Bravo MysterEcks! A man of my own heart! I think of Atheism as being the new religion. They act like science is an unbreakable law. Shit, we don’t even know what science is yet. We don’t know half of what there is to know, and they’re making assumptions about universe. Their faith is just as blind as the others. A blind man insulting another blind man’s lack of insight.
[quote]
First, atheism is not a religion, it’s a philosphical postion. Can we prove God does not exist? Of course not, but we can say that since there is no convincing evidence for theism, there is no reason not to be atheist.
Yes, we do know what science is: state a problem to be solved, gather data through observation and experiment, and test your hypothesis. Science and faith answer two entirely different sets of questions; science tells us how things work, and religion gives people a sense of why things work.
Science can never answer questions of a teleological nature.
They do? Funny, I thought they acted like science was a useful tool for making observations about the universe and the things in it. Whatever.
We don’t? I thought it was a system of proposing hypotheses, performing experiments, gathering and analyzing data, and rejecting or revising the hypotheses. Silly me.
How do you know? Maybe we know 64.97% of what there is to know.
I can prove that A^x+B^x+Z^x cannot be satisfied for x>3. Well, I can’t, but some other dude did.
The Bible dictates how christians think. They have absolute faith in it.
Science dictates how atheists think. They have absolute faith in it.
I call that religion. It’s a very definite belief system.
Now, if I have to compare, I’d say that atheism is better than christianity, and most other religions for that matter. Not because their ideas are better. But because their ideas aren’t quite so inclusive. Science moves forward while theology is kinda stuck since the laws were made thousands of years ago.
But I still think some people have too much faith in science. I mean, it’s entirely possible that there’s things in this world that can’t be proven scientifically. But that doesn’t necessarily mean they aren’t true.
FF, read what I wrote, read PL’s post. Religion and science are not in the same business. Religion deals with ethics, morality, and ultimate purpose of existence. Science deals with the nuts and bolts of how the universe works. Do you think the law of gravity depends on faith? Walk off a cliff and prove me wrong. Sheesh, crack a book, Freak, you are desperately in need of an education.
(Gives goboy’s head an extra beating against the screen)
Yeah, I know this. What I’m saying is that they both dictate how people think. To use your analogy, I know that walking off a cliff will cause you to fall. As does a christian, or an atheist. We just have different ideas of why he’ll fall. An atheist would say, “The mass of the planet causes it to have gravity, and therefor, you’ll fall”. A christian would say “Because god created gravity, you’ll fall.” I say “You’ll probably fall.”
My problem is that whenever I tell someone I’m not religious, they assume I’m an atheist. I’m not. I just don’t have any established beliefs.
I know what the probabilities are. I know how science works. I just don’t think it has the final say. And most of science is based on theories which may not be true. Just like judaeism is based on beliefs which may not be true.
For instance, Einstein and many others believe(d) that gravity is based on mass. That because something has more mass, there’s more gravitational force. But what if it’s the other way around? What if these points of gravity have always existed, and they have more mass because they have more gravitational force?
I would think that you would also be sure that the campers don’t have the capacity to appreciate anything right now, being dead and all.
The best we can do with tragedies is to try and learn from them. In this case, you don’t have to believe in God, or an after life, to appreciate how fragile life is.
Yeah, pretty much. I see agnosticism as the only intellectually honest position to take on the subject–otherwise, one is elevating a personal opinion to the level of High Truth. It is certainly possible to have those opinions, as I think has come out in this thread–Feynn has defined himself as an agnostic theist, whereas I myself am closer to the atheists–but we understand that they arejust opinions, rather than facts.
goboy said:
I’m going to use a legal analogy here. Atheist frequently think that since the theists can’t prove their claims, that means the atheists win the case. All well and good, as far as it goes.
But the atheists take it too far. Having disposed of theologies in general, they make an unwarranted leap of logic and conclude that means anything slightly related to the topic–such as the existence of beings more powerful than ourselves, which puny little humans might call “gods”–positively cannot exist. This is like A claiming everything is caused by infinitely small beings who we cannot see–B realizes this is silly, decides it can’t possibly be true, and therefore decides nothing he can’t see exists…which means B is going to laugh hysterically at those stupid scientists who prattle on about such things as atoms. A few centuries ago, much of the scientific community would have regarded B as a proper sceptic.
Atheists might be right–there might well not be anything out there. I’m more inclined to buy that theory than I am any gods humans have managed to think up. But I don’t *know,*and I know I don’t know…and I’ll be damned if I believe that anybody else, theist or atheist, knows either.
MysterEcks,
PLEEASe, your view REQUIRES that the theist point of veiw exists!
Had not someone accepted a line, way back when, this discussion couldn’t exist !
Damn, I just spent 5 minutes composing an answer to MysterEcks previous post … wasted
I take it you mean that if nobody had ever thought up any gods there would be no questions about whether any exist–everyone would agree that none do. That’s a “yes, but”–in order to conclude that, you have to assume something that didn’t happen, and further assume that it wouldn’t have happened under other circumstances. Unprovable (you knew I was gonna say that), and also unlikely. I think it was inevitable that early man, suffering from both high intelligence and a lack of answers, suspected there was something or someone pulling the strings. Hence theology of some sort was going to exist–not necessarily in the forms it actually took, but in some form–and hence my position on it would exist.
