|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 22, 2006 8:33 pm
(Offnote: Sorry about the long absence...)
I'm really glad to see all the debate that's been going on in my topic. It's clear to me now that this is a division among atheists as strong as the division between theistic religions. You have one camp, and another camp. This basically answers my questions.
Anyway, to respond individually:
caustic,
Thanks for the clarification of terms. I'm definitely an--as Stein puts it--atheistic agnostic. I like that better than "weak atheist".
Dathu,
Your analogy about the courts brings up an interesting issue--that reasoning could be applied to anything. Man has records that show the "evolution" of science itself. There was a time when man existed without science. Scientists presented science, and, although scientific reasoning explains most observations of reality, the theistic mantra "God did it" also, if somewhat less likely, explains our reality. You can't put theism on trial like that unless you intend to try every institution of man. Theism may be wrong until proven right, but that means science is wrong until proven right. The last time I checked, science had not yet developed a theory that explains all quantum and physical observations; therefore, science and the entire concept of logical induction from controlled observation have not been proven either.
DarthNader,
I would like to hear how you would back up your statement that god is impossible.
Sanguvixen,
I've never even heard of Star Ocean Till the End of Time...I mean, I knew that concept wasn't original, but I'd never seen it specifically written anywhere.
TheFiresOfStupid, subtleessence134, iviary, and Orichalcon,
Weak atheists/atheistic agnostics of the world, unite!
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:06 am
I see a possible error in the situation postulated in the first post. If science advanced to the point at which we can make that sort of program, then I think that the inhabitants would be wise to believe in evolution. Assuming that we are not living in a simulation, the simulation would only be a replication of the situation at that time. Assuming we are, there is no proof.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 6:19 am
DivideByZero14 Dathu,Your analogy about the courts brings up an interesting issue--that reasoning could be applied to anything. Man has records that show the "evolution" of science itself. There was a time when man existed without science. Scientists presented science, and, although scientific reasoning explains most observations of reality, the theistic mantra "God did it" also, if somewhat less likely, explains our reality. You can't put theism on trial like that unless you intend to try every institution of man. Theism may be wrong until proven right, but that means science is wrong until proven right. The last time I checked, science had not yet developed a theory that explains all quantum and physical observations; therefore, science and the entire concept of logical induction from controlled observation have not been proven either.
In science the word "fact" is taboo. This is because scientists know that no matter how certain they are in one of their theories, they could very well be proven wrong some day. This mentality is honorable, and it is adopted for a very logical reason: science is only concerned with discovering the truth. If something is not likely to be true, it is abandonded for something that is more likely to be true. However, religion says it knows the truth, and no matter how illogical, unreasonable, or completely rediculous it may seem, it demads complete submission to and belief in its claims. Science, on the other hand, is always changing, and as time has gone by, has become more and more reliable. Yes science is man made, but it is only a tool. To put science on trial would be as to put a hammer on trial and ask if it really does what it's supposed to do. Hammer one nail and the trial is over. Put science on trial and all one would have to do is a simple test. In the court scenario of science versus religion, on one side you have reasonable evidence, and on the other you have no evidance. Which do you think the court would decide. And in fact, the courts have decided, since scientifc evidance can prove a man's innocence. That shows that our legal system sees science as being more reliable that a whitnesses testamony.
True, science has not been perfected yet, therefore, as you mentioned, it has not explained some fundamentals of the universe, but as I've said, it gets closer everyday. Science has come so close to understanding the truth of our reality that we're able to manipulate matter so that we can communicate on a computer. To prove if a tool is any good is to use it. I've used science and found it to be a very reliable way of explaining reality. Therefore, I think science has proven itself to be a good and logical attempt at explaining the universe. Religion, on the other hand, has not. It only makes great claims and offers no real evidance.
So what is a thinking man to do? Accept the possibility of a story, or embrace a method that has already given him so much? I still see no reason to doubt the integrity science, and an endless sea of reasons to doubt religion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 29, 2006 2:25 pm
Dathu So what is a thinking man to do? Accept the possibility of a story, or embrace a method that has already given him so much? I still see no reason to doubt the integrity science, and an endless sea of reasons to doubt religion. So, basically, science always is on trial, like I said. Awesome explanation, Dathu. And, if anyone doubts it, I am all about science. (Just check out my dream labcoat!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 6:37 pm
Scientific advance and liberalism have been the only prevailing trends through more than half a century of human history, other than evolution, as far as I can tell.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 1:07 am
DivideByZero14 Alright, hyptothetical-ness over. In that situation, would they not be correct? They were indeed created by something on what could be called a higher plane then themselves. Although he has no involvement in their development, he is watching.No, they would be correct in their assumptions. But yet, according to the Christians, every right thing we do, everything we are good at, and ultimatley our lives are all thanks to God. To them, he has a very significant part in our developement. Last time I went to church, someone in front of me said, "God sure as blessed you with a wonderful voice." I disagree; I had to work to get my voice how it is now... but I am a little off track now.
How could they be sure that he has no involvement in their developement? If they believe in him, for all they know he could be the reason they all are how they are right now. DivideByZero14 THEREFORE, I POSTULATE THAT one must acknowledge the infinitesimal, minute, super-duper remote chance that there is a God. I reason that most of us do not claim that the existence of a God or gods is impossible, but that it is just plain stupid to assume that as fact with no evidence. Not everyone HAS to think that there could be a god or higher being. Alot of people have beliefs that there is, beyond a doubt, one, and others have the speculation that there could be one.
I do believe that there is that small chance that there could be a higher being. I have seen some things that cannot be explained happen. So, there is, to me, a small chance that there could be a higher being, but not everyone does. DivideByZero14 Don't get me wrong. If I am an agnostic, then I am the most atheistic agnostic possible. I believe, I think, I really hope that there is no God, but, for the same reason I can't say that there is, I cannot say that there isn't. No rant on this statement, I just want to say that I like how you put that. 3nodding DivideByZero So, being a true atheist requires the leap of faith that this one chance just isn't the way it went down. And since "leaps of faith" are irrational, illogical, and scientifically unsound, that makes them no better than the theists themselves. They are not scientifically unsound. Scientists use "leaps of faith" a lot. For example, what if Darwin had not had a "leap of faith" that evolution was correct? He had faith that it was and continued through using the scientific method to justify his faith.
They are only irrational and illogical if you cannot justify them. You have faith every time you sit in a chair. Without a thought, you sit and have faith that the chair is going to hold your weight. Now, sometimes your faith can be broken. But that is only after you sit and USE your faith. That is when you discover if your faith was justified or betrayed. DivideByZero14 I urgently need commentary on this! Please consider your argument carefully. This has been bugging me, and, despite my lifelong claims, I fear I truly am agnostic. You may be, but then so may I. I have said that I am an atheist, yet after reading this and thinking, I can see that I be agnostic. You can always find someone who is agnostic and talk to them. Maybe if you talk to one, you can see if you believe with them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 2:56 am
Yami_Ichi Not everyone HAS to think that there could be a god or higher being. Alot of people have beliefs that there is, beyond a doubt, one, and others have the speculation that there could be one. Well, those people are wrong. xp Yami_Ichi I do believe that there is that small chance that there could be a higher being. I have seen some things that cannot be explained happen. So, there is, to me, a small chance that there could be a higher being, but not everyone does. I don't think there is a small chance of a God because of some "miracles", a.k.a. magic tricks, but because the existence of a God completely uninvolved in our world would be undetectable, and is a possibility that cannot be ignored. Yami_Ichi No rant on this statement, I just want to say that I like how you put that. 3nodding Yayness! Yami_Ichi They are not scientifically unsound. Scientists use "leaps of faith" a lot. For example, what if Darwin had not had a "leap of faith" that evolution was correct? He had faith that it was and continued through using the scientific method to justify his faith.
They are only irrational and illogical if you cannot justify them. You have faith every time you sit in a chair. Without a thought, you sit and have faith that the chair is going to hold your weight. Now, sometimes your faith can be broken. But that is only after you sit and USE your faith. That is when you discover if your faith was justified or betrayed. I'm going to have to disagree quite a bit from this. First off, scientists do not make leaps of faith. A leap of faith means inferring a conclusion without making any tests or verification. Scientists hypothesize, and then verify, but religions just leap to a conclusion based on "faith". If we did this in science, then we would still be in the Dark Ages because nothing would work. Yami_Ichi You may be, but then so may I. I have said that I am an atheist, yet after reading this and thinking, I can see that I be agnostic. You can always find someone who is agnostic and talk to them. Maybe if you talk to one, you can see if you believe with them. I think I'm in with the "weak atheist"/atheistic agnostic camp.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 5:02 pm
DivideByZero14 Well, those people are wrong. xp Hehe. Nice. xd DivideByZero14 I don't think there is a small chance of a God because of some "miracles", a.k.a. magic tricks, but because the existence of a God completely uninvolved in our world would be undetectable, and is a possibility that cannot be ignored. Contradiction? You say that you may believe and now you say that you don't. xp
[I am not trying to make you sound stupid or anything here if you think I am... sweatdrop ] Heck yesss, Techno... Dun ask... mad P: DivideByZero14 I'm going to have to disagree quite a bit from this. First off, scientists do not make leaps of faith. A leap of faith means inferring a conclusion without making any tests or verification. Scientists hypothesize, and then verify, but religions just leap to a conclusion based on "faith". If we did this in science, then we would still be in the Dark Ages because nothing would work. Ahh... I can see where I was wrong in that one. I thank you very much for giving me insight on that... *Takes notes* xp DivideByZero14 I think I'm in with the "weak atheist"/atheistic agnostic camp. You don't seem like a "weak atheist" to me, just someone who has some questions that they need answered.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 15, 2006 10:36 pm
DivideByZero14 ( TheFiresOfStupid, subtleessence134, iviary, and Orichalcon,Weak atheists/atheistic agnostics of the world, unite! ^_^ Lyxdexics of the world UNTIE! rofl Edit: please for the love of ninjas, people, get that joke...PLEASE!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Apr 15, 2006 11:01 pm
TheFiresOfStupid DivideByZero14 ( TheFiresOfStupid, subtleessence134, iviary, and Orichalcon,Weak atheists/atheistic agnostics of the world, unite! ^_^ Lyxdexics of the world UNTIE! rofl Edit: please for the love of ninjas, people, get that joke...PLEASE! Dahaha. I talk about being "lysdexic", and people just look at me funny. {{e-hugs}} You're amazing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2006 9:34 am
TheFiresOfStupid Lyxdexics of the world UNTIE! I have the most annoying math teacher who blames all his problems on not being diagnosed as dyslexic until college. I'm sorry, but he has totally eliminated all humor from this disorder for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2006 1:10 pm
If you look at it that way, I suppose you're right.
