The problem I'm seeing here is that those who want to say that atheism is a belief are still putting god on a higher level even in a discussion of a lack of belief. Follow me on this, when it comes to many supernatural things, take UFO's for instance, does someone who doesn't think UFO's are alien ships from another galaxy (either from lack of evidence or not enough good solid evidence to prove either way) are they believers? I don't think so why would they be? They are making that decision based on the evidence at hand which tells them that UFO's are not real. It isn't even a belief it is a CONCLUSION or if you will a deductive line of reasoning by which they cannot come to any other conclusion.
Take it like a court of law. I can't say I believe someone murdered someone I have to provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the person was murdered by the suspect in question. It isn't belief it is a conclusion based on evidence or lack thereof.
The same could be said about bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, you name it. Only when the idea of a god is invoked does the idea supposedly change. It shouldn't and here is why. While believers have a vested interest in there being a god, either salvation, life after death, etc, an atheist does not. What benefit is derived from a lack of belief in something? When an atheist dies is he wishing for nothingness? No he expects it based on the available evidence at his disposal. His conclusion to say well there is no solid evidence for a god besides others faith to show me god is real. Faith is not evidence it is personal feelings. While powerful to the believer has no effect on the person who does not conclude differently. Believers imbue god with a higher status when it comes to belief because they worship that deity. Therefore they cannot see that others who did not conclude a god exists find belief (another word for faith) to be a necessary part of the equation. Atheists know differently. It isn't a belief, it is an outcome formed from what they know of the world to be provable or real.
Just like with UFO's one can say well you can't prove they exist or that they don't. How silly. If they exist they leave evidence, and if they don't then after a certain point of people saying they are real with no evidence to back it up, it is reasonable to say they more than likely do not. I think two thousand years in the minds of some atheists is plenty to have to come to the conclusion that a god does not exist.
Full Version: My problem with atheism
QUOTE(blizno @ Jul 16 2007, 04:10 AM) 
"____ with religious zeal..." is a trite saying. I follow Battlestar Galactica religiously. That's another trite saying. Both misuse the word "religion".
"Atheism...worshipped..." Once again you mistake a trite saying for the real thing. I worship Tricia Helfer (http://www.triciahelfer.com/). Do I think she is anything more than a human being or that she created the universe or will take my soul somewhere after I die? No, I do not.
"Atheism...worshipped..." Once again you mistake a trite saying for the real thing. I worship Tricia Helfer (http://www.triciahelfer.com/). Do I think she is anything more than a human being or that she created the universe or will take my soul somewhere after I die? No, I do not.
Does something have to be considered more than a human being and take souls in order to be worshipped? Why does religion have to strictly involve the worship of a personal deity that is explained from a scripture?
Where is your logic? One can worship a celebrity, so why not an atheist ideal? Why does that which is worshipped or followed have to be of a certain spiritual stamp?
What is fanatically followed is fanatically followed.
A belief to be a belief doesnt have to center around a "god" but simply has to be something one has strong conviction in.
Many atheists here are passionate about their atheism and I think people who say that atheism isnt a "belief" are not very intelligent.
This is just my view.
QUOTE(KBA @ Jul 16 2007, 08:22 AM)
Communism is not a belief. It's an ideology.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
And the fundamental difference between an ideology and belief is??????
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
QUOTE
And we're talking about spiritual beliefs here. Would you please tell me what sort of spirituality communism implies?
Did you even read my start off post?
I am simply saying that atheism is a 'belief'. A belief to be a belief doesnt have to be spiritual.
Why is it that a person who holds an OPINION that God doesnt exist is exempt from belief but the person who has an OPINION that God does exist does have a 'belief'.
Jesus! The world is round not flat?! Atheism isnt a belief? How can it not be?
QUOTE(blizno @ Jul 16 2007, 05:25 AM)
"Do you think "God" is essential to have a belief?
Let me put it like this then.
An atheist saying that his atheism isnt a belief is the same as a communist who says his communism isnt a belief."
Communism is not a belief, come ON! Communism is an economic system.
We need a lot of work on how we use words. I've heard the Religious on this thread use "belief" to mean everything from organized religion to taste in clothes.
"Hence it is an act of faith either way to believe or disbelieve in God."
No, it is not. "Faith" as used in religion means believing something with no evidence and sometimes in denial of evidence showing it's not real.
I do not have "faith" that gods do not exist. I simply have never seen any hint that they do exist so I can't believe in gods until I see evidence.
"An Atheist assumes that a god doesn't exist because there is no evidence to suggest that one does."
Agreed.
"A lack of evidence doesn't mean that something isn't true or real."
Agreed
"So an atheist assumes that no evidence will ever be found to prove the existence of a god."
Whu-HUH??? Where did you get this notion? An atheist does NOT assume that no evidence of gods will ever be found.
"The act of assuming something is the act of believing."
You're playing fast and loose with the word "belief" again. Not to mention that your statement is false. If you assume something, you do not believe it. You simply make decisions as if it is true.
"Also we dont live in a physical universe. Quantum physics have shown that atoms are vastly immaterial."
I get very, very tired of people who watch some quack movie and then start talking about quantum this and quantum that. Quantum effects can only be observed on the atomic level and smaller. Quantum effects are never observed in the world we inhabit. We are not "one with the universe". We are tiny specks standing on a tiny speck orbiting a tiny speck in an corner of a typical galaxy. The universe does not listen to us and does not know that we exist. The universe doesn't know anything. It is not alive or aware. It just is.
"Most people feel a peaceful vibe around enlightened Gurus. You are right that belief and faith is required."
Most people feel a peaceful vibe around peaceful people. We are such social animals that we are constantly watching other humans to be ready to respond to threat or opportunity. The peaceful person's posture, facial expression, tone of voice, etc. convey a huge amount of information into our brains that we may not consciously pick up. Belief and faith are not required.
"Traditional science holds the belief that organic matter and life grew from the chmical ooze of the primeval ocean soley through random interactions of atoms and molecules"
Once again somebody says that very highly ordered processes, such as chemical reactions, are "random". Lose the word "random"! You do not know how to use it.
Oh, and "traditional science" does not say that organic matter grew from Earth's oceans. Organic matter is everywhere. We see its spectrographic signature in light coming from very hot interstellar clouds, we can detect it on asteroids, etc. We haven't detected living organic matter anywhere other than on Earth...yet...but organic matter is all over the place.
"What about the mystics that say consciousness experienced in its most refined level is God?"
This is playing around with the definition of "god". We need a single definition if we're going to discuss gods meaningfully. I recommend that a god must be aware, have volition and have or once have had the ability to affect the universe in some way. Saying that god exists in each of us doesn't meet that definition.
Let me put it like this then.
An atheist saying that his atheism isnt a belief is the same as a communist who says his communism isnt a belief."
Communism is not a belief, come ON! Communism is an economic system.
We need a lot of work on how we use words. I've heard the Religious on this thread use "belief" to mean everything from organized religion to taste in clothes.
"Hence it is an act of faith either way to believe or disbelieve in God."
No, it is not. "Faith" as used in religion means believing something with no evidence and sometimes in denial of evidence showing it's not real.
I do not have "faith" that gods do not exist. I simply have never seen any hint that they do exist so I can't believe in gods until I see evidence.
"An Atheist assumes that a god doesn't exist because there is no evidence to suggest that one does."
Agreed.
"A lack of evidence doesn't mean that something isn't true or real."
Agreed
"So an atheist assumes that no evidence will ever be found to prove the existence of a god."
Whu-HUH??? Where did you get this notion? An atheist does NOT assume that no evidence of gods will ever be found.
"The act of assuming something is the act of believing."
You're playing fast and loose with the word "belief" again. Not to mention that your statement is false. If you assume something, you do not believe it. You simply make decisions as if it is true.
"Also we dont live in a physical universe. Quantum physics have shown that atoms are vastly immaterial."
I get very, very tired of people who watch some quack movie and then start talking about quantum this and quantum that. Quantum effects can only be observed on the atomic level and smaller. Quantum effects are never observed in the world we inhabit. We are not "one with the universe". We are tiny specks standing on a tiny speck orbiting a tiny speck in an corner of a typical galaxy. The universe does not listen to us and does not know that we exist. The universe doesn't know anything. It is not alive or aware. It just is.
"Most people feel a peaceful vibe around enlightened Gurus. You are right that belief and faith is required."
Most people feel a peaceful vibe around peaceful people. We are such social animals that we are constantly watching other humans to be ready to respond to threat or opportunity. The peaceful person's posture, facial expression, tone of voice, etc. convey a huge amount of information into our brains that we may not consciously pick up. Belief and faith are not required.
"Traditional science holds the belief that organic matter and life grew from the chmical ooze of the primeval ocean soley through random interactions of atoms and molecules"
Once again somebody says that very highly ordered processes, such as chemical reactions, are "random". Lose the word "random"! You do not know how to use it.
Oh, and "traditional science" does not say that organic matter grew from Earth's oceans. Organic matter is everywhere. We see its spectrographic signature in light coming from very hot interstellar clouds, we can detect it on asteroids, etc. We haven't detected living organic matter anywhere other than on Earth...yet...but organic matter is all over the place.
"What about the mystics that say consciousness experienced in its most refined level is God?"
This is playing around with the definition of "god". We need a single definition if we're going to discuss gods meaningfully. I recommend that a god must be aware, have volition and have or once have had the ability to affect the universe in some way. Saying that god exists in each of us doesn't meet that definition.
Everyone has their own BELIEFS and interpretation on what God is or isnt. Atheism is Belief. How can it not be? It is an opinion. And all opinions are beliefs.
QUOTE
"Atheism is a structured (personal or organized) belief system in which to relate to the world. Hence it is a religion."
Sigh...wrong, wrong, wrong. Atheism doesn't exist. It is the equivalent of zero. Zero doesn't exist. Zero is simply a convenient placeholder to suggest the absence of quantity. Atheism is the absence of religion, nothing more.
Sigh...wrong, wrong, wrong. Atheism doesn't exist. It is the equivalent of zero. Zero doesn't exist. Zero is simply a convenient placeholder to suggest the absence of quantity. Atheism is the absence of religion, nothing more.
Atheism is the absence of religion? But everyone has a different BELIEF of what religion is. Hence it is YOUR BELIEF THAT ATHEISM IS THE ABSENCE OF RELIGION AND NOTHING MORE.
Not an actual fact.
QUOTE
"However I disagree that the universe is a just a random happening."
We agree at last! By the way, nobody other than Creationists has ever suggested that the universe is a "random happening". There are fundamental laws of the universe. Newton's laws of motion are closely obeyed except when things get very, very hot, very very massive or very, very fast. Then other laws are very good at describing what happens. Another set of laws is needed to describe what happens on the quantum level. We haven't figured out the laws of the universe that are always obeyed no matter what but that's just because we haven't figured them out yet. It's not because they don't exist or because our desires affect the universe or gods are playing tricks on us.
There are lots of random events but that in no way means the universe behaves in a random manner.
"How the hell do you have an opinion that isnt belief based?"
I have the opinion that I like chocolate mint ice cream. You're saying that is a religion? I worship chocolate mint ice cream so I guess it must be a religion...(yes, I'm joking).
We agree at last! By the way, nobody other than Creationists has ever suggested that the universe is a "random happening". There are fundamental laws of the universe. Newton's laws of motion are closely obeyed except when things get very, very hot, very very massive or very, very fast. Then other laws are very good at describing what happens. Another set of laws is needed to describe what happens on the quantum level. We haven't figured out the laws of the universe that are always obeyed no matter what but that's just because we haven't figured them out yet. It's not because they don't exist or because our desires affect the universe or gods are playing tricks on us.
There are lots of random events but that in no way means the universe behaves in a random manner.
"How the hell do you have an opinion that isnt belief based?"
I have the opinion that I like chocolate mint ice cream. You're saying that is a religion? I worship chocolate mint ice cream so I guess it must be a religion...(yes, I'm joking).
So if I believe in the ideals of communism it isnt a belief? Where is your logic from? Clown land? This thread isnt me saying that it is a religion but that it is a BELIEF!@!
Read the starter post@! Also if you did worship chocolate icecream then who would I be to say that it cantbe called a religion? Who am I to say what can and cant be considered a religion?>
QUOTE(darkmoonlady @ Jul 16 2007, 09:38 AM)
The problem I'm seeing here is that those who want to say that atheism is a belief are still putting god on a higher level even in a discussion of a lack of belief. Follow me on this, when it comes to many supernatural things, take UFO's for instance, does someone who doesn't think UFO's are alien ships from another galaxy (either from lack of evidence or not enough good solid evidence to prove either way) are they believers? I don't think so why would they be? They are making that decision based on the evidence at hand which tells them that UFO's are not real. It isn't even a belief it is a CONCLUSION or if you will a deductive line of reasoning by which they cannot come to any other conclusion.
Take it like a court of law. I can't say I believe someone murdered someone I have to provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the person was murdered by the suspect in question. It isn't belief it is a conclusion based on evidence or lack thereof.
The same could be said about bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, you name it. Only when the idea of a god is invoked does the idea supposedly change. It shouldn't and here is why. While believers have a vested interest in there being a god, either salvation, life after death, etc, an atheist does not. What benefit is derived from a lack of belief in something? When an atheist dies is he wishing for nothingness? No he expects it based on the available evidence at his disposal. His conclusion to say well there is no solid evidence for a god besides others faith to show me god is real. Faith is not evidence it is personal feelings. While powerful to the believer has no effect on the person who does not conclude differently. Believers imbue god with a higher status when it comes to belief because they worship that deity. Therefore they cannot see that others who did not conclude a god exists find belief (another word for faith) to be a necessary part of the equation. Atheists know differently. It isn't a belief, it is an outcome formed from what they know of the world to be provable or real.
Just like with UFO's one can say well you can't prove they exist or that they don't. How silly. If they exist they leave evidence, and if they don't then after a certain point of people saying they are real with no evidence to back it up, it is reasonable to say they more than likely do not. I think two thousand years in the minds of some atheists is plenty to have to come to the conclusion that a god does not exist.
Take it like a court of law. I can't say I believe someone murdered someone I have to provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the person was murdered by the suspect in question. It isn't belief it is a conclusion based on evidence or lack thereof.
The same could be said about bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, you name it. Only when the idea of a god is invoked does the idea supposedly change. It shouldn't and here is why. While believers have a vested interest in there being a god, either salvation, life after death, etc, an atheist does not. What benefit is derived from a lack of belief in something? When an atheist dies is he wishing for nothingness? No he expects it based on the available evidence at his disposal. His conclusion to say well there is no solid evidence for a god besides others faith to show me god is real. Faith is not evidence it is personal feelings. While powerful to the believer has no effect on the person who does not conclude differently. Believers imbue god with a higher status when it comes to belief because they worship that deity. Therefore they cannot see that others who did not conclude a god exists find belief (another word for faith) to be a necessary part of the equation. Atheists know differently. It isn't a belief, it is an outcome formed from what they know of the world to be provable or real.
Just like with UFO's one can say well you can't prove they exist or that they don't. How silly. If they exist they leave evidence, and if they don't then after a certain point of people saying they are real with no evidence to back it up, it is reasonable to say they more than likely do not. I think two thousand years in the minds of some atheists is plenty to have to come to the conclusion that a god does not exist.
If you cant prove something exists but believe it does, then it is an act of faith to say it exists.
If you cant prove something doesnt exist and believe it doesnt, then it is an act of faith to say it doesnt exist.
Both cases havnt been proven so none can be established as fact.
And as far as all the UFOs, lochness monster and big foot is concerned how can I say they dont exist if I cant prove it? I can assume they dont but not say for certain.
This little quote by John Lennon (Allah bless him) describes my general outlook on Reality:
I believe in everything until it's disproved. So I believe in fairies, the myths, dragons. It all exists, even if it's in your mind. Who's to say that dreams and nightmares aren't as real as the here and now?
QUOTE(brave_new_world @ Jul 16 2007, 12:37 PM)
Everyone has their own BELIEFS and interpretation on what God is or isnt. Atheism is Belief. How can it not be? It is an opinion. And all opinions are beliefs.
Atheism is the absence of religion? But everyone has a different BELIEF of what religion is. Hence it is YOUR BELIEF THAT ATHEISM IS THE ABSENCE OF RELIGION AND NOTHING MORE.
Not an actual fact.
So if I believe in the ideals of communism it isnt a belief? Where is your logic from? Clown land? This thread isnt me saying that it is a religion but that it is a BELIEF!@!
Read the starter post@! Also if you did worship chocolate icecream then who would I be to say that it cantbe called a religion? Who am I to say what can and cant be considered a religion?>
Atheism is the absence of religion? But everyone has a different BELIEF of what religion is. Hence it is YOUR BELIEF THAT ATHEISM IS THE ABSENCE OF RELIGION AND NOTHING MORE.
Not an actual fact.
So if I believe in the ideals of communism it isnt a belief? Where is your logic from? Clown land? This thread isnt me saying that it is a religion but that it is a BELIEF!@!
Read the starter post@! Also if you did worship chocolate icecream then who would I be to say that it cantbe called a religion? Who am I to say what can and cant be considered a religion?>
Religion - Definition
noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
results for: Atheism
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Atheist - Definition
noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Origin: 1565–75; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ist]
—Synonyms Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.
Its silly to try and make it out that its any way religious...when its not
QUOTE(brave_new_world @ Jul 16 2007, 11:46 AM)
If you cant prove something exists but believe it does, then it is an act of faith to say it exists.
If you cant prove something doesnt exist and believe it doesnt, then it is an act of faith to say it doesnt exist.
Both cases havnt been proven so none can be established as fact.
And as far as all the UFOs, lochness monster and big foot is concerned how can I say they dont exist if I cant prove it? I can assume they dont but not say for certain.
This little quote by John Lennon (Allah bless him) describes my general outlook on Reality:
I believe in everything until it's disproved. So I believe in fairies, the myths, dragons. It all exists, even if it's in your mind. Who's to say that dreams and nightmares aren't as real as the here and now?
If you cant prove something doesnt exist and believe it doesnt, then it is an act of faith to say it doesnt exist.
Both cases havnt been proven so none can be established as fact.
And as far as all the UFOs, lochness monster and big foot is concerned how can I say they dont exist if I cant prove it? I can assume they dont but not say for certain.
This little quote by John Lennon (Allah bless him) describes my general outlook on Reality:
I believe in everything until it's disproved. So I believe in fairies, the myths, dragons. It all exists, even if it's in your mind. Who's to say that dreams and nightmares aren't as real as the here and now?
But that isn't how reality works. You know it, I know it and gee even a court of law knows that. There a reseasonable conclusion to be drawn if you cannot find evidence of something IF YOU LOOK FOR IT for a long long while and none comes up. Could new evidence emerge sure, but the odds in certain cases for the fantastic or supernatural say no. People have been trying to find proof of god for many thousands of years. It used to be people said thunder was proof of god or rain or any other sign they attributed to a god. We know now what causes rain, we know what causes thunder, we don't have assume anymore a god did it. Like I said the same people who believe in a god can just as easily dismiss a Loch Ness monster or a Bigfoot because they don't have a vested interest in thinking they are true. They do in god. For the one exeception, if they had proof of god (other than personal experience which we know is feeling not fact) they would have offered it up by now and would not be required to go on faith.
The atheists of the world have drawn a conclusion based on the facts at hand, with no vested interest in creating a god or needing one. That doesn't mean they didn't look hard enough for the evidence, it just wasn't there. That isn't faith or a belief no matter how much YOU say it is. Its the same way that science handles questions. They don't look to the fantastic anymore to explain things, why should they. They have a set of critera by which to prove or disprove things based on the facts at hand. Are you saying science is faith, (you probably are since that seems to be your unerreing line of reasoning, no matter what is real or no) because it isn't. A scientist can't publish a paper for peer reviewed editing based on "a feeling" or "on personal faith". So no matter how you slice it atheism isn't a belief.
QUOTE(darkmoonlady @ Jul 16 2007, 11:27 PM)
But that isn't how reality works.
According to whom? Who is the judge of the cans and cants of reality?
Whoever undertakes to set himself up as ajudge of truth and knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods. --- Albert Einstein
QUOTE
You know it, I know it and gee even a court of law knows that. There a reseasonable conclusion to be drawn if you cannot find evidence of something IF YOU LOOK FOR IT for a long long while and none comes up. Could new evidence emerge sure, but the odds in certain cases for the fantastic or supernatural say no.
If the possiblity remains the possibility remains.
QUOTE
People have been trying to find proof of god for many thousands of years. It used to be people said thunder was proof of god or rain or any other sign they attributed to a god. We know now what causes rain, we know what causes thunder, we don't have assume anymore a god did it. Like I said the same people who believe in a god can just as easily dismiss a Loch Ness monster or a Bigfoot because they don't have a vested interest in thinking they are true. They do in god. For the one exeception, if they had proof of god (other than personal experience which we know is feeling not fact) they would have offered it up by now and would not be required to go on faith.
You dont have much of philosophical view on God do you? Although this thread isnt about God I'll tel you a different definition of God that the Hindus
have that makes more logical sense:
Refined consciousness.
It makes sense because science cannot physically prove consciousness.
QUOTE
The atheists of the world have drawn a conclusion based on the facts at hand, with no vested interest in creating a god or needing one.
That doesn't mean they didn't look hard enough for the evidence, it just wasn't there. That isn't faith or a belief no matter how much YOU say it is.
That doesn't mean they didn't look hard enough for the evidence, it just wasn't there. That isn't faith or a belief no matter how much YOU say it is.
Yes it is. Because unless something has been proved BEYOND A DOUBT it is an opinion. And all opinions are beliefs. If an atheist cannot prove God does not exist then they dont know God doesnt exist and so it is an act of faith to say God doesnt exist.
QUOTE
Its the same way that science handles questions. They don't look to the fantastic anymore to explain things, why should they. They have a set of critera by which to prove or disprove things based on the facts at hand. Are you saying science is faith, (you probably are since that seems to be your unerreing line of reasoning, no matter what is real or no) because it isn't.
Yes science is faith. Why? Because science has a philosophical basis that cannot be proven one hundred percent. Who is to say that the scientific method of looking at reality is the correct way in the first place? Who decides what is logic in the first place for science 'proof' to be accepted?
And if we are asked what makes the law of logic true, we can in this and in many other cases provide a proof. But this proof in its turn relies upon some law of logic. (Ayer)
All proofs inevitably lead to propositions that have no proof. All things are known because we want to believe in them.
Bene Gesserit Azhar Book
QUOTE
A scientist can't publish a paper for peer reviewed editing based on "a feeling" or "on personal faith". So no matter how you slice it atheism isn't a belief.
You have too much faith in science. You think it isnt subject to bias and error? Look at eugenics. It was scientifically proven just before and during world war two that "jews" were a inferior race.
Skepticism and scientific conviction exist in modernman side by side with old-fashioned prejudices, out-dated habits of thought and feeling, obstinate misinterpretations, and blind ignorance.
---Carl Gustov Jung
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
---Max Planck
Science is a belief. Atheism is a belief. The set of opinions all people have constitutes their personal belief system. God hasnt been proven nor been disproven by science. Same goes for consciousness.
Hence it is an act of faith in the light of "science" to either believe or disbelieve in God or consciousness.
Hence atheism until it can be proven to be ABSOLUTELY PROVEN without a doubt is an opinion and therefore a belief.
QUOTE(Beckys_Mom @ Jul 16 2007, 09:30 PM)
Religion - Definition
noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
results for: Atheism
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Atheist - Definition
noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Origin: 1565–75; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ist]
—Synonyms Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.
Its silly to try and make it out that its any way religious...when its not
noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
results for: Atheism
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Atheist - Definition
noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Origin: 1565–75; < Gk áthe(os) godless + -ist]
—Synonyms Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.
Its silly to try and make it out that its any way religious...when its not
I am simply saying atheism is s belief. Because it is. Your own definition proves it. atheism is a 'doctrine.' Atheists believe in that 'doctrine' (personal or otherwise).
Your daily life s your temple and your religion. --Karl Gibran
The definition for what religion is is various.
QUOTE(brave_new_world @ Jul 16 2007, 08:45 PM)
Science is a belief. Atheism is a belief. The set of opinions all people have constitutes their personal belief system. God hasnt been proven nor been disproven by science. Same goes for consciousness.
Hence it is an act of faith in the light of "science" to either believe or disbelieve in God or consciousness.
Hence atheism until it can be proven to be ABSOLUTELY PROVEN without a doubt is an opinion and therefore a belief.
Hence it is an act of faith in the light of "science" to either believe or disbelieve in God or consciousness.
Hence atheism until it can be proven to be ABSOLUTELY PROVEN without a doubt is an opinion and therefore a belief.
WTFFF?? Atheism is just a name given to those that dont believe in a supernatural being such as God...what the heck is meant to be proven about the term used??
As for consciousness it is a characteristic of the mind generally regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment..wtf is there to prove?...hold up a sec...I recall you banging on and on about this before, it was as if your record was jammed ...never mind
IMO they both exist and they are simply terms to break it down for you - the term given for someone who doesnt believe in God or religion is atheism / atheist..
