If god were omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, there would be no atheists.

[superluminal]

Fine. He's a Mostly Objective Rationalistic Observer of Nuances. Ok?

Probably not. Crap.

 

[ladyhawk]

Miricles happen every day! Simply because we can explain and watch a baby from conception through death doesnt make it less a miricle! There are checks and balances all over the place and just because science understands the mechanics of this balance, does not make it less a miricle that the balance exists.

Also there is a difference between religion and god. God made man in his image. Man created religion as an explanation and manipulitive tool. Do not confuse the 2.

 

[VitalOne]

Perhaps you might be willing to cite the atheist(s) that made that comment? Your implication is that this is what atheists in general say, so it shouldn't be difficult for you to quote at least a single atheist at just sciforums, eh?

If not, would you be willing to retract or revise your assertion, since it is, after all, a misrepresentation of atheists?

Atheists don't directly say that its 100% false, but they do indeed say its false, fairy tales, imaginary fantasy, anyone who believes in God/soul/afterlife is a fool, etc...all the time

Otherwise if you are not saying that then atheism is just the same as any other faith-system, relying chiefly on blind faith alone...

I challenge you to cite a single atheist that has stated science is "fixed, unchanging and has discovered all there is already." Failing to meet this challenge, will you be willing to retract or revise your words?

I never said that atheists directly say that, I said they act like thats true, the basic premise of atheists are that "there's no evidence" so theists are delusional fools and live in an imaginary world

People also had a lot of inaccurate astronomical calculations and assumptions. One wonders why you don't mention this as well.

Right and the way we verify if its true or false is by current modern science and the current knowledge we possess....

 

[SkinWalker]

Miracles as "amazing occurrences" are one thing. But miracles that utilize the definition that includes the supernatural are bogus. These are cop-outs used by those that are unwilling to think about whys and hows.

I agree with you that there is much to be in awe about in the universe. I'm in awe of things that most people don't even spend any time on, ranging from the sheer number of grains of sand on a beach to the number of neural connections my brain is capable of.

But regardless of whether you're willing to call the things that put you in awe and wonder "miracles" or not, I see no reason to believe gods are anything that need be believed in. Indeed, it would seem that it is your "God" that was created in man's image rather than the other way around.

 

[SkinWalker]

Atheists don't directly say that its 100% false, but they do indeed say its false, fairy tales, imaginary fantasy, anyone who believes in God/soul/afterlife is a fool, etc...all the time

You were accused of misrepresenting atheists and responded by saying: "atheists insist its 100% false and there's a 0% chance of there being a soul." I'd say that was pretty direct.

Otherwise if you are not saying that then atheism is just the same as any other faith-system, relying chiefly on blind faith alone...

Atheism exists because there are theists. If theists would go away, there would be no atheists. The 'blind faith' is a symptom of theism, not, generally speaking, atheism. I say "generally speaking" because there are all sorts of atheists and some, invariably, believe in all sorts of silliness (UFOs, ESP, Tarot, astrology, witchcraft, etc.). But the atheists you're likely to encounter here, the ones I'm familiar with, don't subscribe to atheism in the way that theists subscribe to theism. Its the lack of evidence that makes the difference, and a refusal to rely on faith.

I never said that atheists directly say that, I said they act like thats true, the basic premise of atheists are that "there's no evidence" so theists are delusional fools and live in an imaginary world

Perhaps, then, you could quantify where "they act like thats true." You can't simply make a blind assertion that has pejorative and disparaging connotations and not expect to be called on it. Either this can be demonstrated or it cannot. Give some examples where atheists on this forum have acted like it is true that they believe science to have discovered all there is to know and that that science is unchanging. My mistake in thinking that you believe someone to have said this arises from understanding that this is such a bold and incorrect stance that the only way it could be believed is if someone *said* it.

What's probably true is that theists have discovered that atheists are very good at arguing the logic behind their position and that the theistic position is weak. From this, theists tend to make comments along the lines of "science is a religion, too" and "atheists rely on faith, too." The understanding is that religion and faith are bad things and theists who make these arguments now begin to believe them. So it follows that you might want to believe that atheists think science is fixed and unchanging and that they believe science has discovered all there is to know. But you'll never be able to quantify or qualify that assertion since if it doesn't reside solely in your head it is shared by a very select minority of atheists such that it is no where near typical.

