As far as I know, there is only one essential definition of atheist and it is self evident: atheists are a-theistic. There are many definitions of agnosticism: my own is that I don't care if there are gods or not because they have nothing to do with my life and apparently have nothing to do with humanity in general or, as far as I can tell, nothing to do with our universe. I agree with hubby, though: there is no evidence of their existence outside of human imagination. But, that doesn't matter to me either.
The Atheist Holy War
- Thread starter s_lone
- Start date
Spade, reminds me of a funny but true story I read a few years ago. In a small village in Italy there was a statue of Virgin Mary in the village square and the statue had a necklace around its neck.
One day all of a sudden the necklace started to move. There was a big commotion in the village square, there were cries of ‘miracolo, miracolo’. Some of the more devout women actually fainted, swooned with ecstasy.
The explanation alas, was much more prosaic. There was a thief hiding behind the statue and he was trying to steal the necklace. When he couldn’t unclasp the necklace, he started shaking it, hoping to break it and make away with it.
Alley, eyewitness testimony accounts for nothing. People can be easily fooled, even intelligent, educated people. Eyewitness accounts tend to be very unreliable.
If somebody claims to having seen a miracle, my question always is, can a magician duplicate the so called ‘miracle’? Magicians are the ultimate in illusion, trickery. If the answer is yes, the whole thing is nonsense as far as I am concerned.
Assuming you are qualified to speak for everyone else again, I see. Sad.
From Princeton U. Press: "
- a religious orientation of doubt; a denial of ultimate knowledge of the existence of God;
- the disbelief in any claims of ultimate knowledge"
"the view that absolute truth or ultimate certainty is unattainable, especially regarding knowledge not based on experience or perceivable phenomena; the view that the existence of God or of all deities is unknown, unknowable, unproven, or unprovable; doubt, uncertainty, or skepticism regarding .... "
and so on and so forth.
[SIZE=-1]apathetic agnosticism strong agnosticism weak agnosticism hard agnosticism pragmatic agnosticism positive agnosticism empirical agnosticism negative agnosticism[/SIZE]
Not quite true, alley. According to the String Theory, the origin of the universe, the Big Bang is a regular occurrence. According to the theory, there are countless big bangs going on all around us all the time, in ten dimensions (according to String Theory, universe has ten dimensions, we live in only three of those).
So if String Theory is true, Big Bang is not a unique occurrence any more.
I'd prefer to be like Pepe Le Pew, when in doubt, don't lets pray .... let's SPRAY.
What I DID say was "True atheists accept whatever evidence comes along even if it interferes with impressions they had before. Then they adjust their views accordingly. Deists/theists state there is a god or are gods and do not require any evidence and are not very accepting of anything that contadicts their views about what they believe."
IOW, IMO atheists are more open to others' valid points than theists. (Valid points being those that are supported by independent and impartial info.
IOW, IMO atheists are more open to others' valid points than theists. (Valid points being those that are supported by independent and impartial info.
That's not what a circular argument is. A circular argument is when the proposition your attempting to prove is assumed implicitly.
It would help if you would at least get on board with the rest of us and acknowledge that the truth simply is the truth. That either God exists or God doesn't exist.
Well, your wrong. Because for God to be the universe the universe would have to be infinite. And SCIENCE OVERWHELMINGLY tells us that the universe is not infinite. The law of entropy tells us that the universe is like a running car. Its running, but the gas tank will eventually empty.
How about one viewpoint disagreeing with the other, that would be accurate.
And, since it's she and I, and she and I are not argueing back and forth, perhaps
we understood each other, and let it go at that.
You didn't read my post refuting Hume!
When you witness your golf buddy or even yourself score a hole in one - DO YOU DENY IT???
I know you live in relative reality, but please don't say yes!!!
Last edited:
He had a good case against miracles, yet there's no denying that we are here in EXISTENCE, the very first miracle. God said "be" and all time, space, and matter exploded!
Last edited:
Then I demand to see what evidence man has for this "theory". How did they come with the number ten?
Actually a circular argument is circular. You do argue in circles.
For instance, from Wiki;
Mr. A. "Do you believe in god?"
Mr. B. "YES"
Mr. A. "Why do you believe in god?"
Mr. B. Because it is written in the Bible.
Mr. A. "Why do you believe the Bible?"
Mr. B. "Because the Bible is the word of god"
Or;
"How do you know that it is a 5 million year old fossil?"
"Because it is in a 5 million year old rock". And they defend the age of the rock with that of the fossil.
Or;
"There isn't a problem with the rule, because if everyone obeyed it there wouldn't be a problem."
Why? I'm not going to climb aboard that trolley either. I don't care if gods exist or not because if they exist they apparently don't care about anything here.
Perhaps you might do a little reading. For one thing entropy is actually the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Entropy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Secondly, any views about the universe being finite or infinite are guesses : ESA - Space Science - People - Is the Universe finite or infinite? An interview with Joseph Silk
Thanks Anna. I was out tonight trying to have a life outside of this forum.8OActually a circular argument is circular. You do argue in circles.
For instance, from Wiki;
Mr. A. "Do you believe in god?"
Mr. B. "YES"
Mr. A. "Why do you believe in god?"
Mr. B. Because it is written in the Bible.
Mr. A. "Why do you believe the Bible?"
Mr. B. "Because the Bible is the word of god"
Or;
"How do you know that it is a 5 million year old fossil?"
"Because it is in a 5 million year old rock". And they defend the age of the rock with that of the fossil.
Or;
"There isn't a problem with the rule, because if everyone obeyed it there wouldn't be a problem."
Why? I'm not going to climb aboard that trolley either. I don't care if gods exist or not because if they exist they apparently don't care about anything here.
You did a better job of explaining this than I could have.
Science is at a loss to state that the universe is either infinite or not infinite. Even philosophy has never managed to solve this issue.
As far as I understand it there's nothing in the Big Bang theory that states there was necessarily nothing before the explosion that started it all. And I'm pretty sure most scientists would say you don't get explosions out of nothing.
With a little imagination, it's quite easy to see how our ''universe'' could be but one little speck of a much larger network of ''universes''. You're deluding yourself in thinking only the traditional Christian concept of God can explain the Big Bang.
Well, that certainly explains everything, without actually illuminating anything. Hume's case against miracles still stands. There's a good summary of it here. You haven't refuted it at all, you've misrepresented it and refuted that, the straw man fallacy.
How do you figure that our existence here is a miracle? There are perfectly satisfactory explanations for how we got here that don't involve any supernatural interventions in the normal order of things. That idea, the "normal order of things," lies at the heart of Hume's argument. And "the very first miracle?" If our existence is miraculous, why isn't the existence of any other living creatures similarly miraculous?