Definitions: Atheism and Agnosticsm.

Discussion in 'Religion Archives' started by Cris, Aug 3, 2003.

  1. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,844
    Are you implying that you think this contradicts my point?

    There is a huge difference between "that which can be comprehended" and "that which is inherently beyond comprehension". Unless you consider human comprehension to be unbounded, some things are literally beyond comprehension. I contend that the concept of god is necessarily and wholly beyond comprehension based on the scope of its description, or the label isn't applicable.

    If you see a 2D projection of an 1838465498776567879 dimensional structure, would you claim to comprehend that structure in a valuable way? What if the structure were of infinite dimensionality? A 2D projection of a infinitely dimensional object would be equivalent to zero information about the structure in question. Do you follow? Am I wrong?

    Maybe that wasn't your implication. If so, uhm.. nevermind.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. P. M. Thorne Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    574
    wesmorris: I get the bigest kick out of the way you argue. Hey! I knew that would not make a reasonable arguement, and you caught me.

    Seriously, why are you so opposed to believing in God. To think there is nothing except what we can prove is ridiculous. We are doing things right now, and knowing things right now, that were totally unknown centuries ago. We learned about atoms, were they not there until someone told us; everything was made of atoms. But now, scientist have discovered what they call strings. We are learning all the time. So, even if I did not know that God is, I could not buy your arguement. To try to disprove or prove God with our puny little minds is absurd. Tell you what, guy, if God is an illusion, then you are surely, because I know Him much better than I know you.

    Aside from all that, I do enjoy reading your posts, (most of the time). PMT
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Katazia Black Mamba Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    743
    PMT,

    Strings are still just a speculation - they haven't been discovered yet.

    It is true that there must be things that exist that we have yet to discover or can prove they exist, but that doesn't mean that one should believe they exist before they are discovered or proven. It is one thing to exercise imagination and to speculate about what might be, but quite another to then claim such imaginings are true - which is the foolish realm of religion.

    But more importantly - as we learn and discover more about the universe and how it works the less we see for a need to include gods in our explanations. It is now rather easy to imagine the universe without any need for gods at all, and that would have been most unusual just 100 or so years ago.

    The undeniable trend is that as we learn more then the god concept increases in irrelevance and absurdity. It is unfortunate that only a small proportion of the world population understand enough science to realize this, and strangely enough that is about the same proportion who are atheists.

    God remains just a figment of men’s imagination, and for all your emotional claims and assertions you cannot demonstrate anything to the contrary.

    Kat
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,844
    Because it's unreasonable. It's fine to suspect there's a god, but ridiculous to assume it as I explained above.
     
  8. P. M. Thorne Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    574
    Should I say, "It must be wonderful to be so wise and all-knowing." It is difficult for me to understand how folks can speak with so much authority.

    As for strings, I think you are wrong, they just haven't figured out exactly how they work yet, or exactly what they are. If there were no discovery, they would not be calling them strings and trying to explain them, seems to me.

    I do not believe there that God is. I know it. All scientists are not athiestic. I do not like labels, because we are all in this together. Looking down on each other does not serve us well. Very little impresses me, but I have a keen sense of appreciation. I know that you have studied and that is good, and that you think, that is good. I have no quarrel with that, but I would suggest that perhaps you could be wrong once in a while. Most of us know only what we read about scientist, but with God that is not the way it is, not with me. Thank you for your comments, and my best wishes to you. PMT
     
  9. P. M. Thorne Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    574
    wesmorris: I do not assume, dear heart, I know. I wish you would not sound so sure of yourself. Science is a wonderful thing. I love it; in my mind it mostly substantiates what I believe. How anyone can disbelieve that there is a God above all, through all, and in us all, is beyond me. But what amazes me more are the audacious comments. "Now, we know, all we wise people." I will I will come back and haunt you!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. P. M. Thorne Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    574
    Wes: Oops, that was supposed to read, "I think I will," rather than "I will, I will." Did not want to scare you. PMT
     
  11. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,844
    Man I'm really only sure that it's dumb to be sure. I'm pretty sure at least.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  12. Katazia Black Mamba Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    743
    PMT,

    Thank you but I am not always so appreciated.

    Yet you haven’t been able to refute my statement that the god concept is just a fantasy, but wait – you also speak with all-knowing certainty since you state in your message – I do not believe there that God is. I know it.

    I wonder - do you have equal difficulty understanding how you can speak with such authority?

    But therein lies a real problem for you because you must be wrong since I know with certainty that there is NO God.

    Ok I understand you are not a scientist but you should make an effort to understand something about the scientific method, especially in a SCIenceForums such as this.

    This links provides some views from physicists on String Theory – note the opening statement – Even advocates admit that the theory could be entirely wrong. Be very sure that strings have not yet been discovered. But the ideas fit very well with many observations of our universe – but that is the way the scientific method works. No scientist will say that string theory is true, but many suspect it might be.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/viewpoints.html

    My apologies – my statements were perhaps too subtle. Most scientists tend to disbelieve because they are conditioned to use rational thought as part of their work. Atheists also strongly support rational methods. The two groups, although not the same, are of a similar size – the conclusion you were meant to draw is that religious people are the majority in the remaining group who tend not to think very clearly.

    Kat
     
  13. TheVisitor The Journey is the Reward Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Quote;
    If you want to debate the point, address it.


    -----------------------------

    Truth is not an endless debate.
    You can spend forever learning and still never come to a knowledge of the truth.
    Those who have a love of the truth, will find it...because it will find them.
    Those who don't.....as I have said; receive strong delusion.
    John 1:5 - And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2004
  14. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,844
    This board is for debate.

    You bastardize it into your pulpit.
     
  15. TheVisitor The Journey is the Reward Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Quote;
    This board is for debate.
    You bastardize it into your pulpit.

    ----------------------
    Bastardize....?
    Is that kind of like your term "tautological authoritarianism"..........?

    I've been accused of interpreting the bible to fit my view a time or two.....
    (unjustly of course), but you seem to just run off with the entire english language into your own little world and then expect us all to make some sense of what your saying........

    Could it be .......the reason the words you're looking for aren't there, is because what I'm saying is the truth, and very words themselves resist your efforts to deny that which God has done......?
     
    Last edited: Feb 16, 2004
  16. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,844
    I'm here to discuss/debate and learn/teach. You just said "Truth is not an endless debate", so you're obviously here to preach. IMO, your presence is as such - pointless, as you have nothing to learn - no means for growth. You can just regurgitate your "truth" to as many poor confused "truthless" souls as you can muster. I don't think you know the first thing about truth and see in your words that you don't have the capacity to really examine it. Of course I might be wrong. Hehe, I don't imagine you've seen "mad tv" much, but there's a guy who pretends to be a kid who says "look what I can do" and then does something not worth seeing. Your preaching seems to fit that mold. Your mind seems pretty useless to me. I see a minds function as analytical (with regards to the subject matter at least). You apparently see it as a means to store and convey religious dogma. From my perspective it's quite the pity that you'd squander it's potential. Perhaps your veiw of me is similar. I suppose we're inherently diametrically opposed in this regard - which much mean I'm the devil from your perspective? *sigh* That is sad.

    If you were to open your eyes, you might glimpse the beauty that lies beyond your dogma. I suppose you're too scared and too steeped in the words to take your eyes off your precious book. Your emotional attachment to that book seem to be about all you have to offer. With me it is of exactly zero analytical value, though I do empathize on an emotional level.

    Also, I'm not so sure 'authoritariansim' is a bastardized term. It was something I conjugated and wasn't sure at the time if I'd over conjugatulated as I have a tendency to do (because it amuses me).

    If what I say doesn't make sense, I expect to be asked or ignored.

    My thoughts have developed beyond my ability to clearly express them, so I struggle to say what I mean. If you were of my level of comprehension, you'd know exactly what I mean. What is most difficult to explain is that it seems to me that to understand what I think I understand is to account for the inherent communication problems between minds which is to constantly struggle with it, as it is impossible to truly communicate clearly (at least as at this time - though I can envision resolution to that problem). I'm not so sure you'll know what I mean.

    So I think it is most likely that you're a well-meaning bible thumper with no real clue, and no real point. You're awefully good at that thumping there though, and you are welcome in this community, so brother.... thump on thumping on (as if you have a choice).

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,844
    It turns out though that I used tautological incorrectly. I was thinking it meant "something that defines itself". I think it works really either way though, but it was intended as I just specified. Thank you compelling me to look it up so I recognized my error. I might have continued to use it incorrectly. Anyone have the word I was looking for? Crap I can't remember it at the moment. Argh.
     
  18. TheVisitor The Journey is the Reward Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,046
    Quote;
    If you were of my level of comprehension, you'd know exactly what I mean.
    ------------------
    If you were as smart as you claim, .....you wouldn't need to tell anyone.
    And secondly, you would be capable of recognizing the things I have written about are based on fundamental truths readily observable in nature.

    - fundamental - ;
    "a : serving as an original or generating source : PRIMARY <a discovery fundamental to modern computers> b : serving as a basis supporting existence or determining essential structure or function : BASIC
    2 a : of or relating to essential structure, function, or facts : RADICAL <fundamental change>; also : of or dealing with general principles rather than practical application

    - Truth - ;
    the state of being the case : FACT (2) : the body of real things, events, and facts : ACTUALITY (3) : often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b : a judgment, proposition, or idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics> c : the body of true statements and propositions
    3 a : the property (as of a statement) of being in accord with fact or reality b : chiefly British : TRUE 2 c : fidelity to an original or to a standard
    4 : capitalized Christian Science : GOD

    The truth as Christ put it, is so simple a child could not err therein.

    What is most difficult to explain is that it seems to me that to understand what I think I understand is to account for the inherent communication problems between minds which is to constantly struggle with it, as it is impossible to truly communicate clearly
    -------------------
    Whew,........that is a mouthful.
    I think the educational system has done us a great unjustice, to overcomplicate a matter seems to be the norm theses days.
    You can say things as though they are obviously true, such as my - being here only to preach - , or my presense here being pointless.....but they may only seem true to you. From your point of veiw.
    Science is still in the dark ages, the coming reign of kingdom of God on this earth is going to be far beyond the science of man today.
    This kind of power must be governed by character.
    Character is not doing your "own thing", or is it either "blind obedience" to some imaginary faith.......as you might claim, but it is a victory over one's self, and surrender to a power greater than your self, and that only the one true God.
    We are not "God's" in ourselves..........though the word god means only; object of worship, so although you could worship yourself as many self-styled educated types do in their own minds they are no more a God than a block of wood or stone to an idol worshiper.
    Anything can be a god, to anyone......but there is an all-powerful being and that is what I am refering to as God.
    In the military, in order to have authority, you must also be under authority.....to be in the "chain of command".
    The same is true in the kingdom of God.
    But the human spirit, your "self" is contaminated.
    You must be born of a seed, a gene, a spirit that is incorruptible by nature, feed this nature what It needs to develop and mature within you, and strive against your old nature to have this victory over one's self.
    You've heard "your you're own worst enemy", and the "devil" you claimed I thought you were, has in fact a hold on all of us through our own flesh and the senses, not only of body but mind as well.
    The bible as well as being the Word of God, is a weapon, a manual of instuction in spiritual warfare, and without it you have no chance in this day.
    There is a war going on right now, and your on one side or the other whether you know it or not.
    Jesus said; Who's not for me, is against me..........
    Here's a non-bible quote for you..........If you chose not to decide, you still have made a choice."
    I believe Mr. Pert was talking about not serving any God or Government, but the truth of the statement remains the same.
    Now, if you don't even realize this battle exists, you have been "compromised", blinded by the God of this world, and no amount of education will alow you to reason your way out of that darkness.
    The God of this present world system, you used the term "devil", has reasoning powers well beyond that of mortal man, and without the Spirit of God.....you will never see the flaw in it.
    I've said this as simply as I know how........if you can put aside the format of debate for just a moment, let me ask you, is there any of what I've just said you can agree with........?
    I hope so.
     
  19. wesmorris Nerd Overlord - we(s):1 of N Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,844
    It wasn't my intent to brag, nor claim authority. I was just trying to put it in a way you could understand. I'm extremely bright regarding certain things, and I'm very average regarding others. I don't need to tell you, I simply mentioned it because it came up. Perhaps "level" was the wrong word, though it seemed nuetral enough to me. I simply mean that you clearly do not understand what I understand. That doesn't necessarily mean I'm smarter.

