Not your account. The forum account. We've all gotten that message when the server is down for maintenance.Originally Posted by question for you
If you had been banned, you would see the forum page with a message telling you why you were banned, how long the ban is and when it will be lifted (If permanent, it says "never" for when lifted.)
Lol, it just struck me that a thread title like "We need to talk about Atheism" on a purely atheistic site would go something like this......
a1) "God does not exists"
a2) "Nooo, .....
a3) "Mmmm,........
a1) "well that was an excellent exchange on the subject".
Are you speaking from experience?
Why does SF direct users to a page informing them their account has been suspended? when in fact the site is down for maintenaance... Not good practice.
Yes, I am genuinely curious. And I don't think it is "honest logic and reasoning" to just dismiss an argument as "lacking in intelligence".
If you think unicorns are just silly - after all, nobody believes in unicorns - then substitute dragons. Plenty of people belive in and report seeing dragons. Are you open minded about those too?
Can you explain why you think the analogy lacks intelligence? In other words, why is it reasonable to ask questions about God but it is unreasonable to ask the same questions about other mythological entities?
Your anger suggest it might be because it highlights the emptiness of your questions about God.
You claim to be open minded (agnostic) about God. Why only about God? Isn't it equally reasonable to be open minded and agnostic about every mythological entity (including unicorns and dragons)? What is the difference?
p.s. I came up with the idea of using unicorns myself, as far as I know. I was quite surprised and pleased to hear a "real" philosopher on the radio use the same thing.
Yes.
Because the server is unavailable. What's admin going to do, put up a song and dance number?
Oh, that page. It was quite obviously saying the thescienceforum's account had been suspended (which, I agree is weird for a maintenance message).
A message saying 'site is down for maintenance' would cause less angst/confusion.
I personally think that your first premise...that not being a theist makes you an atheist, and that there is nothing in between, is wrong.
Believing in a god normally means that you kind of sure that there is a god. Not being THAT sure makes you an agnostic, not an atheist because atheists are the ones that are kind of sure that there is no god. I think many theists or atheists are better described with agnostics. I think it depends on what you choose as your "label". I would say...these names describe the level of doubt you have.
Or to pick another example...if you aren't fat...you are not necessarily thin.
And not being a republican don't means you have to be a democrate.
I don't know. If you are not sure, then you don't believe. Can you "slightly believe"? (like being "slightly pregnant") If you don't believe then you are an atheist (non-believer), even if you accept that there could be a God.
Not all of them. Some just don't give a damn either way!atheists are the ones that are kind of sure that there is no god
Very true. Maybe you can PM Admin and ask if he can do anything about it- or create a sticky letting everyone know in case some folks didn't get the memo.
Ok, i'm going to try to make sure I don't sound condescending. This is not my quote in full and in context.Yes, I am genuinely curious. And I don't think it is "honest logic and reasoning" to just dismiss an argument as "lacking in intelligence".
It seems clear that I said the analogies lack intelligence when parroted repeatedly. I didn't discount the intelligence of the first person to invent the analogy, just those who repeat or regurgitate them.
It's also clear that my "honest logic and reasoning" was applied to the debate regarding theists being irrational... nothing to do with your side track about unicorn analogies.
You point is invalid! If you read the post properly you wouldn't have made that point.
I don't beleive I have given much honest logical reasoning as to why regurgitating analogies lacks intelligence... I would have thought it was obvious.
I don't think Unicorns are silly. I didn't say that. I didn't say I was open minded to them either. It is futile to have these debates over things that were not said, thoughts and beleifs that were not expressed.If you think unicorns are just silly - after all, nobody believes in unicorns - then substitute dragons. Plenty of people belive in and report seeing dragons. Are you open minded about those too?
