I'm agnostic so dont think i'm having a go at all you atheists, this is merely an observation.

My observation is that how should humans be able to base the lack of existence of god on ANY evidence that we have put forward.
I think it is very big headed of us as humans that just because we are the biggest baddest species on our planet. That we think our logic and experience is viable throughout the whole universe.

I find it very annoying when people say things like Aliens can't exist on Mars, there isnt any water. Sure, aliens may not exist on Mars but does it really matter that there isnt any water? Can we really be that narrow minded to say "on earth every living thing needs water and thus everything throughout the whole universe needs it to. And don't tell me that anything would need it to carry out whatever processes because at the end of the day it doesnt prove shit. there could be biological systems of a nature we can't even imagine. there may be aliens on mars but we can't see them through satellites because they have some wierd thing going on. and in the same vein, this applies to the existence of god.

God cannot be real because there must of been something before him - in our earthly experience we have decided that there must always be a moment before a moment. But can this apply throughout the universe considering we have only experienced one of 100000000000000000000000s of planets? Please don't be specific on that particualr "god cant exist because" this is merely an example.

So, while i'm not condoning theism or disregarding atheism I wonder if i can really be one of you narrow minded atheists that takes your experience in this tiny tiny tiny tiny corner of the galaxy, and your not even omniscient of this tiny tiny portion - and then apply what you've seen here to the rest of the universe and the natural order of it. Its a froday night so sorry if its a bit jumbled.

All I say as an atheist is that as of right now God's existence is unknowable and there's nothing that convinces me he exists. The possibility of God existing is still open.

In that regard, you're an atheist too aren't you?

no I'm an agnostic, I am undecided, what you are isnt an atheist. Atheists are against the existence of god. You are saying your are still open to its existence. Therefore you arent really an atheist.

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=26679

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-definitions.html

"to reject the truth or reality of..."

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=26679

indeed. so he is agnostic as he believes that at present the problem is insoluble ----> he is still open

Atheists are against the existence of god

I don't think we are "against" Gods existence, we just don't think that there

ever was such a thing and is only a "myth". That means God exists to those

that believe in myths and they have as much right to believe that as we

have the right not to believe in that myth. :)

I find it much easier to believe there was an intitial mover, a force that started the universe moving than in believing it simply happened. I find it more logical to think there was something before the universe that created the universe rather than the universe simple appeared from nothingness. I also find it easier and more logical to think there is an architect of the universe directing the course of events rather than events simply happening haphazardly.

The link you supplied actually supports my position as an atheist. :confused:

From your link:

Here is how the OED defines atheism:

atheism Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god.

disbelieve 1. trans. Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to: a. a statement or (alleged) fact: To reject the truth or reality of.

ok whatever, you don't believe in "the myth" my point is that your logic for not believing in that "myth" is flawed

denial of the existence of god! thats not what you said, you said you were still open to further evidence.

If that is what you believe you are not an atheist. You are an agnostic.

Definition of an atheist is someone who does not believe in God. I don't believe in God. How am I not an atheist?

denial of the existence of god! thats not what you said, you said you were still open to further evidence.

Disbelief in OR denial of.

I'm the former.

because you said "right now the existence of god is unknowable" this is a word that links directly to undecidedness, it may just be your word choice that has let you down.

$%^$#
I was so hoping that said Agnostic Orgy.

$%^$#
I was so hoping that said Agnostic Orgy.
I dint believe such a thing exists.

anyway this whole definition thing is way off the point, I'm talking about the application of our earthly logic.

because you said "right now the existence of god is unknowable" this is a word that links directly to undecidedness, it may just be your word choice that has let you down.

Yes but I also said that as of right now nothing convinces me of God's existence. Thus, I don't believe in him. Thus, I'm an atheist.

I dint believe such a thing exists.

No, it might exist. Atheist one don't.
boy, you sure don't know your orgies do you. :bugeye:

anyway this whole definition thing is way off the point, I'm talking about the application of our earthly logic.

Well how are we supposed to talk about it if you don't even know what the words you're using mean??

No, it might exist. Atheist one don't.

Oh ye of little faith.

I am an agnostic i think the possibility of gods existence is still open and in the same vein nothing proves me of his non existence because i think the logic of atheists is flawed (i don't care if your'e one or not)

I know. My husband thinks they do exist, I don't. But he keeps trying to change my mind.

That's because you don't have the correct epistemology to perceive the reality of atheist orgies. :itold:

The issue of the probability of life on other planets is entirely separate from the question of wether life is the product of a creator.

To say that life is impossible on Mars, or impossible in alternative forms is not the position of any respectable scientist. There presence of extremophile organisms on Earth is proof that there can be systems of metabolism other than that we are familiar with on the surface.

Secondly, the idea of a creator is contrary to the idea of evolution. Evolution is a gradual process of trial and error, and all organisms known show the signs of this by virtue of our DNA. Through analysis of DNA, the intimate relationship of all organisms is revealed, and our common origins in the chemistry of early Earth is clear.

Therefore, the idea of needing a complex creator to design complex organisms is just unnecessary. DNA accumulates information (another word for complexity). Life is a stream of coded information. Non digital life is also theoretically possible, but it's uncertain how it could survive through each generation virtually unchanged, the way our kind of life does.

Thirdly, I take issue with your characterization of atheists as narrow-minded. Logic is universally applicable. If you are so "open minded" as to equate logical and illogical ideas, then no learning is possible, no advancement of our understanding can ever occur.

I know. My husband thinks they do exist, I don't. But he keeps trying to change my mind.
*************
M*W: It's about time you got a new husband!

The issue of the probability of life on other planets is entirely separate from the question of wether life is the product of a creator.

To say that life is impossible on Mars, or impossible in alternative forms is not the position of any respectable scientist. There presence of extremophile organisms on Earth is proof that there can be systems of metabolism other than that we are familiar with on the surface.

Secondly, the idea of a creator is contrary to the idea of evolution. Evolution is a gradual process of trial and error, and all organisms known show the signs of this by virtue of our DNA. Through analysis of DNA, the intimate relationship of all organisms is revealed, and our common origins in the chemistry of early Earth is clear.

Therefore, the idea of needing a complex creator to design complex organisms is just unnecessary. DNA accumulates information (another word for complexity). Life is a stream of coded information. Non digital life is also theoretically possible, but it's uncertain how it could survive through each generation virtually unchanged, the way our kind of life does.

Thirdly, I take issue with your characterization of atheists as narrow-minded. Logic is universally applicable. If you are so "open minded" as to equate logical and illogical ideas, then no learning is possible, no advancement of our understanding can ever occur.

it isnt logical to apply logic gained from our existence on the earth throughout the universe this is my point - the whole mars thing was just an example - i didnt mean to insult atheists but I couldnt think of another way to say it.

Non-Logical-Idea-Guy - you are an atheist - pure and simple - if you do not have a belief that god exists.
Some atheists go so far as to say they believe that god does not exist - but this is a step further than necessary to be an atheist.
If you are not a theist then you are an atheist. Period.

You, as it happens, are also an agnostic - like many of the atheists on this site - myself included.
But do NOT confuse agnosticism with the "middle ground" between theism and atheism.

Theism / Atheism is your stance on belief in god (you either have it or you don't).
Agnosticism is your stance on the knowledge of God - e.g. whether it is possible to know a god or not, or whether such knowledge exists, personally or otherwise.

All I say as an atheist is that as of right now God's existence is unknowable and there's nothing that convinces me he exists. The possibility of God existing is still open.

your opening statement is poorly married to your last one, since as indicated in the OP, you have no scope for knowing god is unknowable (unless you are omniscient or something)

it isnt logical to apply logic gained from our existence on the earth throughout the universe this is my point - the whole mars thing was just an example - i didnt mean to insult atheists but I couldnt think of another way to say it.

We should also include information we gather from beyond the Earth. On the whole, your speculation sounds like desperation. Maybe life on Earth didn't arise due to a creator, but it did somewhere else? That's possible, but until we actually see it, it's just speculation. Science is already infused with a healthy amount of scepticism. Complete scepticism means we have learned nothing. I think our knowledge is real, just incomplete.

Science is already infused with a healthy amount of scepticism. Complete scepticism means we have learned nothing. I think our knowledge is real, just incomplete.


Science is skepticism.

You reap what you sow. Sow doubt, and its of the fruit of doubt you'll eat.

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

The premise that atheists actively deny the possibility of the existence of a creator entity of some sort is flawed.

Every atheist I know subscribes to the simple fact that there is no more compelling evidence for a creator entity than there is for seven-legged, two headed, silicon-based tau cetians. Or for any of the infinity of other possible baseless speculations.

Just because an atheist allows for unforseen possibilities (no matter how unlikely) does not make him or her agnostic.

Agnostics are allowing for a high degree of likelyhood either way (50/50?) simply because they have failed to see clearly either side of the issue.

You are an "atheist" when it comes to SI based arachnid tau cetians. Or you are a fool. There is no compelling evidence for these creatures just as there is no compelling evidence for a creator entity.

But absolutely denying the possibility is not what any serious atheist is willing to do. That would be just as foolish as the continuous flood of strawman statements to the contrary made by numerous members here.

Science is skepticism.

You reap what you sow. Sow doubt, and its of the fruit of doubt you'll eat.

Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Truth? Like in the bible I gather? Or the quran? Truth based on "faith"? That miracle of blind unquestioning obeisance?

There's only one truth about that kind of degradation of the human intellect.

The premise that atheists actively deny the possibility of the existence of a creator entity of some sort is flawed.

Every atheist I know subscribes to the simple fact that there is no more compelling evidence for a creator entity than there is for seven-legged, two headed, silicon-based tau cetians. Or for any of the infinity of other possible baseless speculations.

Just because an atheist allows for unforseen possibilities (no matter how unlikely) does not make him or her agnostic.

Agnostics are allowing for a high degree of likelyhood either way (50/50?) simply because they have failed to see clearly either side of the issue.

You are an "atheist" when it comes to SI based arachnid tau cetians. Or you are a fool. There is no compelling evidence for these creatures just as there is no compelling evidence for a creator entity.

But absolutely denying the possibility is not what any serious atheist is willing to do. That would be just as foolish as the continuous flood of strawman statements to the contrary made by numerous members here.

the problem is that with theism it is not just a claim of direct perception but a claim of direct perception coupled with a process that enables such perception - thus all the clamoring about endless speculations is just a means for the atheist to maintain a status quo with their ideologies of comfort

the problem is that with theism it is not just a claim of direct perception but a claim of direct perception coupled with a process that enables such perception - thus all the clamoring about endless speculations is just a means for the atheist to maintain a status quo with their ideologies of comfort
Ok. That's fine. Let's just assume that theists (highly trained ones) are directly percieving the true existence of god or whatever. Super.

So tell me LG. What good at all is theism if it has no relevance for actual people? What good are all of your BG quotations? If these direct perceptions can only ever result in the subjective joy of the perciever at his own coolness, what of it? What is there to distinguish them from simple daydreaming?

The highschool dropout has no reason to accept electrons. Who cares? He still plays HALO on his PC, right? Take that as a trivial example that nonetheless exemplifies the whole of science. Physics is the stuff that works whether you believe it or not (paraphrased from a Niels Bohr quote?).

So?

Truth? Like in the bible I gather? Or the quran? Truth based on "faith"? That miracle of blind unquestioning obeisance?


If it is faith that blinds, all abiding in faith, how does any see?
Though your faith be in the perpetual ignorance and/or lack of man, an another in providence; how is it that you differ in your cause for sight, are you not both blind, and in so seeing as a man?

If it is faith that blinds, all abiding in faith, how does any see?
Though your faith be in the perpetual ignorance and/or lack of man, an another in providence; how is it that you differ in your cause for sight, are you not both blind, and in so seeing as a man?
Ummm... err... If that's scripture of some sort, yer barkin' up the wrong tree bub.

No, not scripture, a consideration.

No, not scripture, a consideration.
Speak clearly man. That read like jibberish to me.

Ok. That's fine. Let's just assume that theists (highly trained ones) are directly percieving the true existence of god or whatever. Super.

So tell me LG. What good at all is theism if it has no relevance for actual people? What good are all of your BG quotations? If these direct perceptions can only ever result in the subjective joy of the perciever at his own coolness, what of it? What is there to distinguish them from simple daydreaming?
not sure where you came up with the notion that theism has no relevance to actual people.
Maybe you could coin your response in a different way because I can't see why you suddenly deem something that is (theoretically) knowable as bereft of value

The highschool dropout has no reason to accept electrons. Who cares? He still plays HALO on his PC, right? Take that as a trivial example that nonetheless exemplifies the whole of science. Physics is the stuff that works whether you believe it or not (paraphrased from a Niels Bohr quote?).

So?
in the same way, one may not be conversant with the cause of all causes, yet life can continue on a contingent fashion for those who deem that as sufficient (at least until death, disease and/or old age - or more technically, the movement of the modes of material nature between sattva, rajas and tamas - comes along to change the status quo)

or more technically, the movement of the modes of material nature between sattva, rajas and tamas - comes along to change the status quo)

Funny! :D

Funny! :D
and you wonder why I repeatedly use the analogy of a high school drop out laughing at a physicist?
:shrug:

and you wonder why I repeatedly use the analogy of a high school drop out laughing at a physicist?
:shrug:
No. I know why you do it. :p

No. I know why you do it. :p
really?
Then why do you continue to laugh at knowledge you are unfamiliar with?

really?
Then why do you continue to laugh at knowledge you are unfamiliar with?
Because you've shown nothing - zero - in all this time that indicates your "knowledge" is anything but a subjective delusion.

I really is funny. You're trying to argue an issue that, by your very own admission, is unapproachable by any but the most highly trained theistic minds and even then it only results in a subjective "direct perception".

To me, that's very funny.

Because you've shown nothing - zero - in all this time that indicates your "knowledge" is anything but a subjective delusion.

I really is funny. You're trying to argue an issue that, by your very own admission, is unapproachable by any but the most highly trained theistic minds and even then it only results in a subjective "direct perception".

To me, that's very funny.
from my side it is funny how atheists can talk about delusion, etc without offering a definition of reality
:shrug:

from my side it is funny how atheists can talk about delusion, etc without offering a definition of reality
:shrug:
Reality: That which can me measured or directly inferred through a causal chain of events that follow known physical law. Done. Next?

Reality: That which can me measured or directly inferred through a causal chain of events that follow known physical law. Done. Next?
so your mind or self doesn't exist?
similarly a mother crocodile gently massaging her eggs between her teeth that can snap a buffalo's bone does not have a place in reality since it cannot be explained by a known physical law?
:confused:

so your mind or self doesn't exist?
similarly a mother crocodile gently massaging her eggs between her teeth that can snap a buffalo's bone does not have a place in reality since it cannot be explained by a known physical law?
:confused::wtf:

You throw out these fallacious analogies like they're going out of fashion.

WHAT KNOWN PHYSICAL LAW prevents a mother crocodile from doing what you describe? It is nothing more than the ability to control the muscles in the jaw. It ALL follows physical laws!

You are grasping at straws!!


And how does mind or self not follow the definition of reality given?
The fact that we don't know the precise chain is irrelevant, but we know that the brain operates within the laws of physics. We know this - we know there is a self - that there is a causal chain from one to other is thus inferred.

But again you'll claim "current inability = impossibility" as your prime argument - or some such drivel.

:wtf:

You throw out these fallacious analogies like they're going out of fashion.

WHAT KNOWN PHYSICAL LAW prevents a mother crocodile from doing what you describe? It is nothing more than the ability to control the muscles in the jaw. It ALL follows physical laws!

You are grasping at straws!!
if you think I raised the issue as a simple query of jaw mechanics, I think you missed the point ....


And how does mind or self not follow the definition of reality given?
you explain it yourself

The fact that we don't know the precise chain is irrelevant, but we know that the brain operates within the laws of physics. We know this - we know there is a self - that there is a causal chain from one to other is thus inferred.
so we don't know yet we know - interesting ....

But again you'll claim "current inability = impossibility" as your prime argument - or some such drivel.
more like

current inability = current inability

there are very good reasons why post dated cheques are not very meritorious in either science or commerce