 

[VitalOne]

You were accused of misrepresenting atheists and responded by saying: "atheists insist its 100% false and there's a 0% chance of there being a soul." I'd say that was pretty direct.

Atheist say there's no soul/God/afterlife all the time, and that its just an imaginary fantasy, but what you're saying is that atheists believe its "probably false", "probably an imaginary fantasy", if atheists say that then they are relying on "blind faith" which they claim not to.......

Atheism exists because there are theists. If theists would go away, there would be no atheists. The 'blind faith' is a symptom of theism, not, generally speaking, atheism. I say "generally speaking" because there are all sorts of atheists and some, invariably, believe in all sorts of silliness (UFOs, ESP, Tarot, astrology, witchcraft, etc.). But the atheists you're likely to encounter here, the ones I'm familiar with, don't subscribe to atheism in the way that theists subscribe to theism. Its the lack of evidence that makes the difference, and a refusal to rely on faith.

So you also agree, atheists' basic premise is "there's no evidence", and therefore their logic can be likened to "if no evidence is available for or against a claim, the claim is false"

Perhaps, then, you could quantify where "they act like thats true." You can't simply make a blind assertion that has pejorative and disparaging connotations and not expect to be called on it. Either this can be demonstrated or it cannot. Give some examples where atheists on this forum have acted like it is true that they believe science to have discovered all there is to know and that that science is unchanging. My mistake in thinking that you believe someone to have said this arises from understanding that this is such a bold and incorrect stance that the only way it could be believed is if someone *said* it.

What's probably true is that theists have discovered that atheists are very good at arguing the logic behind their position and that the theistic position is weak. From this, theists tend to make comments along the lines of "science is a religion, too" and "atheists rely on faith, too." The understanding is that religion and faith are bad things and theists who make these arguments now begin to believe them. So it follows that you might want to believe that atheists think science is fixed and unchanging and that they believe science has discovered all there is to know. But you'll never be able to quantify or qualify that assertion since if it doesn't reside solely in your head it is shared by a very select minority of atheists such that it is no where near typical.

Ok, if atheists don't "act like its true" and don't act like science is fixed, unchanging, and has discovered all there is to know then why do atheists constantly say theists are delusional, fools, live in an imaginary world, religion is an imaginary fantasy, man-made, etc....where do they draw that notion from?

Otherwise you're just dodging what I said, science is not a religion, science is based on the scientific method, empirical evidence is ever-changing. The actual truth, the reality of things, the way things really are, is probably very very very far from current accepted scientific theories, in time there will be new empirical evidence gathered and many revolutions in science, and what appeared true before will appear false, etc......

For instance in time some type of empirical evidence will be gathered proving either the many-worlds-interpretation, the copenhagen, the theory of relativity, or some other theory to be true (currently there is no empirical evidence distinguishing which one is actually true), if any is proven to be definitely true (through the scientific method) then it will change science forever....

The fact is that the actual truth is true with or WITHOUT evidence...

 

[lightgigantic]

And, by that same line of reasoning, we can also say that obviously the theist is not in a position to confirm or deny the existence of god, much like the schizophrenic sociopath locked in a padded cell is in no position to deny or confirm the weather outside of a building he is barely aware of. The schizophrenic sociopath may have some "knowledge" of a god (or gods) that come to him/her in the night with advice on how best to handle those that don't believe or earn a seat in heaven. But I don't think we should take his/her word for it.

I would no more get my theistic knowledge from that schizophrenic sociopath locked in a padded cell than I would one that isn't.

the obvious difference is that the theist is not just making claims of an observation but also claims of a process to make an observation (hence the numerous normative descriptions given in scriptures that are practically identical between faiths)

Much like how the physicist is not just making claims of an observation but also claims of a process that grants such an observation (of course the way to reject the physicist is to reject the process they advocate)

 

[Sarkus]

the only difference between a pregnant woman and a virgin is that the virgin has had sex at least one less time than the mother to be.

Please say that to all Christians who happen to believe in the Virgin-birth of their saviour.
Are you claiming them to be wrong?
If so - your evidence would be... ?

 

[Godless]

The way the make religion sound, there should be only one religion world wide, one ideology, one god, not one interpretation against another, but all in the same page, not many religions advocating to be "the one" but one religion that is accepted to be the truly "the one"

Since this shit is not "reality" we have here a phenomenon. Religion is not homogenous, thousands of sects exists, some go as far as irradicating one another because of their beliefs, some condemn all those who don't belong to "their sect" some base their ideology in the same book, but interpret the "word" their own freaking way!

