U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 09-23-2011, 07:34 AM
 
Location: WV and Eastport, ME
10,421 posts, read 10,465,932 times
Reputation: 7011

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre View Post
When an atheist claims that there is no God or higher being, whatever you want to call it. That is a claim, they claim to know this for a fact. Prove it. Prove to me right now there isn't a God or a magical unicorn that farts rainbows. I want physical proof for this claim. I am not making a claim that there IS. I am merely suggesting that there could be. .....

spirituality and religion would come back. Why? Because it is a comfort for millions of people to think outside the box.
First, you got it backwards. Proof must be for the positive, not the negative. In this case, the burden of proof is for those who claim there IS a God.

Second, I think you need to back up your claim that spirituality and religion are related to thinking outside the box.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-23-2011, 09:50 AM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
3,302 posts, read 3,775,287 times
Reputation: 2524
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman View Post
Your post was, overall, quite fair. In our defense, I will say that many atheists, myself included, have indeed become rather sarcastic because of the way our polite information is often treated when we honestly provide information as requested. Particularly when it is not even casually reviewed with an open mind. I know the general response is to not read it at all.

Why? Because if this mass of evidence is reviewed with that perspective, you cannot but come to some obvious conclusions.

You will agree that too many Christians simply do not want to hear the evidence that has accumulated in favor of Evolution, of ancient geology and, admittedly more speculatively, our universe's likely origins, right?Respectfully.... your humble servant: rflmn
Thanks for the response.
Here is where I think there is room for better discussions. Granted, I will agree with you that many theists ARE closed minded to look at science.

However, I also have read both sides of the issues and I also see atheist saying, it is a done deal, end of discussion without even considering any type of possiblities and open the mind. It is not different than theist that are stuck with there is a God and that is it.

I have no problem reading on scientific sources and compare with what some religious people present as their support for their belief in God.
Now, I must say this though. There are some theist are very open to see scientific data.
Another point. I know there are some theist are not making a claim with scientfic suppor that God does exists. They simply claim that based on what they have read and see 'feel' there is enough data that may suggest there is designer. They simply have concluded to live life with that belief. I venture to guess you have made decisions in life with only partial information that may lead you to believe something happened, exists, etc. At times you find your hunch was right and at others it was wrong. That is part of life. What harm does it do to believe that God exists? Often none and actually has helped people in their lives. I am not inferring not believing in God is bad either. I am simply saying that to put down people for believeing in God is not different than those that put you down for not believing. There are highly educated in the science field that believe there is God. Actually, I have seen atheist act in an inquisition like methods in suppressing anyone that has credentials in the sciences and even to scorn them by denying them opportunities to present their case. No pun intended but the saying "The truth will set you free" does make sense. However, irrational, stupid, or no sensidle a view will show its true colors, nature, and the strenght of its foundation when it is allowed to be put to the test anytime and anywhere. Is that not a very top tenet in science to put anything to the test. You may say 'but it has been put to the test and it has been proven false', OK but is scientific knowledge ALWAYS put to the test to keep learning? That is what science is all about, to keep discovering more and more and learn some things we thought were established facts end up being wrong. That is whey to me atheist do have their share of zealots just like theist do and to not want to go any further, it is a done deal as I stated before, take care.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2011, 09:56 AM
 
7,811 posts, read 5,091,186 times
Reputation: 2973
Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo View Post
I also have read both sides of the issues and I also see atheist saying, it is a done deal, end of discussion without even considering any type of possiblities and open the mind. It is not different than theist that are stuck with there is a God and that is it.
An unfair summary by a long way I feel. Few of them in my experience (I do not know what you have been reading) say it is a "done deal".

This is mainly because most Atheists have a respect for Science and the Scientific Method also never calls something a "done deal" in this fashion.

What Science does is evaluates claims and decides if there is any substantiation for those claims at all. If there is then more research is done.

If there is not however then the claim is not considered a "done deal". It is simply dismissed and the person making it told to "Come back when you have some actual evidence".

So no, the Atheist is not calling it a "done deal" or being "close minded" about anything. They are simply saying to you the following:

"Look, I have heard your claim, but you have offered literally nothing to support that claim in any way. So I simply dismiss your claim. Should you however at a later date find a way to substantiate the credibility of your claim at all then come back to me, I am all ears, and we will go through your evidence together".

That is not close minded or closing the "deal" on anything. That is simply a fair, intellectually honest, open minded and considerate way to act and I intend to KEEP acting that way until such time as someone offers me a reason to think its a bad methodology.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2011, 10:58 AM
 
Location: Sinking in the Great Salt Lake
12,975 posts, read 18,567,417 times
Reputation: 13802
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre View Post
Religious people aren't good debaters? Who was the last Atheist president? Maybe it is that atheists and theists think differently. Neither is more intelligent, just different.
Who was the last politican who did not bear as striking resemblance to to a used car salesman?

Politicians are not in the business of constructive debate and problem-solving; they are actors and salesmen. But that argument is for another forum.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2011, 11:32 AM
 
Location: Sinking in the Great Salt Lake
12,975 posts, read 18,567,417 times
Reputation: 13802
Quote:
Originally Posted by raison_d'etre View Post
When an atheist claims that there is no God or higher being, whatever you want to call it. That is a claim, they claim to know this for a fact. Prove it. Prove to me right now there isn't a God or a magical unicorn that farts rainbows. I want physical proof for this claim. I am not making a claim that there IS. I am merely suggesting that there could be.

All that together still does not prove that spiritualists or religious people are wrong.
Sheep follow the herd, the herd follows their Shepard. I am not a sheep, I don't follow any herd. I have my own beliefs and don't care what anyone thinks of them.


No, that makes the world better for you and atheists. If all religion and spirituality died off and atheists were all that was left, over time... spirituality and religion would come back. Why? Because it is a comfort for millions of people to think outside the box.
I'm really, REALLY tired of circular arguments. But look...there is no way we could ever examine every subatomic particle in the universe and beyond to verify the big bearded guy isn't hiding there.

We CAN very accurately judge what forces affect us and our environment, however. We can look at history to examine how beliefs change over time; we can study human psychology to determine how people think; anthropology to compare cultures and all the other various tools in humanity's knowledge gathering toolbox to come to a understanding that is as accurate and complete as possible, given our limited perspective and cognative abilities.

From this we can come to two very broad realizations. When it comes to religious beliefs, all cultures belive in some higher power than humanity, and all belive in an afterlife of some sort.

That's it; nothing else in religion can be found across all cultures and all time.

From this we can come to three possible conclusions:

#1 There is no god or afterlife. Mankind has an innate fear of death and desire to be part of something bigger than we are, so we make stuff up to alleviate those fears.

#2 There is a god and afterlife which we innately know/feel, but the details are hidden from us, so we make up the rest of the story as we go.

#3 god is a twisted bastard who likes to play with us, so he sets up and/or encourages competing institutions on purpose for his own reasons.



Hmm... If #3 is the the way of things, I'm gonna have to go with Conan's take on god:


Conans Prayer to Crom - YouTube

If #2 is true, I'm not supposed to know yet, so all I can do is live my life the best I can and work with what I've got.

If #1 is true, I'll never be anything more than what I make myself on my own. The sooner I let go of fantasy and get to work, the better I'll be in the end.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2011, 11:46 AM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,108,575 times
Reputation: 3719
Wink General Response from An Atheist! "The Truth Is Out There!"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
√ This is mainly because most Atheists have a respect for Science and the Scientific Method also never calls something a "done deal" in this fashion.

√ What Science does is evaluates claims and decides if there is any substantiation for those claims at all. If there is then more research is done.

√ (rflmn's EdAdd...:)[ Then they say:] "Look, I have heard your claim, but you have offered literally nothing to support that claim in any way. So I simply dismiss your claim. Should you however at a later date find a way to substantiate the credibility of your claim at all then come back to me, I am all ears, and we will go through your evidence together".
Exactly. I also have two important additions here:

1) why is it that, given the exact methodologies and equipment lists necessarily provided in any published and scientifically verified paper, theists simply will not ever go out and do the work again to verify it for their own eyes?

2) but then, oddly and buy direct comparison, why is it that they never check up on the credentials of the so-called Centers of Knowledge they then quote in their defense of Creation, Genesis, etc.?

