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.
I mean, how in the world could you feel unsafe on a discussion board? You can't joke or make a misstep or an error without being thrown under the bus. I'm starting to wonder why I even came back.
Try what I do...When someone types something that is untrue, nasty, accusing or just plain mean, consider the source.
Tell you what, come out here to Arizona, I'll take you up to the Grand Canyon and convince you that gravity is not theoretical real fast.
Funny....Newton's law of universal gravitation states that two bodies in space pull on each other with a force proportional to their masses and the distance between them.
We agree that BOTH views are equivalent and unresolvable by science which is WHY they are preferences we choose, NOT THE DEFAULT! Your presumptive belief that atheism is correct BECAUSE science has not shown otherwise is a preference only, NOT science.
You can keep pretending it is preference, but it is still a conclusion due to your lack of evidence.
So now you are the judge of who is a real scientist or not? And if a scientist has a quarell with the existence of a higherpower the cease to be a scientist?
That a given scientist does or does not pray says little to nothing about their beliefs about god or how they compartmentalize them.
One thing you can take to the bank about an actual working scientist however is that if they do not follow the scientific method and begin to admit into evidence things that are not scientifically valid evidence, they will not keep their job for very long. At least not in academia. Maybe they'd hold on in some cases if they are employed by corporations who often have a vested interest in "substantiating" unsupportable things in their own interest, such as that smoking tobacco is harmless or that hydrocarbon pollution isn't a significant issue. Sadly for theists, though, I'm unaware of any corporate interests who are trying to prove theism with hired "scientists".
Yes...it is easy to establish.
For thousands of years 90% of the population has noted their ability to perceive God...
No they have not. They neither perceive, nor do they believe in a god.
See, you can not even get your argument ad populum correct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GldnRule
... just like people capable of sight noting that perceptive ability.
The Atheists (lack of God perceptive abilities) are like the blind (lack vision perceptive abilities)...but due to bias, the Atheists will acknowledge the veracity of claims the sighted make to the blind as per their perceptive ability, but do not acknowledge the veracity of the Theists claims to the Atheists about the perceptive abilities they have.
A more correct analogy is atheists recognize the mirage for what it is.
Even what may seem the most objective of evidence for anything is subject interpretation and debate.
There are large bodies of empirical and scientific evidence for which a deistic or theistic explanation is entirely plausible and perhaps the best explanation.
Yet for over 2000 years, it has never been a god did it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonked
As with all evidence, it is subject to interpretation and debate.
Some interpret it in support of deistic or theistic belief. Some don't.
This is why atheists always use the term proof, a standard that can never be met when the issue is a metaphysical one.
No, that is the religious who argue about proof instead of evidence, precisely because they know we do not have proof, but they do not like the evidence we have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zonked
The correct statement, "There is no empirical or scientific evidence unequivocally establishing the existence of a deity," doesn't suit the atheist agenda.
There is no agenda, and how does our claim not suit our claim? First one theist can not get his argument ad populum correct, now you can not get your ad hominem correct.
No they have not. They neither perceive, nor do they believe in a god.
See, you can not even get your argument ad populum correct.
A more correct analogy is atheists recognize the mirage for what it is.
I know the truth of this bothers you...because it differs from your views.
But that doesn't change it.
Just because you are "blind" to God does not change that most aren't. They just possess common/normal perceptive abilities that you lack.
Very few lack those abilities...but you are obviously one of those few. That is most unfortunate. I will pray for you.
Tell you what, come out here to Arizona, I'll take you up to the Grand Canyon and convince you that gravity is not theoretical real fast.
Lol even most theists would not want to pretend that gravity is "just a theory" but occasionally one meets a believer who understands that if they are going to disparage the theory of evolution as "just a theory" then it has equal standing with all other scientific theories which must then be questioned on the same specious basis of misunderstanding what a theory is in the scientific sense: that it's just some wild idea someone pulled out of their patootie rather than a maximally validated and vetted explanatory framework.
I'm waiting for a religion to develop around the notion that it's evil to use technology (applied science) and so they will exist without even wheels and levers, subsiding on berries somewhere I guess. They can get their first converts from among the more conservative Amish I suppose.
Yet for over 2000 years, it has never been a god did it.
No, that is the religious who argue about proof instead of evidence, precisely because they know we do not have proof, but they do not like the evidence we have.
There is no agenda, and how does our claim not suit our claim? First one theist can not get his argument ad populum correct, now you can not get your ad hominem correct.
The issue is YOU not knowing. And not even knowing that you don't know.
So...you erroneously think the legit arguments are bad...and think that because you are "blind" to God, that everyone else is too, and is just "delusional and making it up". But, that is just you not knowing (and not knowing you don't know).
It is most unfortunate that you don't know what most others do. I will pray for you.
so you need proof to believe that doesn't make sense to me. Believe is what you do when you don't have proof.
Evidently you don't know much about science. No I don't need proof, I require it to be scientifically sound and evidentiary. "Believing" in a god requires blind faith, that's it. No proof needed which is just "believing" in fairy tales.
Quote:
You know there's no empirical or scientific proof that gravity exists right it's theoretical.
Gravity is a universal theory, like Big Bang THEORY. Gravity is not in question here.
Quote:
I'm not talking trying to talk you out of being atheist. I really don't care that much. But the idea of a belief is that you believe it not that it's proven.
LOL There's no way you're going to talk an atheist out of being an atheist with your approach. Not that you would be able to, that's nearly impossible.
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.
