Atheists and Theists

Originally posted by Bardock42
Just a little tip, this looks really stupid considering what it implies when one misspells "comprehension". Sorry.

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.

Erm no.
That is a lot like saying ''science is really interested in philosophy''.
The simple matter of the fact is, it is not. Those are completely different disciplines.

Metaphysics deals with these speculations and ideas of God and the nature of the world. Metaphysics is a discipline which is a branch of philosophy.

Science is not interested in providing proof for God, since collecting evidence regarding God is impossible at this stage of our understanding / evolution.

Atheism has no connection to science, but it very often attempts to use it, to elevate its beliefs over theists, even though it scientifically cannot.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Phew! I guess it's safe to worship Poseidon, then.

You see, his existance has already been cast aside as myth...so there's no need to debate his existance there.

You do not have to beleive in any specific diety to beleive in "God".

Shaky beleives in God as a unifying force

LIL B beleives we are all God, and this Universe is God as well

Storm beleives something similar

I beleive in a creation force (call it God if you want) as well

Neither of us beleive in any cultural mythological diety, however.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You see, his existance has already been cast aside as myth...so there's no need to debate his existance there.

You do not have to beleive in any specific diety to beleive in "God".

Shaky beleives in God as a unifying force

LIL B beleives we are all God, and this Universe is God as well

Storm beleives something similar

I beleive in a creation force (call it God if you want) as well

Neither of us beleive in any cultural mythological diety, however.

So basically what you mean is everything is *subjective* - and there are no absolutes. I guess that settles it then. You have finally admitted to following a religious philosophy(a relativistic one). Thank you once again - Urizen, for finally clarifying this with us - He...He..He..

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
So basically what you mean is everything is *subjective* - and there are no absolutes. I guess that settles it then. You have finally admitted to following a religious philosophy(a relativistic one). Thank you once again - Urizen, for finally clarifying this with us - He...He..He..

How is my philosophy religious ? I never claimed to be an Atheist, i am just not Christian.

I am open to the beleif in a "God", or better yet in a Creation Force that we are ALL part of.

However, I have personally disregarded Christian-Judeo version of God, I have thrown out the idea of Hell, Heaven, etc. Those are just pure myths to me.

Originally posted by Bardock42
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.

Science excludes metaphysics by its very definition. Metaphysics is not observable, and science just deals with what is observable.

Gravity is something different, there is evidence for gravity. We observe its effects. But there is no evidence or observation that implies in God´s non-existence.

There is no data that can be used statistically to make the existence God more or less likely. There is just different philosophical approaches(atheism and theism) which may be confused with scientific data.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
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.

Well, you mock his reading skills while lacking writing skills. That is kinda funny. No offense.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Erm no.
That is a lot like saying ''science is really interested in philosophy''.
The simple matter of the fact is, it is not. Those are completely different disciplines.

Metaphysics deals with these speculations and ideas of God and the nature of the world. Metaphysics is a discipline which is a branch of philosophy.

Science is not interested in providing proof for God, since collecting evidence regarding God is impossible at this stage of our understanding / evolution.

Atheism has no connection to science, but it very often attempts to use it, to elevate its beliefs over theists, even though it scientifically cannot.

Well, philosophy is a science. Though not one of the natural sciences. That does not matter. The natural sciences are interested in everything, they just lack the ability oftentimes to explain things. Which is why things like Metaphysics, Psychology, etc. exists.

No, Science would be very interested in providing prove for God, if it could find it, which it couldn't so far. It also sees it as very unlikely that a God exists.

As for the further connection between Atheism and Scientific Ideals I shall refer you to multiple posts Ushgarak made about that subject. They explain pretty well.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Science excludes metaphysics by its very definition. Metaphysics is not observable, and science just deals with what is observable.

Gravity is something different, there is evidence for gravity. We observe its effects. But there is no evidence or observation that implies in God´s non-existence.

There is no data that can be used statistically to make the existence God more or less likely. There is just different philosophical approaches(atheism and theism) which may be confused with scientific data.

