Convince me, please.

[~The_Chosen~]

Hello

Originally posted by Teg
As defined earlier negativity percludes logic. All my ideas are based on logic. In a way I am the opposite of negativists. I am one of those atheists and thus you are wrong. I am certain that even if your statement were ammended to most, you would still be wrong. Perhaps you missed the definition earlier in this post.

That's your conviction and it is erroneous to say your conviction is right over mine, you do notice this is a major problem with religions.

Negativism
1.A habitual attitude of skepticism or resistance to the suggestions, orders, or instructions of others.
2.Behavior characterized by persistent refusal, without apparent or logical reasons, to act on or carry out suggestions, orders, or instructions of others.

From definition 1, you see that it perfectly fits what an atheist is all about. Atheism is very simple, it's much easier to understand compared to the many different theisms.

Just because you may not think my logic to be correct does not deny the fact that I used it. In any case you are wrong.

Your logic? I made a simple statement and you supererogated from it. Then now you say I am wrong? How wonderful.

It all comes down to percentages. What if I told you that alien life might exist on Mars? You might be more inclined to believe me until I add the .00000000000001% probability after that statement.

Within a high degree of certainty I know that aliens have yet to visit Earth in the last 500 million years. At least none that has survived and can be independently identified.

Belief has nothing to do with certainty. Funny, you dis-believe in alien contact, but you see the possibility of it occuring, but you just don't accept it. I see.

Then you should probably reevaluate your use of the word theist to describe yourself. I can't think of a belief system to which an afterlife is not integral.

Theist just means belief in God or Gods. I believe in a God, therefore I am a theist.

You agree with me on too many issues. Resolve who you are through a fun little test on Beliefnet.com at: http://beliefnet.com/story/76/story_7665_1.html . It can tell you which religion you are most likely to identify with. Every so often Cris will roll out the faith test. I am a Secular Humanist: basically all the moral code but without the belief in a deity or prayer. It also gives you the next closest religion/creed. Mine was I believe Liberal Quaker, go figure!?

They all don't apply to me. I don't see God as a spirit, etc. I don't know what God is and I will not attempt to assume (like religions). God, to me, is the beginning of all creation, I refuse to call spontaneity my creator.

So your belief at least includes a deity.

Like it or not "Believe in individual responsibility (Thinking God baby us humans is irresponsible), take advantage of the human belief system to propell you to work harder and reach whatever you desire.", is actually a command.

How so a command? All I stated was a list of points, not a list of commandments.

I would also like to bring up something you said earlier: "I rather be safe than sorry"

That sounds like Pascals wager creeping its head again. I can run off my mouth on that one again or just point you toward: http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/pascal.htm

If you did read earlier, it's not even closely related to Pascal's Wager, this opinion weighs little and it was just inserted for Cronin, I don't rest my theism all on that, that is idiotic.

Imagination must also be rooted in observable fact. Einstein said that imagination was more important for the simple fact that collecting knowledge for knowledge sake is stupid. It's what we do with that information that seperates us from the other animals on this planet. It is actually more of a paradox. You can have knowledge without imagination, but it wouldn't matter much. You can have imagination without knowledge, but it also wouldn't matter much.

We simply have different viewpoints. Imagination leads to creative thinking if constrained logically, imagination such as a "big guy in the sky" has no logic grounds.

Conversion is not destruction. Nice try though. JamesR says clearly: "One of the fundamental laws of physics is that the net amount of mass and energy in the universe is constant."

When anti-matter and matter collide they destroy each other. Matter is not conserved. Also the Big Bang "creates" matter when the inflation field expands. What is "destruction" mean to you?

Anti-matter and matter collide they annihilate each other, only pure energy remains...so is matter really conserved? No, only energy is conserved.

4 Physics Conservation Laws.

• Conservation of momentum
• Conservation of angular momentum
• Conservation of energy
• Conservation of eletric charge

Where, may I ask, is "conservation of matter"? It was not included for a reason.

Why he says matter can be destroyed is a bit of a puzzle to me. Does he mean that because we cannot see the energy it no longer exists? That is not what Einstein ment. Destruction from the physics/chemistry definition has the meaning a lack of continued existance. Conversion is something different.

Matter is a simple state of energy, matter is destroyed when pure energy results. "Conservation is something different"? Elaborate, what do you mean?

Also remember that all the black hole theory in the world will likely remain that. I remember that Hawking took back everything he said about the existance of worm holes. For that matter we can't explain why galaxies are accelerating in their outward motion. Is it dark energy, some unknown property of the universe.

If you did study the Big Bang and Plasma Theories, dark matter was invented to save the Big Bang theory, without dark matter the theory would collapse, there is absolutely no proof for dark matter, instead of using theory to fit obseration, they did the reverse, use observation to fit theory, and thus dark matter was speculated to exist...it's basically invisible, so you can only believe.

The molecular level has not yet revealed a way to destroy matter and no significant methods of doing the same to energy have yet to be found. Also remember that the society we live in would be very different if we could find an efficient means of converting matter into energy. Alas the core of the star is still the only place dense enough to produce this effect.

If you convert matter to enery, matter is gone right? What does that mean? Water is converted to enery for the human body, what does that mean? Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Matter can, everything is composed of energy.

Creation implies that no architecture of the universe existed before the big bang. You relented as much in stating that "no I still don't believe "nothing ---> something"). "

If the big bang was the result of a collapse, then the only force needed is gravity.

How do you know this? For sure? You can only believe. As for the theories of the instanton and etc. - it's appealing but it is used to explain creation ex nihilo.

In all of my experiences I have yet to find any examples of these terms. Perhaps you have such an example.

Beginning = brought into existence
Ending = existence over

So what's the beginning of the universe?

And yet that act was perpetrated by free-thinking theists as a collective effort statewide.

Yes, I don't support them at all.

That you failed to find my opposing assertions is laughable. That you do not agree is apparent.

Wow, laughable? Why don't you quote and cite? You asserted and now I'm asking you to prove, don't make another claim saying, "it's apparent" Prove it to me beyond a doubt, quote and cite. So where did I "fail to find" your opposing assertions?

What does your drugged status have to do with the discussion. Both define each of us as honest individuals. We have no other reason to disclose such information.

True, we are both at fault. Good one though

I don't see reason to pursue the idea of a deity.

And that, as I have mentioned earlier, is the only possible criticism against my theism.

I have no need for an afterlife.

You are stating that now, but what *if* it were true? I will never say what you just have said, rather I would state, if true, it would be very interesting to have an afterlife, whatever it may be.

Thanks.

 

[Teg]

That's your conviction and it is erroneous to say your conviction is right over mine, you do notice this is a major problem with religions.

You cannot argue that I employ logic. You may argue with my methods or results, but never with the fact that I have used reasoning. I can disagree with your reasons, but cannot perclude the fact that you have at least used that method of thought proccess.

1.A habitual attitude of skepticism or resistance to the suggestions, orders, or instructions of others.
From definition 1, you see that it perfectly fits what an atheist is all about. Atheism is very simple, it's much easier to understand compared to the many different theisms.

Habitual does not fit the resistance of a single concept. Though I may need to reject the idea of a deity, in no way does this make me habitually skeptical. If the world was 90% atheist, then by definition your set of beliefs would define you as a negativist. For that purpose your use of the term is too conditional.

Your logic? I made a simple statement and you supererogated from it. Then now you say I am wrong? How wonderful.

That statement was in regards to the 2nd definition: Behavior characterized by persistent refusal, without apparent or logical reasons, to act on or carry out suggestions, orders, or instructions of others. I did not add any superfluous information. You need to understand that without specificity in your use of the word negativism. Sarcasm only works when you are sure that you have not overlooked any key details.

Belief has nothing to do with certainty. Funny, you dis-believe in alien contact, but you see the possibility of it occuring, but you just don't accept it. I see.

When your belief is based on reason, certainty is everything. Before I embrace an idea I must have proof. You can believe in an idea without proof, but that would make you either more faithful or more gullable. There are varying degrees depending on the body of evidence. Similar phenomena such as Snake Oil Salesmen have passed. In retrospect the mass majority would regard those who were duped as gullable. These people were acting, however with limited knowledge of medicine. And yet the phenomena persists as homiopathy and herbal treatment. If possability were your only requirement for belief in a concept you might accept any idea.

Theist just means belief in God or Gods. I believe in a God, therefore I am a theist.

I only meant that you might be closer to Deist. Theist is such a vague term.

If you did read earlier, it's not even closely related to Pascal's Wager, this opinion weighs little and it was just inserted for Cronin, I don't rest my theism all on that, that is idiotic.

And yet you would have accepted Cronin's belief being based on such an "idiotic."

They all don't apply to me. I don't see God as a spirit, etc. I don't know what God is and I will not attempt to assume (like religions). God, to me, is the beginning of all creation, I refuse to call spontaneity my creator.

Then you don't believe in Brownian Movement? You must have problems with the electron cloud model. The physical world, at its core has a random factor. Before we get into another argument I am not saying that a universal set of rules can be used to predict phenomena.

Einstein concluded that "god does not throw dice." Stephen Hawking added that "not only does god throw dice, but he puts them in places that we can't see."

Creation is a religious idea.

We simply have different viewpoints. Imagination leads to creative thinking if constrained logically, imagination such as a "big guy in the sky" has no logic grounds.

I would also not grant grounds for a conscious act of creation. If you have read Stephen Hawking you must familiar with his his assertion that while his theories do not perclude a god, they do not need a god. Pure Occam's Razor.

A god is by rule nonessential when using science as your guide.

Anti-matter and matter collide they annihilate each other, only pure energy remains...so is matter really conserved? No, only energy is conserved

Matter being converted into energy or matter being created as a deficit does not violate the fact that conversion is possible. Did it occur to you that certain aspects of these natural proccesses may not be totally clear.

Matter is a simple state of energy, matter is destroyed when pure energy results.

You are still ignoring that conversion is in the revised definition.

4 Physics Conservation Laws.

Conservation of momentum

Conservation of angular momentum

Conservation of energy

Conservation of eletric charge


Where, may I ask, is "conservation of matter"? It was not included for a reason.