As to No. 1 above, this would surely prove so many of our points with no further argument necessary. What I will admit to having seen in this regard is that they may well indeed accept the published raw data ( "1 + 1 does indeed = 2, but...") and the means of it's discovery, but then.... OMG.... they refute, often with very faulty logic, the interpretation of the results. (it's only because God skewed the blackboard's deflective reading angle, plus the high levels of chalk dust in the room, thus allowing a wild mis-interpretation of those results. The correct answer is, obviously, "3"! Obviously!! PTL)

Another vivid example would be their loud insistence that all methods of artifact dating are essentially flawed or at the least highly suspect, or that we scientists never take into consideration the range of variation that such methods might include. As in: "For your Artifact "A", with an age determination of approximately 420,000 years, this data is correct to within ±50,000 years."

Then they say scientists only publish the longer date, as in 470,000 yrs. Not so; we always publish the limitations, ranges and parameters. In fact, we would say "The age of Artifact "A" is between 420k and 470k years, and we'll conservatively pick the mean of 450k years, subject to further tests." WE will in all likelihood also recommend alterations in the technique or samples to better derive a more accurate answer.

As well, we usually do technological cross-checks, using one or even three established methodologies to reduce that error level even more. But is this good-faith science acknowledged and accepted? Nope; it's somehow seen as muddlings and confusion. Or that's how they'd like it portrayed at any rate.

So then, they try to sell the idea of "the uptake of C14 back then was probably different, with..." [some say 'hopefully...] ..less C14 isotope available."

And so anything dated using the known rate of decay of this scarce isotope should take into consideration that initial reduced amount, "thus the dates would be far shorter!"
. The possibility that there may have been more of it present in the environment of the day is not examined

(Note: there is now excellent evidence, in fact, that with the huge proliferation of jungle-like plant materials back then, frequent volcanism and related emissions, there was substantially MORE carbon14 in the environment at nearly any time in our ancient and geological history. So why only dwell on the "lesser amount!" rebuttal? I know why; do you??

Trouble is, they don't want to accept that, yes, we really don't know what the levels of all base elements were back then, but WHAT IF there were, in fact, even more of the chemicals in question, thus making the artifact's age EVEN OLDER?

As well, an error of let's say 5%, or even 15% in a determination of, let's say, 15,000,000 yrs of age still sort of closes the book on some children's-fable-quality Noah's Ark or Adam and Eve storybook version, now doesn't it? I mean, ± 15,000 yrs still leaves dem dino trax purty-danged old, huh?

And so; why do they never allow for that possibility? I'll tell you why: they'd of course prefer an outright rejection of a well-established bit of scientific knowlege, but failing that, they'll go next for a comprehensive muddling of the published findings, even if it's achieved through bogus reasoning or total fabrications.

Prevaricatin' for Dah Lord! A noble sin to be sure!

Last edited by rifleman; 09-23-2011 at 12:00 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2011, 12:12 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,108,575 times
Reputation: 3719
Default Oh By The Way....

round4, I was really hoping you might find the time to get back to me on the question I put to you about the validity and usefulness of fingerprinting in forensic science.

I hope you have just been busy and will get back to me soon.

YrHmblSrvnt: rflmn™
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2011, 12:15 PM
 
Location: Somewhere out there
9,616 posts, read 11,108,575 times
Reputation: 3719
Default Oh By The Way....

round4, given your past forthright and thoughtful answers, I was really hoping you might find the time to get back to me on the question [i.e.: R1] I put to you about the validity and useful uniqueness of fingerprinting in human forensic science investigations.

It's absolutely not my intention to trap and then ridicule you in any way, BTW. I just want you to perhaps come to your own conclusions based on some obvious (to me at least...) relationships and observables.

I hope you have just been busy and will get back to me soon.

YrHmblSrvnt: rflmn™

Last edited by rifleman; 09-23-2011 at 12:34 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2011, 12:34 PM
 
Location: El Paso, TX
3,302 posts, read 3,775,287 times
Reputation: 2524
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo View Post
An unfair summary by a long way I feel. Few of them in my experience (I do not know what you have been reading) say it is a "done deal".
In this point I will say both of us may be dealing with feelings. Nothing wrong with that since we are humans. The done deal comment is not a direct quote, it's the perception given by reponses and that is how many come across.

