An atheists world (2)

[Skaloop]

I was just finding it odd that athiesm literally means not a theist. A null position as you put it, then my dog molly would be an athiest, or my other dog -puggy, or charlie (my third dog)......all athiests by definition. This is not meant to strawman anyone, it's just a fact....by the very definition. This is what I was talking about when I mention the definition of athiesm changing over time.

The same word can mean different things.

Yes, anyone or anything that does not believe in any god is an atheist. So yes, that includes babies and pets and rocks, who do not have the capacity to understand a god concept.

Or an atheist can be someone who understands the concept of god, but has yet to be convinced that one exists, and as such does not believe in one.

Or an atheist can be someone who does not believe in god and is certain that one does not exist.

Either way, what's your actual problem with the definition of atheism changing over time? It happens all the time. In fact, pretty much every word you use meant something else at another time.

 

[createdtoworship]

That wasn't the point.

ED has, before, claimed that the intelligent designer in ID isn't supposed to be the Christian god.

That's why I find it odd when he gives the Intelligent Designer characteristics that sound distinctly like the Christian god.

yeah a lot of people modify ID to a sort to proclaim a biblical creationism. It's not unusual. I use physics to show that there may be a spiritual realm (using dimensions and space time) but that does not mean physics is necessarily christian or the Bible is a physics textbook ( I mean it doesn't have all the math etc that a physics textbook would have)...

oh I see, now you are saying that He changed His illustrations. Well, sometimes I am talking too like that, I will speak of BC and then ID and it's hard to sometimes keep them isolated.

 

[lasthero]

Well, sometimes I am talking too like that, I will speak of BC and then ID and it's hard to sometimes keep them isolated.

Yeah. It is.

 

[Lethe]

I use physics to show that there may be a spiritual realm (using dimensions and space time) but that does not mean physics is necessarily christian or the Bible is a physics textbook ( I mean it doesn't have all the math etc that a physics textbook would have)...

 

[EnemyOfReason]

yeah a lot of people modify ID to a sort to proclaim a biblical creationism. It's not unusual. I use physics to show that there may be a spiritual realm (using dimensions and space time) but that does not mean physics is necessarily christian or the Bible is a physics textbook ( I mean it doesn't have all the math etc that a physics textbook would have)...

oh I see, now you are saying that He changed His illustrations. Well, sometimes I am talking too like that, I will speak of BC and then ID and it's hard to sometimes keep them isolated.

You are aware that you are diving into pseudoscience here right?
If you use physics to and the multiverse theory then you are stating dimensional rips and ripples. No such thing can hold up as no evidence has been provided for it and it would be quite easy to be honest.

 

[createdtoworship]

The same word can mean different things.

Yes, anyone or anything that does not believe in any god is an atheist. So yes, that includes babies and pets and rocks, who do not have the capacity to understand a god concept.

Or an atheist can be someone who understands the concept of god, but has yet to be convinced that one exists, and as such does not believe in one.

Or an atheist can be someone who does not believe in god and is certain that one does not exist.

Either way, what's your actual problem with the definition of atheism changing over time? It happens all the time. In fact, pretty much every word you use meant something else at another time.

well yes many words change, but it is technically called changing the bars. Which is fallacious.

that was what I was getting at

 

[createdtoworship]

You are aware that you are diving into pseudoscience here right?
If you use physics to and the multiverse theory then you are stating dimensional rips and ripples. No such thing can hold up as no evidence has been provided for it and it would be quite easy to be honest.

Well it's actually quantum physics. But you can see that within the four dimensions we see that there are 11-24 dimensions mathmatically that we can't account for with the 5 senses. So there is a gap here that God could fit quite nicely in . Heaven, Hell the whole shabang can be in those dimensions. Secondly, cold dark matter composes of the majority of the universes mass, undetectable matter. Who is to say this is not the spirit world? No proof either way, it's just interesting to me. One cannot say there is no God without investigating all of these arenas.

 

[Mr Strawberry]

Well it's actually quantum physics. But you can see that within the four dimensions we see that there are 11-24 dimensions mathmatically that we can't account for with the 5 senses. So there is a gap here that God could fit quite nicely in . Heaven, Hell the whole shabang can be in those dimensions. Secondly, cold dark matter composes of the majority of the universes mass, undetectable matter. Who is to say this is not the spirit world? No proof either way, it's just interesting to me. One cannot say there is no God without investigating all of these arenas.

I think what he's getting at is that as your grasp of quantum physics is rather shaky, your attempts to use it to justify some sort of unknown spirit world are on a par with those new age books you see in the Life, Body, Spirit section in bookstores that love to use jargon to give the impression that they aren't talking complete nonsense. Hence: pseudoscience.

 

[keith99]

I was just finding it odd that athiesm literally means not a theist. A null position as you put it, then my dog molly would be an athiest, or my other dog -puggy, or charlie (my third dog)......all athiests by definition. This is not meant to strawman anyone, it's just a fact....by the very definition. This is what I was talking about when I mention the definition of athiesm changing over time.

Then you were a pretty poor human to your dogs.

Mine had 2 gods and were willing to go to war for their gods.

 

[Lethe]

Well it's actually quantum physics. But you can see that within the four dimensions we see that there are 11-24 dimensions mathmatically that we can't account for with the 5 senses. So there is a gap here that God could fit quite nicely in . Heaven, Hell the whole shabang can be in those dimensions.

He invoked quantum physics AND multiple dimensions. That's pretty much the clincher for pseudo scientists.

But you can see that within the four dimensions we see that there are 11-24 dimensions mathmatically that we can't account for with the 5 senses.

I can SEE what now?

 

[Skaloop]

well yes many words change, but it is technically called changing the bars. Which is fallacious.

that was what I was getting at

So what did "atheist" mean originally? What does "atheist" mean now? Who changed that meaning? Is the original meaning still valid? Is the new meaning invalid?

And how is a word's definition changing over time a fallacy?

 

[createdtoworship]

So what did "atheist" mean originally? What does "atheist" mean now? Who changed that meaning? Is the original meaning still valid? Is the new meaning invalid?

And how is a word's definition changing over time a fallacy?

I would have to look into it, however it was a quote from an athiest that revealed the changing nature of teh word, look it up in my posts.

 

[Skaloop]

I would have to look into it, however it was a quote from an athiest that revealed the changing nature of teh word, look it up in my posts.

Yeah, I saw that quote. But he didn't say there was anything wrong with the word changing. I'm asking you to express your issues in your own words.

 

[Lethe]

I find it amusing that Gradyl invokes an ad-hoc theory of physics that hasn't made a single prediction, and is therefore, in some sense, unverified.

The math fits, it's internally consistent (as best people have checked) but there's no, "God," to speak of in string theory.

And yet you insist that God must exist in these extra spatial dimensions that are probably just a mathematical gimmick. Dimensions which are rolled up (have virtually no extent). But then you said it,

So there is a gap here that God could fit quite nicely in .

All you were ever looking for is a pocket of ignorance for you to slip God into. I mean, God must exist, and since he hasn't appeared in our usual space and time, guess he must be hiding out in those extra dimensions. Never mind that he doesn't show up in the math.

 

[Loudmouth]

First of all, what you see today is not what the Intelligent Designer designed.

So the shared features shared by humans and chimps really is due to common ancestry?

Second of all, the Intelligent Designer is going to restore what He designed back to its full intelligence and design.

Evidence please.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yep, they do not get it. All of their evidence for mutations and retrovirus only shows that creation is in a fallen state and in need of redemption.

I happen to think that the mutations that separate us from chimps are quite important and beneficial. They have given us our intelligence and made us what we are today. Why do you not like them?

Darwin struggles with this when he lost his daughter because there was nothing in his theory that offered him any comfort.

His daughter's death made him struggle with his belief in God because he did not think a loving god would allow his daughter to suffer so.

 

[AV1611VET]

His daughter's death made him struggle with his belief in God because he did not think a loving god would allow his daughter to suffer so.

He needed a lesson from Psalm 77, didn't he?

Psalm 77:

1 I cried unto God with my voice, even unto God with my voice; and he gave ear unto me.
2 In the day of my trouble I sought the Lord: my sore ran in the night, and ceased not: my soul refused to be comforted.
3 I remembered God, and was troubled: I complained, and my spirit was overwhelmed. Selah.
4 Thou holdest mine eyes waking: I am so troubled that I cannot speak.

Asaph had an infirmity so grevious, it was beyond description.

5 I have considered the days of old, the years of ancient times.
6 I call to remembrance my song in the night: I commune with mine own heart: and my spirit made diligent search.
7 Will the Lord cast off for ever? and will he be favourable no more?
8 Is his mercy clean gone for ever? doth his promise fail for evermore?
9 Hath God forgotten to be gracious? hath he in anger shut up his tender mercies? Selah.

He wonders if God has written him off ... but watch what he concludes:

10a And I said, This is my infirmity:

He concludes this is his "cross" to bear.

10 And I said, This is my infirmity: but I will remember the years of the right hand of the most High.
11 ¶ I will remember the works of the LORD: surely I will remember thy wonders of old.
12 I will meditate also of all thy work, and talk of thy doings.
13 Thy way, O God, is in the sanctuary: who is so great a God as our God?
14 Thou art the God that doest wonders: thou hast declared thy strength among the people.
15 Thou hast with thine arm redeemed thy people, the sons of Jacob and Joseph. Selah.
16 The waters saw thee, O God, the waters saw thee; they were afraid: the depths also were troubled.
17 The clouds poured out water: the skies sent out a sound: thine arrows also went abroad.
18 The voice of thy thunder was in the heaven: the lightnings lightened the world: the earth trembled and shook.
19 Thy way is in the sea, and thy path in the great waters, and thy footsteps are not known.
20 Thou leddest thy people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron.

He ends up praising God, despite his infirmity.

 

[Skaloop]

He needed a lesson from Psalm 77, didn't he?

Perhaps he did. But the argument being made was that because he didn't (following his daughter's death), and because he could not find comfort in his evolutionary theory, that somehow that makes his theory wrong. Surely even you can see that failing to find solace in something does not make it incorrect, and suggesting that it does or should is faulty logic.

 

[Loudmouth]

He needed a lesson from Psalm 77, didn't he?

Why would he? It is just another human trying to make excuses for beliefs that don't jive with reality.

 

[AV1611VET]

Perhaps he did. But the argument being made was that because he didn't (following his daughter's death), and because he could not find comfort in his evolutionary theory, that somehow that makes his theory wrong. Surely even you can see that failing to find solace in something does not make it incorrect, and suggesting that it does or should is faulty logic.

What that tells me is that he was not filled with the Spirit when he wrote The Preservation of Favoured Races.