Shame Of The Supposedly Strong Atheist?

nopEda

18th August 2009 - 08:51 PM

_________________________________________________________
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp...27698&dict=CALD

faith (TRUST) Show phonetics
noun [U]
great trust or confidence in something or someone
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
_________________________________________________________
. . .
Strong atheism is a term generally used to describe atheists who accept
as true the proposition, "gods do not exist". Weak atheism refers to any
type of non-theism which falls short of this standard.
. . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_and_strong_atheism
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
The degree of faith a person has that God does not exist is what determines how strong an atheist that person is or is not. Without faith, a person can not be a strong atheist but instead could be a weak atheist or an agnonstic.

Even though all that is true, there are still people who like to claim to be strong atheists yet they also want to deny their own faith

faith that is NECESSARY in order for a person to be a strong atheist.

vkamath

18th August 2009 - 09:06 PM

Strong atheist use the same faith to believe that there is no god that YOU use to believe 1+2=3.

So according to YOU if 1+2=3, there is No God.

AlexG

18th August 2009 - 09:31 PM

Given nopeda's propensity for making up his own meanings for words, there's a certain irony in his producing a dictionary definition.

nopEda

19th August 2009 - 12:53 AM

QUOTE (vkamath+Aug 18 2009, 09:06 PM)

Strong atheist use the same faith to believe that there is no god that YOU use to believe 1+2=3.

Faith is the degree of confidence a person has that they are correct about something. Faith is faith, and atheistic faith is in no way superior to any other sort of faith.

PuckSR

19th August 2009 - 12:55 AM

This isn't a paradox....

Faith can also be expressed as confidence.
Faith(or confidence) in an idea is common. In fact, this is one reason that Atheism should be considered a religion.

Atheists just choose to have faith in the idea that there are no gods.
A true lack of opinion is known as agnosticism. It is incredibly rare. You must have no belief at all.

Atheists argue that the absence of evidence=evidence of absence. That isn't as logical as they would like it to be.
The general complaints of Atheists is that Theists don't acknowledge the absence of evidence. They have a point. There isn't any real evidence.

Grumpy

19th August 2009 - 01:09 AM

nopEda

QUOTE

atheistic faith is in no way superior to any other sort of faith.

Except we are correct in our assesment of the likelyhood that a Sky Fairy doesn't exist.

Grumpy

AlexG

19th August 2009 - 01:16 AM

QUOTE

Faith is the degree of confidence a person has that they are correct about something...

When there is no evidence to rely on.

nopEda

19th August 2009 - 01:18 AM

QUOTE (AlexG+Aug 18 2009, 09:31 PM)

Given nopeda's propensity for making up his own meanings for words, there's a certain irony in his producing a dictionary definition.

I gave a dictionary definition to back up my claim right at the beginning. In contrast to that no one has provided any dictionary definitions to back up their suggestion that God could somehow be an omnipotent yet technologically inferior native of a planet he created after he had already existed for billions of years. I've challenged people to back up that idea countless times since they have criticized me for pointing out how unlikely it is countless times, but no one has ever even come close to backing it up. There have been a couple of lame attempts to suggest something about time travel

, and then there have been the even lamer denials of whatever people are trying to deny by pretending to deny whatever. So far it hasn't been made in any way clear just exactly WHAT??? the diniers want to try to deny

. AFAIK all have denied that God would have to be an alien, meaning they must feel he could be native to Earth. AFAIK all have denied that God would be technologically superior to the human race

the idiocy of which speaks for itself. AFAIK all have insisted that God could somehow be omnipotent, even though the very concept appears to make itself obviously impossible AND

the idiocy of being technologically inferior certainly works against the apparent idiocy of omnipotence

. Can any of you stand behind any of your conflicting denials? If so, which ones? Would you:

1. deny your claim that God could be omnipotent yet technologically inferior, or deny your opposition to the fact that he almost certainly could not be as I've been pointing out from the start?

2. deny your claim that God could be native of a planet he created after he had already existed for billions of years, or deny your opposition to the fact that he almost certainly could not be as I've been pointing out from the start?

AlexG

19th August 2009 - 01:22 AM

What a wacko.

flyingbuttressman

19th August 2009 - 01:22 AM

nopEda,

What are you hoping to accomplish here? You are obviously not interested in learning. No-one here would believe anything you say if their lives depended on it. No-one wants to hear you play the same broken record over and over again. So why are you here?

buttershug

19th August 2009 - 01:29 AM

QUOTE (Grumpy+Aug 19 2009, 01:09 AM)

nopEda

Except we are correct in our assesment of the likelyhood that a Sky Fairy doesn't exist.

Grumpy

And you know that, how?

vkamath

19th August 2009 - 07:32 AM

QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 19 2009, 06:23 AM)

Faith is the degree of confidence a person has that they are correct about something. Faith is faith, and atheistic faith is in no way superior to any other sort of faith.

That is why I say, I KNOW 1+2=3, while you only have 'strong faith' that it is.

It is not the same thing. Your statement implies that there is a remote possibility that 1+2 is
Not 3.

nopEda

19th August 2009 - 02:52 PM

QUOTE (PuckSR+Aug 19 2009, 12:55 AM)

This isn't a paradox....

In the case of supposedly strong atheists denying the faith required in order to be one it is nothing but pathetic denial, born of either true ignorance or dishonest denial of something that they can understand but are too dishonest to admit.

QUOTE (PuckSR+)

Faith can also be expressed as confidence.
Faith(or confidence) in an idea is common. In fact, this is one reason that Atheism should be considered a religion.

Disbelief is a belief. Disbelief about God is a belief about God. That means strong atheism is undoubtedly a religious belief, like any other religious belief. So again we are left to wonder if those in denial deny the truth out of true ignorance, or dishonest denial of something that they can understand but are too dishonest to admit.

QUOTE (PuckSR+)

Atheists just choose to have faith in the idea that there are no gods.
A true lack of opinion is known as agnosticism. It is incredibly rare. You must have no belief at all.

That's where I am. Maybe it is rare, because I don't recall anyone else claiming to be agnostic. In fact many of the people I've encountered don't even seem able to believe it's possible...some of them accusing me of being a believer and others accusing me of being an atheist... Again the consistent question: Do they do that out of true ignorance, or dishonest denial of something that they can understand but are too dishonest to admit?

QUOTE (PuckSR+)

Atheists argue that the absence of evidence=evidence of absence. That isn't as logical as they would like it to be.
The general complaints of Atheists is that Theists don't acknowledge the absence of evidence. They have a point. There isn't any real evidence.

What humans have learned to do is evidence that superior beings could do much more, to the point of being able to be considered gods. If we were only aware of a dozen or so star systems it of course would be much less likely, but since there are billions of star systems the chances that there are gods in the universe increases tremendously. Their inability to appreciate the significance of facts like that shows shallowness and more. Again the consistent question: Is it out of true ignorance, or dishonest denial of something that they can understand but are too dishonest to admit?

nopEda

19th August 2009 - 03:07 PM

QUOTE (Grumpy+Aug 19 2009, 01:09 AM)

we are correct in our assesment of the likelyhood that a Sky Fairy doesn't exist.

