That is not Atheism.
To elaborate:
A person that is 10% sure that God exist/90% sure God does not exist is not a theist or atheist in any way.
Last edited:
Is Atheism Unscientific?
- Thread starter th.w.heller
- Start date
- Status
To elaborate:
A person that is 10% sure that God exist/90% sure God does not exist is not a theist or atheist in any way.
Q: Is Atheism unscientific?
A: No.
A: No.
jpappl
sorry for the late reply
just dug this one up now
Its not clear on what means you determine that man-made process somehow exist independent from god (IOW, what scope do we have for independence?)
So I guess the real question is whether you know how to apply yourself to determining the validity of claims in theism and also whether you are actually willing to apply yourself.
Well?
????
infact the very nature of the claim of macro-evolution is beyond the purview of empiricism .... dressing it up as anything more than a theory reeks of the aroma of what you challenge religion to be composed of
sorry for the late reply
just dug this one up now
I wasn't aware that he didn't?
Its not clear on what means you determine that man-made process somehow exist independent from god (IOW, what scope do we have for independence?)
proof depends on application of a process - for instance suppose we were talking about the proof for electrons - if I just sit here and tell you how anyone involved in physics is an egg head and any books on the subject are full of crap, it probably won't be progressive.
So I guess the real question is whether you know how to apply yourself to determining the validity of claims in theism and also whether you are actually willing to apply yourself.
Well?
the idea is that it is god's consciousness that is significant, the summum bonum etc - I don't know why you would think that I am arguing that the phenomenal world is derived from our consciousness ....
whenever you are ready to apply yourself and drop that huge chip you have on your shoulder .....
thats a cause?
????
there is no evidence for macro-evolution
infact the very nature of the claim of macro-evolution is beyond the purview of empiricism .... dressing it up as anything more than a theory reeks of the aroma of what you challenge religion to be composed of
Lix,
"I'm not trying to tell you that you have to do anything."
"You can take whatever position you want."
"What makes you think I am trying to tell you that you HAVE to hold any left right middle particular position?"
"You have ONLY three choices, and you can take ONLY one:
1. 100% certainly True
2. 100% certainly False
3. Uncertain/Unknown"
Oh no. Your not trying to tell me what I can think are you. Did you read what you wrote above.
I choose number 42, I don't believe god exists but I can't prove it. And neither can you.
I am an atheist/agnostic or reverse it I don't care but you simply don't get it.
Let me ask you a question so that maybe you will understand, I am assuming since you have an issue with the atheist agnostic position that you are a theist, no big deal.
Lets imagine I was able to prove to you something that would QUESTION your belief in god or a god. Again, imagine here. I create a scenario that makes you wonder if your belief is complete and full proof. Do you cease to become a theist ?
If you are 100% certain than prove it !!!! Prove there is a god.
If you can't then you are a theist/agnostic. You can't claim that knowledge but you still believe.
"I'm not trying to tell you that you have to do anything."
"You can take whatever position you want."
"What makes you think I am trying to tell you that you HAVE to hold any left right middle particular position?"
"You have ONLY three choices, and you can take ONLY one:
1. 100% certainly True
2. 100% certainly False
3. Uncertain/Unknown"
Oh no. Your not trying to tell me what I can think are you. Did you read what you wrote above.
I choose number 42, I don't believe god exists but I can't prove it. And neither can you.
I am an atheist/agnostic or reverse it I don't care but you simply don't get it.
Let me ask you a question so that maybe you will understand, I am assuming since you have an issue with the atheist agnostic position that you are a theist, no big deal.
Lets imagine I was able to prove to you something that would QUESTION your belief in god or a god. Again, imagine here. I create a scenario that makes you wonder if your belief is complete and full proof. Do you cease to become a theist ?
If you are 100% certain than prove it !!!! Prove there is a god.
If you can't then you are a theist/agnostic. You can't claim that knowledge but you still believe.
Light,
"proof depends on application of a process - for instance suppose we were talking about the proof for electrons - if I just sit here and tell you how anyone involved in physics is an egg head and any books on the subject are full of crap, it probably won't be progressive."
This is another example of you using what can be proven, over and over again with your religous belief and treating them the same, you act as if only I would try harder to believe it would make sense. It doesn't, I have weighed the two versions of where we came from and your version has been found wanting. One is a belief, the other can be shown to be real, over and over and over again.
I said,
"I'll show you the bones of millions of years of evolution which don't lead to a cause but prove your idea of a cause as BS. So I don't know what the cause is I just know yours is nonsense. ”
Your answer:
thats a cause?
No I clearly stated that it did not lead to a cause, but it proves your cause, let me expand on it is BULLSH*t.
"there is no evidence for macro-evolution"
So do you then believe in micro-evolution ?
The problem with your thinking is you are stuck in time. You can't fathom or let your mind comprehend millions of millions of years when you only get 60-80. You can't even see that we humans have already evolved in the last 500 years, now consider millions.
Macro evolution IMO is just a never ending step by minor step of micro evolution. We are only touching the tip of the iceberg of evidence which will come out to the degree that recoverable fossils will allow. In 200 years, we will have so much, and you will still have nothing but words.
I agree that we need to stay on the facts and not make leaps of faith with regards to what is claimed to be known. Some scientist do this from time to time and it is wrong. But for religions it's all day all the time.
"proof depends on application of a process - for instance suppose we were talking about the proof for electrons - if I just sit here and tell you how anyone involved in physics is an egg head and any books on the subject are full of crap, it probably won't be progressive."
This is another example of you using what can be proven, over and over again with your religous belief and treating them the same, you act as if only I would try harder to believe it would make sense. It doesn't, I have weighed the two versions of where we came from and your version has been found wanting. One is a belief, the other can be shown to be real, over and over and over again.
I said,
"I'll show you the bones of millions of years of evolution which don't lead to a cause but prove your idea of a cause as BS. So I don't know what the cause is I just know yours is nonsense. ”
Your answer:
thats a cause?
No I clearly stated that it did not lead to a cause, but it proves your cause, let me expand on it is BULLSH*t.
"there is no evidence for macro-evolution"
So do you then believe in micro-evolution ?
The problem with your thinking is you are stuck in time. You can't fathom or let your mind comprehend millions of millions of years when you only get 60-80. You can't even see that we humans have already evolved in the last 500 years, now consider millions.
Macro evolution IMO is just a never ending step by minor step of micro evolution. We are only touching the tip of the iceberg of evidence which will come out to the degree that recoverable fossils will allow. In 200 years, we will have so much, and you will still have nothing but words.
I agree that we need to stay on the facts and not make leaps of faith with regards to what is claimed to be known. Some scientist do this from time to time and it is wrong. But for religions it's all day all the time.
Light,
Wanted to explain and temper my previous words in another light. No pun intended.
The reason I approach it with you this way is because none of us knows where it all started and at this point can not be proven by anyone, for all I know your version may actually be the truth.
But so could any other of the worlds religions or none of them at all and it's something nobody yet thought of which is what I would wager on. Since we can't know only believe.
So I am not trying to be derogatory. I just don't want someone telling me how things are and will be without evidence.
The sciences are like reading a book without knowing the ending. We are still in chapter 4 or 10 or 20, depending on how many chapters are left.
I hope there are many more.
Wanted to explain and temper my previous words in another light. No pun intended.
The reason I approach it with you this way is because none of us knows where it all started and at this point can not be proven by anyone, for all I know your version may actually be the truth.
But so could any other of the worlds religions or none of them at all and it's something nobody yet thought of which is what I would wager on. Since we can't know only believe.
So I am not trying to be derogatory. I just don't want someone telling me how things are and will be without evidence.
The sciences are like reading a book without knowing the ending. We are still in chapter 4 or 10 or 20, depending on how many chapters are left.
I hope there are many more.
Repo,
"What if you feel there is a ninety nine percent chance that the god of the bible does not exist, but that there is probably no way of knowing if there is some underlying purpose to the cosmos"
Thank you. Again to the complexity and variations of the subject.
"What if you feel there is a ninety nine percent chance that the god of the bible does not exist, but that there is probably no way of knowing if there is some underlying purpose to the cosmos"
Thank you. Again to the complexity and variations of the subject.
You are completely off track. You are confusing what I am explaining about definitions with positions being defined.
3 choices are based on logic. Not me trying to tell people what they can or cannot have. I did not create logic. I am only pointing out how logic works. This has nothing to do with your position that you don't belive that God exists, and what terms YOU like use for that position.
The points I made are regarding commonly accpeted/originally intended definitions for atheism, theism, and agnosticism.
Clauses such as: "you simply don't get it" are invalid statements, and are not part of any discussion.
If you are going to post a response, try posting a response/argument/rebuttal to what I have stated. You are jumping into illegitimate conclusions on terms that for the sake of this discussion, have not been established.
I posted the following positions:
Theism
Atheism
Agnosticism
I explained what IMO are the legitimate definitions on how these terms were originally meant to be used, and currently being used. What exactly here do you disagree with? I understand you have your own terms on how you want to call yourself. The problem is when instead of discussing the definitions of these terms, you proceed with discussions on the ideas being defined under your version of definition when I have completely not agreed to them.
Lix,
"I explained what IMO"
IMO exactly.
"are the legitimate definitions"
Legitimate, only on your terms not the rest of the bleeping world.
"originally meant to be used, and currently being used".
By who ? the guy on the corner of 4th and main.
"What exactly here do you disagree with"
Everything you just said.
I have shown you the current definitions, I have shown your opinion to be just that. You have shown me nothing. You have offered nothing other than your opinion. There has to be more to validate your claims.
"under your version of definition when I have completely not agreed to them."
Well you may not completely agree to them and I am not asking you to change your beliefs, just that the definitions are far more blurred than you are allowing. Look at the scale not of 1, 2 or 3 but a number between 1-1000.
"I explained what IMO"
IMO exactly.
"are the legitimate definitions"
Legitimate, only on your terms not the rest of the bleeping world.
"originally meant to be used, and currently being used".
By who ? the guy on the corner of 4th and main.
"What exactly here do you disagree with"
Everything you just said.
I have shown you the current definitions, I have shown your opinion to be just that. You have shown me nothing. You have offered nothing other than your opinion. There has to be more to validate your claims.
"under your version of definition when I have completely not agreed to them."
Well you may not completely agree to them and I am not asking you to change your beliefs, just that the definitions are far more blurred than you are allowing. Look at the scale not of 1, 2 or 3 but a number between 1-1000.
OK, so this basically boils down to lixluke not having the mental acuity to see the issue in anything other than black and white.
It's not about certainty, Lix, because _nobody_ knows 100%, despite what they feel. That's why it's faith, not knowledge. To that end, agnosticism is a red herring.
It's not about certainty, Lix, because _nobody_ knows 100%, despite what they feel. That's why it's faith, not knowledge. To that end, agnosticism is a red herring.
I'm discussing nothing but facts. All you can do is distort the terms, and distort the meanings of IMO as if I'm not discussing fact. You're coming from a purely subjective standpoint with no objectivity on the matter.
I have laid out the facts on what atheism is defined as, and has always been defined as. You have chosen your own personal definition of atheism.
All you can do is rant about the fallacy that: just because everybody on the face of the earth is discussing their own OPINION on what they BELIEVE to be true or false, it can never be true or false. You're doing nothing but caviling with fallacies.
False.
You are the one distorting the terms. Why is it that theists accuse atheists of having belief in the non-existance?
Atheists use the term to mean a lack of belief. I'm an atheist, so don't dare tell me how I think!
Leave this discussion if you are going to continue to use primitive fallacy control freak tantrums.
I'm not telling anybody how anybody thinks. As I said 100 times, you can call yourself what you want to call yourself. Nobody is telling you to call yourself anything else. I'm simply stating the proper legitimate definition. Thus why would me stating the proper definition = I'm telling you how you think. Get real or get out.
Simply you don't understand the terms, poor boy. Got a job yet? Or haven't you managed to get the world working the way you think it should?
There are two views, you see. Reality, and yours.
jpappl
It's not me that is stuck in time.
It is empiricism.
If you want to transcend that issue and still drive home your claims, you've just left the epistemological constraints of empiricism (ie - you are speaking bullshit)
:bugeye:
if you believe from the onset that physics is a pile of bat guano, the reality of an electron will remain elusive for practically eternity ...
(sigh)
sure
the next question is whether empiricism, the very means for validating micro-evolution, can just as comprehensively investigate a span of time millions of years.
It's not me that is stuck in time.
It is empiricism.
If you want to transcend that issue and still drive home your claims, you've just left the epistemological constraints of empiricism (ie - you are speaking bullshit)
a post dated rain cheque is nothing but words
:bugeye:
appears like you should get yourself a party hat because it seems you have just joined the club
the point is that issues of theism and empiricism have entirely different epistemologies.
Calling upon empiricism to validate claims of theism is just like calling upon scripture to help you reformat your hard drive
mynameisDan
Registered Senior Member
this is an outright lie. Atheism is the belief that no God or gods exist. Consult your dictionary. Even atheists know this to be true.
"Stupid Argument #1: The etymology of the word "atheism" means "a lack of belief".
A commonly repeated error is that the word "atheism" was derived from the prefix "a-", meaning "without", and the word "theism", meaning a belief in God. Therefore they claim that "atheism" means "without a belief in God". This is incorrect because the etymology of the word "atheism" derives from the Greek word "atheos" meaning "godless". The "-ism" suffix, which can be roughly mean "belief", was added later. The etymology of the word means "godless belief" not "without a belief in gods"."
http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_2.htm
What is funny is that article uses this definition
ETYMOLOGY: French athéisme, from athée, atheist, from Greek atheos, godless : a-, without; see a–1 + theos, god; see dhs- in Appendix I.
… which contradicts their claim.
They then make the claim that "The "-ism" suffix, which can be roughly mean "belief"," which is not completely accurate. It can mean other things.
"
The -ism suffix can be used to express the following concepts:
religion or belief system (e.g. Buddhism, Mormonism, Judaism, Satanism)
doctrine or philosophy (e.g. pacifism, olympism, nihilism)
theory developed by an individual (e.g. Marxism, Maoism)
political movement (e.g. feminism, egalitarianism)
artistic movement (e.g. cubism)
action, process or practice (e.g. voyeurism)
characteristic, quality or origin (e.g. heroism)
state or condition (e.g. pauperism)
excess or disease (e.g. botulism)
prejudice or bias (e.g. racism, sexism)
characteristic speech patterns (e.g. Yogiism, Bushism)
miscellaneous (e.g. jism)
"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/-ism
Last edited:
- Status