| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"The Church of The Painful Truth" |
| Date: |
22 Feb 2004 06:21:00 PM |
| Object: |
Question For Atheists? |
Why is it that you do not believe in God?
.
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Atheists? |
23 Feb 2004 10:42:59 AM |
|
|
"Navigator" <nav@nav.com> wrote in message
news:5Pp_b.386632$na.592829@attbi_s04...
Marc Satterwhite wrote:
The Church of The Painful Truth wrote:
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message
news:Nzc_b.1011$wP3.825@twister.socal.rr.com...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message
news:lrc_b.192$884.57455@news.uswest.net...
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message
news:49c_b.1006$wP3.822@twister.socal.rr.com...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message
news:NHb_b.140$191.104679@news.uswest.net...
Why is it that you do not believe in God?
The same reason you don't believe in Zeus.
--
Ron Baker
+But it is an established fact that Zues is a mythological being
How is that an established fact?
+Do you honestly believe a known mytholgical creature is a fact?+
I'm sure everyone in this discussion believes that Zeus is purely
mythological.
The contrary. Atheism is not a religious belief, it is the absence of
one. Atheism is characterized by an absence of the theist belief that a
magic invisible god might exist anyway, even though there is no such
thing in evidence.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
But how is this PROVEN? Have you looked
everywhere on Earth for him? In the solar system? In
the universe?
Best, Marc
Nobody ever has any burden to prove any existential statement like, "An
invisible god might exist, even though there is no such thing in
evidence" is false, Marc. Under the principles of valid argument (logic)
the only reasonable default presumption is that existential statements
like that are false unless proven true, just like the default
presumption of not guilty in any reasonable criminal court. OK with you?
The thing of it is that if you want to be part of the human community
then you have to be willng to abide by these basic principles of valid
argument (logic) since the opposite wold be an absurd state of affairs.
So, if you were Galileo, you would assert positively that electrons don't
exist? Or if you were Newton, you would state categorically that planets
don't revolve around other stars?
Rather, the proper statement would be that there is no scientific evidence
of electrons or of planets outside the solar system.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snowbird" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Atheists? |
23 Feb 2004 03:33:28 PM |
|
|
Zachriel wrote:
"Navigator" <nav@nav.com> wrote in message
news:5Pp_b.386632$na.592829@attbi_s04...
Marc Satterwhite wrote:
The Church of The Painful Truth wrote:
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message
news:Nzc_b.1011$wP3.825@twister.socal.rr.com...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message
news:lrc_b.192$884.57455@news.uswest.net...
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message
news:49c_b.1006$wP3.822@twister.socal.rr.com...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message
news:NHb_b.140$191.104679@news.uswest.net...
Why is it that you do not believe in God?
The same reason you don't believe in Zeus.
--
Ron Baker
+But it is an established fact that Zues is a mythological being
How is that an established fact?
+Do you honestly believe a known mytholgical creature is a fact?+
I'm sure everyone in this discussion believes that Zeus is purely
mythological.
The contrary. Atheism is not a religious belief, it is the absence of
one. Atheism is characterized by an absence of the theist belief that a
magic invisible god might exist anyway, even though there is no such
thing in evidence.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
But how is this PROVEN? Have you looked
everywhere on Earth for him? In the solar system? In
the universe?
Best, Marc
Nobody ever has any burden to prove any existential statement like, "An
invisible god might exist, even though there is no such thing in
evidence" is false, Marc. Under the principles of valid argument (logic)
the only reasonable default presumption is that existential statements
like that are false unless proven true, just like the default
presumption of not guilty in any reasonable criminal court. OK with you?
The thing of it is that if you want to be part of the human community
then you have to be willng to abide by these basic principles of valid
argument (logic) since the opposite wold be an absurd state of affairs.
So, if you were Galileo, you would assert positively that electrons don't
exist?
Did he have any concept of electrons? I bet he didn't believe they existed
simply because there was no evidence. This is different from beliving that
they don't exist. The former is the default position.
Or if you were Newton, you would state categorically that planets
don't revolve around other stars?
You mean 'orbit' not 'revolve' and the same argument applies as above.
Rather, the proper statement would be that there is no scientific evidence
of electrons or of planets outside the solar system.
And as such the default position should not be one of belief.
-
Wayne
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Atheists? |
23 Feb 2004 03:52:37 PM |
|
|
"Snowbird" <snowbirdRemoveThis@ThisToosnowbird.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:1ju_b.9676$h44.1082489@stones.force9.net...
Zachriel wrote:
"Navigator" <nav@nav.com> wrote in message
news:5Pp_b.386632$na.592829@attbi_s04...
<snip>
Nobody ever has any burden to prove any existential statement like, "An
invisible god might exist, even though there is no such thing in
evidence" is false, Marc. Under the principles of valid argument (logic)
the only reasonable default presumption is that existential statements
like that are false unless proven true, just like the default
presumption of not guilty in any reasonable criminal court. OK with you?
The thing of it is that if you want to be part of the human community
then you have to be willng to abide by these basic principles of valid
argument (logic) since the opposite wold be an absurd state of affairs.
So, if you were Galileo, you would assert positively that electrons
don't
exist?
Did he have any concept of electrons?
Work with me, Snowbird. It's an analogy, and not meant literally. Galileo is
dead -- we can't ask him.
To make the scientific claim that electrons or dark matter don't exist
requires, like all scientific assertions, the proper application of the
scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation, repeat.
Negative claims are not generally amenable to the scientific method, as they
require looking in every corner of the domain in question, often the entire
universe. Consequently, negative claims are not scientific, but
philosophical.
So it is not proper for a scientist, such as Galileo speaking in his role as
a scientist, to deny the existence of electrons or dark matter. The proper
response is to harrumph, ask for evidence, and to remain skeptical.
I bet he didn't believe they existed
simply because there was no evidence. This is different from beliving that
they don't exist. The former is the default position.
Or if you were Newton, you would state categorically that planets
don't revolve around other stars?
You mean 'orbit' not 'revolve' and the same argument applies as above.
Revolve, to move in a curved path round a center or axis.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=revolve
Rather, the proper statement would be that there is no scientific
evidence
of electrons or of planets outside the solar system.
And as such the default position should not be one of belief.
The proper position of a scientist is skepticism, not certitude based on
ignorance or the lack of evidence.
-
Wayne
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snowbird" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Atheists? |
24 Feb 2004 01:41:30 PM |
|
|
Zachriel wrote:
"Snowbird" <snowbirdRemoveThis@ThisToosnowbird.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:1ju_b.9676$h44.1082489@stones.force9.net...
Zachriel wrote:
"Navigator" <nav@nav.com> wrote in message
news:5Pp_b.386632$na.592829@attbi_s04...
<snip>
Nobody ever has any burden to prove any existential statement like, "An
invisible god might exist, even though there is no such thing in
evidence" is false, Marc. Under the principles of valid argument (logic)
the only reasonable default presumption is that existential statements
like that are false unless proven true, just like the default
presumption of not guilty in any reasonable criminal court. OK with you?
The thing of it is that if you want to be part of the human community
then you have to be willng to abide by these basic principles of valid
argument (logic) since the opposite wold be an absurd state of affairs.
So, if you were Galileo, you would assert positively that electrons
don't
exist?
Did he have any concept of electrons?
Work with me, Snowbird. It's an analogy, and not meant literally.
Ah sorry, didn't realise. Though you were being serious!
Galileo is
dead -- we can't ask him.
Don't ya think I know that already!
To make the scientific claim that electrons or dark matter don't exist
requires, like all scientific assertions, the proper application of the
scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation, repeat.
Negative claims are not generally amenable to the scientific method, as they
require looking in every corner of the domain in question, often the entire
universe. Consequently, negative claims are not scientific, but
philosophical.
I would disagree here. You see, one could construct fundamental particles
with various properties and nuclear physicists can rightly claim that they
don't exist if they do not fit in with the model they have. Of course, they
may be wrong, in which case the model is wrong, but it's still science.
So it is not proper for a scientist, such as Galileo speaking in his role as
a scientist, to deny the existence of electrons or dark matter.
It is if he has evidence to the contrary.
The proper
response is to harrumph, ask for evidence, and to remain skeptical.
Evidence can point to the non-existence of something, just like it can
point to the existence of something.
I bet he didn't believe they existed
simply because there was no evidence. This is different from beliving that
they don't exist. The former is the default position.
Or if you were Newton, you would state categorically that planets
don't revolve around other stars?
You mean 'orbit' not 'revolve' and the same argument applies as above.
Revolve, to move in a curved path round a center or axis.
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=revolve
Must be a US thing. Revolve is different from orbit over here,
scientifically speaking, of course. General-use terms may differ.
Rather, the proper statement would be that there is no scientific
evidence
of electrons or of planets outside the solar system.
And as such the default position should not be one of belief.
The proper position of a scientist is skepticism, not certitude based on
ignorance or the lack of evidence.
Don't get me wrong, I agree. It's just that I disagree when you claim
it's unscientific for a scientist to claim something does not exist.
If the evidence points to the non-existence of something then it is
perfectly scientific to claim that it doesn't exist, as long as you
give evidence, data and reasoning to support your case.
-
Wayne
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Atheists? |
24 Feb 2004 02:10:36 PM |
|
|
"Snowbird" <snowbirdRemoveThis@ThisToosnowbird.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:gQN_b.11470$Y%6.1079342@wards.force9.net...
Zachriel wrote:
"Snowbird" <snowbirdRemoveThis@ThisToosnowbird.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:1ju_b.9676$h44.1082489@stones.force9.net...
Zachriel wrote:
"Navigator" <nav@nav.com> wrote in message
news:5Pp_b.386632$na.592829@attbi_s04...
<snip>
Nobody ever has any burden to prove any existential statement like,
"An
invisible god might exist, even though there is no such thing in
evidence" is false, Marc. Under the principles of valid argument
(logic)
the only reasonable default presumption is that existential statements
like that are false unless proven true, just like the default
presumption of not guilty in any reasonable criminal court. OK with
you?
The thing of it is that if you want to be part of the human community
then you have to be willng to abide by these basic principles of valid
argument (logic) since the opposite wold be an absurd state of
affairs.
So, if you were Galileo, you would assert positively that electrons
don't
exist?
Did he have any concept of electrons?
Work with me, Snowbird. It's an analogy, and not meant literally.
Ah sorry, didn't realise. Though you were being serious!
Galileo is
dead -- we can't ask him.
Don't ya think I know that already!
;-)
To make the scientific claim that electrons or dark matter don't exist
requires, like all scientific assertions, the proper application of the
scientific method: hypothesis, prediction, observation, validation,
repeat.
Negative claims are not generally amenable to the scientific method, as
they
require looking in every corner of the domain in question, often the
entire
universe. Consequently, [most such] negative claims are not scientific,
but
philosophical.
I would disagree here.
I meant most so-called "proving the negative" statements. If you read my
statement a little more carefully, it depends on the domain in question. For
instance, the conjecture of a lightning-throwing, thundering Sky-God has
been pretty well falsified, unless He is a weenie who hides in a cloud every
time a plane flies by (which would contradict His usual definition).
<snip>
The proper position of a scientist is skepticism, not certitude based on
ignorance or the lack of evidence.
Don't get me wrong, I agree. It's just that I disagree when you claim
it's unscientific for a scientist to claim something does not exist.
If the evidence points to the non-existence of something then it is
perfectly scientific to claim that it doesn't exist, as long as you
give evidence, data and reasoning to support your case.
-
I think we are in agreement. But keep in mind that the domain for many such
statements can be impossibly large for science to encompass. (Indeed, many
such statements, such as many definitions of the soul, are purposefully
designed to be scientifically obtuse. As such, they can lie completely
outside the scope of science.)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snowbird" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Atheists? |
27 Feb 2004 06:17:18 PM |
|
|
Zachriel wrote:
"Snowbird" <snowbirdRemoveThis@ThisToosnowbird.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:gQN_b.11470$Y%6.1079342@wards.force9.net...
I meant most so-called "proving the negative" statements. If you read my
statement a little more carefully, it depends on the domain in question. For
instance, the conjecture of a lightning-throwing, thundering Sky-God has
been pretty well falsified, unless He is a weenie who hides in a cloud every
time a plane flies by (which would contradict His usual definition).
Science can't disprove the existence of any imaginary being. What I was
referring to was that science can disprove the existence of entities with
real-world properties such as elementary particles. There are many more
thing which science can't disprove at all or is very hard for it to do.
The proper position of a scientist is skepticism, not certitude based on
ignorance or the lack of evidence.
Don't get me wrong, I agree. It's just that I disagree when you claim
it's unscientific for a scientist to claim something does not exist.
If the evidence points to the non-existence of something then it is
perfectly scientific to claim that it doesn't exist, as long as you
give evidence, data and reasoning to support your case.
-
I think we are in agreement. But keep in mind that the domain for many such
statements can be impossibly large for science to encompass. (Indeed, many
such statements, such as many definitions of the soul, are purposefully
designed to be scientifically obtuse. As such, they can lie completely
outside the scope of science.)
Oh absolutely. I don't for a minute suspect that the range of things that
science can disprove is tiny in comparison with the range of things that
it can't disprove. That doesn't mean that those things are valid just
because science can't disprove them.
-
Wayne
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Atheists? |
27 Feb 2004 06:54:38 PM |
|
|
"Snowbird" <snowbirdRemoveThis@ThisToosnowbird.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:D4R%b.12900$h44.1324186@stones.force9.net...
Zachriel wrote:
"Snowbird" <snowbirdRemoveThis@ThisToosnowbird.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:gQN_b.11470$Y%6.1079342@wards.force9.net...
I meant most so-called "proving the negative" statements. If you read my
statement a little more carefully, it depends on the domain in question.
For
instance, the conjecture of a lightning-throwing, thundering Sky-God has
been pretty well falsified, unless He is a weenie who hides in a cloud
every
time a plane flies by (which would contradict His usual definition).
Science can't disprove the existence of any imaginary being.
?
A lightning-throwing, thundering Sky-God hasn't always been considered by
all people at all times to be imaginary. However, we have indeed more or
less disproved His physical existence for the reasons already given. Many
assertions concerning imaginary or imagined beings can sometimes be subject
to falsification -- depending on their supposed properties.
What I was
referring to was that science can disprove the existence of entities with
real-world properties such as elementary particles.
Certainly, and that is a good point. As I mentioned previously, it depends
on the domain involved.
There are many more
thing which science can't disprove at all or is very hard for it to do.
True. I'm not sure if we are in any disagreement.
The proper position of a scientist is skepticism, not certitude based
on
ignorance or the lack of evidence.
Don't get me wrong, I agree. It's just that I disagree when you claim
it's unscientific for a scientist to claim something does not exist.
If the evidence points to the non-existence of something then it is
perfectly scientific to claim that it doesn't exist, as long as you
give evidence, data and reasoning to support your case.
-
I think we are in agreement. But keep in mind that the domain for many
such
statements can be impossibly large for science to encompass. (Indeed,
many
such statements, such as many definitions of the soul, are purposefully
designed to be scientifically obtuse. As such, they can lie completely
outside the scope of science.)
Oh absolutely. I don't for a minute suspect that the range of things that
science can disprove is tiny in comparison with the range of things that
it can't disprove. That doesn't mean that those things are valid just
because science can't disprove them.
That's certainly true.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snowbird" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Atheists? |
29 Feb 2004 06:16:53 AM |
|
|
Zachriel wrote:
"Snowbird" <snowbirdRemoveThis@ThisToosnowbird.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:D4R%b.12900$h44.1324186@stones.force9.net...
Zachriel wrote:
"Snowbird" <snowbirdRemoveThis@ThisToosnowbird.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:gQN_b.11470$Y%6.1079342@wards.force9.net...
I meant most so-called "proving the negative" statements. If you read my
statement a little more carefully, it depends on the domain in question.
For
instance, the conjecture of a lightning-throwing, thundering Sky-God has
been pretty well falsified, unless He is a weenie who hides in a cloud
every
time a plane flies by (which would contradict His usual definition).
Science can't disprove the existence of any imaginary being.
?
A lightning-throwing, thundering Sky-God hasn't always been considered by
all people at all times to be imaginary.
No, but it *was* an imaginary being in the sense that it had no
evidence for it.
However, we have indeed more or
less disproved His physical existence for the reasons already given.
Is it a format scientific disproof? I mean, are such things disproven
in the same way in which Lamarckian evolution was? I don't doubt that
we can reason that such beings don't exist based on certain things but
this is not the same as scientifically dirproving their existence.
That is the distinction I am trying to make.
Many
assertions concerning imaginary or imagined beings can sometimes be subject
to falsification -- depending on their supposed properties.
If some of their attributes are self-contradictory, then yes. However,
this is not the same as scientific falsification. Science only deals
with the natural so it cannot be used to disprove supernatural beings.
What I was
referring to was that science can disprove the existence of entities with
real-world properties such as elementary particles.
Certainly, and that is a good point. As I mentioned previously, it depends
on the domain involved.
Yes but there is a distinction with natural particles and supernatural
beings. Supernatural beings are not limited by natural laws. So, you
can't test them as you could with atoms for example. If you can't test
them then you can't falsify them.
There are many more
thing which science can't disprove at all or is very hard for it to do.
True. I'm not sure if we are in any disagreement.
I think there is mild disagreement, or maybe mild misunderstanding,
somewhere.
-
Wayne
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Atheists? |
28 Feb 2004 07:39:25 AM |
|
|
Reposting with some changes: I have been posting from a temporary location,
and have yet to see my original response.
"Snowbird" <snowbirdRemoveThis@ThisToosnowbird.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:D4R%b.12900$h44.1324186@stones.force9.net...
Zachriel wrote:
"Snowbird" <snowbirdRemoveThis@ThisToosnowbird.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:gQN_b.11470$Y%6.1079342@wards.force9.net...
I meant most so-called "proving the negative" statements. If you read my
statement a little more carefully, it depends on the domain in question.
For
instance, the conjecture of a lightning-throwing, thundering Sky-God has
been pretty well falsified, unless He is a weenie who hides in a cloud
every
time a plane flies by (which would contradict His usual definition).
Science can't disprove the existence of any imaginary being.
?
A lightning-throwing, thundering Sky-God hasn't always been considered by
all people at all times to be imaginary. However, we have indeed more or
less disproved the physical existence of Zeus. (Basically, we have explored
the entire domain in question, including looking in the clouds, the sky, and
on Mt. Olympus.) Many assertions concerning imaginary or imagined beings can
sometimes be subject to falsification -- depending on their supposed
properties of the being, and the size of the domain that needs to be
explored.
What I was
referring to was that science can disprove the existence of entities with
real-world properties such as elementary particles.
Certainly, and that is a good point. As I mentioned previously, it depends
on the domain involved. However, in regards to elementary particles, we
might want to remain cautious. Who ordered dark matter and dark energy,
anyway? ;-)
The key is to keep clear whether a given statement is "scientific". If it
is, then is must be validated by the scientific method. So, if someone says
that the so-called Biblical Flood covered the entire surface of the globe,
then they are certainly wrong. We have explorered vast amounts of the
geology of the Earth and can state with confidence that nothing of the kind
occurred.
Even Genesis doesn't support such an interpretation. Noah released a dove
and it brought back an olive leaf, indicating that a live olive tree was
living and growing nearby.
Genesis 8:11
"And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an
olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the
earth."
http://tinyurl.com/ytm3b
On the other hand, if someone were to say that the Biblical Flood covered
the entire "world", as known to Noah, then it *might* very well be true, but
we have no certain evidence of such an event. We do know that at the time of
Noah, we were leaving an Ice Age and there was a lot of melt-water.
Certainly, massive flooding was inevitiable on local (though still possibly
huge) levels.
Genesis 7:10
"And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were
upon the earth."
http://tinyurl.com/24su2
A look at the use of the Hebrew word for "earth" indicates that it has many
uses, but none of them imply a globe, but refer to the land, the people, or
to populated regions.
http://tinyurl.com/34n4w
Certainly, from Noah's point-of-view, the entire world may have been
flooded, making the story a truthful telling of the events -- as he saw
them.
There are many more
thing which science can't disprove at all or is very hard for it to do.
True. I'm not sure if we are in any disagreement. My point has been that
statements of the form, "God exists" and "God does not exist" are not
necessarily subject to scientific study. Depending on the definitions used,
they may lie completely outside the scope of the scientific method.
To reiterate, this is not meant to mean that just because we don't know
everything scientifically, we can't know anything. We know that the universe
is billions-of-years old, and we know that life on Earth evolved from a
common ancestral population.
The proper position of a scientist is skepticism, not certitude based
on
ignorance or the lack of evidence.
Don't get me wrong, I agree. It's just that I disagree when you claim
it's unscientific for a scientist to claim something does not exist.
If the evidence points to the non-existence of something then it is
perfectly scientific to claim that it doesn't exist, as long as you
give evidence, data and reasoning to support your case.
-
I think we are in agreement. But keep in mind that the domain for many
such
statements can be impossibly large for science to encompass. (Indeed,
many
such statements, such as many definitions of the soul, are purposefully
designed to be scientifically obtuse. As such, they can lie completely
outside the scope of science.)
Oh absolutely. I don't for a minute suspect that the range of things that
science can disprove is tiny in comparison with the range of things that
it can't disprove. That doesn't mean that those things are valid just
because science can't disprove them.
True. I'm not sure if we are in any disagreement on this point. The range of
the imagination is presumably much larger than the range of the physical
universe. Implied by your comment is that there *may* exist valid subjects
of study outside the normal scope of science, e.g. logic, beauty, morality,
perhaps even imagination itself.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Snowbird" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Atheists? |
29 Feb 2004 06:34:23 AM |
|
|
Zachriel wrote:
Reposting with some changes: I have been posting from a temporary location,
and have yet to see my original response.
"Snowbird" <snowbirdRemoveThis@ThisToosnowbird.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:D4R%b.12900$h44.1324186@stones.force9.net...
Science can't disprove the existence of any imaginary being.
?
A lightning-throwing, thundering Sky-God hasn't always been considered by
all people at all times to be imaginary. However, we have indeed more or
less disproved the physical existence of Zeus. (Basically, we have explored
the entire domain in question, including looking in the clouds, the sky, and
on Mt. Olympus.)
We have done so, but I don't believe this was done through science.
We might have borrowed certain aspects from science but that's different.
Many assertions concerning imaginary or imagined beings can
sometimes be subject to falsification -- depending on their supposed
properties of the being, and the size of the domain that needs to be
explored.
Proabably, but not through science. I mean, what experiment do you
perform to disprove Zeus? Where was the paper of disproof published?
We may have used a lay-version of science to disprove Zeus but that
is different from true science, I believe.
What I was
referring to was that science can disprove the existence of entities with
real-world properties such as elementary particles.
Certainly, and that is a good point. As I mentioned previously, it depends
on the domain involved. However, in regards to elementary particles, we
might want to remain cautious. Who ordered dark matter and dark energy,
anyway? ;-)
I don't see what you mean. There are many elementary particles whose
existence was postulated before they were discovered. Even whole
atoms have been predicted. I think dark matter and dark energy are
hypotheses at the moment, awaiting confirmation. That's totally
different from considering the existence of supernatural beings though.
I don't see how it relates to the discussion.
The key is to keep clear whether a given statement is "scientific". If it
is, then is must be validated by the scientific method.
That's my point. Statements about Zeus or Thor are NOT scientific and
therefore cannot be disproved by science. We CAN use other methods which
are similar to science but it's not part of science.
So, if someone says
that the so-called Biblical Flood covered the entire surface of the globe,
then they are certainly wrong. We have explorered vast amounts of the
geology of the Earth and can state with confidence that nothing of the kind
occurred.
But supernatural events and beings don't have to conform to natural law.
There *could* have been a world-wide flood and a magic space pixie
could have made it look like it never happened. That's not scientific
and cannot be falsified. Of course, if I were to say that it DID leave
evidence then it can be falsified by science but that's only because
the evidence is natural and that's what science deals with.
Even Genesis doesn't support such an interpretation. Noah released a dove
and it brought back an olive leaf, indicating that a live olive tree was
living and growing nearby.
And if the whole earth was covered with water for a year then the
olive tree would be dead. Again, this can be falsified using science
because it deals with perfectly natural evidence. I feel we have
digressed from the original point about falsifying supernatural beings.
Genesis 8:11
"And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an
olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the
earth."
http://tinyurl.com/ytm3b
On the other hand, if someone were to say that the Biblical Flood covered
the entire "world", as known to Noah, then it *might* very well be true, but
we have no certain evidence of such an event. We do know that at the time of
Noah, we were leaving an Ice Age and there was a lot of melt-water.
Certainly, massive flooding was inevitiable on local (though still possibly
huge) levels.
Genesis 7:10
"And it came to pass after seven days, that the waters of the flood were
upon the earth."
http://tinyurl.com/24su2
A look at the use of the Hebrew word for "earth" indicates that it has many
uses, but none of them imply a globe, but refer to the land, the people, or
to populated regions.
http://tinyurl.com/34n4w
Certainly, from Noah's point-of-view, the entire world may have been
flooded, making the story a truthful telling of the events -- as he saw
them.
There are many more
thing which science can't disprove at all or is very hard for it to do.
True. I'm not sure if we are in any disagreement.
I think there is some confusion but I believe we are in agreement.
I don't know if I am articulating myself properly so forgive me.
My point has been that
statements of the form, "God exists" and "God does not exist" are not
necessarily subject to scientific study.
I agree.
Depending on the definitions used,
they may lie completely outside the scope of the scientific method.
Yep. If the definition contains something relating to the real world
and that something is definite then there may be a possibility for it
to be disproved scientifically. I could posit that Thor created lightning
and you could say 'no, it happens because....' and I could say, yes,
that's how Thor does it. Basically I could make anyting up to fit
the evidence and even escape scientific testing.
To reiterate, this is not meant to mean that just because we don't know
everything scientifically, we can't know anything. We know that the universe
is billions-of-years old, and we know that life on Earth evolved from a
common ancestral population.
Absolutely.
The proper position of a scientist is skepticism, not certitude based
on
ignorance or the lack of evidence.
Don't get me wrong, I agree. It's just that I disagree when you claim
it's unscientific for a scientist to claim something does not exist.
If the evidence points to the non-existence of something then it is
perfectly scientific to claim that it doesn't exist, as long as you
give evidence, data and reasoning to support your case.
-
I think we are in agreement. But keep in mind that the domain for many
such
statements can be impossibly large for science to encompass. (Indeed,
many
such statements, such as many definitions of the soul, are purposefully
designed to be scientifically obtuse. As such, they can lie completely
outside the scope of science.)
Oh absolutely. I don't for a minute suspect that the range of things that
science can disprove is tiny in comparison with the range of things that
it can't disprove. That doesn't mean that those things are valid just
because science can't disprove them.
True. I'm not sure if we are in any disagreement on this point. The range of
the imagination is presumably much larger than the range of the physical
universe. Implied by your comment is that there *may* exist valid subjects
of study outside the normal scope of science, e.g. logic, beauty, morality,
perhaps even imagination itself.
I believe that all of those things can and are being studied scientifically.
They are all elements of the human mind so there is no reason why they
should be excluded from science.
-
Wayne
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Atheists? |
29 Feb 2004 07:22:58 AM |
|
|
"Snowbird" <snowbirdRemoveThis@ThisToosnowbird.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:BZk0c.13587$h44.1411306@stones.force9.net...
Zachriel wrote:
Reposting with some changes: I have been posting from a temporary
location,
and have yet to see my original response.
"Snowbird" <snowbirdRemoveThis@ThisToosnowbird.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:D4R%b.12900$h44.1324186@stones.force9.net...
Science can't disprove the existence of any imaginary being.
?
A lightning-throwing, thundering Sky-God hasn't always been considered
by
all people at all times to be imaginary. However, we have indeed more or
less disproved the physical existence of Zeus. (Basically, we have
explored
the entire domain in question, including looking in the clouds, the sky,
and
on Mt. Olympus.)
We have done so, but I don't believe this was done through science.
We might have borrowed certain aspects from science but that's different.
Looking everywhere in a domain is certainly valid science. HYPOTHESIS: Zeus
is a physical being that lives on Mt. Olympus and takes day-trips into the
clouds to throw lightning-bolts. PREDICTION: If we look on Mt. Olympus, we
should find him. If he happens to be taking a day-trip, we can either wait
for him to return, or we can look in every cloud, or both. OBSERVATION:
repeated observation of Mt. Olympus and thousands of aircraft over many
decades looking in clouds has failed to find Zeus. VALIDATION: If Zeus
exists, he is a weenie hiding everytime we look -- which in this case,
defies his usual definition. REPEAT: Repeat and refine observations as
necessary.
Many assertions concerning imaginary or imagined beings can
sometimes be subject to falsification -- depending on their supposed
properties of the being, and the size of the domain that needs to be
explored.
Proabably, but not through science. I mean, what experiment do you
perform to disprove Zeus? Where was the paper of disproof published?
We may have used a lay-version of science to disprove Zeus but that
is different from true science, I believe.
What I was
referring to was that science can disprove the existence of entities
with
real-world properties such as elementary particles.
Certainly, and that is a good point. As I mentioned previously, it
depends
on the domain involved. However, in regards to elementary particles, we
might want to remain cautious. Who ordered dark matter and dark energy,
anyway? ;-)
I don't see what you mean. There are many elementary particles whose
existence was postulated before they were discovered. Even whole
atoms have been predicted. I think dark matter and dark energy are
hypotheses at the moment, awaiting confirmation. That's totally
different from considering the existence of supernatural beings though.
I don't see how it relates to the discussion.
You had asserted, in regards to negative claims, that we could determine
that certain types of particles don't exist. This is probably true. Due to
the type of domain under discussion, we can possibly "search" the entire
domain to disprove the existence of some postulated particles. This was your
own original point, and I generally agree. However, we must be cautious in
our conclusions.
----------------------
Negative claims are not generally amenable
to the scientific method, as they
require looking in every corner of the
domain in question, often the entire
universe. Consequently, [most such] negative claims
are not scientific, but
philosophical.
I would disagree here. You see, one could
construct fundamental particles
with various properties and nuclear
physicists can rightly claim that they
don't exist if they do not fit in with the model they have.
----------------------
The only point, after so many words, is that science's ability to validate
so-called negative claims depends on the size of the domain in question. If
we can practically look in every corner of the domain, then we can validate
a negative claim. If the domain is the entire universe, as is common for
such statements, then we can't "prove the negative".
The key is to keep clear whether a given statement is "scientific". If
it
is, then is must be validated by the scientific method.
That's my point. Statements about Zeus or Thor are NOT scientific and
therefore cannot be disproved by science.
Many definitions of Zeus and Thor have scientific consequences that might be
testable. The example I gave was of a thundering, lightning-throwing
Sky-God. As we have searched -- repeatedly and continuously -- the entire
domain, we have more or less falsified the existence of such a Sky-God, as
so defined.
However, there was that Star-Trek episode, 'Who Mourns for Adonais?"
http://www.homevideos.com/startreks/st38.htm
;-)
We CAN use other methods which
are similar to science but it's not part of science.
Direct and repeatedable observation IS science. Just like my setting up a
telescope to observe the crescent Venus, or visiting a local quarry to look
at geological strata, I can take a trip to Mt. Olympus to validate previous
observations.
So, if someone says
that the so-called Biblical Flood covered the entire surface of the
globe,
then they are certainly wrong. We have explorered vast amounts of the
geology of the Earth and can state with confidence that nothing of the
kind
occurred.
But supernatural events and beings don't have to conform to natural law.
That is certainly correct. In the case of the defined Sky-God, there are
observable consequences to his definition. However, in the case of a
spiritually defined God, you are right.
(This particular conversation started when you stated that some so-called
negative assertions can be scientifically verified. I had *agreed*, pointing
out only that it depends on the extent of the domain which must be searched.
For instance, at one time, it was reasonable to hypothesize that dinosaurs
still might roam some remote corner of the Earth. This is no longer
reasonable.)
There *could* have been a world-wide flood and a magic space pixie
could have made it look like it never happened. That's not scientific
and cannot be falsified.
Precisely. But in this case, the Bible makes no such assertion that God hid
his evidence. Indeed, this would be contrary to His nature as usually
defined. We know with a high-degree of scientific certainty that there was
never a global flood. However, we do know there were huge regional floods,
that affected most of the globe at the end of the last Ice Age.
Of course, if I were to say that it DID leave
evidence then it can be falsified by science but that's only because
the evidence is natural and that's what science deals with.
Even Genesis doesn't support such an interpretation. Noah released a
dove
and it brought back an olive leaf, indicating that a live olive tree was
living and growing nearby.
And if the whole earth was covered with water for a year then the
olive tree would be dead. Again, this can be falsified using science
because it deals with perfectly natural evidence. I feel we have
digressed from the original point about falsifying supernatural beings.
A thundering, lightning-throwing Sky-God has been more or less falsified.
However, there are other definitions of gods that are not scientific and
can't be properly validated by science.
<snip>
True. I'm not sure if we are in any disagreement on this point. The
range of
the imagination is presumably much larger than the range of the physical
universe. Implied by your comment is that there *may* exist valid
subjects
of study outside the normal scope of science, e.g. logic, beauty,
morality,
perhaps even imagination itself.
I believe that all of those things can and are being studied
scientifically.
They are all elements of the human mind so there is no reason why they
should be excluded from science.
Generally, though science has made some feeble attempts at studying beauty
and other subjective subjects, the best way still to determine if something
is beautiful is to behold it, and the best scientific evidence about beauty
is to ask someone's opinion.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Atheists? |
29 Feb 2004 07:43:03 AM |
|
|
Addendum
"Zachriel" <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in message
news:1043ptl35bdpm45@corp.supernews.com...
"Snowbird" <snowbirdRemoveThis@ThisToosnowbird.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:BZk0c.13587$h44.1411306@stones.force9.net...
<snipped>
The only point, after so many words, is that science's ability to validate
so-called negative claims depends on the size of the domain in question.
If
we can practically look in every corner of the domain, then we can
validate
a negative claim. If the domain is the entire universe, as is common for
such statements, then we can't "prove the negative".
We are apparently discussing two different subjects; negative claims and
claims about non-scientifically defined gods. There is an overlap, which may
explain why it has taken several back-and-forths.
* The scientific validation of negative claims depends on the size of the
domain in question.
* The scientific validation of all claims depends on the validity of the
scientific definitions, so claims about immaterial spiritual entities may
not be subject to scientific investigation, unless there is a postulated
interaction with the natural world.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Snowbird" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Atheists? |
01 Mar 2004 01:18:34 PM |
|
|
Zachriel wrote:
"Snowbird" <snowbirdRemoveThis@ThisToosnowbird.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:BZk0c.13587$h44.1411306@stones.force9.net...
We have done so, but I don't believe this was done through science.
We might have borrowed certain aspects from science but that's different.
Looking everywhere in a domain is certainly valid science. HYPOTHESIS: Zeus
is a physical being that lives on Mt. Olympus and takes day-trips into the
clouds to throw lightning-bolts. PREDICTION: If we look on Mt. Olympus, we
should find him. If he happens to be taking a day-trip, we can either wait
for him to return, or we can look in every cloud, or both. OBSERVATION:
repeated observation of Mt. Olympus and thousands of aircraft over many
decades looking in clouds has failed to find Zeus. VALIDATION: If Zeus
exists, he is a weenie hiding everytime we look -- which in this case,
defies his usual definition. REPEAT: Repeat and refine observations as
necessary.
In which case, yes, if the predictions can be tested by science then
the hypothesis can also be falsified by science.
[snip stuff we are in agreement about]
The key is to keep clear whether a given statement is "scientific". If
it
is, then is must be validated by the scientific method.
That's my point. Statements about Zeus or Thor are NOT scientific and
therefore cannot be disproved by science.
Many definitions of Zeus and Thor have scientific consequences that might be
testable. The example I gave was of a thundering, lightning-throwing
Sky-God. As we have searched -- repeatedly and continuously -- the entire
domain, we have more or less falsified the existence of such a Sky-God, as
so defined.
However, there was that Star-Trek episode, 'Who Mourns for Adonais?"
http://www.homevideos.com/startreks/st38.htm
;-)
The old ones are always the best. :) (Except when new ones are
better).
We CAN use other methods which
are similar to science but it's not part of science.
Direct and repeatedable observation IS science. Just like my setting up a
telescope to observe the crescent Venus, or visiting a local quarry to look
at geological strata, I can take a trip to Mt. Olympus to validate previous
observations.
I had a more obscure and elusive definition of Zeus in mind.
But supernatural events and beings don't have to conform to natural law.
That is certainly correct. In the case of the defined Sky-God, there are
observable consequences to his definition. However, in the case of a
spiritually defined God, you are right.
(This particular conversation started when you stated that some so-called
negative assertions can be scientifically verified. I had *agreed*, pointing
out only that it depends on the extent of the domain which must be searched.
For instance, at one time, it was reasonable to hypothesize that dinosaurs
still might roam some remote corner of the Earth. This is no longer
reasonable.)
I think we are pretty much in agreement. I just wanted to make sure
that there was no
There *could* have been a world-wide flood and a magic space pixie
could have made it look like it never happened. That's not scientific
and cannot be falsified.
Precisely. But in this case, the Bible makes no such assertion that God hid
his evidence. Indeed, this would be contrary to His nature as usually
defined. We know with a high-degree of scientific certainty that there was
never a global flood. However, we do know there were huge regional floods,
that affected most of the globe at the end of the last Ice Age.
If only the creationists would see it that way!
And if the whole earth was covered with water for a year then the
olive tree would be dead. Again, this can be falsified using science
because it deals with perfectly natural evidence. I feel we have
digressed from the original point about falsifying supernatural beings.
A thundering, lightning-throwing Sky-God has been more or less falsified.
However, there are other definitions of gods that are not scientific and
can't be properly validated by science.
Would you say that, for something to be falsified by science, that a
peer-reviewed paper had to be published, verified and accepted?
They are all elements of the human mind so there is no reason why they
should be excluded from science.
Generally, though science has made some feeble attempts at studying beauty
and other subjective subjects,
Just because something is subjective does not mean it can't be studied
by science.
the best way still to determine if something
is beautiful is to behold it, and the best scientific evidence about beauty
is to ask someone's opinion.
I didn't mean that science can be used to determine if something is
beautiful or not. I mean that science can study our perceptions of
beauty, how they are handled by the brain and so on.
-
Wayne
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Atheists? |
01 Mar 2004 01:45:03 PM |
|
|
"Snowbird" <snowbirdRemoveThis@ThisToosnowbird.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message news:w_L0c.13887$h44.1487401@stones.force9.net...
Zachriel wrote:
<snip>
A thundering, lightning-throwing Sky-God has been more or less
falsified.
However, there are other definitions of gods that are not scientific and
can't be properly validated by science.
Would you say that, for something to be falsified by science, that a
peer-reviewed paper had to be published, verified and accepted?
No, but in modern society, it's pretty much a given. Publishing is a very
important component of the validation of results, as it allows other
researchers to verify observations and predictions, and perhaps expand the
usefulness of the research.
Why? Are you thinking of publishing the results of your day-trip to Mt.
Olympus? ;-)
They are all elements of the human mind so there is no reason why they
should be excluded from science.
Generally, though science has made some feeble attempts at studying
beauty
and other subjective subjects,
Just because something is subjective does not mean it can't be studied
by science.
That is correct. And there have been some very good scientific efforts in
that regard.
the best way still to determine if something
is beautiful is to behold it, and the best scientific evidence about
beauty
is to ask someone's opinion.
I didn't mean that science can be used to determine if something is
beautiful or not. I mean that science can study our perceptions of
beauty, how they are handled by the brain and so on.
Of course we can, but it's still pretty rudimentary.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Atheists? |
29 Feb 2004 08:07:01 AM |
|
|
Snowbird wrote in alt.atheism
Zachriel wrote:
"Snowbird" wrote in message
Reposting with some changes: I have been posting from a temporary location,
and have yet to see my original response.
Science can't disprove the existence of any imaginary being.
A lightning-throwing, thundering Sky-God hasn't always been considered by
all people at all times to be imaginary. However, we have indeed more or
less disproved the physical existence of Zeus. (Basically, we have explored
the entire domain in question, including looking in the clouds, the sky, and
on Mt. Olympus.)
We have done so, but I don't believe this was done through science.
We might have borrowed certain aspects from science but that's different.
Many assertions concerning imaginary or imagined beings can
sometimes be subject to falsification -- depending on their supposed
properties of the being, and the size of the domain that needs to be
explored.
Proabably, but not through science. I mean, what experiment do you
perform to disprove Zeus? Where was the paper of disproof published?
We may have used a lay-version of science to disprove Zeus but that
is different from true science, I believe.
Actually, Zeus exists as a planet. It's just the Greek name for the
planet most of us now call Jupiter, because of Roman influence. It
was also called Zedek by some societies, and is where the name
Melchi-Zedek comes from. It means "My King is Zedek." There was
also an Adoni-Zedek, which means "My Lord is Zedek". They both
refer to the worship of the planet we now call Jupiter.
There was the Sun/Sol/Shamash/Ra, and the Moon/Dianna/Lunae,
and Mars/Marduk/Tews, and Mercury/Hermes/Woden, and Jove/Jehovah/YHWH/
Thor/Zedek, and Ishtar/Venus/Frigga, and Saturn/Satan/Sabat.
In that order, we get our English days of the week. Sunday, Moonday,
Mars/Tewsday, Woden/Wednesday, Thor/Thursday, Frigga/Friday,
Saturn/Sabbath/Saturnday.
All related to gods that people can actually see with their own
eyes.
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Atheists? |
29 Feb 2004 08:54:21 AM |
|
|
"Elroy Willis" <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:5ep340p088uvo3jqf95kigeiaibhjneqba@4ax.com...
Snowbird wrote in alt.atheism
Zachriel wrote:
"Snowbird" wrote in message
Reposting with some changes: I have been posting from a temporary
location,
and have yet to see my original response.
Science can't disprove the existence of any imaginary being.
A lightning-throwing, thundering Sky-God hasn't always been considered
by
all people at all times to be imaginary. However, we have indeed more
or
less disproved the physical existence of Zeus. (Basically, we have
explored
the entire domain in question, including looking in the clouds, the
sky, and
on Mt. Olympus.)
We have done so, but I don't believe this was done through science.
We might have borrowed certain aspects from science but that's
different.
Many assertions concerning imaginary or imagined beings can
sometimes be subject to falsification -- depending on their supposed
properties of the being, and the size of the domain that needs to be
explored.
Proabably, but not through science. I mean, what experiment do you
perform to disprove Zeus? Where was the paper of disproof published?
We may have used a lay-version of science to disprove Zeus but that
is different from true science, I believe.
Actually, Zeus exists as a planet.
Which get us right back to the definitions we choose to use.
It's just the Greek name for the
planet most of us now call Jupiter, because of Roman influence. It
was also called Zedek by some societies, and is where the name
Melchi-Zedek comes from. It means "My King is Zedek." There was
also an Adoni-Zedek, which means "My Lord is Zedek". They both
refer to the worship of the planet we now call Jupiter.
Also, there's a lot of etymological knowledge of interest in the "names of
God", such as Yahweh, Elohim, Jehovah-Shalom, El-Shaddai, Allah, etc. We can
trace the evolution of the modern conceptions of God to a large degree by
following the changes in language, in particular, the eventual merger of the
Yahweh and Elohim cults, with Allah most likely being the same semitic root
word as El, as in Alleluia, Hallaleuia.
There was the Sun/Sol/Shamash/Ra, and the Moon/Dianna/Lunae,
and Mars/Marduk/Tews, and Mercury/Hermes/Woden, and Jove/Jehovah/YHWH/
Thor/Zedek, and Ishtar/Venus/Frigga, and Saturn/Satan/Sabat.
In that order, we get our English days of the week. Sunday, Moonday,
Mars/Tewsday, Woden/Wednesday, Thor/Thursday, Frigga/Friday,
Saturn/Sabbath/Saturnday.
All related to gods that people can actually see with their own
eyes.
And without a telescope! Jupiter is currently in solar opposition. It rises
around sunset and lights the night sky.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Elroy Willis" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Atheists? |
29 Feb 2004 09:47:52 AM |
|
|
Zachriel <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in alt.atheism
Elroy Willis <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
Snowbird wrote in alt.atheism
Zachriel wrote:
Snowbird wrote in message
Science can't disprove the existence of any imaginary being.
A lightning-throwing, thundering Sky-God hasn't always been considered
by all people at all times to be imaginary. However, we have indeed more
or less disproved the physical existence of Zeus. (Basically, we have
explored the entire domain in question, including looking in the clouds,
the sky, and on Mt. Olympus.)
Not to mention flying space probes through the supposed "layers of
heaven" which were supposed to be made of some "crystaline"
material. Unless NASA is lying to everyone, they didn't include a
drill on Voyager to cut through some solid crystaline sphere while
it made its way out into the solar system. I guess they were taking
a big chance, according to the churches who still support the
"solid domes in the sky" cosmology.
I can just imagine some young-earth creationist wacko working
for NASA.
We should include a drill to cut through the layers of heaven. If
not, our probe is doomed!
<fade to manager's office>
Sorry, Bible Bob, but we're gonna have to let you go...
We have done so, but I don't believe this was done through science.
We might have borrowed certain aspects from science but that's
different.
Many assertions concerning imaginary or imagined beings can
sometimes be subject to falsification -- depending on their supposed
properties of the being, and the size of the domain that needs to be
explored.
Proabably, but not through science. I mean, what experiment do you
perform to disprove Zeus? Where was the paper of disproof published?
We may have used a lay-version of science to disprove Zeus but that
is different from true science, I believe.
Actually, Zeus exists as a planet.
Which get us right back to the definitions we choose to use.
What do you choose to call the planet Jupiter? Zeus? Zedek?
Jove? Jehovah?
You know that if you're born under the sign of Jupiter, that you'll
be a Jovial person, don't you?
It's just the Greek name for the planet most of us now call Jupiter,
because of Roman influence. It was also called Zedek by some
societies, and is where the name Melchi-Zedek comes from. It
means "My King is Zedek." There was also an Adoni-Zedek, which
means "My Lord is Zedek". They both refer to the worship of the
planet we now call Jupiter.
Also, there's a lot of etymological knowledge of interest in the "names
of God", such as Yahweh, Elohim, Jehovah-Shalom, El-Shaddai, Allah,
etc. We can trace the evolution of the modern conceptions of God to a
large degree by following the changes in language, in particular, the
eventual merger of theYahweh and Elohim cults, with Allah most likely
being the same semitic root word as El, as in Alleluia, Hallaleuia.
I have suggested in the past that the El and Al parts of different
languages and those words relate to the modern masculine/feminine
Le and La in French, and the Al in Arabic, and the El in Spanish, but
people laughed at me for suggesting such an idea.
El Diablo means "the Devil," or "The Diabolical One," from what I can
tell.
So where is Al Diablo, or La Diablo? Where are they?
Are there no female diabolical characters?
Is "le pandora" or "la pandora" more acceptible to most people?
There was the Sun/Sol/Shamash/Ra, and the Moon/Dianna/Lunae,
and Mars/Marduk/Tews, and Mercury/Hermes/Woden, and Jove/Jehovah/YHWH/
Thor/Zedek, and Ishtar/Venus/Frigga, and Saturn/Satan/Sabat.
In that order, we get our English days of the week. Sunday, Moonday,
Mars/Tewsday, Woden/Wednesday, Thor/Thursday, Frigga/Friday,
Saturn/Sabbath/Saturnday.
All related to gods that people can actually see with their own
eyes.
And without a telescope! Jupiter is currently in solar opposition. It rises
around sunset and lights the night sky.
It's brighter than anything else in the sky at the time?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zachriel" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Atheists? |
29 Feb 2004 11:49:47 AM |
|
|
"Elroy Willis" <elo@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:9v04409tdnhjjconjtveophptfjpagh58b@4ax.com...
Zachriel <angel@zachriel.com> wrote in alt.atheism
<snip>
And without a telescope! Jupiter is currently in solar opposition. It
rises
around sunset and lights the night sky.
It's brighter than anything else in the sky at the time?
Venus is still good viewing in the early evening, while Saturn and the Moon
will both be in Gemini tomorrow evening. Check out StarDate for tips on
naked-eye astronomy.
http://stardate.org/nightsky/weekly.php
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Atheists? |
23 Feb 2004 10:45:54 PM |
|
|
In article <5Pp_b.386632$na.592829@attbi_s04>, Navigator <nav@nav.com>
wrote:
Atheism is not a religious belief, it is the absence of
one.
There is one form of atheism that is a lack of belief, but not your
form, at least according to present evidence.
Atheism is characterized by an absence of the theist belief that a
magic invisible god might exist anyway, even though there is no such
thing in evidence.
If this were truly the case then there could not be any atheists, since
there is never has existed any theist belief as described by Septic
Capon, the Simple Pimple.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
But how is this PROVEN? Have you looked
everywhere on Earth for him? In the solar system? In
the universe?
Best, Marc
Nobody ever has any burden to prove any existential statement like, "An
invisible god might exist, even though there is no such thing in
evidence" is false, Marc.
They do if they want to claim it is false. Since all it says is that the
non-existence of gods is not proven. But since it entirely is your
statement ( no one else, and particularly no theist, has ever stated
that this is what he believed) what you do with it is a private matter
and need not concern anyone else.
Under the principles of valid argument (logic)
About which Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, knows little, but lies
amuch,
the only reasonable default presumption is that existential statements
like that
As there is no existential statement at issue here, the remainder of
this argument is irrelevant. To claim that something has not been proved
imposible, which is what "may exist" means, is by no means a claim that
that something actually exists. But Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple,
would mislead everyone to believe that perrenial lie of his that "may"
equals "must".
are false unless proven true,
Logic will, at most, allow one to reject a claim of existence for which
there is no proof.
That is not at all equivalent to declaring it to be false, which
requires its own proof. Of which there is none here.
But Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, will not allow anything like true
logic to stand in the way of his lies.
just like the default
presumption of not guilty in any reasonable criminal court. OK with you?
No. Ones beliefs are not subject to outside judgements. Only ones
actions are so subject.
Going only by actions, Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple's, insidious lies
make him guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and he would be so found in any
honest court.
The thing of it is that if you want to be part of the human community
then you have to be willng to abide by these basic principles of valid
argument (logic)
Which principles Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple abjures more strongly
than he abjures any fair statement of any theist doctrine.
since the opposite wold be an absurd state of affairs.
Which situation occurs every time Septic Capon, the Simple Pimple, posts
his lies.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Marc Satterwhite" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Atheists? |
23 Feb 2004 11:44:56 AM |
|
|
Navigator wrote:
Marc Satterwhite wrote:
The Church of The Painful Truth wrote:
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message
news:Nzc_b.1011$wP3.825@twister.socal.rr.com...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message
news:lrc_b.192$884.57455@news.uswest.net...
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message
news:49c_b.1006$wP3.822@twister.socal.rr.com...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message
news:NHb_b.140$191.104679@news.uswest.net...
Why is it that you do not believe in God?
The same reason you don't believe in Zeus.
--
Ron Baker
+But it is an established fact that Zues is a mythological being
How is that an established fact?
+Do you honestly believe a known mytholgical creature is a fact?+
I'm sure everyone in this discussion believes that Zeus is purely
mythological.
The contrary. Atheism is not a religious belief, it is the absence of
one. Atheism is characterized by an absence of the theist belief that a
magic invisible god might exist anyway, even though there is no such
thing in evidence.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
Actually, I know what atheism is, and I agree with the above,
but I was playing a bit of devil's advocate.
But how is this PROVEN? Have you looked
everywhere on Earth for him? In the solar system? In
the universe?
Best, Marc
Nobody ever has any burden to prove any existential statement like, "An
invisible god might exist, even though there is no such thing in
evidence" is false, Marc. Under the principles of valid argument (logic)
the only reasonable default presumption is that existential statements
like that are false unless proven true, just like the default
presumption of not guilty in any reasonable criminal court. OK with you?
The thing of it is that if you want to be part of the human community
then you have to be willng to abide by these basic principles of valid
argument (logic) since the opposite wold be an absurd state of affairs.
Methinks you miss my point (maybe I didn't express myself clearly enough).
The person I was responding too seems to believe that the non-existence of
Zeus is PROVEN. Not just likely, but actually proven. Moreover, he
appears to
contrast this with belief in the Judeo-Christian god, whose non-existence
cannot,
according to him, be proven, unless we examine the entire
universe for signs of him, and don't find them.
My point is that if he applies the same standards to Zeus that he does for
his own god, he will find that the existence of Zeus is actually not
disproved.
If we have to examine the whole universe to disprove the existence of
Yahweh, we must examine the whole universe to disprove the
existence of Zeus, as well. No double standard allowed.
He also seems to be saying that it we cannot absolutely disprove his
god, we must believe in him. That statement no more holds true for
Yahweh than for Zeus, in my opinion.
Again I agree with you on the burden of proof. I was just trying to
point out some problems and inconsistencies that I saw in the
earlier posters arguments.
Best, Marc
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Atheists? |
22 Feb 2004 07:21:52 PM |
|
|
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in message
news:lrc_b.192$884.57455@news.uswest.net...
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message
news:49c_b.1006$wP3.822@twister.socal.rr.com...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message
news:NHb_b.140$191.104679@news.uswest.net...
Why is it that you do not believe in God?
The same reason you don't believe in Zeus.
--
Ron Baker
Painful: +But it is an established fact that Zues is a mythological being
and that >is the reason I don't believe in him,with that being said ahy do
you not
believe in God?+
Tom: Any reasons why I should? When you find good solid reasons why I should
then I'll think about it. Until then "god" ranks right there with Zeus.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Church of The Painful Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Atheists? |
22 Feb 2004 07:32:02 PM |
|
|
"Tom" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:103ildi6via229e@corp.supernews.com...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message
news:lrc_b.192$884.57455@news.uswest.net...
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message
news:49c_b.1006$wP3.822@twister.socal.rr.com...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message
news:NHb_b.140$191.104679@news.uswest.net...
Why is it that you do not believe in God?
The same reason you don't believe in Zeus.
--
Ron Baker
Painful: +But it is an established fact that Zues is a mythological being
and that >is the reason I don't believe in him,with that being said ahy do
you not
believe in God?+
Tom: Any reasons why I should? When you find good solid reasons why I
should
then I'll think about it. Until then "god" ranks right there with Zeus.
+Are you a strong atheist or a weak one?+
.
|
|
|
| User: "Tom" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Atheists? |
22 Feb 2004 07:47:51 PM |
|
|
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in message
news:kKc_b.203$884.59154@news.uswest.net...
"Tom" <mmman_90@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:103ildi6via229e@corp.supernews.com...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message
news:lrc_b.192$884.57455@news.uswest.net...
"Ron Baker, Pluralitas!" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message
news:49c_b.1006$wP3.822@twister.socal.rr.com...
"The Church of The Painful Truth" <Nospam@Nomarketing.com> wrote in
message
news:NHb_b.140$191.104679@news.uswest.net...
Why is it that you do not believe in God?
The same reason you don't believe in Zeus.
--
Ron Baker
Painful: +But it is an established fact that Zues is a mythological
being
and that >is the reason I don't believe in him,with that being said ahy
do
you not
believe in God?+
Tom: Any reasons why I should? When you find good solid reasons why I
should
then I'll think about it. Until then "god" ranks right there with Zeus.
Painful: +Are you a strong atheist or a weak one?+
Tom: Actually I am an agnostic except to the "god" of the Hebrew bible. To
this "god" I am an atheist because the supporters of this "god" have put
forth the attributes of this "god" and they are arbitrary, capricious and
contradictory so this "god" doesn't exist as they have described.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Church of The Painful Truth" |
|
| Title: Re: Question For Atheists? |
22 Feb 2004 07:56:36 PM< | | | | | |