    Almost everything I've seen you write was based on the bible. That is not a fundamental truth observable to nature, but a book. A book written by people in an attempt to comprehend and control their environment.

    Were you under the impression that I had misunderstood those words? Maybe you just needed to remind yourself what they mean? Ah, maybe you were tryign to show me that you know what that mean. I see you posted the definitions... and .... (giggle) then you show explicitely that you have no clue what they mean:

    You sir, are a little bible-centric and clearly almost entirely incapable of independent thought. Of course I always gotta say - maybe it's just me.

    It's all in the fingers really.

    I'm just ignoring all that crap above, as it is gibberish to me.

    Yeah sure, I'm down with all that. It's toooooo true. I have the feeling though, that you don't really understand it at all. It's applicable to any scenario. It's a foundation of the concept of "instant destiny" as I see it. I think it's a wise observation about opportunity cost really.

    That was in the song, but I'm not sure that's specifically what he meant - I can't remember the context for sure, and I'm not sure that the context limits the merit of the comment anyway. It really is an excellent observation about opportunity cost and "the quest for that which is subjectively good".

    ... and then you just go back to gibberish. I see little point to debate with you.

    I agree with the neal pert line, yah. Besides that you're just spewing bible crap. I don't care about it. You set up some war and all kinds of garbage you've 'learned' but shown zero tendency to quesiton the validity of any of it, or draw any rational conclusion from any of it (of course just my opinion). Spew on, but your dogma just makes you look useless to me. I want to think, to debate, to use my gifts to comprehend. You want to preach. Given my stated goal, you offer nothing. Despite that, I do like you, as I think you are a well-intended, though tragically retarded person.

    You got it then, probably less than what you wanted. I know you think you've got a point - but I'm not lying when I tell you it's gibberish and you're unwilling to consider that possibility so I reach the conclusion that we're at an impass.
     
    Last edited: Feb 18, 2004
  20. P. M. Thorne Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    574
    KAT: Yet you haven’t been able to refute my statement that the god concept is just a fantasy, but wait – you also speak with all-knowing certainty since you state in your message – I do not believe there that God is. I know it.

    That is correct.

    KAT: I wonder - do you have equal difficulty understanding how you can speak with such authority?

    None whatsoever.

    KAT: But therein lies a real problem for you because you must be wrong since I know with certainty that there is NO God.

    I submit that you do not know anything for a certainty. You only think you have proven a negative, but you have simply failed to prove to yourself that God is.

    KAT: Ok I understand you are not a scientist but you should make an effort to understand something about the scientific method, especially in a SCIenceForums such as this.

    Oh, you mean subjects like Religion, General Philosophy, Eastern Philosophy and scientific things like that.

    KAT: Be very sure that strings have not yet been discovered.

    I will go with they have not been proven as theorized, how’s that?

    KAT: Being pompous and arrogant proves only that you have not lived long enough to realize how little any of us know for sure.

    It is ultimately foolish to assume that scientists necessarily gained their disbelief through their scientific experiences. Did it occur to you that at least some of them might have been non-believers before they became scientists? You seem to be atheistic, and I would assume that you are no scientist.

    No hard feelings, but you left me little choice. PMT
     
  21. P. M. Thorne Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    574
    Oops, Kat, sorry, looks as though I gave you credit for my statement. Consider this a retraction, but you would probably agree, right? If not, sorry again! My bad. PMT
     
  22. Katazia Black Mamba Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    743
    PMT,

    I make no effort to prove a negative concerning God anymore than I attempt to prove that triple headed pink dragons do not exist – neither has any credibility or are worthy of serious thought. And neither can I fail at something which I have not attempted; it is the task of religionists to prove there is a god and as yet you have all failed.

    As you rightly point out this was not my statement but yours.

    The practice of good science generally means sound logic, e.g. an aptitude and ability to think clearly and logically. This necessarily leads most scientists away from the illogic of religion.

    Note that I have never made any blanket statements here in this context regarding all scientists. What was your point?

    Kat
     
  23. Silverback Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    213
    Interesting thread, and it even includes a Neal Peart quote (Peart, with an A).

    Still, after 16 pages, no one from the Xian camp steps forward with any evidence other than personal subjective comments like "I believe it to be true, thus it is true".
     

Share This Page