Notices
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Results 501 to 577 of 577

Thread: Christians who infiltrate scientific forums.

  1. #501  
    Forum Freshman Also Known As's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    88
    I don't think you fully understand my position.

    That's undoubtedly because you have made some sort of game of not stating your position clearly. That allows you to play the slippery eel.

    Einstein was most certainly on the side opposing dogma and oppression, and supportive of freethinkers.

    Though you seem to not be able to understand the concept, atheists do not deny god; as a general rule, they do not believe in things for which there is no proof. And whether you are simple minded, or are merely being purposely obtuse, the Easter Bunny falls in the same category as all religions that I am aware of in having no objective evidence in support of its existence.

    Yes Jan, of course I would have faced the wrath of the Inquisition; that is hardly worth stating as it is patently obvious. The point, in case you missed it, was that your decidedly unorthodox views (from what I can tell, once again with the slippery eel bit) are undoubtedly heretical from an orthodox standpoint. And professing to believe in some sort of god would not have gotten you much sympathy.
    To argue with a man who has renounced his reason is like giving medicine to the dead.
    -- Thomas Paine, The Crisis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #502  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Also Known As
    Though you seem to not be able to understand the concept, atheists do not deny god; as a general rule, they do not believe in things for which there is no proof. And whether you are simple minded, or are merely being purposely obtuse, the Easter Bunny falls in the same category as all religions that I am aware of in having no objective evidence in support of its existence.
    How can you blaspheme against the Easter Bunny like this? Do you know how many people depend on this marginally inspiring story for their livelihood? Isn't enough enough that you have to piss all over our Christian traditions, now you are going for the even more ancient pagan traditions too! So what if we have comercialized it a little, have a little compassion for us poor folk scrabbling for few bucks here and there.

    The story like Easter Bunny has a hard enough time standing up to the thrill and absorbsion of stories like Star Wars and Star Trek. Hey what do think of a Star Wars day in the lull between Christmas and Easter, or a Star Trek Day in August and September. Think that might be worth a few bucks? Considering the increasing trend of public opinion against relativity I think that faith in Star Trek and Star Wars is doing pretty good.

    Ok, so you say the Easter Bunny and Jesus are just stories. History is just a story too. But we can learn from stories. Stories give us hope and meaning. They give us life. So go ahead Mr. Critic pick the stories you like and leave our favorites alone, OK?
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #503  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    Also Known As,

    That's undoubtedly because you have made some sort of game of not stating your position clearly. That allows you to play the slippery eel.
    I'm afraid you are quite mistaken.
    If you take the "scientific reason for God" thread, as an example, there was ample room to express my position, within the context of the thread. But the thread was severely beaten over the head by atheists, demanding scientific proof that God exists, in other words, SHOW ME GOD NOW!!! knowing full well, their demands could not be met. As a result, a thread which could have been productive and insightful, regardless of belief, was infiltrated, killed, because of inability to reason, naturally. And it is this kind of behavior and attitude, which prevents anyone outside the "atheist" boundary from expressing their position in a decent way.
    Atheists, appear to have two tacticts, defence or offence.

    Einstein was most certainly on the side opposing dogma and oppression, and supportive of freethinkers.
    I don't think he was on any side, or supportive of any group. I believe his thoughts can be interpreted as such by those who wish to use his stature.

    Though you seem to not be able to understand the concept, atheists do not deny god; as a general rule, they do not believe in things for which there is no proof.
    I understand the concept pretty well. By sticking to the "there is no proof of Gods existence" is, for those who are aware of scriptoral reference, a blatant denial of His existence, because they know God is not described as a physical being, in any religion, therefore modern-science, alone, will never be able to offer proof.

    Could you kindly respond to thes questions;

    Why did Einsein make so many references to God?
    Why do atheists believe he used the word God to convey reason and science?

    Jan Ardena.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #504  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    mitchellmckain
    Why didn't you use one of the quotes I posted, to give light to your claim?
    As far as I can see, his quotes reveal a belief in a superior intelligence, this makes him a theist by my reckoning.
    Well, when Einstein says that the idea of a personal God is stupid, his viewpoint couldn't be farther from the Judeo-Christian world view, even if he was an atheist.
    So to you, if one is not consistent with the Judeo-Christian world view, one is an atheist?
    Now you have evoked a little curiousity on my part. Can you describe a God which has intellegence but cannot be called a person?

    How are you interpreting Einstein's term "personal God" when he says this is a stupid idea?

    Are claiming that Einstein is some kind of Deist?

    With no afterlife and no need for God in ethics the Deist position would be exactly as I described Einstein's usage of the word God as simply a referent to the cause and reason for the universe.

    So what is the point of this debate here? That because Einstein believed in God, even if it was practically meaningless God, then what? This means that some intellegent people believe in God. Is that the issue of the debate here? I really doubt that the atheist proponents here could be quite that stupid, that they are claiming that no intellegent people believe in God. If they are, I would not waste my time arguing with people that are that much out of touch with reality.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #505  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    mitchellmckain,

    Can you describe a God which has intellegence but cannot be called a person?
    No.

    How are you interpreting Einstein's term "personal God" when he says this is a stupid idea?
    Einstein says;

    I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty.
    These ideas of God, someone who punishes people who do not worship Him, and reward people who do, is a concept created by people. Their purpose is to impose fear, so they personalise "God", keeping the general public in ignorance. This is what is meant by a "personal God".
    Creating God in their own image.

    Are claiming that Einstein is some kind of Deist?
    Einstein was a bit of everything, but his belief in God means he was a theist, otherwise he would not have made those statements I posted.

    He said;

    "From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.... I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one.
    Remember in your last post you wrote;

    Well, when Einstein says that the idea of a personal God is stupid, his viewpoint couldn't be farther from the Judeo-Christian world view, even if he was an atheist.
    To which I replied;

    So to you, if one is not consistent with the Judeo-Christian world view, one is an atheist?
    With no afterlife and no need for God in ethics the Deist position would be exactly as I described Einstein's usage of the word God as simply a referent to the cause and reason for the universe.
    Why use the word God?
    Which atheist do you know that uses the word "God" to describe "cause and reason" for the universe?
    If an unknown Einstein had come on here and said things like;
    "I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."
    "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
    "God is subtle but he is not malicious."
    "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
    "My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."
    What reaction do you think he would get from the atheists?

    So what is the point of this debate here? Thats because Einstein believed in God, even if it was practically meaningless God, then what?
    Why do you say God was meaningless? His (Einsteins) enquiry was genuine and meaningful.

    This means that some intellegent people believe in God. Is that the issue of the debate here?
    No. Einstein is a science icon, and the materialist cannot accept that such an icon believed in God. It just doesnt look good.

    I really doubt that the atheist proponents here could be quite that stupid, that they are claiming that no intellegent people believe in God.
    I don't think stupidity has anything to do with it, they cannot hack God, or anything to do with God. They are not comfortable with it.

    If they are, I would not waste my time arguing with people that are that much out of touch with reality.
    Why don't you ask them if they believe people who believe in God can be great scientists or intelligent people. See what answer you get.

    Jan Ardena.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #506  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Hmmm...

    Well I will admit that his position is not as obvious as I interpreted it from my reading of things he said. It all boils down to what he means by a "personal God". You have at least suggested a possible alternate interpretation.


    "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
    This one is often misquoted as "Science without religion is blind," since sight is often associated with truth. I can see only too well how one may see religion as somewhat murky in the truth department. Yes, the clear recognition of the value of religion in "Science without religion is lame" could indeed make some people, like the one who requested the removal of the religious section from this forum, uncomfortable. This would be especially true, if they like to make the (common) claim that science leaves no room for a belief in God. And I have already encountered a physicist post-doc who thought that you could not be a good physicist if you believe in God.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #507  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    mitchellmckain,

    You have at least suggested a possible alternate interpretation.
    Look at the quote carefully, you will see that is he meant.

    I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty.
    What else could he possibly mean?


    "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
    I can see only too well how one may see religion as somewhat murky in the truth department.
    Religion becomes murky when it loses its essence.

    "No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

    ...Albert Einstein


    Yes, the clear recognition of the value of religion in "Science without religion is lame"
    Modern science can never be the end result, it is a pursiut of knowledge of how nature works, via the discipline of the scientific-method. Religion is the pursuit of knowledge of the original self (spirit-soul), via the dicipline of development of God-conciousness, revealed through the scriptures by God or His associates. In essence modern-science is a purely maerialistic endeavor, and religion is spiritual one. Life is a mixture of both spirit (consciousness), and matter. The human concious awarness, has the ability to understand both of these. To pursue the religious side alone, amounts to blind-faith, which can lead to fanaticism. This is a useless endeavor. To pursue matter alone, means you are disregarding the whole of knowledge, and as such, something will always be missing, you will never be satisfied.

    ...they like to make the (common) claim that science leaves no room for a belief in God. And I have already encountered a physicist post-doc who thought that you could not be a good physicist if you believe in God.
    This type of thinking comes as a result of pursuing, purely, knowledge of matter. To a materialist, that is a perfectly rational statement, I believe they genuinely believe this.

    Jan Ardena.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #508  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    Jan

    Which scientist who does not believe in God, refers to God in the same or similar ways?
    Stephen Hawking.
    Conclusion

    Einstein once asked the question: "How much choice did God have in constructing the universe?"

    Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?... Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Or does it need a creator, and, if so, does he have any other effect on the universe? And who created him?




    ... if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God.
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    "No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

    ...Albert Einstein
    That's a personal view of the historical Jesus. I seriously doubt if he believed in the divinity of Jesus, otherwise he would have joined (not to say have been a leading light of) Jews For Jesus.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #509  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    Silas,

    Which scientist who does not believe in God, refers to God in the same or similar ways?
    Stephen Hawking.
    Is Hawking an atheist?

    No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

    ...Albert Einstein



    That's a personal view of the historical Jesus. I seriously doubt if he believed in the divinity of Jesus, otherwise he would have joined (not to say have been a leading light of.
    Where did he get information of Jesus that excludes his divinity?
    Why do you think he never believed in the divinity of Jesus?
    Why do you think that if one believes in the divinity of Jesus, one should automatically join a religious group.

    Jan Ardena.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #510  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    Why do you keep asking pointless questions?

    Hawking's atheism was cited as one of the contributing factors to his divorce from his first wife, who was a practicing Christian.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #511  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    Why do you keep asking pointless questions?

    Hawking's atheism was cited as one of the contributing factors to his divorce from his first wife, who was a practicing Christian.
    a) the questions are'nt pointless to me, or anyone who may be interested the answers or responses.
    Can you answer them?

    b) Hawking may have considered himself an atheist in comparison to his wife beliefs, or that of any fundamental christian, in the same way Einstein considered himself atheist in the eyes of a Jesuit priest. But the question is, is he an atheist by the modern standard of atheism?

    Jan Ardena.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #512  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    The questions are pointless because the answers are obvious and don't require an explanation from me. But I'll humour you.

