Are you an atheist?

[Mike375]

Incorrect. Atheists state that in the absence of proof there is no reason to believe that any gods exist.

Then that makes an atheist an agnostic. The reason is that " absence of proof" can't be said to be a permanent situation. It might be in your mind but it can't be proven today.

Thus you don't know and thus you are agnostic.

 

[Rabbie]

An interesting point, Mike, but one you have made before.

My view is that I am not making a leap of faith in thinking that there are no unicorns walking on this planet. I can't prove that this is the case but there is no evidence that any exist. IMO exactly the same applies to the existence of gods or other supernatural beings. Now it may be that there are other planets that are home to creatures that are much more technically advanced than we are but that just makes them very clever but not supernatural. I think that however advanced they are they are still bound by the second law of thermodynamics and other physical laws. Until you can show me technology that does this I rest my case.

 

[Mike375]

Now it may be that there are other planets that are home to creatures that are much more technically advanced than we are but that just makes them very clever but not supernatural.

However, from our perspective they could be super natural. As I have poste before.....it's a nice hot sunny day and the little lizards and insects are out and about and their millions of years of instinct tells them this situation will last a few days. Then the home owner decides to mow the lawn and water the garden. For them that is super natural although it would fall into the deist area as it was simply a side effect of the home owners action.

I think that however advanced they are they are still bound by the second law of thermodynamics and other physical laws. Until you can show me technology that does this I rest my case.

Thus you don't know and hence you are agnostic.

 

[Rabbie]

However, from our perspective they could be super natural. As I have poste before.....it's a nice hot sunny day and the little lizards and insects are out and about and their millions of years of instinct tells them this situation will last a few days. Then the home owner decides to mow the lawn and water the garden. For them that is super natural although it would fall into the deist area as it was simply a side effect of the home owners action.





Thus you don't know and hence you are agnostic.

Mike, I also think that 2 + 2 = 4 but I don't regard myself as an agnostic on that point. It is rarely productive to base an argument on shades of meaning. I will often use the word "think" instead of "know" to avoid sounding too arrogant and also to cover myself if I am wrong.

Anyway I hope you had a good Christmas and I wish you all the best for 2016

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Mike, I return to my recent statement.

Atheists are the ultimate, hard-nosed skeptics. We MIGHT consider allowing you to get away with thinking we are agnostic if YOU will consider the possibility that our skepticism is not unwarranted.

1) Atheists state as a matter of fact that there is no God or gods or super naturals etc.

2) The theists state as a matter of fact that there is God. Variations are gods or super naturals.

3) Agnostics are in the "I don't know" but might lean one way or the other.

The first 2 have definite 100% positions but without proof. Thus they are both faith based.

In short an atheist is every bit as "religious" as a "born again"

This is a misstatement and until you understand the nuances of the misstatement, we will forever be butting heads like a couple of deranged mountain goats.

Your statement #1 can be modified very slightly to become correct. It might appear to be just a couple of words, but it makes all the difference in the world.

Atheists state as a matter of fact that there is no evidence for the existence of God or gods or super naturals - and therefore we dispute your statement #2. We also see no reason to act as though your #2 is correct. I have no quibble with your #3, which is fully condoned by dictionaries.

My modification of your #1 negates your subsequent statement: "The first 2 have definite 100% positions but without proof. Thus they are both faith based." In essence, if you can provide proof for your #2 assertion, you ALSO provide the proof that would resolve our "there is no evidence" comment. They are one and the same. For you to misstate the position has the effect of distorting the question and the REAL dispute.

The REAL question is "Is there any irrefutable and scientifically significant evidence for the existence of God (gods, supernaturals, etc.)?" Your #2 statement - belief through faith rather than hard evidence - is consistent with this question. My MODIFICATION of your #1 statement is also consistent with the same exact question. This is therefore not two questions but two sides of the same coin. (The #3 statement covers those folks who flip the coin and get it to land on its edge.)

When you look at your #2 and my modification of your #1, we can more clearly see that the difference is that the religious folks don't have any hard evidence and don't care at all that they don't. The atheists don't have any hard evidence but care strongly that they don't. Strongly enough to infer that continued lack of hard evidence over a long enough period represents a trend (leading to inferential rather than deductive beliefs in the absence of the supernatural.) If you try to push this question any other way, you are obfuscating it intentionally.

Before anyone accuses me of turning this to a "pure black-and-white" kind of question, remember that our agnostics supply the shades of grey and I acknowledge them. They don't have any hard evidence either (nobody does), and it bothers them that they don't.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Or in my case, would-be-atheist save that some scientifically unverifiable 'weird shit' (that's the technical term) happened that you've spent the last 25 years trying to figure out.

Also, it doesn't require faith to think that there are no tap-dancing singing hippos or my earlier-referenced glitter-farting beer-pissing pink unicorns running around; the complete and total lack of any evidence of their existence (not to mention biological implausibility) means that 'they don't exist on Earth' really is the logical deduction. Are they theoretically possible? Sure. Likely? Not very - it's on the order of a randomly generated list of several hundred thousand letters coming up as one of Shakespeare's plays.

 

[Mike375]

Mike, I also think that 2 + 2 = 4 but I don't regard myself as an agnostic on that point. It is rarely productive to base an argument on shades of meaning. I will often use the word "think" instead of "know" to avoid sounding too arrogant and also to cover myself if I am wrong.

Anyway I hope you had a good Christmas and I wish you all the best for 2016

I take your point Rabbie and you also have a good 2016. Might catch you on the other parts of the forum, you know, the ones about Access

 

[Mike375]

.

Before anyone accuses me of turning this to a "pure black-and-white" kind of question, remember that our agnostics supply the shades of grey and I acknowledge them. They don't have any hard evidence either (nobody does), and it bothers them that they don't.

The reality is that everyone is an agnostic. However, all of us have a degree of evidence or a degree of a lack of evidence. From that basis we as individuals then state our position.

For example I have sufficient evidence to believe that there is some sort of outside force. In fact just Monday morning past I received a phone call that solved a problem for me that had been consuming me over the weekend. However, I don't automatically say to myself God or gods were coming to the rescue. I tend to believe that some sort of mental telepathy exists. On the other hand you would write it off as some sort of coincidence or similar.

Basically we all have the same evidence and the same lack of evidence, however, our personalities will make us lean one way or the other. In case of the atheist he has sufficient lack of evidence to make a definite statement and of course the "God" person is the same except for him he has sufficient evidence to make a definite statement that God exists.

The reality though is both are agnostic as they don't know.

This same sort of thing also applies to other topics and we can act differently than we do with this topic. For example, my advice to someone is get a PC and MS Office. I have sufficient evidence that if someone wants a data base made and also have that data base interact with Excel and Word and Outlook then don't go down the Apple road. However, I am not 100% sure of this and thus I am agnostic but I take a definite position.

Anyway, have a good 2016 for yourself and I hope you achieve whatever goals you have.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The problem with disproving the existence of God is not just the size of the domain but because the object of the study - namely God - may not be a physical entity but a spirit or a concept. It's like trying to prove the existence or nonexistence of love. It's open to interpretation. Someone who feels it can't convince those that can't. It can't be produced like balls in a bucket.

Libre,

Comment 1 - all you did with that statement was increase the size of the domain to be searched, thus amplifying my position on the impossibility of proving a universal negative.

Comment 2: Does this statement mean that God is just a feeling or a concept or a non-physical spirit? Can non-physical spirits affect the physical world? (Psalms and Ecclesiastes both say "NO" on this question.) If so, then what parted the Red Sea; flooded the Earth; sent bears to tear apart children; toppled the walls of Jericho; caused the storm after Jesus died at Golgotha; or destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah? Are you saying that the Bible, which claims that these things happened, is not describing anything real? This is one of the stumbling blocks in any atheist-vs.-believer discussion of God. If the Bible is correct then God has to be more than just a feeling or a concept. If there is a real spirit floating around in some metaphysical dimension or alternate plane of existence, we need to know about it. But there is no evidence here on which to pin any theories, hypotheses, or even surmises.

This is always going to come back to the issue that, at least for all Abrahamic religions, first you need to show that the events in the Bible really happened, and second you need to show that these events were divinely implemented rather than naturally occurring. In the Catholic Church, sainthood requires two miracles that cannot be explained by other means than a miracle. They are notoriously stingy with application of the term "miracle."

For instance, some kids had polio myelitis back about 60 years ago (give or take a few), and "it was a miracle" that Dr. Salk came up with the vaccine. Before that, "it was a miracle" that Dr. Fleming discovered penicillin to treat infections. But those two discoveries were done via scientific research. The church would not consider the results of these endeavors as miracles.

The term "miracle" is too easily tossed around and therefore, when someone claims that one occurred, I have to cringe because I know I am in the company of someone who doesn't think clearly enough or know enough to recognize scientific cause-and-effect events. I try to not be an elitist on this subject, but it always comes down to this: I believe what I believe; I know what I know.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

For example I have sufficient evidence to believe that there is some sort of outside force.

Mike - For your statement, the difference between us is what you or I (or the religiously inclined people of the world) would call that outside force / influence / effect.

 

[Libre]

Doc Man
There are certainly unseen forces that exert huge influences in the physical world without being able to be described, observed, or understood.
If I asked you to produce a thing called gravity or magnetism you would have a difficult time of it. You can demonstrate the effect (weight, attraction of objects, etc) but you can't produce something called gravity, and hold it out in your hand, proving it does indeed exist.
God - if he does exist - would not be a guy you can just introduce someone to.

Not everything can be neatly sorted rolled into this category or that.
Especially when it comes to divine beings, the meaning of LIFE - that sort of stuff.
I re-state that the difficulty in proving/disproving the existence of God has more to do with the nature of God than the size of the domain. The domain could be reduced to the size of a thimble - as in - DOES GOD EXIST WITHIN THIS THIMBLE and you would still have a big job on your hands to answer that to anyone's satisfaction. Not all questions are factual YES or NO questions.

There are those who claim that whatever is described in the Bible actually happened just that way.
Others think of it more as a guiding book of parables - or maybe think it is nothing but fairytales - and might still have faith in a creator. So there has to be more than one way to address the questions that arise when discussing the legitimacy of the Bible and the thinking processes of its followers.

Furthermore it's not the lack of evidence that is at the root of the disagreement. To believers, the evidence is all around them. It's what you make of the evidence.

 

[Mike375]

Furthermore it's not the lack of evidence that is at the root of the disagreement. To believers, the evidence is all around them. It's what you make of the evidence.

That nails it more than any other post on the thread. However, it was better before you edited the post. A key point being evidence is not proof.

Someone who is a real guru with Excel will make a better data base or data management system than someone who is a battler with Access. Thus to an observer Excel is better than Access for making data bases and the observer has seen the "evidence" right in front of him.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

To believers, the evidence is all around them.

Ah, there's the center of the argument. What passes for evidence?

If I can explain planets via planetary accretion of dust and if I can accept abiogenesis as the source of life and if I can accept evolution as the way we got to where we are... then what I see is evidentiary "proof" that God is not required for understanding our world. To my viewpoint, science has demonstrated by observation and reasonable interpretation of existing evidence that planetary accretion is real, so the Earth was formed by gravity gathering dust motes. Evolution has been demonstrated in many cases using plants and animals having short-span generations so that we can watch them evolve. We have not demonstrated abiogenesis but we HAVE demonstrated spontaneous generation of pre-life chemicals in conditions that, if they lasted long enough, have a chance to lead to RNA, DNA, etc. I can accept these explanations.

If I cannot accept these explanations for how our world came into existence then that leaves us with speculation and conjecture that leads to a supernatural explanation. In that case, I have to MAKE UP something because the evidence around me doesn't meet my standards of proof. I have to interpret what I saw using primitive standards, and therein lies the big "gotcha."

What's worse is that peer pressure will lead to folks "following a leader" who has more convincing arguments - or personality - than his fellow primitive philosophers. And when I look at modern ministers, that's ALL that I see - persuasion without proof. Explanations that have no practical value ("God works in mysterious ways" ... a euphemism for "I have no idea why this happens this way, but GODDIDIT!")

Here more than for any other subject, the science-fiction authors have it right: Any event that requires sufficiently advanced science to explain it will look like magic to primitive beings. The God belief (to me) resembles something not much more advanced than the belief in animistic spirits that is prominent in Jeanne Auel's "Earth's Children" series. And THAT leads me to the question "Do I want to remain dependent on magic or would I like to learn more about how science explains things in a practical manner?" You know which choice I made.

 

[Mike375]

To my viewpoint, science has demonstrated by observation and reasonable interpretation of existing evidence that planetary accretion is real, so the Earth was formed by gravity gathering dust motes. Evolution has been demonstrated in many cases using plants and animals having short-span generations so that we can watch them evolve.

Doc,

While the "born again evolutionists" hate the term you will be describing micro evolution. The Peppered Moth is the classic example.

Micro evolution can be seen in the very short term. However, it is not a change of species but rather a genetic version becoming dominant.

While we are on evolution can you explain (use your own thoughts, not necessarily scientific approach) to me how the spawn of fish and amphibians evolved to the amniote egg, that is, the egg common to reptiles, birds and mammals.

Another one. The snake is supposed to have evolved from the lizard. I used to be a reptile keeper, including venomous snakes and I would just love to know how this could be done. Just describe how it could take place.

 

[Galaxiom]

While the "born again evolutionists" hate the term you will be describing micro evolution.

"Born again evolutionists" is a stupid term. Understanding Evolution isn't like the "born again Christian" who had a sudden "revelation". It comes form building up a body of knowledge and understanding.

Under your style of terminology you would be a "born again gravitationalist".

Micro evolution can be seen in the very short term. However, it is not a change of species but rather a genetic version becoming dominant.

A claim that extended microevolution over a substantial time period cannot lead to a new species is as nonsensical as claiming that a long journey cannot be completed by a large number of small steps.

Moreover, it is more than simply a change to a predominance of a preexisting genetic variant. Evolution also involves the accumulation of genetic changes which become more prevalent through natural selection.

Both genetic change and natural selection have been thoroughly observed and the processes understood. They are evidenced by direct observation and through comparative gene studies.

While we are on evolution can you explain (use your own thoughts, not necessarily scientific approach) to me how the spawn of fish and amphibians evolved to the amniote egg, that is, the egg common to reptiles, birds and mammals.

We have thoroughly covered this earlier in this thread. It is a process of increasing the number of layers in the egg such that it eventually becomes waterproof. There is no impossible leap as you have previously claimed,

The snake is supposed to have evolved from the lizard. I used to be a reptile keeper, including venomous snakes and I would just love to know how this could be done. Just describe how it could take place.

The lizard ancestors of snakes could move using their legs and body movements. Some had bigger legs than others. Those with smaller legs and better wiggling were better able to exploit a particular environmental niche. Over time the legs became vestigial and eventually were lost completely because they were an unnecessary burden on the individuals who retained them.

Clearly it didn't happen in the lifetime of one person but over millions of years.

 

[Frothingslosh]

Clearly it didn't happen in the lifetime of one person but over millions of years.

Cue claim that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

Also, isn't it a little ridiculous that the guy who swears aliens are God also denies evolution?

 

[Mike375]

"Born again evolutionists" is a stupid term. Understanding Evolution isn't like the "born again Christian" who had a sudden "revelation". It comes form building up a body of knowledge and understanding.

I call them "born again" because their views are equally rigid.

The lizard ancestors of snakes could move using their legs and body movements. Some had bigger legs than others. Those with smaller legs and better wiggling were better able to exploit a particular environmental niche. Over time the legs became vestigial and eventually were lost completely because they were an unnecessary burden on the individuals who retained them.

Clearly it didn't happen in the lifetime of one person but over millions of years.

Your knowledge on the difference between snakes and lizards is very poor.

 

[Mike375]

Cue claim that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

Also, isn't it a little ridiculous that the guy who swears aliens are God also denies evolution?

I don't deny evolution. However I think what is put forward is full of holes.

 

[Galaxiom]

I call them "born again" because their views are equally rigid.

You resort to name-calling because you are incapable of intelligent debate.

What kind of "born again" do you call yourself? You have demonstrated a rigid commitment to your aliens-as-gods hypothesis despite not offering a single piece of evidence. Your lizards on the lawn story is quaint but not actual evidence since it is nothing more than an analogy to your speculative view.

Evolutionists have far from rigid views. The details of the origins of whole groups of organisms has been under constant review and refinement ever since Darwin published Origins.

Your knowledge on the difference between snakes and lizards is very poor.

You make a big assumption on the basis of very little. I posted a vastly simplified version explaining one of the most obvious differences between lizards and snakes. Although the precise details of the evolution of snakes are still being debated, there is broad agreement that they ultimately evolved from terrestrial reptiles.

Why don't you tell us your version of the origins of snakes?

 

[Libre]

That nails it more than any other post on the thread. However, it was better before you edited the post. A key point being evidence is not proof.

Thanks.
But now I don't remember exactly what I had changed it to. I've changed it a few times. I know proof was in there someplace, and I do agree that evidence =/= proof.

I've gotten to the point - maybe during this thread - where I don't even believe that there is any "proof" about anything at all. Positives, negatives - nothing can be proved, outside of an artificially created system, such as formal logic or mathematics. There you can have proofs but they always refer back to themselves somehow - which is something that tormented mathematicians/logicians like Bertrand Russell if I remember my reading.
So you can have a proof in math but you need math to express the proof.

Out in the physical world, there is no proof.
There is only evidence - which actually is not evidence at all.
The mind imbues what we see with meaning, but that is our own interpretation of what we are seeing.