No, sorry. That may be true about Theism in general, but not specific Theist believes. For one Science does disprove the bible as literal work of God. If you believe in Science you can not believe in the way the Bible teaches of the beginning of the Universe. Can't.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, sorry. That may be true about Theism in general, but not specific Theist believes. For one Science does disprove the bible as literal work of God. If you believe in Science you can not believe in the way the Bible teaches of the beginning of the Universe. Can't.

I agree about this. In the case of the bible, there are a lot of things that were already disproved. I was analyzing just the concept of God, not necessarily any specific view.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Science excludes metaphysics by its very definition. Metaphysics is not observable, and science just deals with what is observable.

Not necessarily - using the most current definitions it can cover the metaphysical, however many branches of science limit themselves to the study of the *natural* world.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
Gravity is something different, there is evidence for gravity. We observe its effects. But there is no evidence or observation that implies in God´s non-existence.

There is no data that can be used statistically to make the existence God more or less likely. There is just different philosophical approaches(atheism and theism) which may be confused with scientific data.

Ahh - but you see, that's but one interpretation. A theist could make a very good argument, relating to how gravity supports his views - as could an atheist. That's the kicker with evidense, it can be interpreted in different ways, depending upon who the interpreter is - and what philosophical views they possess. Being the theist that I am - I'm a firm believer that there's only one correct interpretation. Still everyone does have the right to perceive things the way they see fit - despite the fact that their vision may lack clarity.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
I agree about this. In the case of the bible, there are a lot of things that were already disproved. I was analyzing just the concept of God, not necessarily any specific view.

Well I agree, that agnosticism is most reasonable. Just because scepticism is most reasonable. But atheism is also more reasonable than theism.

Originally posted by usagi_yojimbo
Ahh - but you see, that's but one interpretation. A theist could make a very good argument, relating to how gravity supports his views - as could an atheist. That's the kicker with evidense, it can be interpreted in different ways, depending upon who the interpreter is - and what philosophical views they possess. Being the theist that I am - I'm a firm believer that there's only one correct interpretation. Still everyone does have the right to perceive things the way they see fit - despite the fact that their vision may lack clarity.

I agree. Things can be interpreted differently. Thats why we can´t judge things when there is no evidence. So we can´t just discard the possiblity of God´s existence. What makes agnosticism more reasonable than atheism in an empiricist line of thinking.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
I agree. Things can be interpreted differently. Thats why we can´t judge things when there is no evidence. So we can´t just discard the possiblity of God´s existence. What makes agnosticism more reasonable than atheism in an empiricist line of thinking.

Well, though agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
I agree. Things can be interpreted differently. Thats why we can´t judge things when there is no evidence. So we can´t just discard the possiblity of God´s existence. What makes agnosticism more reasonable than atheism in an empiricist line of thinking.

Unfortunately - I still don't think we're entirely in agreement. The evidense is there, or to put it quite bluntly - the *truth* is there - however, people choose to either accept or reject it. Personal interpretation has no affect on the evidense(or truth). However - the *truth*(evidense) can have a strong affect on one's personal views of it. Still - the choice of how to interpret said *truth*(for themselves) - is solely up to the individual. Yet regardless of any individual interpretation, the truth always remains the same.

Originally posted by Atlantis001
It is only a guess, and some people guessed differently. If it can´t be proved then it has to be sustained by faith.

Then you have faith in everything from every one of your cells having DNA to gravity.

Hence, there is no distinction between knowing anything and having some degree of faith.

Atheists have no religious faith. Having trust in our analytical powers is not religous in any way shape or form. Your argument fails. [/B][/QUOTE]

Originally posted by Atlantis001
I agree about this. In the case of the bible, there are a lot of things that were already disproved. I was analyzing just the concept of God, not necessarily any specific view.

Yes, same here.

Not the idea of religion or a specific interpretation of religion, but the sole idea of God, independent of system or book.

It seems that few people do not distinguish - which was actually addressed in some other thread.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, you mock his reading skills while lacking writing skills. That is kinda funny. No offense.

