| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Thomas P." |
| Date: |
03 Aug 2003 03:42:06 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Would like to know the atheist answer |
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 22:55:45 -0400, "xyz" <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote:
As interesting as the answers given may have been, one of the inescapable
conclusions of this entire thread is that we know absolutely nothing about
the origins of the universe, if any. We can no more state with scientific
certainty that it was created, than we can state that it has always existed.
We can no more prove that it has purpose than we can prove it hasn't. Any
answer we can imagine constitutes a conjecture. Asserting our beliefs as an
answer constitutes a personal leap of faith. Not recognizing this fact is
where the trouble lies, as we try to somehow force our leaps of faith (or
non-faith) on others in defense of our moral codes or values, or even egos.
Right or wrong, we humans have built our societies around those leaps of
faith, and the best we can do is tolerate each other's belief. (Or
non-belief, whatever the case may be).
I cannot see your reasoning. Where is the leap of faith in not
believing in a creation? How does one build a society based on that
lack of belief?
snip
Thomas P.
.
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Would like to know the atheist answer |
03 Aug 2003 05:24:05 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 10:42:06 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 22:55:45 -0400, "xyz" <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote:
As interesting as the answers given may have been, one of the inescapable
conclusions of this entire thread is that we know absolutely nothing about
the origins of the universe, if any. We can no more state with scientific
certainty that it was created, than we can state that it has always existed.
We can no more prove that it has purpose than we can prove it hasn't. Any
answer we can imagine constitutes a conjecture. Asserting our beliefs as an
answer constitutes a personal leap of faith. Not recognizing this fact is
where the trouble lies, as we try to somehow force our leaps of faith (or
non-faith) on others in defense of our moral codes or values, or even egos.
Right or wrong, we humans have built our societies around those leaps of
faith, and the best we can do is tolerate each other's belief. (Or
non-belief, whatever the case may be).
I cannot see your reasoning. Where is the leap of faith in not
believing in a creation? How does one build a society based on that
lack of belief?
He's projecting.
And he doesn't even realise how the word "creation" stems from the
religious belief in a creator. Otherwise there is no need to call it
tht because there are far better, less loaded words to use that don't
carry that implication.
Like most religiously derived words in common use it is a form of
thought-control - probably not deliberate, but it worked out that way.
.
|
|
|
| User: "J.R." |
|
| Title: Re: Would like to know the atheist answer |
03 Aug 2003 11:15:09 AM |
|
|
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:<5dopivo28tq02jq4tap1tna7gequcb9esf@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 10:42:06 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 22:55:45 -0400, "xyz" <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote:
As interesting as the answers given may have been, one of the inescapable
conclusions of this entire thread is that we know absolutely nothing about
the origins of the universe, if any. We can no more state with scientific
certainty that it was created, than we can state that it has always existed.
We can no more prove that it has purpose than we can prove it hasn't. Any
answer we can imagine constitutes a conjecture. Asserting our beliefs as an
answer constitutes a personal leap of faith. Not recognizing this fact is
where the trouble lies, as we try to somehow force our leaps of faith (or
non-faith) on others in defense of our moral codes or values, or even egos.
Right or wrong, we humans have built our societies around those leaps of
faith, and the best we can do is tolerate each other's belief. (Or
non-belief, whatever the case may be).
I cannot see your reasoning. Where is the leap of faith in not
believing in a creation? How does one build a society based on that
lack of belief?
He's projecting.
And he doesn't even realise how the word "creation" stems from the
religious belief in a creator. Otherwise there is no need to call it
tht because there are far better, less loaded words to use that don't
carry that implication.
Like most religiously derived words in common use it is a form of
thought-control - probably not deliberate, but it worked out that way.
Every subject has it's own vocabualry. When spoken of in it's own
vocabulary, every subject has it's own set of prejudices.
.
|
|
|
| User: "xyz" |
|
| Title: Re: Would like to know the atheist answer |
03 Aug 2003 01:34:49 PM |
|
|
"J.R." <hey-joe@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:54de13e7.0308030815.7409fda7@posting.google.com...
Christopher A. Lee <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:<5dopivo28tq02jq4tap1tna7gequcb9esf@4ax.com>...
On Sun, 03 Aug 2003 10:42:06 +0200, Thomas P.
<tonyofremovethisbexar@yahoo.dk,> wrote:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 22:55:45 -0400, "xyz" <xyz@attglobal.net> wrote:
As interesting as the answers given may have been, one of the
inescapable
conclusions of this entire thread is that we know absolutely nothing
about
the origins of the universe, if any. We can no more state with
scientific
certainty that it was created, than we can state that it has always
existed.
We can no more prove that it has purpose than we can prove it hasn't.
Any
answer we can imagine constitutes a conjecture. Asserting our beliefs
as an
answer constitutes a personal leap of faith. Not recognizing this
fact is
where the trouble lies, as we try to somehow force our leaps of faith
(or
non-faith) on others in defense of our moral codes or values, or even
egos.
Right or wrong, we humans have built our societies around those leaps
of
faith, and the best we can do is tolerate each other's belief. (Or
non-belief, whatever the case may be).
I cannot see your reasoning. Where is the leap of faith in not
believing in a creation? How does one build a society based on that
lack of belief?
He's projecting.
And he doesn't even realise how the word "creation" stems from the
religious belief in a creator. Otherwise there is no need to call it
tht because there are far better, less loaded words to use that don't
carry that implication.
Like most religiously derived words in common use it is a form of
thought-control - probably not deliberate, but it worked out that way.
Every subject has it's own vocabualry. When spoken of in it's own
vocabulary, every subject has it's own set of prejudices.
No thought control intended folks. (I apologize if it came out that way)
My intended statement is: "it appears to me that we do not know the answers
to those questions", and I would not even attach the adverb "yet" to my
statement, because it presupposes that we will actually find the answers
some day. (Notice that such an adverb might give rise to different
questions, like: is the concept of knowledge bounded? how much knowledge can
be acquired in the universe? Is there an ultimate answer?)
About all I can claim with certainty is "I do not know". (Maybe somebody
can prove a different answer, again: "I do not know")
xyz
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Popelish" |
|
| Title: Re: Would like to know the atheist answer |
03 Aug 2003 03:16:37 PM |
|
|
xyz wrote:
No thought control intended folks. (I apologize if it came out that way)
My intended statement is: "it appears to me that we do not know the answers
to those questions", and I would not even attach the adverb "yet" to my
statement, because it presupposes that we will actually find the answers
some day. (Notice that such an adverb might give rise to different
questions, like: is the concept of knowledge bounded? how much knowledge can
be acquired in the universe? Is there an ultimate answer?)
About all I can claim with certainty is "I do not know". (Maybe somebody
can prove a different answer, again: "I do not know")
What a nice, concise statement.
Why didn't you just start with that?
It is something we could all agree on.
--
John Popelish
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Would like to know the atheist answer |
05 Aug 2003 10:32:25 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 20:49:19 -0400, "xyz" <xyz@attglobal.net>, Message
ID: <3f2dabb9_2@news1.prserv.net> wrote in alt.atheism;
"John Popelish" <jpopelish@rica.net> wrote in message
news:3F2D6EEC.8F46C1E6@rica.net...
xyz wrote:
No thought control intended folks. (I apologize if it came out that
way)
My intended statement is: "it appears to me that we do not know the
answers
to those questions", and I would not even attach the adverb "yet" to my
statement, because it presupposes that we will actually find the answers
some day. (Notice that such an adverb might give rise to different
questions, like: is the concept of knowledge bounded? how much knowledge
can
be acquired in the universe? Is there an ultimate answer?)
About all I can claim with certainty is "I do not know". (Maybe
somebody
can prove a different answer, again: "I do not know")
What a nice, concise statement.
Thank you Sir.
Your statement is quite nice and concise too.
Why didn't you just start with that?
How can I start a thread with its conclusion?
It is something we could all agree on.
...Well at least the two of us agree. The Internet is usually a hung jury.
/imp mode
They're turning blue....
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
