25 Nov 07
Originally posted by KellyJayto sign up as an Atheist
I don't call myself an Atheist, although you would call me one.
you believe there was no creator
I don't believe there was a creator, I don't believe there was no creator, I don't believe - end of story. I do not know the facts, and neither does any other human being, therefore I don't believe full stop.
you believe man alone is the judge of right and wrong and there is not (sic) higher standard
I don't believe anything of the sort. You're making assumptions again.
Some members of the human race have beliefs of various kinds - not I. Please don't lump me and others like me into any of your little labelled boxes.
25 Nov 07
Originally posted by whodeyAnd who put God here?
Really? And who put your parents here? Maybe their parents? And who put your grandparents here? Perhaps your great grandparents? I think you can see where I am going with this. In fact, who put this earth here? Sometimes it is hard to see past the nose on our face.
25 Nov 07
Originally posted by MacSwainDon't flatter yourself. That is an extraordinary statement that deserves ridicule. You are not especially significant to me.
There is no need to get excited. 😏
Our resident bong boy pulled a line from a post on first page this thread. Oh well. He stalks me like a bird. 🙂 I really don’t understand why, unless it’s because I insulted the cow every chance I got for several weeks and she is the vengeful kind. 😉
Read my two posts first page this thread. If you disagree…fin ...[text shortened]... mes I am just flummoxed. Do I make my points too involved? C'est la vie! I will not change. 😏
25 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by MacSwainI often target Christians because they are politically active. If you'll notice I'm not opposed to the wars in the Middle East that the Muslims are unhappy about. Nor do I approve of their retarded religious governments. The thing is though, they aren't in my country! Their problems aren't really mine. I say let them deal with it.
There is no need to get excited. 😏
Our resident bong boy pulled a line from a post on first page this thread. Oh well. He stalks me like a bird. 🙂 I really don’t understand why, unless it’s because I insulted the cow every chance I got for several weeks and she is the vengeful kind. 😉
Read my two posts first page this thread. If you disagree…fin ...[text shortened]... mes I am just flummoxed. Do I make my points too involved? C'est la vie! I will not change. 😏
25 Nov 07
3 edits
Originally posted by MissOleum[/b]I do not call you one anything, as far as I know this is the first
[b]to sign up as an Atheist
I don't call myself an Atheist, although you would call me one.
you believe there was no creator
I don't believe there was a creator, I don't believe there was no creator, I don't believe - end of story. I do not know the facts, and neither does any other human being, therefore I don't believe full stop.
you not I. Please don't lump me and others like me into any of your little labelled boxes.
time I have ever seen a post of yours. From what I can see you
don't believe in anything, whatever that means.
Kelly
ps:
"I don't believe there was a creator, I don't believe there was no creator, I don't believe - end of story."
How many negatives can you put in one sentence and have them
not cancel everything out?
"I do not know the facts, and neither does any other human being, therefore I don't believe full stop. "
If it was a known answer it wouldn't be a belief now would it?
Kelly
25 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by MissOleumFine by me, you had a point to everything you said?
I would define belief as an opinion unsupported by evidence.
Therefore I do not believe.
Simple enough?
You have all the evidence of the universe around you and nothing
about it causes you to believe anything that cannot be supported.
I assume you always grasp the full meaning of all the evidence you
have in front of you and never at any time get something wrong
because all of your opinions are flawless? I would also point out that
everyone who has a opinion or belief does so due to things they see
and experience in the universe, it does not mean they are all getting
it right, or all getting it wrong, but the mix is enough to suggest
people do not always know what they are talking about, even if
they think they have supporting evidence for their "opinions".
Kelly
Cool Avatar you have too by the way.
25 Nov 07
Originally posted by KellyJayActullay, in just a few posts, Missoleum has said basically what that article was trying to say. As for beliefs, I don't remember them saying they never form opinionsw or beliefs based on limited evidence, everyone has to sometimes, but that the existence of a supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being all around us but who can never be seen and has for some reason placed all this contradictory evidence all around us to "test our faith" smells a little bit like a raspberry to some of us. And that in the case of someone being unconvinced by that particualrily ballsy set of claims it does not suggest they think of their opinions as flawless.
Fine by me, you had a point to everything you said?
You have all the evidence of the universe around you and nothing
about it causes you to believe anything that cannot be supported.
I assume you always grasp the full meaning of all the evidence you
have in front of you and never at any time get something wrong
because all of your opinions are flawle ...[text shortened]... have supporting evidence for their "opinions".
Kelly
Cool Avatar you have too by the way.
As for..
"the mix is enough to suggest
people do not always know what they are talking about, even if
they think they have supporting evidence for their "opinions""
I like your veiled suggestion that theories are opinion, and that any evidence is possibly imagined, but the point for most atheists ("god" knows, not all of us) is that if we don't know something (yet), we tend to be much more comfortable with that lack of knowledge than the religious who tend to jump over themselves to stick god into the breach. You'll find it's the god of the gaps theory.
Like the big bang, it's suggested above time has always existed, but now that we're into the physics end of things I'll have a little walkabout... We actually have hypotheses that time did not exist before the big bang, because, well, yeah, there was no clock ticking... if there is no matter or energy or anything by which you can measure time, then for all intents and purposes, time does not exist. Space didn't exist either, but that's all stuff we've built up so far from the pieces fo the puzzle left over in the skies. Before the big bang, and what "caused" it is a funny question for us because the big bang is what is called a singularity, the laws of cause and effect conceivably never applied before that, just like they tend not to apply to a lot of quantum events in the order we'd imagine (look up Feynmann diagrams, they don't work unless you assume antimatter travels backwards in time, but without them, we can't possibly calculate many particle interactions, it seems times arrow is just something we see at our level and particles are blind to it!). The upshot of all of this is that the physics which led to the big bang may never determined through evidence, (thought there is a great heory out there calle dthe Ekpyrotic Theory which is testable because it suggests the big bang was not symmetrical and thus we can measure it, so there's ways to probe the physics fo the before) but generally us scientists are quite glad that there's this blind spot, the unknown is our raw material.
The logic still applies though, a being capable of creating the universe must be at least a little bit more complicated than it and was either always there or was created by something else (whereby we get caught in this loop) Now if this being was always there, compared to say the looping bang/crunch model (Universe bangs out, collapses to a crunch whereby it bangs again in a never ending loop) than what's so incredulous about the scientific version (which while a more bleak metaphysical outlook, is at least less fantastical).
There's a mix of opinion, hypothesis and more solid theory amongst all I've said there, but in any case, it's a little easier to believe in a bootstrapping universe than it is in a supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being all around us but who can never be seen and has for some reason placed all this contradictory evidence all around us to "test our faith"... that put it there. I use the line twice because it seems to sum it all up nicely.
25 Nov 07
Originally posted by agryson🙂
Actullay, in just a few posts, Missoleum has said basically what that article was trying to say. As for beliefs, I don't remember them saying they never form opinionsw or beliefs based on limited evidence, everyone has to sometimes, but that the existence of a supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being all around us but who can never be seen ...[text shortened]... e. I use the line twice because it seems to sum it all up nicely.
Time before the big bang couldn't be measured, so it could not have
existed? I guess that is just like saying if a tree fell in the woods and
no one was there to hear it did it make a sound?
We all have our mystery, our fill in the blanks. I disagree that the
'evidence' shows there isn't a supernatural, it could be argued that
there is, and some do make that argument of sorts, those that
push ID for example. I have been arguing this in the Spiritual
board, but from my perspective I don't see any difference from
those that believe in the Big Bang and those that believe in ID,
as a creationist both appear to be looking at the universe which
is the 'evidence' and make declarations about what it is they are
seeing. Which to me is they are stating their beliefs about various
and sundry parts of the universe and what it means to me that is
just making a claim and saying here is my support.
Kelly
25 Nov 07
Originally posted by agrysonIt has been a pleasure talking to you by the way. 🙂
Actullay, in just a few posts, Missoleum has said basically what that article was trying to say. As for beliefs, I don't remember them saying they never form opinionsw or beliefs based on limited evidence, everyone has to sometimes, but that the existence of a supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being all around us but who can never be seen ...[text shortened]... e. I use the line twice because it seems to sum it all up nicely.
Kelly
25 Nov 07
Originally posted by KellyJayIt is in effect the philosophical equivalent, it's the application of Occams' Razor, if there is no way to see if time passes directly or indirectly, then why have time? You are inferring its existence because it existed at some point and there is no evidence that it no longer exists. But therein lies an assumption, which, to produce a hypothesis of my own, science abhors.
🙂
Time before the big bang couldn't be measured, so it could not have
existed? I guess that is just like saying if a tree fell in the woods and
no one was there to hear it did it make a sound?
We all have our mystery, our fill in the blanks. I disagree that the
'evidence' shows there isn't a supernatural, it could be argued that
there is, and some ...[text shortened]... it [b]means to me that is
just making a claim and saying here is my support.
Kelly[/b]
This leads us onto your point about the apparent similarities between Big Bangers and ID'ers. The difference is a subtle but very important one between induction and deduction.
On the one hand, we have the Big Bangers who, as in our example above with time, make absolutely no assumptions a priori. They look at the universe, collect data, try to postulate possible explanations of this data, test the explanations using falsificationism and if necessary discard ideas and fine tune others. This process has led to all of modern scientific knowledge and is supported by a strong philosophical basis.
ID'ers on the other hand, by their very nature, go out to prove an a priori hypothesis. Data has been collected, and an hypothesis of Intelligent Design proposed, but what Intelligent Design "science" (the inverted commas are necessary, as it doesn't conform to popperism) does is not try to test this hypothesis, but instead search for evidence in support of it. Science indeed used to use such methods, until Galileo came along.
The difference is very, very important between these two methods.
I remember discussing this with you in a Spirituality thread, I suggested a book, "What is this thing called Science?" by A.F. Chalmers, I suggest it again, it goes into more detail on these differences.
25 Nov 07
Originally posted by KellyJayHow you are viewing the evidence can be supported by evidence, philosophical logic, if the logic is solid, that supports your interpretive method, use that interpretive method without deviation, then tehre is no need for "belief" when viewing the evidence. See this link for the one possible chink in the armour...
You don't believe your right about how you are viewing the
evidence?
Kelly
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_realism
which itself is defended in the very first chpater of that book I mentioned.