in what we consider fairy stories then it is up to them to provide evidence that will stand up to scientific investigation.

Who said anything about wanting you to believe in anything? I'm not trying to convince you that the personal experiences I have are evidence enough for you to believe. I am simply pointing out that they are evidence enough for me to believe.

Atheists are people who don't want to have to accept that their is a God, because that would mess with their wonderfully fun, immoral lives.

You aren't helping anyone's case by making idioitic, ad hominem statements. You can hardly make a case for any assertion that all atheists are immoral.

There is no evidence for the existance of a god.

Correction. You don't personally have evidence for the existence of a god.


Theist: "I believe gods exist."
Weak Atheist: "As there is no evidence, I cannot assent to your claim. I do not believe gods exist."
Theist: "I have personal experience that serves as evidence for me, thus my claim makes sense to me.
Weak Atheist: "Your personal experience is not evidence."
Theist: "My personal experience is evidence to me just as your personal experience is evidence to you. I'm sure you don't discount your own personal experiences off-hand.
Weak Atheist: "Well, you can't show me your personal evidence, so I cannot believe that gods exist."
Theist: "Ok, just don't try to force your views on me."
Weak Atheist: "Ok, just don't try to force your views on me."
*group hug*
Strong Atheist: "There is no evidence supporting any theist claims and the evidence available contradicts their claims. I believe gods do not exist."

Bold additions mine.

Note that the Theist and Strong Atheist both make positive assertions and thus bear the burden of proof in a formal argument.

There is only a "burden of proof" if one is trying to convince another. If the idea is that everyone will make their own decision based upon their own experiences, there is no burden of proof to anyone but the person making the decision.

For gods, the possibility is still there but, as we have no scientifcally valid evidence of any gods, it si not a logical or reasonable asertion.

All evidence is not scientific. Science is one form of logic - one form of philosophy. It is hardly all there is (and this coming from a scientist).

Christians are people who lack the knowledge (or guts) to stand on their own two feet. Instead they need a /god/ act as their crutch through life rather than facing up to realit

Do you enjoy being a bigot who has to stereotype and demonize the people that happen to disagree with you?

LOL!

Melkor: suggestion that Brockadia is being childish.
Other person: Suggestion that both Melkor and Brockadia are childish.
Melkor: Stop flamebaiting!

Surely, logic would dictate that if him calling you childish is flamebait, you calling Brockadia childish is equally flamebaiting?

For FUCK'S SAKE, Brock FUCKING SAID IT FIRST. By any conventional measure of "flamebait," he is clearly the perpetrator, but that's beside the point as I'm not implicating him for it [the statement istelf is barely actionable].

But God DAMN IT Dem I'm fucking TIRED of your SHIT. This is another perfect fucking example of the same goddamn thing I mentioned last night. Now you've come along several pages later, after the discussion has long been dead and buried to bring this up again just to push my fucking buttons.

Well, it worked. I'm submitting this thread for review.

Give me an example of what is inherently immoral about being an atheist.

That is something I'd like to know as well.. being the immoral athiest I am.

I can, and do. I also go further and say there is nothing that even needs the existance of a god to explain it.
scientists have tried to make proteins form from chemical soup...first soup designed to have proteins form from it, and then soup similar to that present when the first proteins supposedly formed. they can't make it work. they got a few amino acids to group together once...but that was in the protein-friendly soup, and never happened in the real stuff. it sounds to me like you need some sorta divine intervention to make proteins come from this soup.

scientists have tried to make proteins form from chemical soup...first soup designed to have proteins form from it, and then soup similar to that present when the first proteins supposedly formed. they can't make it work. they got a few amino acids to group together once...but that was in the protein-friendly soup, and never happened in the real stuff. it sounds to me like you need some sorta divine intervention to make proteins come from this soup.

Just because we can't do it know does'nt mean we can never do it. We could'nt make a flighing machine until 100 years ago. Maybe 100 or 1000 years from now we can make life from nothing.

Despite our great knowledge today we have a long we to go.

For FUCK'S SAKE, Brock FUCKING SAID IT FIRST. By any conventional measure of "flamebait," he is clearly the perpetrator, but that's beside the point as I'm not implicating him for it [the statement istelf is barely actionable].

Actually, from precedent on these boards, "I was retorting" is no excuse. If one person flamebaits, and another flamebaits back, they are both guilty. Thus, if the comment in question truly is flamebaiting, then all three of you, by board precedent, would be found guilty of flamebaiting. The part I find interesting is the fact that you accuse the other two of doing it, but seem to want to excuse yourself (I suspect this is exactly why you can't self-mod).

But God DAMN IT Dem I'm fucking TIRED of your SHIT. This is another perfect fucking example of the same goddamn thing I mentioned last night. Now you've come along several pages later, after the discussion has long been dead and buried to bring this up again just to push my fucking buttons.

It had nothing to do with "just to push your fucking buttons". Like I said, when a thread has grown since I was last in it, I answer it a page at a time. I saw something on that page (your post) that I wanted to answer, and I did. Don't flatter yourself that everything I do has anything at all to do with your reactions. My post was every bit to the rest of the people in the discussion as it was to you.

Correction. You don't personally have evidence for the existence of a god.

Correct and no one has ever been able to demonstrate any personal experience that I can qualify as evidence.

There is only a "burden of proof" if one is trying to convince another.

Which is why I refered to a formal argument.

All evidence is not scientific. Science is one form of logic - one form of philosophy. It is hardly all there is (and this coming from a scientist).

I guess your definitionand mine for evidence are different then, I've never seen or heard of evidence that isn't scientifically valid.

Dem, it had everything to do with pushing my buttons, and we both know it. Brock and I had completely dropped this several pages ago. There was no reason to bring it up again aside from an attempt to irritate me.

You know just as well as I do that I stated in that other thread I have no desire to communicate with you again as long as I live. Your attempt to do so here indicates absolutely no respect for my wishes in that regard, and I will not tolerate it. The previous exchange had nothing to do with you, and there was no reason for you to weigh in on it.

The exchanges we have made here have been postd in Mod/Admin since I am to avoid self-moderation. No appeal on your part will bring it down. It's too late for that shit: I'm sick of this crap coming from you, and it's not the first time you've done it. If you would like to offer this [rather humorous] reasoning, take it to Moderation. Barring that, I would like to see if this thread can continue on topic since other people seem to be still discussing things.

Why? why am I an atheist and not an agnostic?
I hate religion, it can turn, normal nice people into braindead slaves (allright it's strongly put, but in essence it's that) Religion was invented to give life a meaning, but why should everyone think that the same meaning, invented thousands of years ago, is right? Later on (and today still) it was used in this way: "If you do not do the things god (I) tells you to do, you will be severely punished for all eternity!"
Knowing this, how can you possibly believe in God, Allah, Jahweh or any other "god"?

too long, just using this to show who i'm responding to.
there's so few agnostics there because they ussually don't argue. with that i must say; wow! an agnostic that forces their view upon others! i think you're the first i've met.

Who said anything about wanting you to believe in anything? I'm not trying to convince you that the personal experiences I have are evidence enough for you to believe. I am simply pointing out that they are evidence enough for me to believe.
Then you will be happy to post that evidence, unless of course you are worried it will simply show how easy it is for religion to fool some people.


Correction. You don't personally have evidence for the existence of a god.
Nobody has been able to put forward a shred of evidence.

There is only a "burden of proof" if one is trying to convince another. If the idea is that everyone will make their own decision based upon their own experiences, there is no burden of proof to anyone but the person making the decision.

All evidence is not scientific. Science is one form of logic - one form of philosophy. It is hardly all there is (and this coming from a scientist).
It is the best we have to go on.

Do you enjoy being a bigot who has to stereotype and demonize the people that happen to disagree with you?
I feel very sorry for people who have to believe fairy stories rather than face the real world.

Correct and no one has ever been able to demonstrate any personal experience that I can qualify as evidence.

You can't demonstrate personal evidence. Personal evidence is person-specific. It is not repeatable, as you can't really try to duplicate an experience you weren't controlling in the first place. And I can't open up my mind and somehow have you see what is in it.

Which is why I refered to a formal argument.

I've never really seen anything that could qualify as a formal argument on this subject. Generally, it's a lot of, "I'm right and you're wrong!" with no evidence on either side (since there is none that can be truly presented to another person). The real problem is that, to have a formal argument/discussion, both people involved must agree upon a set of axioms beforehand that they will both argue from. The exisence or non-existence of God is, in and of itself, an axiomatic statement. Thus, unless the atheist agrees to argue from the viewpoint that there is a God or the theist agrees to argue from the viewpoint that there is no God, they are never coming from the same axioms. Of course, then, you wouldn't be arguing the existence of non-existence of God anymore, as it would be pre-determined for the argument.

Now, if the argument is between agnostics and others, ie. the "can you possibly know?" argument, you can all agree on the same axioms. Of couse, it is very hard to get everyone to agree on axioms such as what evidence can be included, what it means to "know" something, etc.

I guess your definitionand mine for evidence are different then, I've never seen or heard of evidence that isn't scientifically valid.

So your own thoughts and feelings mean absolutely nothing to you? You never do any self-examination and come to conclusions about yourself? You never try to figure out, for instance, if you love someone or do not? To answer that question, you have to use personal evidence. It is not measurable or repeatable by other people, as it is all within your own thoughts and emotions, and is thus not scientifically valid.

Dem, it had everything to do with pushing my buttons, and we both know it.

I'm glad you're a mind reader, but I think you may need to get your psychic bearings checked.

Brock and I had completely dropped this several pages ago. There was no reason to bring it up again aside from an attempt to irritate me.

Like I told you, I reply a page at a time. How could I know that it had even been discussed, much less dropped?

You know just as well as I do that I stated in that other thread I have no desire to communicate with you again as long as I live.

And yet you keep doing it anyways. You keep saying that, and then doing it anyways. If you do not wish to interact with me, it would fall to reason that you would avoid threads I am in and that you would avoid, well, interacting with me. If you don't want to interact with me - don't! Don't reply to me, don't talk to me, don't read my posts. But don't expect me to refrain from participating in a thread that I am interested in just because you have expressed a personal problem with me. It is your problem - you must deal with it.

Your attempt to do so here indicates absolutely no respect for my wishes in that regard, and I will not tolerate it.

On the contrary. You have said several things in this thread that I would normally have responded to, and I have refrained from doing so. However, this particular statement was so illogical, the anal part of me couldn't let it pass.

The previous exchange had nothing to do with you, and there was no reason for you to weigh in on it.

I am a part of this discussion. If you two were trying to have a personal discussion that you did not mean for others to see and weigh in on, it should have been done in telegrams, not in the general forums. If you post on general forums, you must resign yourself to the fact that others will weigh in on things.

Barring that, I would like to see if this thread can continue on topic since other people seem to be still discussing things.

You mean, like, me?

I hate religion, it can turn, normal nice people into braindead slaves (allright it's strongly put, but in essence it's that)

It can do so, but does not have to, and does not always. In fact, I would say that a person who truly follows a deity, rather than another human being, would not be turned into any such thing.

Religion was invented to give life a meaning,

Opinion....but ok.

but why should everyone think that the same meaning, invented thousands of years ago, is right?

Good question! Why should we implicitly believe another mere human being, no less fallible than ourselves, regardless of the time period in which they lived? We might examine what they had to say, and see if it seems to make sense to us within the context of our religion, but we should certainly not take other human being's words for granted.

Later on (and today still) it was used in this way: "If you do not do the things god (I) tells you to do, you will be severely punished for all eternity!"

Some people use it that way. Some people do not.

Knowing this, how can you possibly believe in God, Allah, Jahweh or any other "god"?

I don't use it that way, nor do any of those I talk to about it/read about and get anything productive out of the experience. I do not believe in God because someone else said, "Do this or have bad things happen to you." I believe in God because my personal experiences have led me to believe that there is a God.

Then you will be happy to post that evidence, unless of course you are worried it will simply show how easy it is for religion to fool some people.

As I have already pointed out, personal evidence is impossible to post. I cannot post evidence for God any more than I can post evidence that I love my boyfriend. All the evidence is within me.

It is the best we have to go on.

Opinion. The logic of science is limited in its application. Some people think that anything outside that logic is not worth their time. Others do not take this view.

I feel very sorry for people who have to believe fairy stories rather than face the real world.

There you go with the bigotry again. What on earth makes you think that I don't face the "real world"? Hell, facing and examining the world is my job! It is what I study! It is one of my passions!

However, studying the world, that which can be measured and handled, is not all there is to me. There are other things that I enjoy, other areas of study which I find myself immersed in, that are no less important to me.

You can't demonstrate personal evidence. Personal evidence is person-specific. It is not repeatable, as you can't really try to duplicate an experience you weren't controlling in the first place. And I can't open up my mind and somehow have you see what is in it.
Then it's not evidence.

So your own thoughts and feelings mean absolutely nothing to you?
I don't consider them evidence.

You never try to figure out, for instance, if you love someone or do not?

No, either I experience the emotion or I don't, it's not something I have to decide. I can decide if I want to do something about the emotion but, I can't stop or change the emotion.

Then it's not evidence.

I don't consider them evidence.

So do you never make any decisions at all based upon your own thoughts and emotions? Or do you just consider such decisions illogical?

No, either I experience the emotion or I don't, it's not something I have to decide.

Human emotion is hardly that simple. One can feel very strongly for another person, but not really love them. If you examine yourself, you may find that there are other reasons behind your reaction to that person. It isn't a cut and dry, yes or no.

I think it's weird that the existence of god is the only thing that we feel the need to express our agnosticism about. On some level, we can't really know ANYTHING without doubt, but I don't have to answer every single question with an "I don't know." For most people, atheism is a belief, not a dogma.

There's no evidence that while you're asleep and nobody's looking your furniture doesn't come to life and conduct strange mystical ceremonies either. There's also no evidence that it doesn't, since the ceremonies produce magic to hide all traces of their existance. Are you agnostic about that too? Or do you make the leap of faith that your furniture is inanimate?

To an extent. I'm sure you've heard of Schrodinger's cat. The state of said furniture is indeterminable without some way of detecting said state. However, the analogy isn't completely accurate. The assertion one might make about the presence of some higher power would not be that it acts often in our world while we are not looking and then covers its tracks, but that the higher power might not have any desire to act on us, and so it doesn't, hence there will obviously be no evidence of it doing so.

Also, to expand on that thought a little bit, in theory, furniture would have no real reason to hide any magical power it had from us. Also, furniture is composed of many different things, so why would all of these combinations form magical, people-phobic creatures? That is why I would lean much more strongly toward furniture not coming to life and casting spells in my living room.

Yes, a higher power would have no reason to hide its power from people, but the difference lies in the expanse of the area over which a god-figure and a piece of furniture would have theoretical authority. God may not have a reason to hide from us, but does he have a reason to do things for or to us? Not necessarily. For all we know, whatever higher being exists is a lazy slob that resembles a sloth and doesn't like doing shit, and the big bang was just a God-fart. There's no way to disprove this, or to prove it, so to form a solid, positive opinion on it is jumping the gun a bit.

Please, gentlemen, do not turn this thread into a petty flame-war. Melkor, if I offended you when I vented my frustration at what I had thought was your evading my question by saying that I felt like I was arguing against a child with selective hearing, then I most sincerely apologize. There, now don't we all feel a bit better? Now please quit ruining my thread by flaming each-other and start talking about AGNOSTICISM again.

I miss no point.

The existance of the universe is proof that atoms exist, we needed the existance of atom to explain the universe we see before us.

And one might argue after the discovery of some deity down the road that we needed the existence of God to explain the universe we see before us. You're looking at present knowledge as opposed to the general concept. Until we discovered atoms, we didn't need them to explain our current understanding of the world. Am I getting through to you at all?

We do not see, anywhere, anything that needs the existance of a god to explain its existance. If, after 15billion years, there is nothing in the universe that offers a scrap of evidence for the "need" for a god to exist, let alone evidence that a god actually does exist, then I think it is fairly safe to say that no such god does exist.

The big bang? The spontaneous creation and continued growth of a universe? Science has explained all of these things? Oh, and I almost forgot - we have explored the entire universe, and can comfortably make the statement that "nothing in the universe that offers a scrap of evidence for the "need" for a god to exist." :rolleyes: Apparently you have a limited knowledge of physics. Safe to say? I think not.

To an extent. I'm sure you've heard of Schrodinger's cat. The state of said furniture is indeterminable without some way of detecting said state. However, the analogy isn't completely accurate. The assertion one might make about the presence of some higher power would not be that it acts often in our world while we are not looking and then covers its tracks, but that the higher power might not have any desire to act on us, and so it doesn't, hence there will obviously be no evidence of it doing so.

Or it may act on this world, but we cannot measure those actions because the deity itself is outside the universe and the rules of the universe - making it impossible to measure. We measure the results, but would, scientifically at least, interpret those measurements as having been caused by something natural, as we cannot test for and measure anything supernatural.

Basically, you really can't prove a negative...

There's also Ockham's Razor to think of, as well. The universe can be explained without bringing in the additional posit of a higher entity, so why should there be one?

Very few athiests will say that they can actively prove there isn't a god. However, you can't actively disprove an idea that there is an invisible, weightless pink unicorn floating around the moon. ... Do people really allow for the existance of such a thing in their minds, though?

The big bang? The spontaneous creation and continued growth of a universe? Science has explained all of these things? Oh, and I almost forgot - we have explored the entire universe, and can comfortably make the statement that "nothing in the universe that offers a scrap of evidence for the "need" for a god to exist." :rolleyes: Apparently you have a limited knowledge of physics. Safe to say? I think not.

Some variations of string theory take out a creator as a necessity, actually.

Please, gentlemen, do not turn this thread into a petty flame-war.

