A skeptic or atheist is governed by two main principles; 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and 2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated.
However, strong atheism states that there is no god, even though observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally. So despite the lack of observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, the strong atheist believes that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god, contradicting the tenet that "all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence".
Why is this so? Why the reversal?
i'm not going to read through the thread. i"m just going to comment on your misunderstandings.
1) all beliefs are NOT supported simply on observational evidence. Some things you can deduce and somethings you can induce given the evidence supplied...
2) seee #1, your whole premise is wrong. learn the difference and learn the truth. Strong atheism only seeks to refute ONE god as DEFINED. Define your god...leave it to us rationalists to pick it apart uhh huh, as Atheists deduce that Antropic principle is a certainty..lolololol Tell more please.... Please go on.. And you are sounding quite religious with"Learn the Difference and Learn the Truth". Damn that sounds so familiar.care to elaborate? there are no certainties in atheism... talk about absolutism!
atheism is true only as far as the evidence holds.uhh huh... So what was was wrong with my original post. A skeptic or atheist is governed by two main principles; 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence,
Now what does that say? Let me break it down for you.
First what observation is..
ob·ser·va·tion play_w("O0014000")
(bzr-vshn)
n.
1.
a. The act or faculty of observing.
b. The fact of being observed.
2.
a. The act of noting and recording something, such as a phenomenon, with instruments.
b. The result or record of such notation: a meteorological observation.
4. An inference or a judgment that is acquired from or based on observing.
Now the second part.
ev·i·dence (?v'?-d?ns)
n.
A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
tr.v., -denced, -denc·ing, -denc·es.
To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
To support by testimony; attest.
Thanks for giving my post more support as to what a Atheist is. You are a prime example. Fully appreciated. By the way, who was talking about God?? Assuming is not very Atheist like..
the way i've understood it is that we exist...it's an axiom.
an example might be based on the fact you and i can communicate. isn't that evidence that we exist?
if we are in agreement on this then the question becomes, what caused us to exist.
at that point, the most honest assessment is "i don't know".
if you're argument against strong atheism is ...Hah, look, they don't know, they can't be a strong atheist.
then i agree. one can only be a strong atheist against a god that's defined. and as far as any definition i've heard of "god", there doesn't exist enough evidence to prove its existence.
that's all i'm saying.
(btw...if you are wanting to pose as a non theist, you might want to uncapitalize the "g" in god)
i'm a WEAK atheist against "god" in general...because....WTF does "god" mean?
jack shit.
i can don the title of "god" to a celery stalk and worship it. at least I'll have evidence of its existance. (in which case, i'll be a theist)
Another Frank Zappa quote "in 50 years time someone will be able to put a dog turd in front of people and say it exudes spiritual power and you can bet some people will believe it".
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
i'm a WEAK atheist against "god" in general...because....WTF does "god" mean?
jack shit.
i can don the title of "god" to a celery stalk and worship it. at least I'll have evidence of its existance. (in which case, i'll be a theist)
Another Frank Zappa quote "in 50 years time someone will be able to put a dog turd in front of people and say it exudes spiritual power and you can bet some people will believe it".
Someone already did that with a dog's anus
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
I suppose I could only say a few things. Both sides are pretty hardheaded and sure they are right. I don't think it's right to attack any other persons belief and creating debate is not very successful since both sides are usually believing so much in their own sides arguments superiority that they will not take the other sides arguments seriously.
I don't believe in any god, but I'm not sure I entirely believe in the Big Band theory either. I think we should leave the subject about the worlds creation. The creation of the world, of the universe and everything is simply something that is out of our hands. Making up a God or anything equal is an easy way of getting around the problem of thinking. It's like saying Bill Gates made the internet and all computers. Although that may not be entirely wrong it's not either correct.
What is really God, a guy sitting in the sky and controlling the whole world? Something supernatural that created our world? I don't know. But it's not sure we all see God as the same thing. I say I don't believe in God. However, that doesn't mean that I don't believe in a supernatural power that created the world, but only did that. I simply don't think of God as a supernatural power that only has created the world.
Science can not always prove everything, we humans cannot understand that. It's something we must face, we can't gain all knowledge in the universe, we can't comprehend everything. How the world was created is a too big subject for our brains to understand, that's why we seek the easy solutions. In the end isn't God and Big Bang both pretty easy solutions?
Well, it was more then I intended to say from the beginning, but I suppose that's what I wanted to say...
