Stargazer Posted January 13, 2005 Report Share Posted January 13, 2005 Hey, I'M the Resident Atheist around here! :-) 'bout time I am not fighting the good fight alone!Well surely we're not the only atheists around here? :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted January 13, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2005 Which part of the sun is spherical?...there is no definite shape. Spherical: "Shaped like a globe or a ball." The Sun, and all the planets, are spherical due to the gravitational force. Does an electron have form? How about a quark? A photon? Now you're talking about entities which exist in the world of quantum mechanics. They probably have no "shape" per se, they are more like waves. But they do have structure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted January 13, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2005 BTW - I think it's time to take it easy in this thread. It's heating up quite a bit and I'd like to advise everyone to stay on topic and avoid flames. Okay? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrmdave Posted January 13, 2005 Report Share Posted January 13, 2005 FT, I have already posted mathmatical equations which are only true most of the time, but the posting here has been so fast, that they may have been lost in the swarm of replies, I think they are on page 6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted January 13, 2005 Report Share Posted January 13, 2005 Yes, I've heard people say that their beliefs that are not supported are on the same level as something that is wellsupported by evidence. They seem to believe that religion and science are the same. I'm not sure why. Is this what you are saying, as well?I think if you will read what I said, it can only be interpreted as "I believe in natural selection, also in most current scientific data, and the Big Bang. I don't think you can accuse me of putting a faith in God and scientific proofs on the same level. Faith is entirely a different issue. That is why I'm a little suspect of talking about God on a scientific forum. It was however brought up as a topic of disscussion, and being a believer, I am here to testify of my faith. I don't really believe however that we should be talking about faith in the same breath with proof of any kind, weather scientific or anything else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stargazer Posted January 13, 2005 Report Share Posted January 13, 2005 I think if you will read what I said, it can only be interpreted as "I believe in natural selection, also in most current scientific data, and the Big Bang. I don't think you can accuse me of putting a faith in God and scientific proofs on the same level. Faith is entirely a different issue. That is why I'm a little suspect of talking about God on a scientific forum. It was however brought up as a topic of disscussion, and being a believer, I am here to testify of my faith. I don't really believe however that we should be talking about faith in the same breath with proof of any kind, weather scientific or anything else.Probably because if there was any kind of evidence, even the tiniest little piece of evidence as an actual reason to believe in god, then it wouldn't be a faith anymore. But why do people believe in a certain god? Why not hold a belief in IPU or fairies, or that we live in the Matrix? All are supported by the same amount of evidence, yet some are still able to carefully choose what baseless belief to hold. I wonder how that works! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrmdave Posted January 13, 2005 Report Share Posted January 13, 2005 A large part of it is the culture in which one is raised in. Most people raised in Christian households will be Christian, Muslims will be Muslims. New religions rarely occur. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stargazer Posted January 13, 2005 Report Share Posted January 13, 2005 Indeed. So it's because one is told to, in many cases. Still, believers of certain religions still think all other religions are wrong, even though they themselves are in that same situation from another perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted January 13, 2005 Report Share Posted January 13, 2005 Assuming there was a god, and he wanted to tell us something, he would need to put it into terms that we understood, using our limitations.Why? At what point does OMNIPOTENT (ALL powerful) start being restricted? At what point does OMNIPOTENT (ALL powerful) become "Well ALMOST all powerful!"? At what point does this all powerful god lose the ability to CHANGE "our limitations"? Or over come them thru any number of processes, after all, it is supposed to be ALL POWERFUL. Yes I know the actual defintion of your god causes all kinds of problems for people that claim to believe it. Being forced to apply REALITY to these erroneous superstitions causes them to fall apart. I don't expect you to resolve the paradox. Nor do I think you may be capable of comprehending the reality of the mutual exclusivity. Not until you are willing to acheive the needed level of intellectual integrety with yourself. Meanwhile you will try to find excuses that don't sound to absurd to yourself at least.Try to explain relativity to a four year old,And now we find that you do not comprehend the process of creating a VALID analogy. In order to use analogy as a tool, there needs to be a commonality in the specific area being compared. IOW there needs to be a commonality in "ability to explain" in this analogy. That I would be omnipotent regarding explaning things, just as a god would be. The extended analogy The fallacy of the Extended Analogy often occurs when some suggested general rule is being argued over. The fallacy is to assume that mentioning two different situations, in an argument about a general rule, constitutes a claim that those situations are analogous to each other. http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#analogy If god was omnipotent, his difficulty communicating with us would be even greater.I see, so conversely if he was completely powerless he would have no difficulty communicating with us! Incredible! Do you actually think about what you are typing before hitting "Submit"? And further are you saying your god is NOT Omnipotent? The fact is that the biblical account is more like creation stories of other religions of the time and of the past, very magical and mysterious, something that people were able to accept and attempt to comprehend.I ahve no problem with this at all. Yes the authors of the bible were ignorant savages compared to us today. And it reflects it perfectly. And yes, Christianity is nothing more than "stories of other religions of the time and of the past, very magical and mysterious, something that people were able to accept and attempt to comprehend" . Some of us have taken advantatge of 1600 years of advancement. Others continue to accept it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted January 13, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2005 OK, a second warning: This thread has gone completely off topic and is turning into a flame war. I'll shut it down in 24 hours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrmdave Posted January 13, 2005 Report Share Posted January 13, 2005 If god was omnipotent, his difficulty communicating with us would be even greater.I don't know everything there is to know about god, so I posed it as a hypothetical. I believe that god is omnipotent, but I cannot be sure. Assuming that he was, my point was that his intellect would be furthur beyond ours than ours is beyond a young child's. As for god's limitations, even contemplating the possibility of an allpowerful being brings up difficulties. Can he create a boulder so big that he cannot move it? If he communicates with beings of a lower intellect, he has to bring himself down to that intellectual level, he cannot bring them up to his. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infamous Posted January 13, 2005 Report Share Posted January 13, 2005 Probably because if there was any kind of evidence, even the tiniest little piece of evidence as an actual reason to believe in god, then it wouldn't be a faith anymore. But why do people believe in a certain god? Why not hold a belief in IPU or fairies, or that we live in the Matrix? All are supported by the same amount of evidence, yet some are still able to carefully choose what baseless belief to hold. I wonder how that works!Let's talk a little about evidence here. In a court of law, an eye witness is considered to be good evidence are they not? I could talk about events in my own life as an eye witness to Gods power. But sadly, in this court, nothing I could ever say would change any minds, because you were not there in person to witness it yourself. If you had been, you might have a different view about this question. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgrmdave Posted January 13, 2005 Report Share Posted January 13, 2005 Religion is inherently a personal experiance, and cannot completely be explained to others, hence the personal evidence cannot change minds, but it is such a powerful personal experiance that it is difficult for empirical evidence to sway a believer's mind. I agree with nearly all of your arguments, FT, but I could never deny what I feel, it is too important, even if it is illogical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted January 13, 2005 Report Share Posted January 13, 2005 Show us "mathmatic equations that are only true most of the time", not various theories. "mathmatic equations"consider any repeating decimal: .xxx....multiply it by 10: x.xxx...subtract the original value: x.xxx... - .xxx... = xdivide it by nine to get a fraction value: x/9 now, do this with .999... and you arrive at 9/9 = 1In what way does this prove that the "mathmatic equation" is "NOT TRUE"? First of all it is THREE "mathmatic equation", not ONE. And EACH IS CORRECT. many mathematic equations are wrong when you insert zero or infinity into the variable,??? In what way does using a zero make the "mathmatic equation" "NOT TRUE"? The answer is in fact TRUE for the variables used. but because you specify that the equations are wrong at this time,the equation is NOT WRONG. There is nothing WRONG with the "equation". It is functioning exactly as intended. Now once more Show us "mathmatic equations that are only true most of the time"Or at least admit you were wrong. Being wrong is not a bad thing. Learning from it encourages being right in the future. pgrmdave 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted January 13, 2005 Author Report Share Posted January 13, 2005 Let's talk a little about evidence here. In a court of law, an eye witness is considered to be good evidence are they not? Not really. It's a difficult question and it is hotly debated. Here is an enlightening read on the subject (PDF, 152Kb): http://www.extenza-eps.com/extenza/loadPDF?objectIDValue=21942 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stargazer Posted January 13, 2005 Report Share Posted January 13, 2005 Let's talk a little about evidence here. In a court of law, an eye witness is considered to be good evidence are they not? I could talk about events in my own life as an eye witness to Gods power. But sadly, in this court, nothing I could ever say would change any minds, because you were not there in person to witness it yourself. If you had been, you might have a different view about this question.I might, but now we'll never know anyway. Also, unconfirmed anecdotes are not proof. How did you know which god it was, btw? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freethinker Posted January 13, 2005 Report Share Posted January 13, 2005 The gospels were written as scripture, but what about all the rest of the new testament? most of it is letters, written to early churches and people that was later compiled.Ah yes, remember how this started? I asked you to provide factual proof to the bible stories, (contemporary eyewitness) specifically it's Jesus fairytales. Rather than even bother trying the impossible, you have wasted all of our time with attempts to change the subject. Why can't you either provide the requested factual information or admit it does not exist? (It's a rhetorical question, I KNOW why you can't, your a Christian) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.