[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by G23Gen4TX

Ask the pope what he thinks. Or what god thinks.

Religions often are at odds with one another.

[ksg0245]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Ks, we will have to agree to disagree.

I'm ok with your state of denial.

What impressive condescension; your uniquely selective and in some instances flatly incorrect definitions makes me in denial? Oh, well, I guess I'm equally okay with your unrelenting disingenuousness.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Tsalrite.


To all, it's ok. No need to crack the 1800 post count, all that can be said on this subject has been said repetedly.

Thanks for the stimulating conversation, I wish you all well.

[ksg0245]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Oh, I believe each one of them when they say what they personally believe. I just point out that if they are not actively believing that a deity or deities never existed, they are using the wrong label. It's just an accurate word usage issue.

Not on your part, it isn't.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Not meant to be offensive.

Oh well. It is what it is. No big.

How many posts do you have in this thread?

[ksg0245]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Ok, answer this for me, as an atheist, would you say the universe was made, or occurred naturally?

Could you point out where in the Big Bang Theory it says anything in any manner about deities?

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by ksg0245

Could you point out where in the Big Bang Theory it says anything in any manner about deities?

It doesn't. Question is, did an intelligence light the fuse for it, or did it just happen all by itself?

What evidence would still be around that would tell you that?

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by ksg0245

Not on your part, it isn't.

Sure it is.

How many posts do you have in this thread?

Bunches and bunches.

[ksg0245]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

It doesn't. Question is, did an intelligence light the fuse for it, or did it just happen all by itself?

Unless there is evidence for an intelligence, and evidence that intelligence caused the big bang, why make unfounded assumptions?

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

What evidence would still be around that would tell you that?

Good question; got any evidence?

[ksg0245]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Sure it is.

Given all the cited definitions that contradict your claim, nope.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Bunches and bunches.

Which means it's a big enough deal to you to continue insisting everybody but you is wrong.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by ksg0245

Unless there is evidence for an intelligence, and evidence that intelligence caused the big bang, why make unfounded assumptions?



Good question; got any evidence?

Just because you like one answer more, you should not assume it to be correct based on the absence of evidence of another explanation. Anyone that has seen more than one episode of CSI can quote you that scientific ethics mantra, go where the evidence leads you. In this case, there is no evidence either way, so it is equally valid to claim that an intelligence created the universe with the big bang, as it is to claim that no intelligence was involved.

The evidence, or more accurately the complete lack of it, leads me to make no assumption at all about creation, except that something happened, and we are all where we are now, at least as best we can tell.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by ksg0245

Given all the cited definitions that contradict your claim, nope.



Which means it's a big enough deal to you to continue insisting everybody but you is wrong.

Why can't we all be right? We just disagree, that's all. It is a very interesting conversation. It's interesting that so many people can be so interested in a "non belief" that they describe as completely passive.

[ksg0245]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Just because you like one answer more,

It has nothing to do with liking one answer more; it has everything to do with evidence.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

you should not assume it to be correct based on the absence of evidence of another explanation.

You mean it shouldn't be assumed something happened naturally just because there's no evidence it didn't happen naturally?

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Anyone that has seen more than one episode of CSI can quote you that scientific ethics mantra, go where the evidence leads you. In this case, there is no evidence either way,

But that's false; there's objective, verifiable evidence things can happen without cause, and there's evidence the Universe and everything we know about it follows natural laws. There is no evidence of any supernatural or deistic intervention.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

so it is equally valid to claim that an intelligence created the universe with the big bang, as it is to claim that no intelligence was involved.

The claim isn't "no intelligence was involved;" the claim is "there is no evidence intelligence was involved."

"Intelligence was involved" isn't an equally valid claim, because there is no evidence intelligence was involved.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

The evidence, or more accurately the complete lack of it, leads me to make no assumption at all about creation, except that something happened,

That isn't an assumption, it's a conclusion based on evidence.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

and we are all where we are now, at least as best we can tell.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by ksg0245

1. It has nothing to do with liking one answer more; it has everything to do with evidence.



2. You mean it shouldn't be assumed something happened naturally just because there's no evidence it didn't happen naturally?



3. But that's false; there's objective, verifiable evidence things can happen without cause, and there's evidence the Universe and everything we know about it follows natural laws. There is no evidence of any supernatural or deistic intervention.



4. The claim isn't "no intelligence was involved;" the claim is "there is no evidence intelligence was involved."

"Intelligence was involved" isn't an equally valid claim, because there is no evidence intelligence was involved.



5. That isn't an assumption, it's a conclusion based on evidence.

1. what evidence

2. If a creator created the universe, that would be the nature of reality, and it would be natural. "Naturally" does not exclude a deity.

3. Things can happen due to causes that we do not understand. But every thing that happens, is the result of something.

4. There is also no evidence that no intelligence was involved. Hence, the choice I mentioned before.

5. Again, the lack of evidence either way proves nothing.


Atheism is a choice. But it's OK, because as far as religion goes, I am very pro-choice.

[psalms4him]

Originally Posted by ksg0245

But that's false; there's objective, verifiable evidence things can happen without cause, and there's evidence the Universe and everything we know about it follows natural laws. There is no evidence of any supernatural or deistic intervention.

Please provide more information about this "objective, verifiable evidence". I am unaware that anything more than theory suggests this, at this point. Many acausal theories have fundamental challenges in that they require time as an input and/or otherwise rely on statistical improbability to initiate particle separation. Such are far from fully-baked and the problems with them are well known.

Atoms existed for many years before people had any evidence to identify them. Infecteous diseases killed many people before their causes were understood. Not having evidence of something does not prove its non-existance. It is not unreasonable to assert that many things exist of which we have no evidence, yet.

Something that is supernatural, by definition, need not provide evidence. Trying to disprove something supernatural through natural systems is a fool's errand. This is akin to the infamous attempts to explain "left" and "right" to an exterterrestrial being without a common physical reference. You cannot prove or disprove a superior system from an inferior one.

If a crime occurs and some people witness the crime and can identify the suspect, yet a few others did not see the crime happen, can we say there was no crime? We listen carefully to the witnesses and align their testimony to the physical evidence. One group keeps changing their story as new physical evidence is discovered. If the whole case depends on evidence, and the credibility of the witnesses, how are we to believe a group that changes its story with each new issue of Scientific American?

Just some thoughts to keep the conversation lively...

[RC-RAMIE]

Originally Posted by psalms4him

Something that is supernatural, by definition, need not provide evidence. Trying to disprove something supernatural through natural systems is a fool's errand.

.

Well that makes it easy to come up with BS doesn't it




....

[Syclone538]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

FSM has a well documented origin.
...

I'm sure the following of FSM does, but if there really is a FSM I think it's origin would be far from well documented, but this has nothing to do with my question anyway.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

...
If someone wants to believe the FSM created the universe, that's ok with me.

I didn't ask what you think about people who might believe in FSM. I asked what you think about FSM. I think that it was pretty clear and you are intentionally not answering the question.

So, are you atheist or agnostic towards FSM? Both? Neither?

[Gunhaver]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Cosmology is cool. But is there anything that proves a deity was not involved? We can look at samples from nearby objects and the electromagnetic spectrum, what else is used as evidence in cosmology?

That's not how it works and you know it. People have been looking for evidence of deity for as long as there's been the concept of deity and they've not found it. So you fall back on the "well you can't disprove it" argument but always ignore two very important facts, the entire concept is specifically designed to be unprovable and the burden of proof never lies with the skeptic anyway so there's no reason to take the claim seriously in the first place.

