Atheism & Theism...A Common Denominator

spidergoat said:
The work of scientists speaks for itself. You don't have to trust them.
Click to expand...

Once again, Scientists never disproved. The work of scientists speaks for itself and nothing in there work would lead an logical unemotional unbiased observer to see science taking a position on god other than to say that god is not necessary.

The fact that scientists make better predictors of the future and of cause and effect than priests do shows that scientists have a more useful understanding of their world than priests do; but it would be very unscientific to try to make a conclusion about the existence of god based on the fact that scientists have superior abilities to make predictions.

Only somebody who does not understand what science is would think that science has taken a position against the existence of god.
 
Lori_7 said:
to counter, i have an assload of evidence.
Click to expand...

I don't think you have real (scientifically valid) evidence for the existence of god. I am guessing that you have evidence for the existence of occurrences that would be improbable according to models of the universe based on the agreed upon known science. Documentation of the improbable is not the same as evidence for god.

Faith is not scientific evidence. Feelings of knowing is not evidence. Knowing may be an illusion.

I can't see how it could be possible to have evidence for or against god. Anything could be explained as the actions of god and anything could be explained as the as yet unknown natural laws of science.
 
spidergoat said:
The work of scientists speaks for itself. You don't have to trust them. You do realize that even if you wrote down the things you prayed for, and they came true and were recorded, that still does not prove that the prayer is what made it happen?
Click to expand...

Proof is not the issue.

jan.
 
PsychoticEpisode said:
The common denominator for theism and atheism is not knowing if God exists. Neither one has any hard evidence to support their claim. Atheists because of the lack of evidence state their opinion and it is no different for the theist. If there was all kinds of evidence then there would be no theists or atheists.

Therefore any atheist cannot totally refute a god nor can a theist ignore the possibility a god doesn't exist.

For those who claim to know, they simply do not believe. If you don't know then you either believe or don't. I think the only reason theism is the norm is because there are more who believe. Other than that I see little reason for so much animosity between the two. When both sides argue they argue with no evidence or assuredness. Kind of pointless.

The most devoted believer or atheist on this forum doesn't know for sure if they are correct. Yes my religious friends, even you cannot support God with evidence just as I cannot support His absence. It's a draw. I'd pay to hear an evangelist say that.
Click to expand...

So true, Amen, & Mega dittos.

Atheism and theism are mirror images of each other and are both based on faith while science is based on doubt.
 
Lori_7 said:
i'm not trying to prove this to anyone, but it matters to me. and i don't have any doubt. i don't understand everything. not even close. but i understand enough and i keep learning and developing. this isn't some experiment, this is my life.
Click to expand...
I trust you believe it for personal reasons, but this isn't going to convince anyone. That is the essence of this thread, are there compelling and sound reasons to accept or reject the hypothesis of God? I think we can dismiss your appeals as something that applies only to you.

nirakar said:
Once again, Scientists never disproved. The work of scientists speaks for itself and nothing in there work would lead an logical unemotional unbiased observer to see science taking a position on god other than to say that god is not necessary.

The fact that scientists make better predictors of the future and of cause and effect than priests do shows that scientists have a more useful understanding of their world than priests do; but it would be very unscientific to try to make a conclusion about the existence of god based on the fact that scientists have superior abilities to make predictions.

Only somebody who does not understand what science is would think that science has taken a position against the existence of god.
Click to expand...
Yes, science says that God is unnecessary to explain the things that God is supposedly necessary to explain. That is enough to dismiss it as a hypothsis. However, it doesn't stop there. Science can also prove that the qualities attributed to (the Judeo/Christian/Islamic) models of God are inherently contradictory. I refer to Stenger: God: The Failed Hypothesis
How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist.




Jan Ardena said:
Proof is not the issue.

jan.
Click to expand...
Not to you, but it's necessary if you want to convince anyone else.
 
nirakar:
"I can't see how it could be possible to have evidence for or against god. Anything could be explained as the actions of god and anything could be explained as the as yet unknown natural laws of science."

You can't see because you aren't looking. Evidence is direct experience, to start with; scientific evidence is stated in words, that correspond to factual accounts, measurements with external equipment (except you have equipment too, built in. You wouldn't be able to do any external measuring if you didn't have "god-given" senses).

"Seeing how" isn't the same as seeing, is it? What you mean is you can't explain how or why God exists; you can't deny it with scientific reason (check out what Newton actually said, try to ignore the hyperbole and put his words into a modern cosmological context).

Faith is a tricky customer. We say we know what faith is, but then we can't really put this into words except very vaguely; almost to the extent of meaninglessness. However, saying what faith is and having it aren't the same thing either.

I think of faith like this: I have faith that I will wake up if I fall asleep.

However, I can't really believe this will definitely happen, I might stay asleep (in a coma, say), or die for some reason I haven't considered. Faith in my ability to wake up, is based on my experience of having successfully awoken many times, after falling asleep. Unconscious faith doesn't make sense at all; it's definitely a conscious act, having faith (in anything). Can you believe anything when you're asleep?

More to the point, claiming that nobody can provide evidence of God's existence/non-existence, is incorrect and unscientific. Can you think of a scientific experiment that would do either? What would be recorded and how? What kinds of instrumentation would be used, and could an experiment use ONLY human subjects and a vocal record (which would be: anecdotal personal experience)?

Have any experiments been done (to investigate "God" or otherwise) in this manner, devoid of "scientific equipment", and relying completely on human perception?

(Well, yeah... quite a few in fact, have been.)
 
Last edited:
Ah, so you choose to believe you won't wake up, then? Or are you choosing to believe you don't need to believe you will?

When you fall asleep, or rather some time before you do, do you consider it absolutely useless that you're falling asleep?
 
Lori_7 said:
so you're saying that other people's experiences are real, just not those who experience god, or pink elephants?
Click to expand...

Just saying you had an experience is insufficient to know if what you are saying is correct.

The difference between the experience of my coffee cup and the experience of pink elephants is I can share the experience of my coffee cup with you, but the crazy person can share the experience of pink elephants with any one.

If there is an actual god, external to your imagination, then you should be able to share that experience with others.

If it is just your imaginations then there is nothing actual to share.

Part of the problem here is you keep calling it "evidence."

Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Giving or procuring evidence is the process of using those things that are either a) presumed to be true, or b) were themselves proven via evidence, to demonstrate an assertion's truth. Evidence is the currency by which one fulfills the burden of proof.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

You are giving us nothing by which we can "determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion." For it to actually be evidence, you have to share it so we can verify it.
 
Last edited:
Lori_7 said:
i do that with my own life and things that have happened to me, and i don't have to worry about me lying to myself.

some people lie to themselves. but i'm a stickler about that. lies make life meaningless.
Click to expand...

You lie to us and you lie to yourself. You lie about lying.
 
Lori_7 said:
that's what you want to think and nothing else.
Click to expand...

What you really mean is that you WANT to believe you talk with gods, because that make you "special" amongst the rest of us. It's little more than attention whoring.
 
(Q) said:
What you really mean is that you WANT to believe you talk with gods, because that make you "special" amongst the rest of us. It's little more than attention whoring.
Click to expand...

i don't give a shit if you believe me or not. you are one of those out here that seems to think it's soooo damn important whether you believe me or not. i don't care. and me posting my experiences out here and my opinions is no more whoring than anyone else who does. it might make you feel good to think i'm the only one who's experienced god, but i am not, and i've never said i am.

you are so jaded and manipulative and biased it's sickening. it's insecurities.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top