Definitions: Atheism and Agnosticsm.

[Cris]

Jade,

I don't see how the assertion that something infinite must exist in order for the universe to be here can be justified.

If there was a point where nothing existed then there could be no cause for anything to begin. Therefore something must have always existed. I.e. something must have the property of infinity.

Let's take a closed universe, for example. It has no boundary, but it is not infinite.

If it closed then it does have a boundary otherwise it could not be defined as closed.

Let me re-phrase to avoid that interpretation of ‘boundary’.

Infinity is simply something that does not have a limit.

 

[Cris]

Okinrus,

Since the existence of God is not a scientific question,

Science means knowledge.

From Webster: Science - the state of knowing: knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding.

Clearly the determination of the existence of God must be a matter for science if it is to be part of human knowledge.

scientific techniques can not be relied upon to produce a correct answer.

The scientific method has proved itself the best method developed by man for the discovery of knowledge.

If you disagree then please describe a superior method and give examples of its application.

 

[okinrus]

If you disagree then please describe a superior method and give examples of its application.

This depends on what sort of knowledge. Your will find it really difficult to apply the scientific method to diverse fields such art, mathematics, music, foreign languages, and literature. So we should probably differentiate between a science and science..

Clearly the determination of the existence of God must be a matter for science if it is to be part of human knowledge.

The hypothesis here is impossible to prove, therefore the existance of will never part of human knowledge.

 

[revbill2001]

Originally posted by wesmorris
Damnit are you sure? Shit i think I might have it backwards. Straighten me out please. I was thinking that Theism and Atheism are two non-intersecting circles within in the intersection of agnosticism and (what do you call someone believes in knowledge from authority?) (trying to describe it like a Venn Diagram).

Theism states that there is a God or Gods, Atheism states that there is no God, Agnosticism says show me. It all depends upon your point of view. As Brother Dave Gardner so succinctly stated,: "The Northern Babtists say there ain't no Hell, the southern babtists say the hell there ain't." Hope this helps you.

 

[biblthmp]

Strong Atheism

To be a strong atheist, demands that one be omniscient, a quality only possessed by diety. So a stron atheist has declared him/herself to be a god.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Re: Strong Atheism

Originally posted by biblthmp
To be a strong atheist, demands that one be omniscient, a quality only possessed by diety. So a stron atheist has declared him/herself to be a god.

Your assumption is incorrect. How can one be an atheist if he/she believes that the Spirit of God resides within the human race and in all things created in the universe? This IS belief in God. How the Spirit of God manifests in this world is not questioned by those who understand the efficacy of God's grace. It is only the Xians who question God. Therefore, they are the true non-believers (i.e. atheists).

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by revbill2001
Theism states that there is a God or Gods, Atheism states that there is no God, Agnosticism says show me. It all depends upon your point of view. As Brother Dave Gardner so succinctly stated,: "The Northern Babtists say there ain't no Hell, the southern babtists say the hell there ain't." Hope this helps you.

So you read this whole thread and that is still how you interpret those terms? You need to re-read the first 15 or 20 posts and think about it a bit.

I appreciate your effort, but no, it wasn't helpfull. Actually I was mostly right except in that my Venn diagram expression was incorrect since I don't think agnosticism and whatever you call it when someone believes in knowledge from authority have an intersection. The poster I was asking to straighten me out had his defs a little mixed up. I think it's all straighted out now, except in your head!

Hehe.. remember, agnosticism really isn't a position on the existence of god(s). It can lead to one though. Agnostics usually (in my experience anyway) end up as "weak atheists".

 

[Cris]

Biblthmp,

To be a strong atheist, demands that one be omniscient,

Or simply logical.

a quality only possessed by deity.

And you know this because, what, you are omniscient as well right?

So a strong atheist has declared him/herself to be a god.

Just like you.

But realistically strong atheists tend to argue against a particular God. And the arguments tend to of the type that show that such a god cannot exist and is hence logically impossible and thus does not exist. One does not have to be omniscient to be able to argue logically.

You on the other hand are claiming that you know everything so you can claim that only gods can be omniscient. You have at least two major problems; (1) you can’t show that anything can be omniscient, and (2) you can’t show that any type of god can or does exist.

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by Jade Squirrel
That's assuming there is something outside of existence, an assumption that also has no evidence on which to be based. If you absolutely have to assume something (which we seem to agree you do in this case), then it is logical to make the simplest possible assumption. It is simpler to assume that reality is what it is than to assume that there is something outside of reality that must provide meaning to reality as we know it.

What is it [Referring to reality]? When you can define it then you can assume that it is what it is... Or are you saying it is what we make of it? In which case it could be anything. Unless you are going to try to escape it by saying reality is the result of [+] whatever and [-] whatever which is nothing. But the question still remains, do you exist or are you nothing? Then... what is nothing?

It sounds like you are talking about belief, not faith. Merriam-Webster points out that while both belief and faith mean assent to the truth of something offered for acceptance, belief may or may not imply certitude in the believer, while faith almost always implies certitude even where there is no evidence or proof. Again, we are left with the problem of what can really constitute evidence when we are seeking to determine whether evidence is really reliable in and of itself, but I believe I have addressed that above.

Well we both agreed that faith is a subset of belief. In other words, wherever there is belief, there is faith. Therefore if you believe anything, faith eventually will have to come into play [unless you simply refuse to appreciate the fact]. If you dissect it right down to your existence and your reality, faith comes into play. On that basis, providing you believe in some sort of reality, you are as 'faithful' as I am and just as 'religious'.

Perhaps they can claim that it is not a matter of faith, but of knowledge in their so-called spiritual realm. The fact is, however, that there is no evidence that such a realm exists. Therefore their claims of knowledge are unimportant in the "real world".

I'm sure they don't claim that. They just simply accept that fact that what they believe is a product of their faith. Then the question of what consitutes evidence? Something that is available for all to appreciate without any "leaps of faith" and can be repeatedly tested yielding relatively similar results? What they experience is their evidence. It cannot be tested by science except through indirect means. In other words, evidence is whatever you want evidence to be.

Well, I can't speak for all atheists, but I have found peace and contentment in accepting whatever life has to offer, and nothing more. Perhaps I'll live longer after all.

That's obvious from your posts. Based on your inner peace and the possible implications of that study, you should give Wes and some other Consequent Atheists... some advice on how to live life; if they want to, they might just live longer.

And about not believing as an expression of uncertainty, I definitely appreciate the distinction, I just think it is better to say you are unsure when you are unsure - avoids embarrassment don't you think? And the fact still remains, you can believe and be unsure, not believe and be unsure. I just can't see the necessity in emphasising the distinction... believe or not you still don't know if it's true... and your belief won't affect it in truth.

Oh and about truth... even if the ultimate truth is that there are no truths, that's what it is... the ultimate truth. In other words there has to be an ultimate truth.

 

[wesmorris]

Originally posted by MarcAC
you should give Wes and some other Consequent Atheists... some advice on how to live life; if they want to, they might just live longer.

Kiss my ass you condescending jerk!



Seriously, that's just fucking rude dude. You don't know shit about me. You have no idea how I live. Presumptuous ass.



You're just mad cuz I whooped up on you debate-wise. PANZY! LOL

 

[Jade Squirrel]

Originally posted by okinrus
Creating a perfect circle though would prove that infinity exists .

As a mathematical concept perhaps, but as not something that has or can be observed in the real world. Although a geometric circle can theoretically be divided into an infinite number of slices, in the physical world, the number of slices would be limited by Planck length, the smallest measurement of length that has any meaning in classical space-time.

Originally posted by Cris
If it closed then it does have a boundary otherwise it could not be defined as closed.

Let me re-phrase to avoid that interpretation of ‘boundary’.

Infinity is simply something that does not have a limit.

Okay, the rephrasing solves that problem, but one question: where would the boundary of a closed universe be? You must not be talking about a spatial boundary.

Originally posted by revbill2001
Theism states that there is a God or Gods, Atheism states that there is no God, Agnosticism says show me.

You're close, but that's not quite correct. Theism and atheism deal with the realm of belief. Theists believe in God, while atheists do not. Some atheists have an explicit belief that God does not exist (strong atheism). Those who simply disbelieve are weak atheists. Theism and atheism, by themselves, are not statements about the existence of God. This is, in fact, more relevant to gnosticism and agnosticism, which deal with the realm of knowledge.

Gnostics claim to have knowledge about the existence of God. They may claim to know that God exists (gnostic theism) or that God does not exist (gnostic atheism). Agnostics claim no such knowledge. They can believe that God exists but not claim to have personal knowledge of this (agnostic theism) or not believe that God exists and not claim to have personal knowledge of this (agnostic atheists).

Originally posted by biblthmp
To be a strong atheist, demands that one be omniscient, a quality only possessed by diety. So a stron atheist has declared him/herself to be a god.

That is one of the stupidest and most ignorant things I've heard. To be a strong atheist merely requires one to believe that God or gods do not exist.

Originally posted by Medicine*Woman
How can one be an atheist if he/she believes that the Spirit of God resides within the human race and in all things created in the universe? This IS belief in God.

Specifically, pantheism.

 

[atheroy]

I don't think the universe is infinite, at least the mass in the universe is not infinite. However there's almost less proof that infinity could exist than God. Have you seen or counted to an infinite number? So infinity too may just exist as a mathematical idea.

you hit the nail on the head. everything is a human theory, an idea, a belief. they have no basis in reality or no meaning other than that of describing things around us.

There are religions such as Buddhism and Raelism that disbelieve in God.

i wasn’t talking about those, when I refer to religion I refer to the ones with beliefs in god.

I don't see why God couldn't create us physically using evolution or create the universe using the big bang. I've found that most of the "contradictions" are not really contradictions. Some of the storys in the old testament may have been embelshed. The Jewish people were not only interested in teaching the faith but also making it entertaining. Other parts are errors from scribes. Origen describes some of these in the new testament.

you don’t want to see that fact that there are contradictions? one of the reasons god can’t have created us through evolution is because you then lose all basis for god in the christian sense.

I found that site before you posted it and was the source of my "your atheist site". Yes I'm aware that people don't own every site they go to, but they should use varied sources of information. I think it's inaccurace because it's the only site that I could find with the claim that less than half reported seeing the sun dance. So I will dismiss it. I have found this site makes the claim that 150 people gave testimony of the miracle. I have as yet found a site with all the witness testimonies so if you can find one post it.

what makes it a miracle??????? nothing suggests it’s a miracle. why is it a miracle?

I will not usually believe a claim on an atheist site on face value without looking it up on other sites. Christianity is not based upon a mountain of lies. If we have faith we can move mountains so this is what christianity is inevitably based upon.

lol, you crack me up. christianity is not based on a mountain of lies? that is a good one. and what makes you think atheist sites are all out there peddling disinformation. the christian sites i’ve been to have all lied generously to cover up the contradictions which you don’t seem to see. they’re there, and you just won’t accept, like every other christian I know.

however the concept of infinity cannot be completely comprehended by the human mind. Our minds should not be capable of understanding the infinite.

yeah, it’s a human concept that has factual basis. human concepts are only made up to help us describe things. when i said the universe was infinite i meant that it was sure as hell as close as anything we’ll get. you also gave the example of where i hadn’t counted to infinity, it’s just another human assumption that you can keep on counting forever, there is no upper limit.

Creating a perfect circle though would prove that infinity exists .

you’re talking about the strip of paper you twist and then join at the ends. it is the edge that’s infinite. a circle is most definitely finite.

 

[Jade Squirrel]

Originally posted by atheroy
i wasn’t talking about those, when I refer to religion I refer to the ones with beliefs in god.

As religion does not require a God or gods, perhaps theism is a better term to use.

you’re talking about the strip of paper you twist and then join at the ends. it is the edge that’s infinite. a circle is most definitely finite.

What do you mean by the "infinite edge"?

 

[Jade Squirrel]

Originally posted by MarcAC
What is it [Referring to reality]? When you can define it then you can assume that it is what it is... Or are you saying it is what we make of it? In which case it could be anything. Unless you are going to try to escape it by saying reality is the result of [+] whatever and [-] whatever which is nothing. But the question still remains, do you exist or are you nothing? Then... what is nothing?

When I speak of reality, I mean that which relates to practical or everyday concerns or activities. Perhaps reality is not what it appears to be, but if this is true, then it doesn't really matter anyway because all we can experience is what is real in this world. The question of whether we really exist can only be answered in terms of reality as we know it; anything else is philosophy and irrelevant to everyday life. As for "nothing", I suppose that this would simply be the opposite of "something".

Well we both agreed that faith is a subset of belief. In other words, wherever there is belief, there is faith. Therefore if you believe anything, faith eventually will have to come into play [unless you simply refuse to appreciate the fact]. If you dissect it right down to your existence and your reality, faith comes into play. On that basis, providing you believe in some sort of reality, you are as 'faithful' as I am and just as 'religious'.

Faith is a subset of belief, not the other way around. You can have belief without faith, but faith always requires belief. Therefore having belief does not always require faith and is therefore not religious by nature.

I'm sure they don't claim that. They just simply accept that fact that what they believe is a product of their faith. Then the question of what consitutes evidence? Something that is available for all to appreciate without any "leaps of faith" and can be repeatedly tested yielding relatively similar results? What they experience is their evidence. It cannot be tested by science except through indirect means. In other words, evidence is whatever you want evidence to be.

If that evidence is good enough for them personally, then that's all they need. But this type of evidence is useless to anyone other than the person experiencing it.

And about not believing as an expression of uncertainty, I definitely appreciate the distinction, I just think it is better to say you are unsure when you are unsure - avoids embarrassment don't you think?

I never stated that I was sure, only what I believe.

And the fact still remains, you can believe and be unsure, not believe and be unsure. I just can't see the necessity in emphasising the distinction...

I don't see a distinction in what you just typed. Perhaps you missed a word?

believe or not you still don't know if it's true... and your belief won't affect it in truth.

Agreed.

Oh and about truth... even if the ultimate truth is that there are no truths, that's what it is... the ultimate truth. In other words there has to be an ultimate truth.

I'm not sure I could make the claim that there must be an ultimate truth, so to speak.

 

[atheroy]

What do you mean by the "infinite edge"?

i guess it's measurable, but it's also never ending, so it's kind of infinite and finite at the same time. if you want an actual physical explanation the best thing is to try it as i don't think i could properly explain the effect. take a piece of A4 paper, cut a strip off the side or top, hold it end to end, turn one end through 180 degrees then join the two ends off the strip of paper. the effect is a never-ending edge. try it is all i can say.

 

[okinrus]

you don’t want to see that fact that there are contradictions? one of the reasons god can’t have created us through evolution is because you then lose all basis for god in the christian sense.

Physical creation could have been done through just about hundreds of ways. The only requirement for a non-contradicting interpretation is that God worked with natural material ie. dust.

lol, you crack me up. christianity is not based on a mountain of lies? that is a good one. and what makes you think atheist sites are all out there peddling disinformation. the christian sites i’ve been to have all lied generously to cover up the contradictions which you don’t seem to see. they’re there, and you just won’t accept, like every other christian I know.

If I cannot find a historical fact in a .edu site and find at least 2 or 3 referances then I won't believe it. Also all other reports that I've read say 70,000 witness it. Without any other knowledge that would mean all 70,000 saw the miracle. I find it really doubtfull that even a seventh of the people there would write reports on what they saw. Did they "waste" 10,000 pieces of paper. Or maybe the children and illiterate peasants wrote their testimony. So the evidence that Jane gave is doubtful at best. Certainly I would need more proof to believe in it. If what she said was true, it would have been made public in the approval of Fatima by the catholic church. I'm not saying that the Church would not approve of it, it's just you'd find more bishops not approving it and citing the evidence. I did find a pretty good skeptical paper written on fatima but I'm going to have to search for it.

what makes it a miracle??????? nothing suggests it’s a miracle. why is it a miracle?

Here is a definition of a <a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm">miracle</a>
Obviously a miracle does not prove God, since any miracle is only a creation of God.

yeah, it’s a human concept that has factual basis. human concepts are only made up to help us describe things. when i said the universe was infinite i meant that it was sure as hell as close as anything we’ll get. you also gave the example of where i hadn’t counted to infinity, it’s just another human assumption that you can keep on counting forever, there is no upper limit.

No, the only reason why we deal with infinity is because our mathematical system finds it useful. There's no factual basis because you do not comprehend infinity much less say it does not or does exist. Our moral system also finds God useful, but we throw him out for other reasons correct?

you’re talking about the strip of paper you twist and then join at the ends. it is the edge that’s infinite. a circle is most definitely finite.

There is an implicit limit creating a perfect circle. It implies that we can subdivide the circle into infinitely small slices. The total number of slices would be unbounded less we have an imperfect circle.

i wasn’t talking about those, when I refer to religion I refer to the ones with beliefs in god.

I think some buddhists believe in the supernatual. This of course depends on what school of buddhism. Some even believe in a creator God. So what your basically saying is that buddhist A is religious but buddhist B is not.

 

[atheroy]

Physical creation could have been done through just about hundreds of ways. The only requirement for a non-contradicting interpretation is that God worked with natural material ie. dust.

adam and eve are the basis of christian religion. if god did not create them the way the bible puts forwards (as well as the events which expired) then there is no basis for christianity.

Obviously a miracle does not prove God, since any miracle is only a creation of God.

you can't see past god can you?

No, the only reason why we deal with infinity is because our mathematical system finds it useful.

did i say otherwise? what i thought i said was that it is a human concept, just like everything else we believe.

There's no factual basis because you do not comprehend infinity much less say it does not or does exist.

i comprehend it alright, because it's a human concept.

Our moral system also finds God useful, but we throw him out for other reasons correct?

i don't find god useful to my morals. my morals are perfectly fine without him. i never had god to throw out in the first place- i didn't even now about god till i was about 10.

There is an implicit limit creating a perfect circle. It implies that we can subdivide the circle into infinitely small slices. The total number of slices would be unbounded less we have an imperfect circle.

sorry, forgot about that definition.

I think some buddhists believe in the supernatual. This of course depends on what school of buddhism. Some even believe in a creator God. So what your basically saying is that buddhist A is religious but buddhist B is not.

man you're difficult. you read into somethings ignore others, replace then theism with religion. happy?

 

[Cris]

Okinrus,

Physical creation could have been done through just about hundreds of ways. The only requirement for a non-contradicting interpretation is that God worked with natural material ie. dust.

As atheroy says that without the Adam and Eve story Christianity loses its basis. It was their original sins that condemned mankind to death and which triggered the need and justification for a savior, i.e. Jesus. If God didn’t create these two originals and we all evolved from simpler forms then Christianity is gibberish.

Since biological evolution is fact then Christianity is gibberish.

 

[Cris]

Jade,

where would the boundary of a closed universe be? You must not be talking about a spatial boundary.

I’m not sure how to answer this since if the universe is everything then there cannot be an outside to be closed from.

When I refer to the concept of an infinite universe I usually have infinite time in mind. Infinite space is less important for the current discussion.

 

[MarcAC]

Originally posted by wesmorris
Kiss my ass you condescending jerk!

My apologies if I have offended you... it's not my intention to sound condescending.

Seriously, that's just fucking rude dude [nice rhyme]. You don't know shit about me. You have no idea how I live. Presumptuous ass.

One can tell a lot about a person from the subject's points of view on life. 'Wes', referred specifically to that person who is represented by the posts posted by 'Wes Morris'... oh... you could also call it aaaa... dig?... yeah... subtle but effective it seems. You should learn to give a little and take a little bro.

You're just mad cuz I whooped up on you debate-wise. PANZY! LOL.

I don't think anyone can ever win a 'debate' of opinions, but, if it suits you to think you achieved some major victory... by jingo go ahead and revel in it.