Besides…as Galileo said, in effect, it moves anyway, dammit. Even if you manage to postulate a theology-free world, it doesn’t actually exist. It is therefore irrelevant whether agnosticism would exist without religion–the religion showed up, and so did the agnosticism.
Hence theology of some sort was going to exist–not necessarily in the forms it actually took, but in some form–and hence my position on it would exist.
LOL,
just what the world needs, someone looking for a superstition to believe in.
When you spill salt, do you throw some over your shoulder?
Many three legged rabbits where you live ? Somehow I wouldn’t be surprised …
The 21st century has arrived, yet the dark ages have yet to release their grip on the minds of some.
Downright depressing.
Word History: An agnostic does not deny the existence of God and heaven, for
example, but rather holds that one cannot know for certain if they exist or not. The term
agnostic was fittingly coined by the 19th-century British scientist Thomas H. Huxley, who
believed that only material phenomena were objects of exact knowledge. He made up the
word from the prefix a-, meaning “without, not,” as in amoral, and the noun Gnostic.
Gnostic is related to the Greek word gnsis, “knowledge,” which was used by early
Christian writers to mean “higher, esoteric knowledge of spiritual things”; hence, Gnostic
referred to those with such knowledge. In coining the term agnostic, Huxley was
considering as “Gnostics” a group of his fellow intellectuals“ists,” as he called
themwho had eagerly embraced various doctrines or theories that explained the world
to their satisfaction. Because he was a “man without a rag of a label to cover himself
with,” Huxley coined the term agnostic for himself, its first published use being in 1870.
Nothing has a grip on your mind, does it, fredicus? That’s because it’s difficult to get a grip on something that small. (Which also explains why you’ve never found masturbation very satisfying.)
And since you apparently can’t count higher than 10 (yeah, I know, they only gave you 10 fingers) let me clue you in: the 21st Century will arrive on January 1, 2001, so it has not arrived.
But other than the fact that you aren’t very bright, can’t comprehend words, and don’t know what century you’re in, you’re nearly interesting.
My experiences on the LBMB are quickly becoming a blurred memory, so I do not recall the outcome of this theological discussion, but someone there asked and others replied something about how God gave Satan coontrol of the weather, and I do believe that some of them thought this to be true.
Now, someone here more scholarly might be able to bring up the Scripture that they used to support this idea. I am not prepared to look at that and say, “weather tragedies are not God’s fault, blame Satan,” but I sure could see somethign like that written into a spiritual text as a way to take some “blame” away from God for a common tragedy then as well as now.
Yer pal,
Satan
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Three months, one week, four days, 9 hours, 17 minutes and 10 seconds.
4095 cigarettes not smoked, saving $511.93.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 5 hours, 15 minutes.
Well, I was talking of a more ethereal lesson (e.g. Life is short; You never know when you’re going to get sucked into a tornado and catapulted 1000 yards to your death, so try and tell your husband and kids you love them before you go to sleep), but I guess if that’s all you took away from this tragedy…
Personally, if we’re talking base lessons, I’d say it’s yet another reason to stay away from Canada in July. The first, and most compelling reason, remains the deerfly.
What I fail to understand is why Christians have elevated Satan’s status to make him God’s opposite, when in Christian mythology, Satan was the leader of a band of rebel angels who were kicked out of heaven. If the Christians believe in God’s omnipotence, why are they so afraid of a fallen angel?
Wouldn’t it make more sense to believe that God allows an imperfect universe to permit free will to operate?
Taking it a step further, an omnipotent God who really cared about us could simply have never allowed a tornado to exist at all, and nobody would ever have to worry about such an attack - on campers or anyone else.
Of course, we all have Eve and Satan (not the posters, silly!) to blame for that, don’t we. :rolleyes:
Or maybe we can get that same lesson watching someone die of natural old age? I certainly got that lesson when my grandmother died at the ripe age of 98.
And all I need to do to realize that even if I make it to 98 I will still pine for another day that I can get with Drain Bead in my life is simply to remember the days without her in my life before and now.
And maybe I can get the lesson to always tell my loved ones that I love them just because it gives me joy to say it, not out of any fear that this conversation just might be my last becuse of stray tornados. And maybe the same will apply for any kids I have when (if) I have them.
But, you know, if you can only get these lessons from tragedies…
Yer pal,
Satan
TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Three months, one week, four days, 11 hours, 7 minutes and 22 seconds.
4098 cigarettes not smoked, saving $512.32.
Life saved: 2 weeks, 5 hours, 30 minutes.
So let’s assume that God exists and the bible is completely true. It would seem that this God wields a great deal of power. He can send plagues, destroy whole cities and armies, raise the dead, cure all manner of illness, etc. Quite the omnipotent bad-ass if you ask me.
So he lets Satan loose upon the world to tempt men and women and as I hear, gave him control of the weather.
I know this is pretty self evident, but there’s a HUGE difference between imagining pain and really experiencing it. If you don’t believe me, try skipping lunch and dinner today.