Im beginning to think you aren't really taking any of this serious brave, you are splitting hairs for kicks by the looks of it, and all you really have done is copy and paste quotes from other authors, you havent gave much of your own thoughts
This thread is hiLARIOUS!!! ...i am SOOO on the floor...GOD!...its only a belief! whats the big deal! Athiests believe that there is no God, whats the problem? Maybe there is no God, who knows for certain...nobody knows anything for certain, and this is why we use the word belief...its just a word!!!! a STUPID word!!!
i tell you what i cant believe...i cant believe that everyones making such a fuss about it...i reckon if people truely did not believe in God, then surely it would not matter what anybody else thought, for there would be nothing to defend!
hahahaha...keep up the good work everyone
QUOTE(nn23 @ Jul 16 2007, 09:15 PM)
This thread is hiLARIOUS!!! ...i am SOOO on the floor...GOD!...its only a belief! whats the big deal! Athiests believe that there is no God, whats the problem? Maybe there is no God, who knows for certain...nobody knows anything for certain, and this is why we use the word belief...its just a word!!!! a STUPID word!!! [img]
LMAO yea...ans here we have a few guys battling it out over a WORD that describes non believers <---they will prolly try and battle that term as well saying it don't exist, you cant prove it
Ok Ok, Time to look at the Bible's definition of religion.
Do atheists fit that description? Some do. In fact, there are some in all "religions" who fit that description. In which case, if you are a kind and loving person who serves your fellow man, than God our Father accepts you as a religious person who is pure and faultles.
QUOTE(James 1:27)
Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.
Do atheists fit that description? Some do. In fact, there are some in all "religions" who fit that description. In which case, if you are a kind and loving person who serves your fellow man, than God our Father accepts you as a religious person who is pure and faultles.
QUOTE(Child-Of-Israel @ Jul 16 2007, 09:27 PM)
Ok Ok, Time to look at the Bible's definition of religion.
Do atheists fit that description? Some do. In fact, there are some in all "religions" who fit that description. In which case, if you are a kind and loving person who serves your fellow man, than God our Father accepts you as a religious person who is pure and faultles.
Do atheists fit that description? Some do. In fact, there are some in all "religions" who fit that description. In which case, if you are a kind and loving person who serves your fellow man, than God our Father accepts you as a religious person who is pure and faultles.
You really crave atheists to be like you, dont you?? ohh alright then, for your sake, we will pretnend that atheists are religious LMAO..just to keep you quiet
"According to whom? Who is the judge of the cans and cants of reality?"
I let go of a rock, it falls.
I incline my cannon 30°, put in four onces of black powder and a ten pound ball. I wait for the wind to die down. I touch off the cannon. The ball lands very close to where I calculated it would land.
I hold a cloth soaked in ether over my face. I wake up on the ground.
This is reality.
"If the possiblity remains the possibility remains."
The possibility remains that the tooth fairy lives on the moon. I am going to assume that the tooth fairy does not live on the moon until I see some evidence. If the government of the United States is aggressively being stocked with Tooth Fairy Believers so that science classes will be canceled and Tooth Fairy Worship Workshops will fill the public schools, I will speak out against Tooth Fairyism.
"You dont have much of philosophical view on God do you? Although this thread isnt about God I'll tel you a different definition of God that the Hindus
have that makes more logical sense:
Refined consciousness."
Agreed. This is why I suggested we agree on a definition of gods. I do not agree that humans refining their consciousnesses become gods. They become humans with highly refined consciousnesses.
"Because unless something has been proved BEYOND A DOUBT it is an opinion."
Nothing will ever be proven beyond a doubt outside of mathematics. Since we must live in this world, we have to be satisfied with getting very, very close to proof. I cannot prove that a rock will fall when I let go of it. I assume that it will because every rock I have ever dropped has fallen. That does not mean that gravity is a religion and that one prays by dropping rocks.
"And all opinions are beliefs."
Agreed. The word "belief" as you use it in this sentence has absolutely nothing to do with "belief" when it's used to refer to religion however. They are two very different words even though they look and sound alike. Your fanatical obsession with pretending that words have meanings they do not have has been debunked several times in this thread. Let it die.
"If an atheist cannot prove God does not exist then they dont know God doesnt exist and so it is an act of faith to say God doesnt exist."
That notion is arrogant. You are saying that your way of thinking is the only possible way and any variation on your way can only exist in reference to your way. You cannot get your brain past the blockage that not everybody believes in gods. You believe in gods and you can't imagine not believing in gods. You try to solve your internal struggle by saying that one can believe in gods or one can believe in an alternative to gods as long as it is still pretty much the same thing as believing in gods, and there are no other possible alternatives.
That notion is flawed at its core. One can believe in gods, yes. One can believe in an alternative to gods, such as space aliens, yes. One can also be free of believing in gods or space aliens.
It's not the choice between taking an apple, a pear or an orange. The true choice is between taking an apple, a pear or not taking a piece of fruit. "Not taking a piece of fruit" is not the same as "taking a piece of fruit". "Not taking a piece of fruit" is not a religion although by your painful logic, it is a religion.
Bald is not a hair color.
"Yes science is faith. Why? Because science has a philosophical basis that cannot be proven one hundred percent. Who is to say that the scientific method of looking at reality is the correct way in the first place? Who decides what is logic in the first place for science 'proof' to be accepted?"
We all agree that nothing can be proven 100%. So what? We should stop thinking and exploring? We should stop testing hypotheses?
Nobody decides what is logic. Logic is an absolute. If all apples are fruit and all tadpoles are not fruit, then all apples must be not tadpoles. Given the first two statements are true, the conclusion has to be true, period. Logic certainly can be abused. Long ago people used the logic that all humans have to be free, Africans are not humans, therefore Africans do not have to be free. The logic of that statement is perfectly correct but one of the assumptions is wrong.
"All things are known because we want to believe in them.
Bene Gesserit Azhar Book"
You're quoting a science fiction novel to defend your position?!?!
"You have too much faith in science. You think it isnt subject to bias and error? Look at eugenics. It was scientifically proven just before and during world war two that "jews" were a inferior race."
Of course science is subject to bias and error. That's why new discoveries and interpretations undergo lengthy scrutiny before they're accepted as likely to be close to reality. The cold fusion fiasco happened because somebody leaked the story to the media before it had been thoroughly tested. A crucial step hadn't been performed yet - repeating the experiment. Independent researchers followed the experimental procedure used in the first experiment but were unable to obtain similar results. The original experiment may have actually caused cold fusion and the process may have been valid, but without being repeatable, among many other criteria, it cannot be accepted.
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
---Max Planck"
Riiiiggghhhtt.... Everybody says there are no extrasolar planets because the people who were born before their discovery haven't died off yet. Nobody believes in nanotubes. Atomic force microscopes can only be found on the shelf next to homeopathy cures and healing crystals.
It's sad that Herr Planck felt so discouraged by whatever political/economic/institutional situation he found himself in that he came to utter this bitter whine.
"The set of opinions all people have constitutes their personal belief system."
So? The fact that I believe W's private war is a blunder of huge proportions is the same as the fact that you believe that a god created the universe? Please.
"God hasnt been proven nor been disproven by science. Same goes for consciousness."
That's correct. Let's list some more items that haven't been proven or disproven by science:
-Tooth Fairy
-Any remote effectiveness from prayer (affecting the person being prayed for without them knowing about it)
-Easter Bunny
-Santa's workshop at the North Pole
-Flying reindeer
-Reincarnation
Every single one of your arguments applies just as well to each of these items as to the existence of gods. You think your gods fantasy is something special. It isn't. It's just one more of the very many ways humans can delude themselves.
"Hence it is an act of faith in the light of "science" to either believe or disbelieve in God or consciousness."
The absence of belief IS NOT belief.
-Belief
-Not belief
Are they the same thing? Of course they are not.
"Hence atheism until it can be proven to be ABSOLUTELY PROVEN without a doubt is an opinion and therefore a belief."
See my list above for other things that have not been ABSOLUTELY PROVEN without a doubt not to exist.
Explain why not believing in flying reindeer is a religion.
I have to agree with Beckys_Mom.
There's no way you can be writing the things you've been writing without laughing yourself off your chair. Enjoy!
I let go of a rock, it falls.
I incline my cannon 30°, put in four onces of black powder and a ten pound ball. I wait for the wind to die down. I touch off the cannon. The ball lands very close to where I calculated it would land.
I hold a cloth soaked in ether over my face. I wake up on the ground.
This is reality.
"If the possiblity remains the possibility remains."
The possibility remains that the tooth fairy lives on the moon. I am going to assume that the tooth fairy does not live on the moon until I see some evidence. If the government of the United States is aggressively being stocked with Tooth Fairy Believers so that science classes will be canceled and Tooth Fairy Worship Workshops will fill the public schools, I will speak out against Tooth Fairyism.
"You dont have much of philosophical view on God do you? Although this thread isnt about God I'll tel you a different definition of God that the Hindus
have that makes more logical sense:
Refined consciousness."
Agreed. This is why I suggested we agree on a definition of gods. I do not agree that humans refining their consciousnesses become gods. They become humans with highly refined consciousnesses.
"Because unless something has been proved BEYOND A DOUBT it is an opinion."
Nothing will ever be proven beyond a doubt outside of mathematics. Since we must live in this world, we have to be satisfied with getting very, very close to proof. I cannot prove that a rock will fall when I let go of it. I assume that it will because every rock I have ever dropped has fallen. That does not mean that gravity is a religion and that one prays by dropping rocks.
"And all opinions are beliefs."
Agreed. The word "belief" as you use it in this sentence has absolutely nothing to do with "belief" when it's used to refer to religion however. They are two very different words even though they look and sound alike. Your fanatical obsession with pretending that words have meanings they do not have has been debunked several times in this thread. Let it die.
"If an atheist cannot prove God does not exist then they dont know God doesnt exist and so it is an act of faith to say God doesnt exist."
That notion is arrogant. You are saying that your way of thinking is the only possible way and any variation on your way can only exist in reference to your way. You cannot get your brain past the blockage that not everybody believes in gods. You believe in gods and you can't imagine not believing in gods. You try to solve your internal struggle by saying that one can believe in gods or one can believe in an alternative to gods as long as it is still pretty much the same thing as believing in gods, and there are no other possible alternatives.
That notion is flawed at its core. One can believe in gods, yes. One can believe in an alternative to gods, such as space aliens, yes. One can also be free of believing in gods or space aliens.
It's not the choice between taking an apple, a pear or an orange. The true choice is between taking an apple, a pear or not taking a piece of fruit. "Not taking a piece of fruit" is not the same as "taking a piece of fruit". "Not taking a piece of fruit" is not a religion although by your painful logic, it is a religion.
Bald is not a hair color.
"Yes science is faith. Why? Because science has a philosophical basis that cannot be proven one hundred percent. Who is to say that the scientific method of looking at reality is the correct way in the first place? Who decides what is logic in the first place for science 'proof' to be accepted?"
We all agree that nothing can be proven 100%. So what? We should stop thinking and exploring? We should stop testing hypotheses?
Nobody decides what is logic. Logic is an absolute. If all apples are fruit and all tadpoles are not fruit, then all apples must be not tadpoles. Given the first two statements are true, the conclusion has to be true, period. Logic certainly can be abused. Long ago people used the logic that all humans have to be free, Africans are not humans, therefore Africans do not have to be free. The logic of that statement is perfectly correct but one of the assumptions is wrong.
"All things are known because we want to believe in them.
Bene Gesserit Azhar Book"
You're quoting a science fiction novel to defend your position?!?!
"You have too much faith in science. You think it isnt subject to bias and error? Look at eugenics. It was scientifically proven just before and during world war two that "jews" were a inferior race."
Of course science is subject to bias and error. That's why new discoveries and interpretations undergo lengthy scrutiny before they're accepted as likely to be close to reality. The cold fusion fiasco happened because somebody leaked the story to the media before it had been thoroughly tested. A crucial step hadn't been performed yet - repeating the experiment. Independent researchers followed the experimental procedure used in the first experiment but were unable to obtain similar results. The original experiment may have actually caused cold fusion and the process may have been valid, but without being repeatable, among many other criteria, it cannot be accepted.
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
---Max Planck"
Riiiiggghhhtt.... Everybody says there are no extrasolar planets because the people who were born before their discovery haven't died off yet. Nobody believes in nanotubes. Atomic force microscopes can only be found on the shelf next to homeopathy cures and healing crystals.
It's sad that Herr Planck felt so discouraged by whatever political/economic/institutional situation he found himself in that he came to utter this bitter whine.
"The set of opinions all people have constitutes their personal belief system."
So? The fact that I believe W's private war is a blunder of huge proportions is the same as the fact that you believe that a god created the universe? Please.
"God hasnt been proven nor been disproven by science. Same goes for consciousness."
That's correct. Let's list some more items that haven't been proven or disproven by science:
-Tooth Fairy
-Any remote effectiveness from prayer (affecting the person being prayed for without them knowing about it)
-Easter Bunny
-Santa's workshop at the North Pole
-Flying reindeer
-Reincarnation
Every single one of your arguments applies just as well to each of these items as to the existence of gods. You think your gods fantasy is something special. It isn't. It's just one more of the very many ways humans can delude themselves.