[Gunhaver]

Originally Posted by psalms4him

If a crime occurs and some people witness the crime and can identify the suspect, yet a few others did not see the crime happen, can we say there was no crime? We listen carefully to the witnesses and align their testimony to the physical evidence. One group keeps changing their story as new physical evidence is discovered. If the whole case depends on evidence, and the credibility of the witnesses, how are we to believe a group that changes its story with each new issue of Scientific American?

Consider that the crime that's claimed to have been committed is that someone used superhuman strength to break open a bank vault, something we've never seen anyone do or have any evidence is even possible. That alone would be grounds for dismissing the charges. Add to that the fact that all eye witnesses have long since died and there's no way to cross examine them so we're stuck only with hearsay from folks with a distinct self interest in passing that hearsay off as true.

As far as changing the story based on new evidence, how is that a bad thing? Is it better to just assume guilt or innocence and ignore all evidence because it took longer than you would have liked to gather and analyze it? Relevant evidence is still relevant even if it takes some time to discover it. Do you not make adjustments to your beliefs and course of actions based on new input every day? It's a pretty stupid criticism of science to claim fault in finding out new input and adjusting actions accordingly.

[G23Gen4TX]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Religions often are at odds with one another.

But if there's only one god, how hard can it be to agree?

[juggy4711]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

You forgot faith. Believing something without actual proof. The fact that it seeks to explain how the current reality came to be is what makes it fit in spirit as well as definition.

The fact is atheism isn't an explanation of anything nor does it seek to be. You are intentionally confusing atheism with science which does try to explain as much as it can. Again why is it you find the need for atheism to be a religion?

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Syclone538

I'm sure the following of FSM does, but if there really is a FSM I think it's origin would be far from well documented, but this has nothing to do with my question anyway.



I didn't ask what you think about people who might believe in FSM. I asked what you think about FSM. I think that it was pretty clear and you are intentionally not answering the question.

So, are you atheist or agnostic towards FSM? Both? Neither?

FSM originated as a parody, for the purpose of illustrating an argument. And it honestly has little to do with the fundamental question, how did we get here. My answer is the same for almost all religions. If you or someone else wants to believe, that's cool with me. If religion makes a person happy, that's great. If it makes them sad, not my problem. If it makes them violent, I might have to do something about that, or someone else might have to do something about that.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by Gunhaver

That's not how it works and you know it. People have been looking for evidence of deity for as long as there's been the concept of deity and they've not found it. So you fall back on the "well you can't disprove it" argument but always ignore two very important facts, the entire concept is specifically designed to be unprovable and the burden of proof never lies with the skeptic anyway so there's no reason to take the claim seriously in the first place.

There is no proof either way. People CHOOSE what to believe, and have faith that they are correct.

I have no proof. So why worry about if someone wants to believe a specific, but very fundamental detail about the universe. I have no problem with atheism, I am trying to show you that it is a belief based on faith.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by juggy4711

The fact is atheism isn't an explanation of anything nor does it seek to be. You are intentionally confusing atheism with science which does try to explain as much as it can. Again why is it you find the need for atheism to be a religion?

It's a belief about a very important detail of how we got here. It's a choice to believe that, and that belief would necessarily be based on faith, as ther is no proof.

[Cavalry Doc]

Originally Posted by RC-RAMIE

Well that makes it easy to come up with BS doesn't it




....

Remmber what I said about rivalry between competing religions?

[RC-RAMIE]

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Remmber what I said about rivalry between competing religions?

Your right that post fits your comments on that also.


....

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by Syclone538

I'm sure the following of FSM does, but if there really is a FSM I think it's origin would be far from well documented, but this has nothing to do with my question anyway.



I didn't ask what you think about people who might believe in FSM. I asked what you think about FSM. I think that it was pretty clear and you are intentionally not answering the question.

So, are you atheist or agnostic towards FSM? Both? Neither?

Obviously, Cavalry Doc's religion is not believing in the FSM.

He's embarrassed to admit its a religion. Or that it's his religion. Of course, he should be. On both counts. And many more, as this thread so amply demonstrates.

Randy