[Harper]

Originally Posted by Berto

Wouldn't the non-existence of God also be an opinion?

I don't know if there's a standard term for this concept but I've thought about how some ideas may or may not be true but regardless in its place there is what you might call "functional truth". Let me explain, someone asked me once "What if everything we know is wrong and everything we think we know is an illusion and there's really something else controlling the universe?". You know the old 'what if we're just part of someone's imagination' type question. I thought for a second and said "Who cares, everything we understand consistently operates under repeatable laws. So if you're right then I guess it changes nothing."

And once you open the "what if anything is possible" box then I guess anything is possible. If your hypothesis isn't based on evidence or needs to adhere to logic or physics then no one else's does either.

So once you ask if a supernatural being exists, you've by definition created an unprovable problem. So does God exists in someplace we can't explore? It doesn't matter. It would be different if our understanding of physical laws relied on the existence of God but it's not like if God didn't exist our equations for momentum or electric current would have huge holes in them. Functionally, no, God doesn't exist.

[Harper]

Originally Posted by Geko45

I think most atheists here would gladly walk away from the debate if theists would stop trying to legislate their beliefs on others.

Yup.

[Gunhaver]

Originally Posted by Harper

I don't know if there's a standard term for this concept but I've thought about how some ideas may or may not be true but regardless in its place there is what you might call "functional truth". Let me explain, someone asked me once "What if everything we know is wrong and everything we think we know is an illusion and there's really something else controlling the universe?". You know the old 'what if we're just part of someone's imagination' type question. I thought for a second and said "Who cares, everything we understand consistently operates under repeatable laws. So if you're right then I guess it changes nothing."

And once you open the "what if anything is possible" box then I guess anything is possible. If your hypothesis isn't based on evidence or needs to adhere to logic or physics then no one else's does either.

So once you ask if a supernatural being exists, you've by definition created an unprovable problem. So does God exists in someplace we can't explore? It doesn't matter. It would be different if our understanding of physical laws relied on the existence of God but it's not like if God didn't exist our equations for momentum or electric current would have huge holes in them. Functionally, no, God doesn't exist.

Those "what if" scenarios are just the last ditch effort from some people to support their unsupported assertions. Pascal's wager flows here like cheap wine right along with every other flawed argument ever devised by man. No matter how many times all those arguments are shot down they keep coming back like they've never been addressed simply because that's all they have. If there was something better then someone somewhere would have brought it up and the rest would have latched onto it out of sheer desperation to present a better argument than they have been yet that never happens.

This is why a thread about atheism being a religion can go on to infinity simply because one person can't accept that his entire argument hinges on one definition in one dictionary. That's all he has so that's what he sticks with. If there was something better you can bet that he of all people would find and present it. The only other option would be to admit defeat and that's just unacceptable when you think you're fighting the devil.

[Gunhaver]

Originally Posted by Blast

Still have problems with understanding and are driven by emotional abnormalities as usual.

I am pointing out that theories have been proven right and proven wrong and that there is still much more that we have not proven and what has not been proven remains a matter of 'hope the theory is right'. Kind of like faith, huh?
Unknown till known. that simple.

Funny how you make that claim of everyone that disagrees with you as if all the people that don't line up with your way of thinking have emotional abnormalities. That seems like an emotional abnormality to me. Actually, theories have been proven wrong and theories have withstood being proven wrong. There is no proving theories right.

Originally Posted by Blast

As I said, true science understanding people understand how much we have yet to discover. A true scientist always keeps an open mind until firm evidence confirms or debunks a concept or theory.
I hope you realize the Big Bang theory is based on circumstantial evidence. That being the observed expansion.
Scientists assume that if the expansion were reversed, all matter and energy would converge to a central point... a singularity. All the math involved is based on that assumption. The laws of physics break down at the singularity.
I happen to agree with the BBT at this point because it is the most logical though it still has some problems.
But then there's M-theory. Controversial in the scientific community and has more problems than the BBT.

I'm glad that the "circumstantial" evidence was enough on it's own to convince you but I'm here to tell you that the evidence for BBT is anything but circumstantial. One of the best kinds of evidence is when you predict that if X is true then you should also be able to find Y and then you go and find Y like so,
http://www.astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/s7.htm

That's several predictions that were lead to by previous predictions and all were in fact found to be true. In order to be proven false the standard model has to be unseated by a new model that explains everything the standard model does and more. Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by Blast

Perhaps some day physicists will detect dark energy. We only know it's there because of the accelerating expansion of the universe which until 1998 scientists thought the universe would slow and contract to a big crunch. Still could if the dark energy, which composes about 74% of the universe, weakens and gravity gets the upper hand. Dark matter is about 22% and the visible about 4%.

Not having discovered dark matter yet doesn't disprove the standard model anymore than any one "missing link" disproves evolution. There is enough supporting evidence there already. And we don't "know" dark matter is there. It's just a placeholder explanation that should be true based on what we do know. It could be something else entirely. As I said, the universe operates independently of our ability to understand it.

Originally Posted by Blast

Try to keep an open mind. It does much for understanding.

Good advise that you should heed yourself, say, before posting videos of dogs humping legs and claiming it as evidence that animals act only on pheromones where sex drive is concerned yet humans are different. That one made me think that your mind may have been so open that your brain fell out and was promptly humped by a dog.

[Berto]

Interesting thoughts, guys.

[TreverSlyFox]

The one thing that I love about being a "born again" Christian is:

If I'm right and Atheists are wrong, I gain everything, Atheists loose everything.

If the Atheists are right, and I'm wrong, the Atheists gain nothing, I loose nothing.

The way I see it I'm in a Win, Win situation either way because I have nothing to loose.

It's too bad anyone has to loose anything but that is the chance you take.

[Gunhaver]

Originally Posted by TreverSlyFox

The one thing that I love about being a "born again" Christian is:

If I'm right and Atheists are wrong, I gain everything, Atheists loose everything.

If the Atheists are right, and I'm wrong, the Atheists gain nothing, I loose nothing.

The way I see it I'm in a Win, Win situation either way because I have nothing to loose.

It's too bad anyone has to loose anything but that is the chance you take.

Right on cue...

[Glock36shooter]

Originally Posted by TreverSlyFox

The one thing that I love about being a "born again" Christian is:

If I'm right and Atheists are wrong, I gain everything, Atheists loose everything.

If the Atheists are right, and I'm wrong, the Atheists gain nothing, I loose nothing.

The way I see it I'm in a Win, Win situation either way because I have nothing to loose.

It's too bad anyone has to loose anything but that is the chance you take.

How's it goin Pascal? We haven't seen you in like 10 minutes.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Gunhaver

Link no workie. The suspense is killing me.

Let's see if this one works.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by TreverSlyFox

If the Atheists are right, and I'm wrong, the Atheists gain nothing, I loose nothing.

If we are right and you are wrong then you will have spent most of your life limiting yourself to a life philosphy that was fundamentally flawed. You will have probably contributed a good deal of your income to charlatans in the form of "tithes" and denied yourself experiences and opportunities because the religious leaders you bough into told you it wasn't god's "plan" for your life.

We will have spent our one finite life making the most of it and appreciating what we have here and not wasting it looking forward to something that never comes.

[GreenDrake]

Originally Posted by Glock36shooter

How's it goin Pascal? We haven't seen you in like 10 minutes.

Thump thump thump

[Bren]

Originally Posted by TreverSlyFox

The one thing that I love about being a "born again" Christian is:

If I'm right and Atheists are wrong, I gain everything, Atheists loose everything.

If the Atheists are right, and I'm wrong, the Atheists gain nothing, I loose nothing.

The way I see it I'm in a Win, Win situation either way because I have nothing to loose.

It's too bad anyone has to loose anything but that is the chance you take.

Pascal wasn't as smart as you seem to think.

If you are right? You have to be right that, first, supernatural gods exist, then that you have picked the right one. Since most people get their religious choice as an accident of birth, that would be quite a coincidence. Then, let's say, coincidentally, that the christian god is the right one and not some god that was worshipped long before he was ever though of - you have to have also joined the right version of that religion to get into heaven. Do you have to be Jewish, Muslim, Cathoic, Protestant? Which version of any of those? each teaches that you can't get there without obeying their special rules. So assuming you weren't supposed to be sacrificing camels to Marduk or waging war for Odin, your odds of being right are pretty slim and are not accounted for in Pascal's wager.

If atheists are right and you are wrong, they gaing freedom and, pretty much, the key to all human progress - science. We are literally hundreds or thousands of years behind where we could be right now if there were more atheists and fewer religious people in our history.

If atheists are right and you are wrong, you ahve wasted your life making immoral choices based on fiction. That's worth something.

[Sarge1400]

Originally Posted by Gunhaver

Pascal's wager flows here like cheap wine right along with every other flawed argument ever devised by man.

Originally Posted by TreverSlyFox

The one thing that I love about being a "born again" Christian is:

If I'm right and Atheists are wrong, I gain everything, Atheists loose everything.

If the Atheists are right, and I'm wrong, the Atheists gain nothing, I loose nothing.

The way I see it I'm in a Win, Win situation either way because I have nothing to loose.

It's too bad anyone has to loose anything but that is the chance you take.

Oh, and slyfox, the word is 'lose', not loose.

[Japle]

Posted by AG:
Very few atheists, that I'm aware of, assert "there is no god"…

I do, in fact, make such an assertion. There are no gods. There is no Santa Claus. There is no Tooth Fairy. There is no Easter Bunny. There are no trolls hiding under bridges, waiting to attack passersby.

I don’t have to prove any of that. The complete lack of any evidence proves it for me.

[Geko45]

Originally Posted by Japle

I do, in fact, make such an assertion. There are no gods. There is no Santa Claus. There is no Tooth Fairy. There is no Easter Bunny. There are no trolls hiding under bridges, waiting to attack passersby.

I don't have to prove any of that. The complete lack of any evidence proves it for me.

Or, as I like to say it, the probability of any of those possibilities actually being true is so vanishingly small as to not be worth any serious consideration at all. No one here would suggest living your life as if you were going to be abducted by aliens tomorrow and I consider that to be several orders of magnitude more likely than the existence of a supreme deity.

[snowbird]

Geko,

Re: 'Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings'

Where did your evil Muslims get those airplanes to fly into our buildings? Did they just pick them from some bushes? Or did science create them?

The fact is, as Winston Churchill noted long ago about some other believers in evil (Nazis, but similar to Communists and Muslims), they can be assisted by the "lurid glow of perverted science".

Science is just a tool. It can be used for good or for evil. To use science for good, you need to know right from wrong, which cannot be found in any laboratory, but in the pages of the Bible.

[steveksux]

Originally Posted by Bren

If atheists are right and you are wrong, you ahve wasted your life making immoral choices based on fiction. That's worth something.

As a matter of fact, it was worth millions of dollars to Oral Roberts and the other TV preachers....

Randy

[packsaddle]

The complete lack of any evidence proves it for me.

There is a complete lack of evidence that you are intelligent. Does that prove it true, too?

If you knew anything about science, you would know that "evidence" doesn't have anything to do with "proof".

Scientific theories are supported by evidence but cannot be proven because they are necessarily falsifiable.

The bottom line is that you filter evidence through your belief systems (ideologies), as do scientists.

There are thousands of examples of scientists dismissing damaging evidence to support their ideologies, especially to acquire additional public funding for their pet projects.

This is why it is especially critical for the objective reader of science articles (and even random internet posts like yours) to separate the data from the interpretation.

For you to state there is a "complete lack of any evidence" proving something demonstrates that (a) you don't have a clue about science and (b) implies that you have examined ALL evidence (past/present/future), which you haven't, and can't, and therefore, reduces your credibility exponentially.

btw, how's your study of the philosophy of science going?

perhaps you should get started on that asap if your goal of being an objective seeker of truth is indeed sincere (which I doubt it is).