This is mainly because most Atheists have a respect for Science and the Scientific Method also never calls something a "done deal" in this fashion.
Atheist like any human being fall under the same bell curve any group falls unders. They have their extremes so to say 'most Atheist have respect for Science and Scientific method" is simply based on your personal bias. You are just as human as we all are. Your comment is based on the same type of personal bias as you may think mine are. Now, if I wrote "most Atheists" or "most Theists" this or that show it to me and I will retract that statement. If I have said something along those lines I may have stated it is my perception and a perception is not necessarily based on any numbers. Atheists are still trapped in thier own personal philosophy in life and that influences how they believe in things, in this case the existence of God. There are articles out there how your personal philosophy in life does affect your "logic" and "reason" you claim to have. I do the same. Who is correct, well, that is the point of discussing and finding out more out there. We are affected by the "bounded rationality".

What Science does is evaluates claims and decides if there is any substantiation for those claims at all. If there is then more research is done.
Also, a true scientist is open to the idea that if something seem to be the last word he or she will not stop there despite what it seems the last answer. At least I do not stop there. I have my own personal views of how things in life are in the areas of politics, science, etc. but I do not stop there. That is where I believe there are scientists that stop there and 'it is a done deal' and even obstruct others when the deal is questioned.

If there is not however then the claim is not considered a "done deal". It is simply dismissed and the person making it told to "Come back when you have some actual evidence".
Again, here is where atheists do the very same thing they accuse theist of doing. I have seen a theist say "hey, I read about this information that may point to the possiblity of a designer". What I have observed many an atheist say? Simply dismiss him/her as ignorant, irrational, ilogical, believer of fairy tales, etc. Is that being opened minded. I do not care if I child comes to me and tells me he thinks I am wrong with something and wants to show me how. I give that child the respect even if I think he is wrong and listen to him. I am also open to see I may learn something from him, not to look down on him because I have a masters degree and he is in middle school.

So no, the Atheist is not calling it a "done deal" or being "close minded" about anything. They are simply saying to you the following:

"Look, I have heard your claim, but you have offered literally nothing to support that claim in any way. So I simply dismiss your claim. Should you however at a later date find a way to substantiate the credibility of your claim at all then come back to me, I am all ears, and we will go through your evidence together".
That is a nice statement I would say "I have heard your claim. This is the flaw in your claim. Take a look at it and let me know what you think".

That is not close minded or closing the "deal" on anything. That is simply a fair, intellectually honest, open minded and considerate way to act and I intend to KEEP acting that way until such time as someone offers me a reason to think its a bad methodology.
The same as what I wrote. I do thank you for your response. To me you are in the minority amongs many here that their responses are condescending just as many theist do and I appreciate that just as I appreciate the response Rifleman did. He accepted responding in certain ways and told me why. I may not agree how he may respond to others but I very much respect his honesty in admitting that. Take care.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-23-2011, 02:12 PM
 
35,318 posts, read 9,157,450 times
Reputation: 4846
Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo View Post
The same as what I wrote. I do thank you for your response. To me you are in the minority amongs many here that their responses are condescending just as many theist do and I appreciate that just as I appreciate the response Rifleman did. He accepted responding in certain ways and told me why. I may not agree how he may respond to others but I very much respect his honesty in admitting that. Take care.
I can understand your point about condescending. Riffleman has been given a lot of stick by some theists fr being sarcastic. If so it was well deserved, but he almost always explains his position, very fully.

Given that there can often be heat and stony words on both sides, what counts is the quality of the argument and the adduced support.

We do, frankly, often get a lot of very poor stuff which is an insult to our intelligence and delivered in a superior and very 'done deal' way.

While it's becoming understood that there are a lot of mysteries out there, and science by no means has all the answers, what we do know and what that tells us about a good many theist claims should, we think, we taken as reliable and trying to discredit science to try to make daft YE or OT myth claims look feasible do perhaps deserve a sharp response from us.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top