I suppose I could only say a few things. Both sides are pretty hardheaded and sure they are right. I don't think it's right to attack any other persons belief and creating debate is not very successful since both sides are usually believing so much in their own sides arguments superiority that they will not take the other sides arguments seriously. I don't believe in any god, but I'm not sure I entirely believe in the Big Band theory either. I think we should leave the subject about the worlds creation. The creation of the world, of the universe and everything is simply something that is out of our hands. Making up a God or anything equal is an easy way of getting around the problem of thinking. It's like saying Bill Gates made the internet and all computers. Although that may not be entirely wrong it's not either correct. What is really God, a guy sitting in the sky and controlling the whole world? Something supernatural that created our world? I don't know. But it's not sure we all see God as the same thing. I say I don't believe in God. However, that doesn't mean that I don't believe in a supernatural power that created the world, but only did that. I simply don't think of God as a supernatural power that only has created the world. Science can not always prove everything, we humans cannot understand that. It's something we must face, we can't gain all knowledge in the universe, we can't comprehend everything. How the world was created is a too big subject for our brains to understand, that's why we seek the easy solutions. In the end isn't God and Big Bang both pretty easy solutions? Well, it was more then I intended to say from the beginning, but I suppose that's what I wanted to say...
The big bang theory isn't as easy as it sounds though. It creates more questions.
What was here before the bang?
What caused the bang?
What banged?
God is a much easier solution because you only need faith. The big bang requires more answers.
Sometimes I wish I beleived in a higher power. I want to be here when we figure out how to create a universe.
I suppose I could only say a few things. Both sides are pretty hardheaded and sure they are right.
Thanks for stating VERY simply and VERY correctly the number one greatest misconception about atheism and atheists.
Only one side of this argument is SURE beyond all doubt and question that they are 100% infallibly, incontravertibly right and to question them is both offensive and disrepectful.
Atheists are simply entertaining the notion they may be wrong.
+-+-+-+-+-+ "MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol" http://purepwnage.com -+-+-+-+-+-+ "Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
I don't believe in any god, but I'm not sure I entirely believe in the Big Band theory either.
Bid Band Theory? The universe was created by saxophones and trumpets playing to a jazz swing beat and Frank Sinatra is god.
Naw, it was a giant rubber band slingshot.
You know what? replace a physical device with a segment of the "fabric" of this universe being stretched out of proportion , somewhat like what occurs with black holes, and its not too unfeasible. Such an anomoly could have potentially breached a dimension with different rules than ours, like, say, one where mass and matter can be created or destroyed from nothing. Or for that matter, one where literal gods were at play.
Hmm, I need to pick up that book of Hawking's again and see if he's got anything to say on this subject.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee. Hemingway
the universe/multiverse/whatever it is wasn't created.there was no beginning and there will be no end,imo.
eternity is a very liberating and uplifting concept.contemplating it is mind-blowing but once you comprehend it it's a real cool idea.since i can remember i've considered it the only logical explanation for why we're here.it's so simple and elegant i don't get why ppl resist the notion.
the universe/multiverse/whatever it is wasn't created.there was no beginning and there will be no end,imo.
eternity is a very liberating and uplifting concept.contemplating it is mind-blowing but once you comprehend it it's a real cool idea.since i can remember i've considered it the only logical explanation for why we're here.it's so simple and elegant i don't get why ppl resist the notion.
I believe in the something of the same.
I believe that there are always universes, but the matter in the universe changes from one state to another; becoming the universe we observe. Existance doesn't have a begin point, and it only ends as far as your existance is concerned. The multiverse goes on forever, never ending. There is always existance; there is never, at any point, a time when exisitance ceases to be a constant.
I suppose I could only say a few things. Both sides are pretty hardheaded and sure they are right.
Thanks for stating VERY simply and VERY correctly the number one greatest misconception about atheism and atheists.
Only one side of this argument is SURE beyond all doubt and question that they are 100% infallibly, incontravertibly right and to question them is both offensive and disrepectful.
Atheists are simply entertaining the notion they may be wrong.
Now you're doing exactly what you're accusing xpowderx of, for theists. They might by definition believe that there is some kind of god or gods, but "beyond all doubt", is probably (per capita) about as rare as an atheist saying "I believe there is no god, beyond all doubt". Everyone has doubts at times. When it comes to the nature of that god or those gods, it's another matter entirely. Very few theists would claim any kind of infallibilty over such questions.
This idea that atheists are all open minded, while theists are all set in there ways, just doesn't hold up to my experience of either group. As far as Dawkins goes, he may pay lip service to being scientific and being happy to be proved wrong, and maybe that's how he would like to see himself, but from seeing him in his TV shows and interviews, that is clearly not the case.