But then no-one can be a 'true' atheist? Because there is no evidence that there definatly (sp?) isn't a god.
I think that the idea of being an 'atheist' is about opinion rather than fact.
It is our opinion that there is no god, and we believe in alternative evidence about how the world was created (e.g. evolution rather than creationism).
I don't know if that's really clear, but that's the best way I can explain it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 16, 2006 5:55 pm
Muaethia If you look at it that way, I suppose you're right.
But then no-one can be a 'true' atheist? Because there is no evidence that there definatly (sp?) isn't a god.
I think that the idea of being an 'atheist' is about opinion rather than fact.
It is our opinion that there is no god, and we believe in alternative evidence about how the world was created (e.g. evolution rather than creationism).
I don't know if that's really clear, but that's the best way I can explain it. Works for me. It is my opinion that there is no God, but I have no facts to prove that there isn't, so my opinion is flexible. I am, though, curious about why evolution is "alternative evidence". (P.S.: "definitely")
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 12:46 am
TheFiresOfStupid DivideByZero14 Imagine this hypothetical situation. A man develops a computer and the software to run a simulation complex enough to emulate a universe similar to ours. All of the physical laws are identical. This simulation would treat the universe simply as a collection of particles and their properties. (In other words, it's not like some grand game of Age of Empires; it's a basic mathematical recreation of our reality.) In this simulation, simulated life comes to be on one of the simulated planets. Eventually, some of the simulated life evolves to have self-awareness. Some of the simulated organisms explain the world around them by citing a creator, a higher being. Alright, hyptothetical-ness over. In that situation, would they not be correct? They were indeed created by something on what could be called a higher plane then themselves. Although he has no involvement in their development, he is watching. THEREFORE, I POSTULATE THAT one must acknowledge the infinitesimal, minute, super-duper remote chance that there is a God. I reason that most of us do not claim that the existence of a God or gods is impossible, but that it is just plain stupid to assume that as fact with no evidence. Don't get me wrong. If I am an agnostic, then I am the most atheistic agnostic possible. I believe, I think, I really hope that there is no God, but, for the same reason I can't say that there is, I cannot say that there isn't. So, being a true atheist requires the leap of faith that this one chance just isn't the way it went down. And since "leaps of faith" are irrational, illogical, and scientifically unsound, that makes them no better than the theists themselves. I urgently need commentary on this! Please consider your argument carefully. This has been bugging me, and, despite my lifelong claims, I fear I truly am agnostic. Its the fine line between Weak Atheism and Strong Atheism. Weak Atheism is partially agnostic with a strong leaning towards there not being a God. They simply see it as very unlikely, but refuse to point to it as an irrefutable fact. After all there isn't actually any real proof against the existance of a diety and/or dieties. A Strong Atheist is the one that requires faith. They point to the concept of God and state, "I know this does not exist." But since there is no proof for or against, them knowing that is not scientific, it is faith based. And therefore on the same level as religion. sidenote: (There is a difference between pure Agnosticism and Agnosticism with Leanings. With a leaning, you think that a certain set of beliefs is very likely, however you agnostically admit that you could be very wrong and that you don't truly know.) Rehash of my old post. In case you don't know, I'm Fires and my old account got banned. But yeah, only Strong Atheism requires faith, wherein they are actually specifically denying the existance of a certain diety. Weak Atheism, or Agnostic with Atheistic Leanings doesn't require faith at all. It acknowledges the possiblities and merely sees the possibility of a God or Goddess existing to be one of the more silly ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon May 01, 2006 12:47 am
I'm so glad people understood the Lyxdexia joke.
^_^
p.s. this is Fires...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