"Hence it is an act of faith in the light of "science" to either believe or disbelieve in God or consciousness."
The absence of belief IS NOT belief.
-Belief
-Not belief
Are they the same thing? Of course they are not.
"Hence atheism until it can be proven to be ABSOLUTELY PROVEN without a doubt is an opinion and therefore a belief."
See my list above for other things that have not been ABSOLUTELY PROVEN without a doubt not to exist.
Explain why not believing in flying reindeer is a religion.
I have to agree with Beckys_Mom.
There's no way you can be writing the things you've been writing without laughing yourself off your chair. Enjoy!
QUOTE(blizno @ Jul 16 2007, 10:52 PM)
"According to whom? Who is the judge of the cans and cants of reality?"
I let go of a rock, it falls.
I incline my cannon 30°, put in four onces of black powder and a ten pound ball. I wait for the wind to die down. I touch off the cannon. The ball lands very close to where I calculated it would land.
I hold a cloth soaked in ether over my face. I wake up on the ground.
This is reality.
"If the possiblity remains the possibility remains."
The possibility remains that the tooth fairy lives on the moon. I am going to assume that the tooth fairy does not live on the moon until I see some evidence. If the government of the United States is aggressively being stocked with Tooth Fairy Believers so that science classes will be canceled and Tooth Fairy Worship Workshops will fill the public schools, I will speak out against Tooth Fairyism.
"You dont have much of philosophical view on God do you? Although this thread isnt about God I'll tel you a different definition of God that the Hindus
have that makes more logical sense:
Refined consciousness."
Agreed. This is why I suggested we agree on a definition of gods. I do not agree that humans refining their consciousnesses become gods. They become humans with highly refined consciousnesses.
"Because unless something has been proved BEYOND A DOUBT it is an opinion."
Nothing will ever be proven beyond a doubt outside of mathematics. Since we must live in this world, we have to be satisfied with getting very, very close to proof. I cannot prove that a rock will fall when I let go of it. I assume that it will because every rock I have ever dropped has fallen. That does not mean that gravity is a religion and that one prays by dropping rocks.
"And all opinions are beliefs."
Agreed. The word "belief" as you use it in this sentence has absolutely nothing to do with "belief" when it's used to refer to religion however. They are two very different words even though they look and sound alike. Your fanatical obsession with pretending that words have meanings they do not have has been debunked several times in this thread. Let it die.
"If an atheist cannot prove God does not exist then they dont know God doesnt exist and so it is an act of faith to say God doesnt exist."
That notion is arrogant. You are saying that your way of thinking is the only possible way and any variation on your way can only exist in reference to your way. You cannot get your brain past the blockage that not everybody believes in gods. You believe in gods and you can't imagine not believing in gods. You try to solve your internal struggle by saying that one can believe in gods or one can believe in an alternative to gods as long as it is still pretty much the same thing as believing in gods, and there are no other possible alternatives.
That notion is flawed at its core. One can believe in gods, yes. One can believe in an alternative to gods, such as space aliens, yes. One can also be free of believing in gods or space aliens.
It's not the choice between taking an apple, a pear or an orange. The true choice is between taking an apple, a pear or not taking a piece of fruit. "Not taking a piece of fruit" is not the same as "taking a piece of fruit". "Not taking a piece of fruit" is not a religion although by your painful logic, it is a religion.
Bald is not a hair color.
"Yes science is faith. Why? Because science has a philosophical basis that cannot be proven one hundred percent. Who is to say that the scientific method of looking at reality is the correct way in the first place? Who decides what is logic in the first place for science 'proof' to be accepted?"
We all agree that nothing can be proven 100%. So what? We should stop thinking and exploring? We should stop testing hypotheses?
Nobody decides what is logic. Logic is an absolute. If all apples are fruit and all tadpoles are not fruit, then all apples must be not tadpoles. Given the first two statements are true, the conclusion has to be true, period. Logic certainly can be abused. Long ago people used the logic that all humans have to be free, Africans are not humans, therefore Africans do not have to be free. The logic of that statement is perfectly correct but one of the assumptions is wrong.
"All things are known because we want to believe in them.
Bene Gesserit Azhar Book"
You're quoting a science fiction novel to defend your position?!?!
"You have too much faith in science. You think it isnt subject to bias and error? Look at eugenics. It was scientifically proven just before and during world war two that "jews" were a inferior race."
Of course science is subject to bias and error. That's why new discoveries and interpretations undergo lengthy scrutiny before they're accepted as likely to be close to reality. The cold fusion fiasco happened because somebody leaked the story to the media before it had been thoroughly tested. A crucial step hadn't been performed yet - repeating the experiment. Independent researchers followed the experimental procedure used in the first experiment but were unable to obtain similar results. The original experiment may have actually caused cold fusion and the process may have been valid, but without being repeatable, among many other criteria, it cannot be accepted.
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
---Max Planck"
Riiiiggghhhtt.... Everybody says there are no extrasolar planets because the people who were born before their discovery haven't died off yet. Nobody believes in nanotubes. Atomic force microscopes can only be found on the shelf next to homeopathy cures and healing crystals.
It's sad that Herr Planck felt so discouraged by whatever political/economic/institutional situation he found himself in that he came to utter this bitter whine.
"The set of opinions all people have constitutes their personal belief system."
So? The fact that I believe W's private war is a blunder of huge proportions is the same as the fact that you believe that a god created the universe? Please.
"God hasnt been proven nor been disproven by science. Same goes for consciousness."
That's correct. Let's list some more items that haven't been proven or disproven by science:
-Tooth Fairy
-Any remote effectiveness from prayer (affecting the person being prayed for without them knowing about it)
-Easter Bunny
-Santa's workshop at the North Pole
-Flying reindeer
-Reincarnation
Every single one of your arguments applies just as well to each of these items as to the existence of gods. You think your gods fantasy is something special. It isn't. It's just one more of the very many ways humans can delude themselves.
"Hence it is an act of faith in the light of "science" to either believe or disbelieve in God or consciousness."
The absence of belief IS NOT belief.
-Belief
-Not belief
Are they the same thing? Of course they are not.
"Hence atheism until it can be proven to be ABSOLUTELY PROVEN without a doubt is an opinion and therefore a belief."
See my list above for other things that have not been ABSOLUTELY PROVEN without a doubt not to exist.
Explain why not believing in flying reindeer is a religion.
I have to agree with Beckys_Mom.
There's no way you can be writing the things you've been writing without laughing yourself off your chair. Enjoy!
I let go of a rock, it falls.
I incline my cannon 30°, put in four onces of black powder and a ten pound ball. I wait for the wind to die down. I touch off the cannon. The ball lands very close to where I calculated it would land.
I hold a cloth soaked in ether over my face. I wake up on the ground.
This is reality.
"If the possiblity remains the possibility remains."
The possibility remains that the tooth fairy lives on the moon. I am going to assume that the tooth fairy does not live on the moon until I see some evidence. If the government of the United States is aggressively being stocked with Tooth Fairy Believers so that science classes will be canceled and Tooth Fairy Worship Workshops will fill the public schools, I will speak out against Tooth Fairyism.
"You dont have much of philosophical view on God do you? Although this thread isnt about God I'll tel you a different definition of God that the Hindus
have that makes more logical sense:
Refined consciousness."
Agreed. This is why I suggested we agree on a definition of gods. I do not agree that humans refining their consciousnesses become gods. They become humans with highly refined consciousnesses.
"Because unless something has been proved BEYOND A DOUBT it is an opinion."
Nothing will ever be proven beyond a doubt outside of mathematics. Since we must live in this world, we have to be satisfied with getting very, very close to proof. I cannot prove that a rock will fall when I let go of it. I assume that it will because every rock I have ever dropped has fallen. That does not mean that gravity is a religion and that one prays by dropping rocks.
"And all opinions are beliefs."
Agreed. The word "belief" as you use it in this sentence has absolutely nothing to do with "belief" when it's used to refer to religion however. They are two very different words even though they look and sound alike. Your fanatical obsession with pretending that words have meanings they do not have has been debunked several times in this thread. Let it die.
"If an atheist cannot prove God does not exist then they dont know God doesnt exist and so it is an act of faith to say God doesnt exist."
That notion is arrogant. You are saying that your way of thinking is the only possible way and any variation on your way can only exist in reference to your way. You cannot get your brain past the blockage that not everybody believes in gods. You believe in gods and you can't imagine not believing in gods. You try to solve your internal struggle by saying that one can believe in gods or one can believe in an alternative to gods as long as it is still pretty much the same thing as believing in gods, and there are no other possible alternatives.
That notion is flawed at its core. One can believe in gods, yes. One can believe in an alternative to gods, such as space aliens, yes. One can also be free of believing in gods or space aliens.
It's not the choice between taking an apple, a pear or an orange. The true choice is between taking an apple, a pear or not taking a piece of fruit. "Not taking a piece of fruit" is not the same as "taking a piece of fruit". "Not taking a piece of fruit" is not a religion although by your painful logic, it is a religion.
Bald is not a hair color.
"Yes science is faith. Why? Because science has a philosophical basis that cannot be proven one hundred percent. Who is to say that the scientific method of looking at reality is the correct way in the first place? Who decides what is logic in the first place for science 'proof' to be accepted?"
We all agree that nothing can be proven 100%. So what? We should stop thinking and exploring? We should stop testing hypotheses?
Nobody decides what is logic. Logic is an absolute. If all apples are fruit and all tadpoles are not fruit, then all apples must be not tadpoles. Given the first two statements are true, the conclusion has to be true, period. Logic certainly can be abused. Long ago people used the logic that all humans have to be free, Africans are not humans, therefore Africans do not have to be free. The logic of that statement is perfectly correct but one of the assumptions is wrong.
"All things are known because we want to believe in them.
Bene Gesserit Azhar Book"
You're quoting a science fiction novel to defend your position?!?!
"You have too much faith in science. You think it isnt subject to bias and error? Look at eugenics. It was scientifically proven just before and during world war two that "jews" were a inferior race."
Of course science is subject to bias and error. That's why new discoveries and interpretations undergo lengthy scrutiny before they're accepted as likely to be close to reality. The cold fusion fiasco happened because somebody leaked the story to the media before it had been thoroughly tested. A crucial step hadn't been performed yet - repeating the experiment. Independent researchers followed the experimental procedure used in the first experiment but were unable to obtain similar results. The original experiment may have actually caused cold fusion and the process may have been valid, but without being repeatable, among many other criteria, it cannot be accepted.
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
---Max Planck"
Riiiiggghhhtt.... Everybody says there are no extrasolar planets because the people who were born before their discovery haven't died off yet. Nobody believes in nanotubes. Atomic force microscopes can only be found on the shelf next to homeopathy cures and healing crystals.
It's sad that Herr Planck felt so discouraged by whatever political/economic/institutional situation he found himself in that he came to utter this bitter whine.
"The set of opinions all people have constitutes their personal belief system."
So? The fact that I believe W's private war is a blunder of huge proportions is the same as the fact that you believe that a god created the universe? Please.
"God hasnt been proven nor been disproven by science. Same goes for consciousness."
That's correct. Let's list some more items that haven't been proven or disproven by science:
-Tooth Fairy
-Any remote effectiveness from prayer (affecting the person being prayed for without them knowing about it)
-Easter Bunny
-Santa's workshop at the North Pole
-Flying reindeer
-Reincarnation
Every single one of your arguments applies just as well to each of these items as to the existence of gods. You think your gods fantasy is something special. It isn't. It's just one more of the very many ways humans can delude themselves.
"Hence it is an act of faith in the light of "science" to either believe or disbelieve in God or consciousness."
The absence of belief IS NOT belief.
-Belief
-Not belief
Are they the same thing? Of course they are not.
"Hence atheism until it can be proven to be ABSOLUTELY PROVEN without a doubt is an opinion and therefore a belief."
See my list above for other things that have not been ABSOLUTELY PROVEN without a doubt not to exist.
Explain why not believing in flying reindeer is a religion.
I have to agree with Beckys_Mom.
There's no way you can be writing the things you've been writing without laughing yourself off your chair. Enjoy!