Zakk: the universe/multiverse/whatever it is wasn't created.there was no beginning and there will be no end,imo.
eternity is a very liberating and uplifting concept.contemplating it is mind-blowing but once you comprehend it it's a real cool idea.since i can remember i've considered it the only logical explanation for why we're here.it's so simple and elegant i don't get why ppl resist the notion.
Urdig: I believe in the something of the same.
I believe that there are always universes, but the matter in the universe changes from one state to another; becoming the universe we observe. Existance doesn't have a begin point, and it only ends as far as your existance is concerned. The multiverse goes on forever, never ending. There is always existance; there is never, at any point, a time when exisitance ceases to be a constant.
Originally posted by Razorback
Originally posted by Godliest
I suppose I could only say a few things. Both sides are pretty hardheaded and sure they are right.
Thanks for stating VERY simply and VERY correctly the number one greatest misconception about atheism and atheists.
Only one side of this argument is SURE beyond all doubt and question that they are 100% infallibly, incontravertibly right and to question them is both offensive and disrepectful.
Atheists are simply entertaining the notion they may be wrong.
Now you're doing exactly what you're accusing xpowderx of, for theists. They might by definition believe that there is some kind of god or gods, but "beyond all doubt", is probably (per capita) about as rare as an atheist saying "I believe there is no god, beyond all doubt". Everyone has doubts at times. When it comes to the nature of that god or those gods, it's another matter entirely. Very few theists would claim any kind of infallibilty over such questions.
This idea that atheists are all open minded, while theists are all set in there ways, just doesn't hold up to my experience of either group. As far as Dawkins goes, he may pay lip service to being scientific and being happy to be proved wrong, and maybe that's how he would like to see himself, but from seeing him in his TV shows and interviews, that is clearly not the case.
All I can do is laugh at this. Appreciate the effort guys. But thank you!
Originally posted by Razorback Originally posted by Godliest I suppose I could only say a few things. Both sides are pretty hardheaded and sure they are right.
Thanks for stating VERY simply and VERY correctly the number one greatest misconception about atheism and atheists. Only one side of this argument is SURE beyond all doubt and question that they are 100% infallibly, incontrovertibly right and to question them is both offensive and disrespectful. Atheists are simply entertaining the notion they may be wrong.
And thank you for showing the usual good ol' racism. Do you really believe that every atheist out there is hardheaded? Both sides of the discussion got their hardheaded guys and those who are open to other ideas. However, both sides are very hard to convince as they see to different things as proof.
Zakk: the universe/multiverse/whatever it is wasn't created.there was no beginning and there will be no end,imo.
eternity is a very liberating and uplifting concept.contemplating it is mind-blowing but once you comprehend it it's a real cool idea.since i can remember i've considered it the only logical explanation for why we're here.it's so simple and elegant i don't get why ppl resist the notion.
Urdig: I believe in the something of the same. I believe that there are always universes, but the matter in the universe changes from one state to another; becoming the universe we observe. Existance doesn't have a begin point, and it only ends as far as your existance is concerned. The multiverse goes on forever, never ending. There is always existance; there is never, at any point, a time when exisitance ceases to be a constant.
Originally posted by Razorback
Originally posted by Godliest
I suppose I could only say a few things. Both sides are pretty hardheaded and sure they are right.
Thanks for stating VERY simply and VERY correctly the number one greatest misconception about atheism and atheists.
Only one side of this argument is SURE beyond all doubt and question that they are 100% infallibly, incontravertibly right and to question them is both offensive and disrepectful.
Atheists are simply entertaining the notion they may be wrong.
Now you're doing exactly what you're accusing xpowderx of, for theists. They might by definition believe that there is some kind of god or gods, but "beyond all doubt", is probably (per capita) about as rare as an atheist saying "I believe there is no god, beyond all doubt". Everyone has doubts at times. When it comes to the nature of that god or those gods, it's another matter entirely. Very few theists would claim any kind of infallibilty over such questions.
This idea that atheists are all open minded, while theists are all set in there ways, just doesn't hold up to my experience of either group. As far as Dawkins goes, he may pay lip service to being scientific and being happy to be proved wrong, and maybe that's how he would like to see himself, but from seeing him in his TV shows and interviews, that is clearly not the case.
All I can do is laugh at this. Appreciate the effort guys. But thank you!
wtf is this,who are you talking to here?you quote 17 different ppl and laugh at them all?
lol,that's cool mate i like it.i'm gonna name this manoeuvre..the "group dis"
this could catch on i reckon.i may use it in future debates as a last throw of the dice type thing!
Zakk: the universe/multiverse/whatever it is wasn't created.there was no beginning and there will be no end,imo.
eternity is a very liberating and uplifting concept.contemplating it is mind-blowing but once you comprehend it it's a real cool idea.since i can remember i've considered it the only logical explanation for why we're here.it's so simple and elegant i don't get why ppl resist the notion.
Urdig: I believe in the something of the same. I believe that there are always universes, but the matter in the universe changes from one state to another; becoming the universe we observe. Existance doesn't have a begin point, and it only ends as far as your existance is concerned. The multiverse goes on forever, never ending. There is always existance; there is never, at any point, a time when exisitance ceases to be a constant.
Originally posted by Razorback
Originally posted by Godliest
I suppose I could only say a few things. Both sides are pretty hardheaded and sure they are right.
Thanks for stating VERY simply and VERY correctly the number one greatest misconception about atheism and atheists.
Only one side of this argument is SURE beyond all doubt and question that they are 100% infallibly, incontravertibly right and to question them is both offensive and disrepectful.
Atheists are simply entertaining the notion they may be wrong.
Now you're doing exactly what you're accusing xpowderx of, for theists. They might by definition believe that there is some kind of god or gods, but "beyond all doubt", is probably (per capita) about as rare as an atheist saying "I believe there is no god, beyond all doubt". Everyone has doubts at times. When it comes to the nature of that god or those gods, it's another matter entirely. Very few theists would claim any kind of infallibilty over such questions.
This idea that atheists are all open minded, while theists are all set in there ways, just doesn't hold up to my experience of either group. As far as Dawkins goes, he may pay lip service to being scientific and being happy to be proved wrong, and maybe that's how he would like to see himself, but from seeing him in his TV shows and interviews, that is clearly not the case.
All I can do is laugh at this. Appreciate the effort guys. But thank you!
I was enjoying this discussion, but if you're going to laugh at me for my beliefs then I'm just going to say that now I think you're rude.
Edit: For arguements sake. Recently it was determined that time did not begin with the big bang, and was in fact ticking along before our universe was created. Since my statement related to existance itself, I would have to say that considering time has been a constant for as long as we know, that my belief is pretty frigin sound as far as there has never been nothing, and existance has never not been.
Second edit: This belief even supports the possibility of a god. Because if god made the universe then he was here before it was created and supports the idea that existance has always been. Just not ours.
Even an athiest can help to justify the possibility of a god, even if I don't believe that there is one.
Edit: For arguements sake. Recently it was determined that time did not begin with the big bang, and was in fact ticking along before our universe was created.
A skeptic or atheist is governed by two main principles; 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and 2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated. However, strong atheism states that there is no god, even though observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally. So despite the lack of observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, the strong atheist believes that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god, contradicting the tenet that "all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence".
Why is this so? Why the reversal?
Why the need to constantly attack atheists in some form or another? Why the lack of common sense?
Did you really need to ask this question?
Your first sentence is merely a generalization: just because most atheists feel the need to be governed by the need for observational evidence doesn't mean that all atheists feel that need. Atheism is explicity defined as the lack of a belief in a deity...period. There's no mention of empirical evidence or even reason there.
If one has a belief that there is no higher power that created the cosmos, then there is no other option than to believe in a naturalistic cause for the "creation" of the universe. Is it the most rock solid belief? Not really, but it sounds more logical to the atheist and agnostic than that some magical man in space created the universe because he got lonely.
Your argument also seems to be relying on the idea that there is some manner of empirical evidence to the existence of a god and that said god created the universe, but since there obviously isn't, that belief is no more founded than the belief in a naturalistic cause for the universe.
And as for you calling someone a hypocrite, that is ludicrous. Every religion has several inherent logical inequities and hypocricies within them, and even more from practicing followers.
Go out and do something with your life other than critcizing atheists. Have a few drinks, get laid...anything. You obviously need it.
Achiever 60.00% Explorer 33.33% Killer 80.00% Socializer 26.67%
According to this survey, I'm an item-whoring ganker. I guess I should have stuck with WoW then...lmao.
I think you need to reread that post again. In perspective of what it really says. Without bringing god into the foray. Again the "G' was intentionally placed in reference to my post. That is not what the post is about. You need to quit talking about "G" so much or else I may think you are religious.
In all honesty I think there is truth in my post. Why? Because so many atheists outright get angry concerning it. I appreciate the attempt at a rebuke. Except when you rebuke you only prove that my initial OP post is correct. Perhaps if you were to become a bit creative you would find a way about it.
Zakk: the universe/multiverse/whatever it is wasn't created.there was no beginning and there will be no end,imo.
eternity is a very liberating and uplifting concept.contemplating it is mind-blowing but once you comprehend it it's a real cool idea.since i can remember i've considered it the only logical explanation for why we're here.it's so simple and elegant i don't get why ppl resist the notion.
Urdig: I believe in the something of the same. I believe that there are always universes, but the matter in the universe changes from one state to another; becoming the universe we observe. Existance doesn't have a begin point, and it only ends as far as your existance is concerned. The multiverse goes on forever, never ending. There is always existance; there is never, at any point, a time when exisitance ceases to be a constant.
Originally posted by Razorback
Originally posted by Godliest
I suppose I could only say a few things. Both sides are pretty hardheaded and sure they are right.
Thanks for stating VERY simply and VERY correctly the number one greatest misconception about atheism and atheists.
Only one side of this argument is SURE beyond all doubt and question that they are 100% infallibly, incontravertibly right and to question them is both offensive and disrepectful.
Atheists are simply entertaining the notion they may be wrong.
Now you're doing exactly what you're accusing xpowderx of, for theists. They might by definition believe that there is some kind of god or gods, but "beyond all doubt", is probably (per capita) about as rare as an atheist saying "I believe there is no god, beyond all doubt". Everyone has doubts at times. When it comes to the nature of that god or those gods, it's another matter entirely. Very few theists would claim any kind of infallibilty over such questions.
This idea that atheists are all open minded, while theists are all set in there ways, just doesn't hold up to my experience of either group. As far as Dawkins goes, he may pay lip service to being scientific and being happy to be proved wrong, and maybe that's how he would like to see himself, but from seeing him in his TV shows and interviews, that is clearly not the case.
All I can do is laugh at this. Appreciate the effort guys. But thank you!
I was enjoying this discussion, but if you're going to laugh at me for my beliefs then I'm just going to say that now I think you're rude.
Edit: For arguements sake. Recently it was determined that time did not begin with the big bang, and was in fact ticking along before our universe was created. Since my statement related to existance itself, I would have to say that considering time has been a constant for as long as we know, that my belief is pretty frigin sound as far as there has never been nothing, and existance has never not been.
Second edit: This belief even supports the possibility of a god. Because if god made the universe then he was here before it was created and supports the idea that existance has always been. Just not ours.
Even an athiest can help to justify the possibility of a god, even if I don't believe that there is one.
Urdig, that was not meant to insult. I actually was enjoying the comparision. If you felt it is rude then so be it.
Edit: For arguements sake. Recently it was determined that time did not begin with the big bang, and was in fact ticking along before our universe was created.
Edit: For arguements sake. Recently it was determined that time did not begin with the big bang, and was in fact ticking along before our universe was created.
where did you hear this?do you have any links?
I was wrong.
It's a theory.
doh,was hoping someone had had a crack at calculating what happens inside a singularity,you had me going there!
it would have helped me regarding my thoughts on eternity
Comments
==========================
1) all beliefs are NOT supported simply on observational evidence. Some things you can deduce and somethings you can induce given the evidence supplied...
2) seee #1, your whole premise is wrong. learn the difference and learn the truth. Strong atheism only seeks to refute ONE god as DEFINED. Define your god...leave it to us rationalists to pick it apart
atheism is true only as far as the evidence holds.uhh huh... So what was was wrong with my original post. A skeptic or atheist is governed by two main principles; 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence,
Now what does that say? Let me break it down for you.
First what observation is..
ob·ser·va·tion play_w("O0014000")
(
Now the second part.
ev·i·dence (?v'?-d?ns)
n.
- A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
- Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
- Law. The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
tr.v., -denced, -denc·ing, -denc·es.Thanks for giving my post more support as to what a Atheist is. You are a prime example. Fully appreciated. By the way, who was talking about God?? Assuming is not very Atheist like..
the way i've understood it is that we exist...it's an axiom.
an example might be based on the fact you and i can communicate. isn't that evidence that we exist?
if we are in agreement on this then the question becomes, what caused us to exist.
at that point, the most honest assessment is "i don't know".
if you're argument against strong atheism is ...Hah, look, they don't know, they can't be a strong atheist.
then i agree. one can only be a strong atheist against a god that's defined. and as far as any definition i've heard of "god", there doesn't exist enough evidence to prove its existence.
that's all i'm saying.
(btw...if you are wanting to pose as a non theist, you might want to uncapitalize the "g" in god)
/just saying
The g thing made me laugh.
Wish Darkfall would release.
i'm a STRONG atheist against the christian god.
i'm a WEAK atheist against "god" in general...because....WTF does "god" mean?
jack shit.
i can don the title of "god" to a celery stalk and worship it. at least I'll have evidence of its existance. (in which case, i'll be a theist)
==========================
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Someone already did that with a dog's anus
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
I suppose I could only say a few things. Both sides are pretty hardheaded and sure they are right. I don't think it's right to attack any other persons belief and creating debate is not very successful since both sides are usually believing so much in their own sides arguments superiority that they will not take the other sides arguments seriously.
I don't believe in any god, but I'm not sure I entirely believe in the Big Band theory either. I think we should leave the subject about the worlds creation. The creation of the world, of the universe and everything is simply something that is out of our hands. Making up a God or anything equal is an easy way of getting around the problem of thinking. It's like saying Bill Gates made the internet and all computers. Although that may not be entirely wrong it's not either correct.
What is really God, a guy sitting in the sky and controlling the whole world? Something supernatural that created our world? I don't know. But it's not sure we all see God as the same thing. I say I don't believe in God. However, that doesn't mean that I don't believe in a supernatural power that created the world, but only did that. I simply don't think of God as a supernatural power that only has created the world.
Science can not always prove everything, we humans cannot understand that. It's something we must face, we can't gain all knowledge in the universe, we can't comprehend everything. How the world was created is a too big subject for our brains to understand, that's why we seek the easy solutions. In the end isn't God and Big Bang both pretty easy solutions?
Well, it was more then I intended to say from the beginning, but I suppose that's what I wanted to say...
The big bang theory isn't as easy as it sounds though. It creates more questions.
What was here before the bang?
What caused the bang?
What banged?
God is a much easier solution because you only need faith. The big bang requires more answers.
Sometimes I wish I beleived in a higher power. I want to be here when we figure out how to create a universe.
Wish Darkfall would release.
Thanks for stating VERY simply and VERY correctly the number one greatest misconception about atheism and atheists.
Only one side of this argument is SURE beyond all doubt and question that they are 100% infallibly, incontravertibly right and to question them is both offensive and disrepectful.
Atheists are simply entertaining the notion they may be wrong.
+-+-+-+-+-+
"MMOs, for people that like think chatting is like a skill or something, rotflol"
http://purepwnage.com
-+-+-+-+-+-+
"Far away across the field, the tolling of the iron bell, calls the faithful to their knees. To hear the softly spoken magic spell" Pink Floyd-Dark Side of the Moon
Naw, it was a giant rubber band slingshot.
You know what? replace a physical device with a segment of the "fabric" of this universe being stretched out of proportion , somewhat like what occurs with black holes, and its not too unfeasible. Such an anomoly could have potentially breached a dimension with different rules than ours, like, say, one where mass and matter can be created or destroyed from nothing. Or for that matter, one where literal gods were at play.
Hmm, I need to pick up that book of Hawking's again and see if he's got anything to say on this subject.
No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.
Hemingway
eternity is a very liberating and uplifting concept.contemplating it is mind-blowing but once you comprehend it it's a real cool idea.since i can remember i've considered it the only logical explanation for why we're here.it's so simple and elegant i don't get why ppl resist the notion.
I believe in the something of the same.
I believe that there are always universes, but the matter in the universe changes from one state to another; becoming the universe we observe. Existance doesn't have a begin point, and it only ends as far as your existance is concerned. The multiverse goes on forever, never ending. There is always existance; there is never, at any point, a time when exisitance ceases to be a constant.
Wish Darkfall would release.
Thanks for stating VERY simply and VERY correctly the number one greatest misconception about atheism and atheists.
Only one side of this argument is SURE beyond all doubt and question that they are 100% infallibly, incontravertibly right and to question them is both offensive and disrepectful.
Atheists are simply entertaining the notion they may be wrong.
(And in reference to this thread.)Now you're doing exactly what you're accusing xpowderx of, for theists. They might by definition believe that there is some kind of god or gods, but "beyond all doubt", is probably (per capita) about as rare as an atheist saying "I believe there is no god, beyond all doubt". Everyone has doubts at times. When it comes to the nature of that god or those gods, it's another matter entirely. Very few theists would claim any kind of infallibilty over such questions.
