Science saved my soul

[Michael]

I actually agree with this. I don't agree that Christians have any better understanding of this, though. Not any better than any other human in existence. Atheists included.

I agree. I think everyone is born with that innate ability. Unfortunately not everyone avails themselves of that opportunity.

Phillips Brooks and Helen Keller

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I actually agree with this. I don't agree that Christians have any better understanding of this, though. Not any better than any other human in existence. Atheists included.

The Kingdom of Heaven is found within, because that is where it starts, in the mind. One must have the faith of a little child, one must believe. Only man can believe, only man can harness the electrical force to think beyond flight or fight or rudimentary processes for food gathering.

God created everything by the Word spoken from His mouth. We all know this is not a literal physical mouth, but one of energy.

Plasma Speaker.wmv - YouTube

Bass guitar through QCW Tesla Coil - YouTube

"In the Hall of the Mountain King" - Played on Musical Tesla Coils - YouTube

Plasma Speaker / Singing Arc - Early Modulated Prototype - YouTube

Plasma Speaker / Tweeter - Completed Working Setup - YouTube

And God who is energy spoke, with a thundering voice.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7752006/

 

[TheBeardedDude]

Agnostic answers the question of "Do you know if god(s) exist or not?" With "I don't know."

Atheist answers the question of "Do you believe or hold a belief that a god(s) exists?" With "No."

I don't see any "strong" or "weak" positions. I see two different positions based on two different questions.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Atheist answers the question of "Do you believe or hold a belief that a god(s) exists?" With "No."

That's correct, but the atheists can be subdivided by asking another question:

"Do you believe gods do not exist?"

Some affirm that (strong atheism), and some don't (weak atheism). For better or worse the terms 'strong' and 'weak' are commonly used in this context.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

That's correct, but the atheists can be subdivided by asking another question:

"Do you believe gods do not exist?"

Some affirm that (strong atheism), and some don't (weak atheism). For better or worse the terms 'strong' and 'weak' are commonly used in this context.

Right...and I still don't see the difference. If you lack a belief in any god that has been proposed to you, then you also don't believe it exists. AKA, you believe it does not exist.

Perhaps you are trying to simulate the question of "Do you think it is possible that an yet unknown (to humans) god exists?"

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Agnostic answers the question of "Do you know if god(s) exist or not?" With "I don't know."

Atheist answers the question of "Do you believe or hold a belief that a god(s) exists?" With "No."

I don't see any "strong" or "weak" positions. I see two different positions based on two different questions.

And creationists answer the question of "Do you believe or hold a belief that a god(s) exists?" With "Yes."

I see three different positions not two.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

And creationists answer the question of "Do you believe or hold a belief that a god(s) exists?" With "Yes."

I see three different positions not two.

Clearly you weren't keeping up with the discussion. When I said one, I mean that I only see one position for the atheist, not two.

 

[Strathos]

Too long. Don't feel like watching it.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

Too long. Don't feel like watching it.

Glad you showed up to say...that?

 

[essentialsaltes]

Right...and I still don't see the difference. If you lack a belief in any god that has been proposed to you, then you also don't believe it exists. AKA, you believe it does not exist.

I think the weak atheists want to avoid having a belief without evidence (i.e. faith). How would you have evidence of the nonexistence of gods? [Or as Christians sometimes say, 'How can you justify a disbelief in gods if you haven't looked absolutely everywhere in the universe? God might be hiding in a cave somewhere on Mars.']

Me, I'm much more of a strong atheist, and I just think of the parallel with fairies. I don't know there are no fairies. So I'm agnostic about fairies. I don't believe there are fairies. So I'm an a-fairyist.

But do I merely lack a belief in fairies? After all, they might be in some small unexplored forest in Norway. Do I have evidence there are no fairies? An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But I can't really say with a straight face that I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of fairies. I really do believe fairies don't exist. So I'm a strong a-fairyist. And for similar reasons, I'm a strong atheist.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

I think the weak atheists want to avoid having a belief without evidence (i.e. faith). How would you have evidence of the nonexistence of gods? [Or as Christians sometimes say, 'How can you justify a disbelief in gods if you haven't looked absolutely everywhere in the universe? God might be hiding in a cave somewhere on Mars.']

Me, I'm much more of a strong atheist, and I just think of the parallel with fairies. I don't know there are no fairies. So I'm agnostic about fairies. I don't believe there are fairies. So I'm an a-fairyist.

But do I merely lack a belief in fairies? After all, they might be in some small unexplored forest in Norway. Do I have evidence there are no fairies? An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But I can't really say with a straight face that I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of fairies. I really do believe fairies don't exist. So I'm a strong a-fairyist. And for similar reasons, I'm a strong atheist.

But the question asks about belief. If I say I believe no god exists and someone asks for evidence of that. I'm not obligated to prove it. Because I am (at the same time) saying that my position is a lack of a belief in a god. It isn't a claim based on evidence. It is a belief based on a lack of evidence.

I think trying to split hairs for atheism into "strong" or "weak" is unhelpful and misleading.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I think the weak atheists want to avoid having a belief without evidence (i.e. faith). How would you have evidence of the nonexistence of gods? [Or as Christians sometimes say, 'How can you justify a disbelief in gods if you haven't looked absolutely everywhere in the universe? God might be hiding in a cave somewhere on Mars.']

Me, I'm much more of a strong atheist, and I just think of the parallel with fairies. I don't know there are no fairies. So I'm agnostic about fairies. I don't believe there are fairies. So I'm an a-fairyist.

But do I merely lack a belief in fairies? After all, they might be in some small unexplored forest in Norway. Do I have evidence there are no fairies? An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But I can't really say with a straight face that I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of fairies. I really do believe fairies don't exist. So I'm a strong a-fairyist. And for similar reasons, I'm a strong atheist.

Then apply that reasoning to all the Fairie Dust of mainstream astronomical science. Only in astronomy is Farie Dust needed, in no other branch of science is it even contemplated as real.

 

[Michael]

But the question asks about belief. If I say I believe no god exists and someone asks for evidence of that. I'm not obligated to prove it. Because I am (at the same time) saying that my position is a lack of a belief in a god. It isn't a claim based on evidence. It is a belief based on a lack of evidence.

It's ultimately an opinion based upon a "subjective belief in a lack of evidence". YEC also feel the same way about evolutionary theory too.

IMO, an honest "I don't know" is actually a different state of mind than "I believe that no gods exist".

 

[TheBeardedDude]

It's ultimately an opinion based upon a "subjective belief in a lack of evidence". YEC also feel the same way about evolutionary theory too.

IMO, an honest "I don't know" is actually a different state of mind than "I believe that no gods exist".

A subjective belief in a lack of evidence? I have no idea what that means. I mean an objective belief based on a lack of evidence.

And the key to your last line is that "I don't know" is an answer in regards to knowledge about something. "I don't believe" or "I lack a belief" is an answer based on your beliefs. They necessarily answer 2 different questions. Do you know if a god or gods exist? and Do you believe a god or gods exist? If you answer "I don't know" to the first, you can still only answer the latter question as "yes" or "no."

Replace god in that question with something else. Like:

Do you know if Santa exists? Do you believe Santa exists?
I don't think one can honestly answer the first any other way the "I don't know" and the second question as "no." Same thing for an atheist with respect to the subject being god instead of Santa.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

A subjective belief in a lack of evidence? I have no idea what that means. I mean an objective belief based on a lack of evidence.

And the key to your last line is that "I don't know" is an answer in regards to knowledge about something. "I don't believe" or "I lack a belief" is an answer based on your beliefs. They necessarily answer 2 different questions. Do you know if a god or gods exist? and Do you believe a god or gods exist? If you answer "I don't know" to the first, you can still only answer the latter question as "yes" or "no."

Replace god in that question with something else. Like:

Do you know if Santa exists? Do you believe Santa exists?
I don't think one can honestly answer the first any other way the "I don't know" and the second question as "no." Same thing for an atheist with respect to the subject being god instead of Santa.

Then why the uproar? As your reasoning confirms there is no factual evidence either way. One may choose to believe or disbelief, either way it is a belief not based on evidence.

But I say evidence exists, you just refuse to consider it. man uses energy to think and energy exists everywhere, do you discount the possibility of a being of pure energy existing in the cosmos, a pure mind?

 

[TheBeardedDude]

Then why the uproar? As your reasoning confirms there is no factual evidence either way. One may choose to believe or disbelief, either way it is a belief not based on evidence.

But I say evidence exists, you just refuse to consider it. man uses energy to think and energy exists everywhere, do you discount the possibility of a being of pure energy existing in the cosmos, a pure mind?

It is a belief based on evidence, the lack of it for the assertion that a god exists. It is the rejection of that claim. Not a claim in and of its self.

Do I reject the existence of a being of pure energy? Yes. One has never been demonstrated to me and no evidence for this has ever been presented

Do I reject the existence of a "pure mind"? I'd first ask what you mean by that. But if you mean some universal consciousness then yes, I reject that too on the basis of no evidence for it and no demonstration of its plausibility or possibility.

 

[Michael]

A subjective belief in a lack of evidence? I have no idea what that means. I mean an objective belief based on a lack of evidence.

We all personally end up "subjectively filtering" the data, and we individually decide what ends up counting as "evidence" of something, be it "God" or pretty much any other topic by the way. We all "filter" from the data, and we all accept and reject what other people would call "evidence".

For instance, I would say that NDE's are 'evidence' of God, along with all the historical writings of humans that claimed to have a relationship with God. Even the concept of 'evidence' becomes subjective.

It should also be noted that even science searches for, and entertains ideas like gravitons, without necessarily having direct evidence of them.

And the key to your last line is that "I don't know" is an answer in regards to knowledge about something. "I don't believe" or "I lack a belief" is an answer based on your beliefs. They necessarily answer 2 different questions. Do you know if a god or gods exist? and Do you believe a god or gods exist? If you answer "I don't know" to the first, you can still only answer the latter question as "yes" or "no."

I understand that for you specifically, they all seem the same. It's my experience however that not every atheist accepts them to be the same, and in fact some get down right 'testy' about it.

 

[TheBeardedDude]

We all personally end up "subjectively filtering" the data, and we individually decide what ends up counting as "evidence" of something, be it "God" or pretty much any other topic by the way. We all "filter" from the data, and we all accept and reject what other people would call "evidence".

For instance, I would say that NDE's are 'evidence' of God, along with all the historical writings of humans that claimed to have a relationship with God. Even the concept of 'evidence' becomes subjective.

It should also be noted that even science searches for, and entertains ideas like gravitons, without necessarily having direct evidence of them.

I understand that for you specifically, they all seem the same. It's my experience however that not every atheist accepts them to be the same, and in fact some get down right 'testy' about it.

The fact that we can explain NDE's without the need for anything other than a study of the brain makes that irrelevant as evidence. You might think it good enough as anecdotal evidence, but by that token, people have indeed been abducted by aliens...

I don't reject evidence. I await it.

And going back to your personal experience with atheists on the difference of opinion on the definition, it too is irrelevant. I no more get to set out the criteria for what a christian is, than you get to lay out the criteria for what my position is. Or what definitions I use to describe it. The other atheists are irrelevant. Why? Because atheism isn't a position, it is the lack of one.

 

[Loudmouth]

For instance, I would say that NDE's are 'evidence' of God, along with all the historical writings of humans that claimed to have a relationship with God. Even the concept of 'evidence' becomes subjective.

Lucaspa used to make some great posts on objective v. subjective evidence, and I agree with much of what he has said. Given the constraints of metaphysics we can not achieve 100%, absolutely pure objective evidence. There is still the possibility that there is a little demon in our head that makes us see a blue sky when it is really green, for example. What we mean by "objective" is really intersubjetive, that is we can agree between ourselves that we observe the same thing in the same conditions.

This isn't so with NDE's or the other pieces of evidence you are speaking of. We can't experience another person's near death experience. We can, however, weigh the same melon and come to good agreement as to its weight. That's the difference here.

It should also be noted that even science searches for, and entertains ideas like gravitons, without necessarily having direct evidence of them.

What science does do is figure out ways to test these ideas.

 

[Michael]

The fact that we can explain NDE's without the need for anything other than a study of the brain makes that irrelevant as evidence.

I don't suppose you have a study on NDE's to back that up?

You might think it good enough as anecdotal evidence, but by that token, people have indeed been abducted by aliens...

Well, the Lancet study looked for and eliminated a whole host of plausible physical causes. They couldn't find a physical explanation. What they did find however were peoples lives were dramatically changed by the experience, and the belief systems going into the experience didn't typically jive with their beliefs afterwards. Even atheists report meeting God during such events in the same percentages as theists.

I don't reject evidence. I await it.

I've provided all kinds of evidence in the empirical theory of God threads anytime you'd like to look them over.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7440288/

And going back to your personal experience with atheists on the difference of opinion on the definition, it too is irrelevant. I no more get to set out the criteria for what a christian is, than you get to lay out the criteria for what my position is. Or what definitions I use to describe it. The other atheists are irrelevant. Why? Because atheism isn't a position, it is the lack of one.

It's really no skin of my nose one way or the other, and apparently it's no big deal to you either. That fine by me. I've just stepped on a few toes along the way, so I try to be more sensitive to individual 'feelings' on the matter.