Look whos writing
QUOTE(nn23 @ Jul 16 2007, 02:15 PM)
This thread is hiLARIOUS!!! ...i am SOOO on the floor...GOD!...its only a belief! whats the big deal! Athiests believe that there is no God, whats the problem? Maybe there is no God, who knows for certain...nobody knows anything for certain, and this is why we use the word belief...its just a word!!!! a STUPID word!!!
i tell you what i cant believe...i cant believe that everyones making such a fuss about it...i reckon if people truely did not believe in God, then surely it would not matter what anybody else thought, for there would be nothing to defend!
hahahaha...keep up the good work everyone
I really wish I could laugh along with you but this entire subject has become deadly serious thanks to a handful of ultra-ultra-wealthy religious fanatics. W has done his best to replace American justice with religious law. Others have done their best to destroy public school science teaching and replace it with a horribly twisted caricature of reason that has been tortured into a shape that agrees, in their minds, with their specific interpretation of the Bible. They failed, fortunately, but if W had succeeded in stocking the courts with enough radical fundamentalist fanatic judges, it could have gone the other way. The fanatics who tried to commit this treason haven't given up. They're still plotting to destroy reason and replace it with Faith. Their specific, narrow, rigid Faith, that is.
The "science is a religion" nonsense isn't just sad folly. The people pushing this fantasy are doing it as part of their agenda. Their goal is to be able to stand in front of a Fundamentalist Supreme Court and say, "If science, which is a religion, can be taught in public school science classes, then there's no legal argument against our teaching religion in those same classes." They failed utterly when they attempted to rename Creationism, calling it Creation Science and then later, Intelligent Design, and slip it into public schools as if it was remotely related to science. They're left with having to destroy the separation of church and state by other treasons.
The hypocrisy of these freaks is mind-boggling. You must not use fertilized eggs for research and must let them die in fertility clinic waste bins instead. However, the death penalty is a good thing. Attacking a sovereign nation that had done nothing to attack your nation is a good thing. Sure, tens of thousands of human lives have been destroyed but at least no fertilized eggs have been used in research!
The determined war against the separation of church and state is the most important war being waged. It must not be lost!
I started laughing when W first stole the office of president but I have been weeping ever since.
QUOTE(blizno @ Jul 16 2007, 10:52 PM)
I have to agree with Beckys_Mom.
There's no way you can be writing the things you've been writing without laughing yourself off your chair. Enjoy!
There's no way you can be writing the things you've been writing without laughing yourself off your chair. Enjoy!
He is doing it to amuse himself...*sits waiting on brave to enter and add- BM DEFINE AMUSE? What does it mean to you Beckys _Mom?*
Can you imagine braves new self written dictionary?? LMAO
with words like - Consciousness, Everything....Anything...numbers...quantity...quality...atheism...religion...fai
h..belief...and then some and turns out, they all dont really exist <--whoopss another word LOL
with words like - Consciousness, Everything....Anything...numbers...quantity...quality...atheism...religion...fai
h..belief...and then some and turns out, they all dont really exist <--whoopss another word LOL
QUOTE(blizno @ Jul 16 2007, 11:26 PM)
I really wish I could laugh along with you but this entire subject has become deadly serious thanks to a handful of ultra-ultra-wealthy religious fanatics. W has done his best to replace American justice with religious law. Others have done their best to destroy public school science teaching and replace it with a horribly twisted caricature of reason that has been tortured into a shape that agrees, in their minds, with their specific interpretation of the Bible. They failed, fortunately, but if W had succeeded in stocking the courts with enough radical fundamentalist fanatic judges, it could have gone the other way. The fanatics who tried to commit this treason haven't given up. They're still plotting to destroy reason and replace it with Faith. Their specific, narrow, rigid Faith, that is.
The "science is a religion" nonsense isn't just sad folly. The people pushing this fantasy are doing it as part of their agenda. Their goal is to be able to stand in front of a Fundamentalist Supreme Court and say, "If science, which is a religion, can be taught in public school science classes, then there's no legal argument against our teaching religion in those same classes." They failed utterly when they attempted to rename Creationism, calling it Creation Science and then later, Intelligent Design, and slip it into public schools as if it was remotely related to science. They're left with having to destroy the separation of church and state by other treasons.
The hypocrisy of these freaks is mind-boggling. You must not use fertilized eggs for research and must let them die in fertility clinic waste bins instead. However, the death penalty is a good thing. Attacking a sovereign nation that had done nothing to attack your nation is a good thing. Sure, tens of thousands of human lives have been destroyed but at least no fertilized eggs have been used in research!
The determined war against the separation of church and state is the most important war being waged. It must not be lost!
I started laughing when W first stole the office of president but I have been weeping ever since.
The "science is a religion" nonsense isn't just sad folly. The people pushing this fantasy are doing it as part of their agenda. Their goal is to be able to stand in front of a Fundamentalist Supreme Court and say, "If science, which is a religion, can be taught in public school science classes, then there's no legal argument against our teaching religion in those same classes." They failed utterly when they attempted to rename Creationism, calling it Creation Science and then later, Intelligent Design, and slip it into public schools as if it was remotely related to science. They're left with having to destroy the separation of church and state by other treasons.
The hypocrisy of these freaks is mind-boggling. You must not use fertilized eggs for research and must let them die in fertility clinic waste bins instead. However, the death penalty is a good thing. Attacking a sovereign nation that had done nothing to attack your nation is a good thing. Sure, tens of thousands of human lives have been destroyed but at least no fertilized eggs have been used in research!
The determined war against the separation of church and state is the most important war being waged. It must not be lost!
I started laughing when W first stole the office of president but I have been weeping ever since.
Good post man, that explains alot!
I understand now why this is so important to you...although this thread is not disputing these political issues...why do all these things bother you? Is it not because you believe in a different way? Claiming belief in one way is surely more constructive than claiming disbelief in the way things are...what can you do with disbelief?...Believeing in something else gives you something to build upon, that stands up to W. To say i "disbelieve" in "this" (W) is completely unaffective...democracy shows that it is only through belief (voting for another) that we can show our disbelief...ha ha not that democracy works, but you know the point i am trying to make.
mmm, yeah...just bringing it back on topic, thas'all
Namaste
nn23
QUOTE(Beckys_Mom @ Jul 17 2007, 03:57 AM)
WTFFF?? Atheism is just a name given to those that dont believe in a supernatural being such as God...what the heck is meant to be proven about the term used??
Atheism is a belief that God doesnt exist. It is a belief.
QUOTE
As for consciousness it is a characteristic of the mind generally regarded to comprise qualities such as subjectivity, self-awareness, sentience, sapience, and the ability to perceive the relationship between oneself and one's environment..wtf is there to prove?...hold up a sec...I recall you banging on and on about this before, it was as if your record was jammed ...never mind
Ya but consciousness has no physical attributes
that was my point. Hence science cannot prove it. QUOTE
IMO they both exist and they are simply terms to break it down for you - the term given for someone who doesnt believe in God or religion is atheism / atheist..
Hence atheism is a belief because they dont believe in God or religion. It is there belief that God doesnt exist.
QUOTE
Im beginning to think you aren't really taking any of this serious brave, you are splitting hairs for kicks by the looks of it, and all you really have done is copy and paste quotes from other authors, you havent gave much of your own thoughts
I starting to think you arnt as intelligent as I thought. I have put up very rational arguments (including articulate quotes from intelligent people to help illustrate my point) and you still think that a belief in the non-existence of God isnt a belief.
QUOTE(Child-Of-Israel @ Jul 17 2007, 04:27 AM)
Ok Ok, Time to look at the Bible's definition of religion.
Do atheists fit that description? Some do. In fact, there are some in all "religions" who fit that description. In which case, if you are a kind and loving person who serves your fellow man, than God our Father accepts you as a religious person who is pure and faultles.
Do atheists fit that description? Some do. In fact, there are some in all "religions" who fit that description. In which case, if you are a kind and loving person who serves your fellow man, than God our Father accepts you as a religious person who is pure and faultles.
My point in all this isnt to state that atheism is a religion in the transcendental sense. I am simply conveying that like all ideals, atheism is a belief.
As simple as saying that the world is round. Atheism is a belief.
QUOTE(blizno @ Jul 17 2007, 05:52 AM)
"According to whom? Who is the judge of the cans and cants of reality?"
I let go of a rock, it falls.
I incline my cannon 30°, put in four onces of black powder and a ten pound ball. I wait for the wind to die down. I touch off the cannon. The ball lands very close to where I calculated it would land.
I hold a cloth soaked in ether over my face. I wake up on the ground.
This is reality.
I let go of a rock, it falls.
I incline my cannon 30°, put in four onces of black powder and a ten pound ball. I wait for the wind to die down. I touch off the cannon. The ball lands very close to where I calculated it would land.
I hold a cloth soaked in ether over my face. I wake up on the ground.
This is reality.
The rock is just energy. Everything in the universe is vibrating energy created by consciousness. No consciousness no reality. How can we prove what reality is without being aware of it.
To be honest I dont know what reality is. I only have my belief in what it is.
I cant prove my belief is absolutely true hence it isnt fact. Just like atheism cannot prove that their logic and beliefs are true. Hence it is an act of faith to be atheist.
QUOTE
"If the possiblity remains the possibility remains."
The possibility remains that the tooth fairy lives on the moon. I am going to assume that the tooth fairy does not live on the moon until I see some evidence. If the government of the United States is aggressively being stocked with Tooth Fairy Believers so that science classes will be canceled and Tooth Fairy Worship Workshops will fill the public schools, I will speak out against Tooth Fairyism.
The possibility remains that the tooth fairy lives on the moon. I am going to assume that the tooth fairy does not live on the moon until I see some evidence. If the government of the United States is aggressively being stocked with Tooth Fairy Believers so that science classes will be canceled and Tooth Fairy Worship Workshops will fill the public schools, I will speak out against Tooth Fairyism.
Hence I believe that the tooth fairy lives on the moon until it can be disproven. Otherwise......what do I really have to lose by believing this?
QUOTE
"You dont have much of philosophical view on God do you? Although this thread isnt about God I'll tel you a different definition of God that the Hindus
have that makes more logical sense:
Refined consciousness."
Agreed. This is why I suggested we agree on a definition of gods. I do not agree that humans refining their consciousnesses become gods. They become humans with highly refined consciousnesses.
have that makes more logical sense:
Refined consciousness."
Agreed. This is why I suggested we agree on a definition of gods. I do not agree that humans refining their consciousnesses become gods. They become humans with highly refined consciousnesses.
Human that has a highly refined consciousness and God is the same thing then. It doesnt matter for it is only a word to use those who are at one with infinity. So whether you use the word God or highly refined consciousness it doesnt matter.
All words fall short because the state of highly refined consciousness or God is infinite and therefore cannot be adequately described by finite words or concepts.
QUOTE
"Because unless something has been proved BEYOND A DOUBT it is an opinion."
Nothing will ever be proven beyond a doubt outside of mathematics. Since we must live in this world, we have to be satisfied with getting very, very close to proof. I cannot prove that a rock will fall when I let go of it. I assume that it will because every rock I have ever dropped has fallen. That does not mean that gravity is a religion and that one prays by dropping rocks.
Nothing will ever be proven beyond a doubt outside of mathematics. Since we must live in this world, we have to be satisfied with getting very, very close to proof. I cannot prove that a rock will fall when I let go of it. I assume that it will because every rock I have ever dropped has fallen. That does not mean that gravity is a religion and that one prays by dropping rocks.
Being very very close to proof and assumptions, still dont do well enough to say that opinion is fact.
And as for mathematics:
As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are uncertain; and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality. -- Albert Einstein
QUOTE
"And all opinions are beliefs."
Agreed. The word "belief" as you use it in this sentence has absolutely nothing to do with "belief" when it's used to refer to religion however. They are two very different words even though they look and sound alike. Your fanatical obsession with pretending that words have meanings they do not have has been debunked several times in this thread. Let it die.
Agreed. The word "belief" as you use it in this sentence has absolutely nothing to do with "belief" when it's used to refer to religion however. They are two very different words even though they look and sound alike. Your fanatical obsession with pretending that words have meanings they do not have has been debunked several times in this thread. Let it die.
Where has it been debunked?????????????? Also how is belief which means opinion when used on non-religious matter different from belief which means opinion on religious matters?
It is still all opinion either way. I dont understand your logic here. As my good friend leonardo once wrote:
If you believe you know something the only thing you know is your belief.
Now if I say I believe God doesn't exist, how has that got "absolutely nothing to do with belief" when compared to religion.
What is the fundamental difference with the use of the word belief if I say "I believe God exists" or "I dont believe God exists"?
Where is this vast difference you speak of?
QUOTE
"If an atheist cannot prove God does not exist then they dont know God doesnt exist and so it is an act of faith to say God doesnt exist."
That notion is arrogant. You are saying that your way of thinking is the only possible way and any variation on your way can only exist in reference to your way. You cannot get your brain past the blockage that not everybody believes in gods. You believe in gods and you can't imagine not believing in gods. You try to solve your internal struggle by saying that one can believe in gods or one can believe in an alternative to gods as long as it is still pretty much the same thing as believing in gods, and there are no other possible alternatives.
That notion is flawed at its core. One can believe in gods, yes. One can believe in an alternative to gods, such as space aliens, yes. One can also be free of believing in gods or space aliens.
