Posts by Saintbertholdt

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

I've only been on the site for just over 2 years, but I've seen it evolve to being more rational and less religious/scripture. If it hadn't I would have left a long time ago

I posit that this rationality has to translate into theology:

1. Restorasionist/Literalist thinking about genesis/creation will recede.

2. Religionists will have to deal with the irrational of the concept of hell. I've looked at alternatives and Universalism seems to be a way out.

3. Homosexuality will have stronger arguments for its acceptance, just as abolitionism was argued for in the early 19th century.

4. In the first part of the 21st century Millenialist thinking should continue to increase up until about 2050. You can't pin it down because revelation has some trippy language.

5. The trinity is still a beautiful concept because it keeps the mystery of God alive.

6. God arguments will be entirely philosophical with sprinkles of entropy/enthalpy thrown in.

7. Ecumenical ideas should become more prevalent as Churches experiences receding numbers.

---

Now this is a lot of conjecture, but if you let your mind go on the subject it makes for some fascinating ideas.

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

The god squad ignites these debates that go nowhere to prove no point.

I use these threads to check whether the god squad has come up with anything new yet.

Which brings me to my fundamental reason:

I check how atheism is molding theism.

The arguments from five years ago aren't the ones used today.

Five years ago, most christians would start by throwing up scripture.

Then the irreducible complexity phase became more fashionable.

Both were shot down in flames so today I see they try to use philosophical techniques more and more.

This is going to have a profound impact on theism in the future. I believe.

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

Cofty,

Has anybody clearly defined "god" yet?
I believe Oubliette had Carl Sagan do the talking:

Oubliette

Carl Sagan had this to say about that:

The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity. - As quoted in "Scientists & Their Gods" in U.S. News & World Report Vol. 111 (1991)

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

_Morpheus

What is "evidence " in the minds of those that WANT to believe is vastly different than evidence in the eyes of those that question.

In my mind if the words: "Allah is eternal and Mohammed is his prophet" suddenly appeared in Arabic carved on the surface of Mars and it covered half the planet, it would certainly give me a moment of pause.

Heading for the next page...

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

Saintbertholdt

C0ntr013r,

You can't prove the non existence of fairies, if that is what you are asking.

That is a correct statement.

Science deals with proving and disproving theories and hypothesis through evidence. And I don't think fairies qualify to be dealt with scientifically. Have some scientific paper or study been done about them? Since most don't believe in them it would be a waste of time.

Since most don't believe in them

1. So how did belief enter science?

2. How did scientists get to that belief?

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

Saintbertholdt

_Morpheus,

In fact, most self identified athiests that i have come across, myself included, fall into a catagory of "not currently believing in god but willing to accept evidance of him should some presented".

Yes, even the most hardened atheists like Dawkins have stated that if there was sufficient evidence, they would reconsider their opinions.

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

Saintbertholdt

_Morpheus,

Its a good exercise, maybe a cord is struck somewhere for some, but mostly its as i described.
To me the question I consider more often these days is the following: How is atheism influencing Christianity in the 21st century?

C0ntr013r

I want to restart this issue with you and ask you a question. This question requires a basic explanation before it is asked and is actually a recap of my original argument:

In human history there are many stories about fairies. Some are stories, some are legends, some are related to the practice of magic. These stories, myths and legends go back centuries. So in history there have been many people that have believed in fairies and even today in esoteric culture some people still do. Fairies purportedly have little wings and they seem to love flowers. So postulating that fairies may in fact pollinate plants is plausible. But it is also an extraordinary claim. For that claim to be true one would expect some very compelling evidence, but it is lacking. So the question is this:

1.On what basis can science dismiss fairies, or is stating that fairies don't exist unscientific?

cappytan

The problem isn't a lack of evidence full stop. The problem is a lack of evidence where there should be evidence.

Here's my mantra: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

Saintbertholdt

_Morpheus10 hours ago

Annnnd i predict this thread will go off the rails in 5.....4.......3.......2.....

Prophet.

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

Saintbertholdt

I simply say that there are mathematical models which are not considered evidence within themselves.

Exactly. The reason being a model has to correspond to physical observation. So how does it become evidence? Because it can now make predictions which correspond to experiment and observation.

449

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

by LAWHFol in

i have not meet all atheists, and it would be foolish for me to assume that all atheists, share the same prototypical view points.

i am inclined to feel that this classifies the views of a large percentage of atheists.

"atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.

Saintbertholdt

"I reject the idea that every mathematical model is proof of that model."

That is why I used the word "suggest". Mathematics suggests a way the universe could work. It IS a proof IF it is corroborated by observation. WHY? Because it can now make PREDICTIONS. This is not controversial.

If you merely meant "suggest", what is "obvious proof" doing in this context?

Mathematics suggests a way the universe could work. It IS a proof IF it is corroborated by observation. What the mathematics now allow you to do is to make PREDICTIONS. This is not controversial.

It is not really a contested area but ill be happy to provide other sources.

http://global.britannica.com/topic/atheism

Remedial: You're still doing it wrong. You don't quote an encyclopedia. You quote the source within the Article.

Sure, you don't have to show that such a mathematical multiverse model exist, to my knowledge it does not.

Yawn. Please see: The Multiverse Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics - Raphael Bousso, Leonard Susskind

I assume you know who Susskind is? According to Susskind's hypothesis EVERY mathematical string theory model has a multiverse implication. But guess what: Its still just mathematical modelling. Only when observation corresponds to the correct model will predictions be viewed as being valid. Then that model will become a part of the body of scientific evidence.

Thanks for the derail.

Saintbertholdt

Posts by Saintbertholdt

DJS,

I've only been on the site for just over 2 years, but I've seen it evolve to being more rational and less religious/scripture. If it hadn't I would have left a long time ago

I posit that this rationality has to translate into theology:

1. Restorasionist/Literalist thinking about genesis/creation will recede.

2. Religionists will have to deal with the irrational of the concept of hell. I've looked at alternatives and Universalism seems to be a way out.

3. Homosexuality will have stronger arguments for its acceptance, just as abolitionism was argued for in the early 19th century.

4. In the first part of the 21st century Millenialist thinking should continue to increase up until about 2050. You can't pin it down because revelation has some trippy language.

5. The trinity is still a beautiful concept because it keeps the mystery of God alive.

6. God arguments will be entirely philosophical with sprinkles of entropy/enthalpy thrown in.

7. Ecumenical ideas should become more prevalent as Churches experiences receding numbers.

---

Now this is a lot of conjecture, but if you let your mind go on the subject it makes for some fascinating ideas.

freemindfade,

The god squad ignites these debates that go nowhere to prove no point.

I use these threads to check whether the god squad has come up with anything new yet.

Which brings me to my fundamental reason:

I check how atheism is molding theism.

The arguments from five years ago aren't the ones used today.

Five years ago, most christians would start by throwing up scripture.

Then the irreducible complexity phase became more fashionable.

Both were shot down in flames so today I see they try to use philosophical techniques more and more.

This is going to have a profound impact on theism in the future. I believe.

Cofty,

Has anybody clearly defined "god" yet?I believe Oubliette had Carl Sagan do the talking:

C0ntr013r,

You can't prove the non existence of fairies, if that is what you are asking.

That is a correct statement.

Science deals with proving and disproving theories and hypothesis through evidence. And I don't think fairies qualify to be dealt with scientifically. Have some scientific paper or study been done about them? Since most don't believe in them it would be a waste of time.

Since most don't believe in them

1. So how did belief enter science?

2. How did scientists get to that belief?

_Morpheus,

I want to restart this issue with you and ask you a question. This question requires a basic explanation before it is asked and is actually a recap of my original argument:

1.On what basis can science dismiss fairies, or is stating that fairies don't exist unscientific?

_Morpheus10 hours ago

Has anybody clearly defined "god" yet?
I believe Oubliette had Carl Sagan do the talking: