30 May 10
Originally posted by danielnovacoviciOh I'm quite certain of my position. To clarify for you, I take part in these threads because I'm interested in other people's positions on these issues. So, metaphorically, bite me.
Ofcourse I speak for myself. I'm speaking of what or how I'm thinking about a topic, and this topic was how many on this forum are atheists and how many religious (a better word would be, indeed, theists). But if you are not sure what is your position about a subject, please step aside till you decide....till then, metaphoricaly speaking, you are 0, you worth nothing, you don't exist for this subject.
30 May 10
Originally posted by shorbockOK...I can also be an "coloured ball in a hat-agnostic", but nobody can be an "ball agnostic". I am sure that if you ask any chess playing human being: "do wou think that an spherical object which can be filled with air and serves the purpose of playing diferent games, can exist?", the answer will be YES I THINK SO.
Another way to show that is to imagine god is a colored ball in a hat :
- theist say :" this hat contains a ball (it's a green ball, says the muslim. no it's white of course says the christian. i don't know it's color say some others "(people who say there's a force beyond us that we don't know about)
- atheist says : "this hat is empty."
-agnostic s ...[text shortened]... proof, some others almost sure there's nothing, all of them being agnostics...)[/b]
30 May 10
Originally posted by avalanchethecatSo, you are intrested in other people's position on these issues! Then state also your position. And "I don't know" is not a position. Being theist or atheist it's not about if we are sure if "god exists or not", but is about if "we believe that god exists or we don't believe that god exists". You can be either theist or atheist and from that point you can do whatever you want...even change your mind. As for "metaphorically, bite me"...let's play a game of chess to see. 🙂
Oh I'm quite certain of my position. To clarify for you, I take part in these threads because I'm interested in other people's positions on these issues. So, metaphorically, bite me.
30 May 10
Originally posted by danielnovacovici"I don't know" is a perfectly valid position on these issues, in fact I would argue that it is the most logical position to adopt. I strongly doubt the existence of the christian concept of god, but suspect that there may be a spiritual aspect to human existence nevertheless, and perhaps a creator. For me, to say 'I believe' something would only be possible if I believed it, not if I suspected it.
So, you are intrested in other people's position on these issues! Then state also your position. And "I don't know" is not a position. Being theist or atheist it's not about if we are sure if "god exists or not", but is about if "we believe that god exists or we don't believe that god exists". You can be either theist or atheist and from that point ...[text shortened]... your mind. As for "metaphorically, bite me"...let's play a game of chess to see. 🙂
And I'd be delighted to have a game of chess with you.
30 May 10
Originally posted by KellyJayI don't get it because you are not actually answering the question. Maybe it is my fault and the question is not clear.
I have told you repeatedly why, you just don't seem to get it!
I can, you can, go see the Eiffel tower, we may not go, but it is there to
see if we ever want to go. This is different from something we can never
see no matter how much effort on our part or anyone's part can confirm.
Kelly
I believe claim A to be true. I believe claim B to be true. I have the potential of verifying fact A, but not fact B. How does this potential, impact on my current knowledge of facts A? Does it make my current knowledge of fact A, more reliable than my current knowledge of fact B?
And on a related note, do you believe that physically seeing something is the ultimate verification of its existence? Can you never fully believe something until you have seen it? Your main objection to the validity of any historical claim seems to be that you cannot personally witness it. Does that mean that in your opinion, all past events are unverifiable?
30 May 10
Originally posted by avalanchethecatIf you suspect that there may be perhaps a creator means that you are an theist, because to suspect something means that you think that probably that something is true. I hope that what you are thinking is true is also what you are believing is true.
[b]"I don't know" is a perfectly valid position on these issues, in fact I would argue that it is the most logical position to adopt. I strongly doubt the existence of the christian concept of god, but suspect that there may be a spiritual aspect to human existence nevertheless, and perhaps a creator. For me, to say 'I believe' something would only be possible if I believed it, not if I suspected it.
OK, you don't know for sure, but you see, this is so different from "I don't or cannot know".
30 May 10
Originally posted by danielnovacoviciPerhaps I should have said "I accept the possibility" rather than "I suspect". I disagree with your assertion that this makes me a theist however. I understand a theist as someone who believes there is a creator. This is a whole different ball game from suspecting, as it implies someone having decided to take such existence "on faith". I have no faith in this suspicion. Conversely, I do believe that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, the observable universe some 14 billion years old. These are not absolutely proven facts, but I accept the evidence as strong enough that I consider them to be facts.
If you suspect that there may be perhaps a creator means that you are an theist, because to suspect something means that you think that probably that something is true. I hope that what you are thinking is true is also what you are believing is true.
OK, you don't know for sure, but you see, this is so different from "I don't or cannot know".
30 May 10
Originally posted by epiphinehasOne though about the attributes of god: is all-powerful and all-knowing. This is logically impossible. If he knows at a instant how the future will be, than he can do nothing to change that because the future will be other that he knew, so god is not all-powerful. This is just one of many things that makes ridiculous the existence of a god (at least the christian god). Trying to define a god by the supernatural or infinite attributes leads always to logical contradictions.
I find this defense unconvincing. I get it, that you're expressing how ridiculous the existence of God strikes you. But all it does is make me question your judgment. A flying spaghetti monster obviously doesn't exist, for instance, and neither could one be responsible for the creation of a universe even if it did. It just isn't plausible. It's a farce ...[text shortened]... universe. Super torture leprechauns don't appeal to reason. An infinite creator God does.[/b]
31 May 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadIf I can test for it, and see the result GREAT as long as I know my test
I don't get it because you are not actually answering the question. Maybe it is my fault and the question is not clear.
I believe claim A to be true. I believe claim B to be true. I have the potential of verifying fact A, but not fact B. How does this potential, impact on my current knowledge of facts A? Does it make my current knowledge of fact A, more ...[text shortened]... t personally witness it. Does that mean that in your opinion, all past events are unverifiable?
results give the truth of the matter we are good. Going to see if something
is real by going to go where it is supposed to be, that is a test that
typically resolves the "is it there and real question.” If we cannot see what
we are presenting as fact, how do we know our facts are facts, and not
just consistent math being worked out that doesn't necessarily mean a
reflection of reality?
Kelly
31 May 10
Originally posted by UzumakiAiThere are more people here who are Athiest than those who are not. You talk about athiesm as though it were not a religion, it is, it is a belief in physical reality and a worship of all that is seen with the physical eye. My opinion is there has to be more to life than what I see physically, because I donot see everything.
I would like to poll you, please. How many people here are atheistic, and how many religious?
31 May 10
Originally posted by seerI know this is quite a long thread, but if you read through most of the athiests arguements within this thread, I believe you might realize that it has been explained ,(to my mind quite convincingly), that atheism is not a religon, not even by the most liberal of interpretations.
There are more people here who are Athiest than those who are not. You talk about athiesm as though it were not a religion, it is, it is a belief in physical reality and a worship of all that is seen with the physical eye. My opinion is there has to be more to life than what I see physically, because I donot see everything.
But I can see where you are coming from.🙂
31 May 10
Originally posted by KellyJaySo are you just going to keep repeating yourself and never answer my actual questions? Do you understand the questions yet?
If I can test for it, and see the result GREAT as long as I know my test
results give the truth of the matter we are good. Going to see if something
is real by going to go where it is supposed to be, that is a test that
typically resolves the "is it there and real question.”
I am still waiting for an answer to the very first question: how does the potential to verify something affect the validity of our current knowledge?
If we cannot see what
we are presenting as fact, how do we know our facts are facts, and not
just consistent math being worked out that doesn't necessarily mean a
reflection of reality?
Kelly
So you are a 'seeing is believing' proponent.
Does this mean that atoms are a matter of faith to you? Molecules? Sound? Magnetism?
What about stars? We can see little dots of light, but we can never visit them. Does this mean we can essentially never be sure about what they are?
31 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead[/b]Yea, since I have actually never seen an atom or a molecule pretty much
So are you just going to keep repeating yourself and never answer my actual questions? Do you understand the questions yet?
I am still waiting for an answer to the very first question: how does the potential to verify something affect the validity of our current knowledge?
[b]If we cannot see what
we are presenting as fact, how do we know our facts a we can never visit them. Does this mean we can essentially never be sure about what they are?
I'm taking those on faith. Sound the effect I have lived with my whole life
and it isn't something I'm overly concern about being wrong about, and
magnetism the effects are enough for me to be content with, does this
mean everything I think is true about any of them is, no I can be wrong,
but I'm not overly concern about being wrong about them. Stars the same
thing with all the experience I have with stars I'm sure they are real, but
if you find that hard to believe so be it.
Kelly
31 May 10
Originally posted by KellyJayI merely want to understand what your reasoning is when you declare that the age of the earth is a matter of faith because a person cannot go back in time. I want to understand what you mean when you say 'see', what you mean when you say 'observe' etc.
Yea, since I have actually never seen an atom or a molecule pretty much
I'm taking those on faith. Sound the effect I have lived with my whole life
and it isn't something I'm overly concern about being wrong about, and
magnetism the effects are enough for me to be content with, does this
mean everything I think is true about any of them is, no I can be ...[text shortened]... e with stars I'm sure they are real, but
if you find that hard to believe so be it.
Kelly
It is my belief that all observations are necessarily of past events (due to the speed limit of light). I also do not differentiate so strongly between methods of observation. Seeing, hearing, feeling, are but some of our physical senses, but we can also sense past events via other means. When I 'see' the surface of mars in photos taken by the mars rover, I have not physically visited it, nor will I ever do so, yet I consider those photos to be essentially as good as my physically seeing mars. Yes, photos can be doctored, but my eyes can be fooled too.
What I don't get is your claim that physical viewing with your own eyes is somehow superior to any other possible form of observation. Also I don't get your claim that the potential to physically see something with your own eyes at some unspecified future date somehow makes your current knowledge more valid.