So what we got here, is an ideology of manipulation, a tool, for those whom interpret the "word" to their own agenda, culture, or cvil laws. These then are forced upon the population of a geographical area, these are to be the main goals of all relgion, "power" rule others by deceitfull manipulation "when you die your soul will go to hell" if you don't do as we say, when you don't believe like we tell you, we are the "true religion of god" see were I'm coming from, this crap is nothing more then a tool of deception, there's no "spirituality" when the shit is forced upon you, based on fucking lies!!

Godless

 

[SkinWalker]

Atheist say there's no soul/God/afterlife all the time, and that its just an imaginary fantasy, but what you're saying is that atheists believe its "probably false", "probably an imaginary fantasy", if atheists say that then they are relying on "blind faith" which they claim not to.......

Most atheists say there is no compelling reason to believe in soul/god/afterlife. Theistic people make positive claims of these concepts and refuse to provide evidence. Actually, "refuse" may be the wrong word, they appear incapable of providing evidence. This is indicative of a made up/fantastical/deluded explanation rather than an explanation that exists in reality. So, of course, many atheists refer to the religious as deluded. They would appear to be so since they make thousands of positive claims to which none have supporting evidence.

So your misrepresentation isn't just of atheists but of theists as well.

So you also agree, atheists' basic premise is "there's no evidence", and therefore their logic can be likened to "if no evidence is available for or against a claim, the claim is false"

If there's a positive claim to which there's no evidence, there's no reason to believe the claim. It is, necessarily, probably false. Those that continue making the claim are doing so, knowing that there is no evidence to support their claim and are, therefore, necessarily deluded. What reason is there to go on believing wild claims of those that refuse or are incapable of supporting them

Ok, if atheists don't "act like its true" and don't act like science is fixed, unchanging, and has discovered all there is to know then why do atheists constantly say theists are delusional, fools, live in an imaginary world, religion is an imaginary fantasy, man-made, etc....where do they draw that notion from?

Because religious nutters go on and on about wild, speculative claims without any supporting evidence: virgin births, zombie saviors, transubstantiation, witches riding banana leaves, volcanoes that require virgin sacrifices, etc, etc. Delusion is the only logical explanation for such claims.

The fact is that the actual truth is true with or WITHOUT evidence...

And along with that is every fantasy and imaginative poppycock belief that man has devised, many of which are completely contradictory, and will remain delusions and lies WITH or WITHOUT evidence.

The one thing that you and I agree on is that there exists and objective and potentially knowable truth. I just don't see how the delusions of theists apply or need to apply. I do, however, see how theists *hope* their fantasies and delusions are a part of this "truth." They've got a lot banked on it. And, should the evidence ever be revealed that supports one or more of their claims, I'll revise my statements. Happily. Until then, I see no reason to give equal weight to the positive and unsupported claims of religious nutters as I do those that have evidence.

the obvious difference is that the theist is not just making claims of an observation but also claims of a process to make an observation

It doesn't matter. Each are positive claims without the potential to be falsifiable. A claim of a process is useless if the process cannot be detailed such that others can duplicate the process. Of course, you'll give the cowardly response you usually do and say that the skeptic "isn't qualified" to know the process, a convenient way for you to bow out of the debate and claim victory to an audience of one. The rest of us see your cop-out for what it is: a coward afraid to face the facts of his position.

I could just as easily claim I've a method of transcending my corporeal body and visiting all corners of the universe, which I did in my trance last night. I found the creator and he said he hasn't gotten around to creating the universe yet. What, I asked, is it that I'm from. His reply: oh, that's whatever was here first. I'll create the universe later and it'll all go away.

I couldn't begin to explain to you how I transcended my corporeal body since you're not qualified to know, so you'll just have to trust me on the words above. And don't make any long-term investments since creation is coming.

Much like how the physicist is not just making claims of an observation but also claims of a process that grants such an observation (of course the way to reject the physicist is to reject the process they advocate)

The difference is that the physicist details his methodology so that his work can be reproducible. Indeed, his hope is that skeptics will tear it apart and find all the flaws. The religious nutter, on the other hand, hides his methods from the skeptics and inquiry is taboo. There's no comparison.

