Dark Matter Blob Confounds Experts

Status
Not open for further replies.

Fendrix

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 9, 2006
Messages
2,263
Ah, I see, you believe "serious scientific discussion" is only valid if it ignores anything not included in it's structure by definition? How enlightened. ;)

Ummm, no. Sorry Spewn, I just had to jump in here...

"Serious scientific discussion" means a discussion concerning scientific evidence. Religion, and faith, more importantly, are the absence of evidence. It is useless to discuss actual, valid science with religious zealots because they can't deny the science, therefore they must find some way to reshape the argument to be true with regards to their ancient text written in the Bronze Age.

When we have things that are not yet learned through repeatable, testable hypotheses, religious advocates like to say, "There! You see! You don't know it, therefore God did it. I have faith that He did." The reality is that science takes a while to establish true, fundamental laws and theories because we need to be certain, using evidence, that they are credible. I find it funny that all of the technological and scientific progress throughout the years has been in the name of science. If the enlightenment never happened, we would still be burning "witches" and attributing natural disasters to the hands of an angry god. Oh wait, people still do that.
 

Magnus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 4, 2004
Messages
1,183
Ummm, no. Sorry Spewn, I just had to jump in here...

"Serious scientific discussion" means a discussion concerning scientific evidence. Religion, and faith, more importantly, are the absence of evidence. It is useless to discuss actual, valid science with religious zealots because they can't deny the science, therefore they must find some way to reshape the argument to be true with regards to their ancient text written in the Bronze Age.

When we have things that are not yet learned through repeatable, testable hypotheses, religious advocates like to say, "There! You see! You don't know it, therefore God did it. I have faith that He did." The reality is that science takes a while to establish true, fundamental laws and theories because we need to be certain, using evidence, that they are credible. I find it funny that all of the technological and scientific progress throughout the years has been in the name of science. If the enlightenment never happened, we would still be burning "witches" and attributing natural disasters to the hands of an angry god. Oh wait, people still do that.

First, your implied disdain for the texts and therefore the science of the the Bronze Age is uninformed.
Second, I find it funny that all the peaceful, humanitarian progress has been in the name of God
Third, if we were ruled by a technocracy we'd be euthanizing the old and infirm, sterilizing the mentally disturbed and challenged and, creating a world separated by those who have technology and those who don't

You see? The folks who believe can cast aspersions and denigration with the best/worst. None of which I believe in either case. :)

Finally, what are the scientifically shuttered afraid of? The belief in God will not alter your science as science will not alter our belief. If those of us with more awareness try to enlighten you with different views, how does that negate your ability to go through life with your slavish devotion to "science?"

Outside of the University campus, I never run across religious fanatics expressing their beliefs to uninterested passerby's yet, in these forums, I frequently am lambasted by those shouting their atheist views.
 

Conker

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 1, 2004
Messages
3,025
Doesn't matter what you guys say, atheism is a religion also. Without proving god does not exist you can't say logically your foundation is solid and concrete. The possibility of being wrong is there so there's the fallacy of atheists claiming to know god does not exist. Its a belief. Its a religion in itself. Your religion in reality is called scientism. There are limitations to the scientific method. Nothing is absolute in science either. Math is not absolute. Its close but there's always room for another answer. Don't claim to be an atheist if your agnostic either. Just say you don't know. No atheist can claim theres no god when theres no way saying theres no god with logical reasonable proof. Your agnostic. If you hate god then say your atheist as its the rejection of god. If you don't know then claim your agnostic. We don't know everything. Gotta realize that. Its ok to admit you don't know lol. This is the way i see it. The more we find out about this world and its small details, the more we realize this whole thing wasn't random at all. It wasn't a random goop of goo and slime. When the evolutionary theory was made no one knew about DNA and anything at a micro-cellular level. It was just looking at some birds and animals and claiming their feathers changed colors to attract more or some birds beak grew bigger this time around so it must mean we evolved with no real evidence. No real transforming evidence of hybrid animals or half human/fish like mermaid or something. Darwin assumed all the evidence would fall into place. So far the hunt for bones has only nudged out a few fossils. Wheres the trillions of fossil transitions. Ever created a animated flip page drawing in a small booklet. There are transitions in between transitions. Just the lack a huge catalog of fossils is a red flag. Billions of animals in the world and nothing to really show for other than a lot of hoaxes and lucy and a few other sets of bones. You can't claim evolution is true when you don't have the all the missing puzzles in place. You jump ahead 10 steps and claim oh so this is what it should look like,ASSUMING, what your saying is true. Filling in the gaps with your own imagination. Leg bones in whales is imaginative. Vestigial organs have a purpose now we found out. They weren't useless left overs after all from the transforming period.

