God created atheism

[perplexity]

ToR - you need to understand that noone is dismissing the experience - just the interpretation. And they are dismissing the interpretation due to the untestable and unrepeatable nature of the events,...

which once again misses the point.

There is no such thing as a testable, repeatable event. All events are unique. Everything changes. We have no way to repeat an event to try it another way.

Patterns do of course appear to be that much more repeatable than others, sure, nature exhibits a fractal tendency, but beyond that, in the final analysis, it is all conjecture and speculation.

--- Ron.

 

[SycknesS]

It is worse than that.

They seem to think that the truth itself is unable to change and adapt.

Walking talking fossils.

--- Ron.

What does that mean exactly? I laughed...

 

[SycknesS]

which once again misses the point.

There is no such thing as a testable, repeatable event. All events are unique. Everything changes. We have no way to repeat an event to try it another way.

Patterns do of course appear to be that much more repeatable than others, sure, nature exhibits a fractal tendency, but beyond that, in the final analysis, it is all conjecture and speculation.

--- Ron.

No such thing as a testable repeatable event? What? Are you serious? You're a funny guy, perp, I don't think he meant that you have to repeat the exact same event.

He's talking about a 'miracle' happening, if someone can just make it up, why believe them? Thats where proof comes into play, if you believe in anyones anecdotal evidence you're a fool.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence check it out, you might learn something.

 

[SycknesS]

That along with a couple of other things that happened to me proved to me without a reasonable doubt the GOD existed and that sealed my faith forever because it was so profound.

But you say you're open-minded? If you truly were open-minded you'd have to admit to yourself that god might, in fact, not exist.

 

[(Q)]

I also have had the experience of knowing God as interfering force in my life, This is the part atheists don't get. Maybe they just haven't had that type of experience, but heck its not like they happen every day. There is always time.

So, you were able to make a judgment call and conclude the experience was influenced by a god, yet you have no way to compare your experience to a god, since you've never seen a god. And, you've claimed never to be affiliated with a religion or even read the bible, so you had no way of knowing how a god would influence anything, you simply made an assumption based on your WANTING to believe it was a god.

meanwhile atheists (some not all) are as indoctrinated in their disbelief as some with belief and hence the similarity

Atheists understand there is no way to conclude a gods influence since no gods have ever appeared before them, or anyone else, hence there is no way to make a comparison.

 

[(Q)]

which once again misses the point.

There is no such thing as a testable, repeatable event. All events are unique. Everything changes. We have no way to repeat an event to try it another way.

Patterns do of course appear to be that much more repeatable than others, sure, nature exhibits a fractal tendency, but beyond that, in the final analysis, it is all conjecture and speculation.

--- Ron.

Talk about missing the point. I can run experiments testing the speed of light. Although the Earth, Solar System and Galaxy are in different locations, I'm a little older and my coffees slightly colder, the experiments are entirely repeatable and the results will be the same.

Of course, I'm not using the exact same photons in each experiment, so you're argument might hold there.

Aside from that, I can't see where you're going with that statement that it's all conjecture and speculation?

 

[perplexity]

Am I supposed to believe that it is possible to establish an unchallengeable truth, that will last from now 'till the end of time?

That is what I call religion, not science.

--- Ron.

 

[(Q)]

Am I supposed to believe that it is possible to establish an unchallengeable truth, that will last from now 'till the end of time?

That is what I call religion, not science.

--- Ron.

No, establishing unchallengeable truths is religion, not science.

What purpose would a truth hold for you 'till the end of time'? Are you planning on living forever?

 

[perplexity]

No, establishing unchallengeable truths is religion, not science.

What purpose would a truth hold for you 'till the end of time'? Are you planning on living forever?

To the contrary, the fear is that suicide wouldn't work; I'd wake up into some kind of nightmare surrounded by the sneering grins of sciforum atheists, keen to tell me what a deluded idiot I was to believe them.

What is a chalengeable truth then if not a speculation or a conjecture?

--- Ron.

 

[Sarkus]

What is a chalengeable truth then if not a speculation or a conjecture?
--- Ron.

A probability of objective reality based on available evidence.

 

[pasquala]

Originally Posted SycknesS
But you say you're open-minded? If you truly were open-minded you'd have to admit to yourself that god might, in fact, not exist.

I guess I can only be open-minded to a certain point. You see if I were to even amuse the thought of admitting that there is a possibility that GOD might not exist, then that means that my faith is not faith and isn't faith what its all about (believing without questioning why and trusting whole heartedly). So in that respect you are right...I am not as open minded as I thought I was....sorry

Originally Posted Cris
Sorry but your claim is not believable; all you have done is emotionally convinced yourself that a fantasy is real and you have likely told others your story early on and now feel committed to it, or you will feel too embarrassed to back out. If you take a more realistic and objective critical look at your claim you will find you have absolutely nothing.

It doesn't matter weather anyone else thinks it to be believable or not as long as I know the significance of it. But just so you know it was not a fantasy. It is actual physical evidence. It is made of matter. It is in a box tucked away. I can actually put it on the scanner and send a picture of it, but I won't.

 

[perplexity]

A probability of objective reality based on available evidence.

What is the difference then between that and "speculation" ?

i.e. "Reasoning based on inconclusive evidence; conjecture or supposition."

--- Ron.

 

[SycknesS]

The difference is conclusive evidence, which in some ways could be considered a judgement call, but at the same time also seems very logical.

 

[perplexity]

The difference is conclusive evidence, which in some ways could be considered a judgement call, but at the same time also seems very logical.

It is not logical to suppose that something is at the same time concluded and challengeable. The proposition is perverse. A case is either closed or open.

--- Ron.

 

[SycknesS]

Conclusive evidence is evidence obtained by the scientific method, which is logical, but it is also a judgement call to use this as the method for obtaining such evidence. Some would disagree that it is the correct way to prove something, ie religion.

edit: Nothing is 100% proven.

 

[SnakeLord]

It is actual physical evidence. It is made of matter. It is in a box tucked away. I can actually put it on the scanner and send a picture of it, but I won't.

Dang it. Always that "I can but I wont" speech.

What is it exactly? A cheese toastie with an image of jesus' nutsack on it?

Come on man, you can clear up all the world's problems if you just had the common decency to scan the mysterious godly item you have tucked away in the back of your dusty, moth ridden closet.

 

[pasquala]

Originally Posted by SnakeLord
Dang it. Always that "I can but I wont" speech.

What is it exactly? A cheese toastie with an image of jesus' nutsack on it?

Come on man, you can clear up all the world's problems if you just had the common decency to scan the mysterious godly item you have tucked away in the back of your dusty, moth ridden closet.

lol. That is so funny. I've never thought about how that sounds before. I'm glad to see someone with a sense of humor. Thank you, you've gave me my first smile of the day. Never-the-less, Its mine and it will stay that way. Besides all that, its a long story that goes along with it. Too long.
Sorry I will say that it is made of glass. That's all. I've said too much. Now you must die.

 

[Sarkus]

It is not logical to suppose that something is at the same time concluded and challengeable. The proposition is perverse. A case is either closed or open.

For example - we know the Earth orbits the sun.
We (in the UK at least) know the sun rises in the East and sets in the West.
But let's examine what we actually mean by "know".

We have evidence that every day, since records began, the sun has risen in the East.
We have similar evidence that every day it has gone on to set in the West.

We have been able to generate a theory as to why - being orbital mechanics and the fact the Earth rotates around the Sun through the theory and Law of Gravity etc.
We have been able to test this theory - repeatedly.

So it is a REASONABLE ASSUMPTION that the sun will continue rising in the east etc.

But we can NOT know with absolute 100% surety that it will do.
It will take just ONE EXAMPLE of the Sun rising in the West and setting in the East - or any other non-normal combination of risings and settings - to dispute what we currently "know".

Therefore we have conclusive evidence, a working theory, and can sit happy with the comfortable and LOGICAL assumption that it will continue to do what it has done for the last x years.

But we can never say that it will ALWAYS be like that.

Nothing in science is 100% proven - as we can not know every unit of space-time. All we can say is that, based on the evidence... etc.
The more conclusive the evidence, the greater the probability that the next occurrence will be within expectation of the theory etc.

So, as stated: a probability of objective reality based on available evidence.

 

[perplexity]

So, as stated: a probability of objective reality based on available evidence.

So in the final analysis, it is all conjecture and speculation?

Aside from that, I can't see where you're going with that statement that it's all conjecture and speculation?

It is not really about believing, it is about ignoring, for in end you have to believe in something; you have to place a bet.

It is really about the convenience of filtering the probable, while ignoring the improbable, where the attention goes, and that has more to do with personal conditioning, different ways to achieve a sense of certainty.

--- Ron.

 

[Sarkus]

So in the final analysis, it is all conjecture and speculation?

NO! Are you not reading properly?

Conjecture and speculation... based on INCONCLUSIVE evidence.

The fact that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow is based on CONCLUSIVE evidence of, in court-room speak, being beyond reasonable doubt.

If you expect science to be done in absolutes - think again.

It is not really about believing, it is about ignoring, for in end you have to believe in something; you have to place a bet.

Why do you have to place a bet?
And is a bet really the same as "believing"? If you truly "believe" then there is surely no bet. Or do you secretly have doubts???

If it was all about a bet then Pascal's Wager would surely win every time.