Atheist Fundamentalism and the Limits of Science

Atheism is not about denying belief. It is about denying the existence of gods. Somebody that does not believe that God exists as well as does not believe God does not exist is not an atheist. An atheist is somebody that believes God does not exist.

Dictionary.com:
ATHEISM
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

because it stands outside of science, tell us, how do you test "sting theory"? or "chaos theory"? as 4-dimensional beings, how do we see an ∞-D Being? what if everything was transitory, what instruments would you use, where would you test it, how would you do the math? ∞=<∞ ? so, how did "stone age" scientists test "E=mc2" ? at present, we're in the same boat

there are certain things we don't have the methodology, instruments or maybe even the conceptual math to begin to test, explain or even know how to ask the questions, testing "string theory" can at this time be only done by inference & math, no 'stringometers', right?

do we have a godmeter?

 

Why did you leave out the second definition?

Dictionary.com:
ATHEISM
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

So anyone who does not believe in god, anyone who is not a theist, is an atheist.

 

String theory was not conjured out of the air. It is grounded in a hard science called physics. The theory may be right or wrong and only time will tell. The decision will be made on the basis of observation.

The existence of God is an assumption with its roots in superstition. I believe this puts it in a different category from string theory.

 

erm - at a rough guess - a bull? (of course there are noumenal forces behind a bull so the question regresses a bit further than what meets the eye)
:scratchin:

yes, lets not be too hasty now and falsely assume that there is some cause to bullshit .....

It would be easier to acknowledge your heartfelt contribution if it aligned with existing information on the subject ....

 

The Existence of God is common knowledge present within all human beings. This knowledge has been placed within them by God Himself and, therefore, is attainable/accessible by anyone who cares to 'go there'.. Not so string theory--and any other theories you care to mention crafted/concocted by 'the gifted'...The tentative nature of string theory isn't worthy to be compared with the certainty that comes with knowing ones Creator, in Whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

The denial of God is denial of oneself, with its roots in self (God) hatred.

 

actually, it was conjured out of someones brain, its elegant math, what part of it is provable? in your def, didn't you leave out "theoretical" physics?

you mean by inference? trying to make sense out of math by testable data units, until some sort of formula "can be tested", sort of like "faith", no? ST its no where near e=mc2

according to Paul, its self-evident in the universe around us, I agree, science led me on the path to Christ (archeology, astronomy) & sci-fi helped me understand, that we are not looking just for normal evidence, but to think outside the box, not sure if you saw "Threshold", but they tried to portray a multi-dimensional thing, God is not a 3- or 4-D Being, He does not just exist in our dimension or time, but to put it in a way you would understand, to our brain, He would exist in a ∞-D SuperString Universe

 

Elsyarango:

See my previous post or www.snakeystew.com

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

There most certainly is. For instance: How do we measure my current state of envyness or lack thereof to ascertain that I am either qualified or unqualified in this regard so that I can move on to the next stage?

Which one? There are certainly some scriptures that I can discuss in depth and to a better degree than many other people.

Incorrect. The pair of us have just been accurately informing you that they are different things, (mental concepts vs objects). If god is not a mental concept, then I don't see any value in you constantly comparing it to one. If god is not a mental concept then your whole 'justice' rant is mere irrelevant blather.

As an object: no. As a mental concept: yes.

If your god is not the latter, where is the relevance?

Alas the president can be approached by empiricism. Try again.

 

Snakelord
“

good question
you say are qualified
how did you assess this?

the problem is not so much your knowledge - obviously you are quite intelligent and educated
the problem is your attitude - namely being inimical - I don't say that to fault your character (maybe I will do that later -lol)

its a simple fact

you would rather stab your testicles with an ice pick than imbibe any serious religious practice

No doubt you have your reasons for such a world view, but you should realize that this seriously inhibits in-depth discussion of religious practice (which probably wouldn't be a serious worry for a person who would rather stab their testicles with an ice pick from the onset)

so because justice is a "mental concept" does that make it real or not?
If you say it is not real, why?
(saying "because it is outside of empirical inquiry" does not help your argument)
(also saying it is a "real mental concept" is a clever way to avoid explaining whether "mental concepts" can be real)

So is justice real or non-existent?

since you claim there is no argument for the existence of god because he is not (commonly) empirically verified, it would be interesting to see how issues like "justice" fit in your understanding of things

not in terms of classical empiricism
If I tell you there is a president and you demand "show me" I cannot fulfill your request - not because the president cannot be seen, but because he doesn't concede to your or my will.
This is not an issue for classical empiricism because matter has no will to contend with ("gee I just can't see any electrons today - maybe it was because I offended them last week")
If however we somehow fall in line with the needs, interests and concerns of the president, our chance of "seeing" him is greatly enhanced

 

I'm sure Paul had a point. Anything is self-evident if one wants it to be.

 

I would have thought it was non-controversial to assert that plato played an important role in undermining the authority of the theogeny
:shrug:

my repetition was meant for clarification

seems like I didn't repeat those buzz words enough
:shrug:

 

Can I take it that you do not drive a crafted/concocted car , use a phone, electricity, gas, and so on ? But it's different when it comes to using a PC. That cannot be said to be crafted or concocted; it's a gift from the high and mighty one, so that his eternal verities may be made known to the heathen.

 

You are playing your llittle games again. I said Plato was a pantheist. You denied it. You posted what you thought to be a refutation and got it al wrong but can't bring yourself to admit it. You have no respect for the truth

 

read it and weep

You
Please provide a reference for Plato's challenge to pantheism. In the opening of the " Republic " he explains how he has been down to Piraeus with Glaucon ,to worship the goddess. The goddess was Bendis, a Thracian goddess who had recently been introduced to Athens. In function and form she was similar to Artemis.So he had two for the price of one, so to speak.

Me
Plato initiated the first wave of rejection of the theogeny - he did this by philosophizing on the nature of the "chos" ("void") which is attributed as the cause of the greek pantheon.

A few radical philosophers like Xenophanes of Colophon were already beginning to label the poets' tales as blasphemous lies in the 6th century BC; Xenophanes had complained that Homer and Hesiod attributed to the gods "all that is shameful and disgraceful among men; they steal, commit adultery, and deceive one another".[67] This line of thought found its most sweeping expression in Plato's Republic and Laws. Plato created his own allegorical myths (such as the vision of Er in the Republic), attacked the traditional tales of the gods' tricks, thefts and adulteries as immoral, and objected to their central role in literature.[6] Plato's criticism (he called the myths "old wives' chatter")[68] was the first serious challenge to the Homeric mythological tradition.[65]

:bawl::shrug: