Originally posted by dj2beckerAnd of course, due to an intimate connection with god who gives you
They worship the creation rather than the Creator.
so much two way conversation, you know for a fact there was a
creator....
BTW, I am not an atheist. I think Atheism is just the opposite side
of the coin of religion, both sides making claims they cannot
verify by any known means. The fact is, we humans have a kind
of nodule in our brains that prewires us to the idea and need of
some kind of supernatural awareness while sorely lacking in any
real ability to interact directly with these proported supernatural
effects. The interesting thing is both theists and atheists are
closed mined and set in their ways, unable to open up to what might
be the real truth, both unable to see the possiblity there might be
a god or there might not. They simply jump to conclusions based
on little or no evidence.
One interesting thing against atheism, that is to say the atheist
belief there is nothing supernatural: We are clearly living in a
supernatural universe. While atheists deny supernatural phenomena,
there is one thing going on they can't deny, and that is where
astronomers have found real evidence for some kind of invisible
matter that has gravitational effects due to its mass but other than
that, can pass right through the stuff we call matter with no interaction
or very little interaction. That screams out "supernatural" pretty much
by definition. So it seems there are forces we haven't yet discerned
and ways of existance we cannot yet know so it might be a way
for science to eventually maybe find evidence for "god".
With the emphasis on the maybe. For sure it is pointing to aspects
of what we call natural that goes way beyond our usual collection
of forces, electromagnetic, strong and weak nuclear, gravity.
The latest from MIT is the finding of the "wobbly muon"
which does not fit into the standard theory of matter which
is challanging the theory mavins to come up with something to
make the standard model more complete, maybe even end up
with a unified field theory, the theory of everything.
But one thing for sure, we haven't completed the study of particle
physics and until we do, Atheists AND theists should keep an open
mind and not just blindly follow the ancient religions.
Originally posted by sonhouseOnce again I say that you don't know what atheism is. It is not the opposite side of the coin of religion. Atheism makes no claims of its own at all.
And of course, due to an intimate connection with god who gives you
so much two way conversation, you know for a fact there was a
creator....
BTW, I am not an atheist. I think Atheism is just the opposite side
of the coin of religion, both sides making claims they cannot
verify by any known means. The fact is, we humans have a kind
of nodule in our br ...[text shortened]... theists AND theists should keep an open
mind and not just blindly follow the ancient religions.
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettMakes no claims there is no god, makes no claims there is no
Once again I say that you don't know what atheism is. It is not the opposite side of the coin of religion. Atheism makes no claims of its own at all.
supernatural? Come on, you know thats what atheism is all about.
Originally posted by sonhouseYes, I do. The only claim in question is the theist's claim for the existence of god. That is the only claim being made. Atheists find the claim unconvincing and do not believe it. But at no time do they claim to believe in the non-existence of god, or make the separate claim god does not exist. Not believing in the truth of the theist's claim is not the same as believing it is false. Given the theist's complete lack of evidence to back him up, the atheist finds the theist's claim to be very doubtful and for all intents and purposes will treat it as though it were false. But at no time does the atheist claim to know that god does not exist. He will always concede that he may be proved wrong in the end.
Makes no claims there is no god, makes no claims there is no
supernatural? Come on, you know thats what atheism is all about.
You, like many theists, hold forward this strawman of the "strong" atheist who claims to "know" that god doesn't exist. While there may be a tiny minority of atheists who take that indefensible position, the vast majority do not. Most knowledgable atheists will hold views similar to the ones I have outlined in the first paragraph of this post.
A skeptic, or a rationalist, will similarly doubt the existence of supernatural phenomena unless some good evidence can be given to warrant its belief. Thus far, none has been forthcoming. There is no good reason to believe that any supernatural phenomena are occuring, and every reason to believe that the things you alluded to in your previous post are merely perfectly natural phenomena whose explanation currently eludes us.
3 edits
Originally posted by rwingettOk, I stand corrected. The evidence I sited is only perifery at best but
Yes, I do. The only claim in question is the theist's claim for the existence of god. That is the only claim being made. Atheists find the claim unconvincing and do not believe it. But at no time do they claim to believe in the non-existence of god, or make the separate claim god does not exist. Not believing in the truth of the theist's claim is not the ...[text shortened]... your previous post are merely perfectly natural phenomena whose explanation currently eludes us.
it does lead one to the conclusion there is a lot more to the universe
than is shown in the eyes of science. Some of what we don't know may
include the possiblity for "supernatural" phenomena, While I am not
personally holding my breath, I don't thinkall the forces have been worked out. For instance, it looking like there are going to be more
dimensions than the 4 we know about if string theory and others
are correct. There is an ongoing study of the inverse square law of
Newtonian gravity that suggests a deviation from this law at very short
distances may be the first line of real evidence there are other
dimensions and may answer the question of why gravity is so weak
compared to the other big three we know. The idea here is gravity is
being shared between several dimensions and is therefore diluted
by this overall link. If that is so then things that we now call
supernatural may in fact be just extensions of our present knowledge.
