Thread: And the atheist movement begins...

No, it would not. It is not even the goal of science to prove or disprove the notion of a god, and it never has been. It is even likely quite outside the realm of the scientific method to ever prove or disprove such a notion, because it is quite possible that such a hypothesis can never be constructed.

Atheism and agnosticism are philosophies, not science. This is lost on many of its critics.

Originally Posted by JohnLocke

That is obviously because you accept contradictions.

Referring to the greatest teachers in the history of the world, Jesus and the Buddha:
* Jesus, through the Bible said that "fear of the lord is the beginning of wisdom," although I am quick to point out that it is not the end of wisdom.
* Buddha said "the beginning of wisdom is calling things by their proper name."

So, A is A, as Aristotle said; a path is not pathless. Above are two critical paths to begin the search for truth.

Christ never uttered those words. He never said this because to understand his teachings is to understand there is no freedom in fear. And what christ spoke of was freedom. Freedom from the power of the self, of the ego, which is where all sin arises from. If one starts to believe in a god out of fear, there is no freedom in his choice. He is forced by it, from fear. How many folks become religious, being driven by the fear of eternal damnation? That is a helluva fear.

Buddha traveled the country almost his entire life, from this holy man to another, and yet did not find truth, enlightenment, until he no longer searched for the answer from other men, but turned inward, inside, to finally discover he had been digging in the wrong place for all those years, expecting other men to enlighten him. And as christ said, the kingdom is within. Yet this is not orthodox christianity. For very human reasons. Christ's teaching did not provide for a heiarchy of men to prosper, to hold high status, to be the authority, as it was not needed, acccording to christ. That he never left a book, was an example that what he spoke of, could not be found on pen and paper. It had to be something living, something in the now, not the past nor the future. He did not want his people to do as the jews and search the scriptures because they thought in those scriptures was eternal life, or it would tell them how to have it. What he spoke of, only each man himself had to be involved, no teacher, no authority, because the truth, and all that was needed to source it had already been given and was in all men. Christ pointed to it, and then left, so his people might find what he had discovered.

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

No, it would not. It is not even the goal of science to prove or disprove the notion of a god, and it never has been. It is even likely quite outside the realm of the scientific method to ever prove or disprove such a notion, because it is quite possible that such a hypothesis can never be constructed.

Atheism and agnosticism are philosophies, not science. This is lost on many of its critics.

I know that the purpose of science is neither to prove or disprove the existence of God however, most atheists use science as an argument.
Atheism and agnosticism are belief systems, just as theism is.

Originally Posted by michael h

Watch what I type " I cannot prove the existence of God"

And you have typed, `I know god´.
-That is a contradiction.

... can you Fennica "Disprove the existence of God"?

By what way?
-Scientific method excludes all deities, so we are left with the evidence of ALL religions. Not one of those can prove the existance of their particular pantheon so we are left with the conclusion that there are no deities.
-If you expect me to take some scientific route, you are sorely mistaken. The scientific method merely breaks the mysteries previously credited to so many deities. That is the `God/s of the Gaps´ argument.

Don't hide in the corner with a lame ass excuse, Wah burden of proof lies with blah blah blah.

That's rich, coming from a fellow who does not actually read the responses given.

Yes or No?

There is no good reason to think any faith-system is correct, for not one of them has been able to fulfill their burden of proof.
-What you get wrong and ignore when pointed, is the fact that non-believers do not need to disprove anything, it's the believers who need to present reason to have faith.

Maybe math will help.

Math is one of the few absolutes in the Universe. How will that aid in your quest, is beyond me.

The number of people on the earth who can "disprove the existence of God". That would be a null set.

That was just stupid.
-Lets try another math..

¤THose who have faith 50%
¤Those who have no faith 50%

-All the faiths, from past to present are in that 50%.
-Every faith has an equal chance of being right (because each has failed to provide the proof).
-Count the number of faiths.
-Count the number of sects within each faith-system (Christianity has 38 000 sects currently).
-Now you have the part of permille that your faith is the right true one.

Don't like the math? Tough.

Originally Posted by darth omar

I think it was Galileo who posited that the Bible was the Holy book of God’s word and nature was the Holy book of God’s works. Wise man, that Galileo.

He lived in an area where the Sphere of Culture dictated the faith to this Judeo-Christian pantheon.
-Therefore the notion that he spoke of a god instead of gods, is because of the culture he lived in.

Bible is so much not the book of gods words, or if it is, this jahve is one mean deity.

Remember what the men of faith did to Galileo.

We live in an interesting time where many politicians are closet atheists and many astrophysicists are closet deists.
Carry on.

I find that unlikely.
-One of the leading person in the scientific field of paleontology is a preacher and a devout christian.
-It's their work which demands that faith is tossed aside, their personal faith plays no part. Therefore why should any astrophysicist hide their faith?

Originally Posted by Fennica

And you have typed, `I know god´.
-That is a contradiction.
By what way?
-Scientific method excludes all deities, so we are left with the evidence of ALL religions. Not one of those can prove the existance of their particular pantheon so we are left with the conclusion that there are no deities.
-If you expect me to take some scientific route, you are sorely mistaken. The scientific method merely breaks the mysteries previously credited to so many deities. That is the `God/s of the Gaps´ argument.

That's rich, coming from a fellow who does not actually read the responses given.

There is no good reason to think any faith-system is correct, for not one of them has been able to fulfill their burden of proof.
-What you get wrong and ignore when pointed, is the fact that non-believers do not need to disprove anything, it's the believers who need to present reason to have faith.
Math is one of the few absolutes in the Universe. How will that aid in your quest, is beyond me.

That was just stupid.
-Lets try another math..

¤THose who have faith 50%
¤Those who have no faith 50%

-All the faiths, from past to present are in that 50%.
-Every faith has an equal chance of being right (because each has failed to provide the proof).
-Count the number of faiths.
-Count the number of sects within each faith-system (Christianity has 38 000 sects currently).
-Now you have the part of permille that your faith is the right true one.

Don't like the math? Tough.

Add: Knowing God and being able to prove it are not contradictions. And I like to say hi to Rocco if he's reading this thread.

It's really almost impossible to define God ... never mind ... its impossible to disprove the existence. And if someone has some knowledge of God ... that knowledge really couldn't be used with the scientific method, because you can't trust the claim "it would qualify as unreliable".

That's part of what's funny to me ... I know some part of God (no idea how much), and I watch atheists rave about proof of Gods existence, stating boldly there is no God. Here is another thing about gaining that knowledge (knowing) ... your not deserving of that knowledge, your not attempting to gain that knowledge before hand, when the unexplainable is happening ...your not studying or making observations ... you are in the moment ... bathing in your parents love. I'm not even sure you can look directly upon Gods essence without physical consequences ... I'm guessing on that ... as physical changes are apparent to yourself and others that see you after. Basically if a scientist saw God or as I like to say any part of God's essence ... they wouldn't be making observations.

But as you say there is no God. Good enough for me.

Now those are not rules ... I can't vouch for others ... nor could I tell if they were being honest.

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

You actually think repeatedly trying to insult my intelligence after engaging in this absurd discussion about your own apparent lack of knowledge regarding basic scientific theories is going to get you anyplace? That the fact that spontaneous generation cannot account for life when it is confined to a sterile environment "proves" that atheism is based on "magic"? That it actually shows that your god likely didn't simply spontaneously generate instead? That the environment which first cultivated unicellular organisms was far from sterile and likely took millions of years to accomplish? That all the basic scientific theories acknowledged by virtually all scientists can't possibly be correct due to this simplistic notion?

Again, it wasn't a sterile environment. I don't think you know what sterile is. Additionally, abiogenesis did not take millions of years to happen. The environment that it took to theoretically cause the event might have taken millions of years to occur but there was a singular instant in time where non-life had to *poof* become life. There is no gradual anything at that point, there is non-life and then life, a singular point in time, an instant.

I keep bringing up magic because I find it funny that you believe in it and then try and say that the concept of God is silly and outside the natural world. Well, so are your beliefs.

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

No, it would not. It is not even the goal of science to prove or disprove the notion of a god, and it never has been. It is even likely quite outside the realm of the scientific method to ever prove or disprove such a notion, because it is quite possible that such a hypothesis can never be constructed.

Atheism and agnosticism are philosophies, not science. This is lost on many of its critics.

Well, we agree on something here.

Originally Posted by Fennica

-Scientific method excludes all deities, so we are left with the evidence of ALL religions. Not one of those can prove the existance of their particular pantheon so we are left with the conclusion that there are no deities.

Lack of evidence cannot be used as a basis to draw a conclusion. For someone that acts like they understand science that is a pretty basic mistake.

Atheism is about Ego. Like science trying to disprove God. Ego that you are an equal or better than God. Since you really cant do that you have to say God doesn't exists and then bully others into believing it. I know you will say there is no bulling but then why is it Intelligent design is not taught in school yet bizarre evolution is? Still looking for the missing link?

Perhaps man will one day know, without doubt, with irrefutable fact, which end of his universe is up. Unless man knows this, the God question will remain open, in open minds.

But one would have to believe that thought can touch that which is timeless. If thought cannot touch the timeless, because thought is of time, and not of the timeless, KNOWING will never occur. IF one uses thought in which to KNOW.

Perhaps the old saw of "the man who says he knows, does not know" is fact. Perhaps God cannot be known, as the eye cannot see itself without a mirror. Perhaps the not known, can exist on our level, in us, in the same way as the eye cannot see itself. Yet there is "seeing".

Originally Posted by thanatos144

Atheism is about Ego. Like science trying to disprove God. Ego that you are an equal or better than God. Since you really cant do that you have to say God doesn't exists and then bully others into believing it. I know you will say there is no bulling but then why is it Intelligent design is not taught in school yet bizarre evolution is? Still looking for the missing link?

I really have to disagree here. If a person doesn't believe in God, how can their "ego" say they are equal to or better than God? Is it our lack of "ego" that causes us to believe there is a God? No, it's our faith and the evidence we have seen in our own lives that causes us to believe. Atheists don't have the faith that's required to believe in God and they don't understand the evidence so of course they can't believe...ego has nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

I know that the purpose of science is neither to prove or disprove the existence of God however, most atheists use science as an argument.

They certainly use science, especially evolution, as an alternate explanation. Who can possibly blame them? It is certainly a far more rational and logical approach to explaining things which doesn't depend upon belief.

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

Atheism and agnosticism are belief systems, just as theism is.

Once again, a decided lack of belief isn't the same thing as a belief. And most forms of agnosticism are decidedly not based on beliefs, just the opposite.