Definitions: Atheism and Agnosticsm.

Originally posted by okinrus
70,000 saw the dancing sun at fatima and thousands saw the apparition at Zeitun. The photographs at Zeitun add considerable weight to the testomony of the people who saw the apparition and there were also many medicle miracles. The main difference between this evidence and scientific evidence is that scientific evidence must be repeatable. However I see no reason to doubt what the people who were there said because it is not entirely scientific. So my faith is "irrational" somewhat but still based upon evidence.
Okay, so on October 13, 1917, 70,000 or so pilgrims flocked to Cova da Iria expecting to see a miracle. The little girl exuberantly tells everyone to look at the sun. Now it should be noted that out of these 70,000, less than half actually reported seeing anything unusual. And the reports of those who actually claimed to have seen something varied. For example, some reported seeing the sun sway from side to side, while others claim to have watched it spin violently in circles. Others saw the sun casting a rainbow over everything. And still others saw it change colours. The bottom line is that not everyone saw the same thing while the majority saw nothing at all.

If you have studied any amount of the psychology of perception, you would know that our expectations greatly colour our perceptions. People expecting to see some sort of a miracle are more susceptible to perceiving things that never really happened. It is no coincidence that the rest of the world reported seeing nothing unusual with the sun. It's also strange to note that while there are many pictures of people witnessing the alleged miracle, no one seems to have bothered to take a picture of the "miracle" itself. Besides, there are much more plausible explanations for what these people actually saw. I mean, really, what do you expect to happen when you do something stupid like looking directly at the sun?

The dancing sun can be explained by the fact that the eye cannot focus on an object as bright as the sun. The eyes of those foolishly attempting to glare into the sun would have darted back and forth, creating image and after-image, resulting in the appearance that the sun was "dancing". The eyes may also attempt to focus, retreat, attempt again, et cetera, creating the illusion that the sun is pulsating. About the colour changes, have you ever noticed that when you see a bright light, the image gets "burned" onto your retinas for a short period of time? During that time, the burned image (often of varying colours) obscures your visual field and jumps around to wherever you may move your eyes. In this case, it would have the effect of making the sun appear to move back and forth in the sky or even fall to the horizon and return back to its original place. The point is that looking directly at the sun will cause all sorts of weird things to happen, and these things are by no means miracles.

The sightings at Zeitoun have been attributed to tectonic strain-induced luminosities. An analysis of seismic activity in that region revealed an unprecedented peak in the number of earthquakes during the period of the alleged "miracles". It appears that the Marian observers were predisposed by religious background and social expectation to interpreting the light displays as related to the Virgin Mary. It is interesting to additionally note that there have been a larger number of reports of UFO phenomena during historical periods of tectonic stress release. According to Tectonic Strain Theory, anomalous luminous phenomena are generated by brief, local changes in strain that precede earthquakes within the region. Psychological factors determine more elaborate details of the experiences because there are both direct stimulations of the observer's brain as well as indirect contributions from reinforcement history. A good summary of Tectonic Strain Theory can be found here.

And as for the medical miracles, it has been well-documented how the power of the mind and our beliefs have a great influence on healing. Here is a good article.

The definition of words is based upon conventual usage and this is based upon numbers.
And this is reflected in dictionary definitions, not Google searches.

While anarchy is the abstance of goverment, it can still be defined as a system of goverment because it has one law of goverment: "There is no goverment". The goverment is defined entirely by individuals but the rule "there is no goverment" is universal and could be considered part of a govern system.
Laws are made by governments. A law that "there is no government" cannot be proclaimed or enforced if there is no government to do this. As soon as a law is proclaimed (even if it is one abolishing government), a government, by definition, exists. Once this happens it is no longer true anarchy.
 