Unless they've changed something in the last few months I did have conservation of matter in my studies.

If you convert matter to enery, matter is gone right? What does that mean? Water is converted to enery for the human body, what does that mean? Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Matter can, everything is composed of energy.

You proved my point. Matter and energy are the same. Both are conserved.

Beginning = brought into existence
Ending = existence over

So what's the beginning of the universe?

That is a lack of understanding. Beggining and ending are both impossible.

And that, as I have mentioned earlier, is the only possible criticism against my theism.

The most simple explanation is often the most accurate. I cannot disprove a god. Nor should that burden rest in my hands. You are the one who needs to prove the god to exist. All my arguments will have the idea of, "A god is not neccessary to make sense of nature."

You are stating that now, but what *if* it were true? I will never say what you just have said, rather I would state, if true, it would be very interesting to have an afterlife, whatever it may be.

Having no need for an afterlife I have no interest in conjecture. I have found that often a need creates the concept. I can see no means for this theory to resoplve itself. Everything that composed the body can still be observed after death.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Teg

Originally posted by Teg
You cannot argue that I employ logic. You may argue with my methods or results, but never with the fact that I have used reasoning. I can disagree with your reasons, but cannot perclude the fact that you have at least used that method of thought proccess.

Yes, understood, but you said I was wrong? Now why is that?

Habitual does not fit the resistance of a single concept. Though I may need to reject the idea of a deity, in no way does this make me habitually skeptical. If the world was 90% atheist, then by definition your set of beliefs would define you as a negativist. For that purpose your use of the term is too conditional.

And...? So am I still wrong then? The world isn't 90% atheist though Atheism depends on theism to exist, there would be no atheists if there were no theists. If you look at it in the opposite perspective, it doesn't flow.

That statement was in regards to the 2nd definition: Behavior characterized by persistent refusal, without apparent or logical reasons, to act on or carry out suggestions, orders, or instructions of others. I did not add any superfluous information. You need to understand that without specificity in your use of the word negativism. Sarcasm only works when you are sure that you have not overlooked any key details.

My statement was in regards to the 1st definition. Again, you said I was wrong, why? Will you accept your fault then? Or are you going to pull an Adam...?

And yes, you have supererogated many times, you need to understand that.

When your belief is based on reason, certainty is everything. Before I embrace an idea I must have proof. You can believe in an idea without proof, but that would make you either more faithful or more gullable. There are varying degrees depending on the body of evidence. Similar phenomena such as Snake Oil Salesmen have passed. In retrospect the mass majority would regard those who were duped as gullable. These people were acting, however with limited knowledge of medicine. And yet the phenomena persists as homiopathy and herbal treatment. If possability were your only requirement for belief in a concept you might accept any idea.

Certainty is not related to belief. If I believe in God's existence, does that mean I am certain that God exists? No, certainty is established beyond a doubt.

Based on reason, then certainty is everything? Could you expand on that statement you made?

Belief is made without empirical proof, so how can you be certain of something when there is no proof?

I only meant that you might be closer to Deist. Theist is such a vague term.

No, most atheists suffocate the definitions of agnosticism, theism, etc. Check out certain atheistic websites, then check out agnostic websites - you will see the difference.

And yet you would have accepted Cronin's belief being based on such an "idiotic."

Aye, no I wouldn't want Cronin believing based on such a claim, it is idiotic. This is why I have told Cronin theists have little logical grounds to argue in favor of.

I believe, Cronin is deciding right now. The doctrine of beliefs doesn't matter much to me, it's the person, the individual.

Then you don't believe in Brownian Movement? You must have problems with the electron cloud model. The physical world, at its core has a random factor. Before we get into another argument I am not saying that a universal set of rules can be used to predict phenomena.

Yes, of course I believe in Brownian Motion. But I don't quite understand where you concluded to the statement of, "You must have problems with the electron cloud model." How do you know that I must have problems with it?

Einstein concluded that "god does not throw dice." Stephen Hawking added that "not only does god throw dice, but he puts them in places that we can't see."

So Einstein is saying God isn't random.

And Hawking is saying God is random.

What's your point to this, to mention these two famous scientists?

Creation is a religious idea.

Creation is a religious idea, I won't argue with that. But I will argue that it is not *just* a religious idea. To me, creation means to come into existence. Such a definition deductively results in creator(s) that caused such an existence.

So now I ask you, humans, the earth, the universe, have all come into existence, who is the most responsible creator?

I'm guessing you would point to your Big Bang. It does take courage and faith to put trust into a higher being...I do so because of how ignorant I am.

• Theists such as I, are aware of the ignorance we have and put faith and trust in a higher being.
• Atheists that dis-believe are ignorant of their ignorance.
• Atheists that lack a belief just don't wish to question themselves on the matter.
• Agnostics just plain aren't sure.

I would also not grant grounds for a conscious act of creation. If you have read Stephen Hawking you must familiar with his his assertion that while his theories do not perclude a god, they do not need a god. Pure Occam's Razor.

Yes I understand, but an instanton that literally creates itself from nothing? It is indeed interesting. Hawking is indeed a great physicists, but he is too big-headed. Humans will never reach to possible understand the true origins of the universe. I recognize how ignorant and inferior we actually are.

Hawking states that when we reach the "Theory of Everything" we will practically solve almost all unknown forces in the universe, may it be gravity, strong/weak nuclear forces, etc. Hawking actually had a big enough ego to claim that once this "Theory of Everything" is reached, we will have little questions to answer about the universe.

In 1988, Hawking states this: We may now be near the end of the search for the ultimate laws of nature.

But as Nicholas of Cusa mentions, we will never reach final knowledge. The more we know, the more we know how much we don't actually know. The human mind though finite in its understanding, is infinite in its capacity for understanding and in its desire for truth.

We will never reach an end to knowledge, an absolute truth. I simply put my trust and faith in a higher being for such absolute truth. You may argue that it is unneeded and I perfectly understand your viewpoint, since I was once an atheist.

A god is by rule nonessential when using science as your guide.

You don't exactly know that. But basing it on your knowledge (or ignorance ), yes you may state that, and I agree with you.

Matter being converted into energy or matter being created as a deficit does not violate the fact that conversion is possible. Did it occur to you that certain aspects of these natural proccesses may not be totally clear.

Did it occur to you that God's relevancy may not be totally clear?

But matter is destroyed into pure energy.

You are still ignoring that conversion is in the revised definition.
Unless they've changed something in the last few months I did have conservation of matter in my studies.

If you follow the equation E = mc^2, then yes, mass is conserved, it is actually the Conservation of mass/energy, since they do equal each other.

In Physics matter means something that has mass and exists as a solid, liquid, gas, or plasma.

Ok, what if it doesn't exist in those four states? But rather pure energy? Still call it matter? You must have meant to say conservation of mass.

Check out the CERN and its anti-matter projects.

You proved my point. Matter and energy are the same. Both are conserved.

You sure?

That is a lack of understanding. Beggining and ending are both impossible.

How do you know? Why did you state this?

The most simple explanation is often the most accurate. I cannot disprove a god. Nor should that burden rest in my hands. You are the one who needs to prove the god to exist. All my arguments will have the idea of, "A god is not neccessary to make sense of nature."

Understood.

Having no need for an afterlife I have no interest in conjecture. I have found that often a need creates the concept. I can see no means for this theory to resoplve itself. Everything that composed the body can still be observed after death.

I see, then what explains countless unsolved mysteries of ghosts and spirits?

You must rule them all out as absolutely false, if your statement that is quoted above is to remain of any validity to you.

 

[Teg]

Yes, understood, but you said I was wrong? Now why is that?

I said that results can be disputed. This is still left over from the definition of negativism.

And...? So am I still wrong then? The world isn't 90% atheist though Atheism depends on theism to exist, there would be no atheists if there were no theists. If you look at it in the opposite perspective, it doesn't flow.

Of course not. We would all be human. Anytime a belief comes about with popular support, the line is drawn between the gullable and the skeptics. Your use of negatism implies that we would act without reason.

1.A habitual attitude of skepticism or resistance to the suggestions, orders, or instructions of others: That is too vague to lay on all atheists. Atheism only requires one idea to be resisted, theism.

2.Behavior characterized by persistent refusal, without apparent or logical reasons, to act on or carry out suggestions, orders, or instructions of others: That is the opposite of atheism.

My statement was in regards to the 1st definition. Again, you said I was wrong, why? Will you accept your fault then? Or are you going to pull an Adam...?

And yes, you have supererogated many times, you need to understand that.

The first definition is still to general. I am not at fault here. One as requirement does not habitual make. Perhaps if you had poll data that said that 100% of atheists habitually took the negative position.

You seem to persist with this idea that I have somehow added more information than neccessary. I have responded directly to your statements. I have even employed quotes so that you may be sure that I hvae done so. Then how have you come to the conclusion that I have somehow made superfluous statements?

Certainty is not related to belief. If I believe in God's existence, does that mean I am certain that God exists? No, certainty is established beyond a doubt.

That is one order of certainty. I was talking about certainty to a numerical doubt. Belief does not require any certainty. But those form a belief against the statistical certainties are by nature unsupportable. It doesn't make theists 100% assuredly wrong. It just defines them as irrational.

Based on reason, then certainty is everything? Could you expand on that statement you made?

Proof, not reason is the test for certainty. Lack of proof is the particular key here.

Belief is made without empirical proof, so how can you be certain of something when there is no proof?

A lack of evidence can be damning for a positive hypothesis. You are trying to prove a phenomena. Without any documented observances of that phenomena, the only reasonable conclusion must maintain that the subject does not exist. That does not mean discarding the hypothesis altogether, but rather not giving creedance to that belief until such evidence can be found. That is how science works. Why is it that theists reject such universal standards?

No, most atheists suffocate the definitions of agnosticism, theism, etc. Check out certain atheistic websites, then check out agnostic websites - you will see the difference.

Agnostics are just atheists that have fear of being stoned to death. Theism is an utter lack of specificity. By only defining yourself as such you have played the safe game, not unlike the agnostics. In the end your belief in a deity originated somewhere. Observation alone cannot yield such a concept. Most likely you accepted the idea based upon the testimony of a person belonging to a particular religion. In that way you are tied to the reliability of that religion. It is inexcapable that you as a theist are also linked to that religion.

Yes, of course I believe in Brownian Motion. But I don't quite understand where you concluded to the statement of, "You must have problems with the electron cloud model." How do you know that I must have problems with it?

This means that electrons have unpredictable motion and may even be in two places at once. Most assuredly they act with predictability during chemical interaction, but the random motion still exists.

So Einstein is saying God isn't random.

And Hawking is saying God is random.

What's your point to this, to mention these two famous scientists?

My point was that we know that Einstein was wrong now. Theists can't base their belief intelligent design on Einstein anymore. You say the universe isn't the product of random coallessence, prove it. Hawking is privy to some strong data in astronomy. But all you need know is that phenomena are hidden from us. No uniformity exists. And you are left with two possibilities. Either a god exists and perhaps did something to spark the big bang, but has not been active since then, or no god exists and everything can be explained as natural progression. How can natural progression explain billions of years of motion and yet not be able to do so prior to that. Just because you cannot detect the existance of a prior time, does not make it logical to assume that no such time existed. Everything we know says that everything is finite except the mass of the universe.

So now I ask you, humans, the earth, the universe, have all come into existence, who is the most responsible creator?

That's your theory, not mine. Coming into existance is an illogical theory. It has no basis in natural observation.

I'm guessing you would point to your Big Bang. It does take courage and faith to put trust into a higher being...I do so because of how ignorant I am.

I must agree. Except courage is not a term I would use. Courage often defines taking the unpopular position. Indeed you have done the opposite in clinging to a massively popular idea.

Theists such as I, are aware of the ignorance we have and put faith and trust in a higher being.

Atheists that dis-believe are ignorant of their ignorance.

Atheists that lack a belief just don't wish to question themselves on the matter.

Agnostics just plain aren't sure.

That is the weakest theistic argument. Tell me you can't immediately see the fault of, 'because I am ignorrant, I must be right about the god thing.' Why should you be wrong about so much and be right about the one thing for which you have no proof?

Hawking is indeed a great physicists, but he is too big-headed. Humans will never reach to possible understand the true origins of the universe. I recognize how ignorant and inferior we actually are.

I would rather back the man with proof than someone who professes their lack of knowledge. Again you seem to think stupidity entitles individual to some kind of higher understanding. I also have some bridges to sell you.

Hawking states that when we reach the "Theory of Everything" we will practically solve almost all unknown forces in the universe, may it be gravity, strong/weak nuclear forces, etc. Hawking actually had a big enough ego to claim that once this "Theory of Everything" is reached, we will have little questions to answer about the universe.

We have defined natural phenomena in the past. Do you think that complete understanding of all natural phenomena is impossible? There is, afterall, a finite number of processes. I think he wants to believe that we will not destroy ourself in the meantime. Perhaps he was acting out of an unrealistic notion of human persistence.

In 1988, Hawking states this: We may now be near the end of the search for the ultimate laws of nature

We can explain most natural phenomena. The only thing that seemed out of reach at the time was the cosmos. More powerful telescopes have opened a can of worms.

But as Nicholas of Cusa mentions, we will never reach final knowledge. The more we know, the more we know how much we don't actually know. The human mind though finite in its understanding, is infinite in its capacity for understanding and in its desire for truth.

I give little creedence to any absolute statements. Will in the first sentence removes any credibility in the statement.

You don't exactly know that. But basing it on your knowledge (or ignorance ), yes you may state that, and I agree with you.

Nonessential was not an absolute staement. I don't see how I might not exactly know something that is an aspect of basic scientific understanding.

Did it occur to you that God's relevancy may not be totally clear?

But matter is destroyed into pure energy.

Converted, not destroyed. Matter is energy anyway.

If you follow the equation E = mc^2, then yes, mass is conserved, it is actually the Conservation of mass/energy, since they do equal each other.

In Physics matter means something that has mass and exists as a solid, liquid, gas, or plasma.

Ok, what if it doesn't exist in those four states? But rather pure energy? Still call it matter? You must have meant to say conservation of mass.

Mass and matter are interchangable. One is only a statement of a measurement of the other. Conversion of mass is conversion of matter.

How do you know? Why did you state this?

You have yet to yield an example of each. Give me a beggining and an end.

I see, then what explains countless unsolved mysteries of ghosts and spirits?

You must rule them all out as absolutely false, if your statement that is quoted above is to remain of any validity to you.

We tend to think that all humans hold the same values as ourselves. A significant minority however, are unscrupulous. Out of curiousity I watch specials on such subject matter. They have photos, eyewitness accounts, and tapes. None of these have ever been enough to convince me. I have seen blurry photos of shadows and telephone cords. I have heard the boastful tales of those with no credibility. As for those voices: I can only conclude that they have convinced themselves that voices can be heard. I can never make out what they are saying. The last one I saw was laughable. The "expert" was complaining that the sound system was too hot to properly playback their tapes. I don't think that magnets in tapes can detect sounds that we nor as apparent any creature cannot detect. If this was so then we should hear all sorts of fun stuff when we do tapes oursleves. Why is it that only specific individuals encounter these phenomena. If the ghost theory was true we should encounter these enitities often. I have never come accross, nor do I know any person that has, a ghost/spirit.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

This argument may as well be coming to an end.

Originally posted by Teg
I said that results can be disputed. This is still left over from the definition of negativism.

We both have our convictions and we are both right in regard to them, I was just pointing out the error in you mentioning, "I am one of those atheists and thus you are wrong."

I was not wrong, it just doesn't agree with your conviction and vice versa.

Just clear this mess and accept my statement from hence it all started.

Atheism contains some negativism.

Of course not. We would all be human. Anytime a belief comes about with popular support, the line is drawn between the gullable and the skeptics. Your use of negatism implies that we would act without reason.

How? Quote and cite, break it apart for me. The last thing you want is to make a baseless assertion.

1.A habitual attitude of skepticism or resistance to the suggestions, orders, or instructions of others: That is too vague to lay on all atheists. Atheism only requires one idea to be resisted, theism.

Sure that is too vague, since you are an atheist, I completely understand why you state this...maybe we should change the entire definition just for you and your convictions? So you don't have to go around telling others they are wrong in their convictions... (being sarcastic here )

Accept that atheism is still an opposition or resistance. Without theism, atheism would not exist, period.

2.Behavior characterized by persistent refusal, without apparent or logical reasons, to act on or carry out suggestions, orders, or instructions of others: That is the opposite of atheism.

Agreed, except for the strong atheists that completely dis-believe in God.

The first definition is still to general. I am not at fault here. One as requirement does not habitual make. Perhaps if you had poll data that said that 100% of atheists habitually took the negative position.

Mr. Robert A. Morey and his book The New Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom identifies ten types of atheists which are as follows:

1. Village atheist - a disagreeable and nasty man on all subjects; especially enraged if the discussion turns to God
2. Bashful atheist - one who backs down and no longer engages on religious discussion when his proof for the non-existence of God is questioned
3. Covert agnostic - of two types: first is the ordinary one who is not sure if God exists but if you can prove to them he does, He will embrace them. The other one is the ornery, who says he knows nothing about God and neither do you. The word agnostic arises from two Greek word a + gnosis, meaning “no knowledge.”
4. Professional skeptic - one who makes a career of making fun of philosophies, theism included, never saying anything positive
5. Neurotic Atheist - one who has an irrational revulsion to religion
6. Paranoid atheist - one who thinks God is persecuting him and trying to throw him into Hell
7. God-complex Atheist - one who says there is no one higher who can command or judge his actions
8. Self-gratifying atheist - one who has a moral crisis, giving up God to pursue some lust of the flesh or mind
9. Marxist atheist - one who embraces atheism because it is part of a party line
10. Fideisitic atheist - accepts by blind faith there is no God without attempting a proof

Most here are Covert Agnostics.

You seem to persist with this idea that I have somehow added more information than neccessary. I have responded directly to your statements. I have even employed quotes so that you may be sure that I hvae done so. Then how have you come to the conclusion that I have somehow made superfluous statements?

Ok, it's really simple to admit to certain things. You lose nothing doing so in debates...but if you wish, I will prove it in front of your very own eyes...

~The_Chosen~
Atheism contains some negativism.

Teg
I will not dispute that some atheists are negativists. Your generalization that atheism in general lacks logical basis for any working theory concerning theology is ignorance of a few simple facts:
To call something a truth we ussually need observable data that can be observed by any individual. What such evidence do we have for a deity? There have been higher incidence of UFO (of the alien variety) sightings than any contact with a "god". To assume that UFO's are real would require some sort of cloaking technology that can mask the vessel from radars. Then we must also assume that instead of concentrating on the larger habitations of humans in Africa, Asia, and South America, they have instead concentrated on the South of the U.S. Is that proof 100% that aliens have not visited Earth? Anyone who says that they absolutely know something, is absolutely lying. To the point I do not believe in alien contact either, which has more supporting evidence.

Look here, it was a simple statement, all you could have done was ask a simple rhetorical question.

Teg: What does negativism mean in context of that statement?

You did not do so...do you want me to show you some more proof? Just ask, I asserted and I will prove, that is the debate way.

That is one order of certainty. I was talking about certainty to a numerical doubt. Belief does not require any certainty. But those form a belief against the statistical certainties are by nature unsupportable. It doesn't make theists 100% assuredly wrong. It just defines them as irrational.

Illogical for the time being because a lack of proof, but the word irrational can be misleading since it is related to "senseless." Using the word illogical fits alot better in context.

Proof, not reason is the test for certainty. Lack of proof is the particular key here.

Yes, that is what I stated, it is a good thing you understand this.

A lack of evidence can be damning for a positive hypothesis. You are trying to prove a phenomena. Without any documented observances of that phenomena, the only reasonable conclusion must maintain that the subject does not exist. That does not mean discarding the hypothesis altogether, but rather not giving creedance to that belief until such evidence can be found. That is how science works. Why is it that theists reject such universal standards?