I'm open to dragons. Lots of people have seen them as you say. Theirs the comodo Dragon for a start. These dragon's that presumably you see as a myth, illustrate a good point... Large reptiles exist today, in the past even larger reptiles known as dinosaurs existed. this is a truth, science accepts it. This truth is taken by those who know it, and it is shared with others. These secondary witnesses pass on what they know to other people and so on. Each time the story is passed on there is a risk that imagined attributes can be added to the original, somethings may be missed out. before we know it there could be endless 'Myths' about this mysthical thing. Before we know it there are endless stories of Dragons that have been passed down through generations from a time when large dinosaurs were known to be reality.
Do you think there is any truth in dragon Myths? becuase I am open to them having some truth in them.
I did ask for the original quote in the original context, which you failed to provide sadly. Had you provided this it would show that I clearly said regurgitating the analogies lacks intelligence in my opinion. Didn't say the analogy in itself lacks intelligence... The person who invented it demonstrated good creative thinking and excellent application of influencing others in practice.
I don't know what your talking about. I am not angered by but I do find annoying your insistence on misquoting me, taking comments that I make to others and applying them to something else. It makes me have to type answers to things that you have made up. If you think any of my questions are 'empty' then feel free to quote my question, in context if necesary, and explain to me why the question is empty. I can learn nothing from your comment above. I cannot think of a question that was anymore empty than any other question, I certainly don't remember asking anybody any question about God!
I might be wrong, I might possibly have asked somebody a question about God, but i'm pretty sure I didn't... This makes me wonder, who are you? what are your motivations here on the science forum? why do you repeatedly accuse me of things that are untrue? Is it becuase you are mistaken? that would be fine. Or is it because you see this as some kind of battle and you must be seen to look good whatever it takes? Or what?
I trust your just a guy entertaining himself. Please keep the questions and accusations accurate ok strange, becuase it does eventually get too much for me. You should make sure when you say something, that it is true... Please, please, please!
Yes I did make that claim... well almost. Off the top of my head I said something like "based on this evidence I would have to remain agnostic"... which does strongly suggest I have a default or prior position of agnostic. This is more a case of careless wording than a considered confession of my position.
I'm not sure there would be a difference between being open to myths... Personally I think it's best to be open minded about everything untill you have strong evidence one way or the other.
I already gave an explaination of why I am open minded about dragon 'Myths'... I see them as being tales based on truth. I quite like studying Myths, they always have some kind moral or lesson in them. I'm open minded about Unicorns having existed, I don't beleive, but I don't beleive it's impossible either.
I'm sure there is a word for when somebody thinks they have come up with something for themselves but really had seen it before... I don't know when you first used this analogy?. For all I know you were the very first. It's a very popular analogy theme these days.
Well done for coming up with it if you were the first, I already paid tribute to the intelligence shown in inventing this analogy. But in my opinion there is no significant intelligence in repeating it to people in order to influence the way they think or win an argument.
Most of the questions regarding this analogy could have been avoided if you read my comments in context.
What, actual real, flying, fire-breathing dragons? You actually reserve judgement on those? There may be a fine line between being open minded and being naively gullible; if you look back, you might be able to see it a few miles behind you.
That is the most idiotic thing you have said for a long time. A Komodo Dragon is a lizard, not a dragon. And in breaking news, tiger moths are not related to tigers and butterflies are not made of butter.Theirs the comodo Dragon for a start.
I can only speak for myself as I usually do not try to preach that which I only vaguely understsnd/"feel in my heart"/have descriptors for/etc...etc...Do you have any examples of when science has helped someone to know god better? It's been my experience that understanding science usually leads to atheism. And only pseudoscience has aided to confirm faith or help people to think they know god better.
But for me, every bit of field data from scientific inquiry into our universe, our earth, our co-evolutionary biom, and our species has helped me in my quest.
All we have is the present, and some knowledge of the past, so I particularly look to the past, for much of my evolving concepts...
gestalt anyone
(it's that "unity thang" again)
................
edit, epimetheus:
perhaps the key lies hidden in your use of the word "understanding"
and adding pseudo to science is like adding a 0 multiplier, pseudoscience x religion = pseudoreligion?
if you've the time and inclination, you might take a look at the words of soren kierkagaard.
I came upon his works toward the end of my studies into religions. (some have called him the grandfather of existentialism)----anyway, his teachings were/are part of the path I followed.
"Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards"
..............
and
If you will not understand "god's" creations, you shall not understand "god".
Last edited by sculptor; December 8th, 2012 at 11:20 AM. Reason: epimetheus
The Komodo Dragon is not a dragon... ok! and you think what I say is idiotic? The point was that myths evolve from truth, you missed that out altogether.What, actual real, flying, fire-breathing dragons? You actually reserve judgement on those? There may be a fine line between being open minded and being naively gullible; if you look back, you might be able to see it a few miles behind you.
That is the most idiotic thing you have said for a long time. A Komodo Dragon is a lizard, not a dragon.Theirs the comodo Dragon for a start.
You always do miss the point. I didn't know a dragon had to be able to fly and breath fire.
The komodo dragon breaths a flamable substance... methane isn't it? is it that far fetched to think that a similar beast apeared to breath fire when a man held a torch to it's face? Perhaps it burped. Thus many myths are born. I'm open minded. I don't know.
One last thing... I don't think being open minded can ever be acurately described as guilable. By definition gullability is related to beleif, 'open mindedness' is applied to describe not having a beleif on a matter. Therefore logically, being open minded and being gullible are opposites, there is no fine line. They are worlds apart.
'God,' is not the same as a pink unicorn, or a teapot. Logically speaking, the imagination has already stated, he doth exist!
Now, is the imagination the same as the bullshit processing imaging system? Anyone else interested on a grand imagination, universal imagination? I have a slight lead for you.
If the site was still up, but your personal account was suspended, you would see the main page of the forum, but would not be able to log into it.A message saying 'site is down for maintenance' would cause less angst/confusion.
When the server is taken off-line, the whole forums account on that server is suspended, so the forum itself does not exist at that point, and everyone sees a page saying "this account has been suspended", and nobody can see the forum at all.
I have seen that message too, and could not access the forum from any computer, including computers which do not have my log-in details saved on them.
Your account was not suspended.
couple guys standing at, and looking into the coffin at an athiest's funeral, and one guy turns to his fellow and says
"what a pity, Fred is all dressed up with no place to go".
[QUOTE=Strange;374577]I don't know. If you are not sure, then you don't believe. Can you "slightly believe"? (like being "slightly pregnant") If you don't believe then you are an atheist (non-believer), even if you accept that there could be a God.
I think "believing" is not like a red line you have or have not crossed.
Even (some) believer have doubts and even (some) non-believers have moments of...hoping or believing that there is a god. So in the end...it depends on the lable you want to pick. Like...the question...are you an optimist or an pessimist?
How you decide that one?
So...yes of course you can slightly believe in something as well if you can have a very strong believe.
Thats what believer talk about all the time...to strenghten their believe. Doesn't that proof that are such things than weak or strong believe?
Just to clarify; the site is not a purely atheistic site. There is no policy, spoken or unspoken, there are just a lot of them here. Some aren't, even a moderator or two. We do stand for science, the scientific method, logical thinking and healthy scepticism.
December 21st, 2012, 04:31 AM
That's why I am here and not on an atheist site....Just to clarify; the site is not a purely atheistic site. There is no policy, spoken or unspoken, there are just a lot of them here. Some aren't, even a moderator or two. We do stand for science, the scientific method, logical thinking and healthy scepticism.
[QUOTE=Headdresser;374575] I think it depends on what you choose as your "label".QUOTE]
my own favorites:
Anti-Christ; Anyone who speaks out against God (as in anti-abortion,anti-war..)
Anti-Theist; Anyone who speaks out against Theists..
Anti-Religious; believes in God but not religion.
but you can create your own label..
i did look up a list for you but searching 'funny religious labels' is rather obscure for what i was looking for, but i did stumble on a couple interesting links..
Wiki parody religion
and what may be a cool site for lists..;
Browse a long list of Religions
has 80 listed..(is that enough?)
I'm starting my own religion. It's still in its infancy and I'm trying to think it through. So far I'm the only member, although I haven't actually done any recruiting, nor will I. The basis of the new religion is a belief that there is no god(s). Current thinking has theists believing a god exists while atheists profess an absence of godly belief. Shouldn't theists only be arguing for beliefs in God as long as atheism proclaims a lack of a belief? Since this is not the case then what is needed to fill the gap between believing in god and not having a belief in god is a belief that actually claims god does not exist. Once you believe god does not exist then you are permitted to argue against divine existence by mimicking the way theists do today when arguing for god, declare more beliefs to make your case. As with theism, these beliefs then become factual and now the playing field becomes equal. How nice would it be to counter an argument for god simply by saying, "It isn't so because it just isn't ". I think it's fair.
No longer can theists use the erroneous 'atheism is a belief' statement to deflect, derail or eliminate further discussion. We've all seen it, oft times both sides will admit that there is no way to conclusively state god is or isn't. So if they can agree on that then believing god doesn't exist shouldn't be a big leap for current atheists. The biggest advantage the new religion has in its argument against god is that now every bit of evidence suggesting there is no divine presence in the universe suddenly becomes factual belief, theists as fellow believers cannot ignore it.Perhaps theists will form a better understanding for counter arguments when their detractors actually share with them a common ground...belief.
which is where the actual atheists are, but refuse to admit the 'belief' part..they think if they have a belief it automaticly means they believe in god(at least on some level)..I'm starting my own religion. It's still in its infancy and I'm trying to think it through. So far I'm the only member, although I haven't actually done any recruiting, nor will I. The basis of the new religion is a belief that there is no god(s). Current thinking has theists believing a god exists while atheists profess an absence of godly belief. Shouldn't theists only be arguing for beliefs in God as long as atheism proclaims a lack of a belief? Since this is not the case then what is needed to fill the gap between believing in god and not having a belief in god is a belief that actually claims god does not exist.
huh?Once you believe god does not exist then you are permitted to argue against divine existence by mimicking the way theists do today when arguing for god, declare more beliefs to make your case. As with theism, these beliefs then become factual and now the playing field becomes equal. How nice would it be to counter an argument for god simply by saying, "It isn't so because it just isn't ". I think it's fair.
um..really?No longer can theists use the erroneous 'atheism is a belief' statement to deflect, derail or eliminate further discussion.
and 'factual belief'?
The equal counter to 'it's so because God says so'
What better way to argue against god belief than believing that a god doesn't exist. I can now treat solid evidence against god belief as a belief. Theists will now have to accept any of my additional evidentiary beliefs as either being non factual because they're only beliefs or accept them as facts. You can see their dilemma...... it's no different than anything theists are currently doing.'factual belief'?
oh..i never bought that answer..it is the same as 'because i said so.' always took it to mean "I don't know"..The equal counter to 'it's so because God says so'
and i have observed the lengths ppl will go to, to avoid saying "I don't know."
(still applies to both sides)
What better way to argue against god belief than believing that a god doesn't exist. I can now treat solid evidence against god belief as a belief. Theists will now have to accept any of my additional evidentiary beliefs as either being non factual because they're only beliefs or accept them as facts. You can see their dilemma...... it's no different than anything theists are currently doing.[/QUOTE]'factual belief'?
sound like the hard way of saying 'I choose not to believe what you believe'.
as far as facts..
the terms subjective and objective are critical in identifying the value of facts and their application.
I caught the end of this debate and thought of these discussions on TSF.
BBC iPlayer - RE:Think - Richard Dawkins and Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks
So glad to hear someone say that. What we will find is that it makes no difference to either side as long as the beliefs remain subjective. Objectivity only comes into the argument once it is determined that the belief has been declared factual by one side of the argument.
To say one believes in God is based solely on how one is influenced by their own feelings as they observe the world around them. Thus I could say there is a god because I feel there is a universe and somebody had to make it. On the other hand I could say I believe there is no god because I feel there's a universe that nobody could have made. The ideas are still subjective thoughts but the seed for objectivity has been planted.
IMHO, only the primary belief (God is or isn't) is truly subjective because it is based on personal feeling. When you start offering evidence to support subjective ideas then the picture changes drastically. To maintain subjectivity then all evidence has to be belief. If one or both sides want their belief to be true then it moves to the objective. They are no longer discussing beliefs but comparing evidence for something either maintain is factual. Now the value of facts comes into play.
However, the new religion I'm proposing will remain in the subjective, including all our supportive evidence and reasons for our belief. We will never declare our religion to be fact. Theists will have to act like theists and follow suit or face the consequences. They can only argue against us in subjective terms. Constitutionally we will ask that all schools teach our religious beliefs, just to be fair.We will ask to be officially recognized as a true religion because everything associated with us is just a belief we have faith in. We will lobby government to reject any theist religion that declares their belief to be real. In addition they could officially lose their right to call themselves a religion and thus suffer the loss of certain rights afforded them.
Last edited by zinjanthropos; December 25th, 2012 at 11:13 PM.
Religion is dead..long live God..So glad to hear someone say that. What we will find is that it makes no difference to either side as long as the beliefs remain subjective. Objectivity only comes into the argument once it is determined that the belief has been declared factual by one side of the argument.
To say one believes in God is based solely on how one is influenced by their own feelings as they observe the world around them. Thus I could say there is a god because I feel there is a universe and somebody had to make it. On the other hand I could say I believe there is no god because I feel there's a universe that nobody could have made. The ideas are still subjective thoughts but the seed for objectivity has been planted.
IMHO, only the primary belief (God is or isn't) is truly subjective because it is based on personal feeling. When you start offering evidence to support subjective ideas then the picture changes drastically. To maintain subjectivity then all evidence has to be belief. If one or both sides want their belief to be true then it moves to the objective. They are no longer discussing beliefs but comparing evidence for something either maintain is factual. Now the value of facts comes into play.
However, the new religion I'm proposing will remain in the subjective, including all our supportive evidence and reasons for our belief. We will never declare our religion to be fact. Theists will have to act like theists and follow suit or face the consequences. They can only argue against us in subjective terms. Constitutionally we will ask that all schools teach our religious beliefs, just to be fair.
well..getting closer to being dead..as long as more and more religions are created..pretty soon everyone will have their own unique religion..then religion will be dead and God will live forever.
How does a bunch of unique religions make religion dead?
Do you mean, belief in God will live forever?
religion is mans thing not Gods..How does a bunch of unique religions make religion dead?
Do you mean, belief in God will live forever?
religions establishes doctrine, believe this way and you are part of our religion..
religion is a group of like minded believers..
religion is a control thing.
religion needs groups of ppl to exist.
if everyone had their own religion, the group dynamic would disappear..if the group dynamic disappears so does religion.
if religion disappears then God can work, because then we wouldn't have religious leaders telling us what God can and cannot do.
objective/subjective
if you see a building, is it only objective until you walk through the door?
objectify (what some people would call) god, all you want--------as long as your looking, sooner or later, yer gonna find the door.
(just-a-guess)
.................................
christ mass carols
one has the phrase..."god and sinners reconciled"
my son was playing it on the piano yestermorn
and
and after having chatted in here, I thought, "how nice the ignorant and godless have found a way to forgive god"
cool?
Well, someone who is non religious could still believe in a god but just not really care, so this makes little sense.
I'm beginning a new church as well. We're going to be the Apatheists. Our motto; 'God? Whatever.'
I liked Heinlein's idea: pantheisitic multi-person solipsism.
The distinction between athiesm and agnosticism is very important to those who would consider themselves agnostic. Just as "transgender" is a very important classification for those who don't identify as either male or female. There seems to be some sort of false dilemma here in assuming that the only two choices in someone's religious belief relies on believing in some sort of God or not. Many would say that they believe in auras and energies, for others it is a mystical force in the universe and then there are those who are unsure and are comfortable living in the uncertainty. You also use a rather abusive ad hominem attack on anyone who would call themselves theist and an appeal to the people in your attack. The argument you make does not quite answer the question fully and does not take into consideration that many feel uncomfortable identifying as theist or athiest.
Who did?
that was in reply to "Strange". He was one of the first commentors
Here?:
You said:
One could argue that the reason people can feel uncomfortable with labels is because of the importance other people give them.
You bet ! They are quite the opposite.
Mistake here. The word should have been "asexual", and they cannot bother less, they don't believe in sex. They don't deal into that currency.
Absolutely, and that fact can not bother less the various zealot here that deal in beliefs currency (called theist and atheist). They are too happy creating noise from vacuum, with their mindless debates
And even many more would say they are happy to consider the uncertain to be uncertain without to resorting to fairies nor the absence of it, but anyway tried as well to transformed the unknown to the less-unknown. Those are called scientifics
Welcome to the science forum. Don't despair, you'll soon discover how to ignore the various atheist zealot here, that cannot bother less about being rational about their theories about the unknown.
I have read most but not all of this thread and would like to make a couple of observations:
1) I do not see 'God' defined anywhere and before one can make a statement about something , particularly something as vague as 'God' it needs a rigorous description. Do I believe in a 'Christian God' ( even that term needs refining), do I believe in Gaia? etc etc.
2) 'Belief' is related to "Dogma'. Science is not a Dogma it is a system or language.
You start off well, and then, sadly, go on to show that you don't know the difference.
To be agnostic has no bearing on whether one is atheist or theist.
Last edited by Dywyddyr; April 22nd, 2013 at 11:25 PM.
...which introduces Ignosticism into the discussion.
What? Some people still believe that.
He's up there defending the Earth, fighting the frost giants, and occasionally he hits one with his hammer. It's bound to happen from time to time.
It's not enough to call Thor into question? Now you've got to go after the goats that pull his chariot also?If you grew in a culture without a mythical figure, you probably would not be saying, "hum, who knows maybe there is a god like the ancient goat herders thought afterall?".
I have mixed feelings about this.For a Mormon, its more difficult to assert their mythical story is utterly ridiculous, but for non mormons its plain as day its BullShite.
Are you Agnostic towards the undeniable existence of mighty Thor the God Thunder?
Once upon a time I was a Mormon missionary telling someone the story of Joseph Smith meeting the resurrected Peter James and John, and he had this expression on his face like "Honestly? You believe this?" But he seemed to be restraining himself out of politeness.
That was the first time in my life that it ever dawned on me how utterly ridiculous my religion's founding story might sound to someone who hadn't grown up with it. Which lead me to the next question of "why don't I find it ridiculous?" .... which later led to me concluding that, on reflection, it was actually pretty ridiculous.
But Thor is another matter. If Marvel Comics hadn't decided to turn him into a super hero, in tights, clean shaven, and fighting along side a man who wears an American flag for clothing (I'm thinking of the great Captain America) -- the stories about the most beloved god of the ancient vikings might not seem as silly to you as they do.
They may now be few in number, but some do still believe in this god. They might qualify some of the stuff about Thunder being solely his doing, of course, but there's no proof as yet of Thor's non-existence.
Maybe Thor and the other gods were just anthropologists from an alien culture, who tried to embed themselves in a population of humans in order to learn about them?
Human anthropologists often use similar tactics in trying to do research on the social structure and behaviors of apes.
If someday we discover FTL space flight ourselves, maybe we'll send anthropologists to study a more primitive species as well, and they will come to be revered as gods also?
One thing is clear, gods are just like people in all respects, except they are immortal in character..
And that there is solid evidence for the existence of people and nothing more than wishful thinking as evidence for the existence of gods.One thing is clear, gods are just like people in all respects, except they are immortal in character..
enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYlyQ...BB8A6C68852EF0
peace&love...vern
| « How is the word "kind" in "two of every (kind)" (gen 6:19) exactly defined by the bible? | The process of evolution » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
44Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