I highly doubt people could stare at the sun for so long without damaging there eyes. I haven't investigated this too much though. However there are photographs http://hesemann.watchers.ca/fatimasun.html


The sightings at Zeitoun have been attributed to tectonic strain-induced luminosities. An analysis of seismic activity in that region revealed an unprecedented peak in the number of earthquakes during the period of the alleged "miracles". It appears that the Marian observers were predisposed by religious background and social expectation to interpreting the light displays as related to the Virgin Mary.
I highly doubt that considering that the activity was 200 miles away. I'm glad that you admit that something happended but I don't really think that earthquakes could cause a sustained "apparition" for 18 hoursmakes so this kind of supernatual. Besides, the chances that this kind of activity would produce an "apparition" overtop of a church built because of an earlier prediction are astronomical.


And this is reflected in dictionary definitions, not Google searches.
Not really. For example, the dictionary companies might define their words by basically a panel of language experts whose collective knowledge builds up the definitions. Anyways the definition of atheism in webster clearly states "2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity" so athesim is a doctrin that is believed by atheist.

Now it should be noted that out of these 70,000, less than half actually reported seeing anything unusual.
This is untrue and unless you care to substantiate your evidence then I'm not going to believe it. You make a doubtful claim that less than half actually reported anything unusual. I highly doubt testimony was writen down 70,000 or even 35,000
Also there's no reason that the sun could not do different things in sequence.
 
By your own use of logic we should bear in mind that hundreds of millions of people believe in the abrahamic god but they have no firm evidence to substantiate their claims. In other words, 70,000 delusional people is just a drop in the bucket compared to hundreds of millions.

By delusional I mean more specifically, "willing to accept flimsy to zero evidence to substantiate claims that warrent rock solid proof".

Your need to believe in something outweighs your skepticism. That's fine if you don't care much for making sense.
 
No, what I'm saying is that common usage of a word is inevitably used to define it. If you look up atheism using webster one of the archaic definitions is wickedness and ungodliness. The definition did not change because webster suddenly decided so. Rather conventual usage changed.

By delusional I mean more specifically, "willing to accept flimsy to zero evidence to substantiate claims that warrent rock solid proof".
Ok, but look at it this way. If my behavior changes negatively because of belief in God, then I would believe in a different God or no God at all. But if my belief causes a positive benefit, but disbelief causes a negative benefit, then it's disbelief that must come up with a rock solid proof.
 
Okinrus,

…if my belief causes a positive benefit, but disbelief causes a negative benefit, then it's disbelief that must come up with a rock solid proof.
That’s very quirky and irrational reasoning again.

Truth is not dependent on whether it is believed or not. Truth may very well be unpleasant.

The placebo effect is a good example where the belief itself causes a positive effect, yet the perceived underlying cause is inert. Well placed optimism and hope are powerful psychological factors that assist in human survival. The actual existence of gods or the supernatural are irrelevant in these cases.

But theistic beliefs and beliefs in a supernatural realm are ultimately negative since they assume and trust that death is a gateway to something better. In short they see the worst possible outcome for human life as something good. They are the ultimate evil; they twist the human mind into believing that death is to be welcomed, rather than be fought against with every effort.

Fortunately most scientists are not religious and it is their efforts that we need to solve our mortal issues of death and disease. http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm
 
Originally posted by okinrus
No, what I'm saying is that common usage of a word is inevitably used to define it. If you look up atheism using webster one of the archaic definitions is wickedness and ungodliness. The definition did not change because webster suddenly decided so. Rather conventual usage changed.

I looked up four different definitions. Wickedness is not in any of them. Did you lie on purpose or are you so conditioned that you immediately associate the two? They said "Godlessness" not "ungodliness". Did you even look it up before claiming you knew what it said when you look it up? Maybe you just have an old dictionary eh?
Originally posted by okinrus

Ok, but look at it this way. If my behavior changes negatively because of belief in God, then I would believe in a different God or no God at all.
My my how we convolute the issues. You just can't keep it clear can you? Makes me think you're doing it on purpose in an attempt to waste everyone's time. Hence my fraud comment from before. I'll admit to the stupidity of the endeavor to respond, though I wouldn't do it if I wasn't getting something out of it myself.

Truth, okinrus, does not sway with your withering belief systems. In fact your ridiculous beliefs have no objective impact on truth whatsoever. You (of course) missed the point of my last comment in my last post: Your need to believe in something outweighs your skepticism. That's fine if you don't care much for making sense.

Do you understand what that means? I don't think you do.
Originally posted by okinrus

But if my belief causes a positive benefit
Doesn't your belief system require you not to judge? Yet you just judged? You are judge and jury for "postive benefit" or is it your preacher? You aren't allowed to think for yourself brother, so how in the hell do you find yourself in the position to make such a judgement? I would say that belief in total bullshit is a negative thing period.
Originally posted by okinrus

, but disbelief causes a negative benefit, then it's disbelief that must come up with a rock solid proof.

You can obviously believe whatever stupid shit you want but again it has no objective bearing on truth. You think your assessment of positive and negative benefit shifts the burdon of proof? I think you're a fraud. Is either assessment valid?
 
Wes,

I looked up four different definitions. Wickedness is not in any of them. Did you lie on purpose or are you so conditioned that you immediately associate the two? They said "Godlessness" not "ungodliness". Did you even look it up before claiming you knew what it said when you look it up? Maybe you just have an old dictionary eh?
The older dictionaries do in fact describe atheism as wicked. This has been the dominant view for most of the last 2000 years.

The discoveries of Darwin marked a massive turning point in that trend and where atheism has been gaining ground ever since.

Atheism is still seen and interpreted by many Christians as a rejection of God. The assumption is that atheists know that God exists but choose not to acknowledge him. This seems to be still a current issue.
 
I looked up four different definitions. Wickedness is not in any of them. Did you lie on purpose or are you so conditioned that you immediately associate the two? They said "Godlessness" not "ungodliness". Did you even look it up before claiming you knew what it said when you look it up? Maybe you just have an old dictionary eh?
No, I lookup atheism using webster <a href = "http://www.webster.com">here</a> Also I'm not lying, it was Jade Squirrel who posted the inaccurate information. I believe it was from one of your lying atheist sites so mistakes like this are ok and I don't have need to go around calling others liers.

My my how we convolute the issues. You just can't keep it clear can you? Makes me think you're doing it on purpose in an attempt to waste everyone's time. Hence my fraud comment from before. I'll admit to the stupidity of the endeavor to respond, though I wouldn't do it if I wasn't getting something out of it myself.
It's simple risk accessment. Aheism is a more risky decision so it requires more proof. Just like airplanes are more tested then other devices that could fail.

Truth, okinrus, does not sway with your withering belief systems. In fact your ridiculous beliefs have no objective impact on truth whatsoever. You (of course) missed the point of my last comment in my last post: Your need to believe in something outweighs your skepticism. That's fine if you don't care much for making sense.
What exactly is your point. You don't believe because you don't want to.

Doesn't your belief system require you not to judge? Yet you just judged? You are judge and jury for "postive benefit" or is it your preacher? You aren't allowed to think for yourself brother, so how in the hell do you find yourself in the position to make such a judgement? I would say that belief in total bullshit is a negative thing period.
Is this some sort of relativism going on here? Personal positive benefit completely unrelated to any one else. However I don't really see how non-belief in God would cause any benefits. This is why I say that it has higher risk associated with it. More or less, it's Pascal's wager but the chance of God's existance is not 0. It is considerably higher because of the possible miralces. Therefore I'm more willing to believe in God.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by okinrus
No, I lookup atheism using webster <a href = "http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary">here</a> Also I'm not lying, it was Jade Squirrel who posted the inaccurate information. I believe it was from one of your lying atheist sites so mistakes like this are ok and I don't have need to go around calling others liers.

I don't have any atheist sites, let alone lying ones. Your link doesn't work and you are at the same site I looked at. Makes me think you're a LIAR. Maybe not, fix the link or something. Regardless your point was refuted with my kung-fu. :D

Originally posted by okinrus
It's simple risk accessment. Atheism is a more risky decision so it requires more proof.
So all of this because you're scared? Panzy. Maybe you're just a child, in which case I could express a bit more understanding but as an adult I just "humongous wussy" you for your fear of where doubt might take you.
Originally posted by okinrus
Just like airplanes are more tested then other devices that could fail.
I see what you're trying to say but as usual it makes no sense. You are mistaken. Airplanes are tested ad infinitum because of the risk to lives. They are tested via the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Hell man, we're only using REASON here, not confining it to the scientific method but you can't seem to make sense. Ack.
Originally posted by okinrus
What exactly is your point. You don't believe because you don't want to.
No, my point is that you employ circular logic over and over again in twisted ignorance to justify your eronious belief and I will not be a party to it. You are a fool and as a resultant you spew things that are simply untrue all because you're either ill-equiped to tackle the issue at hand or you're too much of a panzy to adhere to reason. I would hypothesize that if there IS a god, you do that creature a GREAT disservice by deliberately sabotaging the one true gift you could have: A FUNCTIONAL MIND. For that, I judge you a SHAM. Maybe you're just a confused kid. In that case, pardon...
Originally posted by okinrus
Is this some sort of relativism going on here?
There always is when the conversation is external to your head.
Originally posted by okinrus
Personal positive benefit completely unrelated to any one else.
What about the impact on society? What about the impact on the evolution of the species? What about your impact on the freedoms of others? What about your disservice to yourself? What if it turns out that you don't know ANYTHING because you have yet to gain the experiences that the rest of your life will be built upon? Eh, it's just that nothing is ever purely "good" or "bad" and the impact on the larger system is incredibly difficult to gauge.
Originally posted by okinrus
However I don't really see how non-belief in God would cause any benefits.
How could you? You're a believer so you don't get it. Hell man, you can't even think straight... how do you expect to "get" anything?
Originally posted by okinrus
This is why I say that it has higher risk associated with it.
How is that risk? You don't understand man. Have you ever studied complex systems at all? The butterfly starting the hurricane kind of thing? You cannot know what effect your actions will have in the larger system. Hell man, what if you saved Hitler's life before he came to power? God's plan? LOL. Man, that's sick.
Originally posted by okinrus

More or less, it's Pascal's wager but the chance of God's existance is not 0.
So what are you actually educated? You simply do not know that the change of god's existance is not 0. You're talking shit. Further, the main thing you religious types seem to forget is that whether or not there is a god is not really the issue as much as the eronious nature of your silly book.

1) ON GOD:

Don't have a clue, neither do you.


I have faith in reason. You have faith in god. My faith is much more practical. Yours turns your mind an endless circle of ignorance. Have fun with all that.

2) ON THE BIBLE:

The bible is a book written by humans. Divine inspiration is a myth. This is ultimately the same case as above.

Please, it's simply ridiculous to assert that the bible has any bearing on god. It may be man's ponderance of the supernatural in the form of a tale written over the ages... but that doesn't make it divine. Assertions that it was conceived of Divine inspiration are well, stupid for the reason that it would hold that (if we are children of god) all writings ever performed (including this one) are equivalently divine. As such, the point is utterly moot.

Who, other than man has ever told you that the bible is relevant? You should think about that a bit.

Originally posted by okinrus
It is considerably higher because of the possible miralces.

*sigh* I've got a miracle at my house. What's the big deal? Miracles happen all the time. It's called physics, chemistry... LIFE. IMO, being conscious and able to think clearly is the biggest miracle possible.. well, along with being able to appreciate the other interesting humans (like my family, friends, associates, etc.). Appreciation is maybe a huge miracle. Shit man, there's miracles all around and they don't have shit to do with the bible or what you would call god.

Originally posted by okinrus
Therefore I'm more willing to believe in God.

Therefore you're a lemming who is scared of an invisible sadist in the sky that your mommy and daddy said would hurt you if you touch yourself. GROW UP. (again, if you're a kid pardon, you should engage your peers rather than seek abuse on the internet).
 