That "sky" thing is HILARIOUS! You really are totally and completely unable to consider the possibility of God's existence in any way realistically. Apparently YOUR interpretation of what God would be like, is that he would be an omnipotent yet technologically inferior native of a planet he created after he had already existed for billions of years, and who would be a RESIDENT

!!! of this planet.

You really can't think about this topic in anything but the most unrealistic and naive of ways. Yet still you kind of pretend to try to try...several of you are in that same position. I guess people like you are capable of an underdeveloped reptilian like interest in the topic, even though you'll apparently never be able to think about it realistically yourself.

nopEda

19th August 2009 - 03:20 PM

QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 19 2009, 01:22 AM)

nopEda,

What are you hoping to accomplish here?

What I had HOPED was to find some other people who actually try to think realistically about the possibility of God's existence, this being a supposed physics group and all that... Apparently there are no others, so I'm everyone else's enemy. What I point out goes against what everyone else WANTS TO believe, causing cognitive dissonance which is very uncomfortable. The discomfort causes people to lash out and want to "kill the messenger".

QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)

You are obviously not interested in learning.

I have challenged everyone to try to back up their claims and/or show how what they want to believe is more realistic than something I pointed out. It's not my fault that none of you have been able to meet the challenges.

QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)

No-one here would believe anything you say if their lives depended on it.

That would be an incredible level of stupidity, but incredible as it sounds it may be true of this group of people.

QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)

No-one wants to hear you play the same broken record over and over again. So why are you here?

Unfortunately by now it's pretty much just to point out things like lameness and dishonesty.

nopEda

19th August 2009 - 03:29 PM

QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 19 2009, 01:29 AM)

QUOTE (Grumpy+)

we are correct in our assesment of the likelyhood that a Sky Fairy doesn't exist.

And you know that, how?

No one can know that God does not exist. If he does exist people could certainly know that if he lets them know, but no one can know if he does not. People who believe that have simply put their faith in their guess, and their guess is no better than anyone else's even if they happen to be correct. And if they are not correct then they just happen to be the most clueless people on the planet...

MjolnirPants

19th August 2009 - 04:06 PM

Why are you people even conversing with this retard? If everyone ignored him, he'd probably go away....

Grumpy

19th August 2009 - 07:23 PM

buttershug

QUOTE

And you know that, how?

I did not say I knew there was no gods, I said we are correct in our assesment of the LIKELYHOOD that a Sky Fairy doesn't exist.

nopEda

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

And you know that, how?

I did not say I knew there was no gods, I said we are correct in our assesment of the LIKELYHOOD that a Sky Fairy doesn't exist.

nopEda

That "sky" thing is HILARIOUS! You really are totally and completely unable to consider the possibility of God's existence in any way realistically. Apparently YOUR interpretation of what God would be like, is that he would be an omnipotent yet technologically inferior native of a planet he created after he had already existed for billions of years, and who would be a RESIDENT !!! of this planet.

You are a complete idiot, gods do not exist as far as I am concerned. And your alien gods are just an additional idiocy added to the idiocy of claiming any gods exist at all. And any god worthy of the name would not be a "native" of any planet at all, since he would be the "creator" he/she/it would have been here BEFORE any planet could exist. You, sir, are a M0R0N!

Grumpy

vkamath

19th August 2009 - 07:57 PM

QUOTE (nopEda+)

No one can know that God does not exist.

Can anyone know the Easter Bunny does not exist?

Meem

19th August 2009 - 08:43 PM

What existed before this planet, system, galaxy, universe, possibly even dimension if you want to go there ... a.k.a. string theory? Nothing, and the true shame is this, when people call another stupid for labeling something quite reasonably ... magical or mystical happening ... something ... all of this from nothing ... stupid because someone calls it god or gods ... proves nothing.

There is no logical explanation within the human mind currently (or seemingly anytime soon) to understand the universe, deal with it kindly. If someone calls it god, gods, art, science, math, certainly uncertain ... does it really make a difference?

Stupid is what stupid does, and in my book that is calling someone else stupid.

God didn't make the universe, happy?

Now tell me what did, and what you'd like me to call it today, tomorrow, or sometime next century? I'll be waiting for that answer long after I am dead if I hoped to get it here. I won't hold my breath.

buttershug

19th August 2009 - 08:54 PM

QUOTE (Meem+Aug 19 2009, 08:43 PM)

God didn't make the universe, happy?

Now tell me what did, and what you'd like me to call it today, tomorrow, or sometime next century? I'll be waiting for that answer long after I am dead if I hoped to get it here. I won't hold my breath.

Whatever it is that you think made God.

nopEda

20th August 2009 - 06:05 PM

QUOTE (vkamath+Aug 19 2009, 07:57 PM)

QUOTE (nopEda+)

No one can know that God does not exist.

Can anyone know the Easter Bunny does not exist?

I do, and have great faith that "knowledge" is correct. So do many other people.

nopEda

20th August 2009 - 06:18 PM

QUOTE (Meem+Aug 19 2009, 08:43 PM)

What existed before this planet, system, galaxy,

Several previous generations of stars composing many galaxies.

QUOTE (Meem+)

universe,

No one knows. There is a concept that the universe is going through cycles of expansion and contraction...

QUOTE (Meem+)

possibly even dimension if you want to go there ... a.k.a. string theory? Nothing, and the true shame is this, when people call another stupid for labeling something quite reasonably ... magical or mystical happening ... something ... all of this from nothing ... stupid because someone calls it god or gods ... proves nothing.

There is no logical explanation within the human mind currently (or seemingly anytime soon) to understand the universe, deal with it kindly.

If God does exist everything humans have learned so far indicates that the universe came first to whatever extent and in whatever form, and that God developed after that. How significantly did he change if he does exist?

vkamath

20th August 2009 - 06:45 PM

QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 20 2009, 11:35 PM)

I do, and have great faith that "knowledge" is correct. So do many other people.

You don't believe in the Easter bunny.

Atheists don't believe in the Easter bunny and God.

Meem

20th August 2009 - 09:51 PM

I see the Easter bunny every Easter, Santa every Christmas, all sorts of things every Halloween .... fairies, ghouls, ghosts, goblins, heroes, villains. And I am pretty sure I wasn't hallucinating when I saw them! Call the white coat cops!

flyingbuttressman

20th August 2009 - 10:02 PM

QUOTE (Meem+Aug 20 2009, 04:51 PM)

I see the Easter bunny every Easter, Santa every Christmas, all sorts of things every Halloween .... fairies, ghouls, ghosts, goblins, heroes, villains. And I am pretty sure I wasn't hallucinating when I saw them! Call the white coat cops!

So god is the same thing as a teenager dressed in bunny costumes? Same as middle-aged guys dressing up as Santa? I could believe in that.

Meem

20th August 2009 - 10:33 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ltAGuuru7Q

This guy said something like, "be kind to strangers for you never know when you entertain angels unawares." Not a bad idea if you ask me.

Physfan

20th August 2009 - 11:04 PM

Victor Stenger, a very clever physicist, examined all of the "evidence" for the existence of a god in his book "God: The Failed Hypothesis" and found that a god does not and could not exist. Having done the analysis so thoroughly and with regard to the physics of all posited scenarios, Stenger finds all evidence points to the contrary position; god cannot exist. (Stenger is a lot smarter than any and all skyfairyists on this forum AND he understands the physics.)

Physfan

Meem

20th August 2009 - 11:14 PM

Is that the lead scientist Buttershug wasn't reffering to?

That's odd.

buttershug

21st August 2009 - 12:32 AM

QUOTE (Meem+Aug 20 2009, 11:14 PM)

Is that the lead scientist Buttershug wasn't reffering to?

That's odd.

Is he all knowing? Nope
Is he omnipotoent? Nope
Did he make men in his own image? Nope
And a bunch of other things.

But the group of people who believe as he does is much more cohesive than the group that claims their leader has all those qualities.

Why is that?

Meem

21st August 2009 - 12:48 AM

We are all human?

So what you're saying, no "real" scientist believes in god? I've never heard of that guy before this thread. I have heard of Einstein and a few others. Again, there is an assertion that science somehow holds all the answers ... like say a unified field theory? What's the Higgs field apparent function. I need help understanding this, perhaps you could give me assistance, I am far from a scientist so, if you care to explain it, keep it in layman's terms so it won't go over my head.

flyingbuttressman

21st August 2009 - 01:01 AM

QUOTE (Physfan+Aug 20 2009, 06:04 PM)

Victor Stenger, a very clever physicist, examined all of the "evidence" for the existence of a god in his book "God: The Failed Hypothesis" and found that a god does not and could not exist. Having done the analysis so thoroughly and with regard to the physics of all posited scenarios, Stenger finds all evidence points to the contrary position; god cannot exist. (Stenger is a lot smarter than any and all skyfairyists on this forum AND he understands the physics.)

Wow, I don't know why I didn't think of that.

Now I can say: "God, as you define it, cannot exist. This is due to: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (god cannot be omniscient) and the Constant Speed of Light (god cannot be omnipotent)"

Schweet.

buttershug

21st August 2009 - 01:08 AM

QUOTE (Meem+Aug 21 2009, 12:48 AM)

We are all human?

So what you're saying, no "real" scientist believes in god? I've never heard of that guy before this thread. I have heard of Einstein and a few others. Again, there is an assertion that science somehow holds all the answers ... like say a unified field theory? What's the Higgs field apparent function. I need help understanding this, perhaps you could give me assistance, I am far from a scientist so, if you care to explain it, keep it in layman's terms so it won't go over my head.

It's not because of their science that they believe in God.

The most common answer is "We don't know".
Why can a lot of people not understand that?

Is "No one knows" laymen enough for you?
Why is it so impossible for some people understand that concept that they must invent answers out of nothing?

I'm serious about this. It's why we had the economic meltdown. There were investment vehicles that could not be valuated but that didn't stop people from putting a value on them and selling them.

And I sincerely want to know where you got the idea that anyone believes that science holds all the answers. All the reliable answers maybe but not all the answers.

Once a guy really shocked me when he said "what makes you so sure you are right?". I had been basically arguing that we didn't know something. I really can't understand how someone can turn me saying " we don't know that for sure" into me being sure I"m right.

Meem

21st August 2009 - 01:10 AM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_field

Hmmm, that are you sure you know what the higgs field is FBM?

QUOTE

This is due to: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (god cannot be omniscient) and the Constant Speed of Light (god cannot be omnipotent)"

Hmm, and you are certain about this? (snare drum) God is uncertain in principle, or "he" certainly is ... or is not?

Butter, I wasn't addressing you. I suppose that is my failure in that particular post. I fail to see where I have claimed something as right? I've been asking, why is a belief in God wrong? That is what I think you don't understand Butteshug. I don't care what people believe, I care about what they do to other people in the name of their belief, even as they say it is non-belief, it doesn't make it any less "dangerous" (to be alive) or any more "intelligent," (to murder something or someone) does it?

flyingbuttressman

21st August 2009 - 01:22 AM

QUOTE (Meem+Aug 20 2009, 08:10 PM)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_field

Hmmm, that are you sure you know what the higgs field is FBM?

I didn't say that I understood the Higgs field. I am no scientist, much less a physicist. I don't claim to know half of what some people on this forum actually know. What I do have is the ability to see fake science for what it is. I know the signs of good (or very deceptive) research, and I know the signs of bad research. If I see a post that looks legit, I usually don't comment, because I know that right or wrong it's over my head.

QUOTE

Butter, I wasn't addressing you. I suppose that is my failure in that particular post. I fail to see where I have claimed something as right? I've been asking, why is a belief in God wrong? That is what I think you don't understand Butteshug. I don't care what people believe, I care about what they do to other people in the name of their belief, even is they say it is non-belief, it doesn't make it any less "dangerous" or any more "intelligent," does it?

I've never heard one good reason why god SHOULD exist. The concept doesn't make sense. It doesn't help us to understand the universe, it doesn't make us better people, and it's something dreamed up by prehistoric humans. Saying that god "might" exist is ridiculous in my opinion.

Meem

21st August 2009 - 01:33 AM

God doesn't make people who don't believe better people, better people.

I don't believe a better job, more money, a new car, a cat, a bat, a boat, (w/e) will make me a better person. So no-thing will make me a better person. Some people do believe in some of these things ... and some people do actually become better people from these things. Others end up with misplaced values, things > than people. Money > time, etc, etc, What makes you who you are? Is that an easy answer? About as easy of an answer as what makes the universe as it is? A mouse on a wheel?

It's hard to see a good reason for anything when you only focus on the bad ones.

Read the Republic of Plato, specifically the Myth of Er. Interesting stuff crazy ideas from "prehistoric" humans. Does spending time on this forum make you a better or worse person? What do you try to focus on while you are participating? The reason why people who believe in "god" are bad, insane, crazy? To me, I think it's crazy to believe in nothing ... but the funny thing is ... people who do claim that have one thing they cling pretty dearly to ... like "hard science" ... which truly has a soft a chewy center of uncertainty in principle, right?

Is there that big of a difference between what people dreamed up so long ago and today? I'm not all that convinced, the easier we seem to "think" we make life, the harder it seems to get for some people. Enjoy it whatever it is, and be kind no matter what other people believe or not, it won't kill you, will it?

flyingbuttressman

21st August 2009 - 01:42 AM

QUOTE (Meem+Aug 20 2009, 08:33 PM)

Read the Republic of Plato, specifically the Myth of Er. Interesting stuff crazy ideas from "prehistoric" humans. Does spending time on this forum make you a better or worse person? What do you try to focus on while you are participating? The reason why people who believe in "god" are bad, insane, crazy? To me, I think it's crazy to believe in nothing ... but the funny thing is ... people who do claim that have one thing they cling pretty dearly to ... like "hard science" ... which truly has a soft a chewy center of uncertainty in principle, right?

Is there that big of a difference between what people dreamed up so long ago and today? I'm not all that convinced, the easier we seem to "think" we make life, the harder it seems to get for some people. Enjoy it whatever it is, and be kind no matter what other people believe or not, it won't kill you, will it?

So, I should believe in god because other people do? That's the only reason that you have conveyed. I'm not asking you for reasons to respect theists (I have plenty), I'm asking you for a reason to believe. If you can't provide that, I ask you to understand why atheism is a legitimate choice.

Meem

21st August 2009 - 01:48 AM

Should I not believe in God because fools do foolish things "in God's name?"

Have I ever really shown you any disrespect unprovoked? Do you think that possibly you may have shown me disrespect unprovoked? I am not telling you what to believe, it's your life man .... live it, but be kind, and try to find the positive side of things.

flyingbuttressman

21st August 2009 - 02:02 AM

QUOTE (Meem+Aug 20 2009, 08:48 PM)

Should I not believe in God because fools do foolish things "in God's name?"

No, that is not a good reason for atheism. That is, however, a good argument against a specific religion. A good reason for atheism is that the origin of all belief in god is based on a fallacy. The very first conceptions of god were of natural gods. God of wind, god of water, etc etc. Now we know that these things are explainable without supernatural help. Therefor, the initial idea of god becomes useless. So why do we believe in god at all?

QUOTE

Have I ever really shown you any disrespect unprovoked? Do you think that possibly you may have shown me disrespect unprovoked? I am not telling you what to believe, it's your life man .... live it, but be kind, and try to find the positive side of things.

When you question the integrity of the scientific community, that is an insult to me. This is because I base my worldview on the established idea of facts. If you say that the method of determining facts is flawed, I have a problem with that. I have insulted you in the past because you criticized the scientific process. The scientific process is the ONLY thing in the world that is reliable. If even gravity fails you, science will explain why.

Meem

21st August 2009 - 02:13 AM

QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 20 2009, 09:02 PM)

No, that is not a good reason for atheism. That is, however, a good argument against a specific religion. A good reason for atheism is that the origin of all belief in god is based on a fallacy. The very first conceptions of god were of natural gods. God of wind, god of water, etc etc. Now we know that these things are explainable without supernatural help. Therefor, the initial idea of god becomes useless. So why do we believe in god at all?

When you question the integrity of the scientific community, that is an insult to me. This is because I base my worldview on the established idea of facts. If you say that the method of determining facts is flawed, I have a problem with that. I have insulted you in the past because you criticized the scientific process. The scientific process is the ONLY thing in the world that is reliable. If even gravity fails you, science will explain why.

Ironically, the best weapon any atheist has against God is a "man's" belief in God.
"People do this, in the name of God, clearly it's wrong and evil. Look, I highlight these particular negative beliefs in any one particular religion."

I believe in science and facts ... facts of life? What are those exactly? Science is not without it's flaws. Pick a field (religion) we could focus on negative things that have resulted out of science or ... we could focus on the good things ...

The choice is always yours.

QUOTE

The scientific process is the ONLY thing in the world that is reliable.

What about the scientific fact, of the uncertainty principle?

Socrates ... was a scientist?

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

The scientific process is the ONLY thing in the world that is reliable.

What about the scientific fact, of the uncertainty principle?

Socrates ... was a scientist?
I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing

flyingbuttressman

21st August 2009 - 02:28 AM

Meem,

Don't compare the flaws of religion with the 'flaws' of science. They are not comparable.

Scientific facts may change. The process will never change. Maybe someday we will find a way around the uncertainty principle. The scientific process won't change.

And yes, the very fact that man believes in god is the very reason why the idea of god is ridiculous.

Meem

21st August 2009 - 02:50 AM

That's a strange thing you have just said. So you have to ask yourself some questions then. "Why is there a religious view based sub-forum on a scientific community board? Why do I fee the need to participate in a discussion I do not feel the need to believe in?"

They are not the same, then why am I having this conversation in the first place?

QUOTE

Scientific facts may change

Were they ever a fact in the first place? Will they ever stop changing? Do the same rules apply to religion?

flyingbuttressman

21st August 2009 - 03:00 AM

QUOTE (Meem+Aug 20 2009, 09:50 PM)

That's a strange thing you have just said. So you have to ask yourself some questions then. "Why is there a religious view based sub-forum on a scientific community board? Why do I fee the need to participate in a discussion I do not feel the need to believe in?"

The forum is called Creation/Evolution. I'm a big fan of Evolution, and I think that creationism is the most destructive idea in modern education. I will fight creationism till my last breath.

QUOTE

Were they ever a fact in the first place? Will they ever stop changing? Do the same rules apply to religion?

They are facts until we find the exception, and then we revise it. Religion does not follow rules, it follows opinions.

Meem

21st August 2009 - 03:13 AM

So why is the forum here then, to pick a fight, or is that what you are doing?

If you don't get that, I don't either. It is my last question.

flyingbuttressman

21st August 2009 - 03:18 AM

QUOTE (Meem+Aug 20 2009, 11:13 PM)

So why is the forum here then, to pick a fight, or is that what you are doing?
If you don't get that, I don't either. It is my last question.

Sure, if that's what you want to call it. If someone comes here spouting creationist views, it is my wish that they leave with the knowledge that creationism is a dishonest idea.

Meem

21st August 2009 - 03:27 AM

Long as you know what you are doing, there is no way you could be wrong. Have a good night.

nopEda

22nd August 2009 - 04:10 PM

QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 21 2009, 01:01 AM)

Now I can say: "God, as you define it, cannot exist.

You all want to assign highly unlikely and impossible attributes in your attempts to make the possibility seem impossible, afawk. I've seen no examples of anything else out of you people.

QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)

(god cannot be omnipotent)"

I've pointed that out and gotten bitched at for it, possibly even by you. It's alse vey unlikely that he could be technologically inferior, or native to Earth.

flyingbuttressman

22nd August 2009 - 04:19 PM

QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 22 2009, 12:10 PM)

I've pointed that out and gotten bitched at for it, possibly even by you. It's alse vey unlikely that he could be technologically inferior, or native to Earth.

I will make one more attempt (probably futile) to explain this to you.

Surely, you personally can define god however you want, but the majority of human beings who believe in a monotheistic god have a solid picture of who/what god is. According to the Judeo/Christian/Islamic tradition, god is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent.

When you state that god is not omnipotent and is an alien, you are merely creating your own god and putting it on an alien planet. Most religious people you will talk to will disagree with the idea that god uses any sort of technology at all. They also believe that god has always existed and therefore could not be a native of any planet.

When make these statements, you are only creating your own god independent of the mainstream idea of what god is. This is why no-one cares about your statements of god's origin.

nopEda

22nd August 2009 - 04:21 PM

QUOTE (Meem+Aug 21 2009, 01:48 AM)

Should I not believe in God because fools do foolish things "in God's name?"

Any reason or no reason is good enough for those who disbelieve. Notice though that they are almost always ashamed of their own faith, while at the same time often want to pretend that what they put their faith in is "knowledge" or whatever twisted denial they can come up with. Their faith is no better than anyone else's no matter what they try to make it out to be.

QUOTE (Meem+)

Have I ever really shown you any disrespect unprovoked? Do you think that possibly you may have shown me disrespect unprovoked?

Will he admit it, or has he done it?

nopEda

23rd August 2009 - 06:19 PM

QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 22 2009, 04:19 PM)

you are only creating your own god independent of the mainstream idea of what god is. This is why no-one cares about your statements of god's origin.

You want to disbelieve so you want to assign impossible atributes that will make disbelief even easier for you. Since it's possible that he does exist I try to figure out how he could, and that doesn't necessarily involve the most popular beliefs no doubt including yours. Yours least of all in fact, though I do consider the possibility that he doesn't exist, or that if gods do exist none of them have anything to do with Earth.

flyingbuttressman

23rd August 2009 - 06:52 PM

QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 23 2009, 02:19 PM)

You want to disbelieve so you want to assign impossible atributes that will make disbelief even easier for you. Since it's possible that he does exist I try to figure out how he could, and that doesn't necessarily involve the most popular beliefs no doubt including yours. Yours least of all in fact, though I do consider the possibility that he doesn't exist, or that if gods do exist none of them have anything to do with Earth.

What does the word 'god' even mean to you? So far, you've thrown that word around without even considering the definition.

nopEda

24th August 2009 - 06:36 PM

QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 23 2009, 06:52 PM)

What does the word 'god' even mean to you? So far, you've thrown that word around without even considering the definition.

An intelligent being who is not native to Earth but has had deliberate influence on life on this planet. Just as you won't accept that as a definition I won't accept the impossible ones that are your favorites.

flyingbuttressman

24th August 2009 - 06:41 PM

QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 24 2009, 02:36 PM)

An intelligent being who is not native to Earth but has had deliberate influence on life on this planet. Just as you won't accept that as a definition I won't accept the impossible ones that are your favorites.

You're not talking about god. You're talking about aliens who have visited Earth and posed as gods. Why would you call an alien 'god?' God is a term reserved for a being with near omnipotent power.

Anyway, if we refer to your being as an 'alien,' then we can have a more logical discussion.

You are saying that it is possible that our idea of 'god' comes from aliens who have visited Earth in the past. Am I right so far?

nopEda

24th August 2009 - 06:59 PM

QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 24 2009, 06:41 PM)

You're not talking about god. You're talking about aliens who have visited Earth and posed as gods. Why would you call an alien 'god?' God is a term reserved for a being with near omnipotent power.

Anyway, if we refer to your being as an 'alien,' then we can have a more logical discussion.

You are saying that it is possible that our idea of 'god' comes from aliens who have visited Earth in the past. Am I right so far?

If that's as far as you can get with it then that's all there is for it. If you can move on to understand that if God does exist it's unlikely he's from Earth so he's an alien, then you can get that far.

So far no one else has been able to though. God could exist and be an alien even if he never had anything to do with Earth. There are lots of possibilities, but as long as you cling to the one that's as far as you can go.

flyingbuttressman

24th August 2009 - 07:08 PM

QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 24 2009, 02:59 PM)

If that's as far as you can get with it then that's all there is for it. If you can move on to understand that if God does exist it's unlikely he's from Earth so he's an alien, then you can get that far.

So far no one else has been able to though. God could exist and be an alien even if he never had anything to do with Earth. There are lots of possibilities, but as long as you cling to the one that's as far as you can go.

It's one thing for an alien to come to Earth and pose as god. It's quite another for you to imagine that this "god" is worthy of your respect, worship, or the title 'god.'

I'm sure you've seen the movie/show Stargate. The Goa'uld in Stargate are malevolent "gods" that roam the galaxy subjugating humans. Once the people discovered that they were not immortal or all-powerful, the people labeled them "false gods" because they were manipulating the humans for their own greedy purposes.

nopEda, how is this god that you describe not a "false god?" This god's purpose certainly does not seem noble. It wouldn't surprise me if this 'god' was an intergalactic criminal.

It appears that you haven't thought your own idea all the way through.

Physfan

24th August 2009 - 11:22 PM

knobEda,

QUOTE

If that's as far as you can get with it then that's all there is for it. If you can move on to understand that if God does exist it's unlikely he's from Earth so he's an alien, then you can get that far. laugh.gif So far no one else has been able to though. God could exist and be an alien even if he never had anything to do with Earth. There are lots of possibilities, but as long as you cling to the one that's as far as you can go.

You are a contrarian smartarse. You think this makes you cleverer than everyone else; in fact, it is a load of smartarse tripe that makes you look like the fool you are. None of it withstands logical scrutiny and you are sooooooo "clever" that you always find a reason why others don't "understand" your superior powers of thought.
*****, crawl back under the small rock which matches your intellect. Discussion with anyone of your ilk is a pointless exercise because you already know everything.

Physfan

buttershug

25th August 2009 - 12:20 AM

QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 24 2009, 06:36 PM)

An intelligent being who is not native to Earth but has had deliberate influence on life on this planet. Just as you won't accept that as a definition I won't accept the impossible ones that are your favorites.

Why won't you accept a new word for your new definition?

(and did your "God" save George Lucas?)

AlexG

25th August 2009 - 12:55 AM

Rather than a new word for his definition, nopeda prefers new definitions for words.

nopEda

26th August 2009 - 02:44 PM

QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 24 2009, 07:08 PM)

nopEda, how is this god that you describe not a "false god?" This god's purpose certainly does not seem noble. It wouldn't surprise me if this 'god' was an intergalactic criminal.

It appears that you haven't thought your own idea all the way through.

Sure I have. Beings who are not God are not God. That's pretty easy. Could a number of beings be considered gods? I believe so. What would be required in order for a being to be our God? Could there be a God of the universe and a God of this planet? Could there be a God of this planet even if there is no God of the universe? Those and other such questions are significant to me, yet meaningless to people who can't think about the possibility in a realistic way. You kinda' sorta' pretended to think about one of them, but can't really even do that since you can't think about it realistically. That's not my fault either, btw.

nopEda

26th August 2009 - 02:49 PM

QUOTE (Physfan+Aug 24 2009, 11:22 PM)

QUOTE (nopEda pointed out+)

God could exist and be an alien even if he never had anything to do with Earth. There are lots of possibilities, but as long as you cling to the one that's as far as you can go.

. . .
you always find a reason why others don't "understand" your superior powers of thought.

This may be hard for you to understand for some reason, but people who are incapable of considering the possibility of God's existence in a realistic way are necessarily inferior in that regard to those who can. You probably want to think that your inability somehow makes you superior

, but that's certainly not the case. Maybe physics just isn't your thing

.

nopEda

26th August 2009 - 02:52 PM

QUOTE (buttershug+Aug 25 2009, 12:20 AM)

Why won't you accept a new word for your new definition?

Let's stick with "God" while we're discussing God, and use other words when we discuss other things.

flyingbuttressman

26th August 2009 - 03:23 PM

QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 26 2009, 10:44 AM)

Sure I have. Beings who are not God are not God. That's pretty easy. Could a number of beings be considered gods? I believe so. What would be required in order for a being to be our God? Could there be a God of the universe and a God of this planet? Could there be a God of this planet even if there is no God of the universe? Those and other such questions are significant to me, yet meaningless to people who can't think about the possibility in a realistic way. You kinda' sorta' pretended to think about one of them, but can't really even do that since you can't think about it realistically. That's not my fault either, btw.

You are completely f*cking retarded.

What prevents me from being god? Your definition is so unclear that it could apply to anything and everything.
All hail the whale god!

You won't nail down the simplest of details, so no-one wants to discuss this with you when you're acting like a f*ckwit. Stop acting like a child and define what you think defines a "god."

buttershug

26th August 2009 - 04:28 PM

QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 26 2009, 02:44 PM)

Sure I have. Beings who are not God are not God.

Beings who are not ollam are not ollam.

Does that say anything about what "ollam" is?

nopEda

30th August 2009 - 06:09 PM

QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 26 2009, 03:23 PM)

define what you think defines a "god."

A being who has deliberate influence over the development of life on a planet or planets he is not native to would be the least of requirements.

flyingbuttressman

30th August 2009 - 06:13 PM

QUOTE (nopEda+Aug 30 2009, 02:09 PM)

A being who has deliberate influence over the development of life on a planet or planets he is not native to would be the least of requirements.

So, by your definition, god has to be an alien.
Your logic is "aliens can be gods so god is an alien."
That's pretty lame.

If NASA shoots a satellite containing bacteria to Mars, does that make scientists into gods?
Does this mean that scientists are the most godlike of all humans?
Do you realize that a large percentage of scientists are strong atheists?

Frothy

6th September 2009 - 12:00 PM

I have been participating on several Christian forums over the past few years, but only recently stumbled across this one.

Fellowship with Christians helps so much, and I hope that you do have some real life fellowship with Christians.

buttershug

6th September 2009 - 12:10 PM

QUOTE (Frothy+Sep 6 2009, 12:00 PM)

I have been participating on several Christian forums over the past few years, but only recently stumbled across this one.

Fellowship with Christians helps so much, and I hope that you do have some real life fellowship with Christians.

Don't try preaching to the choir here.

Newguy does that then gets upset when we don't have blind faith in his experiences that he has never told us what they are. Stick around long enough and he will call you names as well. And he will come up with excuses why your version of Christianity is wrong.

And note what you said

QUOTE

Fellowship with Christians helps so much

.
So is it Christ or fellowship with Christians that helps?

And I trust you don't mean people like Rev. Phelps of the Westminster Baptist Church.

AlexG

6th September 2009 - 05:22 PM

QUOTE

have been participating on several Christian forums over the past few years, but only recently stumbled across this one.

This is not a Christian forum, it is a science forum. The two are incompatible. One deals with fictions, one deals with fact.

Meem

6th September 2009 - 05:49 PM

AlexG Posted on Today at 12:22 PM

QUOTE

The two are incompatible. One deals with fictions, one deals with fact.

What are the facts of either? Nothing scientific is very "factual," but is more a calculation of probability with a chance of certainty, based on the the uncertainty principle. What? Scientists don't agree on all matters of science, and Christians don't agree about everything in the "holy-book." As long as you think it makes a difference and there must be this superficial division or in compatibility, that's all you will find. Science still apparently doesn't understand the human condition, everyone is an artist (critique-skeptic), and "real" science is an art. "State-of-the-Art."

Chinese proverb.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

The two are incompatible. One deals with fictions, one deals with fact.

What are the facts of either? Nothing scientific is very "factual," but is more a calculation of probability with a chance of certainty, based on the the uncertainty principle. What? Scientists don't agree on all matters of science, and Christians don't agree about everything in the "holy-book." As long as you think it makes a difference and there must be this superficial division or in compatibility, that's all you will find. Science still apparently doesn't understand the human condition, everyone is an artist (critique-skeptic), and "real" science is an art. "State-of-the-Art."

Chinese proverb.
“If you are planning for a year, sow rice; if you are planning for a decade, plant trees; if you are planning for a lifetime, educate people”

buttershug

6th September 2009 - 06:06 PM

The uncertainty principal is only for QM level physics.
The vast majority of scientists never use it.
Science does not say that there is someone giving out the answers. So we must find them. That there is some misteps by some people There is no contradiction.

Religion says that God gives the answers to those that seek. The problem is there so many differences in the answers. There is a contradiction there.

Meem

6th September 2009 - 06:36 PM

Is QM not the foundations upon which all science is based? That "big-bang" moment? Perhaps I was wrong to think so. That's what I get for thinking.

flyingbuttressman

6th September 2009 - 06:52 PM

QUOTE (Meem+Sep 6 2009, 02:36 PM)

Is QM not the foundations upon which all science is based? That "big-bang" moment? Perhaps I was wrong to think so. That's what I get for thinking.

Quantum Mechanics only apply to extremely small scales. Above that, interactions are fairly predictable. For example, there is no way to predict when an atomically unstable atom will decay, but we know certainly how long it will take for half of a sample of several million to decay.

You may not be able to predict the result of a single roulette game, but you can predict the average result of 1000 roulette games.

Meem

6th September 2009 - 06:58 PM

QUOTE

Quantum Mechanics only apply to extremely small scales.

You don't understand QM if that is what you think. How "large" is a "singularity?"
How "small" was the "cosmic-egg?" Extremely samll scale ... like sub-atomic? Do you ever realize what you're talking about? ... you know just ... EVERYTHING?

flyingbuttressman

6th September 2009 - 07:12 PM

QUOTE (Meem+Sep 6 2009, 02:58 PM)

You don't understand QM if that is what you think. How "large" is a "singularity?"

A singularity is extremely small. The event horizon of a black hole surrounds the singularity, bit is not actually considered part of it.

QUOTE

Do you ever realize what you're talking about? ... you know just ... EVERYTHING?

Why? Are you jealous? I know enough to recognize unsophisticated nonsense. Sophisticated nonsense remains the jurisdiction of AlphaNumeric and rpenner.

Back to your original point, QM is not necessary to explain macro-scale interactions. Things like force, acceleration and other basic physics concepts do not require knowledge of QM to calculate. Science deals with facts, and it is a monopoly. There is no method known to man other than science that can discover facts on a reliable basis. I don't understand why you have such a problem with it.

AlexG

6th September 2009 - 07:22 PM

QUOTE

Perhaps I was wrong to think so.

Right.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Perhaps I was wrong to think so.

Right.

That's what I get for thinking.

Keep trying. Perhaps someday you will succeed.

Meem

6th September 2009 - 07:30 PM

What you don't understand, it is not I, whom has said or acted in a manner to indicate that I have a problem with "it." The case I think I see, is the you have a problem in understanding that I don't have a problem with, and that is what seems to bother you most. Because I believe in science and god. Should it matter to you if my favorite color is blue? Would that give you cause to say then ... I have a problem with color value? Perhaps if my favorite food was pizza? What is the matter with any of these preferences, in your eyes? Are you trying to control mine choice? Should I try to control, insult, or manipulate your choice? I don't care what you think about god, it's irrelevant to "him" anyway. Philosophy, ever hear of Laplace's super-being (some say demon)? I would guarantee that it was part of the inspiration behind the character from Watchmen ... Dr. Manhattan.

QUOTE

I have walked on the surface of the Sun... witnessed events so tiny and so fast, that they can hardly be said to have occurred at all. But you, Adrian, you're just a man. The world's smartest man poses no more threat to me than does its smartest termite.

Everything in the "macro-verse" is composed of, functions because of, relates to, EVERYTHING that happens on the smallest scale ... or have you forgotten the results of our uranium and plutonium conversation already? Are you sure you understand the fundamentals of QM, or are you trying to catch a fish up in a tree?

buttershug

6th September 2009 - 07:37 PM

QUOTE (Meem+Sep 6 2009, 07:30 PM)

Should it matter to you if my favorite color is blue? Would that give you cause to say then ... I have a problem with color value? Perhaps if my favorite food was pizza? What is the matter with any of these preferences, in your eyes? Are you trying to control mine choice? Should I try to control, insult, or manipulate your choice? I don't care what you think about god, it's irrelevant to "him" anyway. Philosophy, ever hear of Laplace's super-being (some say demon)? I would guarantee that it was part of the inspiration behind the character from Watchmen ... Dr. Manhattan.

Everything in the "macro-verse" is composed of, functions because of, relates to, EVERYTHING that happens on the smallest scale ... or have you forgotten the results of our uranium and plutonium conversation already? Are you sure you understand the fundamentals of QM, or are you trying to catch a fish up in a tree?

Those are opinions. And quite valid ones.

But opinions are not facts.

The Big Bang is only one small part of science.

You don't need QM to understand Evolution for example.

flyingbuttressman

6th September 2009 - 07:39 PM

QUOTE (Meem+Sep 6 2009, 03:30 PM)

What you don't understand, it is not I, whom has said or acted in a manner to indicate that I have a problem with "it." The case I think I see, is the you have a problem in understanding that I don't have a problem with, and that is what seems to bother you most. Because I believe in science and god.

Your problem is that your statements are extremely unclear. You start out with a vague claim and then just ramble on from there. I see a lot of "poor me" or "I just don't know anything." Sarcasm or not, it takes up space and detracts from whatever point you are making.

As far as you being anti-science, I am referring to our earlier discussions, where you claimed that scientific progress can/should occur outside of the scientific community because of apparent scientific orthodoxy. Before I go on, is this what you think now?

QUOTE

Everything in the "macro-verse" is composed of, functions because of, relates to, EVERYTHING that happens on the smallest scale ... or have you forgotten the results of our uranium and plutonium conversation already? Are you sure you understand the fundamentals of QM, or are you trying to catch a fish up in a tree?

For one, I don't remember anything clear resulting from our uranium/plutonium discussion, partly because you were unclear about what you were claiming, and if you were indeed talking about transmutation of elements, then I was clearly barking up the wrong tree. This is more your fault than mine because you were being (as before stated) extremely vague.

Secondly, yes, everything that occurs on large scales is a result of QM. The difference is that the "weirdness" of QM does not scale up. Something may be strange and uncertain on a tiny level, but the behavior of millions of atoms is quite predictable. Most of science is based on those predictable outcomes.

Meem

6th September 2009 - 07:42 PM

I think you're quite wrong sir. What came first, the universe or evolution? Which takes place inside of the other? Hmm, I am pretty sure the universe was here before anything started evolving on Earth, or before Earth itself even began to evolve, for example.

"To make an apple pie, one must first create the universe." Carl Sagan.

I think he's right about that, what do you think?

(edit)
Flying,

There is a difference in speaking "in-general" and speaking vaguely. It takes a keen sense to know what that difference is. "Who's to blame?" We are.

buttershug

6th September 2009 - 07:46 PM

He's wrong, my Mom has made lots of apple pies, and never once made the Universe.

Ok so Science doesn't know everything.
But instead of basing beliefs on that ignorance, science looks for answers.

Why is making stuff up better than admiting ignorance and looking for the answer?

flyingbuttressman

6th September 2009 - 07:51 PM

QUOTE (Meem+Sep 6 2009, 03:42 PM)

There is a difference in speaking "in-general" and speaking vaguely. It takes a keen sense to know what that difference is.

When it comes to science, speaking "in general" is practically the same as being vague. Science cannot exist without specific examples. There are simply too many conditions an exceptions to speak "in general." That said, you do have the tendency to "ramble" and switch topics in the middle of a post.

Meem

6th September 2009 - 08:04 PM

Flying,

Thank you,for making me aware of the idiosyncrasies I have lived with for my entire life. I happy that you seem to be certain that you live without any of your very own. If we must say, that there is too much "science" to refer to the general process of "science," we must then eliminate the use of the term in general. The science of (fill in the bank). Life has to many specific conditions as well to have a general approach or outlook ... on life. Let us eliminate the use of the term life, in general, as well. We need to be more specific. I should stop living, generally, "for the better."

Butter,

Semi-funny. But why would your mother need to when it was already here? Maybe she created a universe when she made the apple pie

No "man" and no "book" (of any sort) has all the answers (for any-one's life) friend, it's something you have to do (live) to figure out. If there is a such a man or book in existence today, it must be a highly guarded secret.

(later on gentlemen)

nopEda

15th September 2009 - 03:04 PM

QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Aug 30 2009, 06:13 PM)

QUOTE (nopEda+)

A being who has deliberate influence over the development of life on a planet or planets he is not native to would be the least of requirements.

So, by your definition, god has to be an alien.

Unless you can explain how a being could be the god of a planet he is native to, I must believe a being can not be the god of a planet he is native to.

QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)

Your logic is "aliens can be gods so god is an alien."

Aliens could be, but a native of Earth could not be. They work together, and I feel sure some branches of science are able to combine two or even more facts like that to arrive at conclusions.

QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)

That's pretty lame.

You can't attempt to think about God realistically at all, so everying about the possibility is more than likely to be unappreciable by you and all who are in your position.

QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)

If NASA shoots a satellite containing bacteria to Mars, does that make scientists into gods?

Does this mean that scientists are the most godlike of all humans?

Not because they tossed some bacteria on a rock on another planet, to me. But then maybe to some they would be. If they go on to develop higher forms of life, and have influence on their lives, then they are getting close to what I would consider to be a god. But here again it enters a realm where you dare not go, to actually consider the possibility. Somewhere between where we are, or maybe not even this far, and what a god would actually have to be in order to be a god, your brain will have to turn away.

QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)

Do you realize that a large percentage of scientists are strong atheists?

What do I care? A large number of Protestants in the south appear to believe that the Catholics are not Christians

. It's the same thing to me. Also, it appears that a lot of scientifically minded people don't consider the fact that if God does exist he apparently makes use of the evolutionary method of development, to be very significant. I do. That gives me more freedom to consider the possibility of his existence than they have. So do some other things. I have the freedom to consider what science teaches us AND the possibility of God's existence both.

nopEda

15th September 2009 - 03:07 PM

QUOTE (buttershug+Sep 6 2009, 07:46 PM)

my Mom has made lots of apple pies, and never once made the Universe.

10. Whether God exists or not it seems apparent that life must have
originated from lifelessness to begin with, and may do it fairly often.

vkamath

15th September 2009 - 04:16 PM

QUOTE (nopEda+)

You can't attempt to think about God realistically at all, so everying about the possibility is more than likely to be unappreciable by you and all who are in your position.

You can't attempt to think about the Easter Bunny realistically at all, so everying about the possibility is more than likely to be unappreciable by you and all who are in your position.

nopEda

16th September 2009 - 03:11 PM

QUOTE (vkamath+)

You can't attempt to think about the Easter Bunny realistically at all, so everying about the possibility is more than likely to be unappreciable by you and all who are in your position.

So, if it turns out that God exists then people like you will look idiots, and if it turns out that the EB exists then people like myself will look like idiots.

vkamath

16th September 2009 - 03:51 PM

QUOTE (nopEda+Sep 16 2009, 08:41 PM)

So, if it turns out that God exists then people like you will look idiots, and if it turns out that the EB exists then people like myself will look like idiots.

There is no evidence for god, so I don't see how I would look like an idiot IF he exists.

Would you look like an idiot if you did not know the name of a person you have never met?

pnelson419

16th September 2009 - 11:37 PM

QUOTE (nopEda+Sep 16 2009, 11:11 AM)

So, if it turns out that God exists then people like you will look idiots, and if it turns out that the EB exists then people like myself will look like idiots.

Don't you think that if it turns out that God exists and is not an alien then you will look like an idiot?

Granouille

16th September 2009 - 11:49 PM

QUOTE

is not an alien

Do you have no fricking clue how stupid that was?

While you're trying to puzzle out the meaning, get some help, nitwit.

pnelson419

16th September 2009 - 11:57 PM

QUOTE (Granouille+Sep 16 2009, 07:49 PM)

Do you have no fricking clue how stupid that was?

While you're trying to puzzle out the meaning, get some help, nitwit.

If you are referring to me then please clue me in.

flyingbuttressman

17th September 2009 - 01:49 PM

QUOTE (pnelson419+Sep 16 2009, 07:57 PM)

If you are referring to me then please clue me in.

Asking if god is an alien is like asking "what does blue taste like?"
In other words: completely idiotic.

nopEda is a severely retarded individual. Don't give him any benefit of a doubt.

H2O

17th September 2009 - 05:34 PM

As true as the definition of Faith may be the difference and resulting confusion is in the existence of evidence.

Faith is simply believing strongly in something. So yes a strong atheist must have faith in what they believe BUT the faith the church talks of is blind faith. The atheist's faith is supported by evidence. There is no hypocrisy because there exists a difference.

flyingbuttressman

17th September 2009 - 05:46 PM

QUOTE (H2O+Sep 17 2009, 01:34 PM)

As true as the definition of Faith may be the difference and resulting confusion is in the existence of evidence.

Faith is simply believing strongly in something. So yes a strong atheist must have faith in what they believe BUT the faith the church talks of is blind faith. The atheist's faith is supported by evidence. There is no hypocrisy because there exists a difference.

I think I agree with you. I think we need a better word to describe the difference between faith with evidence and faith without evidence.

nopEda

17th September 2009 - 09:34 PM

QUOTE (pnelson419+Sep 16 2009, 11:37 PM)

Don't you think that if it turns out that God exists and is not an alien then you will look like an idiot?

No more than the rest of you, since none of us can suggest anything else he would be likely to be. It's most likely he originated somewhere NOT ON EARTH, which would make him an alien even if he's human, which is also very unlikely. None of us can suggest how he could be anything except an alien, but I'm the only one who's willing to accept and acknowledge the fact. If we learn that he is a native of Earth I'll be shocked, but won't feel like an idiot for having believed that he is not.

nopEda

17th September 2009 - 09:46 PM

QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 17 2009, 01:49 PM)

Asking if god is an alien is like asking "what does blue taste like?"

Except for the fact that it's nothing like it at all, now that you mention it. Why do you want people to think it's similar, do you have any idea about that?

QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)

In other words: completely idiotic.

Only to people incapable of thinking about it though, not to people who can.

QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+)

nopEda is a severely retarded individual.

Your the ones with the retarded notion that God could somehow be an an omnipotent yet technologically inferior

native of a planet he created after he had already existed for billions of years, and I'm the one pointing out that it's retarded for you. Apparently you're not yet aware of how retarded it is.

flyingbuttressman

17th September 2009 - 09:48 PM

QUOTE (nopEda+Sep 17 2009, 05:46 PM)

Your the ones with the retarded notion that God could somehow be an an omnipotent yet technologically inferior native of a planet he created after he had already existed for billions of years, and I'm the one pointing out that it's retarded for you. Apparently you're not yet aware of how retarded it is.

blah blah blah, wank wank wank. Get over yourself.

nopEda

17th September 2009 - 09:52 PM

QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 17 2009, 05:46 PM)

I think I agree with you. I think we need a better word to describe the difference between faith with evidence and faith without evidence.

Faith is faith however you come by it. There is evidence of God's existence or no one would believe he exists. The fact that you don't recognise any of it even though you yourself are evidence doesn't make any of it go away. Your refusal to acknowledge it doesn't remove it or cause other people to deny it. Even if God does not exist there is evidence that he does...every church is evidence, every believer, every "answered" pray...all evidence even if there is no God associated with this particular planet.

vkamath

17th September 2009 - 10:04 PM

QUOTE (nopEda+)

There is evidence of God's existence or no one would believe he exists.

There is no evidence, just wishful thinking.

pnelson419

17th September 2009 - 10:27 PM

QUOTE (flyingbuttressman+Sep 17 2009, 09:49 AM)

Asking if god is an alien is like asking "what does blue taste like?"
In other words: completely idiotic.

nopEda is a severely retarded individual. Don't give him any benefit of a doubt.

nopEda commented that if God exists others would look idiotic. It made perfect sense to me to ask him if God exists and is not an alien wouldn't he look idiotic.

Hey, this entire dicussion has been idiotic from the get go.

buttershug

17th September 2009 - 10:32 PM

QUOTE (nopEda+Sep 17 2009, 09:52 PM)

Faith is faith however you come by it. There is evidence of God's existence or no one would believe he exists. The fact that you don't recognise any of it even though you yourself are evidence doesn't make any of it go away. Your refusal to acknowledge it doesn't remove it or cause other people to deny it. Even if God does not exist there is evidence that he does...every church is evidence, every believer, every "answered" pray...all evidence even if there is no God associated with this particular planet.

That is not true.
All people need is a desire to believe in God. And they will use anything as evidence.
Is that woman's pain going away after rubbing it with the calf spit evidence of any God? If so how?

And show some evidence any real evidence.
None of what you listed is evidence of anything other than ignorance.

PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.

To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.