Again, I am not holding my breath on this but its in the realm of
possibility.
All in all, maybe I am putting myself in the wrong slot here.
Give me your take on the differance between agnosticism and atheism.
Originally posted by rwingettYou really have got this definition around your neck, RWingett
Yes, I do. The only claim in question is the theist's claim for the existence of god. That is the only claim being made. Atheists find the claim unconvincing and do not believe it. But at no time do they claim to believe in the non-existence of god, or make the separate claim god does not exist. Not believing in the truth of the theist's claim is not the ...[text shortened]... your previous post are merely perfectly natural phenomena whose explanation currently eludes us.
Allow me to clear up your confusion.
Atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
Agnostic: 1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether
there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does
not profess true atheism.
see www.dictionary.com.
Originally posted by sonhouseI do not claim it is impossible for other dimensions to house supernatural phenomena. But if you want me to believe it then you're going to have to provide some evidence for your case. If you cannot do so, then I see no reason to complicate the matter by dragging the supernatural into the picture where it is not needed. It is more likely that the things you mentioned are perfectly natural phenomena that simply require a better understanding on our part.
Ok, I stand corrected. The evidence I sited is only perifery at best but
it does lead one to the conclusion there is a lot more to the universe
than is shown in the eyes of science. Some of what we don't know may
include the possiblity for "supernatural" phenomena, While I am not
personally holding my breath, I don't thinkall the forces have been wo ...[text shortened]... lf in the wrong slot here.
Give me your take on the differance between agnosticism and atheism.
As for agnosticism, the following was taken from Wikipedia.com:
Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the truth values of certain claims—particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities—are unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent and therefore irrelevant to life...
...Agnosticism...simply states that the existence of metaphysical or supernatural deities or other entities, which are by definition beyond the powers of human sense to detect, is impossible to confirm or deny, and as such are irrelevant to human affairs.
The word "agnostic" literally breaks down as follows: a (without) + gnosis (knowledge). An agnostic would be one without knowledge (about god).
The word "atheism" breaks down as follows: a (without) + theism (belief in god). An atheist is one without belief in god.
Now, the case can be made that agnostics are really atheists, but who (for some reason) don't like the term "atheist". Probably because they've been told that atheists are all "strong" atheists who claim to know that god doesn't exist. The argument works as follows:
1. Agnostics do not know whether god exists.
2. Agnostics, therefore, are not theists.
3. If agnostics are without theism, then they are really atheists.
I see the logic of the argument, but it doesn't really interest me all that much. If people want to label themselves as agnostics, then I will not begrudge them that option. I think that for all practical purposes the difference between the two is that while both see nothing to convince them of god's existence, the atheist will typically say that in the absence of any good evidence for god, the claim must be assumed to be false (even though they admit they could be wrong).
Originally posted by howardgeeThat is a very general definition. One that is open to much interpretation and quibbling. Let us examine it, shall we?
You really have got this definition around your neck, RWingett
Allow me to clear up your confusion.
Atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
Agnostic: 1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether
there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does
not profess true atheism.
see www.dictionary.com.
Atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
The definition says "disbelieves or denies" not "disbelieves and denies." The definition clearly juxtaposes those who disbelieve and those who deny the existence of god. It is evident that there is some qualitative difference between them. Those who deny god would clearly be "strong" atheists, who claim to know that god doesn't exist. Disbelieves, in this case, would be a simple lack of belief as in a "weak" atheist, or one who does not believe in god but who does not claim to know that god doesn't exist.
As for the definition of agnostic, no.1 would make him a weak atheist for all intents and purposes, and no.2 is merely an attempt to distance himself from that terrible bogeyman, the strong atheist.
I hope that the radiant light of understanding has now penetrated into the inner reaches of your cranium, Howardgee.
Originally posted by rwingettYou really are rambling. Why don't you leave it to the people that know an inkling about it?
That is a very general definition. One that is open to much interpretation and quibbling. Let us examine it, shall we?
[b]Atheist: One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
The definition says "disbelieves or denies" not "disbelieves and denies." The definition clearly juxtaposes those who disbelieve and those w ...[text shortened]... ant light of understanding has now penetrated into the inner reaches of your cranium, Howardgee.[/b]