You gotta believe there is no god just as much as you have to believe there is a god. Theres no definitive proof on the atheists side. If you don't know then just say so ;). If you want to believe that the scientific method can solve everything then your belief is in scientism.
 

[RIP]Zeus

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 16, 2003
Messages
2,590
Doesn't matter what you guys say, atheism is a religion also.

I'm only quoting up to this point. :rolleyes:

Saying atheism is a religion is some real extreme ignorance there bud.

So per you, Bald is a hair color, non-smoking is a habit, not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Wow!!!

Also because you are so misinformed, I got these defintions from dictionary.com :D


a·the·ism
[ey-thee-iz-uhm]
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.


a·the·ist
[ey-thee-ist]
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
 

Conker

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 1, 2004
Messages
3,025
[RIP]Zeus;1038482627 said:
I'm only quoting up to this point. :rolleyes:

Saying atheism is a religion is some real extreme ignorance there bud.

So per you, Bald is a hair color, non-smoking is a habit, not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Wow!!!

Also because you are so misinformed, I got these defintions from dictionary.com :D


a·the·ism
[ey-thee-iz-uhm]
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.


a·the·ist
[ey-thee-ist]
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Without a solid foundation and proof of no god you Believe there's no god. Thats logical.

Thats true though that definition. Some people state though they have no belief but say they know god does not exist. Its a belief. Some people can't acknowledge that. Can't compute that word, belief. I agree on that definition though. Its turning into a religion lately though. Atheist churches are popping up everywhere.

a·the·ism
[ey-thee-iz-uhm]
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
 

[RIP]Zeus

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 16, 2003
Messages
2,590
Without a solid foundation and proof of no god you Believe there's no god. Thats logical.

Thats true though that definition. Some people state though they have no belief but say they know god does not exist. Its a belief. Some people can't acknowledge that. Can't compute that word, belief. I agree on that definition though. Its turning into a religion lately though. Atheist churches are popping up everywhere.

a·the·ism
[ey-thee-iz-uhm]
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Atheist churches you say? While this might be true, and quite funny, it still doesn't make it a religion.

Just cause I don't believe in something doesn't make that non-belief a religion.
To believe that there is a “deity” of any sort needs faith, which in terms comes down to believing in something with no evidence to support your claim.
On the flip of that, there is no evidence of any “deity”, so how can I believe in something that has nothing to back it up. I would need “faith” to do so.
 

Fendrix

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 9, 2006
Messages
2,263
Without a solid foundation and proof of no god you Believe there's no god. Thats logical.

Thats true though that definition. Some people state though they have no belief but say they know god does not exist. Its a belief. Some people can't acknowledge that. Can't compute that word, belief. I agree on that definition though. Its turning into a religion lately though. Atheist churches are popping up everywhere.

a·the·ism
[ey-thee-iz-uhm]
noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Richard Dawkins has said many times that he is 99.99% atheist. As soon as there is evidence for a god, he will believe it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fUYUvvJiW0#t=1m54s
 

[RIP]Zeus

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 16, 2003
Messages
2,590
Atheist churches are popping up everywhere.

I have to take back my last statement about atheist churchs popping up.

I did a little research real quick, and I should have before I posted my last post. Bad on me.

There are no atheist churches, where ever you are hearing this or seeing this, I want links.

