Welcome to the BDSM Library.
  • Login:
beymenslotgir.com kalebet34.net escort bodrum bodrum escort
Results 1 to 30 of 142

Hybrid View

Thorne Religion or Atheism? An open... 05-15-2011, 08:37 PM
Thorne No, simply believing in them... 05-15-2011, 08:44 PM
Thorne I've read about Communism,... 05-15-2011, 08:50 PM
Thorne I'm not sure if you're... 05-15-2011, 09:21 PM
denuseri Dear Thorne I have no... 05-15-2011, 11:54 PM
Thorne And yet, if I'd answered them... 05-16-2011, 06:35 AM
TantricSoul Thank you Thorne for giving... 05-16-2011, 10:22 PM
thir And yet, when one tries to... 05-19-2011, 10:31 AM
Thorne As seems to be the case here. 05-19-2011, 01:27 PM
thir There you go. I would like to... 05-21-2011, 12:05 AM
Thorne Might be a good idea. I'll... 05-21-2011, 06:02 AM
MMI I, for one, wish TS would... 06-16-2011, 06:12 PM
Thorne I agree whole-heartedly! 06-16-2011, 07:22 PM
domaster well to be clear about god...... 05-27-2011, 10:47 AM
Thorne For anyone who's interested,... 05-27-2011, 12:22 PM
Thorne I've just read this article... 06-07-2011, 07:11 AM
thir She certainly knows her own... 06-08-2011, 05:15 PM
MMI So ... this thread is a... 06-10-2011, 05:33 PM
Thorne Please do! You know I always... 06-10-2011, 09:38 PM
MMI You reject blind faith and/or... 06-14-2011, 03:54 PM
Thorne Yes, I do. Without evidence,... 06-14-2011, 09:42 PM
Lion I believe in a god. It gives... 06-16-2011, 11:37 AM
Thorne I agree with you, Lion. It's... 06-16-2011, 01:28 PM
thir Some here enjoy fencing with... 06-17-2011, 06:48 AM
MMI OK, let's try again from... 06-16-2011, 06:00 PM
Thorne I agree, as long as the gods... 06-16-2011, 07:22 PM
MMI There you go again, trying to... 06-17-2011, 05:37 PM
Thorne Perhaps not, but there would... 06-17-2011, 08:28 PM
denuseri MMI: I dont know why... 06-16-2011, 08:36 PM
Thorne I'm hurt, denuseri! I'm... 06-16-2011, 09:20 PM
denuseri Dear Thorne: (or to whom... 06-18-2011, 11:43 AM
Thorne Note that second part,... 06-18-2011, 07:48 PM
denuseri So your willing to conclude... 06-18-2011, 09:29 PM
Thorne And here is where we seem to... 06-19-2011, 08:09 AM
TwistedTails If there were a God it would... 06-18-2011, 08:09 PM
denuseri So you do not agree even with... 06-19-2011, 11:52 AM
Thorne <sigh> Okay, yes, atheism is... 06-19-2011, 06:37 PM
MMI As to the burnt bush, there... 06-19-2011, 01:42 PM
Thorne So you're saying I should... 06-19-2011, 06:52 PM
MMI Moses and the Burning Bush ... 06-20-2011, 04:09 PM
thir However, there are scientists... 06-20-2011, 04:29 PM
Thorne Exactly! And in these kinds... 06-20-2011, 07:44 PM
Thorne Not because of his faith, but... 06-20-2011, 07:42 PM
denuseri Without your all convincing... 06-19-2011, 08:01 PM
Thorne Agreed, at least in... 06-20-2011, 06:56 AM
denuseri If your contention was that... 06-20-2011, 03:12 PM
Thorne Sorry, but atheism has... 06-20-2011, 07:17 PM
denuseri Oh dear have I perhaps struck... 06-20-2011, 10:50 PM
Thorne Really? That's the extent of... 06-21-2011, 07:37 AM
thir In the case of a God, or Gods... 06-22-2011, 02:41 PM
denuseri If they did, they sure didnt... 06-22-2011, 03:31 PM
denuseri I see that more along the... 06-24-2011, 09:15 AM
Thorne Sorry, I didn't mean to imply... 06-24-2011, 10:04 AM
MMI At the moment, I don't think... 06-25-2011, 07:34 PM
Thorne The rules are very simple,... 06-25-2011, 07:59 PM
MMI Those are your rules. A... 06-26-2011, 06:03 AM
Thorne Yeah, that's why they're... 06-26-2011, 07:08 AM
denuseri I think the problem here is... 06-26-2011, 03:47 PM
MMI Ok - I'll try to offer... 06-26-2011, 06:21 PM
Thorne Actually, I have two young... 06-26-2011, 08:15 PM
denuseri What did I tell ya...the... 06-26-2011, 09:37 PM
Thorne I've given plenty of... 06-27-2011, 07:32 AM
denuseri So as perviously stated...you... 06-27-2011, 10:22 AM
Thorne According to science! And you... 06-27-2011, 01:12 PM
denuseri And yet again more insults. ... 06-27-2011, 08:28 PM
Thorne Well, denuseri, as usual we... 06-27-2011, 10:27 PM
denuseri I dont have to provide... 06-28-2011, 11:08 AM
Thorne Yeah, for now... 06-28-2011, 01:18 PM
denuseri Sorry I dont personally give... 06-28-2011, 09:29 PM
Thorne From what I've seen you don't... 06-29-2011, 06:55 AM
denuseri Oh I am well versed in... 06-29-2011, 10:15 AM
Thorne You are absolutely right. But... 06-29-2011, 11:27 AM
Thorne You are aware, I'm sure, that... 06-29-2011, 02:08 PM
Thorne I want to speak to the idea... 06-29-2011, 03:09 PM
denuseri I think your still trying to... 06-30-2011, 12:10 AM
Thorne No, I'm not. I've... 06-30-2011, 07:12 AM
denuseri Which explains a lot imho as... 06-30-2011, 12:29 PM
Thorne That doesn't make them a... 06-30-2011, 01:48 PM
Thorne denuseri, just ran across... 06-30-2011, 08:31 AM
Thorne Another quote I ran across... 06-30-2011, 11:15 AM
MMI Sorry to drag this thread... 07-01-2011, 05:14 PM
Thorne This kind of question is far... 07-01-2011, 09:42 PM
denuseri A sidebar on the origens of... 07-02-2011, 12:46 AM
MMI Call me when the work is done... 07-02-2011, 04:57 PM
Thorne We search for more so that we... 07-02-2011, 09:04 PM
MMI No I didn't think it was a... 07-03-2011, 04:36 PM
Thorne I was not offended, so don't... 07-03-2011, 09:12 PM
denuseri Oh he wont like the idea of... 07-02-2011, 12:21 AM
Thorne Oh, I have no problems with... 07-02-2011, 01:00 AM
denuseri Only your trying to blame the... 07-02-2011, 08:05 AM
Thorne I agree that geocentrism did... 07-02-2011, 09:17 AM
denuseri Making it a completely... 07-02-2011, 09:43 AM
Thorne Here's a site which discusses... 07-02-2011, 11:24 AM
denuseri lmfao...Vandalism?... 07-02-2011, 03:12 PM
MMI It was my understanding that... 07-02-2011, 05:15 PM
Thorne To my knowledge you are... 07-02-2011, 07:52 PM
denuseri Actually there is no clear... 07-02-2011, 08:21 PM
denuseri Too late Thorne look up a... 07-02-2011, 09:25 PM
Thorne Yeah, I got that. I'm a... 07-02-2011, 09:49 PM
Thorne So denuseri, are you claiming... 07-02-2011, 09:43 PM
Switch_John Since this appears to be a... 07-03-2011, 03:22 PM
MMI SJ - are you saying God... 07-03-2011, 03:40 PM
Switch_John Haha, I believe that God does... 07-03-2011, 04:03 PM
Switch_John You bring up a very valid... 07-03-2011, 05:09 PM
Thorne John, welcome. Nice to have a... 07-03-2011, 08:36 PM
MMI I think I've said all I... 07-04-2011, 05:09 PM
MMI OK, I know I said I'd shut... 07-06-2011, 05:07 PM
Thorne I'd heard of this, and find... 07-06-2011, 07:57 PM
  1. #1
    Just a little OFF
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,821
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by MMI View Post
    You will realise I wasn't talking about your granddaughters specifically. It is common ground that the difference between them and lumps of meat and bone is, they are alive. I said previously that (most) Believers maintain God gave them life, and they point to the evidence before your eyes: living children. How does science refute that apart from saying, Oh, I don't believe that? What better explanation can it offer?
    This kind of question is far beyond my knowledge, I admit. I wouldn't even know where to start looking, to be honest. It's my understanding, though, that self awareness is a function of the brain, and that awareness can be constrained or removed by blocking off certain parts of the brain without killing the organism. It appears to be a fully biological function. The work goes on, though.

    I don't believe it has one, nor do I think it can even undermine the Believers' explanation except on the basis of unproven and untestable assertions.
    But aren't the theists explanations also unproven and untestable? Science, at least, is still searching for the answers. Theists say "God did it" and let it stand at that.

    So not only do we have supremely massive singularity appearing out of nowhere for no discernable (scientific) reason - a huge leap of faith in itself before we even consider that it immediately annihilated possibly 99% of itself, leaving behind only the incomprehensibly huge cosmos we can see at night, but now we also have to believe that this has happened an infinite number of times - and is presumably still happening.
    As I said, this is ONE possible explanation, one which does not require a supernatural entity. The plain and simple truth is, we don't know! There's nothing wrong with not knowing. It's how we learn, by trying to know! Once you inject superstition and the supernatural you take away any reason to learn the truth.

    Well, if we can imagine one fantastic thing before breakfast, why not a multitude of fantastic things afterwards?
    Certainly, why not? We can imagine anything we wish. Just provide some evidence so the rest can follow along. Or print it in a book of fairy tales.

    I call upon you to provide testable evidence, Thorne.
    Testable evidence for what? The Big Bang? Way out of my area of expertise, I'm afraid. Try Stephen Hawking. I trust him. At least in this field.

    Yes I have noticed, and I believe the observation is entirely accurate. To me it is perfectly explicable. The weaker scientific knowledge is, the greater is the tendency to call natural events that have not been properly understood miracles. Science has not reached the point where it can explain all so-called miracles yet, and until it does, it cannot say that those still-believed-in miracles are not real.
    Imagine 1,000,000 coins strewn across the Sahara desert from a plane, all lying flat with the head showing. The theist claims it's a miracle and praises his god. The scientist picks up a coin and shows the theist that it has two heads, no tail. The theist says that it's just one coin and the rest have tails. So the scientist picks up another coin. No tail. Then another, and another, and another. Every coin the scientist finds has two heads, no tail. Is it absolutely necessary to pick up every single coin to prove that they all have two heads, or can he make a reasonable assumption based on the evidence? The theist claims he must check each one, yet for every coin the scientist picks up, the theist is tossing another coin out into the sands.

    My parable for the day.

    Refute the anecdotes. Disprove the historical documents.
    They HAVE been refuted! Repeatedly.

    I'm disappointed at your high-handed dismissal of a perfectly respectable argument frequently put forward in discussions of this type. It is not hocus pocus, and you stand accused again of sneering and jeering at arguments you are not inclined to address properly.
    All right, maybe it's not hocus pocus, but it's not science, either. It's philosophy, something I have no understanding of, nor any desire to learn.

    It is widely held that an individual can convince himself of his own existence because he knows his own thoughts. But as he does not know another's thoughts, he cannot convince himself that that other person exists or is a figment of his own imagination.
    Still philosophy. If I can see it, hear it, touch it, it's real. At least to me. If I punch it in the nose it'll know that I'm real.

    But again, these are philosophical questions, not scientific ones.

    You can't prove god doesn't exist and didn't create the cosmos; I can't prove the cosmos didn't create itself by purely natural means. The evidence that does exist can be and is used by both sides of the argument to support their own case and to refute the other side. In other words, what evidence there is, is useless.
    I the only purpose of your god is to start the ball rolling and get out of the way then I agree, we are at a stalemate. But that is NOT the only purpose of the gods of humanity, is it? Every theist believes that his god in some way interacts with the universe, sometimes on a daily basis. And THAT is disprovable. Every claim that theists have made which it is possible to test, has been tested and found wanting.

    I consider your position is based on your understanding of the evidence, coloured by your beliefs.
    If you mean that I believe the scientific method to be superior to theological revelation, than yes, I agree.

    And now we're opposed again. Are you telling me there's no controversy in science?
    Of course there are controversies! That's how science progresses. Different interpretations of the available evidence, and further search for evidence to prove, or disprove, a particular interpretation.
    Are you suggesting that the evidence used by science is better than the evidence used by the faithful, even though it is the same evidence?
    I'm stating, not suggesting, that the faithful are NOT using the same evidence. They are not using ANY evidence, other than their holy books and the teachings of the priests.

    Then one who lacks belief has no opinion worthy of consideration here. He has not even considered the question.
    I meant that if I reject an idea without any reason is not a sensible position to take, and neither is your statement "I don't believe: therefore no evidence required." Your reply above now seems to contradict this assertion.
    I HAVE considered the question, going from belief, to doubt, to a loss of belief. I find the theological answers to be without scientific merit. Philosophically, perhaps they can be interesting, but without evidence they cannot be considered science.

    I am not claiming that gods do not exist. I am merely stating that I do not believe they exist. There is nothing for me to prove. It is up to those who ARE making the claim to provide the evidence to back that claim up.

    You must remember that a geo-centric universe was a scientifically-formulated belief that had little relevance to religions until new ideas appeared to challenge contemporary beliefs about the creation.
    I disagree. The scientists who devised the geocentric universe were trained in the Church, the only place to get an education. They tried to fit all of their findings into the dogma. It was only when their explanations became so convoluted as to be unusable that they even tried looking for a different explanation.
    After the Church reconciled itself to the truth, and realised that the new ideas did not affect its fundamental beliefs at all, it was able to accept that the Sun was at the centre of the solar system.
    The Church only "reconciled" itself when it had no choice. The evidence was overwhelming. So they shifted from placing the Earth at the center of the universe to placing the Sun at the center of the universe.

    There is no reason to expect science and religion to change positions in tandem, especially when one of them appears to undermine the other. Sooner or later, they will catch up with each other:
    Of course. It only took 400 years for the RCC to apologize to Galileo, after all. And now, after fighting tooth and nail against evolution the RCC has finally come out and said, "Oh, wait! My bad! There's no conflict between us and evolution! So sorry." Of course, it may have something to do with people leaving the churches in droves.

    God will be in his Heaven and all will be well with the world.
    Pardon me if I don't hold my breath?
    "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche

  2. #2
    Keeping the Ahh in Kajira
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Last paga tavern on the left.
    Posts
    5,625
    Post Thanks / Like
    A sidebar on the origens of the Geocentric model since some may find it informative:

    The geocentric model (also known as geocentrism, or the Ptolemaic system), is the theory, that our planet is the center of the universe, and that all other objects orbit around it.

    This model served as the predominant cosmological system in many ancient civilizations like Greece and Egypt.

    It also predates the advent of Christianity.


    As such, most scientists (philosophers and astrologers etc being the early scientists) assumed that the everything circled the Earth, including the noteworthy systems of Aristole and Ptolemy.

    Two commonly made observations supported the idea that the Earth was the center of the Universe.

    The first observation was that the stars, sun, and planets appear to revolve around the Earth each day, making the Earth the center of that system. Further, every star was on a "stellar" or "celestial" sphere, of which the earth was the center, that rotated each day, using a line through the north and south pole as an axis. The stars closer the equator appeared to rise and fall the greatest distance, but each star circled back to its rising point each day. At least from the observations they were able to make at the time.

    The second common notion supporting the geocentric model was that the Earth does not seem to move from the perspective of an Earth bound observer, and that it is solid, stable, and unmoving.

    In other words, it is completely at rest.

    The geocentric model was usually combined with a spherical earth model by ancient Greek and medieval philosophers.

    It is not the same as the older belief that the earth was flat which was never widely accepted by anyone as anything other than a myth associated with the uneducated.

    However, the ancient Greeks believed that the motions of the planets were circular and not elliptical, a view that was not challenged in the west before the 17th century through the synthesis of theories by Copernicus and Kepler.

    The astronomical predictions of Ptolemy's geocentric model were used to prepare astrological charts for over 1500 years.

    The geocentric model held sway into the early modern age, but was gradually replaced from the late 16th century onward by the heliocentric model.

    Even though the transition between these two theories met much resistance, it did not meet it from only the Catholic Church (whose theologians I might add consulted many many learned men on the subject before deciding upon the issue) but also from those scientists who saw geocentrism as a fact that could not be subverted by a new, weakly justified theory.
    Last edited by denuseri; 07-02-2011 at 12:57 AM.
    When love beckons to you, follow him,Though his ways are hard and steep. And when his wings enfold you yield to him, Though the sword hidden among his pinions may wound thee
    KAHLIL GIBRAN, The Prophet

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    NA
    Posts
    869
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
    This kind of question is far beyond my knowledge, I admit. I wouldn't even know where to start looking, to be honest. It's my understanding, though, that self awareness is a function of the brain, and that awareness can be constrained or removed by blocking off certain parts of the brain without killing the organism. It appears to be a fully biological function. The work goes on, though.
    Call me when the work is done and a better explanation is ready.

    Meanwhile, Believers can continue to believe God gives life without fear of scientific contradiction.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
    But aren't the theists explanations also unproven and untestable? Science, at least, is still searching for the answers. Theists say "God did it" and let it stand atthat.
    Yes, they are unproven and untested. They are also incapable of proof or testing in scientific terms. But believers have their answers, founded on faith and evidenced, in this case, by two young, vital, children. Why search for more? No-one has a better answer.

    I would add that, belief is always being tested in different (non-scientific) ways and is frequently lost as people ask, "If there is a God, why does evil happen?" That is one of the important questions that believers want answers for. Science says, "Shit happens: get over it." If that's the best hope for the future science can offer, what a bleak existence it will be - grim suffering without purpose. Have you been to East Germany, or Hungary?

    Maybe self-delusion is the only sensible way to deal with it.


    Quote Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
    As I said, this is ONE possible explanation, one which does not require a supernatural entity. The plain and simple truth is, we don't know! There's nothing wrong with not knowing. It's how we learn, by trying to know! Once you inject superstition and the supernatural you take away any reason to learn the truth.
    You don't know. But you're trying to know. Very good. But it's beginning to look like any attempt to understand that you don't approve of is an attack on truth.


    Quote Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
    Certainly, why not? We can imagine anything we wish. Just provide some evidence so the rest can follow along. Or print it in a book of fairy tales.
    Hmmm, If you say that all existence can be explained according to one set or another of incredible suppositions opposed to all the normally understood rules of science, dreamt up because the classical rules of science had no explanation, but an elegant series of mathematical equations can be produced to demonstrate that the explanation is a good one, that's fine ... even if the story has to be changed every time it is criticised, but if I say it is explained by the fact that a incredibly powerful being created it, and that this being revealed himself to individuals who recorded this in the scriptures has to be dismissed as a fairy tale. Why is your fantasy better than mine? Numbers aren't everything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
    Testable evidence for what? The Big Bang? Way out of my area of expertise, I'm afraid. Try Stephen Hawking. I trust him. At least in this field.
    I doubt he is willing to consider questions from this website, but why should I trust him, anyway? You don't trust the Pope.


    Quote Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
    Imagine 1,000,000 coins strewn across the Sahara desert from a plane, all lying flat with the head showing. The theist claims it's a miracle and praises his god. The scientist picks up a coin and shows the theist that it has two heads, no tail. The theist says that it's just one coin and the rest have tails. So the scientist picks up another coin. No tail. Then another, and another, and another. Every coin the scientist finds has two heads, no tail. Is it absolutely necessary to pick up every single coin to prove that they all have two heads, or can he make a reasonable assumption based on the evidence? The theist claims he must check each one, yet for every coin the scientist picks up, the theist is tossing another coin out into the sands.

    My parable for the day.
    Are you suggesting all theists are cheats (and scientists are not)? It is very difficult to conduct a debate in the face of such contempt.

    Or is the truth of the matter the fact that God caused all of the million coins to be double-headed, and neither scientist nor theist realised? Or perhaps - and I'm trying to offer a scientific explanation - the side of the coin lying face down was both heads and tails, and it only turned out to be double-headed once the scientist turned it over.


    Quote Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
    They HAVE been refuted! Repeatedly.
    Some have, agreed. The fundamental ones have not even been questioned by science ... and cannot be


    Quote Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
    All right, maybe it's not hocus pocus, but it's not science, either. It's philosophy, something I have no understanding of, nor any desire to learn.
    Quote Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
    Still philosophy. If I can see it, hear it, touch it, it's real. At least to me. If I punch it in the nose it'll know that I'm real.

    But again, these are philosophical questions, not scientific ones.
    These responses demonstrate how narrow your "scientific" ... no, wait, I'll call it "atheist" perspective, because I can't see anything truly scientific in your position now ... how narrow your atheist perspective is, and how dogmatic: reality is what I say it is.


    Quote Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
    If the only purpose of your god is to start the ball rolling and get out of the way then I agree, we are at a stalemate. But that is NOT the only purpose of the gods of humanity, is it? Every theist believes that his god in some way interacts with the universe, sometimes on a daily basis. And THAT is disprovable. Every claim that theists have made which it is possible to test, has been tested and found wanting.
    That's a moot point.

    But the fact that God's existence has not been disproved shows the inadequacy of science to do the job, and that it is still reasonable to believe. It would, of course, be unreasonable to continue to believe in what had been disproved.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
    If you mean that I believe the scientific method to be superior to theological revelation, than yes, I agree.
    But your position is not based on scientific rigour, but atheist prejudice. Science does not deny god because it cannot test him.


    Quote Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
    Of course there are controversies! That's how science progresses. Different interpretations of the available evidence, and further search for evidence to prove, or disprove, a particular interpretation.
    If you allow controversies among scientists, why do you not allow disagreement between religious scholars?


    Quote Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
    I'm stating, not suggesting, that the faithful are NOT using the same evidence. They are not using ANY evidence, other than their holy books and the teachings of the priests.
    There's the evidence of life in your little grandaughters, of course.


    Quote Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
    I HAVE considered the question, going from belief, to doubt, to a loss of belief. I find the theological answers to be without scientific merit. Philosophically, perhaps they can be interesting, but without evidence they cannot be considered science.
    Then, by that argument, are the Big Bang, Steady State Theory, String Theory, M Theory and the rest, all unscientific too?

    I don't believe that, if you have believed, and you have lost your faith, that you have a lack of belief, as you put it. I believe you have changed your belief, from one where god exists to one where he doesn't. You can't just "empty" yourself of an idea unless you just switch off. I don't believe you have switched off, but if you have, your opinion would not be worthy of discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thorne View Post
    I am not claiming that gods do not exist. I am merely stating that I do not believe they exist. There is nothing for me to prove. It is up to those who ARE making the claim to provide the evidence to back that claim up.
    I think it is up to you to justify (if not to prove) your change of belief.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thorne View Post

    I disagree. The scientists who devised the geocentric universe were trained in the Church, the only place to get an education. They tried to fit all of their findings into the dogma. It was only when their explanations became so convoluted as to be unusable that they even tried looking for a different explanation.

    The Church only "reconciled" itself when it had no choice. The evidence was overwhelming. So they shifted from placing the Earth at the center of the universe to placing the Sun at the center of the universe.


    Of course. It only took 400 years for the RCC to apologize to Galileo, after all. And now, after fighting tooth and nail against evolution the RCC has finally come out and said, "Oh, wait! My bad! There's no conflict between us and evolution! So sorry." Of course, it may have something to do with people leaving the churches in droves.
    I leave it to den to deal with this.

  4. #4
    Just a little OFF
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,821
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by MMI View Post
    Yes, they are unproven and untested. They are also incapable of proof or testing in scientific terms. But believers have their answers, founded on faith and evidenced, in this case, by two young, vital, children. Why search for more? No-one has a better answer.
    We search for more so that we can FIND a better answer!

    I would add that, belief is always being tested in different (non-scientific) ways and is frequently lost as people ask, "If there is a God, why does evil happen?" That is one of the important questions that believers want answers for. Science says, "Shit happens: get over it."
    I think you've got it backwards. The theists claim that something bad happens as a part of God's plan, and all you can do is pray that God will spare you (though why He would want to spare you and destroy his plan is beyond me.) Science says, "WHY did this happen? HOW did this happen? How can we prevent it from happening again?"

    You don't know. But you're trying to know. Very good. But it's beginning to look like any attempt to understand that you don't approve of is an attack on truth.
    Not at all. If you know a way to figure it out, please, show us the way. Just provide evidence!

    Hmmm, If you say that all existence can be explained according to one set or another of incredible suppositions opposed to all the normally understood rules of science, dreamt up because the classical rules of science had no explanation, but an elegant series of mathematical equations can be produced to demonstrate that the explanation is a good one, that's fine ... even if the story has to be changed every time it is criticised, but if I say it is explained by the fact that a incredibly powerful being created it, and that this being revealed himself to individuals who recorded this in the scriptures has to be dismissed as a fairy tale. Why is your fantasy better than mine?
    If you want it to be a contest, then my only response is, "Show your work." Scientists create models which MIGHT explain the origin of the universe, then show the evidence which that model explains. They make predictions of evidence which they should be able to find if that model is correct. If evidence turns up which contradicts the model, or they are unable to find the evidence they predict, the model is falsified.

    The Christian says that God created the universe. They show no evidence to back their claim, except that the Bible says it's so. And how do they know the Bible is correct? Why simple! The Bible SAYS it's the Word of God! QED. They base their entire world view on a book of stories cobbled together from mystics and shamans, priests and rabbis, all carefully selected by the Council of Nicea some 1700 years ago. A book which frequently misrepresents events which we KNOW happened differently. A book which contradicts itself over and over again. And you claim that this approach is valid?

    You don't trust the Pope.
    Do you?

    Are you suggesting all theists are cheats (and scientists are not)?
    That was not my intent at all, as I'm quite sure you know. The point was that scientists can keep falsifying the claims of the theists, but they will never be satisfied because they can always dream up another claim for the scientist to falsify.

    Or is the truth of the matter the fact that God caused all of the million coins to be double-headed, and neither scientist nor theist realised?
    Which just illustrates my point. The initial claim of the theist in my parable was that a miracle had occurred so that only the head sides of the coins were showing. Now, when the scientist shows that this was the ONLY possible result, you change the claim to "God made the coins that way!" And if the scientist proves that the coins were minted in Denver, what will you claim then?

    Or perhaps - and I'm trying to offer a scientific explanation - the side of the coin lying face down was both heads and tails, and it only turned out to be double-headed once the scientist turned it over.
    That's not a scientific explanation. It's a misunderstanding of the Uncertainty Principle.

    Some have, agreed. The fundamental ones have not even been questioned by science ... and cannot be
    That's because the fundamental ones, as you yourself have stated, are based upon the supernatural and are beyond the purview of science. It's only when the supernatural is claimed to have acted upon the natural world that science can investigate.

    These responses demonstrate how narrow your "scientific" ... no, wait, I'll call it "atheist" perspective, because I can't see anything truly scientific in your position now ... how narrow your atheist perspective is, and how dogmatic: reality is what I say it is.
    Philosophy is not an analytical subject. You cannot weigh and measure ideas. I am, or try to be, an analytical type person. I am not interested in building castles in the sky and devising fantastical explanations for them. I don't deny that philosophy has its place in the world, even in science to a degree. But not in an analytical, testable sense. And I don't claim to be the arbiter of what's real.

    That's a moot point.
    It's the WHOLE point!

    But the fact that God's existence has not been disproved shows the inadequacy of science to do the job, and that it is still reasonable to believe.
    The existence of leprechauns hasn't been disproved, either. Nor unicorns, nor fairies, nor ghosts. It is scientifically impossible to prove a negative. All scientists can do is show that the likelihood for such an existence is extremely remote. So again I ask, how many times do we have to falsify the claims of believers before we can say there is virtually no likelihood for the existence of gods?

    But your position is not based on scientific rigour, but atheist prejudice. Science does not deny god because it cannot test him.
    I never said that science COULD deny gods. It can only claim that there is no scientific evidence to support that hypothesis. That does NOT say you cannot believe. It only says that you cannot claim that belief to be scientific!

    If you allow controversies among scientists, why do you not allow disagreement between religious scholars?
    Who am I to disallow such disagreements? But remember, scientists are generally arguing over interpretations of testable, verifiable evidence. Religious scholars are arguing over interpretations of untestable, unprovable claims.

    There's the evidence of life in your little grandaughters, of course.
    A low blow, don't you think? So tell me, how does the existence of my granddaughters constitute evidence for gods? I'm pretty damned sure (though based only on anecdotal evidence, I'm afraid) that they weren't virgin births.

    Then, by that argument, are the Big Bang, Steady State Theory, String Theory, M Theory and the rest, all unscientific too?
    No, they are ALL scientific claims. They all make predictions which can be tested through observation and experimentation. That doesn't mean they are all RIGHT, of course. I believe the Steady State Theory has been pretty much set aside. Too many discrepancies between the theory and the evidence. The others, as far as I know, are accepted as POSSIBLE explanations for the universe, but there isn't enough evidence to confirm them yet. But again, the fact that we may not have a real, viable, PROBABLE explanation does not mean someone can make up any claim he wishes without ANY evidence.

    I don't believe that, if you have believed, and you have lost your faith, that you have a lack of belief, as you put it. I believe you have changed your belief, from one where god exists to one where he doesn't. You can't just "empty" yourself of an idea unless you just switch off. I don't believe you have switched off, but if you have, your opinion would not be worthy of discussion.
    Do you still believe in the actual existence of Santa Claus/Kris Kringle/Father Christmas? (If you say yes then I have serious doubts about your veracity or your sanity.) Most children who once believed in Santa Claus eventually come to the realization that he's not real, just a made-up story to entertain children. It's not a case of "emptying" themselves of an idea, just coming to understand the difference between fantasy and reality. I don't claim that my own evolution from theist to non-theist was smooth or without back-sliding. When you've been taught something your whole life it can be quite traumatic to realize that you've been, basically, lied to. I didn't empty myself of the idea of God. I simply came to realize that there was nothing there in which to believe. The idea of an invisible being who watches over you to make sure you behave and gives you presents when you're good, whether the present is heaven or an electric train set, just stopped being relevant. God, like Santa Claus, is just a story created to keep the children in line. (That last is my personal opinion. My "belief", if you will. It is not a scientific claim.)

    I think it is up to you to justify (if not to prove) your change of belief.
    I don't have to justify my change in belief of God any more than YOU have to justify your change in belief of Father Christmas!

    I leave it to den to deal with this.
    God, no! Not that!
    "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    NA
    Posts
    869
    Post Thanks / Like

    Arrow

    Quote Originally Posted by Thorne View Post

    A low blow, don't you think? So tell me, how does the existence of my granddaughters constitute evidence for gods? I'm pretty damned sure (though based only on anecdotal evidence, I'm afraid) that they weren't virgin births.
    No I didn't think it was a low blow, but I did pause before I wrote it, because I realised you might take offence. I guessed that you wouldn't and I'm sorry that you did. I ask you to remember that I spoke of two girls originally; it was you who linked them to your grandchildren. My point was that they had life, although lumps of meat and bone did not, and I suggested that the believers' claims that god gave the girls life was better than any explanation modern science can come up with.

    Let's back up ... right to the beginning, because we're getting nowhere here.

    You say you do not believe in god(s) because there is no satisfactory evidence to convince you. That's fine. I too am unconvinced about it.

    You then call upon believers to produce evidence which is satisfactory. I think you are wrong to do this because, as you know, there can be no such evidence. It is necessary to consider the question on a higher plane than mere physics, because deities are not physical beings. I think the level at which the question should be pitched is the subject of belief itself. Is it reasonable to believe in a god who claims to be perfect, yet has to test his creations to see if they are also perfect; is it reasonable to believe a creator would destroy his creations in a flood because of their faults ... which are HIS failings. And even if it is, should that god be honoured or despised?

    If a god (let's say Jehovah) doubts his own perfection, does that not prove that his is not perfect. If he is not perfect, he is not at all what the Bible says he is. That makes him a liar too, because the Bible is his word. You still won't be able to prove God doesn't exist, but you can undermine his credibility to the extent that only the unreasonable continue to believe, and so far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter much what the unreasonable believe. Just so long as we don't give them too much power.

    Then I look at Bush ...

  6. #6
    Just a little OFF
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,821
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by MMI View Post
    No I didn't think it was a low blow, but I did pause before I wrote it, because I realised you might take offence. I guessed that you wouldn't and I'm sorry that you did.
    I was not offended, so don't feel bad. You are right, I did put them into this discussion.

    You then call upon believers to produce evidence which is satisfactory. I think you are wrong to do this because, as you know, there can be no such evidence.
    Actually, I don't care if believers cannot provide evidence. Their faith is their own concern. It's only when they try to push their religions into the public arena, such as government and science classrooms, that I demand evidence. Especially in science classrooms, because the theists try to intimate that their "theory" of God is just as valid as any other theory of creation. But the scientific explanations are based upon an immense body of data and evidence, while the theists theories are based on nothing but holy books and wishful thinking. If they could provide evidence, then they could claim some kind of parity with science in the classroom.

    Oh, and I will also ask for evidence when someone asks me to provide proof AGAINST the existence of something. If they can't prove it exists in the first place, how can I hope to prove it doesn't? All I can do is provide enough evidence to make such an existence highly unlikely. I've done that, to a degree. Scientists have done it a hell of a lot more effectively.


    It is necessary to consider the question on a higher plane than mere physics, because deities are not physical beings.
    That would be fine if we could find any evidence for the existence of this higher plane. We cannot, or at least we have not. But in my opinion, this is just a case of moving the target. Theists have always claimed that God interacts with the world on a physical level, creating storms, floods, plagues, all those Biblical catastrophes we've heard about. Science comes along and provides thoroughly natural explanations for such disasters, and have been able to provide pretty accurate predictions about them, all without relying on the existence of gods. So now the theists want to say that God exists in a higher plane? And what happens if, someday, science finds a way to tap into this higher plane, and there is still no God? Will the theists admit they were wrong? Or will they simply explain that God is in an even higher plane?

    I think the level at which the question should be pitched is the subject of belief itself. Is it reasonable to believe in a god who claims to be perfect, yet has to test his creations to see if they are also perfect; is it reasonable to believe a creator would destroy his creations in a flood because of their faults ... which are HIS failings. And even if it is, should that god be honoured or despised?
    I've been trying to do this all along, I think. I'm a little more crude about it, comparing such beliefs to myths and fairy tales, and I've been lambasted for it. Creationists, many of them, will claim that the Bible is the literal, inerrant Word of God, and is to be taken verbatim. But when you point out the discrepancies within the Bible, they will claim that "this passage is allegorical", or "that law was nailed to the Cross." The frustrating part is that it is THEY who determine which parts of the Bible must be taken literally and which parts not. Without any justification.

    If a god (let's say Jehovah) doubts his own perfection, does that not prove that his is not perfect. If he is not perfect, he is not at all what the Bible says he is. That makes him a liar too, because the Bible is his word. You still won't be able to prove God doesn't exist, but you can undermine his credibility to the extent that only the unreasonable continue to believe, and so far as I'm concerned, it doesn't matter much what the unreasonable believe. Just so long as we don't give them too much power.
    This is almost exactly the kind of thing I've been arguing all along. The evidence shows that Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah CANNOT exist as He is defined in the Bible/Qur'an/Torah. It is unreasonable to believe in such a god. He has been relegated to the same limbo as the ancient Greek, Roman, Egyptian, etc., etc., etc. gods. He is irrelevant. Or should be.

    For those who are interested, there are two books I have read in the past year which deal with this exact problem. One is "God: The Failed Hypothesis" by Stenger. The second is "The God Delusion" by Dawkins. Dawkins, especially, is far more blunt and intolerant than I, and there are some things in both books which I disagree with, at least in part, but overall they explain very well what I've been fumbling to explain.
    "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Members who have read this thread: 0

There are no members to list at the moment.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Back to top