Are you talking to me? And calling me a gentleman? How dare you call me a male, you ^*^&@)!*

*Ok, seriously, this situation needs more humor :fluffle: I would point out, however, that nothing I have said can logically be construed as flaming.

Melkor, if I offended you when I vented my frustration at what I had thought was your evading my question by saying that I felt like I was arguing against a child with selective hearing, then I most sincerely apologize. There, now don't we all feel a bit better?

I wouldn't worry about it - I don't think it has much to do with you at all. Melkor has some sort of deep-seated problem with me that I haven't figured out yet.

Now please quit ruining my thread by flaming each-other and start talking about AGNOSTICISM again.

I would point out that I haven't been flaming anyone, although I have been receiving quite a few flames myself (I'm used to it though, I just brush it off). I will, however, since you asked, stop discussion on this issue starting.........................NOW! =)

No...Agnostics have one of the most noble missions on Earth; to sow confusion.

"I have no idea! And neither do you!"
Woo!

We need to throw a party for that!

Some variations of string theory take out a creator as a necessity, actually.

<<<<<<<====---was aware of this.

*Ok, seriously, this situation needs more humor :fluffle: I would point out, however, that nothing I have said can logically be construed as flaming.

So, anyone that thinks you're flaming them is a stupid idiot? :D

Originally Posted by Dempublicents1
*Ok, seriously, this situation needs more humor I would point out, however, that nothing I have said can logically be construed as flaming.

So, anyone that thinks you're flaming them is a stupid idiot? :D

Well put..!! :)

No, wait,.. can agreeing with someone who is being sarcastic about someone
else being judgemental about the responses to their posts in a "possibly"
flaming manner be,... FLAMING..!?

I'm so confused..... What's a poor social commentator to do..!?

So, anyone that thinks you're flaming them is a stupid idiot? :D

Ummmm.....er.......I hadn't thought about it that way, but.......

Crap! I said I wouldn't talk about this anymore! Look what you made me do! =)

Seriously though, Brockadia has asked that we drop this topic, so let's do it, kk?

:fluffle: to all!

And one might argue after the discovery of some deity down the road that we needed the existence of God to explain the universe we see before us. You're looking at present knowledge as opposed to the general concept. Until we discovered atoms, we didn't need them to explain our current understanding of the world. Am I getting through to you at all?
You have things back to front. We needed atoms to explain how things were made. Having worked out that there had to be atoms we set out and proved their existance.


The big bang? The spontaneous creation and continued growth of a universe? Science has explained all of these things?
Yes.

Oh, and I almost forgot - we have explored the entire universe, and can comfortably make the statement that "nothing in the universe that offers a scrap of evidence for the "need" for a god to exist." :rolleyes: Apparently you have a limited knowledge of physics. Safe to say? I think not.
We may not yet have explored al the universe, but we do know enough about it to safely say there is nothing that need the existance of a supernatural being to account for its processes. As for a knowledge of physics...I have in the past sub-edited/proofread quite a large number of books and magazine articles on particle physics and cosmology. I've also lectured on cosmology so its safe to say I've been paid to know what I'm talking about.

I've been wondering why there are so few agnostics around - everyone always goes all out atheist, and I just can't seem to make any sense of it.

*SNIP*

In the words of Socrates, "Wisest is he who knows he knows nothing."

Great. Yet another poster who doesn't know what an Atheist is.... oh, or a scientist.

I don't know what are you discussing, but I'm agnostic, if this helps...

Please, gentlemen, do not turn this thread into a petty flame-war. Melkor, if I offended you when I vented my frustration at what I had thought was your evading my question by saying that I felt like I was arguing against a child with selective hearing, then I most sincerely apologize. There, now don't we all feel a bit better? Now please quit ruining my thread by flaming each-other and start talking about AGNOSTICISM again.
No need to apologize; we both got a bit carried away but if you ask me, Dem's taken it a bit too far with her out-of-the-blue resurrection of the issue, which we had previously dropped.

I think most of the ad hominem complaints have abated [thank Christ], but the ones that are still here are being reviewed. Hopefully. I'm not really in a position to make any judgement calls about this thread [seeing as I have a fairly heavy emotional investment in the issue], but rest assured I don't plan on implicating you for anything.

To clarify, I probably would have if your post had consisted of the accusation and nothing else; but it was in my opinion a substantive post [as was my reply]. Most of the blame can likely be pinned on the human tendancy to shun admitting any wrongdoing, at least in my case. When all is said and done, our exchange was fairly pointless. We did a lot of arguing over an issue that we essentially have few [if any] disagreements over. As Dissonant Cognition pointed out, my qualms were'nt so much with agnosticism as they were with Philosophical Skepticism, which is admittedly not too far off.

*Ok, seriously, this situation needs more humor I would point out, however, that nothing I have said can logically be construed as flaming.
Oh, really?

Do you enjoy being a bigot who has to stereotype and demonize the people that happen to disagree with you?
Luckily for you, I have renounced my ability to make any on-the-field rulings concerning your conduct, since you've pissed me off so much I feel I can no longer moderate you with a level head. You are the second poster [the first was Kahta] in my 2+ years of modding NS that has pushed this particular envelope.

Bearing that in mind, I'll let another mod do it, but you can bet your sweet ass that's textbook flamebait.

Enjoy!

EDIT: now, I've done enough thread-derailing here for one lifetime, so please place any appeals, disagreements, etc. in the Moderation forum so that they may be more adequately discussed.

You have things back to front. We needed atoms to explain how things were made. Having worked out that there had to be atoms we set out and proved their existance.

How can you keep this up for so long? We did not know we needed atoms to explain how things were made for 15 billion years. No creature or person knew, and people sure as hell couldn't prove it. How is this not possibly the case for a higher power as well?

Yes.

Actually, the correct answer was no. Nice try, though. The only things that are used to describe things like the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe are theories without any actual proof to back them up - kind of like the existence of a higher power. Theories != facts. Theories != mistruths, either.

We may not yet have explored al the universe, but we do know enough about it to safely say there is nothing that need the existance of a supernatural being to account for its processes. As for a knowledge of physics...I have in the past sub-edited/proofread quite a large number of books and magazine articles on particle physics and cosmology. I've also lectured on cosmology so its safe to say I've been paid to know what I'm talking about.

To start, I think it's safe to say that you're lying here, or you wouldn't have made a statement so unbelievably wrong as the one I quoted. Then again, my high school physics teacher was a complete dipshit, though people considered him qualified to edit and make answer keys for various textbooks, so I suppose it's possible that you're telling the truth. We don't know shit about the universe - to imply that we do know shit about the universe, and that we in fact know enough about it to rule out the necessity of a certain being, is simply uneducated and incorrect. We think it expands for a certain amount of time and will at some point implode. We think it was born from something called the "Big Bang," but have no idea what caused said bang. We think black holes exist, though the actual existence of one has never been proven. Some think that wormholes exist creating shortcuts between areas of the universe. Some think that there exist an infinite number of parallel universes which are connected by some sort of pathway. But we don't know any of this, and to say that we do is wrong.

Great. Yet another poster who doesn't know what an Atheist is.... oh, or a scientist.

Hah, please explain. I'm sure you would have if your insult had any actual support, but I'm going to ask you to explain, nonetheless, to point this out to other people.

Hah, please explain. I'm sure you would have if your insult had any actual support, but I'm going to ask you to explain, nonetheless, to point this out to other people.

Calm down, my friend. It's no insult to point out error where error IS.

First - there are two (main) types of Atheists - the Explicit Atheist and the Implicit Atheist. Now, let's see what our original poster had to say about Atheists?

"If you're an atheist, that means you actively believe that there is no god whatsoever".

This is patently untrue. The Explicit Atheist DENIES the possibility of 'god', but the Implicit Atheist simply lacks belief in a god/any gods.

It has been illustrated on the forum many times, Lack of belief IS NOT EQUAL TO belief of lack.

Our original poster continued: "How can you possibly be atheist and still call yourself a scientist? What scientific proof do you have that there is no god-like entity which exists whatsoever? What evidence do you have, and what are you basing this belief on? Atheists are pulling this "I know there is no god" crap right out of their asses, just like every single religious nut pulls "I know there is a god" out of theirs. There is no scientific evidence, no proof, no nothing to show either that god does or does not exist, so how can you possibly believe either one and still call yourself a scientist?"

Firstly: It makes no difference to your ability to be a 'scientist' whether you are a 'believer' or not. So long as you can separate what IS scientific from what is NOT scientific. If you can observe, formulate a hypothesis, test AGAINST that hypothesis, and compare conclusions to the hypothesis, re-engineering the hypothesis when needed - then it is scientific. If you cannot hit all of those stages, it is NOT scientific. This ONLY becomes a problem when you allow the one sphere to intrude on the other.

Secondly: A 'scientist' doesn't try to 'prove' that there 'is no god'... because you can NOT prove such a thing, through science. All you can EVER do, is show a lack of evidence, a 'scientist' knows that you cannot 'prove' a negative.


So, unfortunately, our original poster (while doubtless with good INTENTIONS), has shown that he/she doesn't understand all the implications of 'Atheism', and doesn't have a solid grasp on 'science'.


For me to point out this lack is hardly an insult.

A quote from the book The Life of Pi :
I’ll be honest about it. It is not atheists who get struck in my craw, but agnostics. Doubt is useful for a while. We must all pass through the garden of Gethsemane. If Christ played with doubt, so must we. If Christ spent an anguished night in prayer, if He burst out from the cross, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” then surely we are also permitted doubt. But we must move on. To choose doubt as a philosophy of life is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation.

Then again, when you put it like this

No...Agnostics have one of the most noble missions on Earth; to sow confusion.

"I have no idea! And neither do you!"

I can see it both ways. :)

How can you keep this up for so long? We did not know we needed atoms to explain how things were made for 15 billion years. No creature or person knew, and people sure as hell couldn't prove it. How is this not possibly the case for a higher power as well?

Atoms have given evidence of there existance throughout the 15billion years, waiting for someone to understand them.

After the same 15 billion years god(s) have given no evidence.

Actually, the correct answer was no. Nice try, though. The only things that are used to describe things like the Big Bang and the expansion of the universe are theories without any actual proof to back them up - kind of like the existence of a higher power. Theories != facts. Theories != mistruths, either.
I'm not sure why you want to ignore the scientific evidence of the Big Bang. More than enough exists and the science/maths of it are now well understood. While there is still some debate on what caused the BB we can understand everything from the first few micro seconds on.

To start, I think it's safe to say that you're lying here, or you wouldn't have made a statement so unbelievably wrong as the one I quoted. Then again, my high school physics teacher was a complete dipshit, though people considered him qualified to edit and make answer keys for various textbooks, so I suppose it's possible that you're telling the truth. We don't know shit about the universe - to imply that we do know shit about the universe, and that we in fact know enough about it to rule out the necessity of a certain being, is simply uneducated and incorrect. We think it expands for a certain amount of time and will at some point implode. We think it was born from something called the "Big Bang," but have no idea what caused said bang. We think black holes exist, though the actual existence of one has never been proven. Some think that wormholes exist creating shortcuts between areas of the universe. Some think that there exist an infinite number of parallel universes which are connected by some sort of pathway. But we don't know any of this, and to say that we do is wrong.
There are so many incorrect statements in that list it is difficult to understand how one person can get so much wrong in one posting.
1) We know a hell of a lot about the universe, certainly enough to ignore the claims that it needs a mythical god to explain its creation and evolution.
2) We know it expands, though at the moment we do not know if that will go on forever or eventually reverse itself.
3) there are several good ideas on what caused the BB and I've no doubt that one will reach the state of full theory very soon.
4) We KNOW black holes exist, there are several under close study already and new ones are confirmed every year.
5) There are those that think a lot of things, but at least (unlike the religious mob) most of those things are based on science and have a good mathematical basis - the same cannot be said for the idea that a god exists.

So that'd be women, then?
If pushed, I say I'm agnostic, but my real stand on religion is that I don't give a flying fuck one way or the other whether or not god/s exist/s.

stalin's right on the money. god, yes, no, who gives a fuck? athiests are a little to confident in themselves in my opinion. you can't be completely sure of it either way.

and i had a very bad incident with an athiest who tries to force his ideas onto people. he's a real asshole. i mean, if you look in a dictionary, athiestm means the lack of religion. but athiests are creating a religion based on no god. so you are being hypocritical of the very definition of what you are.


i just hate militants. can't we all just believe/say/do what we want to without people trying to force into their ways. seriously kids, stop the hate.

stalin's right on the money. god, yes, no, who gives a fuck? athiests are a little to confident in themselves in my opinion. you can't be completely sure of it either way.

and i had a very bad incident with an athiest who tries to force his ideas onto people. he's a real asshole. i mean, if you look in a dictionary, athiestm means the lack of religion. but athiests are creating a religion based on no god. so you are being hypocritical of the very definition of what you are.


i just hate militants. can't we all just believe/say/do what we want to without people trying to force into their ways. seriously kids, stop the hate.

How is NOT believing in a god, religion? What is the cathedral of the Atheist? What are the rituals? What is the doctrine?

because you are making it a set of beliefs and SOME OF YOU are forcing it onto others.


christianity is a set of beliefs FORCED (or was forced at one point) onto others.

i see no difference

because you are making it a set of beliefs and SOME OF YOU are forcing it onto others.


christianity is a set of beliefs FORCED (or was forced at one point) onto others.

i see no difference

I am an Atheist, I admit it. I've never tried to deny it. But... when have I tried to make 'a set of beliefs'? As an Implicit Atheist, I have no 'belief' to impose on another... all I have is a LACK of belief in some other structures.

I have yet to see ANY Atheists 'force' Atheism onto others. How would you even do that? Can you MAKE someone NOT believe?

There are no Atheist Evangelists, are there? No Atheist street-preachers? We don't have an Atheist Bible? We don't stop people in the streets to give them our 'good news'? We don't stand on their doorsteps, asking them to let us in so that we can point out their flaws in faith? We are not compelled to spread the message of Atheism. We do not attempt to convert the laws of the nation to fit our Athiest Traditions?

Did you know, Atheists are the most hated minority in America? They score below any racial, sexual or gender orientation as candidates that the American public would consider for Presidency. That is - when given a list of racial origins, etc, the LOWEST percentage that Americans said they COULD vote for, was Atheists.

What I don't get, is WHY we are hated so. The Christian is an Atheist to the Muslim, is he not? We just believe in even less gods.

I am agnostic, I just don't know, that's the honest truth. But I am also a Nietzscian. So I say that if god does so happen to exist then he can stay out of my life and let me run myself. I can make my own morality and my own decisons.

Atoms have given evidence of there existance throughout the 15billion years, waiting for someone to understand them.

After the same 15 billion years god(s) have given no evidence.[/QUOTE]

Holy fucking shit. Maybe God has given evidence of his or her or it's existence for 15 billion years, and we still haven't understood it. Are you so stubbornly faithful in your being right that you can't admit this possibility?

I'm not sure why you want to ignore the scientific evidence of the Big Bang. More than enough exists and the science/maths of it are now well understood. While there is still some debate on what caused the BB we can understand everything from the first few micro seconds on.

I didn't ask you if science explained the universe after the Big Bang, did I?

1) We know a hell of a lot about the universe, certainly enough to ignore the claims that it needs a mythical god to explain its creation and evolution.

Just wrong, I explained why already.

2) We know it expands, though at the moment we do not know if that will go on forever or eventually reverse itself.

No, we think it expands. There is no more irrefutable, scientific proof that the universe expanding than there is proof of a higher power's existence via freak occurrences in nature. It just seems to make sense that it should, as far as our knowledge of physics is concerned today. We used to know that the sun orbited the Earth, too. We were wrong.

3) there are several good ideas on what caused the BB and I've no doubt that one will reach the state of full theory very soon.

"Full theory?" Is that a scientific term, Mr. Science Whiz? Is that kind of like a partial theory? Your having "no doubt" that we will reach a solid conclusion on the origin of the Big Bang does not make this fact. I was perfectly right in what I said.

4) We KNOW black holes exist, there are several under close study already and new ones are confirmed every year.

Please cite a single black hole that has been globally accepted as more than simply a candidate or a suspected black hole by the entire scientific community. For every spot in the universe that has ever been suspected of being a black hole, there are arguments that point out why it might not be. The point is, the subject is not completely understood or proved to be fact as of yet. There are still many varying opinions on the matter.

5) There are those that think a lot of things, but at least (unlike the religious mob) most of those things are based on science and have a good mathematical basis - the same cannot be said for the idea that a god exists.

Some people would completely disagree with this, and in fact some say that scientific holes, such as the cause of the Big Bang, are proof that a God must exist.

I have yet to see ANY Atheists 'force' Atheism onto others. How would you even do that? Can you MAKE someone NOT believe?

LOL, I've actually seen many. Many atheists become frustrated, angry, and defensive when someone is even open to the possibility of there being a God or gods, and try their damnedest to convince people otherwise. In fact, I've only met one Christian that tried to convert me, whereas I've met three atheists that have tried to convince me that God cannot exist. It must be where you live.

There are no Atheist Evangelists, are there? No Atheist street-preachers? We don't have an Atheist Bible? We don't stop people in the streets to give them our 'good news'? We don't stand on their doorsteps, asking them to let us in so that we can point out their flaws in faith? We are not compelled to spread the message of Atheism. We do not attempt to convert the laws of the nation to fit our Athiest Traditions?

You don't have to be an Evangelical to be a nutcase, Grave.

Did you know, Atheists are the most hated minority in America? They score below any racial, sexual or gender orientation as candidates that the American public would consider for Presidency. That is - when given a list of racial origins, etc, the LOWEST percentage that Americans said they COULD vote for, was Atheists.

That's simply because most people in America believe in God, and find people who don't strange. It doesn't really mean they hate atheists. In fact "good Christians" are supposed to feel sorry for you guys.

First - there are two (main) types of Atheists - the Explicit Atheist and the Implicit Atheist. Now, let's see what our original poster had to say about Atheists?

"If you're an atheist, that means you actively believe that there is no god whatsoever".

I'll be the first to admit that I've never heard of the term "Implicit Atheists," but after finding out what it is and reading your next quote:

This is patently untrue. The Explicit Atheist DENIES the possibility of 'god', but the Implicit Atheist simply lacks belief in a god/any gods.

... it would seem than an implicit atheist is simply a very skeptical agnostic. That's not really who the original poster and myself are bashing.

It has been illustrated on the forum many times, Lack of belief IS NOT EQUAL TO belief of lack.

Right, but the generally accepted definition of atheist is belief of lacking.

Secondly: A 'scientist' doesn't try to 'prove' that there 'is no god'... because you can NOT prove such a thing, through science. All you can EVER do, is show a lack of evidence, a 'scientist' knows that you cannot 'prove' a negative.

Exactly, but lack of evidence does not equal lack of existence. We lacked evidence of the existence of many things, things that were only recently discovered in the scheme of things, for billions of years.

So, unfortunately, our original poster (while doubtless with good INTENTIONS), has shown that he/she doesn't understand all the implications of 'Atheism', and doesn't have a solid grasp on 'science'.

I don't think the original poster has demonstrated the latter, but simply the former - I wasn't aware that a skeptical agnostic was actually a type of atheist, either.

For me to point out this lack is hardly an insult.

Not after you explain it, no. Still, just replace "atheist" with "explicit atheist" when reading this thread, as that's what is intended.

Holy fucking shit. Maybe God has given evidence of his or her or it's existence for 15 billion years, and we still haven't understood it. Are you so stubbornly faithful in your being right that you can't admit this possibility?
Care to show some evidence?

I didn't ask you if science explained the universe after the Big Bang, did I?
I'll repeat, I'm not sure why you want to ignore the scientific evidence of the Big Bang. More than enough exists and the science/maths of it are now well understood.


Just wrong, I explained why already.
You failed - pathetically.

No, we think it expands. There is no more irrefutable, scientific proof that the universe expanding than there is proof of a higher power's existence via freak occurrences in nature. It just seems to make sense that it should, as far as our knowledge of physics is concerned today. We used to know that the sun orbited the Earth, too. We were wrong.
You seem to ignore most of what science has taught us - why? No reputable scientist would entertain a non expanding universe, the evidence for it is overwhelming. Yet, strangely, there is still ZERO evidence for a god.

"Full theory?" Is that a scientific term, Mr. Science Whiz? Is that kind of like a partial theory?
I think you need to find out what a scientific theory is.

Your having "no doubt" that we will reach a solid conclusion on the origin of the Big Bang does not make this fact.
It makes it a fact that we will reach a solid conclusion.

I was perfectly right in what I said.
Well you may be right one day, just don't hold your breath waiting because on present form that day is a long way off.

Please cite a single black hole that has been globally accepted as more than simply a candidate or a suspected black hole by the entire scientific community. For every spot in the universe that has ever been suspected of being a black hole, there are arguments that point out why it might not be. The point is, the subject is not completely understood or proved to be fact as of yet. There are still many varying opinions on the matter.
Kormendy and Richstone (1995 edition of "Annual Reviews of Astronomy and Astrophysics"), listed eight galaxies have been observed to contain such massive black holes in their centers.
X-ray astronomers have detected a spectral line from one galactic nucleus that indicates the presence of atoms near the nucleus that are moving extremely fast (about 1/3 the speed of light). Furthermore, the radiation from these atoms has been redshifted in just the manner one would expect for radiation coming from near the horizon of a black hole. These observations would be very difficult to explain in any other way besides a black hole.(22 June 1995 issue of Nature, vol. 375, p. 659.)
A black hole in the center of the M87 galaxy in the constellation Virgo (about 50 million light-years away) has been calculated to have a mass equal to that of 3 billion Suns.

Some people would completely disagree with this, and in fact some say that scientific holes, such as the cause of the Big Bang, are proof that a God must exist.
And some people even elect that sort of numnut as their president.

Care to show some evidence?

Fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck. Stop trying to piss me off. My whole fucking point is that we may not yet understand the evidence if it exists, so no I can't fucking show you evidence. 2000 years ago, you couldn't have shown me evidence of atoms, because you wouldn't have known what that kind of evidence looked like.

I'll repeat, I'm not sure why you want to ignore the scientific evidence of the Big Bang. More than enough exists and the science/maths of it are now well understood.

That's the most baseless, generic bullshit I've ever heard, and I wish you'd stop repeating yourself. "The science maths of it are now well understood, what's so hard to understand." Fucking right.

You failed - pathetically.

Only not.

You seem to ignore most of what science has taught us - why? No reputable scientist would entertain a non expanding universe, the evidence for it is overwhelming. Yet, strangely, there is still ZERO evidence for a god.

... way to repeat yourself. Hold on, if we're going to play the "repeat ourselves over and over" game, I want to play to:

No, we think it expands. There is no more irrefutable, scientific proof that the universe expanding than there is proof of a higher power's existence via freak occurrences in nature. It just seems to make sense that it should, as far as our knowledge of physics is concerned today. We used to know that the sun orbited the Earth, too. We were wrong.


I think you need to find out what a scientific theory is.

I think you need to find out what English is. There aren't "full theories." Theories are theories.

It makes it a fact that we will reach a solid conclusion.

No, it doesn't. Your saying it does doesn't change shit. Until we do reach a solid conclusion, if that ever happens, it's not a solid conclusion, and for some hobo on the internet that claims to be a scientist to claim otherwise does not change that.

Well you may be right one day, just don't hold your breath waiting because on present form that day is a long way off.

Fucking exactly. I may be right. May be. You finally get it. That's the whole fucking point of agnosticism - we may be wrong or we may be right, but we sure don't know. Congratulations. You understand.

Kormendy and Richstone (1995 edition of "Annual Reviews of Astronomy and Astrophysics"), listed eight galaxies have been observed to contain such massive black holes in their centers.

No, they've been observed to contain spots in which the universe acts in a strangely irregular manner, where there may or may not be what scientists have so long dubbed "black holes."

X-ray astronomers have detected a spectral line from one galactic nucleus that indicates the presence of atoms near the nucleus that are moving extremely fast (about 1/3 the speed of light). Furthermore, the radiation from these atoms has been redshifted in just the manner one would expect for radiation coming from near the horizon of a black hole. These observations would be very difficult to explain in any other way besides a black hole.(22 June 1995 issue of Nature, vol. 375, p. 659.)

Very difficult, indeed. But not nearly impossible. Personally, I am one of those that find black hole radiation highly unlikely, even if the things radiated are nigh massless, which in itself makes the existence of most black holes hard to justify.

A black hole in the center of the M87 galaxy in the constellation Virgo (about 50 million light-years away) has been calculated to have a mass equal to that of 3 billion Suns.

Which is simply an estimate made on very limited knowledge of the actual nature of the M87 black hole, as we can test no more than its approximate size and its levels of radiation.

And some people even elect that sort of numnut as their president.

Gee, that's relevant, considering how I've so vehemently claimed that God must exist - oh, wait. Well, at least you're not pretentious enough to think that you're wholly right on a subject in a manner similar to the religious right - oh, fuck, wait again.

There are no Atheist Evangelists, are there?

Yes, there are. Explicit atheists sometimes do attempt to evangelize in much the same way as a fundamentalist Christian. They go out of their way to express their belief that there is no God, and call anyone who disagrees with them names such as idiot, psychotic, child, ....... I could go on.

Such people are, of course, a minority among atheists, just as the pushy evangelical Christians (or any other religion) are a minority among Christians (or any other religion).

LOL, I've actually seen many. Many atheists become frustrated, angry, and defensive when someone is even open to the possibility of there being a God or gods, and try their damnedest to convince people otherwise. In fact, I've only met one Christian that tried to convert me, whereas I've met three atheists that have tried to convince me that God cannot exist.

Ever hear of a street corner preacher? I've seen any number of wackos out on the streets handing out pamphlets and whatnot. Heck, there are even commercials for certain denominations on TV. Can you give me an atheist's equivalent of that? If someone asks me about my religious beliefs I'm more than happy to share them, but I don't erect billboards to tell the world like Christians do.

If you're an atheist, that means you actively believe that there is no god whatsoever.
No, an atheist is someone who lacks a belief in god(s).

How can you possibly be atheist and still call yourself a scientist?

The existance of god(s) is not a scientific hypothesis, because it cannot be disproven. Therefore noone can make a scientific assertion about the existance of god(s). That doesn't mean you can't have an opinion on the matter.

It is a scientist's job to constantly question everything, to never allow himself to have unfounded beliefs that might bias his theories and experimental results, to never take anything for granted, and to not believe anything until he has been shown irrefutable proof that it is true.

I disagree. There is no such thing as irrefutable proof in science. Scientists make observations, come up with theories that explain those observation, use the theories to make predictions and then test those predictions. The theory is then modified. Scientific models are just the current 'best fit' to the available eveidence.


So to put it bluntly, if you want to call yourself a scientist, or be a proponent of science, you must be willing to face the fact that any unproven hypothesis has the potential to be proven wrong and that it is foolish to have unfounded beliefs about anything.

I am quite happy to accept I might be wrong, after all, I believe I was wrong when I was a christian. I don't claim to be all-knowing or infallible.

I disagree with your assertion that it is foolish to have unfounded beliefs about anything. If you look at the history of scientific theories you will see many models which are now believed to be incorrect, but which were close enough to reality to give advances to technology. Also, many religons have rules which they claim are from their god, but are today considered common sense because science has determined reasons for them. For example, the Jews were given instructions on hygiene.

I went through a stage when I thought of myself as an agnostic. Then I realised that whether I was an agnostic, weak atheist or strong atheist depended on the definition of 'god'. I then decided that in order for me to be truly agnostic, the definition of god had to be such that the question of god's existance was completely irrelevant to me. So I call myself an atheist.

No, an atheist is someone who lacks a belief in god(s).

Actually, an atheist (or an explicit atheist, as clarified by Grave, which is what we're talking about) denies the existance of god(s). An implicit atheist, which is, in my opinion, a skeptical agnostic, lacks a belief in god(s).

I am quite happy to accept I might be wrong, after all, I believe I was wrong when I was a christian. I don't claim to be all-knowing or infallible.

Your accepting the possibility of either option being possible makes you an agnostic, not an atheist. Or an implicit atheist, at the very most, depending on how skeptical you are. Big difference.

So I call myself an atheist.

While you're allowed to call yourself that, it seems a somewhat inaccurate definition of your stance.

Actually, an atheist (or an explicit atheist, as clarified by Grave, which is what we're talking about) denies the existance of god(s). An implicit atheist, which is, in my opinion, a skeptical agnostic, lacks a belief in god(s).

Your accepting the possibility of either option being possible makes you an agnostic, not an atheist. Or an implicit atheist, at the very most, depending on how skeptical you are. Big difference.


OK then, although when you start discussing a particular god I think the line between an implicit and and explicit atheist will tend to fade somewhat.

And I'm not really accepting the possibility of either option, I'm accepting that I am capable of being wrong. I vary between implicit and explicit atheism depending on the god, but to get me to make the jump to strong agnostism you also have to have a god whose existance I don't care enough about to comment. In my opinion, weak agnostism is really just saying I don't know right now, let me think about it some more.

OK then, although when you start discussing a particular god I think the line between an implicit and and explicit atheist will tend to fade somewhat.

And I'm not really accepting the possibility of either option, I'm accepting that I am capable of being wrong. I vary between implicit and explicit atheism depending on the god, but to get me to make the jump to strong agnostism you also have to have a god whose existance I don't care enough about to comment. In my opinion, weak agnostism is really just saying I don't know right now, let me think about it some more.

Well, agnosticism doesn't really center on how strongly you feel one way or another on specific gods, but the concept than any of the gods could be the real gods, or none of them could, or there is no such thing.

Well, agnosticism doesn't really center on how strongly you feel one way or another on specific gods, but the concept than any of the gods could be the real gods, or none of them could, or there is no such thing.
But in order to make any assertion about god you must first define god. It's pointless to debate something if you haven't specified what it is.
Few people agree on the characteristics that a god would have. Is a god omnipresent and omnibenevolent? Does God have a personality, or is God just a universal energy with a cool vibe?
As soon as you begin giving God characteristics, you're shutting out some definitions of god.

I am an expicit atheist with regard to Thor. I believe there is not a man-like being who physically throws lightning down from the clouds. With other definitions I might not be so sure, but I definitely lack a belief in them at present.

It is possible to define God in such a way that I would claim it is impossible to tell whether that god exists or not. Then I would consider myself agnostic with respect to that definition of god.

I've been wondering why there are so few agnostics around - everyone always goes all out atheist, and I just can't seem to make any sense of it.

These people who are atheist and go around yelling "science! science! science!" really need to take a good look at themselves and their argument. If you're an atheist, that means you actively believe that there is no god whatsoever. Now, I'm not going to say there is, nor am I saying that the opposite view is any better, but you guys really don't look any better than the IDers when you pull this crap. How can you possibly be atheist and still call yourself a scientist? What scientific proof do you have that there is no god-like entity which exists whatsoever? What evidence do you have, and what are you basing this belief on? Atheists are pulling this "I know there is no god" crap right out of their asses, just like every single religious nut pulls "I know there is a god" out of theirs. There is no scientific evidence, no proof, no nothing to show either that god does or does not exist, so how can you possibly believe either one and still call yourself a scientist? If you call yourself an atheist, you are being just as close-minded as any conservative wingnut and are not a scientist, period. It is a scientist's job to constantly question everything, to never allow himself to have unfounded beliefs that might bias his theories and experimental results, to never take anything for granted, and to not believe anything until he has been shown irrefutable proof that it is true. Not one person on this planet has been shown irrefutable proof that god does or does not exist and so you cannot claim that either is true. Just take a look at Stephen Hawking: he hypothesized a while back that black holes emitted no radiation whatsoever, but that didn't mean he didn't question that hypothesis - he did question it, and prodded it, and poked at it until he found evidence that his hypothesis was wrong, and when he did, he admitted so. He didn't limit himself by saying "I'm right, nyah nyah," he accepted the possibility that he might have been wrong, and it was because of that that we now know more about black holes than we did before. He realized that he couldn't possibly know whether or not his hypothesis was right until he tested it, and so he did. Right now, we can not test either the hypothesis that god does exist or the hypothesis that he does not, and so until we are able to, there is no way we can possibly know which is the case, and there is no basis whatsoever for either of the two beliefs.

This is also true of other things, as well, for example, questions like "Is there intelligent life elsewhere in the universe?" At this point in time, we do not have anywhere near the amount of information we need to determine the true probabilities of it being out there, so anyone who says they believe x or y is basing that belief on absolutely nothing. We don't know what the probability is of a solar system having a habitable planet is, we don't know what the probability is of earth-like life arising on a given planet is (and determining that is an experiment which could easily take millions of years at the very least.) And we don't even know what other possible types of life there could be. We simply do not have enough pieces of the puzzle to even have a rough idea of what the whole picture is, so anything that anybody says at this point is completely meaningless. You can talk about how many billions of billions of stars there are until you're blue in the face, but unless you know the probability of life arising in a given star system, it is all completely meaningless.

So to put it bluntly, if you want to call yourself a scientist, or be a proponent of science, you must be willing to face the fact that any unproven hypothesis has the potential to be proven wrong and that it is foolish to have unfounded beliefs about anything.

In the words of Socrates, "Wisest is he who knows he knows nothing."

I am an agnostic for exactly these reasons.

Fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck, fuck. Stop trying to piss me off. My whole fucking point is that we may not yet understand the evidence if it exists, so no I can't fucking show you evidence. 2000 years ago, you couldn't have shown me evidence of atoms, because you wouldn't have known what that kind of evidence looked like.
If you have ANY evidence for the existance of a god then please present it. Until you can then a belief in a mythical supernatural being is not very intelligent.

That's the most baseless, generic bullshit I've ever heard, and I wish you'd stop repeating yourself. "The science maths of it are now well understood, what's so hard to understand." Fucking right.
Well now we can put the BB behind us what part of your misunderstanding should we work on next?



... way to repeat yourself. Hold on, if we're going to play the "repeat ourselves over and over" game, I want to play to:

No, we think it expands. There is no more irrefutable, scientific proof that the universe expanding than there is proof of a higher power's existence via freak occurrences in nature. It just seems to make sense that it should, as far as our knowledge of physics is concerned today. We used to know that the sun orbited the Earth, too. We were wrong.[quote]
The universe IS expanding, of that there is not a shred of doubt. Scientific proof exists in such volume that you really are a fool to suggest otherwise.

Of course, there isn't a single bit of evidence for the existance of a god - if there was you would be able to quote it.

[quote]I think you need to find out what English is. There aren't "full theories." Theories are theories.
Go and find out how scientific theories are formed, advanced and tested.

Fucking exactly. I may be right. May be. You finally get it. That's the whole fucking point of agnosticism - we may be wrong or we may be right, but we sure don't know. Congratulations. You understand.
Zoooooom - right over your head. Try learning to read.



No, they've been observed to contain spots in which the universe acts in a strangely irregular manner, where there may or may not be what scientists have so long dubbed "black holes."
So the scientific community accepts they are looking at black holes but you can't. Funny that.

Very difficult, indeed. But not nearly impossible. Personally, I am one of those that find black hole radiation highly unlikely, even if the things radiated are nigh massless, which in itself makes the existence of most black holes hard to justify.
Once again you show your ignorance of the subject. They are not talking of black hole radiation, they are talking about the radiation of matter falling into a black hole. Nothing other than a black hole can produce the gravity effect necessary for matter to be travelling at that speed.

