Atheism makes you smart, but don't take my word for it...

#201
#201
for all the atheists... since you don't believe in God, do you feel more or less of a need for physical proof of the origins of the universe and/or life?

If you believe there is no God, does it relieve you of wondering about it or not? Just curious.
 
#203
#203
OrangeEmpire said:
So........ you are pre trib then?

One of those United States christians where nothing bad will happen to you?

:p
Click to expand...

I did not say that YOU were misinterpreting it, now DID I?

As for nothing bad happening to me...the last few years ot Tenn football have been pretty terrible.
 
#206
#206
Daddy Gee said:
for all the atheists... since you don't believe in God, do you feel more or less of a need for physical proof of the origins of the universe and/or life?

If you believe there is no God, does it relieve you of wondering about it or not? Just curious.
Click to expand...

I like this question Daddy Gee, and would also like to see some responses.
 
#207
#207
in light of Matthew 24, there will be false prophets and false Christs... if the atheists require proof, then will "proof" (supernatural acts) from the false Christs lead them in the wrong direction?

verse 24..
24For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Click to expand...
 
#208
#208
Daddy Gee said:
I would be interested to hear what the Darwinists/atheists/agnostics think the 4 or 5 most compelling facts are that support their stances..
Click to expand...

personally i think it's arrogant to say for sure there isn't a god and to say for sure there is a god. i don't know one way or another and that is why i'm agnostic. i don't begrudge others for their beliefs, but certainly i'm no fan of organized religion (this from years of catholic school i'm sure).
 
#209
#209
droski, it's fascinating to me.. I mean, we're the most advanced form of life (as far as we know) and we will never come close to understanding completely life or the universe...

the infinity that is the universe is also amazing... it defies anything else that we know... everything in our world has to be "contained" in something... in what is the universe contained... what is beyond the last star?
 
#211
#211
droski said:
personally i think it's arrogant to say for sure there isn't a god and to say for sure there is a god. i don't know one way or another and that is why i'm agnostic. i don't begrudge others for their beliefs, but certainly i'm no fan of organized religion (this from years of catholic school i'm sure).
Click to expand...

+1, although I never attended Catholic school.
 
#213
#213
On a scale of 1 to 10, 1 being absolutely certain there is a God and 10 being absolutely certain there isn't a God, I am probably a 9.8. But if we have to say that said God is defined by one of the major world religions I am definitely a 10.

I guess technically one could call me an agnostic because I am leaving open the possibility, but given the reasons behind there being a God I think "Atheist" is probably the best descriptor for me. I don't necessarily agree with the term "Atheist" anyway. We don't have a term for a non-alchemist or non-astrologer so I don't see a need for a term describing a non-belief in God.

I appreciate and respect VBH's opinion on this, and things like the common thread to define the unknown throughout human history is interesting and worthy of consideration, but IMHO it doesn't have the legs when stacked against everything else in this debate.

And FWIW, I had a Catholic education throughout grade school and attended seminary classes in the mornings during high school. Believe it or not I was once very fervent in my Christian faith. Nothing bad ever happened to me, I wasn't abused, and I generally liked learning the Bible. I was just one of those guys that asked more questions than usual and gradually became disillusioned by the whole story with the more I learned. I have read every word of the Bible from front to back (which is more than what most atheists...and surprisingly most Christians I have met can say).

So anyway, that is where I am coming from with all this. Just so everybody knows, I am never out to offend anyone, but at the same time I am not going to mince my words either. I'm of the opinion that religion should be no different than politics around here. If your easily offended when someone makes a comment about something you strongly believe in you probably shouldn't be looking at this forum.
 
#214
#214
droski said:
personally i think it's arrogant to say for sure there isn't a god and to say for sure there is a god. i don't know one way or another and that is why i'm agnostic. i don't begrudge others for their beliefs, but certainly i'm no fan of organized religion (this from years of catholic school i'm sure).
Click to expand...

I just don't see how that is arrogant. We are, of course, fallible thinkers. Our reason is limited; nobody would deny this. However, we can and must have a conception of practical truth and falsity. We should also bear this in mind when attaching labels of theist and atheist as well. As was mentioned earlier, it becomes much easier to disprove God's existence when talking of any particular dogmatic conception. However, we can still say a little bit about deistic conceptions as well.

We currently have absolutely zero proof for the existence of God, and many scientific/philosophical questions and arguments that cast doubt on the possibility. So, it isn't exactly like belief in the Christian god (or even a deistic creator) is a veridically neutral concept.

I know of no agnostic who claim to be agnostics about the existence of Big Foot, unicorns, life on Mars, or to be cliche, Zeus. Well, no sane agnostics. For some reason they all seem to hold to some kind of 'knowledge = absolute certainty' epistemology when talking about the Christian god, but revert back to 'knowledge is practical surety' when talking about all other obscene hypotheses.
 
#215
#215
OrangeYankee said:
The one thing I don't understand in all of this endless debate is this....

Creation and the Origins of Life itself has not been solidly proven, but why is it if someone veers off the "Academically" approved path and talks of Intelligent Design in any facet they are run off and crucified? I mean it's been pretty much agreed upon by both sides (in this debate at least) that there is no ABSOLUTE proof either way. So why not just express both sides and give them both equal merit? At the end of the day those two points are pretty much philosophical in nature. Really... think about it. At the end of the day as far as scientific progress and development does it really matter HOW everything got started? Yet we have the second crusades and inquisition going on right now and so much energy and resources being waisted with all the bickering. We have cancer to cure, planets to colonize (and exploit :naughty: ), and other advancements. Let's focus on that instead of who's right.
Click to expand...

Well, there is a massive difference in the two. One conception of the origins of the universe is grounded in the (necessary for any work in science) basis of materialism and evidentialism. Another conception of the universe is entirely non-falsifiable, and is operating outside of any framework that is suitable for scientific work.

Work in ID is work of trying to find a way of justifying faith - the basic idea of a designer is outside of even their strange methodology. All that it can do is say "look, you have a gap in your theory right now" or "look, I can kind of present data that is not entirely incompatible with a creator". But, in the end, the relevant difference is that ID just cannot be proven right or wrong, that any errors that can be shown in it are philosophical, and that it lacks the experimental validity of true science. It has no hope for progress, and doing the whole "meh, I can't understand it now, so it is magic!" shtick just doesn't work for me, and nor does it work for our school system.
 
#216
#216
volinbham said:
Of course this is an evidence requirement for a specific conceptualization of a Creator.

It's equivalent to me saying I'll believe the Big Bang when you can recreated it in a lab all the way to the formation of life.

The absence of these evidences is pretty much assured thus neither side concedes the possibility of the other's view.

We see evidence all around us that COULD be explained via a Big Bang theory or an intelligent design. The lens through which we view evidence and the rules we assign before it can be viewed as evidence shape how we look at said evidence.

It's a stalemate that is inherent in competing belief systems with often conflicting rules.
Click to expand...

No, it is not! It is, even under the most convoluted logic, only a stalemate in the present. The big bang theory (I love that we use Christian terms for these things still) is falsifiable. It can be proven false by work in the sciences.
 
#217
#217
turambar85 said:
No, it is not! It is, even under the most convoluted logic, only a stalemate in the present. The big bang theory (I love that we use Christian terms for these things still) is falsifiable. It can be proven false by work in the sciences.
Click to expand...

You're funny at least.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#218
#218
turambar85 said:
No, it is not! It is, even under the most convoluted logic, only a stalemate in the present. The big bang theory (I love that we use Christian terms for these things still) is falsifiable. It can be proven false by work in the sciences.
Click to expand...

Ah, falsifiability - the core of all that is...
 
#220
#220
MG1968 said:
since when is "Big Bang Theory" a "Christian term"?
Click to expand...

I wondered that myself, No where in Christianity is the Big Bang taught as doctorine, I believe it goes more along the lines of, In the beginning God created......nothing about a big bang! I must have missed that part!
 
#221
#221
MG1968 said:
since when is "Big Bang Theory" a "Christian term"?
Click to expand...

Term made by Christians. Well, deists. Hoyle named it, and there is reason to believe it was dismissively done. And, regardless, the name is not in the least scientific.

I was just alluding to how atheist, big bang hypothesis, and darwinism are terms created by those that are either outside of the scientific community, or by those who disagree with the work done. It's just interesting that so many still continue to use them. Nothing more.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top