[Japle]

Posted by Packsaddle:
There is a complete lack of evidence that you are intelligent.

…… how's your study of the philosophy of science going?
perhaps you should get started on that asap if your goal of being an objective seeker of truth is indeed sincere (which I doubt it is).

As usual, the guy who has the weak position and knows it insults his opponent. Classy.

[Schabesbert]

Originally Posted by Japle

As usual, the guy who has the weak position and knows it insults his opponent. Classy.

You're being a little harsh on yourself.

[wingryder]

Originally Posted by snowbird

Geko,

Re: 'Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings'

Where did your evil Muslims get those airplanes to fly into our buildings? Did they just pick them from some bushes? Or did science create them?

So, it is your contention that Boeing aircraft are "evil"? These amazing flying machine have afforded countless millions of middle-class citizens, all over the earth, to see more of the world than most kings and rulers could dream of a century ago. You are labeling this amazing flying machine evil because some religious zealots (who believe in the SAME god you do BTW), filled with the kind of hatred that only religion can fester, used aircraft as their tool for religious martyrdom.

Explain to me again how that is the fault of science?

[Harper]

Who believes in scientist dude?
Those scientists better check their hypotenuses

YouTube (Short URL)

YouTube (Short URL)

[Blast]

Originally Posted by Gunhaver

Funny how you make that claim of everyone that disagrees with you as if all the people that don't line up with your way of thinking have emotional abnormalities. That seems like an emotional abnormality to me. Actually, theories have been proven wrong and theories have withstood being proven wrong. There is no proving theories right.




I'm glad that the "circumstantial" evidence was enough on it's own to convince you but I'm here to tell you that the evidence for BBT is anything but circumstantial. One of the best kinds of evidence is when you predict that if X is true then you should also be able to find Y and then you go and find Y like so,
http://www.astronomynotes.com/cosmolgy/s7.htm

That's several predictions that were lead to by previous predictions and all were in fact found to be true. In order to be proven false the standard model has to be unseated by a new model that explains everything the standard model does and more. Good luck with that.



Not having discovered dark matter yet doesn't disprove the standard model anymore than any one "missing link" disproves evolution. There is enough supporting evidence there already. And we don't "know" dark matter is there. It's just a placeholder explanation that should be true based on what we do know. It could be something else entirely. As I said, the universe operates independently of our ability to understand it.

Good advise that you should heed yourself, say, before posting videos of dogs humping legs and claiming it as evidence that animals act only on pheromones where sex drive is concerned yet humans are different. That one made me think that your mind may have been so open that your brain fell out and was promptly humped by a dog.

Internet trolls are so entertaining.
Emotionally driven. Immature. Clueless.
Which is why I rarely bother wasting my time with the fools in RI. Double talk, lies, and twisting truths is putting it mildly.
It's clear by your posts that you and some others here are frustrated to the point of insanity. You keep whining over and over but are accomplishing nothing except providing evidence of your emotional state. Have you considered lithium? Prozac? Valium?
You can do nothing but whine and cry on an internet forum.
Very telling that it is the same ones day after day.
Get a life.


Here ya go, since you liked them so much.

Dog Humping to Benny Hill - YouTube

Dog Humping to Benny Hill - YouTube

WELL FUNNY DOG HUMPING CAT,check out the cat watching the action..haha - YouTube

WELL FUNNY DOG HUMPING CAT,check out the cat watching the action..haha - YouTube

[Sarge1400]

Originally Posted by Blast

Internet trolls are so entertaining.
Emotionally driven. Immature. Clueless.
Which is why I rarely bother wasting my time with the fools in RI. Double talk, lies, and twisting truths is putting it mildly.
It's clear by your posts that you and some others here are frustrated to the point of insanity. You keep whining over and over but are accomplishing nothing except providing evidence of your emotional state. Have you considered lithium? Prozac? Valium?
You can do nothing but whine and cry on an internet forum.
Very telling that it is the same ones day after day.
Get a life.

I agree 100%.
Believers, Blast is callin' you out!

[Gills63]

FAITH.....You guys are working way too hard.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine