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.

Saintbertholdt

BOC,

POTATO2015.RE.INCROYABLE.KARLMARX.BANANA.UNCLEFESTER

I believe this IS crazy enough to be potato :)

Village Idiot

I have never read 'The coming of the fairies', but now that I know about it I will have to.

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

freemindfade,

We used to look up and see a comet and say the gods were riding by and bringing some natural disasters... the people who didn't believe were persecuted for heresy.

I use fairies specifically because there are old books, folklore and tales that abound with them.

Just as tales, old books and folklore abound about god.

They both claim extraordinary powers and both have influenced human thinking to some extent.

As you point out sometimes things just don't make sense. (like the existence of fairies)

This is the result of humanity becoming more rational and less superstitious.

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

1. So how did belief enter science?
2. How did scientists get to that belief?

It did not, that was my point.

So not believing in fairies is NOT a belief (according to you). That's great.

You didn't answer the second question: How did scientists get to that belief/non-belief (insert whatever semantics you want) So let me answer it for you: Fairies are not considered a part of pollination because there's just no evidence for it. Its wasteful to include it in ones thinking when dealing with the subject and you certainly do not explore it when drawing conclusions.You rather look for causes that reasonably explain a phenomena.

And by your own admission non-belief is not a matter of faith at all.

So what is it then because it is used in science every day?

Could it be that it forms a part of the technique of scientific investigation?

So just as non-belief in fairy's is scientific, so non-belief in god is also scientific.

In scientific investigation, if it is known that an event would produce certain evidence of its having occurred, the absence of such evidence can validly be used to infer that the event didn't occur. It does not prove it with certainty, however. That is why science remains open to new evidence. It is not dogmatic.

Now you can argue that 'agrumentum ad ignorantum' is the most valid course in life for your own special exceptions. Some people choose god, others ufo visitations, yeti's, the lochness monster or any combination, but everyday practical science and discovery does not ponder absence of evidence as evidence of absence. Rather it focuses on what can be proven through following tangible evidence.

And at this particular point there is no mathematical or scientific model that even remotely hints at god. Never mind any sound physical proof.

Science does not ponder god just like it does not ponder fairies.

Its not a belief as you specifically pointed out, therefore not a matter of faith.

Atheism - scientific.

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.

Saintbertholdt

Posts by Saintbertholdt

It did not, that was my point.

C0ntr013r,

So not believing in fairies is NOT a belief (according to you). That's great.

And by your own admission non-belief is not a matter of faith at all.

So what is it then because it is used in science every day?

Could it be that it forms a part of the technique of scientific investigation?

So just as non-belief in fairy's is scientific, so non-belief in god is also scientific.

And at this particular point there is no mathematical or scientific model that even remotely hints at god. Never mind any sound physical proof.

Science does not ponder god just like it does not ponder fairies.

Its not a belief as you specifically pointed out, therefore not a matter of faith.

Atheism - scientific.

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?

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