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.
Oh... not to mention the totally false and blatantly untrue statement and perspective that Dawkins was "backpedalling" on his personal convictions.
World's most famous Atheist back pedals on his opinion.
and then...
SAY WHAT?
So, as the famous philosopher Vinny Barbarino once said (), so eloquently:
"Wheah? What? How?"
Q: Is it so important that Christians find, doctor up and then post little mis-quoted phrases to what, somehow PROVE that these highly intelligent and philosophically well-based scholars (the ones that Christians constantly loathe and back-stab...) are somehow not really all that convinced?
Famous recent case: Christopher Hitchens, for instance, who, sorry to say, did not make a much anticipated deathbed conversion, saying that even if he did, it would obviously be the consequences of strong pain meds and a dying brain's last biochemical gasps.
Indeed. We well-thought-through atheists can and do willingly take on the philosophically ill-equipped fundies every day, and yet those fundies predictably then refuse to answer the most simple, basic Yes/No questions.
But why not, a logical person might well ask?
Because the Christian apologists know only too well that their logic is truly faulty inasofar as the basics of their Genesis and Creation fables go. So they always appeal to some emotional side, but then they also try, as here, with our lesser-educated readers, to trick 'em into questioning the ethics, honesty or convictions of those who really are in the know.
So, in short that's pretty much why I reacted the way I did, modeerf. If that's not you, then so sorry. Sure sounded like that though, wouldn't you agree?
Regardless of the topic, i do like to jazz an OP up, here and there. Seeing as Atheism is not a religion, i kind of treated it like. I like the Steelers and you like the Patriots. Just for sport, not to offend deeply held beliefs, or lack thereof. Which ever is appropriate terminology.
Faith and logic are not the same to me. Knowledge and Understanding are not the same either.
I don't profess to be a Christian. Though i would like to be, one day.
But this thread isn't about that.
I've learned quite a bit about the A/A subject though.
Regardless of the topic, i do like to jazz an OP up, here and there. Seeing as Atheism is not a religion, i kind of treated it like. I like the Steelers and you like the Patriots. Just for sport, not to offend deeply held beliefs, or lack thereof. Which ever is appropriate terminology.
Excellent. We just love people who are willing to listen and take information on board. There is a lot of misunderstanding about what atheism is (or what the rationale and logical basis is, because there may well be a lot of atheists who believe that the Big bang explains everything and totally disproves any kind of god -claim) and we spend a lot of time putting that right and we greatly appreciate the one who listens rather than insist that what we say about atheism is untrue and Faith in the non - existence of any kind of god is our real stance.
Quote:
Faith and logic are not the same to me. Knowledge and Understanding are not the same either.
I don't profess to be a Christian. Though i would like to be, one day.
But this thread isn't about that.
I've learned quite a bit about the A/A subject though.
We use the term 'Faith' in the same way (1). Faith in what is supported by good evidence is not the same as 'Faith' (TM) in what is not, and I agree that knowledge is one thing and understanding of what is known is rather another. Someone may have memorized the whole Bible and 'know' it by heart, but do they understand it? Not necessarily.
(1) Logic does not supply validated facts so much as provide mental tools for correctly working with the data to interpret it correctly.
what kind of evidence would it take to convince you that some type of god exists?
Same kind of evidence which makes me think my wife is real.
Quote:
Once you exhaust all possible negatives, you can then surmise that since it cannot be proven that God (or gods) do not exists, then he (they) must exist.
Prove you don't owe me 10 million dollars. If you can't, you must admit that you do so pay up.
As you can see, this approach is laughable.
Quote:
It is impossible to prove a universal negative.
False. There are no square circles. It's easy to prove stuff when we have rigorous definitions and facts. Don't be distracted by the fact that gods are defined as anything but - it's just a rhetorical slight of hand to distract from the fact that there's no reason to believe.
[quote]So, God (or gods) can neither be proven or disproven scientifically as far as garnering empirical evidence is concerned.[quote]
This is only true if you expect god(s) to have zero effect on the natural world. But that's basically the same as saying that god's not there at all - which is way different from how god(s) are really defined (except when people try to play word games to define them into existence).
Quote:
If you are a scientists,
What was the native language of the person who wrote this propaganda? I'm seeing multiple instances of using "scientists" as a singular noun.
Please fast forward 1:36 Dawkins say that he leave the door open to some deity's existence. I believe this video is from 2008. So really Dawkins has been out about this for some time. Really it's not news and it not earth shattering. I don't know why now, 4 years later, people want to suddenly crucify him. But whatever floats one's boat. Still think is he almost as awesome as Neil Degrasse Tyson.
Not to mention that's it is in The God Delusion, among other sources. It's not like this is news, other than to people who condemn the man without actually paying attention to what he's writing or saying.
How about if someone walks up to the Red Sea, summons God and then, with one wave of his hand, parts the water in two?
That could make me start wondering what's up. :-)
That would be amazing...however, from a purely scientific standpoint such an event would not prove anything except that for some reason this person had the ability to do this. Supernatural? Perhaps. Omnipotent? Remains to be proved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rifleman
BTW, which university(s) did you graduate from in biology? Their description of the SI would perhaps be interesting to review. Was it by chance a Christian University?
You are correct, the Pew Survey stated that 33% believed in God outright, with 18% not believing in God, but yet believing in a higher power or universal spirit. At the time of my post, I remembered that 40% claimed to not believe in any form of deity and the majority that held a belief comprised the majority.
However, I wouldn't trust an Answers.com "answer" as some sort of authority on the matter. Eminent scientists? Really? At least the Pew study surveyed everyday, run-of-the-mill, scientists; not the "rockstar" scientists featured in popular culture.
Any specific college I attended is not important. I did not attend any school with any particular religious affiliation, just so you know.
My personal belief is that people should say what they mean, and mean what they say. I also believe in etymology, but realize that many Americans do not. If we pick and choose the meaning of the words we use to fit our own personal ideas of what those words should mean, then how in the heck can any of understand what is being said, let alone expected to be taken seriously. Theos means god. So, atheos means no god. As such, an atheist believes there are no gods (or god/God).
I have a real problem with trying to tell us what out views are based on semantic tinkering. Our views are what they are and never mind the greek roots. A-thei -ism' is simply not having a god - belief. That sounds like believing that there are no gods but it isn't, since that would be claiming absolute knowledge which we can't have and the former is a declaration of being unconvinced by the current God -claims.
The claim that there are no Gods is illogical and, therefore, even if an atheist professed that former view, a quick run through the logic would require them to change to the lack of belief in any gods.
That is the rationale and logical basis of atheism and so kindly don't tell us what you think we should think (even through pointing up greek roots) just so that it can be made to look unreasonable.
Ha! Thanks for that... I forgot about that movie...
Though yeah, it's not how I meant it...
Quote:
Nope,
So then you must admit that you're not 100% certain of God's existence. You may be 99.999...9% certain, but that's still not 100%.
Quote:
and i wouldn't want it that way. It's not how it works, or how it was set up under the free will we've been given.
But see, to me, this is a complete cop-out. It's how believers wriggle their way out of the fact that there really is currently no evidence.
I do not accept that the question of God's existence is outside the realm of science. Science, at its most basic, is the best tool we have to answer questions about the nature of reality. If the question of the existence of a god or gods is not a question about the nature of reality, then there is no such thing as reality.
Fact is, it's the ultimate question about the nature of reality. I would even go so far as to say that the question of the existence of a god or gods is the reason we have science in the first place. Without people asking this question and questions like it, there probably would never have been a drive to understand reality to begin with.
Thus, if God's existence cannot be proven scientifically, then you're stuck with only one of two possibilities:
a) It's the Pandeists who are right, and God is the universe and all within it, or
b) We atheists are right and there is/are no god/s.
Now, I will grant that we have not shown either, yet. I think we are many, many years... perhaps generations... away from answering the question. However, I also think that most versions of the God Hypothesis have been ruled out. In fact, I think we're seeing, in our day and age, the end of the belief in a personal deity. As theology evolves, it more and more defines God as impersonal (though they won't admit it), and I'm becoming more and more convinced that your average, every day, "moderate" believer is a closet Deist. Deism is on the rise, because the idea of a personal god is becoming more and more ludicrous in light of what we do know about the nature of reality today.
And I think the final nail in the coffin of the personal god will be the finding of a viable, strong Theory of Abiogenesis- a viable, testable, understood explanation for the origin of life- which I do honestly expect to see within the next one or two (maybe three, but I doubt it) decades. Then, only Deism will be intellectually tenable by all but the most ardent fanatics (the people who already reject most of science, like evolution, the Big Bang, the scientifically determined ages of the earth/solar system and the universe, and so on) at that point.
Atheism itself won't be scientifically justified until we find an explanation for the existence of the universe itself, and even then, that's assuming the explanation is purely natural and without intelligent aid (which, while I admit this is looking more and more true, it is no where near to being a definite)...
That's not to say that I think atheism is unjustifiable... I am an atheist myself, after all. I just think that realizing whether or not you believe is currently a philosophical/logical exercise at this point and will remain so until the Theory of Everything is finally discovered and verified as accurate.
Quote:
It is different for everyone i imagine, then again, maybe there are some similarities for Theists and Atheists. I can only speak of my own understanding.
Of course. Nobody expects otherwise... we all speak from our own understanding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by modeerf
The bible is 66 different books in the KJV by dozens of different authors.
I think those that were witness to some of the supernatural events have some standing.
But how do we know they were witnesses? The problem with the books of the Bible is that they remain unverified by outside sources. There are no immediate, bible-era-contemporary sources for any of the main characters or events in the stories, and some are even contradicted (for example: there is not a shred of evidence from Egyptology that the Ancient Egyptians ever enslaved the Israelite people or that they escaped via a series of so-called "plagues").
Jesus has the exact same problem. The best source we have... Josephus's "Testimonium Flavianum"... is most likely a forgery! This means that even the story of Jesus has no peer (written at the same time as the events are claimed to have occurred in the Bible) corroboration outside of the Bible. And the Biblical stories about Jesus were written, at the earliest, either 20 or 40 (I don't remember) years after the events described, which adds weight to the idea that the story of Jesus originated from the world's longest-played game of Telephone.
The case for the Bible being mostly a collection of myths and fairy tales is a hell of a lot stronger than the case for it being an accurate portrayal of history and, depending on what you believe, science.
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-Luv
I think, like some with Christianity, that some atheists are bending the definition to fit their own needs.
An atheists believes, with absolute conviction, that there is no God/gods/goddess/goddesses of any kind. No proof, no deniable plausibility required. It is simply accepted as "fact" just like a Christian believes in God as "fact".
Um... no. Sorry. Atheism and theism deal with BELIEF, not knowledge. Knowledge and belief are two different things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mommabear2
I think agnosticism and atheist are not mutually exclusive because I consider myself an agnostic atheist. I don't believe in a supernatural being for a variety of compelling reasons but I can allow for the fact that I could be wrong. I allow room for error because I'm not omnipotent - my mind simple cannot know all the intricacies and wonders of the universe to know the answer to a question that so many claim to know. I am aware of my limitations. One can say "I don't know for sure, but I don't believe so." I could be wrong but I think that is all Dawkins is stating.
QFT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JayBrown80
You see, atheists follow where the evidence leads. That is how we are different from theists. We don't just say "this is the truth" and then close our minds forever. We are constantly FOLLOWING THE EVIDENCE. The evidence that exists says that god is so unlikely, so ridiculous, that he probably doesn't exist. As long as the evidence says that, I will be an atheist. If the evidnce changes, I will listen, and change my opinion accordingly. THAT is what an atheist is. A seeker of truth.
Um... don't confuse atheism with science. This is not true of all atheists. Raëlians, after all, are atheists.
All that is technically required to be an atheist is a lack of belief in a higher power or powers. Although skepticism and scientific thinking are usually intertwined with atheism, they are not requirements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by K-Luv
I am confusing opinion with fact? I don't think so.
Fact: The root of theist is theos, which is the Greek word for god/deity. So, theists believe in at least one god (which may or may not be God).
Fact: applying the prefix "a" to a word implies a not/no/non/anti/opposite etc. of that word. So, the word atheist means no god. And as such, since a theists has to meet the criteria of believing in, at the very least, only one god, an atheist believes in zero.
But theism means belief in deities. Putting an "a" in front of theism gives you atheism, or the lack of belief in deities. I'm not an atheos... I'm an atheist.
Quote:
The key word here is believe.
Exactly. Atheism and theism deal with belief, not knowledge. Making knowledge claims when it comes to gods is stupid... at least it is right now.
Quote:
I can understand changing one's mind once new evidence is presented. Heck, that is generally how scientists think. And hey, I am a biologists. But the flaw is in your logic: what kind of evidence would it take to convince you that some type of god exists? That is not really the question, though. You are painting yourself as a scientists, and if you are, you know that in order to prove that God (or any god) exists you first and foremost would need to prove that God (or gods) do not exists. Once you exhaust all possible negatives, you can then surmise that since it cannot be proven that God (or gods) do not exists, then he (they) must exist.
Incorrect. This is a false dichotomy. It could be that we simply don't know how to disprove the existence of gods.
Quote:
That is the scientific method; you must first prove yourself wrong before you can prove yourself right.
Of course... the point of testing a hypothesis is to prove it wrong. But the hypothesis in this case is not "God does exist" but "God does NOT exist", because the negative is almost always (key word there being "almost") the null hypothesis. This is why it is the believer who has the burden of proof.
Quote:
It is impossible to prove a universal negative.
There are no married bachelors.
The proof is in the statement itself. A "bachelor" is defined as "an unmarried man". Hence, there can be no married bachelors, because once you are married, you are no longer a bachelor.
I have just proven a universal negative.
You're welcome.
Quote:
So, God (or gods) can neither be proven or disproven scientifically as far as garnering empirical evidence is concerned.
Wrong. Since science is how we answer questions about the nature of reality, and the question of the existence of a higher power or powers is the greatest question about the nature of reality, then it is a scientific question and can be answered scientifically. It hasn't, yet, and we may be generations away from answering it, but that does not mean it can never be answered.
Quote:
There is simply no "proof" either way.
Right now...
Quote:
It simply comes down to a matter of faith that what is believed to be true, is. And yes, this "faith" applies to atheists as well.
You say below that you are an atheist. Since atheism is, by definition, a lack of faith, how in the hell does faith apply to the lack thereof?
Quote:
As for you comment on science? Science has been used by the Church (of various Religions) to "prove" the magnificence of God does exists. In fact, not until that long ago, a lot of scientists were in fact believers of some sort of theological religion. Heck, a recent Pew survey of American scientists found that somewhere around 60% believed in a god of some sort (generally the Abrahamic God).
So, the question becomes if there is some type of evidence that you feel can convince you that God (or gods) do indeed exists, with this number of evidences constituting a handful options out of an infinite total (since you cannot prove a universal negative, you would obviously have to settle for a few "facts"), how can you call yourself an atheists since an atheists believes absolute?
I don't.
Quote:
If you admit there is some sort of evidence that could persuade you to think the other way, then you are admitting that you are already questioning the concept. Once again, that does not make you an atheist.
If I lack belief in a higher power or powers, then I am an atheist. Absolutes need not apply...
Quote:
Scientists are skeptics by nature and/or training.
True.
