Rockyg, atheism is the rejection of the unsuppored assertion that a god does exist. But even if we take what you said and pretend it's in anyway based on reality how is disbelieving in a god any different to disbelieving that fairies exist? You don't believe fairies exist, right? I'd like you to answer the following question: do you believe that fairies exist? (now watch him fudge the issue and evade the question) The idea that religion, generally a specific religion, be given special treatment or concessions not afforded to other equally unsupported claims is one of the biggest con tricks ever.
Let me be clear. Atheism in the form of the 'God does not exist' brigade is a belief system based on an unsupported assertion 'God does not exist'. Do you agree? If you disagree, then you should provide proof (scientific) of why God does not exist. The default or neutral (scientific) position is the acceptance that God may or may not exist. Atheism and Religion are at two extremes of that default position - both have not one shred of evidence, both are beliefs. Nobody claims fairies created the world and therefore placing the concept of 'God' and 'fairies' in the same category is entirely misleading and a favoured tactic of atheism. Kinda like comparing water and earth. I don't believe fairies exist. Of course, as I've pointed out, 'Belief' in something is what we all do. Atheists simply have a different belief to religious people. The idea that atheism, specifically of the 'God does not exist' variety, be given special treatment or concessions not afforded to other equally unsupported claims is one of the biggest con tricks ever. And you seem to have fallen hook line and sinker for swallowing a position based on beliefs rather than hard facts. Well done, you're as gullible as a religious person. Only you don't know it.
Now I see what you mean with this sentence. Sorry. My English is indeed worse than my physics. I thought you meant: "science says that if a theory doesn't exist, then......". It was kinda ambiguous, no? No need to try to insult me to get your creationist message through. Don't feel so threatened or under attack, we are just chatting. I don't need you to believe that I hold a phD, it was until you asked me to "ask a scientist" where I told you. There were many points raised in my post I will repeat the only the most important one below. Trying to explain better. Again. Physics is trying to explain "how", but not "why". Religion is trying to explain "why", but not "how". These two reside in different worlds, which do not intersect and do not interact. Any attempt to support religious theories with scientific theories and finds is A) pathetic (see the link I posted in my previous post) B) demonstrate a very weak belief C) non-scientific. Dont get me wrong! I am not saying: "Science says that god doesn't exist" as your defensive mind probably already concluded. I am saying that for science, "God", "Astrology", "little red riding hood", and "Tarot cards" all mean the same = absolutely nothing. Because: Science deals with entities and quantities with which other entities and quantities relate through a set of equations and principles. God does not fall into this category: mass? electric charge? helicity? angular momentum? interaction with other basic particles? . God is not something scientific. It is "floating" in a different "logical" world. A fairytale world. For Rockyg, "God" means a different thing than for pingpong123, and yet another different thing for Yaakov from brooklyn or Muhhamed from Mekka. God may or may not exist in our dreams and thoughts. For science - god does not exist, until you relate it (using an equation) with something we know that exists. When I need to explain an outcome of an experiment, I would never say "it was god's will", or "maybe this time god intervened". So would your scientist friends (I hope, some irregularities do exist...). This is directly related with the FACT that 95% (my worst estimate) of the world's scientists are non-religious people, and that was also my point. Hopefully better explained this time. The attitude that I recommend you to adopt: "Hi, my name is Rockyg. God exists because I believe that it exists. I want it to exist. Life is so beautiful on earth, there must be a creator up there. I can not define it. I don't know what it wants and why he does what it does. Science is a terrific thing as it is the no. 1 reason for how the world looks today in comparison with how it looked like 1000 years ago (Internet, Medicine, aviation, etc'). Science has its disadvantages as well (weapons of mass-destruction, pollution, overpopuplation etc'). But, god, almighty god, is above all that. He controls the science, and the scientists, he gave us science. Science doesn't have to prove god's existence in order for god to exist. I want to believe in god. And I don't have to explain to you or anyone else why." This way I will have nothing to debate with you. But when you abuse science to promote a totally different not-related thing, this is why i jumped into the debate. If not me with my fancy phD that you doubt , then who? From all the points in my original post I touch only 1 point in this post. I hope that you will adopt my recommendation, as I didn't just come up with it today. God and science is a topic which interests me a lot. God is god. Science is science. Science says nothing about god (although for science god doesn't exist, just as tarot cards, fortune cookies, or any other thing that can not relate with any other defined entity or equation). God says nothing about science (not too many verses in the "holybooks" about schroedinger's equation, hermitian matrices, or thermodynamics). There are too many religious people who try to use science to provide proof for god's existence. Especially in Israel. They are not using science, they are abusing science. Anyone who knows a thing or two about science will dismiss that crap immediately. Most people, who unfortunately don't know a thing or two about science, will be very impressed and give "big weight" to the allerged "scientific confirmation" of a non-reasonable belief. If you have anything to say which relates to the message i'm trying to get through, please say. If you want to mock my English, doubt my formal education, etc', then spare us please. (I fluently speak 6 other languages apart from English. So apart from the damage you caused to your intellectual image by relating religious beliefs with science, mocking my English again and again inflicted a graver damage to your personal image) Alternatively, don't reply to this post. Just take some more time to think about it and give it to your scientist friends who "don't sound like me" for reading. I hope that I convinced you that and you would buy me a beer instead of a ticket to the Creationist Museum. If not, I will post again and again on the same subject, until my message gets through. Maybe then we can address more advanced subjects in my previous post. God Bless and screw what Einstein has to say about that
It's as unsupported as saying fairies don't exist. so you are saying if people started claiming that fairies created the world it was make the assertion that they exist more credible? What utter bollocks. It's different in every way possible. Is claiming that fairies exist and claiming they don't exist in any way comparable? you need to get out of the mindset that god is entitled to concessions not afforded to other comparable assertions. This is the point, atheism isn't given special treatment. you don't bat an eye lid when people state that fairies, goblins, elves and unicorns don't exist, yet when someone says god doesn't exist you pretend that asserting the positive is the same as asserting the negative, something which is patently complete shit.
yes, both are without absolute proof. Both are simply beliefs. Actually its a reality. The concept of God has everything to do with a beginning - the alpha and omega if you will. Whats bollocks is assuming that something appeared out of nothing - and believing it despite not shred of evidence to the contrary. But of course, you like to think you operate on facts. laughable. Yes. Both are unproven in a scientific way. Both are simply beliefs. Unless of course you can provide evidence of either case? And you need to get out of the mindset that Atheism is in any way founded on facts. Its just another belief - albeit polar and opposite to the religious belief. At least the Religious crowd got their first with their reasoning. Atheists simply jumped up at went 'Oh no he didn't!'. Because the majority have decided its a load of tosh. And now you're missing the point entirely. I said in plain english that God, fairies, unicorns and athesit views were all simply beliefs. Nothing you have said or mentioned is in any way backed up by scientific fact. None. Nada. Zilch. Do you understand? In your desperation to prove you've some kind of scientific basis for atheist beliefs, you attempt to equate God, the source of all things, with a pink unicorn that you blatently created in your own head. Your comparasion is absurd and a classic, if failed, comparasion by Atheists. The closest you can come to any scientific reasoning in Atheist theory is simply this: 'You guys go first'. If I've ever heard a childlike argument as support for one's position, thats got to be it.
I'm sorry, I truly don't mean to be insulting in any way. It just annoys me no end that Atheists of the 'God does not exist' persuasion think they have any scientific basis for their position. I don't dispute any of that - at least not now. I believe there will be a day when the truth will win out (it always does). My position in this thread has always been to simply state that Atheism has a no basis in scientific fact. Its simply a theory - a belief. Thats all! Yes, I would accept that. I was at pains to point out that the atheists I was referring to were of the type 'God does not exist' rather than true atheism (AKA scientific Atheism) of 'God may exist of may not exist'. There's a world of difference between two. In your language as applied to God and astrology, you might also say that the atheist position on 'God does not exist' means nothing in scientific terms. Nada. Because there is no evidence of that assertion. Its simply a belief - which has been my point all along. Not that Religion in some way claims a scientific basis or validation of its belief. And again, you're misstaking my position entirely. What you've written above can roughly be translated for atheism into the following: "Hi, my name is ChaosTrivia. God does not exist because I believe that it does not exist. I don't want it to exist. Life is so beautiful on earth, there must be a reason for it. I can not define this reason. I cannot define how it came about. I don't know what it wants and why it does what it does. Science is a terrific thing as it is the no. 1 reason for how the world looks today in comparison with how it looked like 1000 years ago (Internet, Medicine, aviation, etc'). Science has its disadvantages as well (weapons of mass-destruction, pollution, overpopuplation etc'). But, my belief that God does not exist, almighty god, is above all that. He does not control the science, and the scientists, he did not give us us science. Science doesn't have to prove god does not exist in order for us to say god does not exist. I don't want to believe in god. And I don't have to explain to you or anyone else why." You've lost me know. I said atheism has not basis in science. That still stands. Religion has no basis in science. That also still stands. All you've done is confirm what I orginally said - that religion has no basis in science. Again, I really feel like you're taking the wrong end of the stick. I never, ever, ever said God was backed by science. I said the atheistic position of 'God does not exist' is as devoid as scientific fact as saying 'God does exist'. Thats is, plain and simple! Again, see above. Wrong end of the stick. Not even the pope claims to have scientific evidence that God exists, so I'm entirely unsure where you'll pulling all this from. I certainly didn't say it. And anyone who understands science will equally dismiss an atheist asserting 'God does not exist'. Both are equally without proof. yawn. You seem to be somehow convicned that I said Religion was backed by science. Feel free to go back over my posts and find where I said any such thing. Go right ahead. What I have said is that atheism of the persuasion that 'God does not exist' in an unproven theory. Without scientific fact. And that still stands, despite you're posting reams of pages of ramblings about something I never ever said. And maybe you could actually read what I said, go back and find where I said 'religion' was supported by science, and then acknowledge I've never said any such thing. You're continually jumping to conclusions. Find where I said religion was supported by science.
You see most atheists will not even dare to answer the question I have been posing about what started it all. I gave it to stox, and he answered by saying that it was started by a natural process. When I asked him how the natural process started he froze, but at least he didnt switch the subject like Gworld. The reason why Stox froze on that answer is that he knows that even the natural process had to have a creation, a beginning so to say. Not of the extremist atheist will dare to answer this question fully enough to start at the absolute beginning of everything. All i know is that if they do, they will be set up for the tko and this debate will be closed. I dare one of you guys to answer this question, but I know you will switch the subject
Good. We agree that science and religion are not connected. Now there are many ways in which we can go to move forward in the discussion. I tend to divide the people in two: "religious" - who believe that the universe was created and run by a supernatural intelligent entity (aka god) "non-religious" - who believe that no such supernatural entity exist. This includes atheists, agnostics, Nihilists etc', with minor differences. Why believe? because even the existence of the electron is a matter of belief. nobody have seen it. However, it is highly likely that a tiny thing with a negative charge and a mass of 9.1093897e-31 kg exist, simply because your TV and screen monitor exists. Another thing I said which you ignored is the fact, that myself and the vast majority of other scientists belong to the second group, the non-religious. Try to think why is that. In this context, lets start a new philosophical discussion: Albert Einstein once said: "A scientific theory should be as simple as possible, but not simpler than that". So lets for the moment extend Einstein's idea to a non-scientific issue: god and creation. Isn't the creationist theory (by parallel - the "theoretical justification" of god's existence) just "too-simple"? Does it makes sense to you, that a truck driver that can't say a word about the working principle of a simple microwave would know EXACTLY how the universe was created? After all, unlike scientific theories, the creationist theory (should be more rigorously called: "idea" or "suggestion", but not a theory...) do not evolve. It is "carved" in holy books. About "creation", or how the universe and the earth as we know it today came to exist, humanity's intellectual elite of today is saying: "we have a clue, but we're still learning". So, given a non-evolving theory, does it makes sense to you, that people who lived 1000 years ago, who thought that diseases are caused by demons and the heart is the organ with which we think, knew better or just as good? In light of the above, and in parallel with the likelihood of the existence of the electron, I conclude that it is highly unlikely that god exists. Nevertheless, nobody will never be able to prove or disprove it using scientific/logical means. because, as we both agree, god is not a scientific thing. What do you think?