I an offline copy of "Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary" which gives the same definition that you gave. However I'm specifically speaking of the online webster's archaic definition.

What about the impact on society? What about the impact on the evolution of the species? What about your impact on the freedoms of others? What about your disservice to yourself? What if it turns out that you don't know ANYTHING because you have yet to gain the experiences that the rest of your life will be built upon? Eh, it's just that nothing is ever purely "good" or "bad" and the impact on the larger system is incredibly difficult to gauge.
How exactly would non-belief in God affect your behavior?

I see what you're trying to say but as usual it makes no sense. You are mistaken. Airplanes are tested ad infinitum because of the risk to lives. They are tested via the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Hell man, we're only using REASON here, not confining it to the scientific method but you can't seem to make sense. Ack.
Some what, however I know that computer code isn't tested by the scientific method entirely. This is because the abstraction is logical and not physical just as God is supernatural and not natural. So there would be no way to use the scientific method to prove God because God simply isn't natural.

So what are you actually educated? You simply do not know that the change of god's existance is not 0. You're talking shit. Further, the main thing you religious types seem to forget is that whether or not there is a god is not really the issue as much as the eronious nature of your silly book.
Chance here somewhat subjective because the existance of God cannot be repeated in an experiement. However because there is evidence that God exists, it can be used to gage the probability of existance.

I have faith in reason. You have faith in god. My faith is much more practical. Yours turns your mind an endless circle of ignorance. Have fun with all that.
I have faith in reason and God.

Please, it's simply ridiculous to assert that the bible has any bearing on god. It may be man's ponderance of the supernatural in the form of a tale written over the ages... but that doesn't make it divine. Assertions that it was conceived of Divine inspiration are well, stupid for the reason that it would hold that (if we are children of god) all writings ever performed (including this one) are equivalently divine. As such, the point is utterly moot.
I haven't brought the bible into this. Does the the bible have any bearing on the existance of God?

Therefore you're a lemming who is scared of an invisible sadist in the sky that your mommy and daddy said would hurt you if you touch yourself. GROW UP. (again, if you're a kid pardon, you should engage your peers rather than seek abuse on the internet).
No, I wasn't taught that there was a God by mommy and daddy.
 
Originally posted by okinrus
I an offline copy of "Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary" which gives the same definition that you gave. However I'm specifically speaking of the online webster's archaic definition.
understood, addressed and forgotten yet you drag it back up. you had, as usual, a convolted bastardization of a point which was nullified by my (or potentially any fully reasonable individual) rebuttle.
Originally posted by okinrus

How exactly would non-belief in God affect your behavior?
Uhm, as it already does? It would be more pertinent to ask how it would effect yours.
Originally posted by okinrus

Some what, however I know that computer code isn't tested by the scientific method entirely. This is because the abstraction is logical and not physical just as God is supernatural and not natural. So there would be no way to use the scientific method to prove God because God simply isn't natural.
Thank you for finally having a lick of sense. God is not provable. As such, you still insist on believing. That is just stupid. As such, you are partaking of stupidity. Stupid head. :D
Originally posted by okinrus

Chance here somewhat subjective because the existance of God cannot be repeated in an experiement. However because there is evidence that God exists, it can be used to gage the probability of existance.
Again with the stupidity. I'd hope you'd eventually stop that. Look man, you just said "god is untestable" and then said "there is evidence that god exists". WHICH IS IT????????????????????????

ARE YOU MALFUNCTIONING? DON'T YOU SEE THAT YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH WAYS?

We should just agree that "god is untestable" and move on, yet I feel sure that you're obliged to continue to contradict yourself. *sigh*.

It's a shame too because you had it, and I know you'll miss it. The thing is bro, it doesn't go anywhere from there. God is untestable. That's it. Game over, end of story... yet you have faith.
Originally posted by okinrus

I have faith in reason and God.
I beg to differ. From all evidence I've seen regarding your analysis, I'd say you have faith in stupidity and god. You apparently have less than a tentative grasp on reason.
Originally posted by okinrus

I haven't brought the bible into this. Does the the bible have any bearing on the existance of God?
Yes you did (at least by inference, I'll look back to illustrate) and no it doesn't.
Originally posted by okinrus

No, I wasn't taught that there was a God by mommy and daddy.

Then who taught it to you?
 
sorry to butt in, but i hope my two cents aren't completely unwanted

It's simple risk accessment. Aheism is a more risky decision so it requires more proof. Just like airplanes are more tested then other devices that could fail.
how come it is more risky? i'm less prone to go start a war with some one, often use rational and reason better, and generally appreciate life more than that of my religious mates, therefore take better calculated risks. also, i ask why atheism needs more proof than religion. atheism has a wealth of proof, as far as i know religion tends to rely on badly written, contradictive books.

Is this some sort of relativism going on here? Personal positive benefit completely unrelated to any one else. However I don't really see how non-belief in God would cause any benefits. This is why I say that it has higher risk associated with it. More or less, it's Pascal's wager but the chance of God's existance is not 0. It is considerably higher because of the possible miralces. Therefore I'm more willing to believe in God.
non-belief in god is one of the only way's forward i see for humanity. religion is too restrictive, causes bad stuff, conforms thought, closes minds, devotes to money. (i'm sorry if i'm stepping on the toes of the more open minded, solo religionist's here, i tend to group them under atheism, hope no-one has a problem with that). we are in a seriously troubled state in the world, and religion is no answer to the problems. (ps, what possible miracles? the probabitlity of life times infinity (the universe) is always going to equal one, life is not a miracle if that was what you were implying).

How exactly would non-belief in God affect your behavior?
HUGELY. maily non-belief in religion though. it is just that god is normally synomous with religion, and religion is where you get the behavioural development and thought constrictions imposed.

However because there is evidence that God exists
i was just wondering what this evidence is. examples you've given before don't prove anything about god, and a dusty, crusty old book isn't much in the way of proof either.

I have faith in reason and God.
can you then reason out evolution, the big bang, the contradictions in the bible, the little actual proof for god?

ps, i don't not believe in god because i want to (makes sense yes/no?). i will try and understand peoples affiliation with faith, but i have never once encountered anything that would indicate the existance of god. if i ever do i'll tell you, i'm not in the business of lying to myself.
 
how come it is more risky? i'm less prone to go start a war with some one, often use rational and reason better, and generally appreciate life more than that of my religious mates, therefore take better calculated risks. also, i ask why atheism needs more proof than religion. atheism has a wealth of proof, as far as i know religion tends to rely on badly written, contradictive books.
I don't think so. Even when a religion teaches someone to be peaceful, wars are still caused; so I don't think wars a purely religious idea. Where is the wealth of proof though. Can you name one atheist country that hasn't self destructed?

non-belief in god is one of the only way's forward i see for humanity. religion is too restrictive, causes bad stuff, conforms thought, closes minds, devotes to money. (i'm sorry if i'm stepping on the toes of the more open minded, solo religionist's here, i tend to group them under atheism, hope no-one has a problem with that). we are in a seriously troubled state in the world, and religion is no answer to the problems. (ps, what possible miracles? the probabitlity of life times infinity (the universe) is always going to equal one, life is not a miracle if that was what you were implying).
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. Also having no way to physically prove God does not rule out spiritual proof. Mankind can only physically see God's creation such as the light that God made. Moses only saw the back of God.

HUGELY. maily non-belief in religion though. it is just that god is normally synomous with religion, and religion is where you get the behavioural development and thought constrictions imposed.
There are religions such as Buddhism and Raelism that disbelieve in God.

i was just wondering what this evidence is. examples you've given before don't prove anything about god, and a dusty, crusty old book isn't much in the way of proof either.
What kind of proof do you want?

can you then reason out evolution, the big bang, the contradictions in the bible, the little actual proof for 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.
 
