"atheism is a belief"

Originally posted by divegeester
Why post a link to another posters thread? Why can't you just state up front what YOUR point of view is and why?

One of the reasons you and a few other people get stick here is your reluctance to commit on a particular issue and a reluctance to answer direct on topic questions as you are doing here.

divegeester, maybe the devil or one of his henchman made gb do it under cover of darkness in the wee hours when everybody was fast asleep. The topic of "belief" is at the very core of an online spirituality forum and apathist approached it in a forthright manner without frills or copy & pastes. lol

Originally posted by twhitehead
That is like saying "TV is primarily used for entertainment not news or academic purposes therefore we shouldn't expect to find anything serious on it" or "Books are primarily used for for entertainment therefore we shouldn't expect to find anything serious in them."
The truth however is that YouTube is used as a vehicle for education - a very signif ...[text shortened]... encyclopedia and probably exceeds all other information repositories in its usefulness to the world.

"primarily used" not exclusively used. I'm glad "YouTube... significantly enhanced my [your] education."

Originally posted by FMF
apathist's opinion aside, do you think atheism is a belief?

no...

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
That's true.

My own 'put down' of youtube was really in relation to the links Hinds puts up in these forums.

GD, I sensed that was your reason.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
That's true.

My own 'put down' of youtube was really in relation to the links Hinds puts up in these forums.

I realized that. It was a little unfair to YouTube. You would never think to 'put down' books due to RJs incessant quoting of the Bible.
I think that if CERN announced that they had found evidence of God interfering in atomic physics and posted their results on YouTube, you would in fact take it seriously and have a look. Obviously whether you found it convincing would depend on the contents - and hopefully the medium by which it was delivered would have no impact on your evaluation.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"primarily used" not exclusively used.

I know. But you made an unwarranted conclusion from it.

Originally posted by twhitehead

I realized that. It was a little unfair to YouTube.

Youtube can take it.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Given that we are talking about the fact that events [up-to and including the big bang] may not in fact have a 'cause',
and the fact that it's entirely possible that there was no time before the big bang for there to have been a cause in,
that question may be meaningless, or have an answer of nothing, or a myriad of other answers, including the only
correct one for the present... We don't know.

Originally posted by googlefudge
"We don't know."

Given that you're an objective thinker, why then not at least pragmatically consider
the remote possibility that the Genesis Account of Creation may be correct?

Originally posted by twhitehead
I know. But you made an unwarranted conclusion from it.

Unintended; sorry.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Youtube can take it.

Ha, always exhibiting grace under fire even on behalf of another contributor to this online spirituality forum.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by googlefudge
"We don't know."

Given that you're an objective thinker, why then not at least pragmatically consider
the remote possibility that the Genesis Account of Creation may be correct?

Because that would be like considering the moon being made of cheese as a valid
option to consider just because I don't know the precise chemical make-up of the moon.

The 'genesis account of creation' is considerably less likely than the moon being made of
cheese, and this barring in mind that we have been to the moon and found it not be be made
of cheese.

As I will discuss at length when I finally get the time and a coherent structure done for my
"how Bayes disproves god" post done [it's coming, but don't hold your breath, it will arrive when
it arrives... been kinda busy and look to remain that way in rl.]

The genesis account is in contradiction to known facts, and is known to be a man made work of
fiction from long before humans understood even a tiny fraction of what we know now about the
universe and how it works.

Not knowing the answer to a question is not any sort of excuse for making one up.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Because that would be like considering the moon being made of cheese as a valid
option to consider just because I don't know the precise chemical make-up of the moon.

The 'genesis account of creation' is considerably less likely than the moon being made of
cheese, and this barring in mind that we have been to the moon and found it not be be made
of ...[text shortened]... d how it works.

Not knowing the answer to a question is not any sort of excuse for making one up.

Thanks for your thoughtful reply. To rephrase the question: Aren't you ever even the slightest bit curious about supernatural phenomena [including the existence of God] which science is neither capable of proving nor disproving with any reasonable certainty? Science observes and classifies the macro and micro aspects of the universe and its laws of operation but has never created or legislated any of these laws [which include the Laws of Gravity and Gravitational Force]. I'd also welcome your comments on this quotation:“Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” -Albert Einstein

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Thanks for your thoughtful reply. To rephrase the question: Aren't you ever even the slightest bit curious about supernatural phenomena [including the existence of God] which science is neither capable of proving nor disproving with any reasonable certainty? Science observes and classifies the macro and micro aspects of the universe and its laws of oper ...[text shortened]... embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand.” -Albert Einstein

Aren't you ever even the slightest bit curious about supernatural phenomena [including the existence of God]
which science is neither capable of proving nor disproving with any reasonable certainty?

There are no supernatural phenomena.
Science can and has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that there are no supernatural phenomena.
And before believing something you should have convincing evidence it is true/real/existent and not believe
something before this criteria is met.
Should supernatural phenomena actually manifest then science can and would investigate such phenomena.
And would be our best means of coming to understand such phenomena and of proving that such phenomena
did exist.

I have a rather vivid imagination and can and do dream and imagine many things including the supernatural
and the scientifically fantastic. However, unlike you, I can tell the difference between the imaginary and the real.

Originally posted by googlefudge

Aren't you ever even the slightest bit curious about supernatural phenomena [including the existence of God]
which science is neither capable of proving nor disproving with any reasonable certainty?

There are no supernatural phenomena.
Science can and has proven beyond any reasonable doubt that there are no supernatural phenomena.
A ...[text shortened]... ly fantastic. However, unlike you, I can tell the difference between the imaginary and the real.

First, as you already know, I reject the concept of “supernature”. But I have always agreed with twhitehead that, if the supernatural did intervene in the natural order, it would appear manifest as events-in-nature—and no matter how weird they seemed we would have no real warrant to, even provisionally, assume the supernatural, rather than some natural activities which we were not yet able to explain.

So what could possibly happen that would lead any scientist to conclude that natural laws must have been suspended by some “supernatural” force—rather than that they are witnessing some heretofore unknown natural phenomena?

Before any attempt at proof or disproof (probabilistically or otherwise), scientists would first need to conclude—on the evidence—that there is some warrant for even considering the supernatural as a category worth pursuing (even to falsification). It is not that I think the notion of the supernatural can be disproved—I just don’t see where there would be any warrant for considering it, from a scientific point of view. I mean, first, any such scientist would have to drop naturalism as an assumption—and with that would go investigative procedures based on natural criteria for evidence. That just seems strictly logical to me.

I just see no warrant for considering “supernature” at all, as a category for investigation—philosophically or scientifically. (I’m probably just standing on the shoulders of Davey Hume here.)

EDIT: I'm not even sure that the words "supernatural" and "phenomena" can be coherently conjoined--but I need to think on that some more.

Originally posted by vistesd
First, as you already know, I reject the concept of “supernature”. But I have always agreed with twhitehead that, if the supernatural did intervene in the natural order, it would appear manifest as events-in-nature—and no matter how weird they seemed we would have no real warrant to, even provisionally, assume the supernatural, rather than some natural acti ...[text shortened]... upernatural" and "phenomena" can be coherently conjoined--but I need to think on that some more.

I think it makes sense in the case of a creator god. Having created nature the god could reasonably be described as above nature and hence supernatural. All other instances of what people call supernatural, telepathy and so forth, are either perfectly natural phenomena or do not exist.