Rockyg, as labourious as it normally is to respond to all of your "points" tonight I'm posting from my iPhone which will only serve to add to it, so I'll ask you a question. Do you view the claim that fairies don't exist as being equal to the claim that they do? As in, if two people made those two statments would you view them equally? Be aware that whatever answer you give it will either destroy your argument or your credibility..... Shoot.
Yes, I sometimes get carried away trying to explain myself and end up with long winded posts that are tiresome to read. I'll be the first to acknowledge that It depends. If you are asking me as a scientist dealing in facts then the assertion fairies exist and fairies do not exist are equal - Neither have been proven, but a scientist may accept to work based on either theory. This was my original point re the world being flat. There was no scientific evidence is was flat, it was simply an accepted scientific theory that (some) scientists choose to operate on. If you're asking which I 'believe' then the question is entirely different. No matter if I say 'fairies exist' or 'fairies do not exist' then the answer is simply a belief. You saying 'fairies do not exist' is simply a belief. Of course, again, I have to re-iterate that equating fairies and God are two entirely different concepts. No doubt you'll start dragging out the tooth fairy and pink unicorn arguments soon enough.
I never said they were! Good God, please stop posting replies based on things I never said! We've agreed since you're first post except you have jumped to various conclusions about what I actually said. What I said was Atheism in the form of 'God does not exist' is as far removed from scientific fact as the religious position of 'God does exist'. By proving that science and religion are not connected, you simply prove my point that atheism and science are not connected. Let me try again. Would you accept that 'God does exist' and 'God does not exist' are polar opposites of each other? If they are then the neutral position must be in the middle (that god may or may not exist). This 'neutral' position is the scientific position - in the absence of proof it must be! That is not to say that scientists may not operate on the basis of either theory. If you seek scientific proof of God does exist, it only stands to reason that an assertion of 'God does not exist' should also require proof before being accepted as scientific fact. In the absense of proof for either, both are simply statements of belief, equally devoid of scientific proof. And I divide them like this: Religious - of hundreds of different varieties.Eg. Christian, Muslim, etc. etc. Atheists - of hundreds of different varieties. Eg. 'God does not exist', 'God may or may not exist'. Some clarification of which atheism position you're arguing would be helpful. I fail to see your point. So what if some scientists are non-religious? Its akin to me arguing that the vast majority of people are religious! Neither bears any relation to the issue at hand - that atheism of the variety 'God does not exist' is simply a belief and not founded in scientific fact. Don't confuse the beliefs of scientists with scientific fact. I'm sure you'll agree that beliefs (AKA unsupported theories) and scientific fact are worlds apart. No. After all you're seperating science and religion you're are now merging the two yet again. Let me put it this way to you. Does it make sense to you, that an atheist, that cannot say a word about the working principle of a simple microwave would know EXACTLY that the universe was created - without God? And again, the atheist position of 'God does not exist' is a non-evolving theory. Its dogmatic. Its as non-evolving as the creationist theory. That assertion, on a scientific basis, is equally devoid of fact as the religious assertion that God does exist. Were you to adopt a scientific basis the correct approach is that both theories (God does exist and God does not exist) could be correct. In the absense of proof for either, it is impossible to assert God does exist or he does not. And hence we return to my original statement that Atheism and Religion are both simply beliefs without any scientific basis to either. If you want to proceed on a non-evolving theory basis, then you must also accept that the an atheist making the assertion 'God does not exist' is equally without proof? As I've pointed out since day zero, that form of atheism is as far removed from science as the religious position. Would you accept that?
I'm not asking you which claim can be proven, I'm asking if two people approcahed you with 2 assertions, one that fairies exist and the other that they don't exist would you view these two views as equal. And more to the point, would you not think the person saying they don't exist was of sound mind and the saying they do exist was a retard? Science isn't something populated by people with machines for brains, it's a method of enquiry. It's just sometimes, as humans, we need very little enquiry to conclude that something, like the existance of tiny people with the ability to fly, is complete bollocks.
Well ofcourse. As I said this works on both ways: religious people should not abuse science to spread their ideaology, and atheists should not base their opinion that god does not exist on science. Yes An explanation for how and why our universe come to be that every 12 year old can understand in full and have no further questions : is too good to be true. I didn't argue any yet. But since u asked, I believe (not know for sure) that god doesn't exist. My scientific instincts, or the judgement of likelihood (a scientist's most valuable tool) combined with the argumentation of my previous post, + with the lack of evidence or logical justification of any kind, are the reasons for that. I did not say "some", I said the vast majority. And my point is simple: scientists learn the actual facts and mechanisms which drive our world for a living, the majority of the people don't. As a direct result, they know more about our universe, and I hope that you would agree that they posses better logical analysis capabilities and intellectual abilities, than "the majority of the people". If the vast majority of them are non-religious, this further decreases the likelihood that a god exists. Its like marketing: if the crowds use the best selling toothpaste X, but the vast majority of dentists themselves use toothpaste Y, which toothpaste would you use?
Rocks, this isn't flippant - but do you understand all natural selection entails is how well a given individual's gene set makes that individual better or worse suited for a particular environment, such that it can stick around long enough to procreate/reproduce, increase that gene set in the population, as Jackuul points up? The basic problem some have comes down to 2 things, in my opinion: they are trying to take a photo of a constant, though punctuational, process - trying to freeze something that is constantly occurring, and saying, "see - it is this"; and they are going at it backwards - imputing design, simply because something is the way it is, rather than conceiving that because that thing is the way it is, it is; it survives, into procreation. To paint it really broadly, imagine your insect co-existed in an environment with another insect, which has an automatic, irregular twitching thing as a mechanism to cool its body. Imagine that in that environment, there is a heavy incidence of low-flying predators that have a ready eye for irregular motion, against a backdrop of either stillness or rhythmic motion.*** Which insect will tend to stick around long enough to mate? You got it - your insect. Meanwhile, the unfortunate wing-flapper won't live long enough to pass on its genes. So, over time, in that population, the insects that have the best assortment of genes to marry them to the environment well, vis-a-vis others, so that they have the edge when it comes to procreation, will survive. This is natural selection. No design, just the luck to have a good set of genes for the environment it lives in. ***This is common, by the way, in nature - it is motion, esp. arrhythmic motion, that snares a prey - predators see motion first, not color, etc. Think of a shark, and a dying fish, trying but failing to right itself in the water by undulating irregularly; or a family of deer, dun as the bare-limbed, autumn trees they graze among. How does the wolf make them out? By the patter of their feet on the ground, and by their horizontal motion against a stand of trees.
Even the Pope has accepted evolution, albeit, according to the church man is a special exception. Now if it's good enough for the Pope shouldn't it be enough for you? I find it amazing how many concessions the church has made as science has progressed.
Stox if you can concede that there is even a chance that god exists , (even though you have stopped short of admitting that by going around the subject ), if there is a god and he is all powerful, to set all of this in motion and he wanted to appear to people as lets say jesus or someone else, he most certainly would have the power to do this. Its as simple as this, and this is also the reason why most extremist atheists are downright frightened to answer this question, because it will cause them to question their own FAITH. If you can concede that there is a chance that there si a god power enough to cause this all to be set in motion then he most likely can appear to anyone he wants in almost any form he wants. If he wants to appear as a burning bush he can, if he wants to appear as jesus he can also. I know this would be a huge letdown to your theist bashing, but that has allready been proven wrong by Rockyg by the pure fact that your beliefs are set in fairy tale magic also . Just the fact that you said that the universe was set in motion through a natural process shows me that you have conceded your position (simply because the natural process itself has to be created to set this all in motion).