This idea that atheists are all open minded, while theists are all set in there ways, just doesn't hold up to my experience of either group. As far as Dawkins goes, he may pay lip service to being scientific and being happy to be proved wrong, and maybe that's how he would like to see himself, but from seeing him in his TV shows and interviews, that is clearly not the case.
eternity is a very liberating and uplifting concept.contemplating it is mind-blowing but once you comprehend it it's a real cool idea.since i can remember i've considered it the only logical explanation for why we're here.it's so simple and elegant i don't get why ppl resist the notion.
Urdig: I believe in the something of the same.
I believe that there are always universes, but the matter in the universe changes from one state to another; becoming the universe we observe. Existance doesn't have a begin point, and it only ends as far as your existance is concerned. The multiverse goes on forever, never ending. There is always existance; there is never, at any point, a time when exisitance ceases to be a constant.
Thanks for stating VERY simply and VERY correctly the number one greatest misconception about atheism and atheists.
Only one side of this argument is SURE beyond all doubt and question that they are 100% infallibly, incontravertibly right and to question them is both offensive and disrepectful.
Atheists are simply entertaining the notion they may be wrong.
(And in reference to this thread.)Now you're doing exactly what you're accusing xpowderx of, for theists. They might by definition believe that there is some kind of god or gods, but "beyond all doubt", is probably (per capita) about as rare as an atheist saying "I believe there is no god, beyond all doubt". Everyone has doubts at times. When it comes to the nature of that god or those gods, it's another matter entirely. Very few theists would claim any kind of infallibilty over such questions.
This idea that atheists are all open minded, while theists are all set in there ways, just doesn't hold up to my experience of either group. As far as Dawkins goes, he may pay lip service to being scientific and being happy to be proved wrong, and maybe that's how he would like to see himself, but from seeing him in his TV shows and interviews, that is clearly not the case.
All I can do is laugh at this. Appreciate the effort guys. But thank you!
Thanks for stating VERY simply and VERY correctly the number one greatest misconception about atheism and atheists.
Only one side of this argument is SURE beyond all doubt and question that they are 100% infallibly, incontrovertibly right and to question them is both offensive and disrespectful.
Atheists are simply entertaining the notion they may be wrong.
And thank you for showing the usual good ol' racism. Do you really believe that every atheist out there is hardheaded? Both sides of the discussion got their hardheaded guys and those who are open to other ideas. However, both sides are very hard to convince as they see to different things as proof.
Thanks for stating VERY simply and VERY correctly the number one greatest misconception about atheism and atheists.
Only one side of this argument is SURE beyond all doubt and question that they are 100% infallibly, incontravertibly right and to question them is both offensive and disrepectful.
Atheists are simply entertaining the notion they may be wrong.
(And in reference to this thread.)Now you're doing exactly what you're accusing xpowderx of, for theists. They might by definition believe that there is some kind of god or gods, but "beyond all doubt", is probably (per capita) about as rare as an atheist saying "I believe there is no god, beyond all doubt". Everyone has doubts at times. When it comes to the nature of that god or those gods, it's another matter entirely. Very few theists would claim any kind of infallibilty over such questions.
This idea that atheists are all open minded, while theists are all set in there ways, just doesn't hold up to my experience of either group. As far as Dawkins goes, he may pay lip service to being scientific and being happy to be proved wrong, and maybe that's how he would like to see himself, but from seeing him in his TV shows and interviews, that is clearly not the case.
All I can do is laugh at this. Appreciate the effort guys. But thank you!
wtf is this,who are you talking to here?you quote 17 different ppl and laugh at them all?
lol,that's cool mate i like it.i'm gonna name this manoeuvre..the "group dis"
this could catch on i reckon.i may use it in future debates as a last throw of the dice type thing!
lol,that's cool mate i like it.i'm gonna name this manoeuvre..the "group dis"
this could catch on i reckon.i may use it in future debates as a last throw of the dice type thing!
Thanks for stating VERY simply and VERY correctly the number one greatest misconception about atheism and atheists.
Only one side of this argument is SURE beyond all doubt and question that they are 100% infallibly, incontravertibly right and to question them is both offensive and disrepectful.
Atheists are simply entertaining the notion they may be wrong.
(And in reference to this thread.)Now you're doing exactly what you're accusing xpowderx of, for theists. They might by definition believe that there is some kind of god or gods, but "beyond all doubt", is probably (per capita) about as rare as an atheist saying "I believe there is no god, beyond all doubt". Everyone has doubts at times. When it comes to the nature of that god or those gods, it's another matter entirely. Very few theists would claim any kind of infallibilty over such questions.