Which is simply an estimate made on very limited knowledge of the actual nature of the M87 black hole, as we can test no more than its approximate size and its levels of radiation.[quote]
If you have a region of space where the gravity/mass is large enough and concentrated enough to produce the effects of a black hole then you have a black hole.


[quote]Gee, that's relevant, considering how I've so vehemently claimed that God must exist - oh, wait. Well, at least you're not pretentious enough to think that you're wholly right on a subject in a manner similar to the religious right - oh, fuck, wait again.
I have science on my side, I don't have to rely on fairy stories.

Fairy stories? What fairy stories? Oh, you're reffering to what some people believe when it comes to religion. You can have God, without having religion you know. Brenchley, I'm not even positive you know what an agnostic is.

On a side note, cna someone clarify to me the difference between lacking a belief in, and belief in lack of?

<-Edit->

Oh yeah, here's something to ponder. Why did people suddenly start believing to a higher being and taking time out of their lives while they were still busy trying to scrape together an existance? How could such a thought come about?

If you have ANY evidence for the existance of a god then please present it. Until you can then a belief in a mythical supernatural being is not very intelligent.

No, what's not very intelligent is being positive about the nonexistence of something when you have no proof one way or another. The point is that, as with atoms and how we had clues of their existence from the start but did not understand it, we could have clues of a higher power's existence from the start and not understand it. Are you so stubborn, boneheaded, and confused by the English language that you can't understand this simple concept?

Well now we can put the BB behind us what part of your misunderstanding should we work on next?

My misunderstanding? You can't even fucking comprehend half the shit I've written, and as a result you repeat yourself over and over like a little fucking high school eighth grader in a remedial physical science class. Why don't you learn the littlest fucking bit about the Big Bang and come back and admit that saying we understand its origin is fucking retarded.

The universe IS expanding, of that there is not a shred of doubt. Scientific proof exists in such volume that you really are a fool to suggest otherwise.

No, it's just a theory that seems to make sense. Like I've said before, we used to know many other things that ended up being wrong. How can you not admit this possibility now? Grow the fuck up and start making actual points, aside from saying stupid things like, "Oh, gee, there are lots of sciences and maths that prove that so you're wrong, nyah."

Of course, there isn't a single bit of evidence for the existance of a god - if there was you would be able to quote it.

No, we aren't aware of a single shread of evidence for the existence of a god. Learn the fucking difference, it's not that fucking complicated that a science scholar such as yourself (:rolleyes:) can't figure it out.

Go and find out how scientific theories are formed, advanced and tested.

Go find out... something. Just go learn something. Anything.


Zoooooom - right over your head. Try learning to read.

Coming from you, that's fucking hilarious. I'm curious... what the fuck went "over my head" out of what you said? You said that I "may be right one day," and that's quoting you, which is the entire basis for agnosticism. You basically fucking admitted defeat right there, but you still blubbered on.


So the scientific community accepts they are looking at black holes but you can't. Funny that.

No, some of the scientific community accepts this. Others in the scientific community don't. Is it so fucking hard to understand that when dealing with unproven physics concepts you're going to have a lot of skeptics that don't agree with the rest?

Once again you show your ignorance of the subject. They are not talking of black hole radiation, they are talking about the radiation of matter falling into a black hole. Nothing other than a black hole can produce the gravity effect necessary for matter to be travelling at that speed.

Say, "I'm an idiot. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation)" Here's some of the most basic reading (http://www.physics.unlv.edu/~jeffery/astro/astro1/lec025.html#hawking%20radiation), too. Because I'm such a nice guy.

If you have a region of space where the gravity/mass is large enough and concentrated enough to produce the effects of a black hole then you have a black hole.

No, not necessarily, and not in the generally accepted sense. It's much more complicated than that, which an amazing scientist such as yourself would surely understand. Many don't believe in central singularities, and direct observation of event horizons is not possible, making proof difficult to come by.

I have science on my side, I don't have to rely on fairy stories.

Okay.

Alright, honestly - I didn't read a fourth of what you wrote.

Anyway. I'm really an agnostic, as there is no proof for or against gods. The reason I choose to place myself under the collective wing of Atheism is that the term Agnosticism is misinterpreted. The Theists that I've come across seem to believe agnostics are simply undecided and are still vulnerable to conversion. That they just need explaining to, a bit of prodding, to place them back on the religious path. Whereas Atheists are believed to be beyond rescue, that they can't be influenced. For the purpose of avoiding conflict with Theists - Atheist here. ;)

Fairy stories? What fairy stories? Oh, you're reffering to what some people believe when it comes to religion. You can have God, without having religion you know. Brenchley, I'm not even positive you know what an agnostic is.
You cannot have god without religion though you can have religion without god.

Correctly an agnostic is someone who claims it is impossible to know the truth about god, though in common use it is used to label someone who believes their is a god but doesn't find any religion that fits his bill.

Oh yeah, here's something to ponder. Why did people suddenly start believing to a higher being and taking time out of their lives while they were still busy trying to scrape together an existance? How could such a thought come about?
Most religion has been used by a minority to control a majority.

No, what's not very intelligent is being positive about the nonexistence of something when you have no proof one way or another. The point is that, as with atoms and how we had clues of their existence from the start but did not understand it, we could have clues of a higher power's existence from the start and not understand it. Are you so stubborn, boneheaded, and confused by the English language that you can't understand this simple concept?
One of the reasons for religion was to offer an explination, through the invention of some god or other, for the universe we see around us. It is not very intelligent to carry on believing in fairy stories when every single explination they give has been disproved.


My misunderstanding? You can't even fucking comprehend half the shit I've written, and as a result you repeat yourself over and over like a little fucking high school eighth grader in a remedial physical science class. Why don't you learn the littlest fucking bit about the Big Bang and come back and admit that saying we understand its origin is fucking retarded.
Yes, your misunderstanding. Learn something about the subject - there are a lot of good books out there - try The Whole Shebang (A state of the universe report) by Timothy Ferris, my copy is pre-publication so I don't have an ISBN but it came out around 1998 I think.

No, it's just a theory that seems to make sense. Like I've said before, we used to know many other things that ended up being wrong. How can you not admit this possibility now? Grow the fuck up and start making actual points, aside from saying stupid things like, "Oh, gee, there are lots of sciences and maths that prove that so you're wrong, nyah."
Once again. The universe IS expanding, of that there is not a shred of doubt. Scientific proof exists in such volume that you really are a fool to suggest otherwise. Even Einstein admitted his biggest ever mistake was trying to ignore the expansion.

No, we aren't aware of a single shread of evidence for the existence of a god. Learn the fucking difference, it's not that fucking complicated that a science scholar such as yourself (:rolleyes:) can't figure it out.
Well when you find some evidence be sure to tell us. Until then it is rather silly to believe in soemthing which is just the subject of fairy stories.

Go find out... something. Just go learn something. Anything.
I have a good few years head start on you.

Coming from you, that's fucking hilarious. I'm curious... what the fuck went "over my head" out of what you said? You said that I "may be right one day," and that's quoting you, which is the entire basis for agnosticism. You basically fucking admitted defeat right there, but you still blubbered on.
And one day you MAY be right about something, just don't hold your beath waiting as I think it is a long way off.

No, some of the scientific community accepts this. Others in the scientific community don't. Is it so fucking hard to understand that when dealing with unproven physics concepts you're going to have a lot of skeptics that don't agree with the rest?
Hohohohohehehehehahahaha. It may have been true that at one time scientist could claim black holes didn't exist, but that time is long past as there is far to much observational evidence for them



Say, "I'm an idiot. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation)" Here's some of the most basic reading (http://www.physics.unlv.edu/~jeffery/astro/astro1/lec025.html#hawking%20radiation), too. Because I'm such a nice guy.[quote]
I'm sure you wanted to make a point but it would be better is you actually came out with the question you want answered.

[quote]No, not necessarily, and not in the generally accepted sense. It's much more complicated than that, which an amazing scientist such as yourself would surely understand. Many don't believe in central singularities, and direct observation of event horizons is not possible, making proof difficult to come by.
You really are behind with modern cosmology. I know it is a hard subject as it is so diverse, but it is a very rewarding subject if you put in the effort.

Okay.
Sure, I'm OK, and so is science.

I'm a full blown Militant Centrist Fundamentalist Agnostic.

Really though I just don't put too much thought into religion. That and I just don't care. Although I recognize science as the means of the future, I'm not quite ready to simply say: "There is no God!"

One of the reasons for religion was to offer an explination, through the invention of some god or other, for the universe we see around us. It is not very intelligent to carry on believing in fairy stories when every single explination they give has been disproved. It certainly wouldn't be very intelligent, if the religions in question had been disproved.

Some people would completely disagree with this, and in fact some say that scientific holes, such as the cause of the Big Bang, are proof that a God must exist.

And they would be wrong.

Just because Cause A becomes discredited, does NOTHING to help the case of Cause B.

And they would be wrong.

Just because Cause A becomes discredited, does NOTHING to help the case of Cause B.

I agree, I was just making a point that just because something is not proven does not mean it's not true.

I am an Atheist, I admit it. I've never tried to deny it. But... when have I tried to make 'a set of beliefs'? As an Implicit Atheist, I have no 'belief' to impose on another... all I have is a LACK of belief in some other structures.

I have yet to see ANY Atheists 'force' Atheism onto others. How would you even do that? Can you MAKE someone NOT believe?

There are no Atheist Evangelists, are there? No Atheist street-preachers? We don't have an Atheist Bible? We don't stop people in the streets to give them our 'good news'? We don't stand on their doorsteps, asking them to let us in so that we can point out their flaws in faith? We are not compelled to spread the message of Atheism. We do not attempt to convert the laws of the nation to fit our Athiest Traditions?

Did you know, Atheists are the most hated minority in America? They score below any racial, sexual or gender orientation as candidates that the American public would consider for Presidency. That is - when given a list of racial origins, etc, the LOWEST percentage that Americans said they COULD vote for, was Atheists.

What I don't get, is WHY we are hated so. The Christian is an Atheist to the Muslim, is he not? We just believe in even less gods.

i know any athiest kid who whenever you say anything remotely religious he shoots down everything. every single thing he will shoot down. he is a total asshole about it. in fact. he's one of the biggest assholes i've ever met in my life. thus my bias against athiest. i had a really bad encounter with one, and it pisses me off.

i have no problems when athiests are just normal people who don't try and preach. if they just say, no i'm not religious and change the subject. awesome. religion isnt something i want to talk about. i'm not religious. i could really care less either way.

One of the reasons for religion was to offer an explination, through the invention of some god or other, for the universe we see around us. It is not very intelligent to carry on believing in fairy stories when every single explination they give has been disproved.

Hello wall: :headbang:



Yes, your misunderstanding. Learn something about the subject - there are a lot of good books out there - try The Whole Shebang (A state of the universe report) by Timothy Ferris, my copy is pre-publication so I don't have an ISBN but it came out around 1998 I think.

:headbang:


Once again. The universe IS expanding, of that there is not a shred of doubt. Scientific proof exists in such volume that you really are a fool to suggest otherwise. Even Einstein admitted his biggest ever mistake was trying to ignore the expansion.

Einstein also did not believe in black holes. You really need to decide what you're going to present to support your case, here.

Well when you find some evidence be sure to tell us. Until then it is rather silly to believe in soemthing which is just the subject of fairy stories.

:headbang:

I have a good few years head start on you.

Oh, believe me, your incredible display of intelligence has made that oh-so-apparent.

:headbang:


And one day you MAY be right about something, just don't hold your beath waiting as I think it is a long way off.

A long way off? That implies that it will one day happen. You're really not good at keeping up one side of an argument, you've not the fortitude.

Hohohohohehehehehahahaha. It may have been true that at one time scientist could claim black holes didn't exist, but that time is long past as there is far to much observational evidence for them

In the current sense, they may not, and many scientists still claim this.

Say, "I'm an idiot. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation)" Here's some of the most basic reading (http://www.physics.unlv.edu/~jeffery/astro/astro1/lec025.html#hawking%20radiation), too. Because I'm such a nice guy.
I'm sure you wanted to make a point but it would be better is you actually came out with the question you want answered.

I didn't want a question answered, or I sure wouldn't have asked you. I was attempting to educate you. I failed.

You really are behind with modern cosmology. I know it is a hard subject as it is so diverse, but it is a very rewarding subject if you put in the effort.

:headbang:

Sure, I'm OK, and so is science.

:headbang:

One of the reasons for religion was to offer an explination, through the invention of some god or other, for the universe we see around us. It is not very intelligent to carry on believing in fairy stories when every single explination they give has been disproved.

*coughcoughcoughcoughcough*
There is plenty evidence that there may be a 'higher power.' For one, the idea of the Uncaused Cause (if everything is causality, as scientific theory seems to suggest, all events had to come from something that wasn't caused, and thus there had to be some sort of creator outside of our current reality) shows that we can't, at the current time, explain how 'everything' started. Decarte's famous statement also gives weight to the argument - the idea of consciousness is a huge contradiction to modern science. According to the current major scientific beliefs, my life should just happen as a huge chemical reaction, yet I am aware of myself. Atheism is not scientifically superior.

Disprove these, please.

No, there is no proof for God. But there is plenty evidence that would suggest it as a plausible explanation. But the same is true for science. The atomic theory could be wrong, but it works and makes sense. Scientific law isn't definitively true, as any good scientist will tell you. It all makes sense, sure, but there could be some alternate real explanation for things.

Hello wall: :headbang:

Maybe, if you keep it up long enough, you will be able to knock some intelligence into that incredibly thick skull of yours. Somehow though I think it may be a little too late for you.

Einstein also did not believe in black holes. You really need to decide what you're going to present to support your case, here.

Since it was Einstein's theories that predicted black holes I'm sure if he had lived longer he would have contributed a great deal to black hole theory. Oh, and remember it is his theories that also predicted the expanding universe.

No scientist would try to deny black holes now, let alone the expanding universe.

[snip more rubbish from the headbanger.]

In the current sense, they may not, and many scientists still claim this.

Wrong. See earlier answer.


I didn't want a question answered, or I sure wouldn't have asked you. I was attempting to educate you. I failed.

You - educate me??? When you have so clearly demonstrated you know sweet FA about cosmology. Pull the other one - its got bells on.

*coughcoughcoughcoughcough*


There is plenty evidence that there may be a 'higher power.' For one, the idea of the Uncaused Cause (if everything is causality, as scientific theory seems to suggest, all events had to come from something that wasn't caused, and thus there had to be some sort of creator outside of our current reality) shows that we can't, at the current time, explain how 'everything' started.
Causality works in a post Big Bang universe in general. However, it may not apply when you deal with things either at a quantum level of when dealing with more than 4 dimensions. We know for instance that, in general, nothing can travel faster than light. And yet we now know that quantum entanglement exists.

Decarte's famous statement also gives weight to the argument - the idea of consciousness is a huge contradiction to modern science. According to the current major scientific beliefs, my life should just happen as a huge chemical reaction, yet I am aware of myself. Atheism is not scientifically superior.

Disprove these, please.
Your life is a huge chemical reaction, that is all life is. Your awareness is just one aspect of that reaction - chemical and electrical impuses in your brain, nothin gmore.

No, there is no proof for God. But there is plenty evidence that would suggest it as a plausible explanation. But the same is true for science. The atomic theory could be wrong, but it works and makes sense. Scientific law isn't definitively true, as any good scientist will tell you. It all makes sense, sure, but there could be some alternate real explanation for things.
There is not only no proof for god(s) there isn't even any evidence. Science on the other hand stands up and tests itself. Newton came up with his theory of gravity. Einstein came up with a new theory which explained more. Newton's still works and is in no way rubbished by Einstein's later work.

Now, if you have any evidence for a god I would love to hear it.

LOL, I've actually seen many. Many atheists become frustrated, angry, and defensive when someone is even open to the possibility of there being a God or gods, and try their damnedest to convince people otherwise. In fact, I've only met one Christian that tried to convert me, whereas I've met three atheists that have tried to convince me that God cannot exist. It must be where you live.


Most Atheists, in my experience, become frustrated when Christians seem to think it okay to constantly pester them about how 'wrong' they are, because they don't follow the bible, or biblical 'rules'. I find it hard to believe you've only ever met one Christian that has tried to convert you, unless you are only six months old....

Perhpas it has been where I live... but I have lived in a fairly wide variety of different places, and encountered much the same in all of them. Maybe I've just been lucky?


You don't have to be an Evangelical to be a nutcase, Grave.


Didn't say you did. But, I'm interested to see what the definition is supposed to be of 'religion' if it DOESN'T require any form of tradition, scripture or testimony.


That's simply because most people in America believe in God, and find people who don't strange. It doesn't really mean they hate atheists. In fact "good Christians" are supposed to feel sorry for you guys.

Surely, 'good Christians' are supposed to remain 'separate' from us godless heathen?

I'll be the first to admit that I've never heard of the term "Implicit Atheists," but after finding out what it is and reading your next quote:


You, like the original poster, were 'ignorant' of the complexity of Atheism. It's no insult... it just means you didn't know. Which was what I said about the original poster.


... it would seem than an implicit atheist is simply a very skeptical agnostic. That's not really who the original poster and myself are bashing.


On the contrary, an Agnostic believes it is not possible to KNOW (hence a-gnostic) if there is a god, or not.

Many Implicit Atheists are Agnostic-leaning, but Agnostics can be Atheistic OR Theistic.


Right, but the generally accepted definition of atheist is belief of lacking.


And the generally accepted definition of Catholic priests, might be that they abuse children. That doesn't make it true... certainly not for ALL concerned.


Exactly, but lack of evidence does not equal lack of existence. We lacked evidence of the existence of many things, things that were only recently discovered in the scheme of things, for billions of years.


And a scientist would never TRY to prove a lack... because such a thing cannot be 'proved' scientifically... that's not how the scientific method 'works'.

Which is why I said what I said. A 'true' scientist cannot try to disprove 'god'... it is a nonsensical concept if you understand how 'science' operates.


I don't think the original poster has demonstrated the latter, but simply the former - I wasn't aware that a skeptical agnostic was actually a type of atheist, either.


It isn't.

The original poster made false claims about what it means to be a scientist, and about what it means to be an Atheist, and then used them to form a false conclusion about Atheists being/not being scientists.


Not after you explain it, no. Still, just replace "atheist" with "explicit atheist" when reading this thread, as that's what is intended.

And, if the original poster HAD said Explicit (or Hard, or Strong... all are common enough terms) Atheist, I'd have left that part alone. But, the definition of what scientists 'do' would still have been wrong, and the conclusion based on it, fatally flawed.

Yes, there are. Explicit atheists sometimes do attempt to evangelize in much the same way as a fundamentalist Christian. They go out of their way to express their belief that there is no God, and call anyone who disagrees with them names such as idiot, psychotic, child, ....... I could go on.

Such people are, of course, a minority among atheists, just as the pushy evangelical Christians (or any other religion) are a minority among Christians (or any other religion).

Maybe some Explicit Atheists can be forward, but I've not seen an Atheist stop a person in the street to inquire about their faith, and explain the error of their ways... I've never been handed Atheist leaflets, or found Atheist tracts in video stores, for example.

I've never encountered an Atheist revival, been invited by strangers to attend an Atheist ceremony, or been offered Atheist salvation in the street.

I've never heard of anyone being offered food or shelter in exchange for listening to testimony from Atheists. I've never been handed an Atheist scripture, or found Atheistic materials in hotel rooms or on hospital tables.

Atheists don't send videos about the life of famous Atheistic figures to my PO Box address as part of some campaign.


And yet, I agree that it is the EXTREMISTS of both sides that are the 'problem'... the ones who make it intolerable for those in the centre of their ideological battle.

Well, agnosticism doesn't really center on how strongly you feel one way or another on specific gods, but the concept than any of the gods could be the real gods, or none of them could, or there is no such thing.

Actually - I fear you are misrepresenting Agnosticism.

What you are describing actually makes a person closer to an Implicit Atheist. An Agnostic believes it is impossible to KNOW whether there is a god, or no.

i know any athiest kid who whenever you say anything remotely religious he shoots down everything. every single thing he will shoot down. he is a total asshole about it. in fact. he's one of the biggest assholes i've ever met in my life. thus my bias against athiest. i had a really bad encounter with one, and it pisses me off.

i have no problems when athiests are just normal people who don't try and preach. if they just say, no i'm not religious and change the subject. awesome. religion isnt something i want to talk about. i'm not religious. i could really care less either way.

And yet, you admit that you start it by mentioning religious matter? How is it you feel it is okay for you to discuss your own faith, but not okay for him to disagree with something you have expressed in the public arena?

Are you telling me that, if this kid stood up and claimed "There is no god", the average Christian (or other religion) would passively sit and let that slide on by?

You cannot have god without religion though you can have religion without god.

Ha! hahahaha! Yeah, just like you can have a motor without a car, but not a car without a motor? Oh wait! Yes you can!

Let's look at three scenarios:
A) Democritus, 2400 years ago, hypothesized that atoms existed. Opposing hypotheses generally involved matter being continuous.
B) I, right now, am hypothesizing that there exists a planet in orbit of Canopus. Opposing hypotheses involve no such planet existing
C) People all over the world, throughout history, have hypothesized that God exists. Opposing theories involve god not existing.

Now, let's look at what evidence there were for each of these scenarios:

A) 2400 years ago, when Democritus was alive, there was no evidence whatsoever either supporting or in contradiction of his hypothesis. Virtually nothing was known of chemistry, and no experiments of any kind to garner any such evidence were performed for more than 2000 years afterward.
B) As of right now, to my knowledge, nobody has yet looked for planets orbitting Canopus - if they have, pick any other random star that hasn't been examined yet, and we'll use that one in the example instead - and so there is no evidence either supporting or in contradiction of my hypothesis.
C) As of right now, there exists no empirical evidence whatsoever either supporting or in contradiction of the existence of god. We are not yet capable of detecting his presence if he does exist, and we may not be for a long time, if ever.

Now, let's look at the specifics of each hypothesis:

A) Democritus and his peers hypothesized that each atom was of one particular element, and that there were four elements - fire, earth, water and air, and that any space not occupied by a particle was filled by "the void" as opposed to nothingness.

B) I hypothesize that this planet in orbit of Canopus is a tiny rock planet with a methane and sulfur dioxide atmosphere, and has oceans of ammonium. It will be called "The stinky dinky planet."

C) There is an enormous variety of specific ideas of this hypothesis of god, but by far the most popular is the "Christian God," the specifics of whom are already known to most, and I will not get into right now.

Now, let's look at what empirical evidence there is which points to these specific details for these hypotheses:

A) Absolutely none whatsoever.

B) I have none. I just really wanted to make a planet and call it "The Stinky Dinky Planet"

C) There is no empirical evidence whatsoever that points to any of these details being true.

So, 2400 years ago, Democritus had no evidence for or against atoms, and had no evidence pointing to what properties they might have had. He had no way of testing for any of those properties and no means of garnering any evidence for it. Much later on, scientists developed methods of testing this hypothesis and did so, keeping an open mind as to the results, and discovered that atoms existed. People then developed more hypotheses on the properties of the atom, and then went on to test those - some were proven to be correct while others were disproven. Until there was a method to actually test a hypothesis, nobody knew for sure. A perfect example of this is Rutherford, with his gold foil experiment: he got results which completely contradicted the prevailing hypothesis at the time, thus proving that they couldn't take anything for granted and that every hypothesis must be tested before it can be accepted.

Right now, I have no evidence for or against there being any planet orbitting Canopus. Astronomers currently have the capabilities to detect very large planets, and so they might actually discover one if it is there and is large enough. If, on the other hand, there is one and it is too small, then we will have to wait until we have the capability of scanning for smaller planets before we will discover it, and if there is no planet whatsoever, then we will have to wait until we have the capability of scanning the entire area of space surrounding the star for planets before we can actually say for certain that there isn't one there. If there is, then once we discover it, we may also learn some of its properties, and later on as we develop our technology, we will begin to learn more and more of those properties. It may turn out that I was right, and the planet is in fact being stunk up by methane, SO2 and ammonium, or I might have been wrong, and it could be a Gas Giant with a hydrogen/helium atmosphere or a planet with nothing but oceans of water, or it could have a CO2/water vapour atmosphere... but we'll never know until we find it and study it.

Right now, there is no empirical evidence whatsoever either for or against the existence of god. It may be that he exists and we are capable of detecting evidence of him with our current technology, but just haven't yet. It may be that we will be capable much later. It may be that he simply doesn't exist, and we will not be able to say so for certain until we have solved every last mystery in the universe and have enough empirical evidence to show that there is no conceivable way in which he could exist. It may also be that it is impossible to get enough empirical evidence to show that he doesn't exist and that it is impossible to get any empirical evidence to show that he does, and that we will never know for certain.

The point is that someone saying that they KNOW for certain that God does not exist is as unscientific as Democritus saying that he KNOWs that atoms exist or me saying that I KNOW that that my planet orbitting Canopus exists. In the same way, saying that you KNOW for certain that God does exist is equally absurd. Even more absurd is saying that you KNOW that God is the Christian version of God, in the same way as if Democritus had said he KNOWs that atoms can be categorized into the four elements earth, water, fire, air, or me saying that I KNOW planet in orbit of Canopus is a tiny rock planet with SO2 and CH4 for an atmosphere and oceans of NH3.

Even having any sort of belief either way is absurd, because there is absolutely no basis whatsoever for that belief, and it is litterally made on a whim. Believing that god exists or that god does not exist is as absurd as the Greeks believing that atoms existed or that they did not exist, or me believing that that planet exists or that it doesn't exist. You do not need to have a belief about God in the same way that I do not need to hae a belief about that planet. Both beliefs are equally baseless, equally unneccessary and equally absurd. You don't have to be a scientist 24 hours a day, or in fact at all to realize that. My point is simply that there are too many people out there claiming that they KNOW that God does not exist and are claiming to use science in their arguments against the existence of God - my point is that this is just as ridiculous as IDers claiming to use science in their arguments for the existence of God. I say that anyone who says that they KNOW that God does not exist cannot call themselves a scientist because a scientist is not someone who accepts something as being true without a good deal of evidence to back it up. Period.

As far as my definitions of atheist and agnostic: I had been under the impression that an atheist was someone who actively denies the existence of god whereas an agnostic is simply someone who believes that they cannot know whether or not god exists. If another definition of an atheist also includes people who simply don't believe that god exists then I have no problem with those people - something I thought was pretty clear, but apparently not. It is only the people who claim that they KNOW that god does not exist that I have a problem with, especially when they try to use science in their battles against religion. In my eyes, they are just as bad as the IDers.

Didn't say you did. But, I'm interested to see what the definition is supposed to be of 'religion' if it DOESN'T require any form of tradition, scripture or testimony.

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


Tradition, scripture, and witnessing could be involved, but hardly have to. Generally, a deity is involved, but does not have to be. The practices in question may or may not be institutionalized or tranditional. "Religion" is a broad term that can be used in many different ways. From the definition, it seems fairly obvious that an individual could follow a religion without ever sharing it with another soul.

Surely, 'good Christians' are supposed to remain 'separate' from us godless heathen?

That would be what Paul said. Of course, Christ associated with those who he considered sinners and lived by example. How are we to live by his example if we only stay around those who live exactly like us, so that no one who does not yet believe sees the way we live?

Actually - I fear you are misrepresenting Agnosticism.

What you are describing actually makes a person closer to an Implicit Atheist. An Agnostic believes it is impossible to KNOW whether there is a god, or no.

Hmmm. Perhaps, then, I should have said "I am agnostic," instead of "I am an agnostic." Being agnostic can simply mean that you doubt the presence of truth in religion. Agnosticism can simply mean a state of religious doubt. Apparently, however, being "an agnostic" is a much more firm stance.

Maybe, if you keep it up long enough, you will be able to knock some intelligence into that incredibly thick skull of yours. Somehow though I think it may be a little too late for you.

:headbang:

Since it was Einstein's theories that predicted black holes I'm sure if he had lived longer he would have contributed a great deal to black hole theory. Oh, and remember it is his theories that also predicted the expanding universe.

Gee, you're sure? Kind of like you're sure that there cannot be a God? That has a lot of merit, coming from you. You're sure Einstein would have been that way, hmmm? You don't think he realized that the concept of black holes grew from his formulae? Your being sure of something that is unprovable isn't very scientific of you.

No scientist would try to deny black holes now, let alone the expanding universe.

Except that they do, at least in the most entertained sense of black holes. So you're just talking out of your ass now... well, you have been for a while.

[snip more rubbish from the headbanger.]

:headbang:

Wrong. See earlier answer.

Right, see "physics."

You - educate me??? When you have so clearly demonstrated you know sweet FA about cosmology. Pull the other one - its got bells on.

And you have demonstrated such expertise with your brilliant fucking assertions of supreme knowledge.

I'm done talking to you. I officially loathe walls. I'm never talking to one again if I can avoid it.

:headbang:

Let's look at three scenarios:
A) Democritus, 2400 years ago, hypothesized that atoms existed. Opposing hypotheses generally involved matter being continuous.
B) I, right now, am hypothesizing that there exists a planet in orbit of Canopus. Opposing hypotheses involve no such planet existing
C) People all over the world, throughout history, have hypothesized that God exists. Opposing theories involve god not existing.

Now, let's look at what evidence there were for each of these scenarios:

A) 2400 years ago, when Democritus was alive, there was no evidence whatsoever either supporting or in contradiction of his hypothesis. Virtually nothing was known of chemistry, and no experiments of any kind to garner any such evidence were performed for more than 2000 years afterward.
B) As of right now, to my knowledge, nobody has yet looked for planets orbitting Canopus - if they have, pick any other random star that hasn't been examined yet, and we'll use that one in the example instead - and so there is no evidence either supporting or in contradiction of my hypothesis.
C) As of right now, there exists no empirical evidence whatsoever either supporting or in contradiction of the existence of god. We are not yet capable of detecting his presence if he does exist, and we may not be for a long time, if ever.

Now, let's look at the specifics of each hypothesis:

A) Democritus and his peers hypothesized that each atom was of one particular element, and that there were four elements - fire, earth, water and air, and that any space not occupied by a particle was filled by "the void" as opposed to nothingness.

B) I hypothesize that this planet in orbit of Canopus is a tiny rock planet with a methane and sulfur dioxide atmosphere, and has oceans of ammonium. It will be called "The stinky dinky planet."

C) There is an enormous variety of specific ideas of this hypothesis of god, but by far the most popular is the "Christian God," the specifics of whom are already known to most, and I will not get into right now.

Now, let's look at what empirical evidence there is which points to these specific details for these hypotheses:

A) Absolutely none whatsoever.

B) I have none. I just really wanted to make a planet and call it "The Stinky Dinky Planet"

C) There is no empirical evidence whatsoever that points to any of these details being true.

So, 2400 years ago, Democritus had no evidence for or against atoms, and had no evidence pointing to what properties they might have had. He had no way of testing for any of those properties and no means of garnering any evidence for it. Much later on, scientists developed methods of testing this hypothesis and did so, keeping an open mind as to the results, and discovered that atoms existed. People then developed more hypotheses on the properties of the atom, and then went on to test those - some were proven to be correct while others were disproven. Until there was a method to actually test a hypothesis, nobody knew for sure. A perfect example of this is Rutherford, with his gold foil experiment: he got results which completely contradicted the prevailing hypothesis at the time, thus proving that they couldn't take anything for granted and that every hypothesis must be tested before it can be accepted.

Right now, I have no evidence for or against there being any planet orbitting Canopus. Astronomers currently have the capabilities to detect very large planets, and so they might actually discover one if it is there and is large enough. If, on the other hand, there is one and it is too small, then we will have to wait until we have the capability of scanning for smaller planets before we will discover it, and if there is no planet whatsoever, then we will have to wait until we have the capability of scanning the entire area of space surrounding the star for planets before we can actually say for certain that there isn't one there. If there is, then once we discover it, we may also learn some of its properties, and later on as we develop our technology, we will begin to learn more and more of those properties. It may turn out that I was right, and the planet is in fact being stunk up by methane, SO2 and ammonium, or I might have been wrong, and it could be a Gas Giant with a hydrogen/helium atmosphere or a planet with nothing but oceans of water, or it could have a CO2/water vapour atmosphere... but we'll never know until we find it and study it.

Right now, there is no empirical evidence whatsoever either for or against the existence of god. It may be that he exists and we are capable of detecting evidence of him with our current technology, but just haven't yet. It may be that we will be capable much later. It may be that he simply doesn't exist, and we will not be able to say so for certain until we have solved every last mystery in the universe and have enough empirical evidence to show that there is no conceivable way in which he could exist. It may also be that it is impossible to get enough empirical evidence to show that he doesn't exist and that it is impossible to get any empirical evidence to show that he does, and that we will never know for certain.

The point is that someone saying that they KNOW for certain that God does not exist is as unscientific as Democritus saying that he KNOWs that atoms exist or me saying that I KNOW that that my planet orbitting Canopus exists. In the same way, saying that you KNOW for certain that God does exist is equally absurd. Even more absurd is saying that you KNOW that God is the Christian version of God, in the same way as if Democritus had said he KNOWs that atoms can be categorized into the four elements earth, water, fire, air, or me saying that I KNOW planet in orbit of Canopus is a tiny rock planet with SO2 and CH4 for an atmosphere and oceans of NH3.

Even having any sort of belief either way is absurd, because there is absolutely no basis whatsoever for that belief, and it is litterally made on a whim. Believing that god exists or that god does not exist is as absurd as the Greeks believing that atoms existed or that they did not exist, or me believing that that planet exists or that it doesn't exist. You do not need to have a belief about God in the same way that I do not need to hae a belief about that planet. Both beliefs are equally baseless, equally unneccessary and equally absurd. You don't have to be a scientist 24 hours a day, or in fact at all to realize that. My point is simply that there are too many people out there claiming that they KNOW that God does not exist and are claiming to use science in their arguments against the existence of God - my point is that this is just as ridiculous as IDers claiming to use science in their arguments for the existence of God. I say that anyone who says that they KNOW that God does not exist cannot call themselves a scientist because a scientist is not someone who accepts something as being true without a good deal of evidence to back it up. Period.

As far as my definitions of atheist and agnostic: I had been under the impression that an atheist was someone who actively denies the existence of god whereas an agnostic is simply someone who believes that they cannot know whether or not god exists. If another definition of an atheist also includes people who simply don't believe that god exists then I have no problem with those people - something I thought was pretty clear, but apparently not. It is only the people who claim that they KNOW that god does not exist that I have a problem with, especially when they try to use science in their battles against religion. In my eyes, they are just as bad as the IDers.

I yield the floor to you. Argue with this idiot that claims to be some type of physics expert who doesn't know anything about physics. I can't take any more of this. My head hurts.

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


Tradition, scripture, and witnessing could be involved, but hardly have to. Generally, a deity is involved, but does not have to be. The practices in question may or may not be institutionalized or tranditional. "Religion" is a broad term that can be used in many different ways. From the definition, it seems fairly obvious that an individual could follow a religion without ever sharing it with another soul.


Not meaning to split hairs, but the latter 2 definitions are obviously not the literal meaning of 'religion', and the prior 2 are meaningless without an explanation of what 'religious' means.

But, definitions one and two seem to strongly suggest the necessity for some ordered form of observation and/or ritual... neither of which are present in any form of Atheism I've yet encountered.


That would be what Paul said. Of course, Christ associated with those who he considered sinners and lived by example. How are we to live by his example if we only stay around those who live exactly like us, so that no one who does not yet believe sees the way we live?

And, I think we all know how I feel about Paul... I'm just playing Devil's Avocado. When one person starts claiming to be able to represent what a 'true Christian' would do, I always feel the need to explore why that person's discernment is worth so much more than any other individual's...

Hmmm. Perhaps, then, I should have said "I am agnostic," instead of "I am an agnostic." Being agnostic can simply mean that you doubt the presence of truth in religion. Agnosticism can simply mean a state of religious doubt. Apparently, however, being "an agnostic" is a much more firm stance.

Agnostic has a non-religious (or 'lay') meaning... where it is a sort of undecided state... which is kind of untrue to the logical meaning of the word.

Thus, someone can be 'agnostic' about religion.. and simply mean they are indecisive.

However, if you identify yourself as 'an agnostic' or as 'Agnostic', you are tying yourself to a set of concepts... namely that you believe it is impossible to KNOW for sure, either way.

HAY GUYS!!

I am a philosophical genius and I just happen to have the answer.

There is no evidence for god's existence and nothing to suggest he does not exist other than the lack of evidence. Therefore it is best to assume he doesn't exist until proven otherwise and not believe it is for certain even when there is evidence to suggest otherwise.

Thanks.

:)

I've also solved the hard problem if you want to know.

And yet, you admit that you start it by mentioning religious matter? How is it you feel it is okay for you to discuss your own faith, but not okay for him to disagree with something you have expressed in the public arena?

Are you telling me that, if this kid stood up and claimed "There is no god", the average Christian (or other religion) would passively sit and let that slide on by?

dude, i was like.. oh you're athiest? or something like that. just an innocent question. he coul dhave been like yeah. but no he's like yeah.. you're not? you suck.. look at all this scientific prrof. you and all your friends are full of shit.. blah blah blah blah blah... its like, seriously man. he could have said oh, i dont agree with you, but whatever. he can totally disagree with me. but when he not only disagrees with me but insults everything i believe in it's pretty gay. he's just an asshole. seriously dude, you know how obnoxious kids are.

and i think, for at least most of the christian kids i know, most kids wouldnt say anything. they'd obviously be offended and not agree. but, maybe i just hang with a good crowd, but the christian kids i know are generally are non-confrontational.

and it's not like i'm christian either. i'm just not religious. basically, my beliefs i said to this kid is that there may or may not be a god, but i dont care. i mean, for the pretty minimal amount of difference there is, he goes on a tantrum... and i didnt bring up my personal beliefs until after he started dissing me for not agreeing with everything he said.

and did i mention this kid considers hitler his hero and thinks everything about that guy is great? i'm telling you. this kid is sick.

dude, i was like.. oh you're athiest? or something like that. just an innocent question. he coul dhave been like yeah. but no he's like yeah.. you're not? you suck.. look at all this scientific prrof. you and all your friends are full of shit.. blah blah blah blah blah... its like, seriously man. he could have said oh, i dont agree with you, but whatever. he can totally disagree with me. but when he not only disagrees with me but insults everything i believe in it's pretty gay. he's just an asshole. seriously dude, you know how obnoxious kids are.

and i think, for at least most of the christian kids i know, most kids wouldnt say anything. they'd obviously be offended and not agree. but, maybe i just hang with a good crowd, but the christian kids i know are generally are non-confrontational.

and it's not like i'm christian either. i'm just not religious. basically, my beliefs i said to this kid is that there may or may not be a god, but i dont care. i mean, for the pretty minimal amount of difference there is, he goes on a tantrum... and i didnt bring up my personal beliefs until after he started dissing me for not agreeing with everything he said.

and did i mention this kid considers hitler his hero and thinks everything about that guy is great? i'm telling you. this kid is sick.

1) So - you still admit you brought up the subject...

2) You actually said, "it's pretty gay"? And you think the atheist guy has problems relating to people....

3) How can this guy 'diss' everything you believe in, if you've stated that you don't really have any beliefs?

Something here just doesn't add up.

Agnostic has a non-religious (or 'lay') meaning... where it is a sort of undecided state... which is kind of untrue to the logical meaning of the word.

Thus, someone can be 'agnostic' about religion.. and simply mean they are indecisive.

However, if you identify yourself as 'an agnostic' or as 'Agnostic', you are tying yourself to a set of concepts... namely that you believe it is impossible to KNOW for sure, either way.
Have my children :fluffle: :fluffle:

Atheism must be a creation by religious people to describe those whose belief differs from theirs. No one can base a belief on a negative; negative propositions can never be proven or disproven. But to say 'I don't know' is very acceptable although perhaps it may offend our self-image.

scientists have tried to make proteins form from chemical soup...first soup designed to have proteins form from it, and then soup similar to that present when the first proteins supposedly formed. they can't make it work. they got a few amino acids to group together once...but that was in the protein-friendly soup, and never happened in the real stuff. it sounds to me like you need some sorta divine intervention to make proteins come from this soup.

Lol silly

… it could have been said like this a scant few hundred years ago



scientists have tried to make electricity form from magnets...first transformers generators to have electrons form from it, and then generators similar to that present when the first proteins supposedly formed. they can't make it work. they got a few electrons to flow...but that was in the electron-friendly environment, and never happened in the real stuff. it sounds to me like you need some sorta divine intervention to make electrons come from this generator.

Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
Agnostic has a non-religious (or 'lay') meaning... where it is a sort of undecided state... which is kind of untrue to the logical meaning of the word.

Thus, someone can be 'agnostic' about religion.. and simply mean they are indecisive.

However, if you identify yourself as 'an agnostic' or as 'Agnostic', you are tying yourself to a set of concepts... namely that you believe it is impossible to KNOW for sure, either way.

Atheism must be a creation by religious people to describe those whose belief differs from theirs. No one can base a belief on a negative; negative propositions can never be proven or disproven. But to say 'I don't know' is very acceptable although perhaps it may offend our self-image.

First off, a REQUIREMENT of "faith" is to believe in the "not-yet" proven or
disproven, and faith is a requirement of any religion.

..even if (in the case of science as "religion") you call it a HYPOTHESIS. It is
an assumption of "truth" for the purposes of testing. A scientist holds a
proposition (hypothesis) on "faith" (usuallly with SOME reason for doing so)
until it's proved true or not.

AND,... listen to Grave's words. He is the ultimate source of knowledge and
wisdom on this subject in these fora (forums?)..!

It's true..! He explained god to me once, and it made sense. Though,.. due to
the nature of god, as he explained it, I was unable to retain the meaning of
his explanation.

..which was VERY annoying. But apparently necessary. Oh well,.. go figure.

Let's look at three scenarios:
A) Democritus, 2400 years ago, hypothesized that atoms existed. Opposing hypotheses generally involved matter being continuous.
B) I, right now, am hypothesizing that there exists a planet in orbit of Canopus. Opposing hypotheses involve no such planet existing
C) People all over the world, throughout history, have hypothesized that God exists. Opposing theories involve god not existing.

Now, let's look at what evidence there were for each of these scenarios:

A) 2400 years ago, when Democritus was alive, there was no evidence whatsoever either supporting or in contradiction of his hypothesis. Virtually nothing was known of chemistry, and no experiments of any kind to garner any such evidence were performed for more than 2000 years afterward.

Wrong, again! The development of the "atomist doctorine" was an attemp to explain the evidence. There was evidence first.

B) As of right now, to my knowledge, nobody has yet looked for planets orbitting Canopus - if they have, pick any other random star that hasn't been examined yet, and we'll use that one in the example instead - and so there is no evidence either supporting or in contradiction of my hypothesis.

Wrong, again. There is a lot of evidence for the existence of planets around other stars. That evidence points to a probability far higher than zero for a planet existing in your chosen star system.

C) As of right now, there exists no empirical evidence whatsoever either supporting or in contradiction of the existence of god. We are not yet capable of detecting his presence if he does exist, and we may not be for a long time, if ever.

There is also no evidence for the need for a god to exist.

Now, let's look at the specifics of each hypothesis:
[snip]
B) I hypothesize that this planet in orbit of Canopus is a tiny rock planet with a methane and sulfur dioxide atmosphere, and has oceans of ammonium. It will be called "The stinky dinky planet."

A possibility, such planets may well exist based on the evidence we have from our own solar system.

C) There is an enormous variety of specific ideas of this hypothesis of god, but by far the most popular is the "Christian God," the specifics of whom are already known to most, and I will not get into right now.

But there is no EVIDENCE to base those ideas.

Now, let's look at what empirical evidence there is which points to these specific details for these hypotheses:

A) Absolutely none whatsoever.

Oh come on!

B) I have none. I just really wanted to make a planet and call it "The Stinky Dinky Planet"

You have none, but science does.

C) There is no empirical evidence whatsoever that points to any of these details being true.

So, 2400 years ago, Democritus had no evidence for or against atoms, and had no evidence pointing to what properties they might have had.

Wrong, it was the evidence that LED to the doctorine.

He had no way of testing for any of those properties and no means of garnering any evidence for it. Much later on, scientists developed methods of testing this hypothesis and did so, keeping an open mind as to the results, and discovered that atoms existed. People then developed more hypotheses on the properties of the atom, and then went on to test those - some were proven to be correct while others were disproven. Until there was a method to actually test a hypothesis, nobody knew for sure. A perfect example of this is Rutherford, with his gold foil experiment: he got results which completely contradicted the prevailing hypothesis at the time, thus proving that they couldn't take anything for granted and that every hypothesis must be tested before it can be accepted.

What Hans Geiger and Ernest Marsden did was to enhance the model of the internal workings of the atom.

Right now, I have no evidence for or against there being any planet orbitting Canopus. Astronomers currently have the capabilities to detect very large planets, and so they might actually discover one if it is there and is large enough. If, on the other hand, there is one and it is too small, then we will have to wait until we have the capability of scanning for smaller planets before we will discover it, and if there is no planet whatsoever, then we will have to wait until we have the capability of scanning the entire area of space surrounding the star for planets before we can actually say for certain that there isn't one there. If there is, then once we discover it, we may also learn some of its properties, and later on as we develop our technology, we will begin to learn more and more of those properties. It may turn out that I was right, and the planet is in fact being stunk up by methane, SO2 and ammonium, or I might have been wrong, and it could be a Gas Giant with a hydrogen/helium atmosphere or a planet with nothing but oceans of water, or it could have a CO2/water vapour atmosphere... but we'll never know until we find it and study it.

But what we do know, from the evidence of our own and other solar systems, is that planets DO exist. Find me a single bit of evidence for the existance of a god.

Right now, there is no empirical evidence whatsoever either for or against the existence of god. It may be that he exists and we are capable of detecting evidence of him with our current technology, but just haven't yet. It may be that we will be capable much later. It may be that he simply doesn't exist, and we will not be able to say so for certain until we have solved every last mystery in the universe and have enough empirical evidence to show that there is no conceivable way in which he could exist. It may also be that it is impossible to get enough empirical evidence to show that he doesn't exist and that it is impossible to get any empirical evidence to show that he does, and that we will never know for certain.

Not only is there no evidence for the existance of a god, there is no evidence for the need for the existance of a god.

The point is that someone saying that they KNOW for certain that God does not exist is as unscientific as Democritus saying that he KNOWs that atoms exist or me saying that I KNOW that that my planet orbitting Canopus exists. In the same way, saying that you KNOW for certain that God does exist is equally absurd. Even more absurd is saying that you KNOW that God is the Christian version of God, in the same way as if Democritus had said he KNOWs that atoms can be categorized into the four elements earth, water, fire, air, or me saying that I KNOW planet in orbit of Canopus is a tiny rock planet with SO2 and CH4 for an atmosphere and oceans of NH3.

Even having any sort of belief either way is absurd, because there is absolutely no basis whatsoever for that belief, and it is litterally made on a whim. Believing that god exists or that god does not exist is as absurd as the Greeks believing that atoms existed or that they did not exist, or me believing that that planet exists or that it doesn't exist. You do not need to have a belief about God in the same way that I do not need to hae a belief about that planet. Both beliefs are equally baseless, equally unneccessary and equally absurd. You don't have to be a scientist 24 hours a day, or in fact at all to realize that. My point is simply that there are too many people out there claiming that they KNOW that God does not exist and are claiming to use science in their arguments against the existence of God - my point is that this is just as ridiculous as IDers claiming to use science in their arguments for the existence of God. I say that anyone who says that they KNOW that God does not exist cannot call themselves a scientist because a scientist is not someone who accepts something as being true without a good deal of evidence to back it up. Period.

The problem you have had with your argument from day one (so keeping it up says a lot about you - all bad) is that there is evidence for atoms and planets - but NONE for gods. Not one bit of evidence, not even after all these years. Not only that, but you can't even find any evidence for the NEED for a god to exist.

:headbang:

Still trying to know some sence into your head I see :)

Gee, you're sure? Kind of like you're sure that there cannot be a God? That has a lot of merit, coming from you. You're sure Einstein would have been that way, hmmm? You don't think he realized that the concept of black holes grew from his formulae? Your being sure of something that is unprovable isn't very scientific of you.

Unlike you Einstein was always learning. Since it was his maths that help to prove black holes exist....

Except that they do, at least in the most entertained sense of black holes. So you're just talking out of your ass now... well, you have been for a while.

Rubbish. No reputable scientist can today deny the existance of black holes.



:headbang:

Keep it up.



Right, see "physics."
Wrong - yet again!


And you have demonstrated such expertise with your brilliant fucking assertions of supreme knowledge.

I'm done talking to you. I officially loathe walls. I'm never talking to one again if I can avoid it.

:headbang:
I firmly belive that if the wall fell on you you would still deny it existed.

Originally Posted by Grave_n_idle
Didn't say you did. But, I'm interested to see what the definition is supposed to be of 'religion' if it DOESN'T require any form of tradition, scripture or testimony.

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Tradition, scripture, and witnessing could be involved, but hardly have to. Generally, a deity is involved, but does not have to be. The practices in question may or may not be institutionalized or tranditional. "Religion" is a broad term that can be used in many different ways. From the definition, it seems fairly obvious that an individual could follow a religion without ever sharing it with another soul.


Surely, 'good Christians' are supposed to remain 'separate' from us godless heathen?

That would be what Paul said. Of course, Christ associated with those who he considered sinners and lived by example. How are we to live by his example if we only stay around those who live exactly like us, so that no one who does not yet believe sees the way we live?

BINGO...! Finally,.. someone has presented a definition of "religion".

How about that? :D Astounding,.. that things can be discussed for SO long
without getting to what those things actually mean to the parties.

Two tenets of "my" religion:

1) My religion does not depend on any traditional "ingredient" but that which I
choose to take as my tradition, from whereever I choose to take it.

2) Other's may believe as they wish, and we are all free to laugh at each
other's beliefs, as we are not the judges of other's beliefs, which is our god's
and their god's job, only other's behavior.

Right now, there is no empirical evidence whatsoever either for or against the existence of god. It may be that he exists and we are capable of detecting evidence of him with our current technology, but just haven't yet. It may be that we will be capable much later. It may be that he simply doesn't exist, and we will not be able to say so for certain until we have solved every last mystery in the universe and have enough empirical evidence to show that there is no conceivable way in which he could exist. It may also be that it is impossible to get enough empirical evidence to show that he doesn't exist and that it is impossible to get any empirical evidence to show that he does, and that we will never know for certain.

Not only is there no evidence for the existance of a god, there is no evidence for the need for the existance of a god.


If someone has a need, empirically, for god, would that be evidence for a
need for god?

In other words, does a need for god constitute a need for god,.. or if not,
what does that constitute a need for?

I'm not being flippant,.. I'm just questioning your reasoning in regard to there
being no need for god.

If we have a need for something,.. even if that something doesn't actually
exist,.. but the concept that would form an instance of said thing DOES exist
(otherwise why would someone NEED it),.. then is the need "invalid"?

And what if the something has no instance because it's impossible it could
exist, but the one needing it substitutes the "concept" for an instance of said
thing?

Is the need then "valid", because the needed thing, the concept (as opposed
to the impossible instance), does in fact EXIST?

Wrong, again! The development of the "atomist doctorine" was an attemp to explain the evidence. There was evidence first.
Please, give me one single piece of evidence that Democritus had which could have been explained better with atomic theory than any other.

Wrong, again. There is a lot of evidence for the existence of planets around other stars.
But I did not say "other stars," did I? I specified Alpha Carinae for a reason. We currently may have ecidence that planets exist around some stars, but we have no evidence that planets exist around Alpha Carinae.
That evidence points to a probability far higher than zero for a planet existing in your chosen star system.
Greater than zero but more than one hundred... That's like the weatherman saying there's a 50% chance of it raining. It may rain or it may not, and unless you have more evidence either way, you cannot say you KNOW it will rain or that it will not. You're not getting anywhere with that argument.


There is also no evidence for the need for a god to exist.
What the bloody hell does that have to do with anything? There's no evidence for the need for a planet orbitting Canopus to exist right now, does that mean there isn't one?

But there is no EVIDENCE to base those ideas.
My point exactly

Oh come on!
Again, give me one shred of evidence that Democritus had which could be explained better with atomic theory than with any other hypothesis

You have none, but science does.
Again, give me one shred of evidence that will leave little doubt in my mind as to whether or not there is a planet in orbit of Canopus

Wrong, it was the evidence that LED to the doctorine.
So give it to me

But what we do know, from the evidence of our own and other solar systems, is that planets DO exist. Find me a single bit of evidence for the existance of a god.
Where did I say there was no evidence that planets existed? Absolutely nowhere. What I did say was there there was no evidence for a specific planet in orbit of Alpha Carinae.

The problem you have had with your argument from day one (so keeping it up says a lot about you - all bad) is that there is evidence for atoms and planets - but NONE for gods. Not one bit of evidence, not even after all these years. Not only that, but you can't even find any evidence for the NEED for a god to exist.
I feel like we're having parallel arguments here. What I said was, 2400 years ago, there was no evidence for the existence of the atom. What you argued against was "There is no evidence for the existence of the atom." What I said later was "There is no evidence for the existence of a planet in orbit around Canopus." What you argued against was "There is no evidence for the existence of planets." Of course you're going to appear to be winning when all you do is set up straw man versions of the true arguments your opposition is making. But here, I'll give you one more example that maybe you won't have such an easy time manipulating into something it isn't.

A) Seventy-odd years ago, astronomers "counted" all of the visible mass in the universe and found that it didn't quite add up to even close to the amount of mass that should have existed, given the trajectories of stars about their galaxies, and galaxies relative to each-other. There appeared to be a great deal of missing mass, and so someone came up with the hypothesis of "Dark Matter" to explain it.

B) Since before recorded history up until today, man has wondered about the origins of the universe. Even now, although we know essentially everything that has happened since the universe has been something like 10^-30 seconds old, we still do not know exactly what happened in those earliest moments, nor do we know why the big bang happened in the first place. One hypothesis put forward to explain the precursor to the Big Bang was the existence of some form or another of god.

So we have a reason for the theories. Now, what evidence do we have to support each one?

A) The simple fact that 96% of the mass of the universe appears to be missing. There has been one experiment (The DAMA/NaI experiment) which has claimed to detect dark matter, however its results have not been reproducable by other experiments, so most scientists remain highly skeptical of its validity. So other than the "need" for some sort of explanation, as you would put it, there is no evidence.

B) The simple fact that the universe exists and that it cannot have simply sprung from nothingness. Religions such as Christianity claim to have recorded first-hand eyewitness accounts of the Christ's resurrection, and claim this as evidence attesting to their faith (the Gospels.) The majority of non-christians, however (myself included) believe this evidence is not credible, and it is clearly not reproducible, so again, other than the "need"
for an explanation, there is no evidence.

Now, let's look at opposing hypotheses and look at how much evidence each of those has:

A) There are likely many opposing hypothesis to Dark Matter. One which I read about years ago involved the laws of physics actually changing after a certain very large distance. Instead the force of gravity being proportional to the inverse square of the distance, it was some other function of distance after a certain point. Although this particular hypothesis has gained very little acceptance within the scientific community, there are others which have.

B) There are hypotheses for the earliest moments of the universe which oppose the existence of God. They all involve God not existing.

Now, let's look at what evidence these opposing hypotheses have:

A) Exactly the same evidence that there is for Dark Matter existing - The mere fact that there appears to be missing matter and energy and that it has to be explained somehow.

B) Exactly the same evidence that there is for God existing. - The mere fact that we do not know what happened in those first moments of the Big Bang, nor before it, and we do not know the cause of it.

Let's look at whether or not we are capable or will be capable of proving or disproving any of these hypotheses:

A) At present we do not have the technology to detect Dark Matter, if it exists, nor are we able to perform an experiment on the scale which would allow us to determine if the other hypothesis were true, and we likely do not have the technology at present to test out any of the other hypotheses. We may develop such technologies in the future, but we are simply incapable of testing these hypotheses right now.

B) Exact same story as for Dark Matter. We are neither capable of detecting God or evidence of God if he does exist, nor are we able to look into the moments preceding and immediately after the Big Bang to determine exactly what happened and potentially rule out the possibility of God's existence based on that knowledge. It may happen that we develop such technologies in the future, but they simply do not exist right now.

Finally, let's look at whether or not it is reasonable for a person to say that they KNOW that either of these hypotheses is true. And Brenchley, if you're still reading, this is the most important part of my argument, the part you haven't come anywhere near attacking yet, and the part you absolutely must refute if you want to make any case whatsoever against me.

A) There is no empirical evidence for the existence of Dark Matter, there is nothing but a need for an explanation to an observed phenomenon. Thus, it would be foolish for any person to say that they Know without a shadow of a doubt that Dark Matter exists. There is also no empirical evidence for opposing hypotheses, and as such, it would be equally foolish for any person to say that they Know without a shadow of a doubt that Dark Matter does not exist. Although there might not be any evidence for its existence, that does not automatically mean that it must not exist. Also, although there may be an effect (the abnormal rotation and movement of galaxies) whose cause is outlined by the hypothesis, that does not automatically make it true, as there are other hypotheses with causes of their own which all result in the same effect in the end and are all equally as good at explaining the observed effect.

B) There is no empirical evidence whatsoever for the existence of God - there is nothing but a need for an explanation for those moments prior to and immediately after the big bang. Thus, it would be foolish for any person to say that they Know without a shadow of a doubt that God exists. There is also no empirical evidence for opposing hypotheses, and as such, it would be equally foolish for any person to say that they Know without a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist. Although there might not be any evidence for his existence, that does not automatically mean that he must not exist. Also, although there may be an effect (the existence of the universe) whose cause is outlined by the hypothesis, that does not automatically make it true, as there are other hypotheses with causes of their own which all result in the same effect in the end and are all equally as good at explaining the observed effect.

In summary,
Given the complete lack of empirical evidence for its existence, you cannot KNOW that Dark Matter exists, thus it would be foolish to say that you do.
Given the complete lack of empirical evidence contrary to its existence, you cannot KNOW that Dark Matter does not exist, thus it would be foolish to say that you do.
Given the complete lack of empirical evidence for his existence, you cannot KNOW that God exists, thus it would be foolish to say that you do.
Given the complete lack of empirical evidence contrary to his existence, you cannot KNOW that God does not exist, thus it would be foolish to say that you do.

If you have any empirical evidence which contradicts the hypothesis that God exists, then by all means, please bring it forth, keeping in mind that, as has been exemplified time and time again, absence of evidence is not in any way evidence of absence. If you do insist on bringing such ridiculous arguments as "There is no evidence for his existence, so I Know he must not exist," then I will simply ignore you, as such a statement will do nothing but prove that you are incapable of recognizing the validity of an argument. There are countless examples where something has existed while lacking evidence for it which humans have had the capability to observe, so repeating your argument now for one thing is being as ignorant as someone from the past repeating the argument for something for which he had no evidence, yet was later proven to exist.

Have my children :fluffle: :fluffle:

Next time I'm in Minnesota... :)

:fluffle:

1) So - you still admit you brought up the subject...

2) You actually said, "it's pretty gay"? And you think the atheist guy has problems relating to people....

3) How can this guy 'diss' everything you believe in, if you've stated that you don't really have any beliefs?

Something here just doesn't add up.

i brought it up in a nonchalant he could have just ignored it or just been like whatever kind of way.

i think it's pretty gay that he was a total ass about it. (gay meaning lame and stupid... but i dont have anything against gays. i guess you just dont know how kids talk nowadays. whatever. words are words.)

trust me, this fool can diss anything. anyway. he's a real butt.

scientists have tried to make proteins form from chemical soup...first soup designed to have proteins form from it, and then soup similar to that present when the first proteins supposedly formed. they can't make it work. they got a few amino acids to group together once...but that was in the protein-friendly soup, and never happened in the real stuff. it sounds to me like you need some sorta divine intervention to make proteins come from this soup.
I'm not sure when this was posted, but I can't believe I missed it.
Think about this: These scientists did the experiment on a time scale of weeks or months, years at the most, and likely with a very closed, controlled environment. On Earth, it took one billion years for life to arise, in a volatile, constantly changing environment. And you're surprised that it didn't work for the scientists, even if they had done it on a time scale of years? The fact that this didn't work in some experiment doesn't automatically mean you need God to explain it, it simply means that the experiment didn't last long enough, and probably didn't have the correct variables for life to be able to arise in the first place.

ii think it's pretty gay that he was a total ass about it. (gay meaning lame and stupid... but i dont have anything against gays. i guess you just dont know how kids talk nowadays. whatever. words are words.)
If you mean lame or stupid then say lame or stupid. What the bloody hell is so hard about that?

First off, a REQUIREMENT of "faith" is to believe in the "not-yet" proven or
disproven, and faith is a requirement of any religion.

..even if (in the case of science as "religion") you call it a HYPOTHESIS. It is
an assumption of "truth" for the purposes of testing. A scientist holds a
proposition (hypothesis) on "faith" (usuallly with SOME reason for doing so)
until it's proved true or not.

AND,... listen to Grave's words. He is the ultimate source of knowledge and
wisdom on this subject in these fora (forums?)..!

It's true..! He explained god to me once, and it made sense. Though,.. due to
the nature of god, as he explained it, I was unable to retain the meaning of
his explanation.

..which was VERY annoying. But apparently necessary. Oh well,.. go figure.

The ultimate source of knowledge and wisdom (on this subject) in these fora?

(Yes, I'm going with fora....)

Why, thank you, kind sir. High praise, indeed. :)

i brought it up in a nonchalant he could have just ignored it or just been like whatever kind of way.

i think it's pretty gay that he was a total ass about it. (gay meaning lame and stupid... but i dont have anything against gays. i guess you just dont know how kids talk nowadays. whatever. words are words.)

trust me, this fool can diss anything. anyway. he's a real butt.

And yet, the point still remains... YOU brought the subject up. You can't REALLY complain when someone responds to soemthing you start.

I notice you CAN type the words 'lame' AND 'stupid'. Thus, I see no good reason why you should replace them with the word 'gay'.

You can at least make an effort, don't you think?

Please, give me one single piece of evidence that Democritus had which could have been explained better with atomic theory than any other.

The evidence was the change he saw about him. Since it was impossible to believe in something coming from nothing, atoms were the logical conclusion to explain change.


But I did not say "other stars," did I? I specified Alpha Carinae for a reason. We currently may have ecidence that planets exist around some stars, but we have no evidence that planets exist around Alpha Carinae.

Since planets appear to be quite common we know the odds are greater than zero for a planet to exist around your selected star.

Greater than zero but more than one hundred...

?????????

That's like the weatherman saying there's a 50% chance of it raining. It may rain or it may not, and unless you have more evidence either way, you cannot say you KNOW it will rain or that it will not. You're not getting anywhere with that argument.

If the weatherman says there is a 50% chance of rain then he bases that on his expertize and the evidence before him. He works with evidence and calculates the odds of an event.

What the bloody hell does that have to do with anything? There's no evidence for the need for a planet orbitting Canopus to exist right now, does that mean there isn't one?[quote]

Most of the ways to detect a planets at the moment involve slight movement in the position of the star caused by gravity. If we detect movement in a star then something has to be causing it and we look for the reason. The movement is the evidence for the existance of the reason.

In the matter of god(s) there is no evidence that needs the existance of a god to explain it.


[quote]Again, give me one shred of evidence that Democritus had which could be explained better with atomic theory than with any other hypothesis

See above.

Again, give me one shred of evidence that will leave little doubt in my mind as to whether or not there is a planet in orbit of Canopus

See above.

So give it to me

See above.

Where did I say there was no evidence that planets existed? Absolutely nowhere. What I did say was there there was no evidence for a specific planet in orbit of Alpha Carinae.

You can't have your cake and eat it. If planets exist then they are evidence that your selected star has a greater than zero chance of having a planet.


I feel like we're having parallel arguments here. What I said was, 2400 years ago, there was no evidence for the existence of the atom. What you argued against was "There is no evidence for the existence of the atom." What I said later was "There is no evidence for the existence of a planet in orbit around Canopus." What you argued against was "There is no evidence for the existence of planets." Of course you're going to appear to be winning when all you do is set up straw man versions of the true arguments your opposition is making. But here, I'll give you one more example that maybe you won't have such an easy time manipulating into something it isn't.

If evidence exist for the atom today, it has always existed.

If evidence exists for any planet then that evidence forms part of the evidence for a planet orbiting your star.

A) Seventy-odd years ago, astronomers "counted" all of the visible mass in the universe and found that it didn't quite add up to even close to the amount of mass that should have existed, given the trajectories of stars about their galaxies, and galaxies relative to each-other. There appeared to be a great deal of missing mass, and so someone came up with the hypothesis of "Dark Matter" to explain it.

Something still being tested.

B) Since before recorded history up until today, man has wondered about the origins of the universe. Even now, although we know essentially everything that has happened since the universe has been something like 10^-30 seconds old, we still do not know exactly what happened in those earliest moments, nor do we know why the big bang happened in the first place. One hypothesis put forward to explain the precursor to the Big Bang was the existence of some form or another of god.

10^-47 is the limit of current physics. However, nobody would suggest a need for a god without some sort of evidence.

The question asked by many is "is it possible to know exactly what caused the big bang?" to which a common answer is "Does there have to be a cause?"

So we have a reason for the theories. Now, what evidence do we have to support each one?

A) The simple fact that 96% of the mass of the universe appears to be missing. There has been one experiment (The DAMA/NaI experiment) which has claimed to detect dark matter, however its results have not been reproducable by other experiments, so most scientists remain highly skeptical of its validity. So other than the "need" for some sort of explanation, as you would put it, there is no evidence.

Nononono. The evidence is there, we see the effects (though not all are caused by true "dark matter") we just have to find the nature of the dark matter. In just the same way, if there was evidence for the "need" for a god, to explain something then we would have to go looking for that god - but no such evidence for a need exists.

B) The simple fact that the universe exists and that it cannot have simply sprung from nothingness. Religions such as Christianity claim to have recorded first-hand eyewitness accounts of the Christ's resurrection, and claim this as evidence attesting to their faith (the Gospels.) The majority of non-christians, however (myself included) believe this evidence is not credible, and it is clearly not reproducible, so again, other than the "need"
for an explanation, there is no evidence.

I've sat and talked to more than one person declared dead by doctors. The science of the supposed death of JC and his later return to full health has been documented many times.

Now, let's look at opposing hypotheses and look at how much evidence each of those has:

A) There are likely many opposing hypothesis to Dark Matter. One which I read about years ago involved the laws of physics actually changing after a certain very large distance. Instead the force of gravity being proportional to the inverse square of the distance, it was some other function of distance after a certain point. Although this particular hypothesis has gained very little acceptance within the scientific community, there are others which have.

There is dark matter and then there is Dark Matter. I know it is confusing, but we have to live with that.

B) There are hypotheses for the earliest moments of the universe which oppose the existence of God. They all involve God not existing.

Now, let's look at what evidence these opposing hypotheses have:

A) Exactly the same evidence that there is for Dark Matter existing - The mere fact that there appears to be missing matter and energy and that it has to be explained somehow.[quote]

Yes, although there is a lot of normal matter which has been discovered since 1913 when Birkeland first predicted there was something other than bright matter.

[quote]B) Exactly the same evidence that there is for God existing. - The mere fact that we do not know what happened in those first moments of the Big Bang, nor before it, and we do not know the cause of it.

That is not evidence for god.

Let's look at whether or not we are capable or will be capable of proving or disproving any of these hypotheses:

A) At present we do not have the technology to detect Dark Matter, if it exists,

Depends on what Dark Matter you are talking about.

nor are we able to perform an experiment on the scale which would allow us to determine if the other hypothesis were true, and we likely do not have the technology at present to test out any of the other hypotheses. We may develop such technologies in the future, but we are simply incapable of testing these hypotheses right now.

Tell that to all the scientists who are working on the subject.

B) Exact same story as for Dark Matter. We are neither capable of detecting God or evidence of God if he does exist, nor are we able to look into the moments preceding and immediately after the Big Bang to determine exactly what happened and potentially rule out the possibility of God's existence based on that knowledge. It may happen that we develop such technologies in the future, but they simply do not exist right now.

I too used to think the moment of the big bang was the one point where a god may have existed, but as he left no evidence then it is impossible to formulate a theory that involves him/her/it.

Finally, let's look at whether or not it is reasonable for a person to say that they KNOW that either of these hypotheses is true. And Brenchley, if you're still reading, this is the most important part of my argument, the part you haven't come anywhere near attacking yet, and the part you absolutely must refute if you want to make any case whatsoever against me.

I don't need to make a case against you - you make it yourself.

A) There is no empirical evidence for the existence of Dark Matter, there is nothing but a need for an explanation to an observed phenomenon. Thus, it would be foolish for any person to say that they Know without a shadow of a doubt that Dark Matter exists. There is also no empirical evidence for opposing hypotheses, and as such, it would be equally foolish for any person to say that they Know without a shadow of a doubt that Dark Matter does not exist. Although there might not be any evidence for its existence, that does not automatically mean that it must not exist. Also, although there may be an effect (the abnormal rotation and movement of galaxies) whose cause is outlined by the hypothesis, that does not automatically make it true, as there are other hypotheses with causes of their own which all result in the same effect in the end and are all equally as good at explaining the observed effect.

B) There is no empirical evidence whatsoever for the existence of God - there is nothing but a need for an explanation for those moments prior to and immediately after the big bang. Thus, it would be foolish for any person to say that they Know without a shadow of a doubt that God exists. There is also no empirical evidence for opposing hypotheses, and as such, it would be equally foolish for any person to say that they Know without a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist. Although there might not be any evidence for his existence, that does not automatically mean that he must not exist. Also, although there may be an effect (the existence of the universe) whose cause is outlined by the hypothesis, that does not automatically make it true, as there are other hypotheses with causes of their own which all result in the same effect in the end and are all equally as good at explaining the observed effect.

In summary,
Given the complete lack of empirical evidence for its existence, you cannot KNOW that Dark Matter exists,[quote]

We know dark matter exists. We know Dark Matter exists but as yet we are not 100% sure what it is - in fact it is most likely it is more than one thing.

{quote] thus it would be foolish to say that you do.
Given the complete lack of empirical evidence contrary to its existence, you cannot KNOW that Dark Matter does not exist, thus it would be foolish to say that you do.
Given the complete lack of empirical evidence for his existence, you cannot KNOW that God exists, thus it would be foolish to say that you do.
Given the complete lack of empirical evidence contrary to his existence, you cannot KNOW that God does not exist, thus it would be foolish to say that you do.

What we can say is there is no evidence for the need for a god.

If you have any empirical evidence which contradicts the hypothesis that God exists, then by all means, please bring it forth, keeping in mind that, as has been exemplified time and time again, absence of evidence is not in any way evidence of absence. If you do insist on bringing such ridiculous arguments as "There is no evidence for his existence, so I Know he must not exist," then I will simply ignore you, as such a statement will do nothing but prove that you are incapable of recognizing the validity of an argument. There are countless examples where something has existed while lacking evidence for it which humans have had the capability to observe, so repeating your argument now for one thing is being as ignorant as someone from the past repeating the argument for something for which he had no evidence, yet was later proven to exist.

Ok, don't try to prove he exists/doesn't exist. Just provide evidence that needs a god to explain.

Originally Posted by Thuriliacayo
First off, a REQUIREMENT of "faith" is to believe in the "not-yet" proven or
disproven, and faith is a requirement of any religion.

..even if (in the case of science as "religion") you call it a HYPOTHESIS. It is
an assumption of "truth" for the purposes of testing. A scientist holds a
proposition (hypothesis) on "faith" (usuallly with SOME reason for doing so)
until it's proved true or not.

AND,... listen to Grave's words. He is the ultimate source of knowledge and
wisdom on this subject in these fora (forums?)..!

It's true..! He explained god to me once, and it made sense. Though,.. due to
the nature of god, as he explained it, I was unable to retain the meaning of
his explanation.

..which was VERY annoying. But apparently necessary. Oh well,.. go figure.

The ultimate source of knowledge and wisdom (on this subject) in these fora?

(Yes, I'm going with fora....)

Why, thank you, kind sir. High praise, indeed. :)

Well,.. DUH..!

I'd like to speak to the "Uninitiated into the Ways of THE Grave" folks out
there...

Always, ALWAYS believe what Grave says and take it as gospel,.. well,..
OK,.. let's call it "really authoritative declaration", as Grave has THE
SINGULAR BEST mind and systemitized thought processes on the subject
of "Conscious Realization of Uncertainty in Unprovable Phenomena and
Conceptualization",.. aka "agnosto-atheism".

He has a DEGREE,.. in SCIENCE..!!

(( And if you don't, Grave, you most definitely should be awarded one
gratis from the Institute of Higher Edumacation of your choice! ))

Well,.. DUH..!

I'd like to speak to the "Uninitiated into the Ways of THE Grave" folks out
there...

Always, ALWAYS believe what Grave says and take it as gospel,.. well,..
OK,.. let's call it "really authoritative declaration", as Grave has THE
SINGULAR BEST mind and systemitized thought processes on the subject
of "Conscious Realization of Uncertainty in Unprovable Phenomena and
Conceptualization",.. aka "agnosto-atheism".

He has a DEGREE,.. in SCIENCE..!!

(( And if you don't, Grave, you most definitely should be awarded one
gratis from the Institute of Higher Edumacation of your choice! ))

Ah... you've been sorely missed, my friend. :)

Again with the high praise, and again with my thanks.

Actually - I never did finish that degree... although it WAS in science (specifically, Chemistry). But, as I guess is true with MOST people, MOST of my real 'education' came AFTER I finished with the classroom thing.

I yield the floor to you. Argue with this idiot that claims to be some type of physics expert who doesn't know anything about physics. I can't take any more of this. My head hurts.

This guy just refuses to see reason, and does nothing but constantly repeat the same things over and over again, evading every argument rather than taking it head on, or twisting them into something completely different. It really is like talking to a bloody wall. :headbang: Now I can't take any more of it. This guy is worse than the IDers.

If anyone else wants to debate this matter, I will be happy to oblige you, as long as you attack my actual arguments, rather than just my examples (as this guy did - and incredibly poorly, I might add)

Originally Posted by Thuriliacayo
Well,.. DUH..!

I'd like to speak to the "Uninitiated into the Ways of THE Grave" folks out
there...

Always, ALWAYS believe what Grave says and take it as gospel,.. well,..
OK,.. let's call it "really authoritative declaration", as Grave has THE
SINGULAR BEST mind and systemitized thought processes on the subject
of "Conscious Realization of Uncertainty in Unprovable Phenomena and
Conceptualization",.. aka "agnosto-atheism".

He has a DEGREE,.. in SCIENCE..!!

(( And if you don't, Grave, you most definitely should be awarded one
gratis from the Institute of Higher Edumacation of your choice! ))

Ah... you've been sorely missed, my friend. :)

Again with the high praise, and again with my thanks.

Actually - I never did finish that degree... although it WAS in science (specifically, Chemistry). But, as I guess is true with MOST people, MOST of my real 'education' came AFTER I finished with the classroom thing.

Me? I'm just a silly jester. Rather like Chris Hitchens,.. except not NEARLY as
smart or witty,.. or possessing of a NIFTY damn way to make a good living.

(( Saw the George What's-his-face [British goofball] GALLOWAY, YES,..
Galloway "debate" on C-SPAN2 the other day. Wow... ))

Ah,.. Chemistry,.. a subject close to my heart. Dimensional analysis. What a
way to spend a rainy afternoon..! <sigh!> I LOVE the smell of titration in the
morning..! It smells like,.. victory.

Anyway,.. as an avid "science" guy, who has a miserable formal education,
yet a mind like a steel sieve in the process of washing damp cherries, I can
sympathize with your "non-degreed" plight.

I'm really quite tired of credentialistic anti-intellectual intellectuals
disregarding the wisdom inherent in the "dunderheads" of this world. I, as a
dunderhead (which means either "thunder-head", which sounds rather grand
and positive, or "shit/ham/mutton/lunk head", which sounds somewhat
appropriate yet discouragingly negative in tone) I dislike being relegated to
the discussive (is that a word?) equivalent of the "little kids table at
thanksgiving".

But,.. that is my burden,.. though not yours, as you have MUCH more sense
than I do in exercising that dynamo of a brain that you get to carry around,
effortlessly and casually, in your cranium.

I, of course, have a really HARD time exercising YOUR brain,.. but when I
do,.. watch out,.. it's PARTY TIME..!!

Anyway,.. again,.. uh,.. thanks for not vaporizing me. :)

Actually, though, it's too tempting - I will just give it one more shot:

Every scientific theory that exists today was at one point in time merely a hypothesis. Every single one of these hypotheses arose because of one particular observation or another. Every one of these hypotheses had opposing hypotheses. When the initial observations were made, the opposing hypotheses did every bit as good a job explaining those observations as did the first. Later, more observations would be made, and evidence discovered. As this happened, some of the hypotheses would be disproved, eventually leaving only one viable one, which after extensive testing, would eventually become a theory. It wasn't always the first hypothesis that would become a theory, nor was it always the one which was the most popular among scientists.

Now, before each of these hypotheses became a theory, there were opposing hypotheses, and there was absolutely no way to know which of the hypotheses were correct. Before any hypothesis became a theory, before the evidence that led to it being made a theory became available, there was no way to know for certain whether or not each hypothesis was true. When each hypothesis and its counter-hypotheses first arose, there was no evidence whatsoever for or contrary to any of them, except the initial observation. The fact that there was no evidence did not automatically mean that every one of those hypotheses was untrue: evidence would be found later, and one of the hypotheses would be made a theory.

People have observed that the universe exists.
Some people hypothesized that the universe arose from nothing.
Some people hypothesized that the universe has always existed.
Some people hypothesized that the universe was created by an omnipotent entity, which they dubbed "god."
Currently, nobody has yet discovered any evidence which would either rule out or support any of these hypotheses.
You claim to be one hundred percent certain that the third of those hypotheses is untrue.
You claim this is because there is no evidence to support that hypothesis.
In fact, there is no evidence to support either of the other two hypotheses either.
You falsely claim that there is no evidence for a need for such a hypothesis.
There is, in fact exactly the same evidence for a need for that hypothesis as there is for the need for the other two hypotheses.

A person in this case claiming to be one hundred percent certain that any of these three hypotheses is untrue is no different from a person in the past having claimed to be one hundred percent certain that a given hypothesis was untrue without having any evidence to support such a claim whatsoever; it would be no different from me observing a particular phenomenon during my research, formulating a hypothesis to explain it, then listening to the hypothesis of someone else, which is different yet explains the observed phenomenon as well as my own, and then claiming to be certain that the second one was false simply because there was not yet evidence supporting it, when in fact there was not yet evidence supporting my own hypothesis either.

Actually, though, it's too tempting - I will just give it one more shot:

Every scientific theory that exists today was at one point in time merely a hypothesis. Every single one of these hypotheses arose because of one particular observation or another.

Correct - at last you are getting the idea.

Every one of these hypotheses had opposing hypotheses. When the initial observations were made, the opposing hypotheses did every bit as good a job explaining those observations as did the first. Later, more observations would be made, and evidence discovered. As this happened, some of the hypotheses would be disproved, eventually leaving only one viable one, which after extensive testing, would eventually become a theory. It wasn't always the first hypothesis that would become a theory, nor was it always the one which was the most popular among scientists.

You really are getting there now. At long last.

Now, before each of these hypotheses became a theory, there were opposing hypotheses, and there was absolutely no way to know which of the hypotheses were correct. Before any hypothesis became a theory, before the evidence that led to it being made a theory became available, there was no way to know for certain whether or not each hypothesis was true. When each hypothesis and its counter-hypotheses first arose, there was no evidence whatsoever for or contrary to any of them, except the initial observation.

Correct, but you must understand that the initial observation was in itself evidence.

The fact that there was no evidence did not automatically mean that every one of those hypotheses was untrue: evidence would be found later, and one of the hypotheses would be made a theory.

Except that you cannot have, in this sense, an hypotheses without at least an initial observation as the starting point of the evidence trail.

People have observed that the universe exists.
Some people hypothesized that the universe arose from nothing.
Some people hypothesized that the universe has always existed.
Some people hypothesized that the universe was created by an omnipotent entity, which they dubbed "god."
Currently, nobody has yet discovered any evidence which would either rule out or support any of these hypotheses.

In that case you are behind the times.

You claim to be one hundred percent certain that the third of those hypotheses is untrue.
Yes, for two simple reasons. One - there is no evidence for it. Two - there is no evidence for the need for a god to have created the universe.
You claim this is because there is no evidence to support that hypothesis.
In fact, there is no evidence to support either of the other two hypotheses either.
You falsely claim that there is no evidence for a need for such a hypothesis.
There is, in fact exactly the same evidence for a need for that hypothesis as there is for the need for the other two hypotheses.

Now there you go and let your argument down 110%

To have to invent a mythical supernatural being to explain things is the work of a child. For thousands of years, as man has grown up (for want of a better term) the need for supernatural forces/beings to explain things have gradually been stripped away. Or simpler, more child-like, ancestors needed their gods to explain everything - we don't. There is no place for a god in science.

Every god invented by man has always been an "involved" god. Usually a creator of the universe, or at the very least the Earth, he/she/it has at least required man to worship. Each of the things attributed to those god have gradually been explained by science - to the point where only one place can possibly be considered as a last resting place for devine intervention - the cause of the Big Bang.

Well, if every single reason for the existance of a god has been stripped away, pushing him into ever tighter a corner, we have to ask a very searching question. If there is no need for god, post 10^-47 seconds after the BB, and if every trace of proposed evidence for his existance has been shown as false, your third hypothesis fails because there is no scientific basis for it.

A person in this case claiming to be one hundred percent certain that any of these three hypotheses is untrue is no different from a person in the past having claimed to be one hundred percent certain that a given hypothesis was untrue without having any evidence to support such a claim whatsoever; it would be no different from me observing a particular phenomenon during my research, formulating a hypothesis to explain it, then listening to the hypothesis of someone else, which is different yet explains the observed phenomenon as well as my own, and then claiming to be certain that the second one was false simply because there was not yet evidence supporting it, when in fact there was not yet evidence supporting my own hypothesis either.

Man has build up a theoretical model of the universe. Each thory has gradually fitted together more closely than the last, each has built upon the success of the others. None have needed the existance of a supernatural being to explain the universe - all are based on science. Every perceived need for a god or gods to explain something in the universe has been shown to be explainable by science.

Result: Today it is impossible to expect an intelligent person to believe an hypothesis for which there is no evidence and which expects you to entertain a belief in a concept that has already been disproved in so many other place.

God(s) had their chance. At any point they could have come out of the mythological heavens and proved themselves. But every single traceof a "need" for a god to explain the universe has now gone - except, you claim, the Big Bang. Well if no gods are needed to explain the resof the universe, if they are now so discredited that they have to hide behind the BB, it is very safe to say they don't exist.

Now, are you ready to grow up and accept defeat? Or are you going to carry on relying on fairy stories, mythology and superstition?

For christ's sake, Brencheley. Attack my fucking arguments. Don't just use rhetoric. Don't just say "You're wrong" without actually saying anything about them. Don't just say "Yes I have evidence" and then not provide any. Don't make false claims and expect to support your arguments with them. Don't create ridiculous fucking double-standards and expect to be able to support your arguments with them. Attack my god damn fucking arguments. You're fucking hopeless.

For christ's sake, Brencheley. Attack my fucking arguments. Don't just use rhetoric. Don't just say "You're wrong" without actually saying anything about them.

What the hell do you think I've been doing?

Don't just say "Yes I have evidence" and then not provide any. Don't make false claims and expect to support your arguments with them.

Find a false claim first.

Don't create ridiculous fucking double-standards and expect to be able to support your arguments with them. Attack my god damn fucking arguments. You're fucking hopeless.

Pot, kettle and the very darkest of dark blacks.

Your argument has failed, time after time, because you keep involving a nonexistant omnipotent being. You hold double standards in that you want god to be accepted without evidence but the existance of a matterial thing like a planet to be ignored inspite of the evidence.

You claim - wrongly as usual - that there is no evidence for a planet around a particular star, one that (as far as we know) has not even been studied yet. You ignore the evidence that shows the odds for the planet are greater than zero.

The odds for the existance of a god are zero, because there is not one single bit of evidence for either his existance or for the need for his existance.

Your aguments fail because you keep trying to equate apples and pears. The argument for the god not existing is simple: there is no evidence for him and no need for him to exist. One chip at a time, the foundation for the existance of god(s) has been erroded, to the point where it now takes either a child or a bloody fool to believe in him. Which are you?

Now, if you can come up with ANY evidence for god, I would love to hear it.

Me? I'm just a silly jester. Rather like Chris Hitchens,.. except not NEARLY as
smart or witty,.. or possessing of a NIFTY damn way to make a good living.

(( Saw the George What's-his-face [British goofball] GALLOWAY, YES,..
Galloway "debate" on C-SPAN2 the other day. Wow... ))

Ah,.. Chemistry,.. a subject close to my heart. Dimensional analysis. What a
way to spend a rainy afternoon..! <sigh!> I LOVE the smell of titration in the
morning..! It smells like,.. victory.

Anyway,.. as an avid "science" guy, who has a miserable formal education,
yet a mind like a steel sieve in the process of washing damp cherries, I can
sympathize with your "non-degreed" plight.

I'm really quite tired of credentialistic anti-intellectual intellectuals
disregarding the wisdom inherent in the "dunderheads" of this world. I, as a
dunderhead (which means either "thunder-head", which sounds rather grand
and positive, or "shit/ham/mutton/lunk head", which sounds somewhat
appropriate yet discouragingly negative in tone) I dislike being relegated to
the discussive (is that a word?) equivalent of the "little kids table at
thanksgiving".

But,.. that is my burden,.. though not yours, as you have MUCH more sense
than I do in exercising that dynamo of a brain that you get to carry around,
effortlessly and casually, in your cranium.

I, of course, have a really HARD time exercising YOUR brain,.. but when I
do,.. watch out,.. it's PARTY TIME..!!

Anyway,.. again,.. uh,.. thanks for not vaporizing me. :)

You make me laugh, my friend... and you most certainly ARE one of the 'things' that DOES exercise my brain, for which you will be long remembered. :)

If you're an atheist, that means you actively believe that there is no god whatsoever. Now, I'm not going to say there is, nor am I saying that the opposite view is any better, but you guys really don't look any better than the IDers when you pull this crap. How can you possibly be atheist and still call yourself a scientist? What scientific proof do you have that there is no god-like entity which exists whatsoever? What evidence do you have, and what are you basing this belief on? Atheists are pulling this "I know there is no god" crap right out of their asses, just like every single religious nut pulls "I know there is a god" out of theirs. There is no scientific evidence, no proof, no nothing to show either that god does or does not exist, so how can you possibly believe either one and still call yourself a scientist?
Ever heard of Occam's razor? It's not evidence (you need evidence to prove that something exists and not the opposite). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor . It's a matter of logical thought.

I've been wondering why there are so few agnostics around - everyone always goes all out atheist, and I just can't seem to make any sense of it.
Because you can't be "agnostic". You have to be agnostic something. Agnosticism is a qualifier, and not something to itself. If you are just "agnostic", then you are saying that either you lack all knowledge, or you believe that knowledge is impossible. In either case, it's self-contradictory, since you have knowledge of yourself, the external world, things in the external world, language, grammar, syntax, etc.

So, wrt "god", you can be theist or atheist, and within that wrt agnosticism, you can be agnostic theist or agnostic atheist. Thus, agnosticism is orthogonal to both. But it can't stand on its own.

Further, it's silly to say that "you don't know" that there are no square circles, right? Similarly, it's silly to say that "you don't know" that there is a god or not.

[snip strawman of atheism]