Are you an atheist?

[Call_Me_Sam]

What is a ptolomaic description?

i think ..wally meant "ptolemaic"

the theory, systematized by Ptolemy, postulating the earth as the center or fixed point of the universe, around which the celestial bodies move

 

[thisisntwally]

What is a ptolomaic description?

eh, nothing really. I meant to reference Ptolemy's (and more famously Copernicus) model of the solar system, and their notion of the 'epicycle' to explain the apparent retrograde motion of planetary bodies. While these notions were adequate to explain the observable celestial phenomena of the era, we now look on their explanations as laughable.

i think ..wally meant "ptolemaic"

the theory, systematized by Ptolemy, postulating the earth as the center or fixed point of the universe, around which the celestial bodies move

in a nutshell, yes.

Perhaps Ptolemaic-like (as well as proper spelling of Ptolem*) would have been better...

 

[Call_Me_Sam]

They just pick and choose what to debate, Sam didn't look further than the end of his nose in his response to me, there was a time when people debated properly on this thread, but not any more. Its hardly worth a visit.

Brian

brian/alisa, sorry but it seems the believers are having a harder time than the non believers here...if either of you really think that debate is just mock or TELLING some'one what they believe is wrong simply because the case in point is to PROVE it..where's the debate..your asking for proof, fine that's your way..i and others are saying we believe..we have faith..in something..

Alisa (directly) you have spent so much time questioning the fact we believe i am getting the feeling you really want to believe in 'god' yourself but cannot for some reason take that leap of faith..

we've said before we're not ramming our faith down either of yours' throats, much the reverse...

now i have time i will go back and read the lengthy 'debating' posts...
..oh and echoing Alisa words, Brian you still posted to this thread...

i feel its not me that's contending for a 'last word' post here....and Brian when did i retort without thought to you? i thought forums were open places for discussion, not justification of my beliefs

 

[dan-cat]

I've never thought of these remarkable patterns as anymore than ptolemaic discriptions of an infinitely complex system. Accurate for nothing more than predictions. That a car works as its designed seems to me a poor comparison for a uni/multiverse as vast as the one we inhabit.

But is no worse an analogy than your 'infinitely complex system'.

Both suggest design. How is it that you feel comfortable describing such things in such familiar terms?

We pick out pieces of the process and have the audacity to suggest that anying beyond our comprehension or powers of observation must be a result of magic. This seems rather miopic to this atheist.

Again we have the word 'process'. A word you feel comfortable using to describe your perception of the universe. Have you ever asked yourself why such descriptors sit so comfortably with your perception of the 'infinite'.

 

[Alisa]

eh, nothing really. I meant to reference Ptolemy's (and more famously Copernicus) model of the solar system, and their notion of the 'epicycle' to explain the apparent retrograde motion of planetary bodies. While these notions were adequate to explain the observable celestial phenomena of the era, we now look on their explanations as laughable.


in a nutshell, yes.

Perhaps Ptolemaic-like (as well as proper spelling of Ptolem*) would have been better...

Ok thanks. I knew the word sounded vaguely familiar, but just couldn't place it.

 

[Alisa]

brian/alisa, sorry but it seems the believers are having a harder time than the non believers here...if either of you really think that debate is just mock or TELLING some'one what they believe is wrong simply because the case in point is to PROVE it..where's the debate..your asking for proof, fine that's your way..i and others are saying we believe..we have faith..in something..

Alisa (directly) you have spent so much time questioning the fact we believe i am getting the feeling you really want to believe in 'god' yourself but cannot for some reason take that leap of faith..

we've said before we're not ramming our faith down either of yours' throats, much the reverse...

now i have time i will go back and read the lengthy 'debating' posts...
..oh and echoing Alisa words, Brian you still posted to this thread...

i feel its not me that's contending for a 'last word' post here....and Brian when did i retort without thought to you? i thought forums were open places for discussion, not justification of my beliefs

Why are you getting so huffy? It makes it really hard to figure out what you are talking about. Why am I questioning your beliefs? Because I thought we were having a discussion about atheism. I wasn't aware that there was any ramming going on on either side.

 

[dan-cat]

now i have time i will go back and read the lengthy 'debating' posts...

Ok see you back in a bit.

 

[thisisntwally]

But is no worse an analogy than your 'infinitely complex system'.

Both suggest design. How is it that you feel comfortable describing such things in such familiar terms?



Again we have the word 'process'. A word you feel comfortable using to describe your perception of the universe. Have you ever asked yourself why such descriptors sit so comfortably with the perception of the 'infinite'.

1. I don't see Infinitely complex system as an analogy, this is my string-theory+ of choice. No more an analogy than any god. An arbitrary word construct, representive of an idea I might concede, but we're not arguing linguistics.

2. RE: my comfortability with process. I'm not sure sure I understand the question. At face value, my answer would be that we seem to have a knack for isolating individual processes out of a larger system. I feel that you may be implying that the ease with which we associate and isolate processes with the mechinisations of some greater cosmic schema somehow implies design. If that is the case, I whole-heartedly disagree.

 

[Call_Me_Sam]

Ok see you back in a bit.

ok, thanks c-t

 

[Rabbie]

I know it was said in a light-hearted way but suggesting that I'm playing dumb doesn't lessen my point.

The world simply doesn't work randomly.

We see a car work in a certain way and have no problem with the idea that it is by design. We see our natural surroundings work in remarkable patterns and dismiss the notion of contrived design as absurd.

I ask why to the atheist.

I am glad you realised I was being light hearted. As said previously I was using "Random" loosely. I agree that world does not work randomly in your meaning of th word - It works in accordance with the natural laws which we are steadily learning more and more about.

I believe in making as few assumptions as possible while explaining complex phenomena and I have not found it necessary to have a "god" as a part of the explanation.

I respect your belief in God but do not agree with you. It takes all sorts to make a world.

 

[dan-cat]

1. I don't see Infinitely complex system as an analogy, this is my string-theory+ of choice. No more an analogy than any god. An arbitrary word construct, representive of an idea I might concede, but we're not arguing linguistics.

2. RE: my comfortability with process. I'm not sure sure I understand the question. At face value, my answer would be that we seem to have a knack for isolating individual processes out of a larger system. I feel that you may be implying that the ease with which we associate and isolate processes with the mechinisations of some greater cosmic schema somehow implies design. If that is the case, I whole-heartedly disagree.

I'm saying that we can describe it in no other way. The concept of a 'system' permeates from ground-level, lets say a car, all the way to your 'arbitrary word construct' that describes the infinite. Everything that we understand of the universe thus far fits snugly into your choice of wording. Anything that goes beyond our understanding you are quite happy to fit in that very same concept, a 'system'.

We know our home-grown systems are designed and describe quite happily the universe as a system. Yet some reject the obvious connotations as arbitrary because, well, because they don't fit well with their point of view.

 

[dan-cat]

I respect your belief in God but do not agree with you. It takes all sorts to make a world.

My mind really isn't made up.

 

[Rich]

I never made any such claims.

Yes you did

On the contrary, religion is more popular in developing countries because they need to look at the glass half-full to survive, that is to say, find the will to keep going.

 

[dan-cat]

Yes you did

I don't see in that quote where I said God himself provides that will to keep going. Can you point it out for me?

 

[Rich]

I don't see in that quote where I said God himself provides that will to keep going. Can you point it out for me?

Ah, I see, so we can now conclude that since belief in a God offers no hope, belief in its existence is pointless, There's many here who came to that conclusion years ago, thanks for your confirmation of that.

 

[Call_Me_Sam]

morning all...after giving up reading all those lengthy posts that i'd missed (still missed)...i realised one thing...the whole point of the the thread...

it's entitled "Are you an atheist?"..not "Now justify your answer?"..guys, i am so sorry for butting in where i shouldn't [click fingers!] i'm gone ok...my vote was counted and i should have left after that...

sorry for any misunderstanding and rib poking that was taken the wrong way..

 

[Brianwarnock]

...and Brian when did i retort without thought to you? i thought forums were open places for discussion, not justification of my beliefs

You didn't, and I didn't say you did, I talked about your response.

Brian

 

[Pauldohert]

Well, without getting into semantics, atheism is a standpoint on something that is, by your consent, unprovable. So whether you like it or not, you hold an opinion on something that cannot be proved. Whether you call this a belief or not is up to you.

And claim the atheist belief has something to do with science - at least faith is honest about the fact that its just faith.

 

[Brianwarnock]

Despite Danny's claims that it's God that keeps man going during adversity, it's just hope, hope for a better future God doesn't figure there at all

I don't go along with this , I don't think its hope, I think that it is belief that their God will take care of them if not in this life then in the next.
I sometimes wonder if those of us who donot believe, whether atheist or agnostic, at times envy the certainty of believers.

Brian

 

[Rich]

I don't go along with this , I don't think its hope, I think that it is belief that their God will take care of them if not in this life then in the next.
I sometimes wonder if those of us who donot believe, whether atheist or agnostic, at times envy the certainty of believers.

Brian

But Danny's already dismissed the role of God in this argument so it only leaves hope.