What research I have done keeps leading me to same thing, it's all either one, a joke, or these people are not really atheist.
 

Conker

2[H]4U
Joined
Jun 1, 2004
Messages
3,025
[RIP]Zeus;1038482687 said:
I have to take back my last statement about atheist churchs popping up.

I did a little research real quick, and I should have before I posted my last post. Bad on me.

There are no atheist churches, where ever you are hearing this or seeing this, I want links.

What research I have done keeps leading me to same thing, it's all either one, a joke, or these people are not really atheist.

Here's one church lol
http://firstchurchofatheism.com/index.php/atheist-minister-in-your-area/
 

BGK

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
496
You gotta believe there is no god just as much as you have to believe there is a god. Theres no definitive proof on the atheists side. If you don't know then just say so ;). If you want to believe that the scientific method can solve everything then your belief is in scientism.

If the absence of a belief is not religion. If it were then everyone would be member to a billion religions (one for each idea they don't believe in). I don't believe in unicorns, that does not mean I am not a member of a "no unicorn" religion. I don't believe in santa clause, ghosts, god, or any other fairy tails either. That doesn't mean I believe science can answer everything. In fact, people that actually do science know that it cannot answer everything. For example, astrophysicists know that if the universe were much older or much younger than it is now we wouldn't be able to detect evidence of the big bang. The best you can do is take the evidence available and use it to formulate the most logical ideas. Otherwise you are just believing in magic.
 

XacTactX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 13, 2010
Messages
4,133
You religious "fundies", I'm going to give you a giant head start: let's assume that God does exist. For argument's sake, and since (I'm guessing) most of you here are Christian, let's say that Jesus Christ and Christianity is the "true" religion, and it is that God who is real.

Now read why God is like a circular square. This is what it really comes down to, the God that Christianity describes is one big contradiction, or he has bipolar disorder. Just read the page and you'll see. You can't have a square circle, and you can't have a Christian God (if the holy book that he himself wanted written to teach his beliefs has even an ounce of truth).
 

XacTactX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 13, 2010
Messages
4,133
Also, I want to respond to the people who are saying "you Atheists are like theists because you think you know that there is (no) God". Remember, people have opinions, and they can change. I am an atheist (I think you already knew that), but I am only an atheist as long as the facts and the logical conclusions that I have drawn point to that. In other words, as God comes down on Judgement Day (which is NEVER going to happen), I will have no choice but to accept that God in fact does exist. But until then, I can reasonably conclude that either all of the religions are all true, or none of them are true, and for now, none of them are true.
 

distortion69

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
337
You almost make me want to be a "fundie" whatever that is. So, you don't believe in anything you can't see, point to or, measure? So, emotions, creativity and, evil do not exist?

Consider. Whether or not God exists or, your disdain for others beliefs exist, can you deny the impact those beliefs have on the world?

Do you see there is very little difference between a religious zealot convinced of the "Truth" of Creationism and an under educated scientific realist who believes everything in the cosmos follows the same set of "scientific principles" (even though they don't understand them fully themselves) as the "Truth?"

....

Your post is wrong on so many levels, it's almost nonsensical to reply.

First, you stated you can't point to or measure creativity. Creativity is a subjective measurement to some extent, because someone might think an idea is creative that another thinks is not all that creative... but there is no question whether creativity exists. In fact, I think that pretty much invalidates anything else you could possibly say on the forum. The ignorance and irrationality it requires to post that alone is enough to point out your grasping for straws and can't give up archaic beliefs.

I could go one step further though and say what "truth" in creationism? It is a bunch of bullshit, much of which has been proven wrong time and time and time again. The world is not 8,000-10000 years old. There is no evidence that the bible is holy, or anymore than a book. The entire book is full of flaws . It has nothing to do with disdain towards fellow humans. It has everything to do with your religion being full of shit, and meant to control remedial brains a thousand or two years ago.

I also wonder, deny what impact? Bullshit religions of have littered scientific thought for years.. not just yours, but literally dozens. Isn't that evidence enough alone that there is no divine being that just so happens to speak to you? It's all human nature, and the fact that there just so happens to be dozens of Gods who are speaking to dozens of ppl and they are all special is proof of that alone. What is the cost? What is the effect? Religious people who have no rationality bomb do exactly what happened last week. When EMO kids came into Iraq, they claimed that god would punish them, and then stoned them to death. Was it god who punished them? Or was it because they are stupid as shit.

I think the latter.The effect of religion has been to impede the progress of man kind. Rather than putting our productive effort into actually achieving noble goals, half of mankind is stuck in some kind of rut denying scientific progress, and trying to live back in the 1300s.

The ideas that are positive about religion could be accomplished without religion. If you want to help starving people, you don't need a book to tell you to do it. Use your brain, and make a judgement based on compassion... which by the way is a bi-product of evolution present in the human brain and exists in other species regardless of your magical fairy guy.
 

distortion69

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
337
*Religious people who have no rationality bomb *abortion clinics* and shit exactly like what happened last week.
 

distortion69

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
337
Atheists are pretty retarded too imo. Agnostics and even deists are the only ones who have got their heads on straight.

Agnostics realize that as of right now, we just don't know. Any deists are a step above agnostics in that, they believe something intelligent created the universe, but won't try to give that intelligence qualities of any sort, so in a way they also accept that they just don't know what exactly is going on... Atheists on the other hand are just are retarded as theists in that they believe they know...

So before calling yourself an atheist next time, be sure to check yourself on that one. ;)

You are entirely wrong. Most atheists are agnostics. In fact, almost the entire foundation of modern atheism was done by people who are agnostic atheists. That is, they understand there is no such thing as absolute knowledge... however, they think that it is unlikely there is a God.

You cannot disprove big foot exists. It simply doesn't make sense to assert something when you cannot have absolute knowledge, but we know that there is a high likelyhood that he doesn't. No one is claiming that God doesn't exist 100%. Simply that we cannot know for sure, and for all intensive purposes until there is evidence there is no point in assuming he does.
 

Xae

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
Messages
158
I am surprised this thread is still going on in this manner, it has degenerated from any type of talk on the OP to bickering over fairy tales. How quaint.
 

Trimlock

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Sep 23, 2005
Messages
15,228
I am surprised this thread is still going on in this manner, it has degenerated from any type of talk on the OP to bickering over fairy tales. How quaint.

It degenerated since page one, im suprised there wasn't a major push to get it back on topic or locked by now.
 

distortion69

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
337
Doesn't matter what you guys say, atheism is a religion also. Without proving god does not exist you can't say logically your foundation is solid and concrete. The possibility of being wrong is there so there's the fallacy of atheists claiming to know god does not exist. Its a belief. Its a religion in itself. Your religion in reality is called scientism. There are limitations to the scientific method. Nothing is absolute in science either. Math is not absolute. Its close but there's always room for another answer. Don't claim to be an atheist if your agnostic either. Just say you don't know. No atheist can claim theres no god when theres no way saying theres no god with logical reasonable proof. Your agnostic. If you hate god then say your atheist as its the rejection of god. If you don't know then claim your agnostic. We don't know everything. Gotta realize that. Its ok to admit you don't know lol. This is the way i see it. The more we find out about this world and its small details, the more we realize this whole thing wasn't random at all. It wasn't a random goop of goo and slime. When the evolutionary theory was made no one knew about DNA and anything at a micro-cellular level. It was just looking at some birds and animals and claiming their feathers changed colors to attract more or some birds beak grew bigger this time around so it must mean we evolved with no real evidence. No real transforming evidence of hybrid animals or half human/fish like mermaid or something. Darwin assumed all the evidence would fall into place. So far the hunt for bones has only nudged out a few fossils. Wheres the trillions of fossil transitions. Ever created a animated flip page drawing in a small booklet. There are transitions in between transitions. Just the lack a huge catalog of fossils is a red flag. Billions of animals in the world and nothing to really show for other than a lot of hoaxes and lucy and a few other sets of bones. You can't claim evolution is true when you don't have the all the missing puzzles in place. You jump ahead 10 steps and claim oh so this is what it should look like,ASSUMING, what your saying is true. Filling in the gaps with your own imagination. Leg bones in whales is imaginative. Vestigial organs have a purpose now we found out. They weren't useless left overs after all from the transforming period.

You gotta believe there is no god just as much as you have to believe there is a god. Theres no definitive proof on the atheists side. If you don't know then just say so ;). If you want to believe that the scientific method can solve everything then your belief is in scientism.

Your post is also retard rant. Agnosticism is to what you can know, and Atheism means you reject that there is a god. It does not mean that you KNOW there isn't a god. It means that until there is evidence, you are sticking with default position of disbelief.

If I claimed i saw a magical monster when I was 10 and he told me to write a book telling others to worship him, you probably wouldn't believe me. Would your disbelief then be a religious belief? You see how retarded that sounds?

That being said, if you are an agnostic atheist like myself, you would probably say.. well, the chances that big foot magically appeared and told him to write a book telling others to worship him are probably very low. However I have no way of knowing for 100% sure, so I claim that it is not possible to really know for sure if it did indeed occur. There is nothing wrong with being both. Being an atheist is not a religious belief, nor is it claiming 100% knowledge on a subject.

I would be perfectly fine. I would reply to the rest of your post, but it is like some Kent Hovind ranting that is entirely bullshit. It is so far fetched it is like the flat earth society. This type of post is exactly the reason atheists get so mad. There is such a VAST amount of evidence, and you guys read some religious nutcase tards posts or lectures, and then try to use nonsense as evidence.

Might I suggest you go to Talksorigins.org and read why almost the majority of the entire world thinks your views are insane.
 

distortion69

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
337
Sorry, it's been a long day... been moving into our new house. My sentences are probably slightly incoherent, lol. At least I put an insult or two in there to keep it interesting. I think that drives home the point. ;)

I did forget to reply to your last sentence... which was hilarious, because throughout this entire thread, as mentioned numerous times; scientists do not claim to know there is no god. That is exactly the opposite. Religion claims to know with 100% irrational certainty there is a God. Scientists merely say there is no evidence, but do not claim to know whether there is a god or not.

An example of this might be if you hypothesized something that seemed far-fetch like some form of quantum theory 200 years ago. Perhaps we didn't have the evidence to support it, so at that point it is a hypothesis. At no point, when we lacked the evidence at that time to prove it, did we say, WE KNOW THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS QUANTUM THEORY. We simply said, at this time there is not sufficient evidence to validate these claims.

It's a very logical and basic way of looking at things. Even if real evidence of God did exist, Scientific Method is the best form of examination of this evidence that we currently have.
 

stop!theradio

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
3,523
I'm all for anyone believing whatever they want - but what is 100% irrational about someone believing in a god? Who gives a shit?
 

blade52x

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
3,141
that's a terrible generalization. Knowing what exactly?

...

Not believing in a deity/creator due to lack of demonstrable evidence

That's agnostic. What most so called atheists don't realize is that is exactly what they are. Atheism is the polar opposite of theism in that, "no, there is no creator" and it just pretty much stops there. I will once again state, it as boneheaded as its polar opposite.

Once you throw in the "due to lack of evidence", it all of a sudden becomes "sure, there might be one". Most of us fall into either of these two categories

A : I don't believe in one, but I do accept there may be one (agnostic)
B : I do believe in one, but I may be wrong or I can never really know (pretty much deist)

The problem is, people from A side with extreme (atheists) and people with B side with the extreme (theists) and it's just fucking stupid. When the hell is the world going to wake up and realize this...
 

blade52x

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
3,141
I'm all for anyone believing whatever they want - but what is 100% irrational about someone believing in a god? Who gives a shit?

Seriously. I could care less what someone believes. I just hate to see both sides attacking each other. It's like a tug of war in the special olympics.
 

Sly

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Aug 17, 2004
Messages
5,747
That's agnostic. What most so called atheists don't realize is that is exactly what they are. Atheism is the polar opposite of theism in that, "no, there is no creator" and it just pretty much stops there. I will once again state, it as boneheaded as its polar opposite.

Once you throw in the "due to lack of evidence", it all of a sudden becomes "sure, there might be one". Most of us fall into either of these two categories

A : I don't believe in one, but I do accept there may be one (agnostic)
B : I do believe in one, but I may be wrong or I can never really know (pretty much deist)

The problem is, people from A side with extreme (atheists) and people with B side with the extreme (theists) and it's just fucking stupid. When the hell is the world going to wake up and realize this...

That's also a typical response from the thumpers when they find their interpretation of the bible lacking. They do a 180 on their beliefs instantly and start broadening their definition of god by pretending that all the other religions are on their side.

The thing is, science isn't the #1 enemy of religion, the two can debate all they want and just keep going in circles, however, science can easily be pacified simply by presenting proof. That is all it takes. The worst enemy of a religion, is *another* religion.
 

[RIP]Zeus

2[H]4U
Joined
Jul 16, 2003
Messages
2,590
That's also a typical response from the thumpers when they find their interpretation of the bible lacking. They do a 180 on their beliefs instantly and start broadening their definition of god by pretending that all the other religions are on their side.

The thing is, science isn't the #1 enemy of religion, the two can debate all they want and just keep going in circles, however, science can easily be pacified simply by presenting proof. That is all it takes. The worst enemy of a religion, is *another* religion.

And Reason!
 

nOrVow

Gawd
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
693
That's agnostic. What most so called atheists don't realize is that is exactly what they are. Atheism is the polar opposite of theism in that, "no, there is no creator" and it just pretty much stops there. I will once again state, it as boneheaded as its polar opposite.

Once you throw in the "due to lack of evidence", it all of a sudden becomes "sure, there might be one". Most of us fall into either of these two categories

A : I don't believe in one, but I do accept there may be one (agnostic)
B : I do believe in one, but I may be wrong or I can never really know (pretty much deist)

The problem is, people from A side with extreme (atheists) and people with B side with the extreme (theists) and it's just fucking stupid. When the hell is the world going to wake up and realize this...

I think your semantics are screwed.

A: that would be an atheist.
B: that would be an agnostic-theist

agnosticism is where one is uncertain with whether a deity exists or not. They have no personal conclusion, personal no doubt.

Yes, there are extreme atheists who claim to know (or just know) there is no deity, but that doesn't change the original definition of an atheist. That's just their personal label within the non-theistic spectrum. We simply lack belief due to x *reason*. I was just using that ONE example of x *reasons*.

I've said this shit before - we DO NOT hold the burden of proof or absolute truth - things can change overtime. We can only assert what factual (empirically evident) information we have to challenge ANY claim of the *natural world*. <<<<<< has nothing to do with Religion.

You can't disprove god, no more than can one disprove Mario/Goku/Princess Peach/Flying spaghetti monster - because it's an idea. However, some (or most) atheist declare is that is IMPROBABLE (again, due to lack of data) for a deity to exist - we accept the POSSIBILITY. That completely different from "may or may not knowing".
 

nOrVow

Gawd
Joined
Jan 10, 2011
Messages
693
EDIT:
agnosticism is where one is uncertain with whether *they believe* a deity exists or not. They have no personal conclusion, personal no doubt.
 

XacTactX

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 13, 2010
Messages
4,133
I think your semantics are screwed.

A: that would be an atheist.
B: that would be an agnostic-theist

agnosticism is where one is uncertain with whether a deity exists or not. They have no personal conclusion, personal no doubt.

Yes, there are extreme atheists who claim to know (or just know) there is no deity, but that doesn't change the original definition of an atheist. That's just their personal label within the non-theistic spectrum. We simply lack belief due to x *reason*. I was just using that ONE example of x *reasons*.

I've said this shit before - we DO NOT hold the burden of proof or absolute truth - things can change overtime. We can only assert what factual (empirically evident) information we have to challenge ANY claim of the *natural world*. <<<<<< has nothing to do with Religion.

You can't disprove god, no more than can one disprove Mario/Goku/Princess Peach/Flying spaghetti monster - because it's an idea. However, some (or most) atheist declare is that is IMPROBABLE (again, due to lack of data) for a deity to exist - we accept the POSSIBILITY. That completely different from "may or may not knowing".

This +1, I think it's a common misconception. The whole point of being an atheist is to use rational thinking. If God came down and it started to get really hot all of a sudden (since I would definitely be going to Hell :p), I wouldn't pretend God doesn't exist. Facts are facts. And I think most atheists think this way, though I'm not sure.
 
Joined
Oct 26, 2005
Messages
2,340
A: that would be an atheist.
Having no belief in god is not the same as having a belief in no god.

You can't disprove god, no more than can one disprove Mario/Goku/Princess Peach/Flying spaghetti monster - because it's an idea.
You can't disprove the idea of a god, but you can certainly refute the existence of a specific god, if the claims made about that god are inconsistent with the real world or with each other.
 

blade52x

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
3,141
Yeah I messed up the post, I meant to go with gnostic vs agnostics. Stop acting like a bunch of gnostics is what I meant to go with originally. :p

There's too much overlapping from atheist to theist.
 

Xae

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 17, 2010
Messages
158
You ladies should start your own ontopic thread somewhere instead of invading the other threads.
 

BGK

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 10, 2007
Messages
496
That's agnostic. What most so called atheists don't realize is that is exactly what they are. Atheism is the polar opposite of theism in that, "no, there is no creator" and it just pretty much stops there. I will once again state, it as boneheaded as its polar opposite.

Once you throw in the "due to lack of evidence", it all of a sudden becomes "sure, there might be one". Most of us fall into either of these two categories

A : I don't believe in one, but I do accept there may be one (agnostic)
B : I do believe in one, but I may be wrong or I can never really know (pretty much deist)

The problem is, people from A side with extreme (atheists) and people with B side with the extreme (theists) and it's just fucking stupid. When the hell is the world going to wake up and realize this...

Your definitions are wrong. Theist means belief in god, atheist means lacking belief in god (rejection of theism). Agnostic means not knowing.

Being an atheist (or theist) and being agnostic are not mutually exclusive. You can be an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. You can still believe in god without knowing that there is a god (for a variety of reasons, including pascals wager).
 

distortion69

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 1, 2007
Messages
337
I'm all for anyone believing whatever they want - but what is 100% irrational about someone believing in a god? Who gives a shit?

It is irrational for me to believe almost impossible claims (talking bushes, and various other supernatural claims, etc.) with little or no evidence. I do not have a problem with this in and of itself, so long as the person who holds these views admits they have a faith based position. The second they try to argue their case, it is not a big deal to argue it back using basic logic/reason. However, it is really pointless to argue a case when it is a faith based position. Unfortunately, since religious types typically ignore basic logic/reasoning (a consequence of being religious to begin with), it can be hard to actually have any type of meaningful argument without the entire idea of reason being destroyed.
 

chockomonkey

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
8,298
This +1, I think it's a common misconception. The whole point of being an atheist is to use rational thinking. If God came down and it started to get really hot all of a sudden (since I would definitely be going to Hell :p), I wouldn't pretend God doesn't exist. Facts are facts. And I think most atheists think this way, though I'm not sure.

But too many claimed atheists in this thread have said shit like this fellow:

Also, I want to respond to the people who are saying "you Atheists are like theists because you think you know that there is (no) God". Remember, people have opinions, and they can change. I am an atheist (I think you already knew that), but I am only an atheist as long as the facts and the logical conclusions that I have drawn point to that. In other words, as God comes down on Judgement Day (which is NEVER going to happen), I will have no choice but to accept that God in fact does exist. But until then, I can reasonably conclude that either all of the religions are all true, or none of them are true, and for now, none of them are true.

Where he's acting all atheist, then suddenly drops the '(which is NEVER going to happen)', making his entire post null.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top