It's not the choice between taking an apple, a pear or an orange. The true choice is between taking an apple, a pear or not taking a piece of fruit. "Not taking a piece of fruit" is not the same as "taking a piece of fruit". "Not taking a piece of fruit" is not a religion although by your painful logic, it is a religion.
Bald is not a hair color.
That notion is arrogant. You are saying that your way of thinking is the only possible way and any variation on your way can only exist in reference to your way. You cannot get your brain past the blockage that not everybody believes in gods. You believe in gods and you can't imagine not believing in gods. You try to solve your internal struggle by saying that one can believe in gods or one can believe in an alternative to gods as long as it is still pretty much the same thing as believing in gods, and there are no other possible alternatives.
That notion is flawed at its core. One can believe in gods, yes. One can believe in an alternative to gods, such as space aliens, yes. One can also be free of believing in gods or space aliens.
It's not the choice between taking an apple, a pear or an orange. The true choice is between taking an apple, a pear or not taking a piece of fruit. "Not taking a piece of fruit" is not the same as "taking a piece of fruit". "Not taking a piece of fruit" is not a religion although by your painful logic, it is a religion.
Bald is not a hair color.
I said: "If an atheist cannot prove God does not exist then they dont know God doesnt exist and so it is an act of faith to say God doesnt exist."
Now how does that imply that I think my only way of thinking is correct? I am simply saying that unless you can prove God doesnt exist that there is an uncertainty factor and therefore such statements of God's non-existence is opinion based and not proof based.
The same goes for if I had to say God does exist. I am not saying that atheists are wrong andf believers are right or vice versa. I am simply stating that unless there is proof either way it is an act of faith either way.
QUOTE
"Yes science is faith. Why? Because science has a philosophical basis that cannot be proven one hundred percent. Who is to say that the scientific method of looking at reality is the correct way in the first place? Who decides what is logic in the first place for science 'proof' to be accepted?"
We all agree that nothing can be proven 100%. So what? We should stop thinking and exploring? We should stop testing hypotheses?
Nobody decides what is logic. Logic is an absolute. If all apples are fruit and all tadpoles are not fruit, then all apples must be not tadpoles. Given the first two statements are true, the conclusion has to be true, period. Logic certainly can be abused. Long ago people used the logic that all humans have to be free, Africans are not humans, therefore Africans do not have to be free. The logic of that statement is perfectly correct but one of the assumptions is wrong.
We all agree that nothing can be proven 100%. So what? We should stop thinking and exploring? We should stop testing hypotheses?
Nobody decides what is logic. Logic is an absolute. If all apples are fruit and all tadpoles are not fruit, then all apples must be not tadpoles. Given the first two statements are true, the conclusion has to be true, period. Logic certainly can be abused. Long ago people used the logic that all humans have to be free, Africans are not humans, therefore Africans do not have to be free. The logic of that statement is perfectly correct but one of the assumptions is wrong.
Logic is an absolute? According to who? Which individuals decide what is or isnt absolute logic???? Also we live in a relative world.......how can there be absolutes in a relative world????
Also I never said that if things cant be proven 100% that we should stop exploring. My belief is quite the opposite. I am all for exploring the inner and outer worlds of existence.
Also you miss my point. If something cannot be proven 100% ,my argument is that it is an act of faith to believe it is true. Like atheism cannot be proven 100% hence it is a belief because it isnt fact (until proven).
Remember my argument with this thread ISNT TO CHALLENGE TO BELIEFS OF ATHEISM OR ATHEISTS BUT TO SHOW THAT ATHEISM IS A BELIEF.
And you just said here that nothing can be proven 100% percent (which is your belief by the way) hence by your own admission you agree that atheism isnt one hundred proven. Therefore it is a belief.
Also if you agree that nothing can be proven 100% then how can you say that logic is an absolute? You can only say logic is absolute if it cant be 100% proven. Hence to say that logic is an absolute is also based on belief and not fact.
QUOTE
"All things are known because we want to believe in them.
Bene Gesserit Azhar Book"
You're quoting a science fiction novel to defend your position?!?!
Bene Gesserit Azhar Book"
You're quoting a science fiction novel to defend your position?!?!
Yes I am. Because the quote stands out for itself regardless of the fact that it came from a Frank Herbert book. Intelligent people read quotes for the information in themselves and then consider the validity of a quote. Intelligent people dont merely disregard it because it may have come from a science-fiction novel.
For an example, many political intellectuals often quote george orwell from his science fiction novel '1984' when writing serious essays. I chose a quote from Frank Herbert.
QUOTE
"You have too much faith in science. You think it isnt subject to bias and error? Look at eugenics. It was scientifically proven just before and during world war two that "jews" were a inferior race."
Of course science is subject to bias and error. That's why new discoveries and interpretations undergo lengthy scrutiny before they're accepted as likely to be close to reality. The cold fusion fiasco happened because somebody leaked the story to the media before it had been thoroughly tested. A crucial step hadn't been performed yet - repeating the experiment. Independent researchers followed the experimental procedure used in the first experiment but were unable to obtain similar results. The original experiment may have actually caused cold fusion and the process may have been valid, but without being repeatable, among many other criteria, it cannot be accepted.
Of course science is subject to bias and error. That's why new discoveries and interpretations undergo lengthy scrutiny before they're accepted as likely to be close to reality. The cold fusion fiasco happened because somebody leaked the story to the media before it had been thoroughly tested. A crucial step hadn't been performed yet - repeating the experiment. Independent researchers followed the experimental procedure used in the first experiment but were unable to obtain similar results. The original experiment may have actually caused cold fusion and the process may have been valid, but without being repeatable, among many other criteria, it cannot be accepted.
??????????? Eugenics was leaked to the media before it could be tested? Hahahahahahahaha sorry I have to laugh. And how were they gonna test it? So had the media not of intervened, Hitler wouldnt have used Eugenics to partially justify his ethnic cleansings?
Are you truly sure about this?
QUOTE
"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
---Max Planck"
Riiiiggghhhtt.... Everybody says there are no extrasolar planets because the people who were born before their discovery haven't died off yet. Nobody believes in nanotubes. Atomic force microscopes can only be found on the shelf next to homeopathy cures and healing crystals.
It's sad that Herr Planck felt so discouraged by whatever political/economic/institutional situation he found himself in that he came to utter this bitter whine.
---Max Planck"
Riiiiggghhhtt.... Everybody says there are no extrasolar planets because the people who were born before their discovery haven't died off yet. Nobody believes in nanotubes. Atomic force microscopes can only be found on the shelf next to homeopathy cures and healing crystals.
It's sad that Herr Planck felt so discouraged by whatever political/economic/institutional situation he found himself in that he came to utter this bitter whine.
Carl Gustov Jung recieved much opposition about the notion that there exists an "unconscious" aspect to the mind. Now it is common knowledge. You missed the point again. My point was that a new science discovery doesnt always change the mind of fellow scientists and that many scientists and and do cling to their scientific beliefs like dogmas.
In the 1950s, the russian-born writer and researcher, Immanuel Velikovsky suggested in a series of books that the planet we now call Venus (then a vast comet-like body) was the cause of both the demise of Mars and the near-demise of the Earth when it was hurled through the solar system. Velikovsky was ridiculed and bitterly attacked by the "scientific" establishment and so he must have been saying something worth hearing. But his theme is now enjoying more and more sympathy. When a Mariner 9 mission took pictures of Venus, many of Velikovsky's earlierdescriptions were proved correct, including what appeared to be a comet-like tail. Mariner's pictures of Mars also supported some of his theories.
----See Immanuel Velikovsky's books, Ages in Chaos (Doubleday & Co.,New york, 1952), Worlds collision (Pocket Books Simon and Shuster, New York, 1950), Earth in Upheaval (Dell Publishing Co., New York, 1955).
My point is that just because science says something is true doesnt mean it is. Even Nobel prize-winning physicist Werner Heisenberg said this about reality:
"No perceptual judgement can ever be made with complete certainty."
QUOTE
"The set of opinions all people have constitutes their personal belief system."
So? The fact that I believe W's private war is a blunder of huge proportions is the same as the fact that you believe that a god created the universe? Please.
So? The fact that I believe W's private war is a blunder of huge proportions is the same as the fact that you believe that a god created the universe? Please.
Yes. The beliefs differ but they are still beliefs nevertheless.
QUOTE
"God hasnt been proven nor been disproven by science. Same goes for consciousness."
That's correct. Let's list some more items that haven't been proven or disproven by science:
-Tooth Fairy
-Any remote effectiveness from prayer (affecting the person being prayed for without them knowing about it)
-Easter Bunny
-Santa's workshop at the North Pole
-Flying reindeer
-Reincarnation
Every single one of your arguments applies just as well to each of these items as to the existence of gods. You think your gods fantasy is something special. It isn't. It's just one more of the very many ways humans can delude themselves.
That's correct. Let's list some more items that haven't been proven or disproven by science:
-Tooth Fairy
-Any remote effectiveness from prayer (affecting the person being prayed for without them knowing about it)
-Easter Bunny
-Santa's workshop at the North Pole
-Flying reindeer
-Reincarnation
Every single one of your arguments applies just as well to each of these items as to the existence of gods. You think your gods fantasy is something special. It isn't. It's just one more of the very many ways humans can delude themselves.
I believe in all those things until they are disproven. I am open to ALL possibility because I have nothing to lose by doing so.
QUOTE
"Hence it is an act of faith in the light of "science" to either believe or disbelieve in God or consciousness."
The absence of belief IS NOT belief.
-Belief
-Not belief
Are they the same thing? Of course they are not.
The absence of belief IS NOT belief.
-Belief
-Not belief
Are they the same thing? Of course they are not.
But to not believe in god is the exact same thing as to believe in the non-existence of God. Hence not to believe in God is a belief.
QUOTE
"Hence atheism until it can be proven to be ABSOLUTELY PROVEN without a doubt is an opinion and therefore a belief."
See my list above for other things that have not been ABSOLUTELY PROVEN without a doubt not to exist.
Explain why not believing in flying reindeer is a religion.
See my list above for other things that have not been ABSOLUTELY PROVEN without a doubt not to exist.
Explain why not believing in flying reindeer is a religion.
I agree that flying reindeer can be a religion! Where did I say it cant?
QUOTE
I have to agree with Beckys_Mom.
There's no way you can be writing the things you've been writing without laughing yourself off your chair. Enjoy!
There's no way you can be writing the things you've been writing without laughing yourself off your chair. Enjoy!
QUOTE(brave_new_world @ Jul 17 2007, 04:26 AM)
I cant prove my belief is absolutely true hence it isnt fact. Just like atheism cannot prove that their logic and beliefs are true. Hence it is an act of faith to be atheist.
Hence I believe that the tooth fairy lives on the moon until it can be disproven. Otherwise......what do I really have to lose by believing this?
Human that has a highly refined consciousness and God is the same thing then. It doesnt matter for it is only a word to use those who are at one with infinity. So whether you use the word God or highly refined consciousness it doesnt matter.
Where has it been debunked?????????????? Also how is belief which means opinion when used on non-religious matter different from belief which means opinion on religious matters?
It is still all opinion either way. I dont understand your logic here. As my good friend leonardo once wrote:
If you believe you know something the only thing you know is your belief.
Logic is an absolute? According to who? Which individuals decide what is or isnt absolute logic???? Also we live in a relative world.......how can there be absolutes in a relative world????
I believe in all those things until they are disproven. I am open to ALL possibility because I have nothing to lose by doing so.
Hence I believe that the tooth fairy lives on the moon until it can be disproven. Otherwise......what do I really have to lose by believing this?
Human that has a highly refined consciousness and God is the same thing then. It doesnt matter for it is only a word to use those who are at one with infinity. So whether you use the word God or highly refined consciousness it doesnt matter.
Where has it been debunked?????????????? Also how is belief which means opinion when used on non-religious matter different from belief which means opinion on religious matters?
It is still all opinion either way. I dont understand your logic here. As my good friend leonardo once wrote:
If you believe you know something the only thing you know is your belief.
Logic is an absolute? According to who? Which individuals decide what is or isnt absolute logic???? Also we live in a relative world.......how can there be absolutes in a relative world????
I believe in all those things until they are disproven. I am open to ALL possibility because I have nothing to lose by doing so.
All very good points...I myself am still looking for the part where you have been debunked can someone show me please cause I cannot find it.
Belief is the foundation for all reasoning it seems to me so if atheism is based in reason then it must ultimately be based on belief. Since beliefs cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (if they could they would be demonstrable facts) then they require faith to varying degrees. By this line of reasoning atheism is a belief that there is no higher power or god if you will, since no one as yet has been able to demonstrate that there are no gods (or God or Allah or whatever you like to call it). But alas I am no where near as eloquent as Brave so I am going to bow out for now and wait for someone to show me how he has been debunked if they are willing to.
flying reindeer are lovely brave but you should really check out the leprechauns who live in my grannys back yard...much more social creatures albeit a bit harder to spot on a snowy day.
QUOTE(brave_new_world @ Jul 17 2007, 08:26 AM)
Atheism is a belief that God doesnt exist. It is a belief.
Yes Brave we know this..but we know its NOT a religious belief..there is a HUGE difference
QUOTE(brave_new_world @ Jul 17 2007, 08:26 AM)
Ya but consciousness has no physical attributes that was my point. Hence science cannot prove it.
that was my point. Hence science cannot prove it.Suppose we took a person's brain out of their head, took the brain apart, cell by cell, neuron by neuron, put it back together again, and put it back into the person's head. Would the person have consciousness? Would he or she be the same person with the original consciousness (whatever that might mean) ?
Consciousness, , is merely incidental, like the light which accompanies the burning of wax in a candle-wick. When the burning is put out, the light instantly ceases.
To comapre that with the human brain brave - IE *If* i were to come over to your house and hit you a bop on the head with a mallet, down you do, lights out...you have lost consciousness, to help you re-gain your consciousness, I would have to either throw a bucket of cold water over you lol slap you about a bit *WAKE UP BRAVE* lol just messing BTW..using a lil example
If Both consciousness & atheism can be explained,, therefore must exist LOL
Some of us believe that God exists..but hey science can't prove that either...doesnt stop us from claiming he does exist...they are terms give to describe what they mean..
QUOTE(brave_new_world @ Jul 17 2007, 08:26 AM)
I starting to think you arnt as intelligent as I thought.
Im smarter than you think I am lol...but dont give me sour grapes young man, when i try and have fun talking with ya...RELAX!!!
QUOTE(brave_new_world @ Jul 17 2007, 08:26 AM)
.I have put up very rational arguments (including articulate quotes from intelligent people to help illustrate my point) and you still think that a belief in the non-existence of God isnt a belief.
Thats queer cuz I could have sworn BLIND that I actually stated many times that...
QUOTE(Beckys_Mom @ Jul 15 2007, 10:07 PM)
Atheisim is not in any way a faith not even in connection with religion, anyone with any witt can figure that out
BUT it is a belief (nothing to do with religion) just a belief that there is no such thing as God
BUT it is a belief (nothing to do with religion) just a belief that there is no such thing as God
run that by me again brave?
QUOTE(brave_new_world @ Jul 17 2007, 01:30 AM)
My point in all this isnt to state that atheism is a religion in the transcendental sense. I am simply conveying that like all ideals, atheism is a belief.
Ah, good. You agree that atheism isn't a religion. Thank you. We're halfway there.
Now let's work on your mistaken notion that atheism is an ideal...
"The rock is just energy. Everything in the universe is vibrating energy created by consciousness. No consciousness no reality. How can we prove what reality is without being aware of it."
WOW! WOW! Everything in the universe is energy created by consciousness...
That's throwing ourselves so far off the deep end that we miss the swimming pool altogether.
"I cant prove my belief is absolutely true hence it isnt fact. Just like atheism cannot prove that their logic and beliefs are true. Hence it is an act of faith to be atheist."
What do you think are an atheist's logic and beliefs? I'll tell you mine:
I see no evidence of gods. I can't believe that gods exist until I see evidence that convinces me that gods exist.
What am I supposed to be proving here? That I see no evidence of gods? How is faith involved here?
Here's a thought. If I say, "I'm not convinced that gods exist.", does that make the belief/not-belief issue go away?
"Hence I believe that the tooth fairy lives on the moon until it can be disproven. Otherwise......what do I really have to lose by believing this?"
If you have the opportunity to travel to the moon, will you spend an extra ten million dollars out of your own pocket to divert the mission to find the tooth fairy's house? You believe that the tooth fairy lives on the moon, so it must be possible to find her. It would be well worth the money to get to talk to the tooth fairy and get some pictures and an autograph. You could sell the autograph on Ebay for much more than it cost you to divert the mission!
You believe in flying reindeer. You should mount an expedition to the North Pole to capture a breeding pair. You'd become fabulously wealthy selling flying reindeer and customized sleighs. Ka-CHING!
"Human that has a highly refined consciousness and God is the same thing then. It doesnt matter for it is only a word to use those who are at one with infinity. So whether you use the word God or highly refined consciousness it doesnt matter."
Why not use God to mean any spark of nerve activity? Then there are hundreds of Gods in every bee's nest and trillions of Gods squirming through the soil. If it doesn't matter how we are defining the word God, then why are we even having a conversation?
And, what does "one with infinity" mean?
"Now if I say I believe God doesn't exist, how has that got "absolutely nothing to do with belief" when compared to religion."
We're back to clear word use again. Some atheists say they believe that gods do not exist. They probably say that the same way they say they believe that the tooth fairy does not exist. That is not perfectly clear use of words. The strict use of words to describe atheism is to say that the atheist does not believe that gods exist. I understand your point about the atheists who say they believe gods don't exist. That is a belief. However, it's no more a religion than believing that the tooth fairy doesn't exist.
I wish everybody who posts on the internet would use much more careful choices of words and phrases.
"What is the fundamental difference with the use of the word belief if I say "I believe God exists" or "I dont believe God exists"?"
In that sentence, the word "believe" is used the same way both times. But note that the first phrase says "I do" and the second phrase says "I do not".
"Now how does that imply that I think my only way of thinking is correct? I am simply saying that unless you can prove God doesnt exist that there is an uncertainty factor and therefore such statements of God's non-existence is opinion based and not proof based."
When I say, "I don't believe that gods exist.", the uncertainty factor is 100%. Gods could exist, partially exist or not exist and my initial statement is still true. I am not saying that gods don't exist. I am saying that I don't believe that gods DO exist.
"Also you miss my point. If something cannot be proven 100% ,my argument is that it is an act of faith to believe it is true. Like atheism cannot be proven 100% hence it is a belief because it isnt fact (until proven)."
Atheism doesn't exist. "Atheism" is a word used to refer to the ABSENCE OF THEISM. Absence of theism is not a thing. It's not a thing any more than absence of light is a thing. We use the word "dark" to refer to the absence of light, but dark is not a thing (in the strict sense). Light is a thing. Dark is not a thing. Religion is a thing. Absence of religion is not a thing. Note that I am using my definition of atheism which is the literal meaning of the word. Just as we need to define "gods", we need to define "atheism" if we're going to make any progress here.
Also, nobody here has made the slightest attempt to prove that gods don't exist. Why should we?
"Remember my argument with this thread ISNT TO CHALLENGE TO BELIEFS OF ATHEISM OR ATHEISTS BUT TO SHOW THAT ATHEISM IS A BELIEF."
I get that. I am disagreeing with your assertion that atheism is a belief.
"Eugenics was leaked to the media before it could be tested? Hahahahahahahaha sorry I have to laugh."
What are you talking about? I said that cold fusion was leaked to the media before it could be fully tested.
"Velikovsky was ridiculed and bitterly attacked by the "scientific" establishment and so he must have been saying something worth hearing."
Just because somebody is ridiculed doesn't mean that they are "onto something". I agree that history has lots of examples of people being ridiculed for ideas that were later shown to be right. That doesn't mean that every ridiculed idea is going to be shown to be right.
I am not trying to suggest that the scientific method doesn't get sidetracked here and there by human foibles. Yes, it certainly does get sidetracked at times, which is one reason why scientists are slow to accept new ideas until they've seen plenty of evidence to convince them. Scientific explanation eventually gets steered back on course after enough people study the issue. There was a Korean scientist who became famous a few years ago after it was discovered that he had been faking results for years in order to get funding. He is now disgraced and his results have been rejected.
"But his theme is now enjoying more and more sympathy. When a Mariner 9 mission took pictures of Venus, many of Velikovsky's earlierdescriptions were proved correct, including what appeared to be a comet-like tail. Mariner's pictures of Mars also supported some of his theories."
This is news to me. I have not heard that there is any kind of comet-like tail coming from Venus.
I just looked up his book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worlds_in_Collision). He came to his conclusions through "comparative mythology". "Velikovsky conceded that the behavior of the planets in his theories are not consistent with Newton's laws of motion and universal gravitation. He proposed that electromagnetic forces could be the cause of the movement of the planets, although such forces between astronomical bodies is essentially zero (Friedlander 1995:11-12)." I don't know where his theme is enjoying more sympathy. I very much doubt that it's among serious scientists.
"My point is that just because science says something is true doesnt mean it is."
I agree completely. There is always some doubt in science. However, religion doesn't permit doubt. Religious people often wrestle with doubt, good for them, they're human. Most major religions, however, make doubt about that religion into a bad thing. "He's a man of unshakable faith" is praise. "He lost his faith" is met with pity, suspicion and sometimes hostility. A scientist who says, "I know it for a fact" is viewed with suspicion and can expect to be derided by other scientists. A scientist who says, "the hypothesis fits the available data", and can demonstrate what he claims, is met with praise.
WOW! WOW! Everything in the universe is energy created by consciousness...
That's throwing ourselves so far off the deep end that we miss the swimming pool altogether.
"I cant prove my belief is absolutely true hence it isnt fact. Just like atheism cannot prove that their logic and beliefs are true. Hence it is an act of faith to be atheist."
What do you think are an atheist's logic and beliefs? I'll tell you mine:
I see no evidence of gods. I can't believe that gods exist until I see evidence that convinces me that gods exist.
What am I supposed to be proving here? That I see no evidence of gods? How is faith involved here?
Here's a thought. If I say, "I'm not convinced that gods exist.", does that make the belief/not-belief issue go away?
"Hence I believe that the tooth fairy lives on the moon until it can be disproven. Otherwise......what do I really have to lose by believing this?"
If you have the opportunity to travel to the moon, will you spend an extra ten million dollars out of your own pocket to divert the mission to find the tooth fairy's house? You believe that the tooth fairy lives on the moon, so it must be possible to find her. It would be well worth the money to get to talk to the tooth fairy and get some pictures and an autograph. You could sell the autograph on Ebay for much more than it cost you to divert the mission!
You believe in flying reindeer. You should mount an expedition to the North Pole to capture a breeding pair. You'd become fabulously wealthy selling flying reindeer and customized sleighs. Ka-CHING!
"Human that has a highly refined consciousness and God is the same thing then. It doesnt matter for it is only a word to use those who are at one with infinity. So whether you use the word God or highly refined consciousness it doesnt matter."
Why not use God to mean any spark of nerve activity? Then there are hundreds of Gods in every bee's nest and trillions of Gods squirming through the soil. If it doesn't matter how we are defining the word God, then why are we even having a conversation?
And, what does "one with infinity" mean?
"Now if I say I believe God doesn't exist, how has that got "absolutely nothing to do with belief" when compared to religion."
We're back to clear word use again. Some atheists say they believe that gods do not exist. They probably say that the same way they say they believe that the tooth fairy does not exist. That is not perfectly clear use of words. The strict use of words to describe atheism is to say that the atheist does not believe that gods exist. I understand your point about the atheists who say they believe gods don't exist. That is a belief. However, it's no more a religion than believing that the tooth fairy doesn't exist.
I wish everybody who posts on the internet would use much more careful choices of words and phrases.
"What is the fundamental difference with the use of the word belief if I say "I believe God exists" or "I dont believe God exists"?"
In that sentence, the word "believe" is used the same way both times. But note that the first phrase says "I do" and the second phrase says "I do not".
"Now how does that imply that I think my only way of thinking is correct? I am simply saying that unless you can prove God doesnt exist that there is an uncertainty factor and therefore such statements of God's non-existence is opinion based and not proof based."
When I say, "I don't believe that gods exist.", the uncertainty factor is 100%. Gods could exist, partially exist or not exist and my initial statement is still true. I am not saying that gods don't exist. I am saying that I don't believe that gods DO exist.
"Also you miss my point. If something cannot be proven 100% ,my argument is that it is an act of faith to believe it is true. Like atheism cannot be proven 100% hence it is a belief because it isnt fact (until proven)."
Atheism doesn't exist. "Atheism" is a word used to refer to the ABSENCE OF THEISM. Absence of theism is not a thing. It's not a thing any more than absence of light is a thing. We use the word "dark" to refer to the absence of light, but dark is not a thing (in the strict sense). Light is a thing. Dark is not a thing. Religion is a thing. Absence of religion is not a thing. Note that I am using my definition of atheism which is the literal meaning of the word. Just as we need to define "gods", we need to define "atheism" if we're going to make any progress here.
Also, nobody here has made the slightest attempt to prove that gods don't exist. Why should we?
"Remember my argument with this thread ISNT TO CHALLENGE TO BELIEFS OF ATHEISM OR ATHEISTS BUT TO SHOW THAT ATHEISM IS A BELIEF."
I get that. I am disagreeing with your assertion that atheism is a belief.
"Eugenics was leaked to the media before it could be tested? Hahahahahahahaha sorry I have to laugh."
What are you talking about? I said that cold fusion was leaked to the media before it could be fully tested.
"Velikovsky was ridiculed and bitterly attacked by the "scientific" establishment and so he must have been saying something worth hearing."
Just because somebody is ridiculed doesn't mean that they are "onto something". I agree that history has lots of examples of people being ridiculed for ideas that were later shown to be right. That doesn't mean that every ridiculed idea is going to be shown to be right.
I am not trying to suggest that the scientific method doesn't get sidetracked here and there by human foibles. Yes, it certainly does get sidetracked at times, which is one reason why scientists are slow to accept new ideas until they've seen plenty of evidence to convince them. Scientific explanation eventually gets steered back on course after enough people study the issue. There was a Korean scientist who became famous a few years ago after it was discovered that he had been faking results for years in order to get funding. He is now disgraced and his results have been rejected.
"But his theme is now enjoying more and more sympathy. When a Mariner 9 mission took pictures of Venus, many of Velikovsky's earlierdescriptions were proved correct, including what appeared to be a comet-like tail. Mariner's pictures of Mars also supported some of his theories."
This is news to me. I have not heard that there is any kind of comet-like tail coming from Venus.
I just looked up his book (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worlds_in_Collision). He came to his conclusions through "comparative mythology". "Velikovsky conceded that the behavior of the planets in his theories are not consistent with Newton's laws of motion and universal gravitation. He proposed that electromagnetic forces could be the cause of the movement of the planets, although such forces between astronomical bodies is essentially zero (Friedlander 1995:11-12)." I don't know where his theme is enjoying more sympathy. I very much doubt that it's among serious scientists.
"My point is that just because science says something is true doesnt mean it is."
I agree completely. There is always some doubt in science. However, religion doesn't permit doubt. Religious people often wrestle with doubt, good for them, they're human. Most major religions, however, make doubt about that religion into a bad thing. "He's a man of unshakable faith" is praise. "He lost his faith" is met with pity, suspicion and sometimes hostility. A scientist who says, "I know it for a fact" is viewed with suspicion and can expect to be derided by other scientists. A scientist who says, "the hypothesis fits the available data", and can demonstrate what he claims, is met with praise.
You love long posts lol
QUOTE(Beckys_Mom @ Jul 17 2007, 10:53 AM)
You love long posts lol
I trimmed away about half of that last post before sending it.
I can see sunlight through my window. I need to stop responding to this thread for a little while and get away from my computer.
I love discussions like this but one needs some fresh air now and then too.
This thread is pushing lots of my buttons, "everybody has to believe in gods", politics, correct use of English...
OK, I'm going to step away from the computer now. Bye.
QUOTE(brave_new_world @ Jul 16 2007, 05:30 AM)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
And the fundamental difference between an ideology and belief is??????
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
And the fundamental difference between an ideology and belief is??????
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
It's a non-spiritual ideology. Atheism is a non-spiritual belief, just as almost every bit of knowledge one has is.
And the fundamental difference between an ideology and belief is that an ideology is a set of self-truths, beliefs, or ideals.. It covers a broader range and it's not inherently spiritual. "Belief", as you are trying to slap it on atheism, means "faith". Atheism is not a faith.
Apparently I'm a natural comedian
QUOTE(Jack-A-Roe @ Jul 17 2007, 07:19 PM)
All very good points...I myself am still looking for the part where you have been debunked can someone show me please cause I cannot find it.
Belief is the foundation for all reasoning it seems to me so if atheism is based in reason then it must ultimately be based on belief. Since beliefs cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (if they could they would be demonstrable facts) then they require faith to varying degrees. By this line of reasoning atheism is a belief that there is no higher power or god if you will, since no one as yet has been able to demonstrate that there are no gods (or God or Allah or whatever you like to call it). But alas I am no where near as eloquent as Brave so I am going to bow out for now and wait for someone to show me how he has been debunked if they are willing to.
flying reindeer are lovely brave but you should really check out the leprechauns who live in my grannys back yard...much more social creatures albeit a bit harder to spot on a snowy day.
Belief is the foundation for all reasoning it seems to me so if atheism is based in reason then it must ultimately be based on belief. Since beliefs cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (if they could they would be demonstrable facts) then they require faith to varying degrees. By this line of reasoning atheism is a belief that there is no higher power or god if you will, since no one as yet has been able to demonstrate that there are no gods (or God or Allah or whatever you like to call it). But alas I am no where near as eloquent as Brave so I am going to bow out for now and wait for someone to show me how he has been debunked if they are willing to.
flying reindeer are lovely brave but you should really check out the leprechauns who live in my grannys back yard...much more social creatures albeit a bit harder to spot on a snowy day.
someone who actually gets what I am saying. Thank you Jack-A-Roe! I love you. Beautiful post.....just beautiful...... QUOTE(Beckys_Mom @ Jul 17 2007, 09:53 PM)
Yes Brave we know this..but we know its NOT a religious belief..there is a HUGE difference
What is this HUGE difference?
QUOTE
Suppose we took a person's brain out of their head, took the brain apart, cell by cell, neuron by neuron, put it back together again, and put it back into the person's head. Would the person have consciousness? Would he or she be the same person with the original consciousness (whatever that might mean) ?
Because science cannot locate consciousness in the brain and prove that consciousness is created by matter we cannot say whether the person would have consciouness or not if you had to dismantle their brain.
QUOTE
Consciousness, , is merely incidental, like the light which accompanies the burning of wax in a candle-wick. When the burning is put out, the light instantly ceases.
To comapre that with the human brain brave - IE *If* i were to come over to your house and hit you a bop on the head with a mallet, down you do, lights out...you have lost consciousness, to help you re-gain your consciousness, I would have to either throw a bucket of cold water over you lol slap you about a bit *WAKE UP BRAVE* lol just messing BTW..using a lil example
If Both consciousness & atheism can be explained,, therefore must exist LOL
To comapre that with the human brain brave - IE *If* i were to come over to your house and hit you a bop on the head with a mallet, down you do, lights out...you have lost consciousness, to help you re-gain your consciousness, I would have to either throw a bucket of cold water over you lol slap you about a bit *WAKE UP BRAVE* lol just messing BTW..using a lil example
If Both consciousness & atheism can be explained,, therefore must exist LOL
Consciousness cannot be physically explain. It is a mystery that still deludes science. You should research into it.
QUOTE
Some of us believe that God exists..but hey science can't prove that either...doesnt stop us from claiming he does exist...they are terms give to describe what they mean..
And. . . .
QUOTE
Im smarter than you think I am lol...but dont give me sour grapes young man, when i try and have fun talking with ya...RELAX!!!
Thats queer cuz I could have sworn BLIND that I actually stated many times that...
run that by me again brave?
Thats queer cuz I could have sworn BLIND that I actually stated many times that...
run that by me again brave?
The point of this thread wasnt to say that atheism is a religion in the transcendental sense. My claim was solely that atheism is a belief.
I wish people would read the first post of the thread before they started making assumptions.
QUOTE(blizno @ Jul 17 2007, 10:11 PM)
Ah, good. You agree that atheism isn't a religion. Thank you. We're halfway there.
Now let's work on your mistaken notion that atheism is an ideal...
Now let's work on your mistaken notion that atheism is an ideal...
I do believe it is a religion. Just not a religion in the transcendental sense. And it is self-evidently obvious that atheism is an ideal.
QUOTE(KBA @ Jul 18 2007, 01:15 AM)
It's a non-spiritual ideology. Atheism is a non-spiritual belief, just as almost every bit of knowledge one has is.
And the fundamental difference between an ideology and belief is that an ideology is a set of self-truths, beliefs, or ideals.. It covers a broader range and it's not inherently spiritual. "Belief", as you are trying to slap it on atheism, means "faith". Atheism is not a faith.
And the fundamental difference between an ideology and belief is that an ideology is a set of self-truths, beliefs, or ideals.. It covers a broader range and it's not inherently spiritual. "Belief", as you are trying to slap it on atheism, means "faith". Atheism is not a faith.
Not necessarily spiritual but an ideology can be spiritual. Belief is faith. Because atheism cannot be proven 100% it is an act of faith to believe in it, solely because of it cannot be proven as absolute fact.
QUOTE
Apparently I'm a natural comedian
You are a natural commedian. Atheism is a non-spiritual belief but it is still a belief. My point of this thread was to demonstrate that it is a belief.
Man oh man....
The HUGE difference is..........they are not religious in any way at all.....everyone believes in something, but not everyone HOLDS a religious belief...atheist are a PRIME example, now if you can't understand that then I dunno!!
Brave...I have, why else am I debating it lol.....Consciousness Explained" the book, comes up with a scientific explanation for that feeling, sometimes painful, sometimes exhilarating, of being alive and aware, the object of one's own deliberations.
Care to look into it? if so.... http://www.santafe.edu/~johnson/reviews.dennett.html
http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~husn/BRAIN/vol...sciousness.html
& consciousness can be explained in functional terms
http://www.innovatia.com/software/papers/r...licitanimal.htm
As for science brave....Daniel Clement Dennett wrote the book on - Consciousness Explained........who was he? - Daniel Clement Dennett (born March 28, 1942 in Boston, Massachusetts) is a prominent American philosopher whose research centers on philosophy of mind, philosophy of science and philosophy of biology, particularly as those fields relate to evolutionary biology and cognitive science.
If you are intrested in his book then go here --> Consciousness Explained
NOW...Like I said before...........if it can be explain, then it must exist
As for the reason behin this thread, it does look as though you made it to have a pop at atheists, cuz you know fine well a lot of atheists DONT like to be classed as religious in any shape or form, everyone here knows this, so hence the thread...to state - Ohh atheism is a belief <------------yea its a belief...but like I said...not a big deal to create a whole drawn out arguement over it...and you knew that people see the word BELIEF as linked to religious, that gives me the impression your reasons for doing this!!!...Cuz so far only ONE person seems to agree with you....!
EDIT - Not to forget brave, you've been down this road before when you made a thread claiming atheism to be a faith...you never give up Braves first attempt
QUOTE(brave_new_world @ Jul 17 2007, 08:27 PM)
What is this HUGE difference?
The HUGE difference is..........they are not religious in any way at all.....everyone believes in something, but not everyone HOLDS a religious belief...atheist are a PRIME example, now if you can't understand that then I dunno!!
QUOTE(brave_new_world @ Jul 17 2007, 08:27 PM)
Consciousness cannot be physically explain. It is a mystery that still deludes science. You should research into it.
Brave...I have, why else am I debating it lol.....Consciousness Explained" the book, comes up with a scientific explanation for that feeling, sometimes painful, sometimes exhilarating, of being alive and aware, the object of one's own deliberations.
Care to look into it? if so.... http://www.santafe.edu/~johnson/reviews.dennett.html
http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~husn/BRAIN/vol...sciousness.html
& consciousness can be explained in functional terms
http://www.innovatia.com/software/papers/r...licitanimal.htm
As for science brave....Daniel Clement Dennett wrote the book on - Consciousness Explained........who was he? - Daniel Clement Dennett (born March 28, 1942 in Boston, Massachusetts) is a prominent American philosopher whose research centers on philosophy of mind, philosophy of science and philosophy of biology, particularly as those fields relate to evolutionary biology and cognitive science.
If you are intrested in his book then go here --> Consciousness Explained
NOW...Like I said before...........if it can be explain, then it must exist
As for the reason behin this thread, it does look as though you made it to have a pop at atheists, cuz you know fine well a lot of atheists DONT like to be classed as religious in any shape or form, everyone here knows this, so hence the thread...to state - Ohh atheism is a belief <------------yea its a belief...but like I said...not a big deal to create a whole drawn out arguement over it...and you knew that people see the word BELIEF as linked to religious, that gives me the impression your reasons for doing this!!!...Cuz so far only ONE person seems to agree with you....!
EDIT - Not to forget brave, you've been down this road before when you made a thread claiming atheism to be a faith...you never give up Braves first attempt
QUOTE(brave_new_world @ Jul 17 2007, 01:29 PM)
I do believe it is a religion. Just not a religion in the transcendental sense. And it is self-evidently obvious that atheism is an ideal.
Define "ideal".
Define "religion".
QUOTE(brave_new_world @ Jul 17 2007, 08:29 PM)
I do believe it is a religion. Just not a religion in the transcendental sense. And it is self-evidently obvious that atheism is an ideal.
you wish it was LMAO
atheism and agnosticism are COOL. You Christians are all the same.
QUOTE(BeyondDeath @ Jul 18 2007, 04:29 AM)
atheism and agnosticism are COOL. You Christians are all the same.
What do you mean - you christians are all the same?