Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

I am fine with most of what you have said, interinfinity, but I do want to say that all self respecting biologists would say that evolution is true. It is not controversial among scientists. I agree that Darwin was not a father of atheism at all. He mostly avoided the subject because his wife was Christian and it pained her deeply to think that they would not be together in heaven. Darwin felt bad about hurting her because he loved her. But, still, he was not a believer either. His lost his faith as a young man.

---

I mispoke, what I meant to say was no one accepts it as a law, they do see it as the best theory. Micro evlolution has been proven true, but macro evolution does have some holes in it. Not trying to debunk it, but if it is univerally accepted its called a law. If its just the best that can be thought up at our present state of understanding, it's a theory. Newtons laws of motion cannot be disproven, therefor it is a law. Evloution has some arguments against it, even from the scientific community, therefore it is a theory. However every good theory has holes in it. Even relativity is a theory, not a law. Doesn't mean its not true, just means that its not perfect

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by interinfinity

i mispoke, what i meant to say was no one accepts it as a law, they do see it as the best theory. micro evlolution has been proven true, but macro evolution does have some holes in it. not trying to debunk it, but if it is univerally accepted its called a law. if its just the best that can be thought up at our present state of understanding, its a theory. Newtons laws of motion cannot be disproven, therefor it is a law. evloution has some arguments against it, even from the scientific community, therefore it is a theory. however every good theory has holes in it. even relativity is a theory, not a law. doesnt mean its not true, just means that its not perfect

---

I understand why you might think that macro evolution remains in doubt or has "holes" in it, but that is a myth put out by people who would like to keep people in doubt. Remember how the tobacco industry kept saying that we couldn't be CERTAIN that nicotine was addictive or that cigarette smoking caused cancer? They managed to persuade ordinary people that scientists were still in doubt about it for decades after doctors knew that tobacco causes cancer and that nicotine was highly addictive.

The same think is happening with evolution, both macro and micro. Macro evolution just means the formation of new species from earlier ones, and it is totally accepted by all practicing biologists. There is no controversy about whether maco evolution occurs. There ARE disagreements about things like whether Species A evolved from Species B or Species C, minutia that would bore most people to death.

I agree with you that scientists quibble about the details of some aspects of subatomic physics or how the immune system works. In the same way, there are squabbles about the classification of species or when a particular lineage first evolved. But no one believes that animals don't have immune systems. And no one believes that species didn't evolve from older species. Among biologists, macro evolution is completely accepted.

It is not true that in science a "law" has more status than a "theory." Some people will tell you that, but it isn't so. Mostly, physicists use words like "law," while other scientists tend to use "Theory." (This has to do with how physicists view their own work! :) ) None of this really matters. Those are just words. In fact, if you want to quibble, relativity "disproves" Newton's laws of motion. But for practical purposes here on Earth, Newton's "laws" are still true. But a physicist would tell you that's technically incorrect. Evolution by natural selection is a stronger theory than Newton's.

I mean that. If you go talk to practicing biologists, you will find that they do not question the idea that evolution--by natural selection and other mechanisms -- explains why the Earth is populated by 10 to 30 million different species. It explains the fossil record, it explains the distribution of plants and animals on different continents and islands; it explains why birds have wings that are different from the wings of bats and a thousand other indisputable facts. Macro evolution is totally accepted. There is no controversy. The idea has no holes and in 150 years (this year!), no one has been able to provide any evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution by natural selection. Instead, we just have more and more evidence that bolsters it. Evolution is one of the most robust theories that science has ever produced.

Asking--Thanks for a great exposition of the "law and theory" terminology in scientific usage. A whole lot of the ink spilled and breath wasted on this and related subjects is very little more than people having completely different meanings of words in their heads, so they come away from the discussion even more convinced that the other side MUST be objecting out of evil motives.

My layman's impression is that even among physicists, the term "law" is losing favor. In EVERY field of science, the fundamental urge, the driving motive, is for a "better" explanation, i.e. one that works over an ever-wider range of conditions and scales of operation. As that range and scale is increased, old explanations often fail. Very few physicists wanted it beforehand (Einstein hated it), but quantum mechanics HAD to be invented because Newtonian "laws", which seemed to work perfectly at the scale of marbles and planets, failed miserably to predict and explain what happens at the sub-atomic scale of matter/energy relations. Similarly, relativity HAD to be invented because Newtonian physics failed to explain what happens at space and time/speed scales that are very far from our daily experience. But the key point is that neither quantum mechanics nor relativity "disproved" Newtonian physics, they just delineated and clarified the range of conditions over which it applied.

Quote:

---

Evolution by natural selection is a stronger theory than Newton's.

---

Yes, in the sense that it works over the entire range of observation available to us.

This might be a topic for another thread (having nothing to do with either atheists or organizations), but I would like to hear your take on how the rapid increase in understanding of genetics and developmental biology is influencing evolutionary theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

One does not need to prove a negative.
Negative proof - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See alos: Russell's teapot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

---

You do need to prove it if you want the statement to hold true. Its just like if I said there is no Gold in Australia. I can't just say that without any proof. I have to prove there is no gold in Autralia to that statement to hold.

Ultimately there really can only be 2 types of people, believers and agnostics. Technically there is no such thing as an atheist.

To say that there is no God requires absolute knowledge. Knowledge of not only our 4 known and understood dimensions but all the higher dimensions as well and that would be impossible for a 3 dimensional creature such as ourselves.

If any of you claim to be an Atheist, then with respect I say to you that you are actually an Agnostic in the true sense, although I can respect that you may have chosen not believe in the existence of a god without proof and in that sense you have chosen to be an Atheist, but your claim to be an atheist is not a scientific one, rather a belief or religion.

Yup ;but they have that aspect covered . Ask about the distinction between soft and hard or strong and weak atheism . Then when they do explain it to me because I don't get it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fancyT

Ultimately there really can only be 2 types of people, believers and agnostics. Technically there is no such thing as an athiest.

To say that there is no God requires absolute knowledge. Knowledge of not only our 4 known and understood dimensions but all the higher dimensions as well and that would be impossible for a 3 dimensional creature such as ourselves.

If any of you claim to be an Atheist, then with respect I say to you that you are actually an Agnostic in the true sense, although I can respect that you may have chosen not believe in the existance of a god without proof and in that sense you have chosen to be an Atheist, but your claim to be an atheist is not a scientific one, rather a belief or religion.

---

Ok, if that makes you happy.

Hello again fancy:

Your argument makes no sense to me. There are things I know to be so. I know the world is round, therefore I know it's not flat. I really DO KNOW it's not flat, because it's round, and I don't know everything. I know there's no tooth fairy and I know there's no Santa Clause. I really DO know it, even though you don't think I do.

In that same vein, I really don't have to know everything in order to proclaim there's no God. I know it, just like I know there's no tooth fairy, or the world isn't flat.

I've heard your argument before. Is that what they're telling you in church these days?

Besides, I don't see what difference it makes. I don't care whether you call me an agnostic or an atheist, nor do I care what you think I think.

You know, it's like if you were to run across a naked guy wandering around the street. You wouldn't want to know what HE thinks about foreign affairs, would you?

I do wonder, though. Does me being an atheist somehow threaten your religion?

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

I do wonder, though. Does me being an atheist somehow threaten your religion?

---

Even the pope seems to threaten his/her religion. It's a big scary "why-is-everyone-not-like-me" world out there.

excon, needkarma... do you feel threatened by people that are religious or by religion in general?

Not. Why do you think that? Do what you want, just be a good person.

I was just asking if you feel threatened, not stating that you do.

Oh OK. Carry on. :)

Hello again, bushg:

No, and my posts don't indicate that I do. My posts don't challenge what other people believe. I don't tell anybody they're wrong for what they believe. I don't try to get them to believe like me. And I don't tell them they're going to a bad place because they don't believe like me.

All I say what is I believe to be true. I couldn't care less what others believe – unless they mean to do me harm because of MY beliefs. I can't believe that saying what I believe threatens what anybody else believes. In fact, it would only threaten them, if they had some sort of stake in that belief beyond it just being true.

I don't have stakes in my beliefs. So what someone else thinks, doesn't threaten me. But, if someone can offer a better argument than mine, I'll switch. I switch all the time. I don't have a “stake” in my beliefs, and my world doesn't crumble when I change one.

I do I recognize, though, that religion has caused more death and mayhem than most any other cause ever. But history doesn't threaten me. Being ignorant of history does. I ain't ignorant.

excon

Quote:

---

Technically there is no such thing as an atheist.

---

Crap. Looks like we're back to not existing again. :eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

yup ;but they have that aspect covered . Ask about the distinction between soft and hard or strong and weak atheism . Then when they do explain it to me because I don't get it.

---

Ugh, I hate those terms. They make no freekin sense.

"Strong Atheist," or "Positive Atheist," or "Hard Atheist" to refer to a person who asserts that no deity exists.
"Weak Atheist," "Negative Atheist," "Soft Atheist," "Skeptical Atheist" to refer to a person who simply has no belief in a deity because there are no rational grounds that support his/her/their existence. Definitions of the term "Atheism"

Maybe I fail at reading comprehension, but I think those are the same thing...

Here's the best definition of "atheist" I've found so far:

Etymology: Atheist originated in two Greek roots: "A" which means "without" or "not"
"Theos" which means "deity"

This would seem to imply that an Atheist is either:

A person who is without a belief in any deity. This definition would mainly include those who are simply unaware of the existence of any deity. It would also include a person who is either too young or who lacks the mental ability to conceive of a deity. In contrast to this, most Muslims believe that all babies are Muslim at birth, and only later in life may accept the teachings of another religion].
A person who totally rejects the existence of any deity. Some may keep this belief to themselves; others may assert this belief to others. Definitions of the term "Atheism"

The absence of belief is what (I think) a lot of theists have trouble with. The belief simply isn't there. For someone of faith, it's hard (I think) to imagine having no faith. The debates and battles over if someone can actually be an atheist comes in when we start to debate semantics and the definition of the word "belief". Then people throw in the word "faith" and there are, of course, different definitions of that word as well (perhaps I should say connotations dependent on context... ). Either way, it's an old argument that's been had on this very site several times...

Religion is just a sort of collective schitzophrenia in my opinion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ordinaryguy

My layman's impression is that even among physicists, the term "law" is losing favor. In EVERY field of science, the fundamental urge, the driving motive, is for a "better" explanation, i.e. one that works over an ever-wider range of conditions and scales of operation. As that range and scale is increased, old explanations often fail.. . Relativity HAD to be invented because Newtonian physics failed to explain what happens at space and time/speed scales that are very far from our daily experience. But the key point is that neither quantum mechanics nor relativity "disproved" Newtonian physics, they just delineated and clarified the range of conditions over which it applied.

---

And thanks to you, ordinaryguy, as well! Of course, I agree with what you have said--and you said it much better than I could have. I was oversimplifying in saying "disprove," using it in the sense I thought was being used here--not infalllible. Yes, "delineate and clarified the range of conditions over which it applied" is good.

Quote:

---

Yes,[evolution is robust] in the sense that it works over the entire range of observation available to us.

---

Yes. I agree.

Quote:

---

I would like to hear your take on how the rapid increase in understanding of genetics and developmental biology is influencing evolutionary theory

---

What fun! :D I'll post briefly in biology... I agree that I/we have already wandered far from the topic thread.

[QUOTE=Galveston1]To say that the founders of this country were Deists can be disproved by an honest study of history.

Hey #1, I'm really intersested in this statement, maybe you could start a new thread and post something from history that show this, I can't find much in the way of writings by the founders that even mention God or religion. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jillianleab

Crap. Looks like we're back to not existing again. :eek:

---

Hahaha!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jillianleab

The absence of belief is what (I think) a lot of theists have trouble with. The belief simply isn't there. For someone of faith, it's hard (I think) to imagine having no faith.

---

Exactly. I get the feeling sometimes that many theists are convinced that all atheists don't merely disbelieve, but actively reject something they "really" believe exists--as if I said I hatefully rejected my own child or parent ("you're dead to me"); or that atheists "hate" or want to "destroy" someone else's God, again, comparable to killing a real person. But what I really feel is simply that I have never been able to believe that a copper teapot is orbiting Saturn or that a tooth fairy or a sandman comes into my house at night. I've never seen the tooth fair or any evidence of her existense. No one asks me why I don't believe in those or asks me to prove that the tooth fairy doesn't exist. Phew! What a job that would be!

The belief just isn't there. I seriously doubt any God exists (and you can call me an agnostic if it makes you feel better); I live entirely without reference to any sort of god, not 20 of them, not 2 of them, not 1. I can't imagine even BOTHERING to try to prove that no gods exist. Why would I want to do that? I don't care and if I succeeded, somebody would probably try to kill me.

I consider my total failure to believe in other people's imaginary deities harmless to others and no one's business buy my own. This web site is the only place I've ever written about it or spoken at length. Yet, all my life, I've been repeatedly astonished by others' feeling that I have to account for or defend my failure to believe in their almost-certainly-imaginary deities. I don't tell them not to believe, but they ask me, "Why don't you believe in my god?" For some reason it's not considered impolite for them to demand an answer or to tell me that I must be an evil person, that I am going to hell, that I have no soul, that I have no morals, or that I must be willing to commit a host of shocking and disgusting acts, all because I don't believe in their particular god. The things that believers have said to me.. . Often simply for answering more doorbell.

I have been told all these things by people who supposed "love" me, even some of them close friends. I try to remind myself that churches do good things-- they provide safe harbor to people in trouble and give food and clothing to the poor. But then someone of faith tells me they wish I was dead because my thoughts are different from theirs, and it's hard to remember to think "Christian" thoughts myself. Why are some people of faith so hateful to non believers like me? Why not leave me alone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by interinfinity

religion is just a sort of collective schitzophrenia imho

---

That's an interesting thing to say because people with schizophrenia apparently are more interested in talking about religion than average. Also, I've heard it said that schizophrenia is not a real disease but just a collection of symptoms of mental dysfunction, probably caused by many different things. It's like a cough or a headache. It's just a description of how someone feels or acts, not a description of what they have. Supposedly, schizophrenia is not recognized in Europe or most other countries. Someone told me that this week, but I haven't checked to see if that's true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jillianleab

Crap. Looks like we're back to not existing again. :eek:



Ugh, I hate those terms. They make no freekin sense.

"Strong Atheist," or "Positive Atheist," or "Hard Atheist" to refer to a person who asserts that no deity exists.
"Weak Atheist," "Negative Atheist," "Soft Atheist," "Skeptical Atheist" to refer to a person who simply has no belief in a deity because there are no rational grounds that support his/her/their existence. Definitions of the term "Atheism"

Maybe I fail at reading comprehension, but I think those are the same thing...

Here's the best definition of "atheist" I've found so far:

Etymology: Atheist originated in two Greek roots: "A" which means "without" or "not"
"Theos" which means "deity"

This would seem to imply that an Atheist is either:

A person who is without a belief in any deity. This definition would mainly include those who are simply unaware of the existence of any deity. It would also include a person who is either too young or who lacks the mental ability to conceive of a deity. In contrast to this, most Muslims believe that all babies are Muslim at birth, and only later in life may accept the teachings of another religion].
A person who totally rejects the existence of any deity. Some may keep this belief to themselves; others may assert this belief to others. Definitions of the term "Atheism"

The absence of belief is what (I think) a lot of theists have trouble with. The belief simply isn't there. For someone of faith, it's hard (I think) to imagine having no faith. The debates and battles over if someone can actually be an atheist comes in when we start to debate semantics and the definition of the word "belief". Then people throw in the word "faith" and there are, of course, different definitions of that word as well (perhaps I should say connotations dependent on context...). Either way, it's an old argument that's been had on this very site several times....

---

I don't think anyone is confused to what an atheist is, we all know. The "absence of a belief" in a possibility of a god, is a "Belief". The fact that you choose to believe there is no god despite your inability to prove it, makes it a "faith" because it is not a scientific fact.

So I am not saying Atheist don't exist, I am just saying technically people who call themselves atheist don't know for a fact that there is no god which technically makes them Agnostic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fancyT

The fact that you choose to believe there is no god despite your inability to prove it, makes it a "faith" because it is not a scientific fact.

---

See.. there it is. "Choose to believe". I didn't "choose" to not believe, I just don't. Never have. But it STILL isn't on me to prove there ISN'T a god, it's on YOU to prove there IS one.

Quote:

---

So I am not saying Atheist don't exist, I am just saying technically people who call themselves atheist don't know for a fact that there is no god which technically makes them Agnostic.

---

Which is the same as saying they don't exist - there is no such thing as an atheist, only agnostics. But whatever. Call me whatever you want, I know what/who I am.

[QUOTE=parttime]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galveston1

To say that the founders of this country were Deists can be disproved by an honest study of history.

Hey #1, I'm really intersested in this statement, maybe you could start a new thread and post something from history that show this, I can't find much in the way of writings by the founders that even mention God or religion. Any help would be appreciated. thanks

---

No mention of God? Have you ever read the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution?

It takes a heckuva lot more "faith" to believe in evolution as the origin of anything than to believe in a Creator. No matter how far back into the past you take it, nothing acting on nothing still produces nothing. You say the Sun acting on some primeval soup produced life? Where did the Sun and the soup come from? Big bang? Where did the energy come from? Where there is nothing, how can energy originate? Explain the ant. The workers have all the good traits, the parents have none. Explain the woodpecker. He has a special bone structure supporting his brain. Without it he would pulverize his brain. He didn't need that special structure until he started drilling wood, which he couldn't do. Are you by chance confusing evolution with mutation? The complexity of DNA is merely a product of chance? What faith!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fancyT

The fact that you choose to believe there is no god dispite your inability to prove it, makes it a "faith" because it is not a scientific fact.

---

Okay. So do you, Fancy, "choose" to not believe in the Tooth Fairy? And do you feel that your choice is a Belief with a capital B comparable to your belief in God? This is a serious question.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galveston1

It takes a heckuva lot more "faith" to believe in evolution as the origin of anything than to believe in a Creator. No matter how far back into the past you take it, nothing acting on nothing still produces nothing. You say the Sun acting on some primeval soup produced life? Where did the Sun and the soup come from? Big bang? where did the energy come from? Where there is nothing, how can energy originate? Explain the ant. The workers have all the good traits, the parents have none. Explain the woodpecker. He has a special bone structure supporting his brain. Without it he would pulverize his brain. He didn't need that special structure until he started drilling wood, which he couldn't do. Are you by chance confusing evolution with mutation? The complexity of DNA is merely a product of chance? What faith!!

---

Who created the creator?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galveston1

It takes a heckuva lot more "faith" to believe in evolution as the origin of anything than to believe in a Creator.

---

Actually it takes a good education.

[QUOTE=Galveston1]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by parttime

No mention of God? Have you ever read the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution?

---

Sorry Galveston1, I didn't mean "no", I meant very little mention of God in any of the writings of out founding fathers. I've been looking, and since you said a study of our history would show, I thought you might have some useful info. Thanks

Quote:

---

See.. there it is. "Choose to believe". I didn't "choose" to not believe, I just don't. Never have. But it STILL isn't on me to prove there ISN'T a god, it's on YOU to prove there IS one.

---

Okey let me give you an example, I can say I don't believe there is gold in NewZealand without ever visiting the country or ever knowing for a fact that there isn't. I can say I have an absence of belief there is gold there without ever making an attempt to prove it. My statement then that there is no gold in Newzealand is merely a "belief" because it is not based on fact, so I can live my life believing there is no gold in NewZealand but that does not necessary mean there isn't, its just I don't believe. Because my disbelief is not base on scientific fact or any actuall geological knowledge, make it a "faith"

Quote:

---

Which is the same as saying they don't exist - there is no such thing as an atheist, only agnostics. But whatever. Call me whatever you want, I know what/who I am

---

Atheist do exist in the sense that there are people who call themselves athiests because they believe there is no god despite not having the ablity to know it for a fact. To know for a fact that there is no god you have to have absolute knowledge and we as humans (considering all the knowledge there is to know in the entire universe) do not even possess a fraction of a percentage of all the knowledge there is to know. So for the sake of argument lets make a huge exaggeration and say an atheist knows 1% of all knowledge. If this person is honest, they would have to admit that the other 99% of knowledge that they didn't possess could have the evidence that proves existence of a god. So as you can see from this very simple example, it is impossible to absolutely state that there is no God. If you however choose to state there is not god, it is a declaration made by faith not fact.

fancyT,
Define it how you will to make yourself happy. It really doesn't matter much does it? Those who are atheists go on doing their thing and you go on doing yours.

Have a great day! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

Okay. So do you, Fancy, "choose" to not believe in the Tooth Fairy? And do you feel that your choice is a Belief with a capital B comparable to your belief in God? This is a serious question.

---

Good question.. I do choose not to believe in the tooth fairy because I later found out that my mother is the one who put money under my pillow and not the tooth fairy, so I know for a fact that my mother was behind the whole tooth fairy thing and that is why I can say with confidence I don't believe in the tooth fairy.
I do however choose to believe in God because of the personal encounters I have had with him that let me know he exists, he also (to me) the only valid explanation of the origin of this world and universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

fancyT,
Define it how you will to make yourself happy. It really doesn't matter much does it? Those who are atheists go on doing their thing and you go on doing yours.

Have a great day! :)

---

Yes, athiests can do their thing that's fine I have no problem with that. I just wanted to point out that an athiest's "absense of beliefe" is a "Belief" or "faith" if you like because it is not base on scientific fact. Or proof.

Have great day too :)
Thanks

Atheists like myself are,in my opinion,normal people whom don't hide behind a god or things like that.Let's face it,modern day religions like catholic or ortodoxism,they're like big corporations,take money for something.I do not feel the need to be part of an organization,it's crazy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fancyT

I do however choose to believe in God because of the personal encounters i have had with him that let me know he exists, he also (to me) the only valid explanation of the origin of this world and universe.

---

Hello again, Fancy:

Another thing about you religious zealots that you don't get. You think the world is as gullible as you. You think I believe something just on faith... You do that, so you think I do too.

I'll ignore the insult and try to explain some stuff to you. I know you won't get it, but give it a shot.

I'm a skeptic. I'm NOT a believer. I don't believe in ANYTHING. I certainly don't believe things because people tell me to. If someone told me that it's raining, I'd say PROVE IT. If someone said you'll go to jail for smoking pot, I'd say prove it (they did). If someone told me I'd get burned if I stuck my finger in the fire, I'd give it a shot. If someone told me that white was the all the colors instead of the absence of color, I'da said prove it.

Finally, if you'da told me that we come from apes, I'da said prove it. Then science proceeded to do just that.

Now, here's the thing about science you don't get. Darwin had this strange idea too – really bonkers - and he said PROVE IT too. But, there wasn't anybody there except himself, so he set about PROVING IT to himself.

Not only did he PROVE IT, but it's been proven, time and time again, by countless scientists, and countless researchers all across the world, across many scientific disciplines, ALL through the ages since Darwin. Every one of them shouted: PROVE IT. And so they did, and so they continue to do so.

Now, I don't mean PROOF, like YOU think proof is. You think proof is some voices you heard in the night. Scientists do MORE than just sit down and agree with each other, too. Nope, PROOF, is scientifically derived through EXPIRIMENTATION - rigorous experimentation. Do you know what that entails?

Therefore, given that scientific PROOF isn't faith, I'm going to go with PROOF. You can have faith.

excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by douapuncte

atheists like my self are,in my opinion,normal people whom don't hide behind a god or things like that.Let's face it,modern day religions like catholic or ortodoxism,they're like big corporations,take money for something.I do not feel the need to be part of an organization,it's crazy.

---

You are right, you don't have to be part of an organisation but by claiming you are an atheist automatically makes you part of a belief system or faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fancyT

You are right, you dont have to be part of an organisation but by claiming you are an athiest automatically makes you part of a belief system or faith.

---

This is like 1:you believe in a god,goddess
2:you are an atheist.
That's it!Of course everyone has his own way to see the world,that's normal.I know what I want but that doesn't makes me religious.ATHEIST=non believer.Believers hide behind god,I hide behind logic and big brains.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fancyT

Good question.. I do choose not to believe in the tooth fairy due to the fact that i later found out that my mother is the one who put money under my pillow and not the tooth fairy, so i know for a fact that my mother was behind the whole tooth fairy thing and that is why i can say with confidence i dont believe in the tooth fairy.
I do however choose to believe in God because of the personal encounters i have had with him that let me know he exists, he also (to me) the only valid explanation of the origin of this world and universe.

---

Good. I like your answer, too. It's totally reasonable and of course the same thing happened to me. But I have never had any personal encounters with God and my feelings about God are identical to yours about the tooth fairy. You can't actually prove the tooth fairy doesn't exist, but it seems like a reasonable conclusion based on your life experiences. I feel the same about God.

So try this. Suppose I told you that you would be tortured (go to hell) if you didn't decide to believe (right now) that you can walk on the ceiling. Do you believe? No? Not yet? Do you think you could manage to believe by Monday?


When you say that I (a person who lives without praying to or feeling the presence of any sort of God) could choose to believe in God if I wanted to, it makes me nervous. I HAVE tried to do exactly what you are saying should be possible--"decide to believe in God." -- and I couldn't do it. When I was 7 or 8 my friends told me I would go to Hell if I didn't believe. So I would sit on my bed for half an hour at a time, trying very hard to believe in God. I was motivated because I was terrified that I would die and go to Hell before I managed to believe in God. I tried and tried to believe, but I just couldn't. I remember scrunching up my face with effort (I felt a bit ridiculous). I did this repeatedly over a period of several weeks or months, anxiously trying to believe. I was totally sincere. And I totally failed. I finally decided that since I couldn't make myself believe in God, I would try to not believe in Hell (which I did believe in for some reason). I still worried, but I felt a little less frightened.

I don't agree that such beliefs are a matter of choice to people who haven't been indoctrinated early in life to accept them as reasonable. If someone told me I had to believe I could walk on the ceiling or be tortured, I'd "know" my choices would either to fall on my head or be tortured. I wouldn't be able to force myself to believe. For me, the idea of walking on the ceiling and god are identically contrary to everything I've ever experienced and learned.

I'm pursuing this, because I think the idea that all atheists secretely believe in God and are just somehow hostile to believers and trying to undermine THEIR belief is a destructive (evil) idea that leads to hatred towards me (personally and sometimes scarily) and other atheists. I think most of us just want to be left alone and many of us do not have any choice about belief in God. I'm not saying I want to believe now. But I'm long past having a choice about it, and I am hoping you can hear that and entertain the idea that at least in some cases, you might be mistaken about this one point.

[QUOTE=excon]

Quote:

---

Hello again, Fancy:

Another thing about you religious zealots that you don't get. You think the world is as gullible as you. You think I believe something just on faith... You do that, so you think I do too.

---

Like I keep saying how do you know for a 100% fact that there is no god? For you to prove that to me would be imposible because you would have to have 100% absolute knowledge of what is beyond this world beyond this galaxy beyond human knowledge. If we exaggerate and say you know 1% of ALL knowledge, then you have to admit that the other 99% of knowledge you don't possess may have evidence of the existence of a god? Given that you don't have absolute knowledge but you still proclaim there is no god shows that you have "faith" that there is no god because you proclamation is not based on any scientific proof or fact.

Quote:

---

I'll ignore the insult and try to explain some stuff to you. I know you won't get it, but give it a shot.

---

Sorry to insult you but it is truth sorry

Quote:

---

I’m a skeptic. I'm NOT a believer. I don't believe in ANYTHING. I certainly don't believe things because people tell me to.

---

You obviously believe in evolution and someone told you about it and you believed it so you are a believer in something you were told by someone, Darwin to be precise.

Quote:

---

If someone told me that it's raining, I'd say PROVE IT. If someone said you'll go to jail for smoking pot, I'd say prove it (they did). If someone told me I’d get burned if I stuck my finger in the fire, I’d give it a shot. If someone told me that white was the all the colors instead of the absence of color, I'da said prove it.

---

Okey so if you are proof kind of guy then prove to me there is no god. Then I will believe you.

Quote:

---

Finally, if you'da told me that we come from apes, I'da said prove it. Then science proceeded to do just that.

---

Just as an FYI evolution is "theory" not a fact. Definition of theory look it up your self: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. Conjecture is an Inference or judgment based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence; guesswork.

Quote:

---

Now, here's the thing about science you don't get. Darwin had this strange idea too – really bonkers - and he said PROVE IT too. But, there wasn't anybody there except himself, so he set about PROVING IT to himself.

---

You call evolution science? It is just a bunch of guess work dressed up in Science clothes. Science means "to know" and "systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc." It is based on observation and experimentation. Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess, suppose, etc. but they don't "know."
Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. World famous scientist, G. G. Simpson stated, "It is inherent in any definition of science that statements that cannot be checked by observation are not about anything...or at the very best, they are not science." Many secular non religious scientists don't buy into that theory because its bougus. Microevolution is a proven fact and Macro evolution(the one you believe in) is not a proven fact therefore Evolution is a Faith because it is not a scientific Fact.

Quote:

---

Not only did he PROVE IT, but it's been proven, time and time again, by countless scientists, and countless researchers all across the world, across many scientific disciplines, ALL through the ages since Darwin. Every one of them shouted: PROVE IT. And so they did, and so they continue to do so.

---

Sorry to disappoint you but Darwin himself toward the end of his life started to doubt his own theory. As much as you can say its been "proven" it has been disproven time and time again. There is no proof that one spicies can become another. Like a bat can never become an elephant.

Quote:

---

Now, I don't mean PROOF, like YOU think proof is. You think proof is some voices you heard in the night. Scientists do MORE than just sit down and agree with each other. Nope, PROOF, is scientifically derived through EXPIRIMENTATION - rigorous experimentation. Do you know what that entails?

---

Yeah, rigorous experimentation base on one assumption over another, base on imagination, and missing transitional fossil records. They come up with an entire animal, shape, skin, color etc based on one tooth. And you call that science?

Quote:

---

Therefore, given that scientific PROOF isn't faith, I'm going to go with PROOF. You can have faith.

---

You are right scientific proof is not faith and since Macro evolution has not been scientifically proven it is a faith.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fancyT

you obviously believe in evolution and someone told you about it and you believed it so you are a believer in something you were told by someone,

---

Well that just makes no sense logically does it? By your reasoning: if someone told me a TV show is on at 8 p.m. and I believe them then I'm a believer. :D
You seem to have a strong need to make sure that everyone is labeled as a 'believer' or as having some form of 'faith'. The problem here is not with us but with yourself - you can't come to terms that many people are not like you, that many people live their lives just fine (and better than many "believers") with a belief in a god.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by douapuncte

This is like 1:you believe in a god,goddess
2:you are an atheist.
That's it!Of course everyone has his own way to see the world,that's normal.I know what I want but that doesn't makes me religious.ATHEIST=non believer.Believers hide behind god,I hide behind logic and big brains.

---

I dissagree I there are two kinds of people
1) those who believe there is a god
2) those who don't know there is a god.

Those who proclaim there is no god are making a claim based on faith not fact therefor they are egnostic because they don't know for a fact that there is no god