| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Bill M" |
| Date: |
09 Sep 2006 03:10:39 PM |
| Object: |
WHICH IS THE REAL GOD |
Why do people believe in myths and fables that are unsupported by any
objective verifiable factual evidence?
There are many different religions and literally thousands of God beliefs.
There many religions such as Judaism, Buddhists, Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims,
Shintoists, Confusions, Christians, Catholics etc.. There are thousands of
variations in the beliefs of each of these religions and hundreds of minor
religions.
No real god has ever announced directly from his heaven that he is the real
god and all the others are fakes or even that the variations of beliefs
within his own religion are false. There are a plentitude of different
religious documents that proclaim the validity of various Gods.
WHICH IF ANY ARE CORRECT???
Major religious texts and documents;
Baha'i Sacrid writtings
Life of Buddha - Dhammapada - Pali cannon
The Bible - Christian religious documents - 18 English versions alone.
No originals of the old or new testaments exist.
The Book of Mormon - Church of Latter Day Saints
The Analects - Confuscianism
The Eddas and Sagas - Icelandic beliefs
Wicca - Neo paganism of Greece and Rome
Bhagavgita and Rig Veda - Hinduism
Qur'an - Islam
Adi Granth and Dasam Granth - canonical scripture of the Sikhs
Tanakh - Jewism
Tao-Te-Ching - Taoism
Nag Hammadi - Gnostics
Zhuan Falun - Falun Gong
Of all these different Gods and belief systems which is the TRUE one, if
any, and which are fakes? Non of these documents are any objective evidence.
They are all documents written, hand copied, modified and further copied,
over the centuries, by errant men with their own personal and selfish
motivations. All of these documents, except the Book of Morman, were hand
written and hand copied over the centuries before the invention of the
printing press. There is no way to determine authenticity or accuracy of any
of these. The objective evidence is that they are a mixture of inaccurate
history, myth, folklore and legends.
Man can directly communicate with the whole world via TV, the Internet,
Phone and Radio. If there is a real God, why does he not announce to the
whole world from his heaven, by at least an equally effective means, that he
is the real God and all the others are fakes? And why does he not tell us
clearly and directly what he expects from us instead of using hundreds of
vague, ancient, contradictory, unoriginal documents compiled by dozens of
different religions and hundreds of unauthenticated men.
The real objective evidence is that no Gods CREATED MAN but quite the
opposite; that man created gods!
.
|
|
| User: "Sean" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
16 Oct 2006 07:48:41 AM |
|
|
<riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1160980729.816635.212130@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Sean wrote:
You only need to accept that one definition when you apply that label
to _ME_, you can choose any of them that fit yourself, or not. If you
want to use a different definition then do not refer to me as an
atheist.
THIS IS A COMPLETE BACK FLIP
Quote:::
I said : > Atheism is a conviction of the truth that god/s deities do not
exist,
You replied with :: "If you were actually an atheist then you may be able to
credably claim
that is how _you_ operate. If you are not an atheist that I deny you
the right to claim what I am or am not."
NOW you say, it's fine for me to use another definition than you do, and
without any requirement to accept to refer to you as an Atheist.
As usual, You are equivocating ....... and irrational, you cannot follow the
simplest things here, or be consistent in any way shape or form.
beleif that no god/s or deities exist .....denial of, the existence of a
god
THAT YOU THINK YOU'RE SOME HIGH AND MIGHTY USENET GOD THAT GETS TO TELL
ME
WHAT IS AN ACCEPTABLE DEFINTION OR NOT,
Because, arrogant prat, you want to use that to claim that I do or
should 'deny the existence of', say, Ras Tafari or Hirohito.
AS a God or Deity .... ABSOLUTELY YES ... OR YOU ARE NOT AN ATHEIST BY
DEFINITION.
SIMPLE.
Now you may any other definition that you want to to someone else, I
never said you could not.
QUOTE: Just because you can string words together does not make that true.
If
you were actually an atheist then you may be able to credably claim
that is how _you_ operate. If you are not an atheist that I deny you
the right to claim what I am or am not.
WHEN I HAVE EITHER USED THOSE
INCLUDED HERE, OR ASKED SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ASKING IF ANY ATHEIST ALSO
ACCEPTS SUCH AN EXAMPLE?
Does using the caps lock make you more right or more wrong ?
NEITHER .... is that clear?
So, the basis of your claim that I 'switch' is because I said that I
don't comment on 'existence' but the definition you chose to apply to
me said that I _must_ believe non-existence.
Said like that it makes you really stupid.
YOU said it, not me .... YOU sound stupid. <smile>
By definition, to be an athesist requires more than just a lack of belief in
theism, or lack deism, but a postive belief [ nay conviction ] in the
NON-existence of God/s and Deities ..... ALL OF THEM, including pantheism .
That has been a consistent meaning for Atheism, for approximately 2500
years, and still is the accepted meaning in language today.
A few extremist people calling themselves atheists on a newsgroup, and
making up their own definitions ..... DOES NOT COUNT .... yes caps lock
again.
BUT IT ISN"T WHAT YOU SAID IT MEANT NOT 9-12 HOURS AGO
YOU HAVE CHANGED YOUR MIND ..... and on top you SNIP all the other
definitions as if they do not exist. what crap.
It is not that don't exist but they don't apply to me.
It does apply to you ..... you were the one claiming your were an Atheist,
and used a made up definition that it ONLY meant a "lack of belief in
theism".
I said stright up it did not, and YOU refused to even answer a question
which asked specifically "do you believe in the Non-existence of
god/s/deities" YES/NO ... and you refused, but that BELIEF is a key
component of calling yourself an atheist .... and you obfuscated the whole
thing, and told me I had no right to suggest a defintion for atheism any
different than the one, you, and michael, and al, a christopher etc were
using.
Well , your defintions appear to be NOT accepted in the big world outside
this little obscure newsgroup space. <smile>
I am sorry .... but if that's the lay iof the land that's the way it is.
This is your black/white binary thinking. I pick what applies to me,
and you think that is what should apply to everyone. I make no comment
about what other atheists do. But I do know that some that are called
gods do exist, or did, but I do not deify them.
I only ever said you can;t cliam to be an atheist unless you acceot that all
god/s/deities DO NOT EXIST ... you reckoned I doidn;lt knwo what I was
talking about. Well tough. ;-)
I leave it to you to write to the dictionaries to correct those errors.
Twit ..... they aren't in error at present. LOL
What I deny you the right to do is the pick the definition for me.
Sorry, that may ruin your day.
I NEVER PICKED YOUR DEFINITION ....
No ?
NO
I JUST SAIDIT WAS BASED UPON YOUR
PERSONAL BELIEFS, AND WAS MORE COMPLICATED THAN YOU HAD ADMITTED IT WAS.
Mine are not more complicated, others may be.
Go fish!
YOU JUST PROVED MY POINT HERE< AND HAVE SHOWN HOW DISHONEST AND CONFUSED
ARE
ABOUT WHAT YOU SAY AND BELIEVE>
No.
NO
Why do you need my definition of 'gods' ? Just so that you can change
it into some other ?
I didn't, and NO
You may also not that the choice was for 'not believe' which is not
'believe'.
YES, it is , it is a postive belief & conviction that gods/.deities do not
exist if you wish to follow the defintion of an atheist. Read the
defintions, read a dictionary, ask for help, phone a friend. LOL
Your point ?
You are equivocating ....... and irrational, you cannot follow the simplest
things here, or be consistent in any way shape or form.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
16 Oct 2006 02:27:30 PM |
|
|
Sean wrote:
You only need to accept that one definition when you apply that label
to _ME_, you can choose any of them that fit yourself, or not. If you
want to use a different definition then do not refer to me as an
atheist.
THIS IS A COMPLETE BACK FLIP
You replied with :: "If you were actually an atheist then you may be able to
credably claim
that is how _you_ operate. If you are not an atheist that I deny you
the right to claim what I am or am not."
NOW you say, it's fine for me to use another definition than you do, and
without any requirement to accept to refer to you as an Atheist.
You are confused. I am not.
As usual, You are equivocating ....... and irrational, you cannot follow the
simplest things here, or be consistent in any way shape or form.
I am consistent, it is just that I won't conform to what you want me to
do.
Because, arrogant prat, you want to use that to claim that I do or
should 'deny the existence of', say, Ras Tafari or Hirohito.
AS a God or Deity .... ABSOLUTELY YES ... OR YOU ARE NOT AN ATHEIST BY
DEFINITION.
So, you do actually understand then: Ras Tafari exists (or existed) but
is not a deity.
How does that stop me being an atheist again ?
Did you take that anger management course ?
Does using the caps lock make you more right or more wrong ?
NEITHER .... is that clear?
Just angrier then.
By definition, to be an athesist requires more than just a lack of belief in
theism, or lack deism, but a postive belief [ nay conviction ] in the
NON-existence of God/s and Deities ..... ALL OF THEM, including pantheism .
That has been a consistent meaning for Atheism, for approximately 2500
years, and still is the accepted meaning in language today.
No. Wrong. Looking at the dictionaries it is _AN_ accepted meaning.
A few extremist people calling themselves atheists on a newsgroup, and
making up their own definitions ..... DOES NOT COUNT .... yes caps lock
again.
So the MSN dictionary is an extremist and I made that one up ?
It does apply to you ..... you were the one claiming your were an Atheist,
I am not sure that I ever did that. In fact I have tried to avoid doing
so, such as
"""Perhaps I should claim to be an adeist, one who does not deify
anything."""
and used a made up definition that it ONLY meant a "lack of belief in
theism".
Where did I say 'only' ? Certainly that is the only one that I agree
with, that fits me, but it is not the only one that exists. In fact I
was quite specific in saying you could choose your own.
I said stright up it did not, and YOU refused to even answer a question
which asked specifically "do you believe in the Non-existence of
god/s/deities" YES/NO ... and you refused,
Did I actually refuse ? Or did I just not do it ? I certainly did say
that it was a simple minded question demanding a simple minded answer
purely fhe purposes of suiting your political agenda.
Was I wrong ?
but that BELIEF is a key
component of calling yourself an atheist ....
No. It may be an essential component of _YOUR_ calling people an
atheist, but it is not mine. As I say, don't call me an 'atheist' then.
and you obfuscated the whole
thing, and told me I had no right to suggest a defintion for atheism any
different than the one, you, and michael, and al, a christopher etc were
using.
No Wrong. I said that I denied you the right to use that definition to
say how I operate.
Well , your defintions appear to be NOT accepted in the big world outside
this little obscure newsgroup space. <smile>
See MSN.
I only ever said you can;t cliam to be an atheist unless you acceot that all
god/s/deities DO NOT EXIST ... you reckoned I doidn;lt knwo what I was
talking about. Well tough. ;-)
Perhaps you can point to such a claim. I have said "Someone who does is
a deist, a theist or a religionist, but I am not. " I am not sure that
I ever said "I am an atheist".
You may also not that the choice was for 'not believe' which is not
'believe'.
YES, it is ,
There yer go again: "believe" == "not believe".
it is a postive belief & conviction ...
You are equivocating .......
But at least I am consistent. I reject "positive belief" and
equivocate, what is inconsistent about that ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
17 Oct 2006 03:18:38 PM |
|
|
As usual, You are equivocating ....... and irrational, you cannot follow
the
simplest things here, or be consistent in any way shape or form.
I am consistent, it is just that I won't conform to what you want me to
do.
Because, arrogant prat, you want to use that to claim that I do or
should 'deny the existence of', say, Ras Tafari or Hirohito.
AS a God or Deity .... ABSOLUTELY YES ... OR YOU ARE NOT AN ATHEIST BY
DEFINITION.
So, you do actually understand then: Ras Tafari exists (or existed) but
is not a deity.
How does that stop me being an atheist again ?
It doesn't. You exist and are not a deity either. So what?
But if YOU asserted a conviction that Ras Tafari existed as a God or a
Deity, then how could you claim to be an atheist?
Saying he exists but is not a god or a deity, is of no relevance to the
issue of atheism.
By definition, to be an athesist requires more than just a lack of belief
in
theism, or lack deism, but a postive belief [ nay conviction ] in the
NON-existence of God/s and Deities ..... ALL OF THEM, including pantheism
.
That has been a consistent meaning for Atheism, for approximately 2500
years, and still is the accepted meaning in language today.
No. Wrong. Looking at the dictionaries it is _AN_ accepted meaning.
It is a critical requirement.
Do you know of any self-declared atheist, who accepts the existence or
possibility of existence of any type of God/s or Deity?
A few extremist people calling themselves atheists on a newsgroup, and
making up their own definitions ..... DOES NOT COUNT .... yes caps lock
again.
So the MSN dictionary is an extremist and I made that one up ?
It does apply to you ..... you were the one claiming your were an
Atheist,
I am not sure that I ever did that.
Then why did you say that the MSN definition of an atheist refers to you
personally?
and used a made up definition that it ONLY meant a "lack of belief in
theism".
Where did I say 'only' ? Certainly that is the only one that I agree
with, that fits me, but it is not the only one that exists.
If that is the *only* one you agree with then there are two points to make.
1) It is not an _agreed_ definition for atheism in the dictionaries, or
encyclopedias
2) It is not the MSN dictionary definition which you said you agreed with.
I said stright up it did not, and YOU refused to even answer a question
which asked specifically "do you believe in the Non-existence of
god/s/deities" YES/NO ... and you refused,
Did I actually refuse ? Or did I just not do it ? I certainly did say
that it was a simple minded question demanding a simple minded answer
purely fhe purposes of suiting your political agenda.
Was I wrong ?
Yeah.
but that BELIEF is a key
component of calling yourself an atheist ....
No. It may be an essential component of _YOUR_ calling people an
atheist, but it is not mine. As I say, don't call me an 'atheist' then.
Ok, I won't call you an atheist.
and you obfuscated the whole
thing, and told me I had no right to suggest a defintion for atheism any
different than the one, you, and michael, and al, a christopher etc were
using.
No Wrong. I said that I denied you the right to use that definition to
say how I operate.
You have no right to define how I operate or what I say.
Well , your defintions appear to be NOT accepted in the big world outside
this little obscure newsgroup space. <smile>
See MSN.
That's MSN's definition, not your's.
I only ever said you can;t cliam to be an atheist unless you acceot that
all
god/s/deities DO NOT EXIST ... you reckoned I doidn;lt knwo what I was
talking about. Well tough. ;-)
Perhaps you can point to such a claim. I have said "Someone who does is
a deist, a theist or a religionist, but I am not. "
Not to me that I can recall. Got a hard quote and a link?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
17 Oct 2006 04:35:51 PM |
|
|
Sean wrote:
But if YOU asserted a conviction that Ras Tafari existed as a God or a
Deity, then how could you claim to be an atheist?
But I do find, in examining the actual evidence, that Rastafarians hold
Ras Tafari as a god and/or deity. He is not _my_ deity he is theirs, I
find that they are not atheits. If I claimed that Ras Tafari is not a
deity to them, then that would be claiming that _they_ are atheists.
You seem to think that 'god' or 'deity' is actually something real,
rather than just the superstitious elevation of a person, object, or
imaginary being to a position of having imagined supernatural powers.
I can see the evidence that Ras Tafari was a real person and that
Rastafarians deified him to give him imaginary attributes without me
having to think that those attributes are real.
Anyway where did I claim to be an atheist, or have _anything_ like your
own private redefinition of the word ?
Saying he exists but is not a god or a deity, is of no relevance to the
issue of atheism.
How did you get to be Pope of the 'atheist church' and able to create
dogma for it ?
It is a critical requirement.
It is not a 'critical requirement' on the ways that anyone acts or
thinks. It is only a critical requirement for you to be able to put
people into little boxes that your rather linmited mind can assimilate.
You seem to claim that it is 'critical' that I be black or white. When
I say yellow your mind seizes and the caps lock goes on.
I am glad to see that you have recovered, by the way.
Do you know of any self-declared atheist, who accepts the existence or
possibility of existence of any type of God/s or Deity?
Of course not. But most people are not so narrow and closed minded and
can see that others are infected with that disease. Is it too
complicated for you that I can see that some people deify without me
having to accept that the deification is 'true' ?
You seem to want me to deny the existence of theists ? Is that, too,
part of your definition ?
I am not sure that I ever did that.
Then why did you say that the MSN definition of an atheist refers to you
personally?
I said that it agrees with me, or I agree with it. It describes, more
or less, 'without theism'. If you want to call me an atheist that that
is the definition you should use to apply it to me. But do not say
that I MUST (your caps lock) agree to be like some other definition you
chosse yourself and/or made up.
Where did I say 'only' ? Certainly that is the only one that I agree
with, that fits me, but it is not the only one that exists.
If that is the *only* one you agree with then there are two points to make.
1) It is not an _agreed_ definition for atheism in the dictionaries, or
encyclopedias
Well it is in MSN so someone must have agreed it.
2) It is not the MSN dictionary definition which you said you agreed with.
Which one was it then ?
Ok, I won't call you an atheist.
Thank you.
Perhaps you can point to such a claim. I have said "Someone who does is
a deist, a theist or a religionist, but I am not. "
Not to me that I can recall. Got a hard quote and a link?
Is it important enough to bother ? Can't you just accept that I have
said it here ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
17 Oct 2006 06:01:25 PM |
|
|
I'll your comments that are not relevant to my questions.
<riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1161120951.017344.172930@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
Sean wrote:
But if YOU asserted a conviction that Ras Tafari existed as a God or a
Deity, then how could you claim to be an atheist?
snip
Saying he exists but is not a god or a deity, is of no relevance to the
issue of atheism.
snip
It is a critical requirement.
snip
Do you know of any self-declared atheist, who accepts the existence or
possibility of existence of any type of God/s or Deity?
Of course not.
snip
I am not sure that I ever did that.
Then why did you say that the MSN definition of an atheist refers to you
personally?
I said that it agrees with me, or I agree with it.
snip
Where did I say 'only' ? Certainly that is the only one that I agree
with, that fits me, but it is not the only one that exists.
If that is the *only* one you agree with then there are two points to
make.
1) It is not an _agreed_ definition for atheism in the dictionaries, or
encyclopedias
snip
2) It is not the MSN dictionary definition which you said you agreed
with.
snip
Ok, I won't call you an atheist.
Thank you.
I have said "Someone who does is
a deist, a theist or a religionist, but I am not. "
Not to me that I can recall. Got a hard quote and a link?
Is it important enough to bother ?
Yes. It's important enough.
Can't you just accept that I have said it here ?
No. I'm not a believer.
Show me the evidence, objective and verifiable. URL to the post please, that
proves you were responding directly to me, and shows exactly as you have
"quoted" above.
Advanced Google Groups Search should pull up the specific message in less
than 0.13 seconds, imho. Too easy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
17 Oct 2006 11:07:26 PM |
|
|
Sean wrote:
I'll your comments that are not relevant to my questions.
I am not sure what you think you did.
<riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
But if YOU asserted a conviction that Ras Tafari existed as a God or a
Deity, then how could you claim to be an atheist?
snip
But what you seem to have left out is the words 'completely ignore'.
What's the matter, am I not providing answers that are 'useful' to you ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
18 Oct 2006 12:15:13 AM |
|
|
<riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1161144446.917664.267310@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Sean wrote:
I'll your comments that are not relevant to my questions.
I am not sure what you think you did.
typo, I missed the word "snip"
<riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
But if YOU asserted a conviction that Ras Tafari existed as a God or a
Deity, then how could you claim to be an atheist?
snip
But what you seem to have left out is the words 'completely ignore'.
What's the matter, am I not providing answers that are 'useful' to you ?
Maybe you just do not understand the question .....
"If YOU asserted a conviction that Ras Tafari existed as a God or a
Deity, then how could you claim to be an atheist?"
Then again, you may also simply be equivocating again, lying, drunk,
committed in an institution, or any number of options. I do not know.
Answer the question or don't answer the question. Up to you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
18 Oct 2006 12:58:12 AM |
|
|
Sean wrote:
Maybe you just do not understand the question .....
"If YOU asserted a conviction that Ras Tafari existed as a God or a
Deity, then how could you claim to be an atheist?"
I have already stated that it is not me that claims Ras Tafari to be a
god, it is the Rastafarians. _They_ have a conviction that he is a god
or deity, and I recognise that _they_ do so without having to agree
that he actually has any supernatural attributes. I also recognise
that Ras Tafari was a real person that my Grandfather actually met.
Let me see if I can make it so simple that you can understand it:
I have evidence that Ras Tafari existed.
I have evidence that Rastafarians exist (actually we have one as an MP
here).
I have evidence that Rastafarians claim that Ras Tafari is a god, or
the god.
Therefore, the statemnet "Ras Tafairi existed" is true.
Therefore, the statement "Ras Tafari existed/exists as a god or deity."
is true. He is a god to the Rastafarians.
That does not mean that Ras Tafari does have supernatural attributes,
but only that some others attribute him with supernatural attributes.
Then again, you may also simply be equivocating again, lying, drunk,
committed in an institution, or any number of options. I do not know.
Answer the question or don't answer the question. Up to you.
I already had. You are just too stupid to understand the answer.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
18 Oct 2006 04:19:04 AM |
|
|
<riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1161151092.841486.93830@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Sean wrote:
Maybe you just do not understand the question .....
"If YOU asserted a conviction that Ras Tafari existed as a God or a
Deity, then how could you claim to be an atheist?"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
17 Oct 2006 10:48:21 PM |
|
|
Sean wrote:
I have said "Someone who does is
a deist, a theist or a religionist, but I am not. "
Not to me that I can recall. Got a hard quote and a link?
Is it important enough to bother ?
Yes. It's important enough.
Can't you just accept that I have said it here ?
No. I'm not a believer.
Show me the evidence, objective and verifiable. URL to the post please, that
proves you were responding directly to me,
Did I claim that I was responding to you ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sean" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
18 Oct 2006 12:11:02 AM |
|
|
<riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1161143301.284648.183200@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Sean wrote:
I have said "Someone who does is
a deist, a theist or a religionist, but I am not. "
Not to me that I can recall. Got a hard quote and a link?
Is it important enough to bother ?
Yes. It's important enough.
Can't you just accept that I have said it here ?
No. I'm not a believer.
Show me the evidence, objective and verifiable. URL to the post please,
that
proves you were responding directly to me,
Did I claim that I was responding to you ?
equivocating again?
Where is the quote of what you said you said:
I'll re-insert what you keep snipping it here :::
I only ever said you can;t cliam to be an atheist unless you acceot that
all
god/s/deities DO NOT EXIST ... you reckoned I doidn;lt knwo what I was
talking about. Well tough. ;-)
Perhaps you can point to such a claim. I have said "Someone who does is
a deist, a theist or a religionist, but I am not. " I am not sure that
I ever said "I am an atheist".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "bob young" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
12 Oct 2006 12:54:01 AM |
|
|
Russ Rose wrote:
"bob young" <alaspectrum@netvigator.com> wrote in message
news:452B42F9.3FFA92AE@netvigator.com...
Russ Rose wrote:
<wonderful@Phreaker.net> wrote in message
news:1160448165.522798.279420@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
" TomP" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<452ab076$0$5929$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>:
[megasnip of old quoted stuff full of > > > > ]
We, as atheists, do not have faith in anything. Is it so hard to
understand?
Atheism is a religion.
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom.
Atheism is human concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that
the religious mind cannot begin to understand. And yet it is more
than this. Atheism is not an old religion, it is not a new and coming
religion, in fact it is not, and never has been, a religion at all.
The definition of Atheism is magnificent in its simplicity: Atheism
is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
"Atheism is a religion."
[Atheism: An Honest View, by Russ Rose]
Tell an atheist prayer
Show an atheist uniform, rank, dedicated gathering place
Better still - grow up
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
18 Oct 2006 11:09:18 AM |
|
|
bob young wrote:
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom.
Atheism is human concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that
the religious mind cannot begin to understand. And yet it is more
than this. Atheism is not an old religion, it is not a new and coming
religion, in fact it is not, and never has been, a religion at all.
The definition of Atheism is magnificent in its simplicity: Atheism
is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
Emmett said it. I believe it. That ends it.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
10 Oct 2006 03:57:49 AM |
|
|
Russ Rose wrote:
<wonderful@Phreaker.net> wrote in message
news:1160448165.522798.279420@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
" TomP" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<452ab076$0$5929$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>:
[megasnip of old quoted stuff full of > > > > ]
We, as atheists, do not have faith in anything. Is it so hard to
understand?
Atheism is a religion.
If atheism is a religion, then:
what is the holy book of atheism?
where are the atheist churches and temples?
who are the priests, rabbis or mullahs of atheism?
where are atheist prayers and hymns?
where are the atheist masses or other religious services?
when are the atheist holy days?
and, last but not least
where is tax exemption status for atheists?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rusty Sites" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
13 Oct 2006 08:38:19 PM |
|
|
Russ Rose wrote:
<wonderful@Phreaker.net> wrote in message
news:1160448165.522798.279420@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
" TomP" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<452ab076$0$5929$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>:
[megasnip of old quoted stuff full of > > > > ]
We, as atheists, do not have faith in anything. Is it so hard to
understand?
Atheism is a religion.
That makes about as much sense as saying people who don't play football
are football players, too. They just play football by not playing
football. I think it might be possible to build a religion around
atheism. People have done it with economic systems and political
parties, so why not. I don't do that. The big difference is that
religions claim to have answers to fundamental questions without
knowledge but just through belief. I don't claim to have answers by not
believing that they do. I just think they are FOS.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
10 Oct 2006 01:43:24 AM |
|
|
<wonderful@Phreaker.net> wrote in message
news:1160448165.522798.279420@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
" TomP" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<452ab076$0$5929$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>:
[megasnip of old quoted stuff full of > > > > ]
(snip)
You, Mr. Young, and all but a handful of people who post hereabouts,
accept
the truth of relativity, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, big bang
theory, quantum mechanics, and the principles underlying evolution based
upon faith.
(snip)
Well, speaking for myself, I agree with that stuff because it's from the
same people that gave me microwave ovens, television, and the internet. If
all that crap was wrong, then those items wouldn't work.
But they do.
So I base my trust on tangible results.
Religion seems to be nothing but empty promises.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: " TomP" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
13 Oct 2006 04:12:42 PM |
|
|
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:_ridnYMaI-iZ3LbYnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@io.com...
<wonderful@Phreaker.net> wrote in message
news:1160448165.522798.279420@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
" TomP" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<452ab076$0$5929$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>:
[megasnip of old quoted stuff full of > > > > ]
(snip)
You, Mr. Young, and all but a handful of people who post hereabouts,
accept
the truth of relativity, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, big bang
theory, quantum mechanics, and the principles underlying evolution based
upon faith.
(snip)
Well, speaking for myself, I agree with that stuff because it's from the
same people that gave me microwave ovens, television, and the internet. If
all that crap was wrong, then those items wouldn't work.
But they do.
But you do not understand, and I doubt you can even read, the proofs for
Einstein's two theories of relativity, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle,
big bang theory, and evolution. So you accept the truth based upon
something less, probably far less, than "objective, verifiable evidence."
Because even though the "objective verifiable evidence" for any of those
exists -- at least I believe such proofs exist, you (and I) do not fully
comprehend the proofs, nor can you (and I) independently prove the truth of
those theories.
By the way, it doesn't matter whether or not you, or me, "agree with that
stuff." Not even a tiny little bit. That is the beauty of theories proven
by scientific method. These phenomena always occur as calculated and
predicted within the parameters calculated. That is what differentiates
scientific knowledge from other knowledge. Unfortunately, much about our
universe cannot be calculated within specified parameters.
So I base my trust on tangible results.
Yes, indeed you do only trust. And since trust and faith are synonyms, you
place your faith in science. That was my point.
Religion seems to be nothing but empty promises.
Only "seems to be"? Your declaration surprises me. Where is that atheist
certitude we are so accustomed to reading hereabouts?
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
http://www.ashenempires.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
13 Oct 2006 05:50:56 PM |
|
|
TomP wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:_ridnYMaI-iZ3LbYnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@io.com...
<wonderful@Phreaker.net> wrote in message
news:1160448165.522798.279420@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
" TomP" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<452ab076$0$5929$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>:
[megasnip of old quoted stuff full of > > > > ]
(snip)
You, Mr. Young, and all but a handful of people who post hereabouts,
accept
the truth of relativity, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, big bang
theory, quantum mechanics, and the principles underlying evolution based
upon faith.
(snip)
Well, speaking for myself, I agree with that stuff because it's from the
same people that gave me microwave ovens, television, and the internet. If
all that crap was wrong, then those items wouldn't work.
But they do.
But you do not understand, and I doubt you can even read, the proofs for
Einstein's two theories of relativity, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle,
big bang theory, and evolution. So you accept the truth based upon
something less, probably far less, than "objective, verifiable evidence."
Because even though the "objective verifiable evidence" for any of those
exists -- at least I believe such proofs exist, you (and I) do not fully
comprehend the proofs, nor can you (and I) independently prove the truth of
those theories.
Nor should we try. Science is the best current description of natural
reality using the scientific method. The breadth of it is beyond the
apprehension of any individual, but the method is sound and simple and
requires nothing like "faith".
By the way, it doesn't matter whether or not you, or me, "agree with that
stuff." Not even a tiny little bit. That is the beauty of theories proven
by scientific method.
There is no such thing outside of mathematics.
These phenomena always occur as calculated and
predicted within the parameters calculated. That is what differentiates
scientific knowledge from other knowledge. Unfortunately, much about our
universe cannot be calculated within specified parameters.
Science is the best current description of natural reality using the
scientific method, it doesn't pretend to be anything else.
So I base my trust on tangible results.
Yes, indeed you do only trust. And since trust and faith are synonyms,
They absolutely are not, especially in the context of a discussion
about religious ideas.
you place your faith in science. That was my point.
Why do you insist on vomiting all over the concept of "faith"? "Faith"
has a particular and profound meaning to a religionist and, in the
context of a discussion about religious ideas, has nothing to do with
atheism or science.
Religion seems to be nothing but empty promises.
Only "seems to be"? Your declaration surprises me. Where is that atheist
certitude we are so accustomed to reading hereabouts?
In your head. Atheism is a description of a state of mind, it has
nothing to do with "certitude" or "faith".
.
|
|
|
| User: " Tom P" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
15 Oct 2006 02:55:08 PM |
|
|
"Santolina chamaecyparissus" <santolina@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1160779856.799351.170190@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
TomP wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:_ridnYMaI-iZ3LbYnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@io.com...
<wonderful@Phreaker.net> wrote in message
news:1160448165.522798.279420@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
" TomP" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<452ab076$0$5929$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>:
[megasnip of old quoted stuff full of > > > > ]
(snip)
You, Mr. Young, and all but a handful of people who post hereabouts,
accept
the truth of relativity, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, big bang
theory, quantum mechanics, and the principles underlying evolution
based
upon faith.
(snip)
Well, speaking for myself, I agree with that stuff because it's from
the
same people that gave me microwave ovens, television, and the internet.
If
all that crap was wrong, then those items wouldn't work.
But they do.
But you do not understand, and I doubt you can even read, the proofs for
Einstein's two theories of relativity, Heisenberg's uncertainty
principle,
big bang theory, and evolution. So you accept the truth based upon
something less, probably far less, than "objective, verifiable evidence."
Because even though the "objective verifiable evidence" for any of those
exists -- at least I believe such proofs exist, you (and I) do not fully
comprehend the proofs, nor can you (and I) independently prove the truth
of
those theories.
Nor should we try.
Why not?
If one cannot prove the Special Theory of Relativity is valid, but one
believes it is valid, one can only rationally believe it based upon one's
faith or trust or confidence that the very few people who can prove the
Special Theory of Relativity are honest. Such faith, trust, or confidence
is not a bad thing, but it is a valid conclusion based upon the premises
that the Special Theory of Relativity is valid, that proofs have been
offered and not been found wanting, that the theory has not been falsified,
and that the vast majority of the human population does not have the
mathematical skills and knowledge of physics to even comprehend the proofs,
much less work through the proofs. Are any of those premises false?
What are the possible conclusions if these premises are not false?
Now if someone claims the Special Theory of Relativity is true because of
divine revelation or they sold their soul to Satan in exchange for assurance
the theory was true or channeled Einstein or threw bird guts into the air
and examined the patterns they formed and these patterns of avian viscera
revealed the truth, there are lots more issues that need to be disposed of
before addressing Einstein's physics.
Science is the best current description of natural
reality using the scientific method.
Depends upon what you mean by "natural reality." Why are you hedging? Why
the adjective?
The breadth of it is beyond the
apprehension of any individual, but the method is sound and simple and
requires nothing like "faith".
You generalized. Where is it you think I wrote that understanding
scientific method requires faith? Read what I wrote again.
By the way, it doesn't matter whether or not you, or me, "agree with that
stuff." Not even a tiny little bit. That is the beauty of theories
proven
by scientific method.
There is no such thing outside of mathematics.
Which "thing" which does not occur outside of mathematics do you refer to?
Do you mean certainty? I think it is pretty certain that an atom containing
one electron and one proton always was since the universe began, is, or ever
will ever be anything but hydrogen. Do you disagree?
I think it is certain that an atom with more electrons that protons is
negatively charged. I also think such an atom was always negatively charged
at least since our universe began and always will be negatively charged
until our universe ends if it ends. Do you disagree?
These phenomena always occur as calculated and
predicted within the parameters calculated. That is what differentiates
scientific knowledge from other knowledge. Unfortunately, much about our
universe cannot be calculated within specified parameters.
Science is the best current description of natural reality using the
scientific method, it doesn't pretend to be anything else.
Yes, of course. Various and sundry atheist posters hereabouts are the ones
who barrage these groups with rhetoric containing all kinds of suspect
claims concerning what science is and what science is not.
So I base my trust on tangible results.
Yes, indeed you do only trust. And since trust and faith are synonyms,
They absolutely are not, especially in the context of a discussion
about religious ideas.
Actually, yes, faith and trust are synonyms. Look in any thesaurus. Look
in many dictionaries and you will find that "faith" and "trust" are used to
define the other.
you place your faith in science. That was my point.
Why do you insist on vomiting all over the concept of "faith"?
How is using the first definition of "faith" in the Oxford English
Dictionary, some other dictionaries and a thesaurus or two "vomiting all
over the concept of 'faith'"?
Or do you really mean to complain because you think the innocent little noun
"faith" can only be defined in a religious sense, and you disapprove of all
religious connotations because you are an atheist?
"Faith"
has a particular and profound meaning to a religionist and, in the
context of a discussion about religious ideas,
Why do you insist on injecting what you think religionist believe or don't
believe? I introduced faith and trust and belief as the words most
accurately depicting the method by which most people believe certain
scientific laws and theories are true. The vast majority of the total human
population does not have the mathematical tools to prove many scientific
theories and laws, yet much of this human population and I include most
atheists will readily agree that these scientific theories and laws are
true. I believe you yourself are a member of this population who believes
that, say, Einstein's Theory of General Relativity is true. But you
yourself do not have the background in physics or advanced mathematics to
prove Einstein's Theory of General Relativity is true. So, since you do
accept it as true, and you yourself cannot provide proof that the theory is
true, you can only believe Einstein's Theory of General Relativity is true
because someone else told you it was true. Why do you believe the person or
persons who told you Einstein's Theory of General Relativity is true? Still
with me? It is because you have faith that this person or these persons
told you the truth when they said that the theory has been proven. If you
want to substitute trust or belief for faith in my last sentence, feel free.
The substitution changes nothing.
I have little doubt a professor of physics, or someone posing as a professor
of physics, could fill white boards with complex combinations of Arabic
numerals and Greek letters and tell you that was the proof for Einstein's
Theory of General Relativity. How could you know whether or not this person
was telling you the truth?
The only true answer is faith, or trust, or belief that the person was
telling you the truth. If that collides with your atheist world view, tough
noogies. Deal with it.
I am not talking about what religionists believe. Why are you?
has nothing to do with atheism or science.
Why is that? Just because you say so? Could it be that as an atheist you
resent any and every comparison to what you call religionists?
Religion seems to be nothing but empty promises.
Only "seems to be"? Your declaration surprises me. Where is that
atheist
certitude we are so accustomed to reading hereabouts?
In your head. Atheism is a description of a state of mind, it has
nothing to do with "certitude" or "faith".
Are you certain there is no God or are no gods? Or do you merely believe,
trust, or have faith there is no God or are no gods?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
15 Oct 2006 09:19:18 PM |
|
|
Tom P wrote:
"Santolina chamaecyparissus" <santolina@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1160779856.799351.170190@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
TomP wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:_ridnYMaI-iZ3LbYnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@io.com...
<wonderful@Phreaker.net> wrote in message
news:1160448165.522798.279420@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
" TomP" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<452ab076$0$5929$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>:
[megasnip of old quoted stuff full of > > > > ]
(snip)
You, Mr. Young, and all but a handful of people who post hereabouts,
accept
the truth of relativity, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, big bang
theory, quantum mechanics, and the principles underlying evolution
based
upon faith.
(snip)
Well, speaking for myself, I agree with that stuff because it's from
the
same people that gave me microwave ovens, television, and the internet.
If
all that crap was wrong, then those items wouldn't work.
But they do.
But you do not understand, and I doubt you can even read, the proofs for
Einstein's two theories of relativity, Heisenberg's uncertainty
principle,
big bang theory, and evolution. So you accept the truth based upon
something less, probably far less, than "objective, verifiable evidence."
Because even though the "objective verifiable evidence" for any of those
exists -- at least I believe such proofs exist, you (and I) do not fully
comprehend the proofs, nor can you (and I) independently prove the truth
of
those theories.
Nor should we try.
Why not?
Because, with few exceptions, science is not about proof.
If one cannot prove the Special Theory of Relativity is valid, but one
believes it is valid, one can only rationally believe it based upon one's
faith or trust or confidence that the very few people who can prove the
Special Theory of Relativity are honest.
One doesn't "prove" the STR is "valid". The STR was the best
approximation of reality at the time it was proposed. That is what
science is.
Such faith, trust, or confidence
is not a bad thing, but it is a valid conclusion based upon the premises
that the Special Theory of Relativity is valid, that proofs have been
offered and not been found wanting, that the theory has not been falsified,
and that the vast majority of the human population does not have the
mathematical skills and knowledge of physics to even comprehend the proofs,
much less work through the proofs. Are any of those premises false?
The vast majority of the population, in those places where minimal
standards of education are met, easily have the requisite skills to
recognize where scientific method is being applied and where it is not.
It is trivially true that any given individual can't possibly achieve
expertise in all areas of science, but the method is simple and sound
and easily comprehensible.
What are the possible conclusions if these premises are not false?
Now if someone claims the Special Theory of Relativity is true because of
divine revelation or they sold their soul to Satan in exchange for assurance
the theory was true or channeled Einstein or threw bird guts into the air
and examined the patterns they formed and these patterns of avian viscera
revealed the truth, there are lots more issues that need to be disposed of
before addressing Einstein's physics.
We can fortunately dismiss these surmises.
Science is the best current description of natural
reality using the scientific method.
Depends upon what you mean by "natural reality." Why are you hedging? Why
the adjective?
I'm not hedging anything. Science is about the natural world. What
else would it be about?
The breadth of it is beyond the
apprehension of any individual, but the method is sound and simple and
requires nothing like "faith".
You generalized. Where is it you think I wrote that understanding
scientific method requires faith? Read what I wrote again.
Someone said so. Someone else took issue with that person. You took
issue with THAT person. If you do not think that understanding
scientific method requires "faith" that is fine with me, give yourself
a gold star.
By the way, it doesn't matter whether or not you, or me, "agree with that
stuff." Not even a tiny little bit. That is the beauty of theories
proven
by scientific method.
There is no such thing outside of mathematics.
Which "thing" which does not occur outside of mathematics do you refer to?
Do you mean certainty? I think it is pretty certain that an atom containing
one electron and one proton always was since the universe began, is, or ever
will ever be anything but hydrogen. Do you disagree?
Your sophistry is unbecoming.
Science, outside of mathematics, does not deal in proofs. Prove me
wrong.
I think it is certain that an atom with more electrons that protons is
negatively charged. I also think such an atom was always negatively charged
at least since our universe began and always will be negatively charged
until our universe ends if it ends. Do you disagree?
These phenomena always occur as calculated and
predicted within the parameters calculated. That is what differentiates
scientific knowledge from other knowledge. Unfortunately, much about our
universe cannot be calculated within specified parameters.
Science is the best current description of natural reality using the
scientific method, it doesn't pretend to be anything else.
Yes, of course. Various and sundry atheist posters hereabouts are the ones
who barrage these groups with rhetoric containing all kinds of suspect
claims concerning what science is and what science is not.
Name and quote them.
So I base my trust on tangible results.
Yes, indeed you do only trust. And since trust and faith are synonyms,
They absolutely are not, especially in the context of a discussion
about religious ideas.
Actually, yes, faith and trust are synonyms. Look in any thesaurus. Look
in many dictionaries and you will find that "faith" and "trust" are used to
define the other.
Look in the Bible, then try to comprehend what a word means in the
context of a religious discussion.
you place your faith in science. That was my point.
Why do you insist on vomiting all over the concept of "faith"?
How is using the first definition of "faith" in the Oxford English
Dictionary,
The Gospel According to OED?
some other dictionaries and a thesaurus or two "vomiting all
over the concept of 'faith'"?
Or do you really mean to complain because you think the innocent little noun
"faith" can only be defined in a religious sense, and you disapprove of all
religious connotations because you are an atheist?
I simply point out that, as should be obvious, "faith" has a narrow
meaning in the context of a religious discussion, and that the term
does not properly apply to atheists. You ask many silly questions.
"Faith"
has a particular and profound meaning to a religionist and, in the
context of a discussion about religious ideas,
Why do you insist on injecting what you think religionist believe or don't
believe?
Your sophistry is unbecoming.
Read the Bible. Or, barring that, tell us why the proposition that
religious "faith" is like driving through a traffic light is in any way
profound or interesting.
(snip material we've already been over)
Why do you believe the person or
persons who told you Einstein's Theory of General Relativity is true? Still
with me? It is because you have faith that this person or these persons
told you the truth when they said that the theory has been proven.
At least you're consistently wrong.
Unlike you, I paid attention in science class and remember the method.
It includes a corrective mechanism. Remember? I guess not.
TGR has not been "proven". It describes reality within its
limitations.
If you
want to substitute trust or belief for faith in my last sentence, feel free.
The substitution changes nothing.
I have little doubt a professor of physics, or someone posing as a professor
of physics, could fill white boards with complex combinations of Arabic
numerals and Greek letters and tell you that was the proof for Einstein's
Theory of General Relativity. How could you know whether or not this person
was telling you the truth?
Because thousands would proceed to demolish it, that is, if the idiot
ramblings ever got past peer review in the first place. There's that
deuced scientific method again.
The only true answer is faith, or trust, or belief that the person was
telling you the truth. If that collides with your atheist world view, tough
noogies. Deal with it.
I am not talking about what religionists believe. Why are you?
One of us has to be honest.
(snip)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
15 Oct 2006 02:38:11 PM |
|
|
" Tom P" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:45328c45$0$5908$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com:
Subject: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion
From: " Tom P" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.bible,alt.religion.christian,alt.philosophy,sci.skeptic
"Santolina chamaecyparissus" <santolina@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1160779856.799351.170190@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
TomP wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:_ridnYMaI-iZ3LbYnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@io.com...
<wonderful@Phreaker.net> wrote in message
news:1160448165.522798.279420@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
" TomP" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<452ab076$0$5929$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>:
[megasnip of old quoted stuff full of > > > > ]
(snip)
You, Mr. Young, and all but a handful of people who post
hereabouts, accept
the truth of relativity, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, big
bang theory, quantum mechanics, and the principles underlying
evolution based
upon faith.
(snip)
Well, speaking for myself, I agree with that stuff because it's
from the
same people that gave me microwave ovens, television, and the
internet. If
all that crap was wrong, then those items wouldn't work.
But they do.
But you do not understand, and I doubt you can even read, the proofs
for Einstein's two theories of relativity, Heisenberg's uncertainty
principle,
big bang theory, and evolution. So you accept the truth based upon
something less, probably far less, than "objective, verifiable
evidence." Because even though the "objective verifiable evidence"
for any of those exists -- at least I believe such proofs exist, you
(and I) do not fully comprehend the proofs, nor can you (and I)
independently prove the truth of
those theories.
Nor should we try.
Why not?
If one cannot prove the Special Theory of Relativity is valid, but one
believes it is valid, one can only rationally believe it based upon
one's faith or trust or confidence that the very few people who can
prove the Special Theory of Relativity are honest.
Or one could believe them because their predictions based on Relativity
turn out to be correct 100% of the time. Ever use GPS?
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
.
|
|
|
| User: " Tom P" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
15 Oct 2006 04:25:06 PM |
|
|
"Enkidu" <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in message
news:Xns985D8094BD10A255229@130.133.1.4...
" Tom P" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:45328c45$0$5908$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com:
Subject: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion
From: " Tom P" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.bible,alt.religion.christian,alt.philosophy,sci.skeptic
"Santolina chamaecyparissus" <santolina@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1160779856.799351.170190@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
TomP wrote:
"Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com> wrote in message
news:_ridnYMaI-iZ3LbYnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@io.com...
<wonderful@Phreaker.net> wrote in message
news:1160448165.522798.279420@i3g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
" TomP" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote in article
<452ab076$0$5929$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com>:
[megasnip of old quoted stuff full of > > > > ]
(snip)
You, Mr. Young, and all but a handful of people who post
hereabouts, accept
the truth of relativity, Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, big
bang theory, quantum mechanics, and the principles underlying
evolution based
upon faith.
(snip)
Well, speaking for myself, I agree with that stuff because it's
from the
same people that gave me microwave ovens, television, and the
internet. If
all that crap was wrong, then those items wouldn't work.
But they do.
But you do not understand, and I doubt you can even read, the proofs
for Einstein's two theories of relativity, Heisenberg's uncertainty
principle,
big bang theory, and evolution. So you accept the truth based upon
something less, probably far less, than "objective, verifiable
evidence." Because even though the "objective verifiable evidence"
for any of those exists -- at least I believe such proofs exist, you
(and I) do not fully comprehend the proofs, nor can you (and I)
independently prove the truth of
those theories.
Nor should we try.
Why not?
If one cannot prove the Special Theory of Relativity is valid, but one
believes it is valid, one can only rationally believe it based upon
one's faith or trust or confidence that the very few people who can
prove the Special Theory of Relativity are honest.
Or one could believe them because their predictions based on Relativity
turn out to be correct 100% of the time.
How do you know that GPS is based upon Einstein's theories of relativity?
Have you yourself worked through the physics, mathematics, and engineering
yourself from the Special or General Theory of Relativity through the
design, manufacture, and function of a given GPS device?
Or do you take someone else's word for it?
Ever use GPS?
No. Do I need to?
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
15 Oct 2006 05:57:29 PM |
|
|
Tom P wrote:
How do you know that GPS is based upon Einstein's theories of relativity?
Have you yourself worked through the physics, mathematics, and engineering
yourself from the Special or General Theory of Relativity through the
design, manufacture, and function of a given GPS device?
The point is that I could do that if I needed to use that for some
practical purpose, I don't have to think of it as magic that is
unexplainable, I can calculate the results that would occur if that was
not used and the results if it was and can use the evidence should it
be necessary.
But not only that, but thousands of others could also do that too, and
that would alert me, if they found differences, to reexamine which was
the case.
Or do you take someone else's word for it?
The problem that I see with religions is that there are thousands all
claiming different things, even if some of the differences are small.
The believe in one religion one must take some_one_'s word for it, or
that of one group, and must disbelieve, dismiss, or ignore everyone
else's word.
Many religions also require certain things to be believed without
evidence and other things to be disbelieved even without comparing
notes with other religions.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
15 Oct 2006 08:03:48 PM |
|
|
" Tom P" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:4532a15a$0$5939$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com:
[snip]
If one cannot prove the Special Theory of Relativity is valid, but
one believes it is valid, one can only rationally believe it based
upon one's faith or trust or confidence that the very few people who
can prove the Special Theory of Relativity are honest.
Or one could believe them because their predictions based on
Relativity turn out to be correct 100% of the time.
How do you know that GPS is based upon Einstein's theories of
relativity?
It isn't. But if you don't allow for relativity in the design, it won't
work.
Have you yourself worked through the physics,
Yes.
mathematics,
Yes.
and engineering yourself from the Special or
General Theory of Relativity through the design,
manufacture, and function of a given GPS device?
Not for GPS, but for other systems, yes.
Or do you take someone else's word for it?
I don't need to. I understand the principles myself. A BS in
Mathematics and in Applied Physics will do that for you, too!
--
Enkidu AA#2165
http://www.thoughts.leaddogs.org/
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
.
|
|
|
| User: " Tom P" |
|
| Title: Re: Faith in science versus faith in religion |
24 Oct 2006 03:55:33 PM |
|
|
"Enkidu" <ox_qljjor@trashmail.net> wrote in message
news:Xns985DB7C98F065255229@130.133.1.4...
" Tom P" <th_o_m_as_p@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:4532a15a$0$5939$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com:
[snip]
If one cannot prove the Special Theory of Relativity is valid, but
one believes it is valid, one can only rationally believe it based
upon one's faith or trust or confidence that the very few people who
can prove the Special Theory of Relativity are honest.
Or on | | | | | | | | |
