|
Post by necroshine on Jan 31, 2005 6:59:21 GMT -5
thank you ck what gets me is that most christens don't see it. why is that? it makes me sad. papsmearmycat doesn't see what i am talking about. i don't know why.
|
|
|
Post by Christian on Mar 13, 2005 17:21:47 GMT -5
an atheist is not a religion, it is a LACK of religion You have faith that there is no God. You ask theists to prove that God exists; well, prove that He doesn't. Prove that there was no creator, and there is no afterlife; prove that there is no beginning and no end. While you're at it, prove that we have no purpose here, and that there is no meaning to be found in the universe. Can reason prove these things? If not, I think you are a religious person who belongs to the faith called Atheism
|
|
SSS
Seasoned Citizen
Love Boat Captain
Posts: 119
|
Post by SSS on Mar 13, 2005 17:26:17 GMT -5
You have faith that there is no God. You ask theists to prove that God exists; well, prove that He doesn't. Prove that there was no creator, and there is no afterlife; prove that there is no beginning and no end. While you're at it, prove that we have no purpose here, and that there is no meaning to be found in the universe. Can reason prove these things? If not, I think you are a religious person who belongs to the faith called Atheism No, we lack faith in God based on current scientific evidence and personal skepticism. All those things you listed require no leap of faith. It's a lot different from believing in talking snakes and people walking on water.
|
|
|
Post by Christian on Mar 13, 2005 17:33:22 GMT -5
No, we lack faith in God based on current scientific evidence and personal skepticism. Current scientific evidence actually makes more of a case for than a case against the existence of a creator. Read about new discoveries in physics. Most science, however, doesn't say anything about God; it answers "how" and "what" interrogatives, not "why" questions. Not sure how science can influence your skepticism in this way, then. I don't see how belief in non-existence is any less a belief than belief in existence. It simply isn't possible in the scientific method to test the God hypothesis... which is why science does not ask "why." Therefore, these things are the substance of belief, and faith. Am I missing something?
|
|
SSS
Seasoned Citizen
Love Boat Captain
Posts: 119
|
Post by SSS on Mar 13, 2005 17:44:39 GMT -5
Because you just went back to calling it a belief.
belief >noun 1 a feeling that something exists or is true, especially one without proof. 2 a firmly held opinion. 3 (belief in) trust or confidence in. 4 religious faith. -PHRASES beyond belief astonishing; incredible. -ORIGIN Old English.
I've never met God. I've never met anyone who has met Him. And I've never heard/seen/felt His interaction with this world in any way. That's enough proof for me to not say he doesn't exist. Especially when the only shred of evidence that says otherwise is an old crusty book that says he talks to people all the time.
However, if God appeared to me tomorrow, I would believe he existed. My idea about how things work would be swayed that easily.
Christians on the other hand are required to believe fully in God and Jesus at all times and never let their faith fail them despite whatever scientsits unearth. That is a belief. That is faith.
Atheism is not.
|
|
|
Post by Christian on Mar 13, 2005 18:16:50 GMT -5
1 a feeling that something exists or is true, especially one without proof.
|
|
SSS
Seasoned Citizen
Love Boat Captain
Posts: 119
|
Post by SSS on Mar 13, 2005 18:28:22 GMT -5
So I believe it is true that God doesn't exist.
Or.
I don't believe in God.
We can turn it around all day if we want. I'll stick with the one that takes less effort to say.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Mar 13, 2005 18:59:29 GMT -5
Current scientific evidence actually makes more of a case for than a case against the existence of a creator. Read about new discoveries in physics. What might that current scientific evidence be?
|
|
|
Post by Christian on Mar 14, 2005 0:01:44 GMT -5
|
|
SSS
Seasoned Citizen
Love Boat Captain
Posts: 119
|
Post by SSS on Mar 14, 2005 0:37:17 GMT -5
By new do you mean 10 to 20 years old?
I'm not about to empty my pockets to further an internet debate. Perhaps you could share some of your author's highlights with us.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Mar 14, 2005 12:19:53 GMT -5
That's all fine and good but short of me actually buying Davies's books and reading both of them how about you give us a synonpsis of this evidence? Because from the product descriptions it merely sounds as if it is a book addressing questions that were formerly relegated to only be answered in religion. It doesn't sound like an affirmation of the Christian religious doctrine. From one review of God and the New Physics: Or better yet, toss us some relevant literature we can access in a more expedited manner, such as paper listings from the bibliography of those books and how they may be relevant. Or give us the ideas presented in your own words or citing text if you wish. Or you can wait while I buy the books and take a few months to read them as my academic schedule doesn't allow for too much "leisure" reading.
|
|
|
Post by droskey on Mar 14, 2005 12:55:11 GMT -5
Christian It is impossible to prove the non-existance of a thing. The burden of proof for existential claims rests firmly on the claimants' shoulders. That is, if you claim that a god with certain characteristics exists, you must supply evidence that such a thing does in fact exist if you want to be taken seriously.
For instance, I could claim that a magic ice cream factory exists on a planet at the other end of the galaxy. I could then demand that you take me seriously because you can't disprove my claim. See how ridiculous that expectation is?
I have read "God and the New Physics" by Davies. However, it has been quite a while. As I recall, he didn't come anywhere close to offering up concrete evidence for the existance of a god. He merely speculated. Unless you have something specific to add, I hardly think that this book qualifies as evidence. It is speculation and at best a hypothesis.
So, until I see something concrete, I remain an atheist.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Mar 15, 2005 14:05:50 GMT -5
I purchased both of the books mentioned and I will read them as my schedule allows. Afterwhich I will post my review of them in regards to if they actually substantiate the claims made above. Not matter how much later on this will occur, I will post.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Mar 15, 2005 14:32:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Christian on Mar 15, 2005 15:07:13 GMT -5
You'll dig the books, I'm sure. Your response will probably be similar to the reviews you posted, though. Sorry if I steered you in the wrong direction. I spoke too hastily on the subject of science; you said that it had not given you evidence to believe in God, and I replied that recent (20th century) discoveries lend more weight to the "God-hypothesis." What I should have said is that they do not give contraverting evidence, and that they define some limits to what evidence we can glean. I have to disagree with Davies in his interview; science has revealed the limitations put on it due to the nature of the universe that prevent an answer to, in fact render meaningless, many of our questions of "how?" These aspects of nature also understandably put a cap on what knowledge can tell us about "why."
|
|