    Where did he get information of Jesus that excludes his divinity?
    You seem to think that if you read about Jesus in the Gospel you automatically accept his divinity. Why would that be the case to someone brought up in a faith that rejects the New Testament? He can read the Gospels and see them as a testimony to a very great man, but there would be nothing compelling a belief that Jesus was actually the son of God.
    Why do you think he never believed in the divinity of Jesus?
    Because he didn't believe in a "personal God". If you think, as seems to be the case, that Einstein was a Deist if not completely atheistic, then he would still reject the notion of any human individual possessing attributes of the Divine.
    Why do you think that if one believes in the divinity of Jesus, one should automatically join a religious group.
    I don't, as a matter of fact, I was just reminding everybody that Einstein was Jewish. A Jew who believes in Jesus is reasonably rare - rare enough that his beliefs would be more obvious in his writings, sayings and doings. I illustrated this with the extreme example of him joining "Jews for Jesus" which, if it happened, they would have yelled it from the rooftops (although, truth to tell I don't know if the organisation actually predates Einstein's death in 1955, so I'd be completely wrong about that). On the other hand, if he believed in Jesus as a divine being and had declared so, it is unlikely in the extreme that he would have been offered the Presidency of Israel.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    b) Hawking may have considered himself an atheist in comparison to his wife beliefs, or that of any fundamental christian, in the same way Einstein considered himself atheist in the eyes of a Jesuit priest. But the question is, is he an atheist by the modern standard of atheism?
    Am I? I must admit, I may have missed out here, I haven't updated my own Atheist licence, and I might fluff some questions on the written. I may have gotten confused myself, actually, it seems it was Hawking who said he didn't believe in a personal God.

    Here is Creationist scientist Dr. Fritz Schaefer's lecture about Hawking, in which he claims that Hawking "denies angrily" that he is an atheist, and concludes that he is at best an agnostic. But I have seen elsewhere him referred to as a "self-described atheist", probably based on the "personal God" statement.

    I think we can safely conclude that neither Einstein nor Hawking were either religious or completely atheistic.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #513  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    Silas,

    You seem to think that if you read about Jesus in the Gospel you automatically accept his divinity.
    That's not what I think, I think that if you read about Jesus and can feel his presence and personality pulsating with every word, then his divinity must have something to do with that. Wouldn't you agree?

    Why would that be the case to someone brought up in a faith that rejects the New Testament?
    Einstein rejected the religious dogma of institutional religion, personalising God of the scriptures.

    He can read the Gospels and see them as a testimony to a very great man, but there would be nothing compelling a belief that Jesus was actually the son of God.
    The essence of the "very great man", was inspired by God, according to the "very great man himself". His whole being, from start to finish, according to the gospels, was of complete devotion to God. How could you feel his presence and personality in every page and omit that essential part?

    Why do you think he never believed in the divinity of Jesus?

    Because he didn't believe in a "personal God". If you think, as seems to be the case, that Einstein was a Deist if not completely atheistic, then he would still reject the notion of any human individual possessing attributes of the Divine.
    I don't think Einstein was anything in particular, I think he spent alot of time explaining this to those who could hear. God, wasn't exclusive to Jesus, in the bible. Jesus was of a particular class of man who possessed the qualities needed to become one with God. It is this quality which is felt.

    On the other hand, if he believed in Jesus as a divine being and had declared so, it is unlikely in the extreme that he would have been offered the Presidency of Israel.
    That depends on what you mean by "divine being".
    He must believe in Jesus to some extent, otherwise his "gospel" quote, is some sort of lie, or joke.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    b) Hawking may have considered himself an atheist in comparison to his wife beliefs, or that of any fundamental christian, in the same way Einstein considered himself atheist in the eyes of a Jesuit priest. But the question is, is he an atheist by the modern standard of atheism?
    Am I? I must admit, I may have missed out here, I haven't updated my own Atheist licence, and I might fluff some questions on the written.
    You may well poke fun, but it feels that way with some atheist who post in forums like this.

    ...who said he didn't believe in a personal God.

    What, in your opinion, is a "personal god?"

    I think we can safely conclude that neither Einstein nor Hawking were either religious or completely atheistic.
    I think that is a safe area of agreement, we'll call our legal people to draw up the necessary paper work. :wink:

    Jan Ardena.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #514  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Silas,

    You seem to think that if you read about Jesus in the Gospel you automatically accept his divinity.
    That's not what I think, I think that if you read about Jesus and can feel his presence and personality pulsating with every word, then his divinity must have something to do with that. Wouldn't you agree?
    I read the Sherlock Holmes stories, and I feel his presence and personality pulsating with ever word. I do not, however, think that Sherlock Holmes is the Son of God.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Why would that be the case to someone brought up in a faith that rejects the New Testament?
    Einstein rejected the religious dogma of institutional religion, personalising God of the scriptures.
    Well, my point exactly!

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    He can read the Gospels and see them as a testimony to a very great man, but there would be nothing compelling a belief that Jesus was actually the son of God.
    The essence of the "very great man", was inspired by God, according to the "very great man himself". His whole being, from start to finish, according to the gospels, was of complete devotion to God. How could you feel his presence and personality in every page and omit that essential part?
    I, an outright atheist, never had the remotest doubt that Jesus was utterly devoted to God. That does not mean that I believe him to be a divine being, or can in any way be said to have been "imbued with divinity" since I do not believe in such concepts as reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Why do you think he never believed in the divinity of Jesus?
    Because he didn't believe in a "personal God". If you think, as seems to be the case, that Einstein was a Deist if not completely atheistic, then he would still reject the notion of any human individual possessing attributes of the Divine.
    I don't think Einstein was anything in particular, I think he spent alot of time explaining this to those who could hear. God, wasn't exclusive to Jesus, in the bible. Jesus was of a particular class of man who possessed the qualities needed to become one with God. It is this quality which is felt.
    But that is not what I understood your question to mean, Jan. When you talked about the "divinity of Jesus", you were basically asking why I had stated that Einstein was not a Christian. I think the answer to that is fairly obvious.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    On the other hand, if he believed in Jesus as a divine being and had declared so, it is unlikely in the extreme that he would have been offered the Presidency of Israel.
    That depends on what you mean by "divine being".
    So, before you were assuming Jesus to be a divine being in the sense that I and just about everybody else understands it - ie the Son of God - and now a "divine being" can be just somebody who is "great" or "devoted to God" or other essentially human attribute that can safely be applied to Jesus Christ. No, Jan, I was saying that Einstein was stating a belief in the historical Jesus, but that he was not professing Christian beliefs, which was I think the implication of your big blue quotation. Go find any Jew (other than a "Jew For Jesus") or Muslim who has a knowledge of the Gospels and ask them if they believe in Jesus's Divinity, ie Godhead. They may well believe him to be a great man, and Muslims believe in his historicity as a matter of doctrine. But they don't believe he is the Son of God.
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    He must believe in Jesus to some extent, otherwise his "gospel" quote, is some sort of lie, or joke.
    Indeed. And the extent to which he believed in Jesus is the extent I stated when I first made the remark which started this discussion! IE
    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    That's a personal view of the historical Jesus. I seriously doubt if he believed in the divinity of Jesus
    In which I remind myself that it was me who introduced the word "divinity" in the first place. You are being purposely contrary if you are trying to convince me that you - or anybody else reading this - truly thought, in a discussion about religious beliefs on a Religion sub-forum, that I meant "divinity" in the sense that you say, "Oh, that's DIVINE" when tasting some nice chocolate. I meant "Jesus was a divine being" in the sense that any practicing Christian would understand it. Einstein did not believe that, whatever else he believed.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    I think we can safely conclude that neither Einstein nor Hawking were either religious or completely atheistic.
    I think that is a safe area of agreement, we'll call our legal people to draw up the necessary paper work. :wink:

    Jan Ardena.
    Indeed!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #515  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    Silas,

    I read the Sherlock Holmes stories, and I feel his presence and personality pulsating with ever word. I do not, however, think that Sherlock Holmes is the Son of God.
    No, but I bet you think he is a clever detective, even though he is a fictional character.

    [quote="jan ardena"]
    Why would that be the case to someone brought up in a faith that rejects the New Testament?
    Einstein rejected the religious dogma of institutional religion, personalising God of the scriptures.

    Well, my point exactly!
    You seem to equate religious dogma and institutionalised religion, with the gospels. Obviously Einstein doesn't, so your point is flawed.

    [quote="jan ardena"]
    He can read the Gospels and see them as a testimony to a very great man, but there would be nothing compelling a belief that Jesus was actually the son of God.
    The essence of the "very great man", was inspired by God, according to the "very great man himself". His whole being, from start to finish, according to the gospels, was of complete devotion to God. How could you feel his presence and personality in every page and omit that essential part?

    I, an outright atheist, never had the remotest doubt that Jesus was utterly devoted to God. That does not mean that I believe him to be a divine being, or can in any way be said to have been "imbued with divinity" since I do not believe in such concepts as reality.
    So in your opinion, what was Jesus' devotion to God, some kind of delusion?
    What is there to Jesus, outside his devotion, and communication, to and with God? What is it that attracts such a brilliant, scientific brain, to a man, whose delusion (according to you), is his only claim to fame?

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Why do you think he never believed in the divinity of Jesus?
    Because he didn't believe in a "personal God". If you think, as seems to be the case, that Einstein was a Deist if not completely atheistic, then he would still reject the notion of any human individual possessing attributes of the Divine.
    I don't think Einstein was anything in particular, I think he spent alot of time explaining this to those who could hear. God, wasn't exclusive to Jesus, in the bible. Jesus was of a particular class of man who possessed the qualities needed to become one with God. It is this quality which is felt

    But that is not what I understood your question to mean, Jan. When you talked about the "divinity of Jesus", you were basically asking why I had stated that Einstein was not a Christian. I think the answer to that is fairly obvious.
    I don't anyone believes that Einstein was a christian, I certainly have not given any impression that he was. You should stick to the question which was, why you think he never believed in the divinity of Jesus.

    That depends on what you mean by "divine being".

    So, before you were assuming Jesus to be a divine being in the sense that I and just about everybody else understands it - ie the Son of God - and now a "divine being" can be just somebody who is "great" or "devoted to God" or other essentially human attribute that can safely be applied to Jesus Christ.
    I assumed nothing of the sort Silas, however it is confirmed in the gospels, to which Einstein expressed a particular and profound fondness of.
    The "son of God" implies the aspect of us which is Godlike, the spirit, soul. The son of man implies the aspect of us which is mum/dad or grandpa-like, in other words the material body.
    So in essence every living being is "son of God" but most do not realise it. Religion is the tool used, to come some way to the realisation of our Godlike divinity.
    Jesus being fully self-realised becomes a divine being, although in the guise of an ordinary man. "I and my Father are one".
    A self-realised person is a "great person" and "devoted to God" without even trying.

    No, Jan, I was saying that Einstein was stating a belief in the historical Jesus, but that he was not professing Christian beliefs, which was I think the implication of your big blue quotation.
    The purpose of my big blue quotation, was to show what Einstein said. To me it is very clear, but for some reason, you and other explicit atheists try and interpret it in a way which is totally contradictory to what he said. Why on earth do you do that?
    Why can't you just accept that Einstein believed in Almighty God, although he was not a religious person?
    Is it because he is a great science icon?

    Go find any Jew (other than a "Jew For Jesus") or Muslim who has a knowledge of the Gospels and ask them if they believe in Jesus's Divinity, ie Godhead. They may well believe him to be a great man, and Muslims believe in his historicity as a matter of doctrine. But they don't believe he is the Son of God.
    Why do I need to ask any of these people, when it is written down already? I wonder if any of these people would consider Adam as the "son of God"?

    ....Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    He must believe in Jesus to some extent, otherwise his "gospel" quote, is some sort of lie, or joke.
    Indeed. And the extent to which he believed in Jesus is the extent I stated when I first made the remark which started this discussion! IE
    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    That's a personal view of the historical Jesus. I seriously doubt if he believed in the divinity of Jesus
    Why have you arrived at this conlusion?
    You will probably dodge most of my other questions, but I would apreciate an answer on this one.

    In which I remind myself that it was me who introduced the word "divinity" in the first place. You are being purposely contrary if you are trying to convince me that you - or anybody else reading this - truly thought, in a discussion about religious beliefs on a Religion sub-forum, that I meant "divinity" in the sense that you say, "Oh, that's DIVINE" when tasting some nice chocolate. I meant "Jesus was a divine being" in the sense that any practicing Christian would understand it. Einstein did not believe that, whatever else he believed.
    To me, "divinity" is God, or "of God", I have never suggested differently. You seem to bring up institutionalised religion alot, as though that is what we are discussing. I am not interested in the institution of Islam, Judaism or Christianity, in this discussion. They are the antithesis of Einsteins understanding and belief in God, and quite frankly, mine also. I am interested in the quotes of Einstein, and the scripture to which they refer.
    Einstein must have believed in God, in some form or other, otherwise he would not refer to Him so much. I refuse to believe that he substituted the word "reason" or whatever, with the word "God". That, to me, is silly.

    Indeed!
    Indeedy do!

    Jan Ardena.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #516  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    I, an outright atheist, never had the remotest doubt that Jesus was utterly devoted to God. That does not mean that I believe him to be a divine being, or can in any way be said to have been "imbued with divinity" since I do not believe in such concepts as reality.
    So in your opinion, what was Jesus' devotion to God, some kind of delusion?
    Evidently. But my opinion of Jesus is not in question here, but Einstein's.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    What is there to Jesus, outside his devotion, and communication, to and with God? What is it that attracts such a brilliant, scientific brain, to a man, whose delusion (according to you), is his only claim to fame?
    Quite obviously Jesus's devotion to God was not his "only" claim to fame. History is filled with people who were devoted to God. Jesus went out and did something about it, and changed the world forever. If in your quote Einstein was questioning the common atheist position that Jesus never existed, he's clearly expressing the view (with which I agree) that the Gospels represent sufficient documentary evidence that there really was such a person.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    I don't anyone believes that Einstein was a christian, I certainly have not given any impression that he was. You should stick to the question which was, why you think he never believed in the divinity of Jesus.
    Those positions are precisely equivalent, Jan. If you believe in the divinity of Jesus then you are a Christian. Einstein was not a Christian, therefore he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus in the sense that I meant it - ie that Jesus is a deity.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    That depends on what you mean by "divine being".

    So, before you were assuming Jesus to be a divine being in the sense that I and just about everybody else understands it - ie the Son of God - and now a "divine being" can be just somebody who is "great" or "devoted to God" or other essentially human attribute that can safely be applied to Jesus Christ.
    I assumed nothing of the sort Silas, however it is confirmed in the gospels, to which Einstein expressed a particular and profound fondness of.
    It says it in the Gospels, that doesn't mean that Einstein believed it to be the case or in any way "confirmed".

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    The "son of God" implies the aspect of us which is Godlike, the spirit, soul. The son of man implies the aspect of us which is mum/dad or grandpa-like, in other words the material body.
    So in essence every living being is "son of God" but most do not realise it. Religion is the tool used, to come some way to the realisation of our Godlike divinity.
    Nothing whatsoever to do with what I meant by "Einstein did not believe in Jesus's Divinity". You make it sound like, that for a believer in God, everybody in the world has aspects of the Divine, but Einstein specifically excluded Jesus from this Divinity. Of course I said and believe nothing of the sort.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    The purpose of my big blue quotation, was to show what Einstein said. To me it is very clear, but for some reason, you and other explicit atheists try and interpret it in a way which is totally contradictory to what he said. Why on earth do you do that?
    I did nothing of the kind. I have interpreted it in a way that is not contradictory to its meaning. Now again you are claiming that Jesus was a Divine Being in the sense that I meant it, and that Einstein believed it. He believed nothing of the sort.
    Why can't you just accept that Einstein believed in Almighty God, although he was not a religious person?
    Is it because he is a great science icon?
    Because he is a great science icon he is a historical figure whom I respect a great deal. As an expression of my respect I do what I can to ensure that Einstein's views on God are not misrepresented. I have written many things in favour of Christianity, which I would not wish to have twisted after my death to mean that it is thought that I believed in God. Einstein himself complained about his views being misrepresented as somehow believing in God in a religious sense, within his own lifetime. He certainly did not believe in "Almighty God".

    You made that quote to say that Einstein stated categorically that he believed in Jesus. I concur. But your continued argument emphasises that the real reason for your quoting what he said as implying that he believed in Jesus as a religious figure. If he believed "the Old One" created the laws of physics and the Universe for them to operate in, he certainly did not believe in God made Flesh come down to Earth to save Mankind.
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Go find any Jew (other than a "Jew For Jesus") or Muslim who has a knowledge of the Gospels and ask them if they believe in Jesus's Divinity, ie Godhead. They may well believe him to be a great man, and Muslims believe in his historicity as a matter of doctrine. But they don't believe he is the Son of God.
    Why do I need to ask any of these people, when it is written down already? I wonder if any of these people would consider Adam as the "son of God"?
    Please clarify what you mean by "it" in "when it is written down already?"

    Point of information: the big blue bible quotes hurt the eyes, Jan.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    He must believe in Jesus to some extent, otherwise his "gospel" quote, is some sort of lie, or joke.
    Indeed. And the extent to which he believed in Jesus is the extent I stated when I first made the remark which started this discussion! IE
    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    That's a personal view of the historical Jesus. I seriously doubt if he believed in the divinity of Jesus
    Why have you arrived at this conlusion?

    You will probably dodge most of my other questions, but I would apreciate an answer on this one.
    This is my third long post answering that question. If you still don't understand, I'm afraid I've explained myself about as well as I am able. I believe most people who read me think I explain myself pretty well, though I'm open to contradiction on that score, of course.

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    In which I remind myself that it was me who introduced the word "divinity" in the first place. You are being purposely contrary if you are trying to convince me that you - or anybody else reading this - truly thought, in a discussion about religious beliefs on a Religion sub-forum, that I meant "divinity" in the sense that you say, "Oh, that's DIVINE" when tasting some nice chocolate. I meant "Jesus was a divine being" in the sense that any practicing Christian would understand it. Einstein did not believe that, whatever else he believed.
    To me, "divinity" is God, or "of God", I have never suggested differently. You seem to bring up institutionalised religion alot, as though that is what we are discussing. I am not interested in the institution of Islam, Judaism or Christianity, in this discussion. They are the antithesis of Einsteins understanding and belief in God, and quite frankly, mine also.
    Then what are we arguing about? If Einstein had a belief in God, then it is of that nature as you described. But if so, Einstein did not believe in Jesus the way Christians do, which was the entire meaning and raison d'être of my statement about Einstein and the "divinity of Jesus".

    Quote Originally Posted by jan ardena
    I am interested in the quotes of Einstein, and the scripture to which they refer.
    Einstein must have believed in God, in some form or other, otherwise he would not refer to Him so much.
    Wrong. I refer to Him an enormous amount in my writings, here and on other forums (one of which is a theology forum run by Evangelicals). I make no bones about my belief that He doesn't exist, but I often write about Him as if He did, in order to make a point. Your deduction does not follow.

    Although you repeatedly claim to have a similar "hands off" approach to God and distrust of organised religion, your citation of the Bible and steadfast belief in every word (eg "Jesus is the Divine Son of God because the Bible 'confirms' it") indicates a more doctrinal and "organised religion" position than Deism usually allows for. To finally state my belief about Einstein, it is clear to me that his Deistic belief was possibly of some First Mover that created the laws of physics that he himself had help deduce, and maybe, somehow, "set them going". He did not believe that this First Mover interfered with Its creation after that. He certainly did not believe that It had a special interest in this tiny dust speck we call Earth.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #517  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    13
    i say that the first scientists were prophets, or in general, clergy devotees because their curious minds searched for an explanation of their existence. then tried to verbalize and materialize the natural phenomena they experienced through works like the bible or the koran of which everything is exemplified by god's creation. these books are mostly metaphorical, anything may be adapted to form new significances.

    mahoma, jesus, buda were physically ordinary men who knew in a profound and extensive way the mechanics of what we call univerese. because people in their era were appalled by their knowledge, they converted them into omnipotentibus deities.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #518  
    Forum Bachelors Degree
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    London, England
    Posts
    405
    I think the first priests were Medicine Men (or indeed Medicine Women! :P) who attributed their abilities to a higher power, when they had simply noted the effectiveness of certain mixtures to cure diseases (or at the very least to treat symptoms). Then they discovered the power that they wielded..

    It is one of the ironies of science that amongst the very first true scientists were what we now call astrologers. The very concept of the predictability of the future arose from the discovery of the predictability of the state of the heavens.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #519  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    I can make a strong case for the first priests definitely being women:

    1) The medicine woman/priestess connection would arise from those who were gathering the herbs to use medicinally.
    2) The practical application of genetics to evolve grains and domesticate cattle would have resided with the women. Their represenation as fecund mother goddesses was based, I would argue, not only on their own fertitility, but upon their control of animal mating and crop yield.
    3) The dyes used for early paintings and for body decoration would have been collected and extracted by the women.

    On the other hand, I know next to nothing about this subject area, so I am just speculating. Now, what was the original thread about?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #520  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    317
    Silas,

    So in your opinion, what was Jesus' devotion to God, some kind of delusion?

    Evidently. But my opinion of Jesus is not in question here, but Einstein's.
    There is no question of Einsteins opinion of Jesus, he made that quite clear in his quote.
    You opinion of Jesus is very much in in question as you are the one twisting Einsteins quote to suit yourself.

    What is there to Jesus, outside his devotion, and communication, to and with God? What is it that attracts such a brilliant, scientific brain, to a man, whose delusion (according to you), is his only claim to fame?

    Quite obviously Jesus's devotion to God was not his "only" claim to fame.
    You say "quite obviously" but have yet to explain in what way he famous outside his devotion to God..

    I don't anyone believes that Einstein was a christian, I certainly have not given any impression that he was. You should stick to the question which was, why you think he never believed in the divinity of Jesus.

    ]Those positions are precisely equivalent, Jan. If you believe in the divinity of Jesus then you are a Christian. Einstein was not a Christian, therefore he did not believe in the divinity of Jesus in the sense that I meant it - ie that Jesus is a deity.
    How are these positions the same, Jesus had nothing to do with what is termed as Christianity. Quite obviously, Einstein believed in God, a creator, with a mind and intelligence, and judging by his gospels quote, he had every respect for Jesus who was a man totally devoted to God. You do not have to be a Christian to believe that Jesus was divine, Christianity is a man-made organisation.

    I assumed nothing of the sort Silas, however it is confirmed in the gospels, to which Einstein expressed a particular and profound fondness of.

    It says it in the Gospels, that doesn't mean that Einstein believed it to be the case or in any way "confirmed".
    You're quite right, but it is more likely he did believe than not. How many atheists do you know give the respect Einstein gave to Jesus, or to God for that matter?

    Nothing whatsoever to do with what I meant by "Einstein did not believe in Jesus's Divinity". You make it sound like, that for a believer in God, everybody in the world has aspects of the Divine, but Einstein specifically excluded Jesus from this Divinity. Of course I said and believe nothing of the sort.
    Everybody does have aspects of the Divine, some choose to realise it, most don't. This is the essential difference between spirit and matter, and it explained to some degree or other, in every bona-fide religious scripture, the ultimate explanation found in the Bhagavad Gita, a scripture to which Einstein was very partial. You say Einstein specifically excluded Jesus from his divinity, but I doubt very much your understanding of Jesus, and of Divinity. But I would like to see in what way he "specifically" excluded him.

    Why can't you just accept that Einstein believed in Almighty God, although he was not a religious person?
    Is it because he is a great science icon?

    Because he is a great science icon he is a historical figure whom I respect a great deal.
    So you cannot respect someone a great deal if they believe in God?

    As an expression of my respect I do what I can to ensure that Einstein's views on God are not misrepresented.
    He said what he said and all the world can see, here and understand what he said. There is no need of intervention from yourself or anyone else.

    I have written many things in favour of Christianity, which I would not wish to have twisted after my death to mean that it is thought that I believed in God.
    I think you can rest assured that you give no impression of being Christian or a believer in God. However, with all due respect, your understanding of spirituality (IMO) is arbitary and inconsistent with bona-fide scriptures, whereas Einstein has a deep and profound understanding of such matters. In his gospels quote alone, this can be understood, what to speak of his other quotes.

    Einstein himself complained about his views being misrepresented as somehow believing in God in a religious sense, within his own lifetime. He certainly did not believe in "Almighty God".
    Anybody who has some comprehension of the english language can immediately understand that he was not religious. You seem to be under the impression that one has to be religious in order to believe in the Almighty God, one aspect of your misunderstanding.

    But your continued argument emphasises that the real reason for your quoting what he said as implying that he believed in Jesus as a religious figure. If he believed "the Old One" created the laws of physics and the Universe for them to operate in, he certainly did not believe in God made Flesh come down to Earth to save Mankind.
    I made no mention of him believing Jesus to be a "religious figure", this is your distortion. "Religious" is mans perception. Jesus was never regarded as a "religious figure" in the gospels, in fact he rebuked the religion, and the "religious figures" of the day in his own way.
    Where does it say (in the gospels) that Jesus is God cloaked in flesh, come down to earth to save mankind?
    Again, this only highlights your ignorance regarding this subject matter.

    Go find any Jew (other than a "Jew For Jesus") or Muslim who has a knowledge of the Gospels and ask them if they believe in Jesus's Divinity, ie Godhead. They may well believe him to be a great man, and Muslims believe in his historicity as a matter of doctrine. But they don't believe he is the Son of God.

    Why do I need to ask any of these people, when it is written down already? I wonder if any of these people would consider Adam as the "son of God"?

    Please clarify what you mean by "it" in "when it is written down already?"
    Why do I need to ask anybodies opinion of a subject which is already documented and easy to comprehend?

    If Einstein had a belief in God, then it is of that nature as you described. But if so, Einstein did not believe in Jesus the way Christians do, which was the entire meaning and raison d'être of my statement about Einstein and the "divinity of Jesus".
    I never stated that Einstein was a Christian, or had Christian beliefs. Christianity is your obsession. I am not even talking about Christianity, or any religious institution for that matter. The books of the bible were penned long before Christianity was conceived, please try and focus on that. The divinity of Jesus exists whether Christianity is present or not, due to your obsession, it seems you cannot separate the two. But I assure you, the two are separate.

    I am interested in the quotes of Einstein, and the scripture to which they refer.
    Einstein must have believed in God, in some form or other, otherwise he would not refer to Him so much.

    Wrong. I refer to Him an enormous amount in my writings, here and on other forums (one of which is a theology forum run by Evangelicals). I make no bones about my belief that He doesn't exist, but I often write about Him as if He did, in order to make a point. Your deduction does not follow.
    Please give an example of how you refer to God in your writings.
    Then we will see if my deduction does not follow.

    Although you repeatedly claim to have a similar "hands off" approach to God and distrust of organised religion, your citation of the Bible and steadfast belief in every word (eg "Jesus is the Divine Son of God because the Bible 'confirms' it") indicates a more doctrinal and "organised religion" position than Deism usually allows for.
    A "hands-off approach to God", please explain.
    Who said I have a distrust of organised religion?
    Your understanding of religion and spirituality is so far off the mark, it is extremely difficult to answer your point.

    The best thing (IMO), is not to assume my position without discussing it with me first.

    Jan Ardena.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #521  
    Forum Freshman Medicine*Woman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Right here in your face!
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by Silas
    I think the first priests were Medicine Men (or indeed Medicine Women! :P) who attributed their abilities to a higher power, when they had simply noted the effectiveness of certain mixtures to cure diseases (or at the very least to treat symptoms). Then they discovered the power that they wielded..

    It is one of the ironies of science that amongst the very first true scientists were what we now call astrologers. The very concept of the predictability of the future arose from the discovery of the predictability of the state of the heavens
    *************
    M*W: This is true. I've been studying this ancient form of science as compared with aspects and dates important to christianity. I'm convinced now that the NT is an ancient astrological calendar. The only god is the sun who created all.
    "Baby, you don't have to live like a refugee."

    ~ Tom Petty
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #522 Re: Christians who infiltrate scientific forums. 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    This is an interesting thread...
    Quote Originally Posted by Medicine*Woman
    *************
    M*W: Why is it that Christians and other religious folks infiltrate scientific forums? Is it from a genuine interest? Could it be to learn about atheism? Or could it be just to arrogantly argue with the non-religious? Yet, when presented with a scientific platform on man-made religious beliefs, they get so offended?

    If I went over to the physics or math forums and started presenting my theories, I could see where I'd be bashed or even banned. So, why is it that the religious out there come to the Religion Forum to bash atheists? I personally think that the Religion Forum needs a name change to Religious Theories Forum where the knowledgeable can discuss theoretical issues without getting bashed by the Christians. Perhaps there should be a forum for Christians and other religions where those of like-mind can participate. Or, maybe, a separate forum for atheists? Then the religious can go to the Religion Forum and bash each other as we know they will.
    The reason I first joined the science forum was to have intelligent science discussions; however, the first thing that caught my eye was the religion forum, and the 'Does God exist?' thread. I thought it interesting that most of the people who posted under that thread were atheists, and that some on this site believed that a Christian cannot be a good scientists, nor did they believe that a Christian can believe in evolutionary theory; thus, I tried to prove them wrong, and that's why I initially posted under the 'religion forum'...but that was then; now, I'm kind of getting tired of the religion forum, as the same old arguments are brought up over and over. It was interesting at first, but now it's annoying. So recently most of my posts under the religion forum assume a humorous tone.

    *And I post under the other fora also, if you're wondering...my initial reason for joining was solely for scientific discussions and debates.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #523  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Wow, I didn't realize this was an atheist forum by default. I wonder if Descartes, Kepler, Newton, and Mendel realized they weren't real scientists.

    It looks to me like Medicine Woman is the infiltrator. She hardly ever posts on the science topics, mostly on religion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #524  
    Forum Freshman marcos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    norfolk
    Posts
    26
    harold:
    are you sure Descarte was religious, his books were banned by the pope, and being brought up a catholic, he was buried in sweden ( a protestant nation at the time) in a graveyard for unbaptised babies
    now keplar, wanted to become a minister, so you can say he was religious.as was the other two Mendel, and Newton. but religious people, are 99% of the time quite reasonable, it's that odd 1% that stops anybody now days taking them seriously, but in the past 99% believed it god. so all were subject to that extreme irrationality, but nobody questioned them on it.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #525  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    It looks to me like Medicine Woman is the infiltrator. She hardly ever posts on the science topics, mostly on religion.
    She has as much knowledge of science as visually defective cephalopod has of autumnal vegetative spectra.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #526  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    harold:
    are you sure Descarte was religious, his books were banned by the pope, and being brought up a catholic, he was buried in sweden ( a protestant nation at the time) in a graveyard for unbaptised babies
    now keplar, wanted to become a minister, so you can say he was religious.as was the other two Mendel, and Newton. but religious people, are 99% of the time quite reasonable, it's that odd 1% that stops anybody now days taking them seriously, but in the past 99% believed it god. so all were subject to that extreme irrationality, but nobody questioned them on it.
    Descartes was very religious; in fact he was often criticized for having brought religion in some of his work: http://library.thinkquest.org/18775/...tes/religd.htm
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #527  
    Forum Freshman marcos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    norfolk
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    harold:
    are you sure Descarte was religious, his books were banned by the pope, and being brought up a catholic, he was buried in sweden ( a protestant nation at the time) in a graveyard for unbaptised babies
    now keplar, wanted to become a minister, so you can say he was religious.as was the other two Mendel, and Newton. but religious people, are 99% of the time quite reasonable, it's that odd 1% that stops anybody now days taking them seriously, but in the past 99% believed it god. so all were subject to that extreme irrationality, but nobody questioned them on it.
    Descartes was very religious; in fact he was often criticized for having brought religion in some of his work: http://library.thinkquest.org/18775/...tes/religd.htm
    ok I accept that he may have been religious.
    but it change's nothing in regard to the rest of my post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #528  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    harold:
    are you sure Descarte was religious,
    Marcos, I put Descartes on the list because he was the author of a famous ontological proof of the existence of God. Not too many people bought into his proof even back in his day, but it does show he believed in God.
    There are more I could add to the list, but these were just the ones that sprang to mind. Even Darwin almost went into the seminary before he started studying biology, though I don't know how his beliefs might have changed after he developed his theory of evolution.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #529  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    so all were subject to that extreme irrationality, but nobody questioned them on it.
    I'm offended by this.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #530  
    Forum Freshman marcos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    norfolk
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    so all were subject to that extreme irrationality, but nobody questioned them on it.
    I'm offended by this.
    as you know, or should know embracing science means accepting that we live in a world where the hand of god never intrudes. of course religion is irrational most of the time. one principal idea of religious traditions is to cultivate faith, notice the biblical passage about "blessed are those who have not seen, but still believe".
    science and religion are mutually exclusive.
    religion is irrational, so deal with it, note that many other things in life are irrational too, perhaps most notably Love/hate/jealousy etc..
    if it's offensive, sorry sometimes the truth hurts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #531  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    harold:
    are you sure Descarte was religious,
    Marcos, I put Descartes on the list because he was the author of a famous ontological proof of the existence of God. Not too many people bought into his proof even back in his day, but it does show he believed in God.
    There are more I could add to the list, but these were just the ones that sprang to mind. Even Darwin almost went into the seminary before he started studying biology, though I don't know how his beliefs might have changed after he developed his theory of evolution.

    Im sorry, but darwins father actually enrolled him into christs college because of frustration at the lack of his progress, that wasn't by any means a decision of charles darwin
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #532  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    besides, in victorian times it was quite common for the well-off classes to place wayward sons as country parsons : it kept them respectable with some standing in the community - it does not imply that these people felt particularly strongly about the articles of faith they were supposed to subscribe to
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #533  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Darwin was agnostic.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #534  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    so all were subject to that extreme irrationality, but nobody questioned them on it.
    I'm offended by this.
    religion is irrational
    It's interesting how the person who said because he's atheist he'd know the definition better than I (a theist) would is calling something irrational. With your kind of logic, I'd say you've got some reasoning problems. Further, I challenge you to tell me why religion is irrational, if you can.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #535  
    Forum Freshman marcos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    norfolk
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    I challenge you to tell me why religion is irrational[, if you can.
    do you believe in mithra?
    do you believe in fairies?
    do you believe in unicorns?
    do you believe in dragons?
    what is rational about believing something for which there is no credible evidence?
    Something doesn’t become rational simply because it can be rationalized. If that were the case, nothing would be irrational because we can rationalize anything. rationalization of supernatural belief always relies in some way on at least one if not several suppositions that are not rational. This does not mean that some aspects of the rationalization aren’t rational but that the rationalization contains and depends on at least one if not several arguments that are not rational. thus making the whole, irrational.
    religious belief (whether it has a name or is simply a vague belief in god or similar supernatural being) has the potential to lead to conflict simply because all religious belief relies on irrational thinking, validating this type of thinking By practicing and justifying irrational thinking, causes deaths for irrational reasons.
    believing something simply on faith alone is not rational.
    Belief in the supernatural is irrational. It has nothing to do with the values one might derive from that belief. That’s a separate issue. Belief in something for which no evidence exists is irrational. Not all action that stems from religious belief is irrational, but the belief itself relies on irrationality.
    "Man is the religious animal. He is the only religious animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion – several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat, if his theology isn’t straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven." Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #536  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    I challenge you to tell me why religion is irrational[, if you can.
    do you believe in mithra?
    do you believe in fairies?
    do you believe in unicorns?
    do you believe in dragons?
    The first one is mythology; the other three aren't gods; nor are they associated with religion. Are you sure you know the definition of religion?

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    what is rational about believing something for which there is no credible evidence?
    I don't know...you tell me what's irrational about it.

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Something doesn’t become rational simply because it can be rationalized.
    Thanks for enlightening me.

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    If that were the case, nothing would be irrational because we can rationalize anything.
    Interesting...

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    rationalization of supernatural belief always relies in some way on at least one if not several suppositions that are not rational.
    For example...?

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    This does not mean that some aspects of the rationalization aren’t rational but that the rationalization contains and depends on at least one if not several arguments that are not rational.
    O rly?

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    thus making the whole, irrational.
    non-sequitur

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    religious belief (whether it has a name or is simply a vague belief in god or similar supernatural being) has the potential to lead to conflict simply because all religious belief relies on irrational thinking, validating this type of thinking.
    Proof?

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    By practicing and justifying irrational thinking, causes deaths for irrational reasons.
    Wait...is this a complete sentence? I'm lost. :?

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    believing something simply on faith alone is not rational.
    I see.

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Belief in the supernatural is irrational.
    You said it once, you've said it twice; you've said it a billion times over. I think I agree with you now.

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    It has nothing to do with the values one might derive from that belief. That’s a separate issue.
    "It"? What's this "It" you speak of? :?


    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Belief in something for which no evidence exists is irrational.
    Didn't I hear this before?

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Not all action that stems from religious belief is irrational, but the belief itself relies on irrationality.
    Oh...I see.

    Thanks for that refreshing post!

    Now...everything you said sounds something like this: "Theism is irrational because it's not rational". Ironic, isn't it?

    The only thing that makes sense is: "Belief in something for which no evidence exists is irrational." Now, in response to this I could give you several bits of evidence that a God exists (though not evidence to say "he definitely exists without a doubt"); however, I don't have the time to do that right now.

    That said,
    seeing as you said a belief in God is irrational, you're saying that God doesn't exist. Do you have proof of non-existence?

    Edit: in case you're wondering about my somewhat offensive use of sarcasm: the reason I'm using so much sarcasm is to show you how ridiculous you seem when you make such a claim and are unable to back it.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #537  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    That said, seeing as you said a belief in God is irrational, you're saying that God doesn't exist. Do you have proof of non-existence?
    Every time some brain dead pseudo philosopher employs this particular unthinking, illogical, line of 'reasoning' I feel it incumbent on me to say loud and clear - bullshit.

    The onus of proof lies with those claiming the existence of any entity, phenomenom, or process. What do you fail to understand about that simple concept?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #538  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Darwin was agnostic.
    I found these quotes from his autobiography which would seem to indicate he believed in God at the time of the Beagle voyage but gradually lost his faith. Nevertheless I think it supports the point I was making that a belief in God does not automatically preclude scientific work.

    "Whilst on board the Beagle I was quite orthodox, and I remember being heartily laughed at by several of the officers (though themselves orthodox) for quoting the Bible as an unanswerable authority on some point of morality."

    "Another source of conviction in the existance of God connected with the reason and not the feelings, impresses me as having much more weight. This follows from the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capability of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look at a first cause having an intelliegent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a theist.

    This conclusion[6] was strong in my mind about the time, as far I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #539  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    That said, seeing as you said a belief in God is irrational, you're saying that God doesn't exist. Do you have proof of non-existence?
    Every time some brain dead pseudo philosopher employs this particular unthinking, illogical, line of 'reasoning' I feel it incumbent on me to say loud and clear - bullshit.

    The onus of proof lies with those claiming the existence of any entity, phenomenom, or process. What do you fail to understand about that simple concept?
    Yes, the burden of proof does lie on the person who makes the claim. Now, if you claim that God doesn't exist, the burden of proof lies on you, just like how the person who claims that God does exist has the burden of proof. If you simply say "well I don't believe that there's sufficient evidence to say he exists," then you don't carry the burden of proof. It's as simple as that. He says God doesn't exist, so he must proove that God doesn't exist. I can't just say "well, you're right, God doesn't exist", can I? What don't you understand about that simple concept?
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #540  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    in 1881 Darwin received 2 atheists, Edward Aveling and Ludwig Buchner, in his house at Downe
    during this visit Darwin asked them "Why do you call yourselves atheists?", stating that he preferred to be described as agnostic

    when Aveling answered that "agnostic is but atheist writ respectable" Darwin replied that "atheist is but agnostic writ aggressive"

    so Darwin clearly was an agnostic by his own admission
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #541  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    The first one is mythology; the other three aren't gods; nor are they associated with religion. Are you sure you know the definition of religion?
    Can you explain to me the difference between mythology and religion

    Mythology - Definition: The body of myths (sacred stories) of a particular culture; the study and interpretation of such myths
    That fits religion perfectly from an athiests point of view
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #542 Re: Christians who infiltrate scientific forums. 
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by Medicine*Woman
    *************
    M*W: Why is it that Christians and other religious folks infiltrate scientific forums?...
    If you assume that they're here "against" science (or trying to convert supposed science-atheists), then it's simply because this, as a science forum, is a mecca for science-minded people. If you want to argue a point with a certain group of people, you go where they hang out. Would the disciples of religion convert more people preaching amongst a group of religious people, or non-religious people?

    Can it get any simpler?
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #543 Re: Christians who infiltrate scientific forums. 
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf
    Can it get any simpler?
    well, yes, it can. They may have just come here for a good fight.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #544  
    Forum Freshman marcos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    norfolk
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    I challenge you to tell me why religion is irrational[, if you can.
    do you believe in mithra?
    do you believe in fairies?
    do you believe in unicorns?
    do you believe in dragons?
    The first one is mythology; the other three aren't gods; nor are they associated with religion. Are you sure you know the definition of religion?
    wow, aren't you the imbecile, the first one is a god of mytholoy as is yours, the other three, are supernatural just as your god is, if it is irrational to believe in those or any other kind of supernatural imaginary mythological thing, creature. then it follows it's irrational to believe in yours.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    what is rational about believing something for which there is no credible evidence?
    I don't know...you tell me what's irrational about it.
    just did.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Something doesn’t become rational simply because it can be rationalized.
    Thanks for enlightening me.
    well you needed it.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    If that were the case, nothing would be irrational because we can rationalize anything.
    Interesting...
    it is isn't it.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    rationalization of supernatural belief always relies in some way on at least one if not several suppositions that are not rational.
    For example...?
    god exists.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    This does not mean that some aspects of the rationalization aren’t rational but that the rationalization contains and depends on at least one if not several arguments that are not rational.
    O rly?
    yes really.(really's not hard to spell)
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    thus making the whole, irrational.
    non-sequitur
    how come, of course it follows, lets use a word to explain such as "watched" the whole word is rational as you can read it, but if several of the letters are wrong " wgtckid" it make the whole irrational/incomprehensible.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    religious belief (whether it has a name or is simply a vague belief in god or similar supernatural being) has the potential to lead to conflict simply because all religious belief relies on irrational thinking, validating this type of thinking
    Proof?
    take a look at the world right now and all the wars directly or indirectly caused be religion in the past.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    By practicing and justifying irrational thinking, causes deaths for irrational reasons.
    Wait...is this a complete sentence? I'm lost. :?
    well you would be your only reading the back half of the sentence, the first half is in the previous post,
    in it's entirety, it make's more sense, "validating this type of thinking By practicing and justifying irrational thinking, causes deaths for irrational reasons.".
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    believing something simply on faith alone is not rational.
    I see.
    good..
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Belief in the supernatural is irrational.
    You said it once, you've said it twice; you've said it a billion times over. I think I agree with you now.
    good, then I've proved it for you ok..
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    It has nothing to do with the values one might derive from that belief. That’s a separate issue.
    "It"? What's this "It" you speak of? :?
    religion, i thought thats what we were talking about..
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Belief in something for which no evidence exists is irrational.
    Didn't I hear this before?
    when a thing is good it worth listening to a lot..
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Not all action that stems from religious belief is irrational, but the belief itself relies on irrationality.
    Oh...I see.
    good your learning..
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Thanks for that refreshing post!

    Now...everything you said sounds something like this: "Theism is irrational because it's not rational".
    yes that it grossly simplified for the ameoba.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist

    The only thing that makes sense is: "Belief in something for which no evidence exists is irrational." Now, in response to this I could give you several bits of evidence that a God exists (though not evidence to say "he definitely exists without a doubt"); however, I don't have the time to do that right now.
    or the possiblity.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    That said,
    seeing as you said a belief in God is irrational, you're saying that God doesn't exist. Do you have proof of non-existence?
    I think Ophiolite cleared that up.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Edit: in case you're wondering about my somewhat offensive use of sarcasm: the reason I'm using so much sarcasm is to show you how ridiculous you seem when you make such a claim and are unable to back it.
    offensive, no. humourous, yes.
    i wasn't making a claim just stating facts. you did ask me too.
    "Man is the religious animal. He is the only religious animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion – several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat, if his theology isn’t straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven." Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #545  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    I challenge you to tell me why religion is irrational[, if you can.
    do you believe in mithra?
    do you believe in fairies?
    do you believe in unicorns?
    do you believe in dragons?
    The first one is mythology; the other three aren't gods; nor are they associated with religion. Are you sure you know the definition of religion?
    wow, aren't you the imbecile, the first one is a god of mytholoy as is yours, the other three, are supernatural just as your god is, if it is irrational to believe in those or any other kind of supernatural imaginary mythological thing, creature. then it follows it's irrational to believe in yours.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    what is rational about believing something for which there is no credible evidence?
    I don't know...you tell me what's irrational about it.
    just did.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Something doesn’t become rational simply because it can be rationalized.
    Thanks for enlightening me.
    well you needed it.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    If that were the case, nothing would be irrational because we can rationalize anything.
    Interesting...
    it is isn't it.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    rationalization of supernatural belief always relies in some way on at least one if not several suppositions that are not rational.
    For example...?
    god exists.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    This does not mean that some aspects of the rationalization aren’t rational but that the rationalization contains and depends on at least one if not several arguments that are not rational.
    O rly?
    yes really.(really's not hard to spell)
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    thus making the whole, irrational.
    non-sequitur
    how come, of course it follows, lets use a word to explain such as "watched" the whole word is rational as you can read it, but if several of the letters are wrong " wgtckid" it make the whole irrational/incomprehensible.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    religious belief (whether it has a name or is simply a vague belief in god or similar supernatural being) has the potential to lead to conflict simply because all religious belief relies on irrational thinking, validating this type of thinking
    Proof?
    take a look at the world right now and all the wars directly or indirectly caused be religion in the past.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    By practicing and justifying irrational thinking, causes deaths for irrational reasons.
    Wait...is this a complete sentence? I'm lost. :?
    well you would be your only reading the back half of the sentence, the first half is in the previous post,
    in it's entirety, it make's more sense, "validating this type of thinking By practicing and justifying irrational thinking, causes deaths for irrational reasons.".
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    believing something simply on faith alone is not rational.
    I see.
    good..
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Belief in the supernatural is irrational.
    You said it once, you've said it twice; you've said it a billion times over. I think I agree with you now.
    good, then I've proved it for you ok..
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    It has nothing to do with the values one might derive from that belief. That’s a separate issue.
    "It"? What's this "It" you speak of? :?
    religion, i thought thats what we were talking about..
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Belief in something for which no evidence exists is irrational.
    Didn't I hear this before?
    when a thing is good it worth listening to a lot..
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Not all action that stems from religious belief is irrational, but the belief itself relies on irrationality.
    Oh...I see.
    good your learning..
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Thanks for that refreshing post!

    Now...everything you said sounds something like this: "Theism is irrational because it's not rational".
    yes that it grossly simplified for the ameoba.
    All I've got to say to all of this is...you certainly don't get sarcasm.

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    The only thing that makes sense is: "Belief in something for which no evidence exists is irrational." Now, in response to this I could give you several bits of evidence that a God exists (though not evidence to say "he definitely exists without a doubt"); however, I don't have the time to do that right now.
    or the possiblity.
    ...
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    That said,
    seeing as you said a belief in God is irrational, you're saying that God doesn't exist. Do you have proof of non-existence?
    I think Ophiolite cleared that up.
    I think not. Proof of non-existence, please.

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Edit: in case you're wondering about my somewhat offensive use of sarcasm: the reason I'm using so much sarcasm is to show you how ridiculous you seem when you make such a claim and are unable to back it.
    offensive, no. humourous, yes.
    i wasn't making a claim just stating facts. you did ask me too.
    Fact? Where is this fact that you speak of? Please, stop insulting science by stating that anything you just said is fact.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #546 Re: Christians who infiltrate scientific forums. 
    Forum Freshman Medicine*Woman's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Right here in your face!
    Posts
    66
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf
    Quote Originally Posted by Medicine*Woman
    *************
    M*W: Why is it that Christians and other religious folks infiltrate scientific forums?...
    If you assume that they're here "against" science (or trying to convert supposed science-atheists), then it's simply because this, as a science forum, is a mecca for science-minded people. If you want to argue a point with a certain group of people, you go where they hang out. Would the disciples of religion convert more people preaching amongst a group of religious people, or non-religious people?

    Can it get any simpler?
    *************
    M*W: I don't believe they are "against" science. Not at all. My own opinion on the subject is that christians join science forums to witness, preach, convert, and put another notch in their crucifix everytime they do.
    "Baby, you don't have to live like a refugee."

    ~ Tom Petty
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #547  
    Forum Freshman marcos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    norfolk
    Posts
    26
    scientstphilosophertheist:
    are you sure you have a nose on your face, because you dont seem to be able to see it.
    it's you that insults science by professing your a scientist, philosopher, and a theist, lol. your either a scientist or a theist. the two are mutually exclusive.
    I'll tell you what, you give me proof of the non-existence of fairies, unicorns, dragons, santa claus, or even the easter bunny. and I will recipicate with proof of non-existence of god.
    "Man is the religious animal. He is the only religious animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion – several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat, if his theology isn’t straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven." Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #548  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    scientstphilosophertheist:
    are you sure you have a nose on your face, because you dont seem to be able to see it.
    it's you that insults science by professing your a scientist, philosopher, and a theist, lol. your either a scientist or a theist. the two are mutually exclusive.
    This statement really shows your ignorance. Say this to any real scientist, and you'd look like a complete idiot.

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    I'll tell you what, you give me proof of the non-existence of fairies, unicorns, dragons, santa claus, or even the easter bunny. and I will recipicate with proof of non-existence of god.

    You should really answer my question first, but...
    I'll give you proof of the non-existence of Santa Claus, after which you give me proof of the non-existence of God.

    I would write my own proof, but
    http://www.joe-ks.com/archives_dec2003/Santa_Claus.htm really summarizes everything I'd say myself.

    1) No known species of reindeer can fly. BUT there are 300,000 species of living organisms yet to be classified, and while most of these are insects and germs, this does not COMPLETELY rule out flying reindeer which only Santa has ever seen.

    2) There are 2 billion children (persons under 18) in the world. BUT since Santa doesn't (appear) to handle the Muslim, Hindu, Jewish and Buddhist children, that reduces the workload to to 15% of the total - 378 million according to Population Reference Bureau. At an average (census) rate of 3.5 children per household, that's 91.8 million homes. One presumes there's at least one good child in each.

    3) Santa has 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to west (which seems logical). This works out to 822.6 visits per second. This is to say that for each Christian household with good children, Santa has 1/1000th of a second to park, hop out of the sleigh, jump down the chimney, fill the stockings, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat whatever snacks have been left, get back up the chimney, get back into the sleigh and move on to the next house. Assuming that each of these 91.8 million stops are evenly distributed around the earth (which, of course, we know to be false but for the purposes of our calculations we will accept), we are now talking about .78 miles per household, a total trip of 75-1/2 million miles, not counting stops to do what most of us must do at least once every 31 hours, plus feeding etc.

    This means that Santa's sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second, 3,000 times the speed of sound. For purposes of comparison, the fastest man-made vehicle on earth, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a poky 27.4 miles per second - a conventional reindeer can run, tops, 15 miles per hour.

    4) The payload on the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming that each child gets nothing more than a medium-sized lego set (2 pounds), the sleigh is carrying 321,300 tons, not counting Santa, who is invariably described as overweight. On land, conventional reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds. Even granting that "flying reindeer" (see point #1) could pull TEN TIMES the normal amount, we cannot do the job with eight, or even nine. We need 214,200 reindeer. This increases the payload - not even counting the weight of the sleigh - to 353,430 tons. Again, for comparison - this is four times the weight of the Queen Elizabeth.

    5) 353,000 tons travelling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air resistance - this will heat the reindeer up in the same fashion as spacecrafts re-entering the earth's atmosphere. The lead pair of reindeer will absorb 14.3 QUINTILLION joules of energy. Per second. Each. In short, they will burst into flame almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer behind them, and create deafening sonic booms in their wake. The entire reindeer team will be vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a second. Santa, meanwhile, will be subjected to centrifugal forces 17,500.06 times greater than gravity. A 250-pound Santa (which seems ludicrously slim) would be pinned to the back of his sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force.
    I disproved one of your fanciful creatures; now you disprove God.

    See? A rational person can back up his claim.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #549  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    I'd like to say a couple of things:

    1) Please do not refer to other members as "imbeciles" or similar insulting monikers.

    2) One *can* be both a scientist and a theist. Those that argue otherwise create several logical fallacies just by making the comment. It's a non sequitur since it doesn't follow that one who believes in a god cannot also adhere to the scientific method where it doesn't conflict with their beliefs; it's an argument from ignorance to suggest that theistic scientists don't exist since you don't know any (one wonders what such an ignorant person would make of Kenneth Miller should they get to know this devoutly religious and extremely prolific biologist); and its, therefore, a false dichotomy to suggest that you are either theist *or* scientist but not both.

    3) there is absolutely no reason to prove that [insert god(s)] exists since this claim belongs to the superstitious individuals that make it, therefore its their duty to prove should their contentions and assertions have any bearing on scientific discourse. In so much as their superstitions have no bearing on science, who gives a flying pinch of salt what they believe?

    I agree, however, that most scientists have no genuine belief in gods and such silliness, but some may feel pressured through family or society to act pious and to give deference religious beliefs. But I also think that those scientists who buy into biblical mythology lock, stock and barrel are disingenuous about either science or religion. Mythical nonsense like global flood, temporary cessation of planetary rotation, conquering non-existent kingdoms by non-existent armies, zombie messiahs, etc., etc. are best left to allegory and metaphors. The work of any "scientist" that believed in such fantasy should be completely suspect, particularly in fields of geology, paleontology, biology, genetics, medicine, etc.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #550  
    Forum Freshman marcos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    norfolk
    Posts
    26
    scientstphilosophertheist:
    dont you know anything about santa

    1, ah, but santa sprinkles the reindeer, with fairy dust that's how they fly.
    2, santa does not cherry pick, all children get a visit from him.
    3, santa stops time, so it matters not, how many hours he has.
    4, all santas gifts are subject to fairy dust too, so are weightless.
    5, santa reduces the size of his payload to mere atoms so theres no resistence, and as time has been stopped theres no wind anyway.

    santa, can do whatever wants, he omnipotent.

    when you want to start disproving santa, go ahead.





    skinwalker your right, I apologise for the use of the word imbecile, I was being jocular.
    and yes there are some kinds of science that can combine theism, though not many, so I apologise for that too.
    I agree that any scientist that has a belief in such irrationalities should be regarded as suspect.
    "Man is the religious animal. He is the only religious animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion – several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat, if his theology isn’t straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven." Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #551  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard SkinWalker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Grand Prairie, TX
    Posts
    2,377
    Mind you, I'm not speaking of the scientist that recognizes that there are unanswered questions to which there may have been some "prime mover," etc. when I say I hold their work as suspect.

    I'm talking about the scientist that has literal belief in doctrines like global flood, zombie messiah's, or the various myths of the Koran or Vedic texts -or even the Raelian mumbo jumbo about the gods driving UFOs.

    That last example is clear for everyone who remembers the Raelian claim that they created the first cloned human a few years back. Everyone, Christians included, associated them with the UFO cult that believed god came from another planet and created life on Earth by manipulating DNA and thought, "yeah, right" about their cloning claim.

    I apply the same skepticism to any scientist that claims to have some discovery or research in geology if they unquestioningly accept the Noachian flood myth as literal truth.

    But I don't apply this skepticism to biologists like Kenneth Miller who wonders if it might have been a god that put the evolution of the universe in motion 14 billion years ago using the process that we see before us now. I don't believe his god exists (I've no reason to), but neither do I fault him for his beliefs since it doesn't interfere with naturalistic science.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #552  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    scientstphilosophertheist:
    dont you know anything about santa

    1, ah, but santa sprinkles the reindeer, with fairy dust that's how they fly.
    2, santa does not cherry pick, all children get a visit from him.
    3, santa stops time, so it matters not, how many hours he has.
    4, all santas gifts are subject to fairy dust too, so are weightless.
    5, santa reduces the size of his payload to mere atoms so theres no resistence, and as time has been stopped theres no wind anyway.

    santa, can do whatever wants, he omnipotent.

    when you want to start disproving santa, go ahead.





    skinwalker your right, I apologise for the use of the word imbecile, I was being jocular.
    and yes there are some kinds of science that can combine theism, though not many, so I apologise for that too.
    I agree that any scientist that has a belief in such irrationalities should be regarded as suspect.
    Ok...seeing as you seem to be using fairy dust as a justification for santa's existence, how do you explain his not delivering to good Muslim or Hindu children, or most children in Jamaica (who generally aren't taught all this Santa nonsense, or figure out that he isn't real from a very young age)? I don't think fairy dust can be a good reason for his neglecting children not of the Christian faith, and children who don't believe in him.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #553  
    Forum Freshman marcos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    norfolk
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    scientstphilosophertheist:
    dont you know anything about santa

    1, ah, but santa sprinkles the reindeer, with fairy dust that's how they fly.
    2, santa does not cherry pick, all children get a visit from him.
    3, santa stops time, so it matters not, how many hours he has.
    4, all santas gifts are subject to fairy dust too, so are weightless.
    5, santa reduces the size of his payload to mere atoms so theres no resistence, and as time has been stopped theres no wind anyway.

    santa, can do whatever wants, he omnipotent.

    when you want to start disproving santa, go ahead.





    skinwalker your right, I apologise for the use of the word imbecile, I was being jocular.
    and yes there are some kinds of science that can combine theism, though not many, so I apologise for that too.
    I agree that any scientist that has a belief in such irrationalities should be regarded as suspect.
    Ok...seeing as you seem to be using fairy dust as a justification for santa's existence, how do you explain his not delivering to good Muslim or Hindu children, or most children in Jamaica (who generally aren't taught all this Santa nonsense,
    rubbish he goes to all children, why are you so bitter against santa, you know in your heart santa exist.
    your deliberately ignoring the obvious truth.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    or figure out that he isn't real from a very young age)? I don't think fairy dust can be a good reason for his neglecting children not of the Christian faith, and children who don't believe in him.
    santa neglects no one.
    all I can say is santa works in mysterious ways.
    anyway how do you know santa isn't real if you can't see the air.

    santa claus originated in turkey, cause santa was the bishop of myra, so why would he neglect the people who he originally helped, he first gave money as a gift which he had thrown down the chimney and it fell into a stocking drying there.
    people all over the world celebrate the coming of santa, whether they wish each other Hauskaa Joulua in Finnish, Mele Kalikimaka in Hawaiian, Kala Christougena in Greek, Chuk Sung Tan in Korean or Papa Noel in Spanish, there is the same spirit of peace, love and universal brotherhood.
    santa loves you, even if you dont love yourself.


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr0XF-yoaqg
    even the hindus love santa.
    "Man is the religious animal. He is the only religious animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion – several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat, if his theology isn’t straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven." Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #554  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    scientstphilosophertheist:
    dont you know anything about santa

    1, ah, but santa sprinkles the reindeer, with fairy dust that's how they fly.
    2, santa does not cherry pick, all children get a visit from him.
    3, santa stops time, so it matters not, how many hours he has.
    4, all santas gifts are subject to fairy dust too, so are weightless.
    5, santa reduces the size of his payload to mere atoms so theres no resistence, and as time has been stopped theres no wind anyway.

    santa, can do whatever wants, he omnipotent.

    when you want to start disproving santa, go ahead.





    skinwalker your right, I apologise for the use of the word imbecile, I was being jocular.
    and yes there are some kinds of science that can combine theism, though not many, so I apologise for that too.
    I agree that any scientist that has a belief in such irrationalities should be regarded as suspect.
    Ok...seeing as you seem to be using fairy dust as a justification for santa's existence, how do you explain his not delivering to good Muslim or Hindu children, or most children in Jamaica (who generally aren't taught all this Santa nonsense,
    rubbish he goes to all children, why are you so bitter against santa, you know in your heart santa exist.
    your deliberately ignoring the obvious truth.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    or figure out that he isn't real from a very young age)? I don't think fairy dust can be a good reason for his neglecting children not of the Christian faith, and children who don't believe in him.
    santa neglects no one.
    all I can say is santa works in mysterious ways.
    anyway how do you know santa isn't real if you can't see the air.

    santa claus originated in turkey, cause santa was the bishop of myra, so why would he neglect the people who he originally helped, he first gave money as a gift which he had thrown down the chimney and it fell into a stocking drying there.
    people all over the world celebrate the coming of santa, whether they wish each other Hauskaa Joulua in Finnish, Mele Kalikimaka in Hawaiian, Kala Christougena in Greek, Chuk Sung Tan in Korean or Papa Noel in Spanish, there is the same spirit of peace, love and universal brotherhood.
    santa loves you, even if you dont love yourself.
    You're clearly trying to liken the belief in Santa to the theist belief in God; however, this is a poor comparison. As I said, Santa doesn't visit children who don't believe in him; parents usually place gifts in stockings and say they're from "Santa"; no one in my family got a gift from Santa, are you telling me we're always 'bad little boys and girls'?

    Face it: I can prove Santa doesn't exist, but you can't prove God exists, so you keep doing this silly jumping around because you know there's no way you can prove that God doesn't exist.

    Quote Originally Posted by my buddy marcos
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tr0XF-yoaqg
    even the hindus love santa.
    This is simply ridicule.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #555  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Holy Jesus in tin cans...can you people PLEASE abbreviate the quotes...! Countless millions of bytes are screaming out in horror at the waste... :?

    If we want to see what was said in its entirety, we'll read the original post; especially when it's a big one. Trim it down to just a preface or snippet of what you need, and nix the rest for scroll-finger sake...

    </rant>

    Now for my $0.02

    Why must something that appears to fall within the current definition of "supernatural" be defined as "cannot possibly ever exist"?

    Also, why must anything that can't be tested with current scientific abilities (as well as understanding) be classified as "totally impossible"?

    Furthermore, who said it was either intelligent or civil to call someone an idiot for arguing the opposite side of a theoretical topic? Whether someone believes in a god or not does not mean they're stupid, nor does it give anyone the right to be rude to them.

    I thought this was supposed to be scientific debate, but after reading some of these posts it's clear a few posters are using sandbox maturity as a guise for argument.

    That all said, I challenge anyone who believes belief in a god is nonsense, to take a moment and view the argument from the other side of the fence. Think about the properties of what you're trying to disprove, and be honest scientists about it. You might just find your own arguments break down quickly, too.

    (BTW, I'm on the fence about this subject. I'm not taking a side here, I just don't like "brick-wall science.")
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #556  
    Forum Freshman marcos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    norfolk
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    You're clearly trying to liken the belief in Santa to the theist belief in God; however, this is a poor comparison. As I said, Santa doesn't visit children who don't believe in him; parents usually place gifts in stockings and say they're from "Santa"; no one in my family got a gift from Santa, are you telling me we're always 'bad little boys and girls'?
    you probably never got any presents from santa, because santa chooses who gets the presents so you must have been a very evil child, is that why you became a christian.
    I cant only reason that you dont think santa exist, because you where bad or are bad.
    but the fact you know a bit about santa prove he exists.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Face it: I can prove Santa doesn't exist, but you can't prove God exists, so you keep doing this silly jumping around because you know there's no way you can prove that God doesn't exist.
    you haven't proven anything I have faith that santa exists, your either bad or very unintelligent only smart people believe in santa, most scholars agree that santa exists.
    millions of intelligent people all over the world believe in santa, your a mere speck in comparison. http://www.sociumas.lt/Eng/Nr10/vaikai_senelis.asp

    nothing you says is credible, your a santa hater.
    "Man is the religious animal. He is the only religious animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion – several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat, if his theology isn’t straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven." Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #557  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    You're clearly trying to liken the belief in Santa to the theist belief in God; however, this is a poor comparison. As I said, Santa doesn't visit children who don't believe in him; parents usually place gifts in stockings and say they're from "Santa"; no one in my family got a gift from Santa, are you telling me we're always 'bad little boys and girls'?
    you probably never got any presents from santa, because santa chooses who gets the presents so you must have been a very evil child, is that why you became a christian.
    I cant only reason that you dont think santa exist, because you where bad or are bad.
    but the fact you know a bit about santa prove he exists.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Face it: I can prove Santa doesn't exist, but you can't prove God exists, so you keep doing this silly jumping around because you know there's no way you can prove that God doesn't exist.
    you haven't proven anything I have faith that santa exists, your either bad or very unintelligent only smart people believe in santa, most scholars agree that santa exists.
    millions of intelligent people all over the world believe in santa, your a mere speck in comparison. http://www.sociumas.lt/Eng/Nr10/vaikai_senelis.asp

    nothing you says is credible, your a santa hater.
    Ok, I'm done with all this childish nonsense. Obviously you're trying to jump around because you have no proof God doesn't exist. Post whatever reply you please, but I'm not going to respond unless it has some proof of God's non-existence.

    Wolf,
    I've always wondered whether you're atheist, theist, or agnostic. Which are you, if you don't mind my asking?
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #558  
    Forum Freshman marcos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    norfolk
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Ok, I'm done with all this childish nonsense.
    you started it, isn't it irritating when someone acts so ingredibly childish/irrational. now perhaps you'll understand what it is like talking to theists, then again I doubt it.

    the onus is afterall on you to prove existence, unless of course, you want to start this stupidity all over again.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    That said, seeing as you said a belief in God is irrational, you're saying that God doesn't exist. Do you have proof of non-existence?
    Every time some brain dead pseudo philosopher employs this particular unthinking, illogical, line of 'reasoning' I feel it incumbent on me to say loud and clear - bullshit.

    The onus of proof lies with those claiming the existence of any entity, phenomenom, or process. What do you fail to understand about that simple concept?
    you must of seen this before it's all over the net.
    Proving Existence or Non-Existence.

    The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.

    To put that another way: -
    When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist

    The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.

    From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:

    The thing exists.

    It is unknown if the thing exists or not.

    It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.

    If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.
    if you wish to get back to talking something close to common sense, think about your position and get back to me, but do think about it.
    http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=42174&page=6

    edited : placed source link
    "Man is the religious animal. He is the only religious animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion – several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat, if his theology isn’t straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven." Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #559  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    the onus is afterall on you to prove existence, unless of course, you want to start this stupidity all over again.
    You made the claim that God doesn't exist; thus, the burden of proof is on you.
    I did not say God exists. I do believe God exists, but, unlike you, I don't hold my belief as fact; thus, I don't say that God does exist. Did you read my reply to Ophiolite's statement?

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    That said, seeing as you said a belief in God is irrational, you're saying that God doesn't exist. Do you have proof of non-existence?
    Every time some brain dead pseudo philosopher employs this particular unthinking, illogical, line of 'reasoning' I feel it incumbent on me to say loud and clear - bullshit.

    The onus of proof lies with those claiming the existence of any entity, phenomenom, or process. What do you fail to understand about that simple concept?
    you must of seen this before it's all over the net.
    Proving Existence or Non-Existence.

    The existence of a thing can be conclusively proved by producing one single instance of the thing.

    To put that another way: -
    When the existence of a thing is denied, This can be proven wrong by producing one single instance of the thing said not to exist

    The non-existence of a thing can never be conclusively proved because there is always the theoretical assumption that the thing exists but has not been seen yet or it exists in a place that can not be visited. Unless all places in the universe have been visited and are being constantly observed, we can not be absolutely certain.

    From this we can say that there are only two possible statements we can make about the existence of a thing:

    The thing exists.

    It is unknown if the thing exists or not.


    It is not possible to prove that a thing "does not exist" without further qualifying criteria.


    If a thing does NOT exist it can not leave any evidence of it's non-existence. Only things that DO exist can leave evidence. From this we can derive that conclusive proof can only come from the person that claims that a thing exists. It is nonsensical to demand proof of non-existence.
    if you wish to get back to talking something close to common sense, think about your position and get back to me, but do think about it.
    First and foremost, do you know it's bad habit to copy something without citing its source?

    That said,

    Note the bolded portions above. It is not impossible to prove the non-existence of a thing, as can be seen by my proof of the non-existence of santa. Another example would be: no person exists who can make 1+1 = 4. That's easy to prove. One object added to another object cannot become four objects in the current sense of the word "four".

    Further, even if there was no way to prove the non-existence of a thing, you can't say it doesn't exist because it can't be proven that it exists; this is non-sensical.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #560  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Post whatever reply you please, but I'm not going to respond unless it has some proof of God's non-existence.
    Oh goody. Now we're holding the thread hostage...I'm not sure I'm interested in what I'll miss while I make popcorn.

    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Wolf,
    I've always wondered whether you're atheist, theist, or agnostic. Which are you, if you don't mind my asking?
    I don't mind, but I don't have an answer, either. Like I said, I'm on the fence. Whether I believe in God or not is really a personal thing, and I haven't sorted it out yet. Science can't provide me with an answer, and although I find religion interesting, it doesn't help me much in my exploration of the topic.

    I'm not really sure what to think, to be honest. I mean, what if you say "no, God doesn't exist," and then you die and pop out in heaven? A strange, sudden realization that your previous notions were crap. I wonder if it would feel like when ancient sailors thought they'd fall off the edge of the Earth, only to arrive at another continent?

    Or maybe you spend your whole life devoted to the belief in God, and then when you snuff it, that's it. Nothing happens. Game over. Life is just life.

    What a bummer. :?
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  61. #561  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    i suppose that's the conundrum of life, and there's 4 options :

    you don't believe in god, god doesn't exist : spot on, hope you had a useful life
    you believe in god, god doesn't exist : bummer, wasted all that effort in the hope of an afterlife that isn't there
    you don't believe in god, god exists : you get a special invite to spend more time with satan ? or is god more generous than i'm giving him credit for ?
    you believe in god, god exists : hope you chose to worship the correct god

    there's obviously alternative scenarios that you might want to consider, e.g. god exists, but the whole religion lark was still a human invention - imagine god saying "don't you try and pin this heaven-or-hell thing on me! it's nought to do with me"
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  62. #562  
    Forum Freshman marcos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    norfolk
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    You made the claim that God doesn't exist; thus, the burden of proof is on you.
    I did not say God exists. I do believe God exists, but, unlike you, I don't hold my belief as fact; thus, I don't say that God does exist.
    you ask for prove of non-existence, I never once said god didn't exist, but I did say
    "what is rational about believing something for which there is no credible evidence?"
    "believing something simply on faith alone is not rational."
    "Belief in the supernatural is irrational."
    "Belief in something for which no evidence exists is irrational."
    it would have been wholly irrational of me to even suggest, a god does not exist, hence why I did not.
    but you did ask this foolish question here.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    seeing as you said a belief in God is irrational, you're saying that God doesn't exist. Do you have proof of non-existence?
    this is why, I started playing "the irrational believer", in the santa game.

    you've yet to travel the universe, and check he's not hiding, on some planet somewhere,
    but irrationally you seem to think you've proved, his non-existence.

    it seems you want to start this stupidity all over again, you must be to childish for adult discussion. how old are you, about 10/11/12, are you still at school.
    "Man is the religious animal. He is the only religious animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion – several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat, if his theology isn’t straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven." Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  63. #563  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    You made the claim that God doesn't exist; thus, the burden of proof is on you.
    I did not say God exists. I do believe God exists, but, unlike you, I don't hold my belief as fact; thus, I don't say that God does exist.
    you ask for prove of non-existence, I never once said god didn't exist, but I did say
    "what is rational about believing something for which there is no credible evidence?"
    "believing something simply on faith alone is not rational."
    "Belief in the supernatural is irrational."
    "Belief in something for which no evidence exists is irrational."
    it would have been wholly irrational of me to even suggest, a god does not exist, hence why I did not.
    but you did ask this foolish question here.
    Are you telling me you don't believe God doesn't exist?

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    seeing as you said a belief in God is irrational, you're saying that God doesn't exist. Do you have proof of non-existence?
    this is why, I started playing "the irrational believer", in the santa game.

    you've yet to travel the universe, and check he's not hiding, on some planet somewhere,
    but irrationally you seem to think you've proved, his non-existence.

    it seems you want to start this stupidity all over again, you must be to childish for adult discussion. how old are you, about 10/11/12, are you still at school.
    LOL This is interesting: you're saying I'm childish when you're the one throwing Ad Hominem attacks. Tell me, which one is more mature: presenting an argument or throwing insults?

    This thread reeks of irony.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  64. #564  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    there's obviously alternative scenarios that you might want to consider, e.g. god exists, but the whole religion lark was still a human invention - imagine god saying "don't you try and pin this heaven-or-hell thing on me! it's nought to do with me"
    Well, different religions believe different things about non-believers. In some Christian followings, God is all forgiving, but that only happens if you were a peaceful non-believer. Violence is still violence, of course. Other religious followings state that non-believers are in the utmost state of sin.

    Personally, I think all religions ultimately describe the same...thing... They're just different "flavors" of interpretation. I've seen some religions from all different sides of the spectrum, and I can't help but wonder if they're all just talking about the same thing. Even the religions that worship multiple deities, since what they're really doing is just breaking down the properties of the same thing that another religion might see as a single unit.

    As I've said before, religion and faith are two separate things.

    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    This thread reeks of irony.
    I'd say it reeks with the lingering stench of failed debate arguments and the corpses of opinions that won't give up despite the stench.
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  65. #565  
    Forum Freshman marcos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    norfolk
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Are you telling me you don't believe God doesn't exist?
    no I have no feelings on the matter, gods neither exist, or don't exist it is no more relevant than saying a dragon, elf, or unicorn exist or not.
    whatever you can imagine, could exist some where in the universe, theres no way of knowing.
    an imaginary concept, is just to foolish to give serious consideration to.
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    LOL This is interesting: you're saying I'm childish when you're the one throwing Ad Hominem attacks.
    sorry wheres the ad hom, just giving my opinion, mainly due to you wishing to go down the same irrational road again.
    which inturn lead me to ask your age, and whether you were still at school. whats bad about that.
    instead of telling me your age and schooling, you accuse me of unfounded ad homs.
    which consolidates my belief that you a child.
    "Man is the religious animal. He is the only religious animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion – several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat, if his theology isn’t straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven." Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  66. #566  
    Forum Professor captaincaveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    1,377
    the onus is afterall on you to prove existence, unless of course, you want to start this stupidity all over again

    this quote is very true, the onus is always on the person to prove the existence of god and not the non believer, the only existence for this god is in the minds of thiests.
    CAPTAINCAVEMAN


    I ANSWER TO NO-ONE - The wonders of athiesm

    that which does not kill us only postpones the inevitable
    Reply With Quote  
     

  67. #567  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    thiests ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  68. #568  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Are you telling me you don't believe God doesn't exist?
    no I have no feelings on the matter, gods neither exist, or don't exist it is no more relevant than saying a dragon, elf, or unicorn exist or not.
    whatever you can imagine, could exist some where in the universe, theres no way of knowing.
    an imaginary concept, is just to foolish to give serious consideration to.
    Didn't you say, in another thread, that you're not agnostic?

    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    LOL This is interesting: you're saying I'm childish when you're the one throwing Ad Hominem attacks.
    sorry wheres the ad hom, just giving my opinion, mainly due to you wishing to go down the same irrational road again.
    which inturn lead me to ask your age, and whether you were still at school. whats bad about that.
    instead of telling me your age and schooling, you accuse me of unfounded ad homs.
    which consolidates my belief that you a child.
    If the comment you made was not ad hominem, then my pointing out your horrible grammar and suggesting that you go back to fifth grade (that is, if you're not in school now) would not be ad hominem.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  69. #569  
    Forum Freshman marcos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    norfolk
    Posts
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Didn't you say, in another thread, that you're not agnostic?
    If the comment you made was not ad hominem, then my pointing out your horrible grammar and suggesting that you go back to fifth grade (that is, if you're not in school now) would not be ad hominem.
    unbelievable!
    too childish,
    nuff said,
    bye.
    "Man is the religious animal. He is the only religious animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion – several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself and cuts his throat, if his theology isn’t straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother’s path to happiness and heaven." Mark Twain
    Reply With Quote  
     

  70. #570  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by marcos
    Quote Originally Posted by scientstphilosophertheist
    Didn't you say, in another thread, that you're not agnostic?
    If the comment you made was not ad hominem, then my pointing out your horrible grammar and suggesting that you go back to fifth grade (that is, if you're not in school now) would not be ad hominem.
    unbelievable!
    too childish,
    nuff said,
    bye.
    The truth hurts.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  71. #571  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    I would put this one down as a score draw.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  72. #572  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    I would put this one down as a score draw.
    I wouldn't, I'd score it 10-0 in favour of marcos, the other guy was just infantile.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  73. #573  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    I wouldn't, I'd score it 10-0 in favour of marcos,
    Of course you would. It wouldn't surprise me if Marcos turned out to be your long lost twin brother :-D . Any debate that ends in an argument over Santa Claws, bad grammar and a persons age is a draw, bordering on embarrassing for the two party's involved.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  74. #574  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    I wouldn't say it's a draw at all. I'd just call it an unfinished debate.
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

  75. #575  
    Forum Ph.D. Wolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Here
    Posts
    969
    At least no one mentioned Hitler...


    Aw crap...
    Wolf
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    "Be fair with others, but then keep after them until they're fair with you." Alan Alda
    Reply With Quote  
     

  76. #576  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,760
    or Stalin

    aw double crap
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  77. #577  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    "Jamerica"...When in America, Florida; when in Jamaica, St. Mary
    Posts
    969
    Quote Originally Posted by Wolf
    At least no one mentioned Hitler...


    Aw crap...
    Marcos supports Hitler!
    Whence comes this logic: no evidence = false?

    http://www.atheistthinktank.net/thinktank/index.php

    Theists welcome.
    ___________
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 456
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •