Atheists and Theists

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Its really not that way, cosmology is science. Not philosophy. Religions also have cosmologies but its another kind of cosmology, perhaps you confused the terms. There is nothing about God, purpose or love in cosmology.

It is about the Big Bang, if is the universe expanding or not, if the expansion is accelerated, why it is being accelerated. That kind of thing. I studied a bit of cosmology in the college.

Meh - I was initially planning on not replying for a bit, but upon seeing that you posted - and knowing that you are generally one of the most intelligent and well balanced posters in these forums, I felt rather compelled to respond.

Cosmology is science - as much as Astrology is a science, or Phrenology is a science - in the sense that is seeks to explain "natural phenomena."

However - any attempts to explain the origin or the fate of the universe -regardless of whether these attempts to explain this phenomena are based on natural models - are derived from philosophical, religious, and rationalist schools of thought. There is really no tangible or testable way - to substantiate the Big Bang theory. Still - even if one was able to come up with a testable hypothesis for it, such a hypothesis - opens up the floodgates - for multiple other unanswered questions about the universe's existence(Who started the Bang? Why did they start it? Is life defined purely by the physical or is there a spiritual or metaphysical aspect to it? What is Love?)

Cosmology doesn't seek to answer any of these questions, which is why its such a limited philosopy. Sure it has aspects of the physical sciences incorporated into it - However just as much as any other belief system, its main principles are rooted in faith based naturalistic ideals(Big Bang Created Everything) as opposed to anything empirical.

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Thy has given me all of the *facts* and *credentials* necessary - for myself to determine the validity and substance of thy argument, as well as the amount of intellect and wisdom possessed - by the individual(s) asserting it. I shall depart for now. Good day to you sir. And God bless.

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
The evidense is present for the athiest just as much as it is present for the theist - the problem being, each interprets this evidense differently. Neither individual has complete proof of their position. Without absolute proof, both resolve all final conclusions of the matter(regarding God's existense) through faith.

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
you stating that it is more logical - does not evidently prove that it is. When you dogmatically and unwaveringly assert your faith in such a position - you have demonstrated that your belief, is no less of a religious one - than any theist.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yeah, though the Scientific Method is used by Atheism to support its cause. Correctly so, I would claim.

Science is never objective, but ti tries to be. Atheism is not a scientific movement, more so it is a religious movement in response to how science has changed our perception of the natural world.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Ha! You do lump people together!
The only differance is, the only time you can see lumping togetherness is when someone lumps you together with people you share an opinion on Theological matter, but who happen to be igonrant egocentrical assholes.

Honestly, you are the biggest disappointment on this forum. If I'm talking about a specific religion, I address that religion. If I'm talking about a person I'll do so. Thats not lumping. Its addressing common concepts which i more than you do in debates.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
You are a hypocrite. You see the differance between lumping Atheists together, while not seeing a differance between lumping all Christians together.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
There is no evidence to prove that God do not exist.

There is no evidence to prove that God exists.

Both point of views are in the exact same conditions. They are perfectly symmetrical.

We are still waiting for theists to prove the existence of their many gods. However, through stying the natural world, there is no need for a god, there is no evidence for it, so why would we assume a supernatural explanation when a natural one is simpler, more elegant, and more philosophically powerful?

Originally posted by Atlantis001
You can´t say something doesn´t exist just because you never observed it. Solar flares were not observed 5000 years ago, but they existed including at that time. I'm not saying that. Most people are brought up with religion hammered into their heads. There is a desperate mental need to ascribe significance to the world. God were created by men. They are a human construct. Agnostics are people who simply have a hard time letting go of their previously dogmatic teachings. The flaws of agnosticism is oversimplification. God is a construct. There is a change that your dest might spontaneously atomize, but you accept the "fact" that it wont. Somehow, though, when it comes to god, real "fact" isn't good enought for you. That is selective hypocrisy.

[QUOTE=7898479]Originally posted by Atlantis001
[B]And there is a well know basic consequence of formal logic that is :
"You can not provide data/evidence for something that doesn´t exist.

It means that if God doesn´t exist then it is impossible to prove its non-existence.

I've NEVER in a serious un-abridged debate that I believe that believing in God is wrong. If you want to be a hypocrite and say that god fulfills that one space that we supposedly "don't know" thats fine with me. I push against people who take their archaic religious texts literally, those who use religion as a mechanism to infringe on the rights of others, and those who continue to push concepts in the face of fact. That is my stance, but ideologues like usagi and lil won't read this and will likely continue to go on with (ad hominem) ranting without addressing my arguments.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Let's not make religion an excuse for the crappy application of science. Science works as it works, you cannot twist it to suit you. Theism is an article of faith, NOT science. It is not a viable scientific position. When people argue as you just did there, they argue for irrationality. To do so is not intelligent, and to encourage it is to simply propogate the appallingly bad state of knowledge people have about what science is, and how it works, especially in the definition of theory.

Yes.

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
*cough* Cosmology *cough*....

If you're using the modern definiton of cosmology, you're dead wrong, as Shakya pointed out, in your knowledge of the subject.

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
I agree here. Science is indeed weak agnoticism. The roots of all the sciences being grounded of course by religious philosophy - be it of natural or of spiritual origin(s).

Natural Philosophy is EXCEEDINGLY different form modern science. You obviously have no concept of either if you are linking the two. Maybe this explains how you can so frequently misuse the concepts.

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Umm..posting a link to *nasa's* website does very little to prove your argument.

Actually, it provides the modern definition of cosmology, which goes quite a long way to show how ignorant of modern science you are.

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Much of modern science that we appreciate today - was derived from the Protestant Reformation - and Christians who were inspired by God's command to *subdue the earth* within the scriptures.

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Today - however, much of scientific thought - has degenerated into those who predominantly have relativistic and naturalistic ideals. Like most ungodly dogmas, such ideals rarely create much in the way of technical innovation or spiritual insight(for a culture).

Science is NOT a dogma, you can't back that up. It is a career and a cultural concept.

Originally posted by Alliance
No they are not. You can't prove that something does not exist unless you have an infinite knowledge base. Baconian logic.

We are still waiting for theists to prove the existence of their many gods. However, through stying the natural world, there is no need for a god, there is no evidence for it, so why would we assume a supernatural explanation when a natural one is simpler, more elegant, and more philosophically powerful?

Thats my point. You can´t prove the non-existence of God without inifinite knowledge base.

I would ask. Why we would assume God non-existence then ?

Originally posted by Alliance
Exactly, but the amount of proof I feel presented is well into the acceptable range of what I consider truth for any other philosophical problem.

I've NEVER in a serious un-abridged debate that I believe that believing in God is wrong. If you want to be a hypocrite and say that god fulfills that one space that we supposedly "don't know" thats fine with me. I push against people who take their archaic religious texts literally, those who use religion as a mechanism to infringe on the rights of others, and those who continue to push concepts in the face of fact. That is my stance, but ideologues like usagi and lil won't read this and will likely continue to go on with (ad hominem) ranting without addressing my arguments.

The amount of poof present in favor of atheism is the same too as any othe philosophical problem. It is just another doctrine that teaches that God doesn´t exist, while scientifically we cannot conclude anything.

So why do we need to fill that space with the assumption of God´s non-existence ?

But I do not disagree that religion can be used to infringe the rights of others, I am just saying that atheism just another doctrine.

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Meh - I was initially planning on not replying for a bit, but upon seeing that you posted - and knowing that you are generally one of the most intelligent and well balanced posters in these forums, I felt rather compelled to respond.

Cosmology is science - as much as Astrology is a science, or Phrenology is a science - in the sense that is seeks to explain "natural phenomena....

No, its not that way. Learn something about it that you will be able conclude that easily.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Thats my point. You can´t prove the non-existence of God without inifinite knowledge base.

I would ask. Why we would assume God non-existence then ?

For the same reason that we assume gravity exists, that airplanes stay in the air, that Santa Claus doesn't exist and that Jupiter doesn't exist. Because it is either very, very, very likely or very, very, very unlikely.

Everything we pretend to know is actually just an assumption.

Only with Religion people do not accept Science anymore, because they prefer to believe in their very, very, very unlikely fairy tale.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Only with Religion people do not accept Science anymore, because they prefer to believe in their very, very, very unlikely fairy tale.

Originally posted by Bardock42
For the same reason that we assume gravity exists, that airplanes stay in the air, that Santa Claus doesn't exist and that Jupiter doesn't exist. Because it is either very, very, very likely or very, very, very unlikely.

Everything we pretend to know is actually just an assumption.

Only with Religion people do not accept Science anymore, because they prefer to believe in their very, very, very unlikely fairy tale.

Actually, it's not the existance of God in general that is highly unlikely....it is the existance of the Christian-Judeo and Islamic based God that is highly unlikely, since it presents clear contradictions with science, logic, and reason.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Actually, it's not the existance of God in general that is highly unlikely....it is the existance of the Christian-Judeo and Islamic based God that is highly unlikely, since it presents clear contradictions with science, logic, and reason.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Actually, it's not the existance of God in general that is highly unlikely....it is the existance of the Christian-Judeo and Islamic based God that is highly unlikely, since it presents clear contradictions with science, logic, and reason.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Thats my point. You can´t prove the non-existence of God without inifinite knowledge base.

I would ask. Why we would assume God non-existence then?

Originally posted by Atlantis001
The amount of poof present in favor of atheism is the same too as any othe philosophical problem. It is just another doctrine that teaches that God doesn´t exist, while scientifically we cannot conclude anything.

So why do we need to fill that space with the assumption of God´s non-existence ??

Originally posted by Atlantis001
But I do not disagree that religion can be used to infringe the rights of others, I am just saying that atheism just another doctrine.

No, its not that way. Learn something about it that you will be able conclude that easily. [/B][/QUOTE]

Originally posted by Alliance
Becuase it is the best asnwer we can give. We choose to answer every other question to the best of our ability, but people who answer this one can't iyo. Why is that in your opinon?

It is only a guess, and some people guessed differently. If it can´t be proved then it has to be sustained by faith.

Originally posted by Alliance
Science is not here to make a statement about god. Philosophy is. Nothing is ever scientifically conclusive. Why should you humor the religous perspective at all if they make no argument to thier case beyond "its possible."

That is what I said. Science is not here to make a statement about God, but atheism and religion does that. The first postulates its non-existence, while the last postulate its existence.

To not make a statement about God includes to not say that God don´t exist. Nothing can be know about God, that is a true scientific point of view. Not saying that it doesn´t exist. If you want to be scientific be a weak agnostic, not atheist.

Originally posted by Alliance
Where is the doctine in atheism? Where is the organization? Objective readings? Common culture? Athiests are ONLY united by a common opioion. That is all. Its even more of a unification than we have as members of thsi forum becuase the forum even has a structure and you have to be admitted/can be kicked out.

I mean that atheism is just another belief system based on faith, like a doctrine is.

Originally posted by Bardock42
For the same reason that we assume gravity exists, that airplanes stay in the air, that Santa Claus doesn't exist and that Jupiter doesn't exist. Because it is either very, very, very likely or very, very, very unlikely.

Everything we pretend to know is actually just an assumption.

Only with Religion people do not accept Science anymore, because they prefer to believe in their very, very, very unlikely fairy tale.

I think there would be other philosophical reasons to sustain the existence of a God, but I am only comparing atheism and religion in respect to evidence.

Scientifically we cant say that something does not exist because we didn´t observe it, so we can´t just discard it. Science does not say anything about metaphysics, and God is metaphysics.

I think that if something is very likely, or very unlikely depends on someone personal opinion(since we can´t have any evidence on the subject).

Where is the doctine in atheism? Where is the organization? Objective readings? Common culture? Athiests are ONLY united by a common opioion. That is all. Its even more of a unification than we have as members of thsi forum becuase the forum even has a structure and you have to be admitted/can be kicked out.

of course atheism hasn't become so formalized that it exhibits the dogmatic characteristics of most religions. but, for example there is an atheist lobbyist group, secular coalition for america, that seeks to promote their interests in washington. in this case, they are clearly united by more than just a belief, and if they successfully promote their interests, will be able affect changes that they may see as liberating, while others perceive it to be infringing on their rights

atheism in its purest and most abstract sense, is solely the belief that "there is no God," or however you care to define it, and this opinion is the sole qualification for being considered an atheist. however, when you consider atheism as a cultural movement, different cultural norms, beliefs and values have been associated with atheism, such as science and reason, and when this happens, "atheism" comes to assume many of the characteristics commonly associated with other, more formalized social institutions and organizations

God or god...........god god god...........I think this confuses people........

Originally posted by Atlantis001
No, its not that way. Learn something about it that you will be able conclude that easily.

I've learned enough to know that it is more metaphysical and philosophical than anything else. All sciences are really grounded in philosophy anyway. Some of these philosophies - just being more observable and testable(within the natural world) than others.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Did you think that when you started the thread?

Do you have difficulty with reaing comprehantion?

I think that if something is very likely, or very unlikely depends on someone personal opinion(since we can´t have any evidence on the subject).

Empirical evidence. But then, since there is no empirical evidence for the meaning of all these sentences, all these posts, none of us are really having this discussion.

Oh when the saints
Go marchin' in,
Oh when the saints
Go marchin' in...

Then technically the whole discipline of Meaphysics does not exist.

At the same time, since we have no empirical evidence for consciousness, psychology is merely speculative discipline, since anything consciously experienced, or thought up, cannot be empirically collected.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Do you have difficulty with reaing comprehantion?

Just a little tip, this looks really stupid considering what it implies when one misspells "comprehension". Sorry.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
I think there would be other philosophical reasons to sustain the existence of a God, but I am only comparing atheism and religion in respect to evidence.

Scientifically we cant say that something does not exist because we didn´t observe it, so we can´t just discard it. Science does not say anything about metaphysics, and God is metaphysics.

I think that if something is very likely, or very unlikely depends on someone personal opinion(since we can´t have any evidence on the subject).

No, sorry. Science is interested in everything. There is no part left out. And probabilities do not depend about personal interpretation. If we look at it objectively we can't say whether anything exists or not. But scientifically we can. That why we believe in Gravity exists. Not because we know it. And you can believe in God if you want, you should just know that scientifically it is like betting on Row 3 in Roulette....just even more unlikely.

Why? I made a spelling error.
I never claimed anything regarding his spelling, but ability to grasp an understanding of the things he reads.
Considerable difference.