Author Topic: Atheism and the USA, followup (Read 11390 times)

Simaril · « **Reply #345 on:** May 23, 2006, 03:53:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hangtime
Only Holden could EVER get away with talkin dirty in a thread on faith and religion.

Thud · « **Reply #346 on:** May 23, 2006, 04:35:49 PM »

Science has the theory of evolution which is nearing completion in the sense that more and more aspects of it are supported by proof, gained everyday with every research project.

Creationism has... nothing

If you thumpers are right and atheism is faith based, it sure is a far less stupid and far-fetched one than the creationist religions, but I digress...

lukster · « **Reply #347 on:** May 23, 2006, 06:06:13 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AVRO1
Fallacious argument. Thrustworthiness as nothing to do with the group(s) you belong too. Everyone makes their own decision regarding truth.

Since humans are psychologically similar it seems logical to me that they used similar means to explain similar things in different societies.

There is also this problem : If god created the universe, who created god ?

I am no more right then anyone else, I simply believe what I see.

Whoa, there's nothing simple about believing what you see. Everything you "see" is filtered by your understanding, beliefs, and expectations. When you "look" you are seeing through the lens of your past and no two people see anything exactly the same way.

Holden McGroin · « **Reply #348 on:** May 23, 2006, 06:18:43 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
Whoa, there's nothing simple about believing what you see. Everything you "see" is filtered by your understanding, beliefs, and expectations. When you "look" you are seeing through the lens of your past and no two people see anything exactly the same way.

Not only that you do not see things as they are, but only as it was a little while ago. Due to the speed of light being finite, the photons striking your retina strike at a specific time after they left the observed object.

Observers travelling at large velocities will find that distances and times are distorted ("dilated") in accordance with the Lorentz transforms; however, the transforms distort times and distances in such a way that the speed of light remains constant. A person travelling near the speed of light would also find that colours of lights ahead were blue shifted and of those behind were redshifted.

If information could travel faster than c in one reference frame, causality would be violated: in some other reference frames, the information would be received before it had been sent, so the 'cause' could be observed after the 'effect'. Due to special relativity's time dilation, the ratio between an external observer's perceived time and the time perceived by an observer moving closer and closer to the speed of light approaches zero. If something could move faster than light, this ratio would not be a real number. Such a violation of causality has never been observed.

To put it another way, information propagates to and from a point from regions defined by a light cone. The interval AB in the diagram to the right is 'time-like' (that is, there is a frame of reference in which event A and event B occur at the same location in space, separated only by their occurring at different times, and if A precedes B in that frame then A precedes B in all frames: there is no frame of reference in which event A and event B occur simultaneously). Thus, it is hypothetically possible for matter (or information) to travel from A to B, so there can be a causal relationship (with A the 'cause' and B the 'effect').

So I agree, it is not simple.

Hangtime · « **Reply #349 on:** May 23, 2006, 06:47:52 PM »

Ok. Can yah do a 'Carl Sagan Voice? I defy anyone here to attempt to read that aloud while doing Carl Sagan without breaking out in fits of laughter before yah get to the third paragraph.

double dog dare yah!

wrag · « **Reply #350 on:** May 23, 2006, 09:51:41 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
You still haven't identified why you feel it's a hypocracy. You just keep repeating that it's "wrong headed". Can you clarify where the hypocracy is?

OK question... did you post this prior to the 2 post by laz just above this one?

Because IMHO he answered you in those post.

If you did read them then please read them again.

wrag · « **Reply #351 on:** May 23, 2006, 09:58:03 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
Bronk, I guess you didn't read my atheist/agnostic definition above. I state exactly why you're mistaken, I'm not asserting to _know_ anything. Atheist agnostic, remember? So, try again.

So because you were requested to supply proof of, or where the heck you came up with, YOUR definition. And thus far you have NOT done so.

Then your definition is something you made up? And is therefore only believed by YOU?

Vulcan · « **Reply #352 on:** May 23, 2006, 10:08:15 PM »

While I cannot disprove there is a 'god' I can disprove there is NOT a christian god based on statements made in christian teachings, ie creationism versus the age of the earth, evolution etc, the great flood etc.

Now, either the bible is wrong, or you're worshipping a false god.

wrag · « **Reply #353 on:** May 23, 2006, 10:15:42 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
Lazs, I respect your right to have religious beliefs. It's my opinion that it's not the place of any man to tell another what he may or may not think. I'm saddened that you do not share this conviction, and that you question my character and call me a liar because I don't agree with you.

Bronk: How could I be wrong? I have a _lack of belief_ about god, as in, I fail to believe that he exists. How can a lack of a belief be wrong? The most you can say is that it's just... missing.

I wrote in an earlier message the technical differentiation between the terms atheist and agnostic and how they are actually two sides of a coin, not opposed to each other. If you wish to challenge my assertions, then just do so directly please instead of just saying "you are dishonest" or whatnot.

I am of the opinion that laz does share the viewpoint that it is not one persons place to tell another person what to believe. Therefore your being saddened seems odd? As I'm pretty sure laz has stated as much in other threads that I'm pretty sure you have read.

Perhaps laz questions you because of the TECHNIQUE you use in dealing with this issue?

As to Bronk........ why should he agree with your Technical differentiation..... definition.

Technical differentiation .... definition? Where did that technical differentiation.... definition come from?

YOU? It is YOUR Technical differentiation ....definition?

AGAIN Please provide proof of YOUR Technical differentiation.... definition and where it comes from.

Chairboy · « **Reply #354 on:** May 23, 2006, 11:03:33 PM »

So I'm the only one required to submit proof? Gotcha.

Bronk · « **Reply #355 on:** May 23, 2006, 11:06:46 PM »

You were the one claiming the definitions you posted . So yes prove them.

Bronk

Edit: Now who was it that said the burden of proof was on the one making the claim?

lukster · « **Reply #356 on:** May 23, 2006, 11:07:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Vulcan
While I cannot disprove there is a 'god' I can disprove there is NOT a christian god based on statements made in christian teachings, ie creationism versus the age of the earth, evolution etc, the great flood etc.

Now, either the bible is wrong, or you're worshipping a false god.

Hardly. Not all christians subscribe to the same idea of how creation came about or that the earth is only 6,000 years old. I'll take it a step further though, you can't prove there wasn't a great flood and while I think the currently acccepted theories of evolution are indeed possible, many people accept these theories as fact but they are really accepting a great deal on faith.

The core of Chistianity is little more than believing in the virgin birth of Jesus and the need of his sacrifice for the remission of our sins. I think much else is subject to interpretation.

Vulcan · « **Reply #357 on:** May 23, 2006, 11:20:58 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lukster
The core of Chistianity is little more than believing in the virgin birth of Jesus and the need of his sacrifice for the remission of our sins. I think much else is subject to interpretation.

So when push comes to shove you can pick and choose which parts of the bible you believe, or if cornered its an 'interpretation' issue? and as long as you repent and accept jesus the minute before you snuff it chances are you'll get thru the pearly gates?

wrag · « **Reply #358 on:** May 24, 2006, 02:12:34 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Chairboy
So I'm the only one required to submit proof? Gotcha.

You got NOTHING SIR!

It is not I that puts forth such words, such claims as to how things are or how things are defined/differentiated.

It was you that put forward a definition/differentiation claim that I, for one, can't recall seeing before.

It is you that keeps reffering to that claim as if it's the GOSPEL!

And IMHO you APPEAR to be doing what YOU SEEM to do in other such cases. You APPEAR to be trying to weasel your way out of the situation without giving a direct answer, or for that matter any answer, AGAIN. This SEEMS like it occurs in your replys very frequently within these threads? So much so that, at least with me, your credabilty has suffered greatly!

It's very simple YOU have made a claim of how things are.

I have said OH? REALLY? I would like to see the source of that claim.

Others appear to be begining to ask the same question.

SOOOO basically you lack agreement from at least me on the words you put forth regarding a definition/differentiation.

NOW, you gonna prove your words come from somewhere other then your own mind, or ......?

If you can not, or will not, then laz's argument, IMHO, stand even taller then before. For it will then APPEAR that rather then speaking within common definitions used by most people within, what... a polite society? a standard society? or a whatever society ( i used so many societies in hopes the society ploy used earlier won't be used AGAIN to try to weasel out of answering ), then perhaps you have made up your own definition. A definition possibly designed to MISLEAD?

A little side note: one of my college prof. used disinformation etc. to mislead. I could do an whole thread on that person. The book used in that course was pretty much made up of disinformation. But that's another story.

SOOOO as laz has, rather politely IMHO, put it....... how does one trust someone that makes stuff up as they go along?

This of course may SADDEN you again. OH? REALLY? Perhaps you should cheer up instead!

You now have a chance to ............. ?

lukster · « **Reply #359 on:** May 24, 2006, 07:57:04 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Vulcan
So when push comes to shove you can pick and choose which parts of the bible you believe, or if cornered its an 'interpretation' issue? and as long as you repent and accept jesus the minute before you snuff it chances are you'll get thru the pearly gates?

Pretty much. You seem to be implying that I have to submit to someone else's dogma for my faith to be valid?