This idea that atheists are all open minded, while theists are all set in there ways, just doesn't hold up to my experience of either group. As far as Dawkins goes, he may pay lip service to being scientific and being happy to be proved wrong, and maybe that's how he would like to see himself, but from seeing him in his TV shows and interviews, that is clearly not the case.
All I can do is laugh at this. Appreciate the effort guys. But thank you!
I was enjoying this discussion, but if you're going to laugh at me for my beliefs then I'm just going to say that now I think you're rude.
Edit: For arguements sake. Recently it was determined that time did not begin with the big bang, and was in fact ticking along before our universe was created. Since my statement related to existance itself, I would have to say that considering time has been a constant for as long as we know, that my belief is pretty frigin sound as far as there has never been nothing, and existance has never not been.
Second edit: This belief even supports the possibility of a god. Because if god made the universe then he was here before it was created and supports the idea that existance has always been. Just not ours.
Even an athiest can help to justify the possibility of a god, even if I don't believe that there is one.
Wish Darkfall would release.
Did you really need to ask this question?
Your first sentence is merely a generalization: just because most atheists feel the need to be governed by the need for observational evidence doesn't mean that all atheists feel that need. Atheism is explicity defined as the lack of a belief in a deity...period. There's no mention of empirical evidence or even reason there.
If one has a belief that there is no higher power that created the cosmos, then there is no other option than to believe in a naturalistic cause for the "creation" of the universe. Is it the most rock solid belief? Not really, but it sounds more logical to the atheist and agnostic than that some magical man in space created the universe because he got lonely.
Your argument also seems to be relying on the idea that there is some manner of empirical evidence to the existence of a god and that said god created the universe, but since there obviously isn't, that belief is no more founded than the belief in a naturalistic cause for the universe.
And as for you calling someone a hypocrite, that is ludicrous. Every religion has several inherent logical inequities and hypocricies within them, and even more from practicing followers.
Go out and do something with your life other than critcizing atheists. Have a few drinks, get laid...anything. You obviously need it.
Achiever 60.00%
Explorer 33.33%
Killer 80.00%
Socializer 26.67%
According to this survey, I'm an item-whoring ganker. I guess I should have stuck with WoW then...lmao.
In all honesty I think there is truth in my post. Why? Because so many atheists outright get angry concerning it. I appreciate the attempt at a rebuke. Except when you rebuke you only prove that my initial OP post is correct. Perhaps if you were to become a bit creative you would find a way about it.
Thanks for stating VERY simply and VERY correctly the number one greatest misconception about atheism and atheists.
Only one side of this argument is SURE beyond all doubt and question that they are 100% infallibly, incontravertibly right and to question them is both offensive and disrepectful.
Atheists are simply entertaining the notion they may be wrong.
(And in reference to this thread.)Now you're doing exactly what you're accusing xpowderx of, for theists. They might by definition believe that there is some kind of god or gods, but "beyond all doubt", is probably (per capita) about as rare as an atheist saying "I believe there is no god, beyond all doubt". Everyone has doubts at times. When it comes to the nature of that god or those gods, it's another matter entirely. Very few theists would claim any kind of infallibilty over such questions.
This idea that atheists are all open minded, while theists are all set in there ways, just doesn't hold up to my experience of either group. As far as Dawkins goes, he may pay lip service to being scientific and being happy to be proved wrong, and maybe that's how he would like to see himself, but from seeing him in his TV shows and interviews, that is clearly not the case.
All I can do is laugh at this. Appreciate the effort guys. But thank you!
I was enjoying this discussion, but if you're going to laugh at me for my beliefs then I'm just going to say that now I think you're rude.
Edit: For arguements sake. Recently it was determined that time did not begin with the big bang, and was in fact ticking along before our universe was created. Since my statement related to existance itself, I would have to say that considering time has been a constant for as long as we know, that my belief is pretty frigin sound as far as there has never been nothing, and existance has never not been.
Second edit: This belief even supports the possibility of a god. Because if god made the universe then he was here before it was created and supports the idea that existance has always been. Just not ours.
Even an athiest can help to justify the possibility of a god, even if I don't believe that there is one.
Urdig, that was not meant to insult. I actually was enjoying the comparision. If you felt it is rude then so be it.I was wrong.
It's a theory.
Wish Darkfall would release.
Imagine the possibilities.www.space-time-mass.com/
I was wrong.
doh,was hoping someone had had a crack at calculating what happens inside a singularity,you had me going there!It's a theory.
it would have helped me regarding my thoughts on eternity
1. the universe "started" from a singularity
2. black holes contain singularities
3. there are lots of black holes in our universe
..rinse-repeat ad infinitum