Secondly, I made a spelling mistake once in 10 posts or so, thus it is not a frequent occurance for you to call it ''stupid''.

Either way...

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, philosophy is a science. Though not one of the natural sciences. That does not matter. The natural sciences are interested in everything, they just lack the ability oftentimes to explain things. Which is why things like Metaphysics, Psychology, etc. exists.

Natural science are NOT interested in everything. Please show me how are natural sciences interested in Sociological order. Show me how they are interested in philosophy or Marxism, and while you are at it, show me how they are interested in God.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, Science would be very interested in providing prove for God, if it could find it, which it couldn't so far. It also sees it as very unlikely that a God exists.

Which is the exact thing i pointed out before - an ego-centrical, and small minded view, that if we do not have evidence for something by now, it probably does not exist.

Think outside of the box.

Besides the matter of the fact is, Science has NO USE for Atheism, since Atheism is as reliable in its theory as Theism is.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen

LIL B beleives we are all God, and this Universe is God as well

Im impressed that you paid attention and remembered!! Cool!

Originally posted by Alliance
Then you have faith in everything from every one of your cells having DNA to gravity.

Hence, there is no distinction between knowing anything and having some degree of faith.

Atheists have no religious faith. Having trust in our analytical powers is not religous in any way shape or form. Your argument fails.

Science proved DNA and cells. The non-existence of God was not proved.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
None taken.
However, I never ''mocked'' his ability to read, but his ability to comprehand.

Secondly, I made a spelling mistake once in 10 posts or so, thus it is not a frequent occurance for you to call it ''stupid''.

Either way...

Well, just telling you for the future. Just watch it, if you feel like it, if you don't none of my business either.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness

Natural science are NOT interested in everything. Please show me how are natural sciences interested in Sociological order. Show me how they are interested in philosophy or Marxism, and while you are at it, show me how they are interested in God.

Well, Physics is basically concerned with everything. It assumes that there are only the laws of nature, so if they can describe them they could in the long run describe the future, the past and everything else. Also the theory of Marxism. It would also be interested in how free will would work (if it even exists). It would describe everything. But we are not advanced enough to understand the dealings of everything yet.

Which is why there is sociology, philosophy and other "sciences" to explain things in other ways. Not as scientific. Though sooner or later Physics would take that over. Because physics is about describing our reality, everything of it.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Which is the exact thing i pointed out before - an ego-centrical, and small minded view, that if we do not have evidence for something by now, it probably does not exist.

Think outside of the box.

Besides the matter of the fact is, Science has NO USE for Atheism, since Atheism is as reliable in its theory as Theism is.

I think I have a rather objective approach towards things, in case that is what you meant with "think outside of the box". I am not saying science proves Atheism. As it doesn't. I am just saying that using scientific methods we can conclude that Atheism is more likely. It's just the scientific approach. You can say, "no, no, but God might be outside iof Science and reality and blah, blah", but that is of no matter to science. We never observed any evidence for Gods or God so we find it unlikely. Occam's Razor...it is a Scientific Method.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Im impressed that you paid attention and remembered!! Cool!

OFCOURSE I remembered....

I remember anything you say droolio

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Which is the exact thing i pointed out before - an ego-centrical, and small minded view, that if we do not have evidence for something by now, it probably does not exist.

😂 You totally misconstrue my argument. Maybe because you're too busy flaming me.

You accept the small innate chance that you are wrong in any other facet of life, yet you reject it in this instance. Why the selectivity?

You also make this out to be a yes or no question, which is a grave reduction of a much more complex issue.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I am not saying science proves Atheism. As it doesn't.

Ok. In that case we agree and have no reason to debate anymore.

Originally posted by Alliance
😂 You totally misconstrue my argument. Maybe because you're too busy flaming me.

Was I talking to you? I don't recall so. As far as I remember my post was directed at Bardock, and as far as your posts are concerned, I have not read nor replied to your post further from the last post, 2(?) pages ago.