A lack of any evidence is not a hypothesis. There are documented observances, but you rule them out because they cannot be tested and verified thus you may call all of it illogical, notice I said all, that means every claim ever made.

You do know, that all it takes is just one person telling the truth, then you are wrong. But of course, we can't verify such, you can only believe they are all illogical and baseless.

Who said I rejected universal standards? I am a theist, so such a generalization doesn't apply to me.

Agnostics are just atheists that have fear of being stoned to death.

Go to an agnostic website, post that in their forum. I don't like it when atheists suffocate other definitions to better suit their cause. Narrow-mindedness...

Theism is an utter lack of specificity. By only defining yourself as such you have played the safe game, not unlike the agnostics. In the end your belief in a deity originated somewhere. Observation alone cannot yield such a concept. Most likely you accepted the idea based upon the testimony of a person belonging to a particular religion. In that way you are tied to the reliability of that religion. It is inexcapable that you as a theist are also linked to that religion.

I don't believe in organized religion, it was created mostly for the weak. The weak will always exist in the world. I don't rely on any religion, I am non-denominational.

This means that electrons have unpredictable motion and may even be in two places at once. Most assuredly they act with predictability during chemical interaction, but the random motion still exists.

Yes, I agree with this paragraph.

Why aren't the laws random? Where did they come from? Pure randomness would create nothing, it is like putting a bunch of bricks in a storm and expecting a pyramid in result. The Physics Laws serves as an absolute code to be followed.

My point was that we know that Einstein was wrong now. Theists can't base their belief intelligent design on Einstein anymore. You say the universe isn't the product of random coallessence, prove it.

I did say that? Where? Quote it please...

Hawking is privy to some strong data in astronomy. But all you need know is that phenomena are hidden from us. No uniformity exists. And you are left with two possibilities. Either a god exists and perhaps did something to spark the big bang, but has not been active since then, or no god exists and everything can be explained as natural progression. How can natural progression explain billions of years of motion and yet not be able to do so prior to that. Just because you cannot detect the existance of a prior time, does not make it logical to assume that no such time existed. Everything we know says that everything is finite except the mass of the universe.

Everything we know, it is good knowledge, but it is still ignorance in the grand picture of a true origin.

How do you know time is infinite or finite? How about existence? You do realize, humans will never be able to reach such an answer, we can only hypothesize on observable data, nothing eimpirical, verifiable, and testable.

That's your theory, not mine. Coming into existance is an illogical theory. It has no basis in natural observation.

The earth exists, we exist, we and the earth have come into existence. You do agree with that statement, right? So how is it illogical?

The earth's existence is not infinite, it came into existence. Now the big question lies in whether this same logic applies to the entire universe.

I must agree. Except courage is not a term I would use. Courage often defines taking the unpopular position. Indeed you have done the opposite in clinging to a massively popular idea.

You are right in your definition of courage. But I say so in the logical sense, it takes courage to accept your ignorance and put trust in a higher being, thus being illogical for such a belief despite the fact that you want to remain as logical as possible.

That is the weakest theistic argument. Tell me you can't immediately see the fault of, 'because I am ignorrant, I must be right about the god thing.' Why should you be wrong about so much and be right about the one thing for which you have no proof?

There you supererogate again Teg. I never stated I was right, I suggest you fix the convictions you have.

Did I say you were wrong? Or did you simply assume?

I would rather back the man with proof than someone who professes their lack of knowledge. Again you seem to think stupidity entitles individual to some kind of higher understanding. I also have some bridges to sell you.

No, not stupidity, do not derogate. What I meant is realizing your limits and ignorance does result in better understanding.

We will never answer the true origins of the universe. You accept that statement or no? We are simply too inferior to answer such a question.

We have defined natural phenomena in the past. Do you think that complete understanding of all natural phenomena is impossible? There is, afterall, a finite number of processes. I think he wants to believe that we will not destroy ourself in the meantime. Perhaps he was acting out of an unrealistic notion of human persistence.

We will never reach an end to knowledge, that's my theory.

We can explain most natural phenomena. The only thing that seemed out of reach at the time was the cosmos. More powerful telescopes have opened a can of worms.

Yes, we can explain most natural phenomena on earth. But the universe? No way.

I give little creedence to any absolute statements. Will in the first sentence removes any credibility in the statement.

How does it remove any credibility? Elaborate please. So are you disagreeing that we will never reach an end to knowledge?

Are you saying we will someday answer every single question possible and that we will not need to further question, since we have all the answers? I surely hope you don't believe that.

Since you don't believe in absolutes, everything is relative then?

Nonessential was not an absolute staement. I don't see how I might not exactly know something that is an aspect of basic scientific understanding.

Teg, you do know that in order to refute theism, you must refute all arguments put forth throughout all of history. It is impossible and an endlessly negative procedure. If only those arguments are selected that can easily refuted, then this is invalid because the whole cannot be refuted by the parts, which is called fallacy of composition.

Converted, not destroyed. Matter is energy anyway.

Mass and matter are interchangable. One is only a statement of a measurement of the other. Conversion of mass is conversion of matter.

Destroyed and converted - agreed. Matter is energy - agreed.

When anti-matter and matter collide the result is light, now is light matter? Can you call pure energy matter? When the collision occurs, matter no longer exists, so it is logical to conclude matter is destroyed, but the mass and energy of such a reaction remain conserved and constant.

You have yet to yield an example of each. Give me a beggining and an end.

Easy enough, the earth came to existence through an explosion possibly by a star, and it's existence will end when the star explodes.

We tend to think that all humans hold the same values as ourselves. A significant minority however, are unscrupulous. Out of curiousity I watch specials on such subject matter. They have photos, eyewitness accounts, and tapes. None of these have ever been enough to convince me. I have seen blurry photos of shadows and telephone cords. I have heard the boastful tales of those with no credibility. As for those voices: I can only conclude that they have convinced themselves that voices can be heard. I can never make out what they are saying. The last one I saw was laughable. The "expert" was complaining that the sound system was too hot to properly playback their tapes. I don't think that magnets in tapes can detect sounds that we nor as apparent any creature cannot detect. If this was so then we should hear all sorts of fun stuff when we do tapes oursleves. Why is it that only specific individuals encounter these phenomena. If the ghost theory was true we should encounter these enitities often. I have never come accross, nor do I know any person that has, a ghost/spirit.

So basically you say, "When I see, I will believe."

But notice, atheism nor theism both can't be proven to be absolutely right. Now, this is perhaps my strongest argument for theism...

Notice this is formed from logic and is not the ultimate causes for my theism, so don't assume:

• Just as how atheists say to prove God beyond a doubt, in order to believe in God, I counter-argue with the same logic.
• Just as how a theist such as I, say to prove beyond a doubt, that all arguments put forth in all of history, all claims put forth in all of history are all false and wrong, then I will become an atheist. (Impossible ain't it? Just as how you cannot claim God does not exist )
• It is erroneous to assume that giving an alternate explanation for something refutes any other interpretation.
• It is erroneous to assume arguments for or against the existence of god have any bearing on whether God exists.
• It is erroneous to assume the object of a man’s desires or wishes cannot exist.
• It is erroneous to assume a word has meaning only if it fits one’s personal definition of meaning. If a person dislikes the meaning of something he simply denies it has any meaning.
• It is erroneous to assume that reality must conform to personal experience. It is false because although one has not experienced something does not make it false or say someone has not.
• It *just* takes one claim to be true throughout all those made through history, and you cannot prove beyond a doubt that they are all false. I rather take the less pessimistic and non negative stance. Remember, *just one*...
• If you have read the beginning posts, what do I exactly lose thinking this way? I am logically capable as any atheist. Accept human ignorance and inferiority, we will never be able to answer the origin(s) of the universe.

IMO, free-thinking theist is the way to go...

 

[James R]

<i>It *just* takes one claim to be true throughout all those made through history, and you cannot prove beyond a doubt that they are all false.</i>

You can't prove beyond a doubt that my purple dragon Herbert, who lives in my garage on a diet of M&Ms, doesn't exist, either.

The thing is, the onus of proof is traditionally on the claimant. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is not up to the skeptics to disprove anything. It is very hard to prove a negative, but should be relatively easy to prove a positive.

 

[GB-GIL Trans-global]

Originally posted by James R
...my purple dragon Herbert, who lives in my garage on a diet of M&Ms...

Hey, what a coincidence! I have an M&Ms-eating purple dragon living in my garage, too! Hey, does yours breathe fire? Mine does, it comes in handy at cookouts and it's a nice party trick at those Dragonfests, where most dragons can't breathe fire ^^;

 

[Teg]

"I am one of those atheists and thus you are wrong."

I was not wrong, it just doesn't agree with your conviction and vice versa.

Just clear this mess and accept my statement from hence it all started.

Atheism contains some negativism.

Those are your words so the "" are in error. Still you choose incorrect wording of your statenebt. It should be: Some atheists have the personality trait of negativism. A clear grasp of the English language is all that is neccessary to strengthen my position.

How? Quote and cite, break it apart for me. The last thing you want is to make a baseless assertion.

Theism is a club, another way to classify by the human need toward exclusiveness. Haven't you wondered what happened to the tribe structure? The church has replaced it in every aspect. It even tells you how to live your life.

Sure that is too vague, since you are an atheist, I completely understand why you state this...maybe we should change the entire definition just for you and your convictions? So you don't have to go around telling others they are wrong in their convictions...

I was well enough to let alone until a man dressed in a suit knocked on my door and told me about Jesus. They made it a war, not me. I am a passive person. I have no fault with naturally brought about belief systems. Religion, however, never naturally occuring. All it takes is one conman and the stuff spreads like the plague.

Accept that atheism is still an opposition or resistance. Without theism, atheism would not exist, period.

Atheism results from contact with theists, sure. But how many atheists exist without contact to religion. In fact atheism is the natural state. People only accept god after the idea is introduced. Theism is dependent on programming. Therefore atheism is really only the neutral state of humans.

Mr. Robert A. Morey and his book The New Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom identifies ten types of atheists which are as follows:


Village atheist - a disagreeable and nasty man on all subjects; especially enraged if the discussion turns to God
Bashful atheist - one who backs down and no longer engages on religious discussion when his proof for the non-existence of God is questioned

Covert agnostic - of two types: first is the ordinary one who is not sure if God exists but if you can prove to them he does, He will embrace them. The other one is the ornery, who says he knows nothing about God and neither do you. The word agnostic arises from two Greek word a + gnosis, meaning “no knowledge.”

Professional skeptic - one who makes a career of making fun of philosophies, theism included, never saying anything positive

Neurotic Atheist - one who has an irrational revulsion to religion

Paranoid atheist - one who thinks God is persecuting him and trying to throw him into Hell

God-complex Atheist - one who says there is no one higher who can command or judge his actions

Self-gratifying atheist - one who has a moral crisis, giving up God to pursue some lust of the flesh or mind

Marxist atheist - one who embraces atheism because it is part of a party line

Fideisitic atheist - accepts by blind faith there is no God without attempting a proof

What a lovely list of stereotypes. Where is the class that 90% of us fall into:

Rational Atheist: those who employ reason towards a better understanding of the universe and through a series of observations have found a god superfluous.

Look here, it was a simple statement, all you could have done was ask a simple rhetorical question.

Teg: What does negativism mean in context of that statement?

You did not do so...do you want me to show you some more proof? Just ask, I asserted and I will prove, that is the debate way.

And if you were blind, mute, deaf and fingerless, I might have accepted that. Somehow you seemed to miss my second argument. Atheism contains negative individuals. There is no part of the word atheist that defines it as negativism.

Ok, it's really simple to admit to certain things. You lose nothing doing so in debates...but if you wish, I will prove it in front of your very own eyes...

I am capable of being wrong...just not here.

Illogical for the time being because a lack of proof, but the word irrational can be misleading since it is related to "senseless." Using the word illogical fits alot better in context.

Irrational introduces a bit of my bias. For all I know they may be rational in every other aspect except their belief structure.

A lack of any evidence is not a hypothesis. There are documented observances, but you rule them out because they cannot be tested and verified thus you may call all of it illogical, notice I said all, that means every claim ever made.

You do know, that all it takes is just one person telling the truth, then you are wrong. But of course, we can't verify such, you can only believe they are all illogical and baseless.

Who said I rejected universal standards? I am a theist, so such a generalization doesn't apply to me.

That might make more sense if they didn't all have the same belief. If one person is right they are all right and the opposite applies. Billions with one theory does not equal billions of theories. They are either wrong in unison or incredibly lucky.

Go to an agnostic website, post that in their forum. I don't like it when atheists suffocate other definitions to better suit their cause. Narrow-mindedness...

Agnostics are just cowardly atheists. Point me to a good agnostic forum and I'll say it to their face. If I ever encounter one I will also make the point clear. I have no qualms. I'm only one more Jahovah's witness from going out to sell the word of ungod.

Knock, Knock. "Hello sir. Have you heard the word of no god. Of course you have. That you have not yet heard the word of any god must be a clear sign that you are riding the wrong pony. Have you ever wondered what it would be like to have Sunday free from the ravings of a lunatic. How would you like to remove the guilt that is inherint in religion."

I don't believe in organized religion, it was created mostly for the weak. The weak will always exist in the world. I don't rely on any religion, I am non-denominational.

Any theistic set of beliefs is rooted in a religion. You can trace them all back. Non-denominational means only that you are either an unconvert still addicted to the patch or a churchgoer once or twice removed.

Why aren't the laws random? Where did they come from? Pure randomness would create nothing, it is like putting a bunch of bricks in a storm and expecting a pyramid in result. The Physics Laws serves as an absolute code to be followed.

The laws aren't random, but the dispersion has no pattern of significant design. Everything that occured after the earliest point in history was acting within the laws of physics yet still random in nature. If this were not the case we would see uniformity.

I did say that? Where? Quote it please...

And here it is...

I refuse to call spontaneity my ultimate creator.

Everything we know, it is good knowledge, but it is still ignorance in the grand picture of a true origin.

The universe has basic building blocks of energy and matter. All it takes is a thorough understanding of these two and their interaction to attack physics in general. Sure they may make up strange phenomena that we can only conjecture at right now, but the key is that we have come so far since we were playing with animal bones and our greatest pursuit was the next meal. I am not one of those who are so faithfull in science that they need extrapolate faster than light travel. At this moment that seems unconceivable. I am also not going to state that we know that what we see is either all or just a taste of what exists. I only know that the laws of physics have not been challenged. Though we get hiccups from trying to come to grips with the inadequacies of light detection, I think the working model of the universe has already been fleshed out. All that needs be filled are a few gaps like dark matter and dark energy.

The earth exists, we exist, we and the earth have come into existence. You do agree with that statement, right? So how is it illogical?

The earth's existence is not infinite, it came into existence. Now the big question lies in whether this same logic applies to the entire universe.

What composes this rock will continue to exist long after our sun goes nova. In that way the Earth is infinite, just not in its current form. If infinite meant static then the word would be useless as there is no such thing. Everything that is continues. Not in a spiritual manner but rather a physical form.

But I say so in the logical sense, it takes courage to accept your ignorance and put trust in a higher being, thus being illogical for such a belief despite the fact that you want to remain as logical as possible.

Any belief that denies logic is flawed.

There you supererogate again Teg. I never stated I was right, I suggest you fix the convictions you have.

Did I say you were wrong? Or did you simply assume?

By believing in the opposite point of view I simply assumed that you would not hold two positions. We can't both be right.

No, not stupidity, do not derogate. What I meant is realizing your limits and ignorance does result in better understanding.

We will never answer the true origins of the universe. You accept that statement or no? We are simply too inferior to answer such a question.

Origin is not the right word. Continuation froma n infinite past is closer. Of course I can't know that past before the big bang. I think that to assume nothing existed prior would be more in keeping with the working definition of ignorance.

We will never reach an end to knowledge, that's my theory.

So you think knowledge is infinite and everything else is not, curious. I never said that knowledge was inexhaustable. Humans will invent the stuff if they run out. It is our nature to solve mysteries.

Yes, we can explain most natural phenomena on earth. But the universe? No way.

Our solar system and by extension, galaxy, is like a cell in the human body. It has the DNA or atoms in this case that reveal the design of the universe. I don't think we truly understand what this means yet.

How does it remove any credibility? Elaborate please. So are you disagreeing that we will never reach an end to knowledge?

Are you saying we will someday answer every single question possible and that we will not need to further question, since we have all the answers? I surely hope you don't believe that.

Since you don't believe in absolutes, everything is relative then?

I meant that may would be more correct. We may never reach an end to knowledge. Same statement only not so absolute.

Teg, you do know that in order to refute theism, you must refute all arguments put forth throughout all of history. It is impossible and an endlessly negative procedure. If only those arguments are selected that can easily refuted, then this is invalid because the whole cannot be refuted by the parts, which is called fallacy of composition.

You have fondness for James R and I am exhausted with my efforts to explain so...

It *just* takes one claim to be true throughout all those made through history, and you cannot prove beyond a doubt that they are all false.

You can't prove beyond a doubt that my purple dragon Herbert, who lives in my garage on a diet of M&Ms, doesn't exist, either.

The thing is, the onus of proof is traditionally on the claimant. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is not up to the skeptics to disprove anything. It is very hard to prove a negative, but should be relatively easy to prove a positive.

Same thing only now from two people...a little more credible.

Destroyed and converted - agreed. Matter is energy - agreed.

When anti-matter and matter collide the result is light, now is light matter? Can you call pure energy matter? When the collision occurs, matter no longer exists, so it is logical to conclude matter is destroyed, but the mass and energy of such a reaction remain conserved and constant.

Conserved negates destroyed. Take a hint: matter and energy =same. conversion does not=destroyed.

Easy enough, the earth came to existence through an explosion possibly by a star, and it's existence will end when the star explodes.

The Earth has matter that was at a certain period part of other matrices. This matter at this point has coallesced into a body known as Earth. When the Earth is broken down its matter and enrgy will continue in other forms. Where is the end and beginning?

So basically you say, "When I see, I will believe."

But notice, atheism nor theism both can't be proven to be absolutely right. Now, this is perhaps my strongest argument for theism...

Notice this is formed from logic and is not the ultimate causes for my theism, so don't assume:

Just as how atheists say to prove God beyond a doubt, in order to believe in God, I counter-argue with the same logic.

Just as how a theist such as I, say to prove beyond a doubt, that all arguments put forth in all of history, all claims put forth in all of history are all false and wrong, then I will become an atheist. (Impossible ain't it? Just as how you cannot claim God does not exist )

It is erroneous to assume that giving an alternate explanation for something refutes any other interpretation.

It is erroneous to assume arguments for or against the existence of god have any bearing on whether God exists.
It is erroneous to assume the object of a man’s desires or wishes cannot exist.

It is erroneous to assume a word has meaning only if it fits one’s personal definition of meaning. If a person dislikes the meaning of something he simply denies it has any meaning.

It is erroneous to assume that reality must conform to personal experience. It is false because although one has not experienced something does not make it false or say someone has not.

It *just* takes one claim to be true throughout all those made through history, and you cannot prove beyond a doubt that they are all false. I rather take the less pessimistic and non negative stance. Remember, *just one*...

If you have read the beginning posts, what do I exactly lose thinking this way? I am logically capable as any atheist. Accept human ignorance and inferiority, we will never be able to answer the origin(s) of the universe.


IMO, free-thinking theist is the way to go...

As stated frequently before: I (and James R it seems now) have nothing to prove. My theory requires an absence of evidence in your theory. If you can't prove your theory I will have the stronger position.

 

[James R]

<i>Agnostics are just cowardly atheists.</i>

I don't think so.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

~Interesting~

Originally posted by Teg
Those are your words so the "" are in error. Still you choose incorrect wording of your statenebt. It should be: Some atheists have the personality trait of negativism. A clear grasp of the English language is all that is neccessary to strengthen my position.

Round 2: Why? Based on your conviction, correct?

You do realize, both our convictions on this matter are right. I have not told you are flat out wrong (I did tell you were wrong once, but it was reasonable). But you have...

You didn't seem to get the point that all people have different convictions.

Keep arguing, by the next post I make, expect me to prove your flaws - if you still persist...

Nice move though, instead of saying wrong, you say incorrect...

So does that mean because it is "incorrect" under your convictions that you may state a blanket statement and say, "You're wrong/incorrect."?

A clear grasp of the English language you say? You do know how to twist definitions, I applaud you for that.

Theism is a club, another way to classify by the human need toward exclusiveness. Haven't you wondered what happened to the tribe structure? The church has replaced it in every aspect. It even tells you how to live your life.

Theism is just a belief in God, how is it a club? Prove it Teg. Church and theism are two different meanings...now why is it that most the atheists I have encountered here are close-minded when it comes to definitions...?

I was well enough to let alone until a man dressed in a suit knocked on my door and told me about Jesus. They made it a war, not me. I am a passive person. I have no fault with naturally brought about belief systems. Religion, however, never naturally occuring. All it takes is one conman and the stuff spreads like the plague.

How does that guy who knocked on your door relate to me in anyway? You do know, I am a different person, with different convictions, right? I really hope so.

Atheism results from contact with theists, sure. But how many atheists exist without contact to religion. In fact atheism is the natural state. People only accept god after the idea is introduced. Theism is dependent on programming. Therefore atheism is really only the neutral state of humans.

Let's make a better statement: Atheism results FROM theism.

Theism is atheism's creator, God if you want to relate it in a facetious manner...

Agnostic is the natural state. Agnostic doesn't depend on atheism or theism. Atheism is the dependant one.

What a lovely list of stereotypes. Where is the class that 90% of us fall into:

Rational Atheist: those who employ reason towards a better understanding of the universe and through a series of observations have found a god superfluous.

Have they found completely God superfluous? Or superfluous basing that on their current ignorance?

Who said I can't employ reason towards a better understanding of the universe?

Most of you fall in Covert Agnostics category, admit it.

And if you were blind, mute, deaf and fingerless, I might have accepted that. Somehow you seemed to miss my second argument. Atheism contains negative individuals. There is no part of the word atheist that defines it as negativism.

negativism (nèg´e-tî-vîz´em) noun
1. A habitual attitude of skepticism or resistance to the suggestions, orders, or instructions of others.

What kind of atheist are you Teg? Raithere, Cris, and the other bright atheists would disagree with that statement, "There is no part of the word atheist that defines it as negativism."

Define habitual, then let's pick apart negativism and it's definition, so you can finally hope to open your mind.

I am capable of being wrong...just not here.

Sure...Teg, the flawless atheist in this argument!...

Irrational introduces a bit of my bias. For all I know they may be rational in every other aspect except their belief structure.

Good that you see that.

That might make more sense if they didn't all have the same belief. If one person is right they are all right and the opposite applies. Billions with one theory does not equal billions of theories. They are either wrong in unison or incredibly lucky.

Where does the statement: "incredibly lucky" come into that paragraph of yours.

On what grounds do you state that?

No, if one person is right, then the rest could be wrong or right. I have no doubt that some do lie and make-up, so that makes their claims false. But their belief in God would be right, if just one of those many throughout all of history were telling the truth.

I'm just saying, it just takes one to be telling the truth, or they all have and must be lying. But if that isn't the case, then whoever believes in God is correct.

Agnostics are just cowardly atheists. Point me to a good agnostic forum and I'll say it to their face. If I ever encounter one I will also make the point clear. I have no qualms. I'm only one more Jahovah's witness from going out to sell the word of ungod.

Sure, no problem. Agnostic Forum

Agnosticism forums are hard to find... But let's hear one agnostic's voice here.

b shack
4/23/02 12:04:11 pm

Some atheists seem to be trying to stop us calling ourselves agnostics and get us to, 'fess up' to being atheists. Why should I confess to being what I am not?
People who see themselves as weak atheists rather than agnostics may become less likely to investigate positively any evidence for religion which may appear. What has happened to the scientific method?
Anyone who is unsure whether or not God or gods of some type exist can truthfully call himself/herself an agnostic.
Stop it you atheists! What we call ourselves is none of your business.

I prefer agnostics over atheists, atheists suffocate the definition of agnosticism to further their own causes. They love to utterly support their cause.

Agnostics, are neutral, you don't see them suffocating the definition of atheism. Now, go check out certain atheistic websites and then go to agnostic websites.

Atheism in Australia posted by Adam. Check those linked websites out, check what they define agnosticism to be.

Perhaps James R put it the best in this thread: Define what you mena by "atheism" and "agnosticism"

Orginally posted by James R
An agnostic does not claim to know whether God exists or not. He or she does not have faith that He exists, but thinks that there is a non-negligible possibility.

An atheist is confident that the probability of the existence of god(s) is either zero or so small that it is reasonable to assert with confidence that no gods exist.

Any theistic set of beliefs is rooted in a religion. You can trace them all back. Non-denominational means only that you are either an unconvert still addicted to the patch or a churchgoer once or twice removed.

That means I am not affliated to any type of "organized religions." I think for myself and do not follow organized religious dogma.

The laws aren't random, but the dispersion has no pattern of significant design. Everything that occured after the earliest point in history was acting within the laws of physics yet still random in nature. If this were not the case we would see uniformity.

The laws were "just the way they are," right? Well, I don't want to believe in such pointless thought, rather someone coded these laws as a absolute construction plan for science to follow.

So where did the laws come from? Why is everything not purely random?

And here it is...

The universe has basic building blocks of energy and matter. All it takes is a thorough understanding of these two and their interaction to attack physics in general. Sure they may make up strange phenomena that we can only conjecture at right now, but the key is that we have come so far since we were playing with animal bones and our greatest pursuit was the next meal. I am not one of those who are so faithfull in science that they need extrapolate faster than light travel. At this moment that seems unconceivable. I am also not going to state that we know that what we see is either all or just a taste of what exists. I only know that the laws of physics have not been challenged. Though we get hiccups from trying to come to grips with the inadequacies of light detection, I think the working model of the universe has already been fleshed out. All that needs be filled are a few gaps like dark matter and dark energy.

The Big Bang, Guth's inflation model and the support for them orginated from pure thought, amazing, just how the concept of God was.

So what do you believe in? Big Bang or Plasma? They both could be wrong, you will never find the absolute truth, you do realize that right? Guth states from his inflation model that the universe is like a "free lunch," courtesy of the Higgs Field, where it generates all the needed energy from nothing.

In 1933, Einstein states: "It is my conviction that pure mathematical construction enables us to discover the concepts and the laws connecting them, which gives us the key to the understanding of nature....In a certain sense, therefore, I hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed."

Notice, Einstein himself, did not use this deductive method in making his great breakthroughs, he used observations and experimental methods.

Big Bang abandoned the experimental method and based everything on "pure thought." Which leads to ad hoc hypotheses and complexities. Dark matter for example, there is no proof for it. The Big Bang created a perfect edifice of pure thought incapable of being refuted by mere apearances, similar to the existence of God.

Another good point are baby universes by Hawking. At the scale of 10^-33 cm, less than one-milliion-trillionth of a proton's diameter, space itself is, according to this idea, a sort of quantum force foam, randomly shaping and unshaping itself; from this, tiny bubbles of space-time form, connected to the rest by narrow umbilicial cords called "worm-holes." These bubbles, once formed, then undergo their own Big Bangs, producing complete universes, connected to out own only by worm-holes 10^-33 cm across. Thus from every cubic centimeter of our space, some 10^143 universes come into existence every second, all connected to ours by tiny worm-holes, and all in their turn giving birth to myriad new universes. As our own universe itself emerged from a parent universe.

It sounds to me like a vision that seems to beg for some cosmic birth control... I'm not at all saying Hawking is wrong or anything, but it is one possible "solution." Hawking is indeed extremely intelligent.

This theory was an attempt to eliminate an embarrassing problem, which had always beset the Big Bang. What happened before that?

Hawking sought to avoid a beginning to time using this theory. But yet, because all of these universes are in principle, unobservable from our own, it leaves our own universe finite in time.

Hawking then went to the theory of instantons, where the Big Bang somehow allegedly "created" itself from nothing...

What composes this rock will continue to exist long after our sun goes nova. In that way the Earth is infinite, just not in its current form. If infinite meant static then the word would be useless as there is no such thing. Everything that is continues. Not in a spiritual manner but rather a physical form.

Oh boy, not the "everything is relative" argument again, atheists love to use this.

Ok, in simply terms...

Earth blow up to bits of dust = no more earth

Star explodes, dusts form together = earth is born

Don't use relativity arguments against me, the argument won't simply end, atheists are con-artists with defintions, like the Big Bang, they create edifices that are almost incapable of being refuted using the "everything is relative" argument. Please, don't even go there.

Would you call a bunch of rocks earth?

Let's see how much longer you will keep this up.

Any belief that denies logic is flawed.

Flawed? How? You mean illogical, right? Or flawed with logic, right?

Blanket statements are useless, so keep those blankets to yourself please...

By believing in the opposite point of view I simply assumed that you would not hold two positions. We can't both be right.

I'm not holding two positions at all. You assumed. Don't even mention right and wrong in this argument, it's really pointless.

Origin is not the right word. Continuation froma n infinite past is closer. Of course I can't know that past before the big bang. I think that to assume nothing existed prior would be more in keeping with the working definition of ignorance.

Proof for infinite? Proof for a origin? You pick to believe infinity concerning reality. I believe in an origin, a beginning and end concerning reality.

So you think knowledge is infinite and everything else is not, curious. I never said that knowledge was inexhaustable. Humans will invent the stuff if they run out. It is our nature to solve mysteries.

Good that you are curious. Teg. Knowledge is a concept, information, divulged from the human mind. Thoughts can be infinite, imagination can be infinite. But I believe reality is finite.

Our solar system and by extension, galaxy, is like a cell in the human body. It has the DNA or atoms in this case that reveal the design of the universe. I don't think we truly understand what this means yet.

"Everything is relative" argument again? Earth and the universe are two completely different things. You can't examine a grain of sand and apply relative arguments in favor of accurately describing the earth on a big scale. You can only deductively conclude little.

I meant that may would be more correct. We may never reach an end to knowledge. Same statement only not so absolute.

No, I am firm in this belief, we will never reach an end to knowledge.

You have fondness for James R and I am exhausted with my efforts to explain so...

Assume again? Where do I show "fondness for James R"

Sorry, Teg, but I am a straight person.

Exhausted or caught at the tongue?

Same thing only now from two people...a little more credible.

Great, lets mention everyone's credibility and yours also! Notice I never attacked your credibility.

Conserved negates destroyed. Take a hint: matter and energy =same. conversion does not=destroyed.

Ok ok, if you insist on falling on the "everything is relative" argument.

Say your entire human body is vaporized. Is your human body destroyed? Yes or no?

We say energy cannot be created nor destroyed because we cannot get rid of energy, it is always there. But we can get rid of matter using anti-matter. The anti-particle.

I don't need to take a hint, you need to take a big hint.

The Earth has matter that was at a certain period part of other matrices. This matter at this point has coallesced into a body known as Earth. When the Earth is broken down its matter and enrgy will continue in other forms. Where is the end and beginning?

You don't see it? The planet is gone, exploded, it no longer exists. Earth is a planet (you know this right? ). If this planet, Earth, no longer orbits around the sun, harvest lilfe, etc. and all that is left of it is cosmic dust...the existence of the planet Earth has ended, is it still a planet?

Don't go on saying: "Oh but the planet is still there, but just in pieces...it still exists but in pieces..."

I can't hope to strike down such a relativity argument, it's really pointless because you just won't see it.

If you still refuse to see, I have another argument that should literally make you see...but if that next argument doesn't help you to see the light, you are just blind. Fair warning.

As stated frequently before: I (and James R it seems now) have nothing to prove. My theory requires an absence of evidence in your theory. If you can't prove your theory I will have the stronger position.

I was never here to prove my theism. I was here to state the reasons for theism.

Logical reasons are hard to come by for theism, I admit that. Theism is more of personal experiences. Once you experience a unique something, it can change your life forever.

Originally posted by James R
You can't prove beyond a doubt that my purple dragon Herbert, who lives in my garage on a diet of M&Ms, doesn't exist, either.

Fair enough, I'm not spending my airfare money just to vist you...

The thing is, the onus of proof is traditionally on the claimant. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is not up to the skeptics to disprove anything. It is very hard to prove a negative, but should be relatively easy to prove a positive.

True, extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence. But extraoridinary evidence (visions, sightings, etc.) aren't verifiable (as in constantly/consistently repeated, experimented, etc.*), no doubt they are extraoridinary *if* true, but how would you provide proof for an extraoriginary claim?

It is a dilemma.

*Extraordinary claims - if they were constantly/consistently repeatable/experimental, etc. would you call it extraordinary?

 

[Adam]

TheChosen

Originally posted by ~The_Chosen~

Let's make a better statement: Atheism results FROM theism

Let's get that cleared up - again - for the theists. The word "atheism" may be based on the word "theism", but we are all born atheists. We are born without religion. It is a learnt behaviour, as opposed to instinct. In every way except etymologically, atheism does not result from theism.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Addddaaaammmm~~~~~

Originally posted by Adam

Let's get that cleared up - again - for the theists. The word "atheism" may be based on the word "theism", but we are all born atheists. We are born without religion. It is a learnt behaviour, as opposed to instinct. In every way except etymologically, atheism does not result from theism.

You need to clear it up with yourself and the rest of the atheists here.

Let's say theism never existed, would anyone call themself an atheist? "Atheism" would be an unknown word.

Thus, they would all be agnostics or "without knowledge"

Point Taken

 

[Adam]

TheChosen

Again, for your benefit: "In every way except etymologically, atheism does not result from theism."

Point taken indeed.

 

[~The_Chosen~]

Addddaaammmmmm~~~~~~

Originally posted by Adam
Again, for your benefit: "In every way except etymologically, atheism does not result from theism."

Point taken indeed.

The point taken, is the point of a lack of point from you.

Where's your point? You made a claim Adam, now back it up.

You just said, "atheism does not result from theism." Kindly back that up, give examples

• It is erroneous to assume a word has meaning only if it fits one’s personal definition of meaning. If a person dislikes the meaning of something he simply denies it has any meaning.

Your meaning of atheism, as in your thread (Atheism Adam's way)

Refer to the bullet above please. "Adam's way"?

Originally posted by Adam
Atheism is by definition not believing or following any religion. To me, this means I do not follow buddhism, islam, christianity, shinto, wicca, or anything else like that. I do not focus on any one particular religion.

Hoho!! I must be an atheist too!! If you meant only organized religions (like Islam, Christianity, etc.) in that statement regarding that thread.

Wow, what a "good" and "precise" definition Adam...

 

[Teg]

Round 2: Why? Based on your conviction, correct?

You do realize, both our convictions on this matter are right. I have not told you are flat out wrong (I did tell you were wrong once, but it was reasonable). But you have...

You didn't seem to get the point that all people have different convictions.

Keep arguing, by the next post I make, expect me to prove your flaws - if you still persist...

Nice move though, instead of saying wrong, you say incorrect...

So does that mean because it is "incorrect" under your convictions that you may state a blanket statement and say, "You're wrong/incorrect."?

A clear grasp of the English language you say? You do know how to twist definitions, I applaud you for that.

This has nothing to do with convictions. This is about mechanics of the English language. To prove that atheism contains some negativism requires all atheists to be habitually negaitve in some function. You haven't given me any data to prove that all atheists have a negative outlook. You might equally object if I said theism contains some stupidity. I would however be more in keeping since theism has a set of characteristics that are shared by all. My fault would be that not all theists are stupid.

Just restate in keeping with the English language and you will have a correct statement. In its current form we have a false blanket statement.

Theism is just a belief in God, how is it a club? Prove it Teg. Church and theism are two different meanings...now why is it that most the atheists I have encountered here are close-minded when it comes to definitions...?

It differentiates you from us in the neutral state of human being. Atheism is just an assertion of that neutral state. You missed my link of theism in general to any given religion. Your belief is not based on spontaneous realization or an observation. You have been infected as have we all by a submersion in god-culture. You may claim no affilitiation to religion and yet you must have been infected by one such organization. Religion and god are the same thing, interchangable.

How does that guy who knocked on your door relate to me in anyway? You do know, I am a different person, with different convictions, right? I really hope so.

It all goes back to medieval Europe and the birth of the second set of Western Civilizations. The Pope replaced the Roman Emperor and a belief structure was embedded into the "savage" Western Europeans. Monarchs used this idea of afterlife and god to enslave the peons. The same thing occurs now. Bush uses the devotion to to this disease as a means of control.

Marxism and atheism are connected by a distrust in oligarchies. The universal brotherhood idea integral to Marxism can be traced to the schools in Hellenistic Greece. The School of Cynics in particular with its rejection of material goods and embrace of nature creates the first evolutionary step in the development of both ideas.

You say that you have no affiliation? Then how do you describe your god. It seems convenient in that your god can be anything you wish it to be or nothing at all. Why do you believe in something you cannot describe? Your belief sounds more like a poorly educated guess.

Let's make a better statement: Atheism results FROM theism.

Theism is atheism's creator, God if you want to relate it in a facetious manner...

Agnostic is the natural state. Agnostic doesn't depend on atheism or theism. Atheism is the dependant one.

You are assuming that prior to atheism, theism was still present. Atheism predates theism simply for the fact that theists have chosen to define all who have not yet heard of theism as atheists. Atheism is simply the lack of theism. Theism has not always existed and thus atheism predates theism. Just because the atheists did not define themselves as such does not change their status. A bird is still a bird even though it is not familiar with that term.

Have they found completely God superfluous? Or superfluous basing that on their current ignorance?

Who said I can't employ reason towards a better understanding of the universe?

Most of you fall in Covert Agnostics category, admit it.

You accept science and yet you say we are ignorant. You haven't made a choice. Either we are all ignorant and because of this lack of knowledge must assume a higher power is present (navigate the errors in logic in that one) or we know some things but are also ignorant and thus must put trust in a being we think is possible (again unreasonable). I don't see how ignorance leads you to a belief in god.

What kind of atheist are you Teg? Raithere, Cris, and the other bright atheists would disagree with that statement, "There is no part of the word atheist that defines it as negativism."

Define habitual, then let's pick apart negativism and it's definition, so you can finally hope to open your mind.

You seem to want to put words in other people's mouths.

Habitual is a characteristic that manifests itself often. The manifestation of negativity is the denial of or resistance to new ideas. Theism is not new. Science is relatively new. In this most theists would be closer to negativism. You are somewhere in between, a hypocrite.

Sure...Teg, the flawless atheist in this argument!...

Sarcasm is the last refuge of the ignorant.

Irrational introduces a bit of my bias. For all I know they may be rational in every other aspect except their belief structure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Good that you see that.

Does the fact that you agree mean that you too think belief is irrational or that you missed that part of the staement.

Where does the statement: "incredibly lucky" come into that paragraph of yours.

On what grounds do you state that?

No, if one person is right, then the rest could be wrong or right. I have no doubt that some do lie and make-up, so that makes their claims false. But their belief in God would be right, if just one of those many throughout all of history were telling the truth.

I'm just saying, it just takes one to be telling the truth, or they all have and must be lying. But if that isn't the case, then whoever believes in God is correct.

If I advanced a hypothesis with no basis in observation or data, I would feel lucky if it were true.

Sure, no problem. Agnostic Forum

Agnosticism forums are hard to find... But let's hear one agnostic's voice here.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
b shack
4/23/02 12:04:11 pm

Some atheists seem to be trying to stop us calling ourselves agnostics and get us to, 'fess up' to being atheists. Why should I confess to being what I am not?
People who see themselves as weak atheists rather than agnostics may become less likely to investigate positively any evidence for religion which may appear. What has happened to the scientific method?
Anyone who is unsure whether or not God or gods of some type exist can truthfully call himself/herself an agnostic.
Stop it you atheists! What we call ourselves is none of your business.

It all depends on how many thousands of years you are willing to wait for proof. None so far but hey, a they might still find something. That person is neither atheist, nor agnostic. That is my definition of pathetic. Its like the girl waiting at 5:00AM for a date who said they would be there at 6:00PM three years ago. How many times you are willing to accept lies from theists only to have the proof removed once it is found empty. Theists say god exists. Skeptics say prove it. The matter has stalemated for more than two thousand years. I am open minded. My open mind is just not gullable enough for the agnostic standard.

prefer agnostics over atheists, atheists suffocate the definition of agnosticism to further their own causes. They love to utterly support their cause.

Agnostics, are neutral, you don't see them suffocating the definition of atheism. Now, go check out certain atheistic websites and then go to agnostic websites.

Atheism in Australia posted by Adam. Check those linked websites out, check what they define agnosticism to be.

Perhaps James R put it the best in this thread: Define what you mena by "atheism" and "agnosticism"

Agnostic n: a person who does not deny the possible existence of God but holds that this existence and the origin of the universe are not known and probably cannot be known.

That sounds more like your position. I said earlier that you were probably closer to agnostic anyway.

I don't have an origin in my model. I am also not going to assume that we will never understand our existence.

The laws were "just the way they are," right? Well, I don't want to believe in such pointless thought, rather someone coded these laws as a absolute construction plan for science to follow.

So where did the laws come from? Why is everything not purely random?

You persist with the "come from?" That is denying the basic observation of infinity. I can grasp that what was before cannot be known at this point. It seems illogical however that nothing was before.

The Big Bang, Guth's inflation model and the support for them orginated from pure thought, amazing, just how the concept of God was.

So what do you believe in? Big Bang or Plasma? They both could be wrong, you will never find the absolute truth, you do realize that right? Guth states from his inflation model that the universe is like a "free lunch," courtesy of the Higgs Field, where it generates all the needed energy from nothing.

In 1933, Einstein states: "It is my conviction that pure mathematical construction enables us to discover the concepts and the laws connecting them, which gives us the key to the understanding of nature....In a certain sense, therefore, I hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed."

Notice, Einstein himself, did not use this deductive method in making his great breakthroughs, he used observations and experimental methods.

Big Bang abandoned the experimental method and based everything on "pure thought." Which leads to ad hoc hypotheses and complexities. Dark matter for example, there is no proof for it. The Big Bang created a perfect edifice of pure thought incapable of being refuted by mere apearances, similar to the existence of God.

Another good point are baby universes by Hawking. At the scale of 10^-33 cm, less than one-milliion-trillionth of a proton's diameter, space itself is, according to this idea, a sort of quantum force foam, randomly shaping and unshaping itself; from this, tiny bubbles of space-time form, connected to the rest by narrow umbilicial cords called "worm-holes." These bubbles, once formed, then undergo their own Big Bangs, producing complete universes, connected to out own only by worm-holes 10^-33 cm across. Thus from every cubic centimeter of our space, some 10^143 universes come into existence every second, all connected to ours by tiny worm-holes, and all in their turn giving birth to myriad new universes. As our own universe itself emerged from a parent universe.

It sounds to me like a vision that seems to beg for some cosmic birth control... I'm not at all saying Hawking is wrong or anything, but it is one possible "solution." Hawking is indeed extremely intelligent.

This theory was an attempt to eliminate an embarrassing problem, which had always beset the Big Bang. What happened before that?

Hawking sought to avoid a beginning to time using this theory. But yet, because all of these universes are in principle, unobservable from our own, it leaves our own universe finite in time.

Hawking then went to the theory of instantons, where the Big Bang somehow allegedly "created" itself from nothing...

How so finite in time. Do you see an end in the future. From what I can figure out that is not likely. Instantons sounds like appeasement for the creationists. That's one theory and not very credible. Hawkings has the ability to be wrong also. Remember the wormhole fiasco? That was a great bit of wishful thinking.

Oh boy, not the "everything is relative" argument again, atheists love to use this.

Ok, in simply terms...

Earth blow up to bits of dust = no more earth

Star explodes, dusts form together = earth is born

Don't use relativity arguments against me, the argument won't simply end, atheists are con-artists with defintions, like the Big Bang, they create edifices that are almost incapable of being refuted using the "everything is relative" argument. Please, don't even go there.

Would you call a bunch of rocks earth?

Let's see how much longer you will keep this up.

The matter can all be accounted for. Earth is just the limits of our thinking. Earth is only a collection of rocks. The person with an urn will still considered the ground remains of their loved one that person. What is different here?

Flawed? How? You mean illogical, right? Or flawed with logic, right?

Blanket statements are useless, so keep those blankets to yourself please...

You can't cut a statement out of context and call it blanket only with a blanket staement. Logic defines a proccess of thinking by which a conclusion is made from evidence. Proof by reasoning. I reason that there is insufficient proof to support a god, therefore I shall continue to disbelieve.

I'm not holding two positions at all. You assumed. Don't even mention right and wrong in this argument, it's really pointless.

Scientists and by extension those who would accept science generally requires proof, observation and measurement. Scientist believe in the theory and not the hypothesis. The hypothesis is just a guess. It can be educated. Theism is still at hypothesis after a couple thousand years sicne its inception. How then can you believe in something that is not even credible enough to be a theory?

Proof for infinite? Proof for a origin? You pick to believe infinity concerning reality. I believe in an origin, a beginning and end concerning reality.

What evidence do you have to support that a begging is even possible. Continuation and space are all I need for the infinite.

Good that you are curious. Teg. Knowledge is a concept, information, divulged from the human mind. Thoughts can be infinite, imagination can be infinite. But I believe reality is finite.

That is a contradictory statement. You admit infinity to be the state of humans. We are made of the same stuff as everything else. Why should we be so special? We are no greater than anything else that has seen the Earth's surface.

"Everything is relative" argument again? Earth and the universe are two completely different things. You can't examine a grain of sand and apply relative arguments in favor of accurately describing the earth on a big scale. You can only deductively conclude little.

Yes you can. Though the composition may differ the sand is representitive of the whole. Atoms compose everything that is made of matter. Everything is relative.

No, I am firm in this belief, we will never reach an end to knowledge.

Now who is being closed minded. "Will" is too absolute.

Assume again? Where do I show "fondness for James R"

Sorry, Teg, but I am a straight person.

Exhausted or caught at the tongue?

You invoked his name. I only observed that and recorded it.

Great, lets mention everyone's credibility and yours also! Notice I never attacked your credibility.

Where did I do so to you?

Ok ok, if you insist on falling on the "everything is relative" argument.

Say your entire human body is vaporized. Is your human body destroyed? Yes or no?

We say energy cannot be created nor destroyed because we cannot get rid of energy, it is always there. But we can get rid of matter using anti-matter. The anti-particle.

I don't need to take a hint, you need to take a big hint.

What I was has been converted. I think I covered this pretty well in that urn scenario.

You don't see it? The planet is gone, exploded, it no longer exists. Earth is a planet (you know this right? ). If this planet, Earth, no longer orbits around the sun, harvest lilfe, etc. and all that is left of it is cosmic dust...the existence of the planet Earth has ended, is it still a planet?

Don't go on saying: "Oh but the planet is still there, but just in pieces...it still exists but in pieces..."

I can't hope to strike down such a relativity argument, it's really pointless because you just won't see it.

If you still refuse to see, I have another argument that should literally make you see...but if that next argument doesn't help you to see the light, you are just blind. Fair warning.

All of that is only the current idenitity.

I was never here to prove my theism. I was here to state the reasons for theism.

Logical reasons are hard to come by for theism, I admit that. Theism is more of personal experiences. Once you experience a unique something, it can change your life forever.

That's garbage and you know it. All those special feelings are just a hiccup in your brain. Religious experiences have all been explained as the lack of oxygen to the brain. Drug use does the same thing.

Fair enough, I'm not spending my airfare money just to vist you...

I believe in Herbert!

True, extraordinary claims do require extraordinary evidence. But extraoridinary evidence (visions, sightings, etc.) aren't verifiable (as in constantly/consistently repeated, experimented, etc.*), no doubt they are extraoridinary *if* true, but how would you provide proof for an extraoriginary claim?

It is a dilemma.

*Extraordinary claims - if they were constantly/consistently repeatable/experimental, etc. would you call it extraordinary?

Black Holes are extraordinary and yet we can detect them consistently. This status may change as we progress, but at one point any phenomena is extraordinary. At one point the Copernican solar model was an extraordinary claim. It had extraordinary proof and we moved on. The Copernican model defeated the theistic opposition.

 

[Raithere]

Re: ~Interesting~

Originally posted by ~The_Chosen~
Atheism results FROM theism

You need to clear it up with yourself and the rest of the atheists here.
Let's say theism never existed, would anyone call themself an atheist? "Atheism" would be an unknown word.

Thus, they would all be agnostics or "without knowledge"

Atheism is not derived from the Theistic argument it is the refutation of the Theistic argument. Your statement is as absurd as saying that without people who believe in Santa Claus there wouldn't be people who didn't believe in Santa Claus. You may define something by it's opposite but that does not mean that it doesn't exist without it's opposite. If there were no liquid would the state of being dry cease to exist.

And just an added point; without Theism no one would call themselves Agnostic either. If no one believed in God how could someone be unsure of whether it existed or not. Or do you walk around daily wondering if Whinny the Pooh and Darth Vader may or may not be real?

~Raithere

 

[Andrew111]

Look inside you own hart and surch your soul see if you are a good person if you listen to any one else you could be lead in a direction thats not your choice.And only you can decide.

 

[Adam]

Damn right Andrew111. All spiritual truth comes from inside. If you get it from outside, it's a crutch.

 

[Teg]

. All spiritual truth comes from inside. If you get it from outside, it's a crutch.

That is a sure indictment of organized religion. Their influence has nothing to do with internal growth. Indoctrination is closer to the truth. So from your statement religion is a crutch. That sounds like what Governor Ventura surmised.

 

[Adam]

For the followers, religion is a crutch.

For the leaders, it is a power-tool.