Originally posted by okinrus
However there are photographs http://hesemann.watchers.ca/fatimasun.html
If that one picture is authentic, it is hardly convincing.

I highly doubt that considering that the activity was 200 miles away. I'm glad that you admit that something happended but I don't really think that earthquakes could cause a sustained "apparition" for 18 hoursmakes so this kind of supernatual. Besides, the chances that this kind of activity would produce an "apparition" overtop of a church built because of an earlier prediction are astronomical.
If the church was built there because the site was disposed to the exhibition of luminous phenomena, then it shouldn’t be coincidental that a luminous phenomenon would appear there again. Regardless, you are free to believe what you will about what happened at that Zeitoun. But, as you previously indicated, this event does not do anything to offer scientific evidence of Christianity or God in general. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Not really. For example, the dictionary companies might define their words by basically a panel of language experts whose collective knowledge builds up the definitions. Anyways the definition of atheism in webster clearly states "2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity" so athesim is a doctrin that is believed by atheist.
And the language experts are well-versed in the common usages of the words. With regard to Merriam-Webster’s definition 2b, this could be one possible definition of atheism, particularly useful for Christians trying to label atheism a religion, but it is not useful when describing most atheists. This is likely why it is not listed as the primary definition.

This is untrue and unless you care to substantiate your evidence then I'm not going to believe it. You make a doubtful claim that less than half actually reported anything unusual. I highly doubt testimony was writen down 70,000 or even 35,000
Also there's no reason that the sun could not do different things in sequence.
"Of the 70,000 people present, less than half of them reported seeing the sun dance and whirl about in the sky, detach itself and fall towards the earth, then return to its place." (http://www.anatheist.com/Articles/fatima.html)

The writer's sources are documented in the bibliography. I've also read at least one other account describing how only about half of the pilgrims reported seeing something unusual. But even if this information is incorrect and the entire group did see something unusual, I have already pointed out much more plausible explanations for what those idiots saw when they looked directly at the sun.

If my behavior changes negatively because of belief in God, then I would believe in a different God or no God at all.
That is, if you are aware of the negative behavioral change.

Originally posted by Cris
But theistic beliefs and beliefs in a supernatural realm are ultimately negative since they assume and trust that death is a gateway to something better. In short they see the worst possible outcome for human life as something good.
Exactly!

Originally posted by okinrus
Also I'm not lying, it was Jade Squirrel who posted the inaccurate information. I believe it was from one of your lying atheist sites so mistakes like this are ok and I don't have need to go around calling others liers.
I know you were not lying about the archaic definition of atheism. If you believe the information on the site I referenced (or any atheist site) to be inaccurate, then that is your prerogative. But while we are on the subject of lying, let us not forget the incredible mountain of lies upon which Christianity is based.

You don't believe because you don't want to.
Is that what you believe of all non-Christians?

However I don't really see how non-belief in God would cause any benefits. This is why I say that it has higher risk associated with it. More or less, it's Pascal's wager but the chance of God's existance is not 0.
Here's my own version of Pascal's wager:
1) If there is no God and I don't believe in him, then good for me.
2) If there is no God and I believe in him, then my whole life is going to be a colossal waste of time.
3) If there is a God and I don't believe in him, then I'm fucked if Christianity is correct. But it will have been worth it based on what I know right now.

Originally posted by wesmorris
Your link doesn't work and you are at the same site I looked at. Makes me think you're a LIAR. Maybe not, fix the link or something.
Just so you know, it's no lie. The definition is there.

How exactly would non-belief in God affect your behavior?
It frees up my time a lot so I can enjoy life and not have to worry about whether someone's watching me all the time. Have fun with that, by the way.
 
Originally posted by okinrus
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.
Correction, we know that the mass of the observable universe is not infinite. However, I tend to agree with you on the whole concept of infinity.

Also having no way to physically prove God does not rule out spiritual proof.
If that type of proof is good enough for you, then that's fine. Just don't expect this sort of proof to be published in any sort of scientific journal.

What kind of proof do you want?
How about "any"?

:) Okinrus, as an aside, I just thought I'd comment that I've noticed that your arguments and articulation have become much more coherent than I remember when you first posted here. Have you found that sciforums has been a good experience for you?
 
Originally posted by Jade Squirrel
Okinrus, as an aside, I just thought I'd comment that I've noticed that your arguments and articulation have become much more coherent than I remember when you first posted here.

You noticed too eh? This was the basis of my fraud commentary. Seems deceitful to me. Of course I might be wrong.
 
Okinrus,

I don't think the universe is infinite, at least the mass in the universe is not infinite.
You mean observable universe. If the big bang is just a bubble and if the current theories from MIT are correct then the real universe is likely to be filled with an infinite number of big bang bubbles.

However there's almost less proof that infinity could exist than God.
To the contrary, something infinite must exist otherwise nothing could ever have begun and we couldn’t be here. Either the universe is infinite or something that created it is infinite. Since there is no evidence of a creator and since we have no reason to believe that at any time the universe did not exist then on that basis I would bet on the universe being infinite, i.e. by Occams razor.

Have you seen or counted to an infinite number? So infinity too may just exist as a mathematical idea.
You misunderstand the nature of infinity. Infinity is simply something that does not have a boundary.
 
You noticed too eh? This was the basis of my fraud commentary. Seems deceitful to me. Of course I might be wrong.
I assure you that I'm the same person.

If the church was built there because the site was disposed to the exhibition of luminous phenomena, then it shouldn’t be coincidental that a luminous phenomenon would appear there again. Regardless, you are free to believe what you will about what happened at that Zeitoun. But, as you previously indicated, this event does not do anything to offer scientific evidence of Christianity or God in general. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
My plan here is not to convince someone of the existance God, a bit too ambitious goal, but to convince someone of the plausibility of God. With that said, the prophesy concerning Zeitoun was given in a dream to one of the coptics. There was no indication of luminous activity of course. Another prophesy of Mary returning to Egypt was given at another apparition site. What I find hard to believe about Zeitoun is that the US press barely mentioned it so this might point to a wider bias in the news. At the same time, UFO's which have almost no photographic evidence are over reported.

"Of the 70,000 people present, less than half of them reported seeing the sun dance and whirl about in the sky, detach itself and fall towards the earth, then return to its place." (http://www.anatheist.com/Articles/fatima.html)
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 <a href="http://www.catholic-center.rutgers.edu/FrAlCaprio/Medjugorje.html">site</a> 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.

I know you were not lying about the archaic definition of atheism. If you believe the information on the site I referenced (or any atheist site) to be inaccurate, then that is your prerogative. But while we are on the subject of lying, let us not forget the incredible mountain of lies upon which Christianity is based.
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.
 
You misunderstand the nature of infinity. Infinity is simply something that does not have a boundary.
Yes infinity is not a specific number, however the concept of infinity cannot be completely comprehended by the human mind. We can define an episilon delta limits but we cannot comprehend it.

You mean observable universe. If the big bang is just a bubble and if the current theories from MIT are correct then the real universe is likely to be filled with an infinite number of big bang bubbles.
Our theories of the unverse are starting to look like the heliocentric system of concentric circles. I doubt that any of them is completely correct though. As soon as science goes past observation and into guess work it is usually wrong. Progress does occur but it does not mean we should have irrational faith on what some physist says.

To the contrary, something infinite must exist otherwise nothing could ever have begun and we couldn’t be here. Either the universe is infinite or something that created it is infinite. Since there is no evidence of a creator and since we have no reason to believe that at any time the universe did not exist then on that basis I would bet on the universe being infinite, i.e. by Occams razor.
Our minds should not be capable of understanding the infinite. A finite system should not be capable of understanding the infinite. Augstine's statement that the soul was infinite does have some basis here.
 
Back
Top