 

[lightgigantic]

Please say that to all Christians who happen to believe in the Virgin-birth of their saviour.
Are you claiming them to be wrong?
If so - your evidence would be... ?

since a virgin birth is associated with god's nature, its not clear how the "I believe in only one less god than a theist" statement holds up

Anyway here are a few more analogies that could make it a bit easier.

"the only difference between a married and unmarried woman is that she has one less husband than an unmarried one"

"the only difference between a person without a brain and a person with a brain is that they have one less brain"

etc etc

....or are you simply trying to change the discussion point and want to get into the whole virgin birth thing (If you are, sorry, this isn't the thread for it)

 

[spidergoat]

the obvious difference is that the theist is not just making claims of an observation but also claims of a process to make an observation (hence the numerous normative descriptions given in scriptures that are practically identical between faiths)

Much like how the physicist is not just making claims of an observation but also claims of a process that grants such an observation (of course the way to reject the physicist is to reject the process they advocate)

Is part of that theistic process suspension of disbelief? Such a process is not independent of the observer. Science does not require one to give up skepticism.

 

[lightgigantic]

The way the make religion sound, there should be only one religion world wide, one ideology, one god, not one interpretation against another, but all in the same page, not many religions advocating to be "the one" but one religion that is accepted to be the truly "the one"

god gives concessions for gradual advancement, and so does proper religious principles

Since this shit is not "reality" we have here a phenomenon.

before you start with such a basis, you should examine the aroma of its foundation - namely how did you determine that religious principles in the pursuit of god are not real?

Religion is not homogenous, thousands of sects exists, some go as far as irradicating one another because of their beliefs, some condemn all those who don't belong to "their sect" some base their ideology in the same book, but interpret the "word" their own freaking way!

there are also numerous brands of head ache tablets that all claim to cure headaches - there are also numerous bogus cures for headaches available too, but an intelligent person can discriminate between the two (and a foolish person cannot and a cynical person operating on the same platform of knowledge discards the lot)

So what we got here, is an ideology of manipulation, a tool, for those whom interpret the "word" to their own agenda, culture, or cvil laws.

Would you think the notion of god existing would be more acceptable if it didn't bear any influence on society????

These then are forced upon the population of a geographical area, these are to be the main goals of all relgion, "power" rule others by deceitfull manipulation "when you die your soul will go to hell" if you don't do as we say, when you don't believe like we tell you, we are the "true religion of god" see were I'm coming from, this crap is nothing more then a tool of deception, there's no "spirituality" when the shit is forced upon you, based on fucking lies!!

would you prefer a god that didn't offer any instruction or knowledge and just left the entire population of the universe in complete ignorance????


Its one thing to try and present the notion of how god is illogical - it is another to simple fall prey to one's misanthropic disposition by declaring "No one has the right to tell me/us what to do" - not even the police or martial presence within a society (or even in the network of one's own social/familial network) operates like that, so its not clear why you think that maintenance on a universal level is obliged to have the "hands off" approach
[/QUOTE]

 

[lightgigantic]

Is part of that theistic process suspension of disbelief? Such a process is not independent of the observer. Science does not require one to give up skepticism.

If one is so skeptical as the high school drop out deriding the notion of an electron in the presence of physics text books and physicists (ie from agencies that advocate the processes required for perception), science does require that one abandon such skepticism

 

[SkinWalker]

god gives concessions for gradual advancement, and so does proper religious principles

What's your evidence for making this positive claim?

If one is so skeptical as the high school drop out deriding the notion of an electron in the presence of physics text books and physicists (ie from agencies that advocate the processes required for perception), science does require that one abandon such skepticism

Intellectual cowardice strikes again.

 

[spidergoat]

That's not skepticism, just disinterest. You don't have to believe in an electron to see it.

 

[lightgigantic]

What's your evidence for making this positive claim?

there are many categories or definitions of different levels of practitioners found in scripture (like for instance in the vedas there are indications of 81 different varieties or grades of religion)

 

[SkinWalker]

there are many categories or definitions of different levels of practitioners found in scripture (like for instance in the vedas there are indications of 81 different varieties or grades of religion)

The question was what is the evidence for the claim not what is the claim. Scriptural mythology can only be the claim itself. What is the evidence for the claim?

 

[lightgigantic]

That's not skepticism, just disinterest. You don't have to believe in an electron to see it.

Skepticism applied to the processes that grant vision will obviously curtail advancement in the field

 

[spidergoat]

There you go. If you believe something, you will see it. That's the power of the mind.