Quote:
If you are a scientists, your natural instinct would be to question this evidence. And then question it some more. The cycle would never end. At most, you may conclude, well, maybe, but a maybe is not yes or no. Considering there are an infinite number of possibilities, you can safely say that maybe God (or gods) exists and maybe God (or gods) do not exists. But maybes do not change people's beliefs. If they did, how could any of us have any convictions?
But "maybe" is the backbone of science. Skepticism, by its very nature, precludes absolutes. There is only one scientific absolute, and that is that there are no absolutes.
Quote:
Perhaps a new word needs to be created to describe someone who is "99.999% atheist, but not quite 100%" Wouldn't that create an asymptote?
That would be "atheist".
Quote:
Like I said, I am a biologists. I am also an atheists and while I think the possibility of something along the lines of the tao could exists, or perhaps even "The Force" (you know, from Star Wars. Both concepts make sense from the perspective of String Theory. In fact, String Theory could explain all sorts of paranormal phenomenon), I do not believe in God, or gods, absolute.
Belief, or the lack thereof, is not now, nor will it ever be, an absolute. Belief and knowledge are NOT the same thing!
Quote:
I would take any new evidence into account, but it would not change my absolute belief.
But then you are not a scientist, for new evidence should always change your mind if that evidence contradicts your currently-held beliefs.
Quote:
I mean, if a UFO landed in my front yard I would think it was strange, and a UFO, but I would not necessarily claim it was from another planet.
And if an obviously non-terrestrial life walks out of that UFO? What then?
What are you going to do if you are ever confronted by a human-looking, but pale, being with large canines that seems to be immune to bullets, which then attacks you and drains you dry of all your blood through the vein in your neck? Will you still, with your last breath, deny the existence of vampires?
Quote:
Originally Posted by modeerf
Regardless of the topic, i do like to jazz an OP up, here and there. Seeing as Atheism is not a religion, i kind of treated it like. I like the Steelers and you like the Patriots. Just for sport, not to offend deeply held beliefs, or lack thereof. Which ever is appropriate terminology.
Faith and logic are not the same to me. Knowledge and Understanding are not the same either.
I don't profess to be a Christian. Though i would like to be, one day.
But this thread isn't about that.
I've learned quite a bit about the A/A subject though.
I'm glad to read this. It's good see that you are taking in what we've been trying to say. Since I frequent the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (don't ask me why... I think because I'm a narcissist...), this does not happen very often in my experience, and it's quite refreshing when it does happen.
My personal belief is that people should say what they mean, and mean what they say. I also believe in etymology, but realize that many Americans do not. If we pick and choose the meaning of the words we use to fit our own personal ideas of what those words should mean, then how in the heck can any of understand what is being said, let alone expected to be taken seriously. Theos means god. So, atheos means no god. As such, an atheist believes there are no gods (or god/God).
This statement above is why I stopped responding to you. The sheer arrogance of what you write "People should mean what they say". Basically what you are saying "People should talk the way I want them to talk".
If you believed in etymology, then you would know that a word can mean something different from the direct translations of it's base. You went on and on about how "weeeeeeellllllllll......ha..if you break down the word atheist, then a- means this and theist means that! ha ha ha...if you knew that. the WORD HAS TO MEAN this....there is no accounting for popular usage".
But there is accounting for popular usage. And a true etymologist would know that. I get into this same argument with people in the political forum who will say "All gays should be killed. Being gay is evil! Gays will burn in hell! ......but i'm not homophobic!!! no no no no! you see homophobic means fear of gays. That's what the word actually means. It has nothing to do with wanting to persecute gays..I don't FEAR Gays, I just want them to die. See, I am not homophobic"
But homophobic can mean more than just the base words that make it up.
For instance, I am sure if I called someone an "alcoholic" you would know EXACTLY what I meant. I would be saying that the person I am referring to is addicted to alcohol. But if you BREAK DOWN THE WORD, as you in your arrogance are so fond of doing, then you will see that the suffix -ic means "of or pertaining too". So TECHNICALLY I am saying that the person is not addicted to alcohol, I am saying they are of alcohol, or pertaining to alcohol. You see, that's what happens when you choose to get into persnikety pointless debates about the meaning of words.
When you started to cry and whine about how the atheists MUST firmly believe there is no god, because hey, that is the actual meaning of the word, that is when I started ignoring you. As you cried "Words mean something....oh god.....they really really really mean something, words are sooo important" I stopped listening to you. What is the point? You don't want to have a real conversation. 99% of the atheists on this board have explained to you that they don't believe in a god, but they are open to listening to evidence. THAT is the definition of atheism.
And then you, in almost Clintonian fashion, start arguing about the defintion of the prefix "a-". As if we cannot define ourselves without you, the etymologist (in her own mind), giving us permission to use words that I guess somehow belong to you?
There is no point arguing the word "atheist" with you as you break it down into its sum parts. We know what atheist means, and YOU don't get to take the word away from us because you feel like being a curmudgeon.
So yes, "atheist" means "I don't beleive in god, but I am open to evidence".
"alcoholic" means "addicted to alcohol"
and "carpet" is the stuff on your floors you walk on, not a cat you keep in your back seat.
So then you must admit that you're not 100% certain of God's existence. You may be 99.999...9% certain, but that's still not 100%.
I've never thought of it in terms of percentage, I come from the perspective that no house ever built itself, and that every seed produces from it's own kind. To me this brings order and design.
100% certain? Hmmm. If there is a doubt to the existence of God (creator), i would have to say my doubt comes into play in regards to defining what / who God is. Not so much whether God or gods exist. I could even go so far as to say that i am a god in the making, in that i create things. Just not out of nothingness or cosmic energy. Yet.
Quote:
But see, to me, this is a complete cop-out. It's how believers wriggle their way out of the fact that there really is currently no evidence.
The only evidence i have, is if i apply what i see and feel all around me as being incredible, and not being able to accept that it is by chance or accidental. I don't find accidental in anything that i see in the natural world.
It all looks like it was made with fore thought and purpose.
Quote:
I do not accept that the question of God's existence is outside the realm of science. Science, at its most basic, is the best tool we have to answer questions about the nature of reality. If the question of the existence of a god or gods is not a question about the nature of reality, then there is no such thing as reality.
I've spent hours in discussion with people that interpret scriptures based on prophesy, and i always come away from them in awe.
Other than that, i have done my own experiments in asking and receiving, and have found it to be fairly accurate. Not scientific, but it has given me pause, and caused me to wonder of greater things. It's based on the be still and know verses. Again not scientific at all, obviously. So i think your right in that if Science proved one way or another, it would be most helpful to us as a species.
Quote:
Thus, if God's existence cannot be proven scientifically, then you're stuck with only one of two possibilities:
a) It's the Pandeists who are right, and God is the universe and all within it, or
b) We atheists are right and there is/are no god/s.
In some ways i think it's better for Atheists in the long run, than those that are absolute in their thinking, thereby making them difficult to be around.
There is an arrogance about religion that becomes repellent. Especially those that say they believe in Jesus and his teachings, and then do nothing to live like his teachings.
Regardless, however the words came about that are attributed to him, i think we would be a much better people if we all lived them to the full degree, or at least a minor degree. I don't know if a normal person could have come up with
such grand ideas of love and kindness. It certainly wasn't in the nature of the people during his attributed life.
Quote:
But how do we know they were witnesses?
I guess by living what they teach and then seeing if something extraordinary happens. So far i've failed in that undertaking, to a certain degree.
Quote:
The problem with the books of the Bible is that they remain unverified by outside sources. There are no immediate, bible-era-contemporary sources for any of the main characters or events in the stories, and some are even contradicted (for example: there is not a shred of evidence from Egyptology that the Ancient Egyptians ever enslaved the Israelite people or that they escaped via a series of so-called "plagues").
Granted. But i think we can say that the practice of ancient empires, and modern one's for that matter, was to not write history that is contrary to what the writers wanted to be known.
Pharoah, Pharisee's, Emperor's..
Quote:
Jesus has the exact same problem. The best source we have... Josephus's "Testimonium Flavianum"... is most likely a forgery! This means that even the story of Jesus has no peer (written at the same time as the events are claimed to have occurred in the Bible) corroboration outside of the Bible. And the Biblical stories about Jesus were written, at the earliest, either 20 or 40 (I don't remember) years after the events described, which adds weight to the idea that the story of Jesus originated from the world's longest-played game of Telephone.
yep, and the game goes on still today, with dozens of new bible translations and "corrections" which to me are more based on culture than anything else.
Quote:
The case for the Bible being mostly a collection of myths and fairy tales is a hell of a lot stronger than the case for it being an accurate portrayal of history and, depending on what you believe, science.
Yes, 900 yr. old prophets, earth flood, and multiplying loaves and fishes does come across as not normal daily experiences.
Though, it is not too difficult to match up prophesies to current events.
I won't bore you with a bunch, but a couple come to mind.
Jews get scattered all over the world, and then return to the land they exiled from. And it becomes fertile and over flowing with fruit trees and greenery. Which couldn't come about until modern pumps and irrigation techniques were invented.
And in Revelation it says that the earth moves out of her place because of the bombs and war in the middle east. Making the water bitter, and deadly. Which to me is nuclear holocaust.
One of the descriptions of missiles and rockets with war heads is especially interesting to me.
Not scientific, but interesting none the less. Especially if it happens in my lifetime.
Scientifically speaking, i think a bunch of nukes hitting the shallow oil reserves in the middle east would rock the world. Literally.
In some ways i think technological developments has drowned out our intuitive senses, and we have become dependent on the seen, over the unseen.
I'd like Science to explore more of the unseen aspects that make us human.
There is no point arguing the word "atheist" with you as you break it down into its sum parts. We know what atheist means, and YOU don't get to take the word away from us because you feel like being a curmudgeon.
So yes, "atheist" means "I don't beleive in god, but I am open to evidence".
"alcoholic" means "addicted to alcohol"
and "carpet" is the stuff on your floors you walk on, not a cat you keep in your back seat.
Does that help you my little etymologist friend?
Wow! Yah surely got him, JB! A great and logical post! Those who daly in minutia to prove macro-concepts are truly misguided and frantic.
There is a significant philosophical difference between the now-existing proofs against all those oddball biblical stories and anything that speaks to an absolute God. In fact, our now-accumulated scientific knowledge speaks directly to there not being the God of The Olden Days, and probably no Jesus personality either. (NateHeven's "the world's longest game of Telephone!" Priceless!)
Horrors, huh?
But now, a Pantheistic interpretation? Maybe, but again: WHY? WHY do we need such an explanation? To better understand our personal AWE levels? To give us that "I belong to a REALLY BIG CLUB!" feeling?!! Oh Whoo-hooo!!!"? All warm, inclusive and cuddly-like? Sorta like owning a Cuddle Me Elmo perhaps?
Or better yet: there's that persistent "Utter Magnificence of God's Creation" stuff. That only speaks to one's total lack of understanding of how things do work in the real world. Why?
Well because, frankly, it's not so Awesome or Unbelievable; that is only the case to the scientifically untutored; those who don't, won't or can't understand Evolution, exponential growth, geology, cosmology and so on.
And so? Why not, just for once, stand on your own two intellectual feet? It's an amazingly liberating feeling, once achieved.
Simply Put:No magic or GodDunnIt stuff required. It's certainly NOT the only other default alternative. As for the stuff we don't yet understand? Just wait a while.
"But... but...it's all happ'nin' so gol-durned fast, Murtha; I'd jist as druther go down to our church and pray to thuh Almighty God of the Gaps!"
Well OK then. You git along, little doggie!
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.
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.
), so eloquently:
