View Full Version : Agnosticism


roadrunner
12-14-2011, 10:31 PM
Tell me what you think of such a concept.

Do you think it can be applicable to established religions like Islam?

Admin Khan
12-14-2011, 10:35 PM
Welcome Roadrunner, it's been a while and good to see you back.

Can it be applicable to Islam? Muslims do not believe it's impossible to believe in a God. We believe there is a God, Allah. The Quran and Hadith provide further guidance, and a way of life.

roadrunner
12-14-2011, 10:40 PM
Thank you for the gracious welcome oh fiery one with two fingers.

What is your definition of an agnostic? An agnostic can believe in the existence of God, just that he/she cannot prove it.

Alchemist
12-14-2011, 10:54 PM
Wait for scimitar...

He is writing his grade 15 exam for the 2nd time so he is preoccupied.

(Plus he is waiting for the amnesia to set in from the horrible psychological trauma I exposed him to last time he was here.)

He identifies himself as a "theist agnostic"....I would like to now how he rationalizes that stance as well. So come back later.

roadrunner
12-14-2011, 11:11 PM
and the opposition you have to him calling himself this is what, exactly?

Karachi
12-14-2011, 11:12 PM
agnostic people are more willing to look for the truth rather than just declaring that there is no God.

I have had some agnostic friends and there answer to the existence of God was "I dont know". So basically they are in the middle

Now this said, some of there arguments were more "atheist" like from what i have noticed, meaning they were probably more closer to being atheists rather than believers

roadrunner
12-14-2011, 11:17 PM
By a similar argument, an agnostic can be more closer to being a believer than an atheist.

That's not the question. Can an agnostic be a believer?

If not, why not?

Karachi
12-14-2011, 11:20 PM
^ well are you talking about believer in Islam or believer in God?

If they believe in God than they are not agnostics I think

roadrunner
12-14-2011, 11:22 PM
if they believe in God but feel they can't prove it, arent they agnostic?

ozymandias
12-15-2011, 12:59 PM
Thank you for the gracious welcome oh fiery one with two fingers.

What is your definition of an agnostic? An agnostic can believe in the existence of God, just that he/she cannot prove it.

Exactly. Agnosticism/gnosticism is separate from atheism/theism.

ozymandias
12-15-2011, 01:00 PM
Wait for scimitar...

He is writing his grade 15 exam for the 2nd time so he is preoccupied.

(Plus he is waiting for the amnesia to set in from the horrible psychological trauma I exposed him to last time he was here.)

He identifies himself as a "theist agnostic"....I would like to now how he rationalizes that stance as well. So come back later.

Rationalizes it? It's one of the standard 4 categorizations of religious belief.

ozymandias
12-15-2011, 01:01 PM
agnostic people are more willing to look for the truth rather than just declaring that there is no God.

I have had some agnostic friends and there answer to the existence of God was "I dont know". So basically they are in the middle

Now this said, some of there arguments were more "atheist" like from what i have noticed, meaning they were probably more closer to being atheists rather than believers

False. Agnosticism is *not* in the middle of theism, atheism. It is a measure of belief in the ability to *PROVE* your atheistic or theistic beliefs.

ozymandias
12-15-2011, 01:02 PM
By a similar argument, an agnostic can be more closer to being a believer than an atheist.

That's not the question. Can an agnostic be a believer?

If not, why not?

Yes they can, and most believers actually are agnostic, and just don't know it. They believe in a god, and understand that they cannot actually prove that belief to others.

ozymandias
12-15-2011, 01:02 PM
if they believe in God but feel they can't prove it, arent they agnostic?

Yes.

ozymandias
12-15-2011, 01:09 PM
http://www.noforbiddenquestions.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/agnostic-diagram2.png
Perhaps this will help. Keep in mind, that in this context 'certain' means 100% provable, and not just 'I take it as a matter of faith'.

roadrunner
12-17-2011, 01:51 AM
i suppose we're all agnostic to a degree.

Unless one has complete blind faith.

Karachi
12-17-2011, 02:25 AM
^ nope, many people have full belief in a creator. Before doing every thing they do, they always remember God

roadrunner
12-17-2011, 02:47 AM
i don't believe that's true that many people have full belief.

They may say they do, but they don't.

Full belief requires blind faith, since it is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural power.

Therefore when you say full belief you mean blind faith.

For some people, it is impossible to give blind faith to anything. Those are the rationalists. Blind faith is not rational in fact.

roadrunner
12-17-2011, 02:49 AM
Something that came across the mind. Good always triumphs over evil apparently.

So next time there's a robbery nearby, say of a petrol station, the person with full belief can just walk into the station and disarm thebad guys (since good will triumph over evil).

How many people saying they have full belief would do such a thing? Not many.

کیش
12-17-2011, 03:08 AM
Something that came across the mind. Good always triumphs over evil apparently.

So next time there's a robbery nearby, say of a petrol station, the person with full belief can just walk into the station and disarm thebad guys (since good will triumph over evil).

How many people saying they have full belief would do such a thing? Not many.

I can counter that.

When I was younger I got into trouble with the local thugs (black ones too). I was put against the fence and was getting yelled at, pushed and snuffed by 8 guys. I was praying to god so hard with the best Quran recitation I can do. Right when i was going to get pounded one some other thug came running to where we were and told them to leave that boy alone. He's sick in basketball. Just like that 8 barking black thugs left me alone.

That's how i know theirs a god. I have more examples as well.

roadrunner
12-17-2011, 03:13 AM
that wouldnt be proof.

it mgiht have been coincidence. That is not proof.

it just so happened that the new thug saw a policeman approaching? or perhaps he got cold feet? it could have been any number of things.

کیش
12-17-2011, 03:16 AM
that wouldnt be proof.

it mgiht have been coincidence. That is not proof.

it just so happened that the new thug saw a policeman approaching? or perhaps he got cold feet? it could have been any number of things.

Nah man, these are real G's, even if they saw a cop they wouldn't be shook. Their was no cops; it happened in a park, inside the handball courts. Perfect spot for an ass kicking,

roadrunner
12-17-2011, 03:27 AM
sure sure.. of course they wouldnt be shook. i bet one of them dismantled a gunship with his teeth also.

let's assume they beat up the law regularly because they're very very hard.

it could have been one felt pity on you, or one felt you were casting a spell on him.

it could have been many different things that could rationally explain their actions.

to then attribute it to something supernatural and say it was proof is incorrect. it's not proof. it would be one of many possibilities.

faye
12-17-2011, 05:31 AM
i don't believe that's true that many people have full belief.

They may say they do, but they don't.

Full belief requires blind faith, since it is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of a supernatural power.

Therefore when you say full belief you mean blind faith.

For some people, it is impossible to give blind faith to anything. Those are the rationalists. Blind faith is not rational in fact.
if there is a creator then those who believe in one, might be doing so from actual 'knowing' and not 'blind faith'.

roadrunner
12-17-2011, 06:10 AM
how would they actually know then?

why are they the chosen ones and not everyone else?

if i said to you, i went to the moon and found it was made out of noodles, would you believe me?

if you would, that's blind faith. if you could not prove or disprove what i said, you would be an astronomer agnostic.

کیش
12-17-2011, 12:01 PM
sure sure.. of course they wouldnt be shook. i bet one of them dismantled a gunship with his teeth also.

let's assume they beat up the law regularly because they're very very hard.

it could have been one felt pity on you, or one felt you were casting a spell on him.

it could have been many different things that could rationally explain their actions.

to then attribute it to something supernatural and say it was proof is incorrect. it's not proof. it would be one of many possibilities.

Stop talking out of your ass now. You wanted a scenario where faith helped somebody and I have it. Now your just being stubborn.

Perhaps you were never in a tight situation people, so you wouldn't now.

Here's another.

I should have been arrested dozens of times, but my best Quran recitations helped me practically every time. I'm talking about cops searching your car, when you have somethi illegal and not finding it. I'm talking about cops searching you, and not finding it.

What's your stubborn response next? Oh the cops were rookies? I doubt that.

graveyardofempires
12-17-2011, 12:04 PM
road runner is the ultimate troll
anyone engaging him in a discussion is like milking a wall.

Asli
12-17-2011, 12:19 PM
Science is not the answer to everything. It is but an answer to something. How could one rely on science when science itself is developing with new findings every day?

The moment you question what you are doing here on earth is the moment God will reveal Himself.

faye
12-17-2011, 03:26 PM
how would they actually know then?

why are they the chosen ones and not everyone else?

if i said to you, i went to the moon and found it was made out of noodles, would you believe me?

if you would, that's blind faith. if you could not prove or disprove what i said, you would be an astronomer agnostic.
when you know, you will know. :smile1:
not a gastronomic agnostic, roady?

roadrunner
12-17-2011, 03:42 PM
Stop talking out of your ass now. You wanted a scenario where faith helped somebody and I have it. Now your just being stubborn.

Perhaps you were never in a tight situation people, so you wouldn't now.

Here's another.

I should have been arrested dozens of times, but my best Quran recitations helped me practically every time. I'm talking about cops searching your car, when you have somethi illegal and not finding it. I'm talking about cops searching you, and not finding it.

What's your stubborn response next? Oh the cops were rookies? I doubt that.

Given how you have difficulty reading and understanding simple sentences, I wouldn't be surprised if you dopily thought there was something in your car and there was, in reality, not.

Read: A thug turning up and rescuing you may be divine intervention, OR it just may be a thug turning up and rescuing you because he felt pity on you being a dope. It is not PROOF of divine intervention.

Read #2: Your car being searched and item X not being found could be divine intervention. Or it could just be poor searches or any other number of things. It is NOT PROOF of divine intervention because you have not excluded all the other possibilities.

You may think it's divine intervention, that is something else. But it is not proof. If you can't understand something so simple, I can think it possible that you were caught in a dream on both occasions and didn't realize it wasn't real. :awkward:

Disclaimer: this response is not out of stubborness. I'm pointing out something very relevant that you've managed to miss even though I pointed it out twice before. That is that this is not proof of divine intervention. How many more times do I need to repeat?

roadrunner
12-17-2011, 03:48 PM
when you know, you will know. :smile1:
not a gastronomic agnostic, roady?

if you're an irrational person you will know. rational people need proof usually based on fact/science.

Agnostic religious folk would be rational people, Gnostic religious folk would be more spiritual people that probably have lost their marbles.

faye
12-17-2011, 03:55 PM
if you're an irrational person you will know. rational people need proof usually based on fact/science.

Agnostic religious folk would be rational people, Gnostic religious folk would be more spiritual people that probably have lost their marbles.
what with the rational worship? is that your god, :praise:rationality?
try not to b so jealous of the irrationals, my dear.

ozymandias
12-19-2011, 11:03 AM
^ nope, many people have full belief in a creator. Before doing every thing they do, they always remember God

Right -- which is the complete blind faith mentioned.

ozymandias
12-19-2011, 11:07 AM
I can counter that.

When I was younger I got into trouble with the local thugs (black ones too). I was put against the fence and was getting yelled at, pushed and snuffed by 8 guys. I was praying to god so hard with the best Quran recitation I can do. Right when i was going to get pounded one some other thug came running to where we were and told them to leave that boy alone. He's sick in basketball. Just like that 8 barking black thugs left me alone.

That's how i know theirs a god. I have more examples as well.

The plural of anecdote is not proof. I can counter your argument, too -- even using the same faulty logic. What about all the starving children in the world? Are you so egotistical as to think that *YOU* are more important to your god than every single one of them? You praying was enough to keep you from getting beat up, but their praying is not enough to keep them from a long slow death of starvation? Heck, they even have other people praying *for* them.

ozymandias
12-19-2011, 11:09 AM
if there is a creator then those who believe in one, might be doing so from actual 'knowing' and not 'blind faith'.

Then they would be able to prove their faith scientifically. They can't, ergo it is blind faith.

ozymandias
12-19-2011, 11:14 AM
Stop talking out of your ass now. You wanted a scenario where faith helped somebody and I have it.



No you don't. You have a scenario where you *had blind faith*. Now you need to prove that it was blind faith that saved you, and not, say, their respect for basketball, or their respect for the man that stepped in.




Now your just being stubborn.

Perhaps you were never in a tight situation people, so you wouldn't now.

Here's another.

I should have been arrested dozens of times, but my best Quran recitations helped me practically every time. I'm talking about cops searching your car, when you have somethi illegal and not finding it. I'm talking about cops searching you, and not finding it.

What's your stubborn response next? Oh the cops were rookies? I doubt that.

Cops don't find 100% of illegal things, nor care about 100% of illegal things. I know of people that have been searched and not had trouble. I got caught shooting off fireworks (illegal in my state) and the cop just told me to drive carefully. I sure did not recite the Koran, or pray -- and I got off. Once again, you list a coincidence and claim it is proof of something.

کیش
12-19-2011, 11:16 AM
^^

Oh please buddy.

I have plenty of scenario's I could bring up, but you and your people will bring up more bs about it.

Agnostics and Atheists are Blind Deaf and Dumb. Im not trying to diss them, but its the truth.


I suggest you mediate in the woods/mountains for a few days. Preferably alone.

ozymandias
12-19-2011, 11:17 AM
Science is not the answer to everything. It is but an answer to something. How could one rely on science when science itself is developing with new findings every day?



Because that is the point of science. Reject that which is known to be untrue and replace it with something better, until something still better comes along.



The moment you question what you are doing here on earth is the moment God will reveal Himself.

Sadly, that's not true. If it were, all scientists would be religious.

کیش
12-19-2011, 11:20 AM
Atheists/Agnostics have never been through any calamity in their life. I'm thinking their pampered spoiled kids.


I suggest atheists to throw themselves to the fire, and check out the waters.


Role play

Atheist: look at me ima Atheist, god doesn't exist I dont see him blah blah blah blah.

Believer: what's your purpose in life.

Atheist: science has all the answers. God is blah blah blah blah blah I don't wanna hear it you, covering my ears blah blah blah

Believer: :running:

ozymandias
12-19-2011, 11:21 AM
^^

Oh please buddy.

I have plenty of scenario's I could bring up, but you and your people will bring up more bs about it.



What's your point? You can list as many coincidences as you want, and they will still not constitute proof. I assure you, for every coincidence you care to list, I can list many, many more showing the exact opposite point.



Agnostics and Atheists are Blind Deaf and Dumb. Im not trying to diss them, but its the truth.



No, it's not the truth, it's your opinion. I can see, I can hear, and I have a high IQ, proving you wrong.




I suggest you mediate in the woods/mountains for a few days. Preferably alone.

Why? Nothing changes in my mind after I go camping. I am not a religious person, and a little time alone does not change that. I suggest you get a few science classes. Preferably from a reputable educator.

کیش
12-19-2011, 11:24 AM
^^^

IQ, doesn't mean anything.

Why don't you go to mother nature, and be by yourself? What's you scared of.


Science books are good time-passers in the toilet.

ozymandias
12-19-2011, 11:24 AM
Atheists/Agnostics have never been through any calamity in their life. I'm thinking their pampered spoiled kids.


I suggest atheists to throw themselves to the fire, and check out the waters.



I suggest you research these things before you make a fool out of themselves. Plenty of atheists and agnostics have had hard lives.

کیش
12-19-2011, 11:27 AM
I suggest you research these things before you make a fool out of themselves. Plenty of atheists and agnostics have had hard lives.

Im sure they did ::rolleyes::



Atheists/Agnostics are the spoiled rich kids. (no diss intended). Until they get a gun pointed at them by all shorts of characters, they haven't seen anything.

For all I know Atheists= OWS crowd

ozymandias
12-19-2011, 11:27 AM
I see you edited your comment...


Role play

Atheist: look at me ima Atheist, god doesn't exist I dont see him blah blah blah blah.

Believer: what's your purpose in life.

Atheist: science has all the answers. God is blah blah blah blah blah I don't wanna hear it you, covering my ears blah blah blah

Believer: :running:

And this, folks, is why I am here. While I can learn from you, I can expose people like this to *real* atheists and show them that their fictional, self created atheist parodies are nothing like the real world atheists -- just like the 'durka durka Mohammad jihad terrorist' Muslims are fictional creations. It's sad that a person living in the modern world would actually believe either of these two statements -- let alone propagate them.

کیش
12-19-2011, 11:29 AM
^^^^

Take the mother nature challenge?


Until then you categorize in the Atheists side of the role-play.


Also, I have taken upper-level science courses. Their was a time when I was a science major. So, it's your turn Mary.

ozymandias
12-19-2011, 11:29 AM
Im sure they did ::rolleyes::



Atheists/Agnostics are the spoiled rich kids. (no diss intended). Until they get a gun pointed at them by all shorts of characters, they haven't seen anything.



And again, *many* atheists have had that. Atheists come from all walks of life. They are scientists, scholars, students, soldiers, cops, firemen, accountants, administrators, poor, rich, starving, well fed, mugged, muggers, you name it, there is probably an atheist that has done it.



For all I know Atheists= OWS crowd

OWS? What does that stand for?

ozymandias
12-19-2011, 11:35 AM
^^^^

Take the mother nature challenge?



What's the mother nature challenge?



Until then you categorize in the Atheists side of the role-play.



I am an atheist, but the fictional parody you wrote does not reflect my views of the world, nor any atheist I have ever met.




Also, I have taken upper-level science courses. Their was a time when I was a science major. So, it's your turn Mary.

I doubt that. If you did, then it was not from a reputable source, since you cannot even accurately describe science, or the scientific viewpoint, let alone the atheist one.

کیش
12-19-2011, 11:43 AM
^^^^

It seems Science is your religion..

Buddy, I have took Science courses in Stonybrook University, one of the top science universities in NY. Just cause I don't sweat Sciences balls don't mean I dont know it.


What's the mother nature challenge?

It's a retreat, to the forests, mountains and caves; By yourself. Are you up for it? Or are to scared. Take your favorite science for dummies book, and a copy of the scriptures for time-passers. After you complete your readings, mediate for a while on what you read.

Whatever conclusion you would come up after this, will get my topmost respect. Whatever you come up with.

ozymandias
12-19-2011, 12:01 PM
^^^^

It seems Science is your religion..

Buddy, I have took Science courses in Stonybrook University, one of the top science universities in NY. Just cause I don't sweat Sciences balls don't mean I dont know it.


What's the mother nature challenge?

It's a retreat, to the forests, mountains and caves; By yourself. Are you up for it? Or are to scared. Take your favorite science for dummies book, and a copy of the scriptures for time-passers. After you complete your readings, mediate for a while on what you read.

Whatever conclusion you would come up after this, will get my topmost respect. Whatever you come up with.

Oh, I routinely go camping alone. My wife's work schedule makes it hard for her to come along. I've never taken a 'holy' book when I was alone. I usually am with others when I take the bible on a hike.

For the record, I *have* read the bible, multiple times, and it is not hard to see the flaws in it. I am still on my first read-through of the Koran (multiple parallel translations makes it slow going) and it's no better so far.

کیش
12-19-2011, 12:07 PM
Oh, I routinely go camping alone. My wife's work schedule makes it hard for her to come along. I've never taken a 'holy' book when I was alone. I usually am with others when I take the bible on a hike.

For the record, I *have* read the bible, multiple times, and it is not hard to see the flaws in it. I am still on my first read-through of the Koran (multiple parallel translations makes it slow going) and it's no better so far.

You really need to go alone, to get the spiritual feeling. When you go with buddies, it's mostly a fun hiking hang out trip.


When your by yourself, its a whole different ball game.

ozymandias
12-19-2011, 02:58 PM
You really need to go alone, to get the spiritual feeling. When you go with buddies, it's mostly a fun hiking hang out trip.


When your by yourself, its a whole different ball game.

That may be -- but that only explains the placebo effect of religion, and yet again does not show actual evidence. That 'feeling' is not proof, and is a measurable, scientifically explainable feeling -- and I doubt it would lead me to the same conclusions for me as it did you.

When I am in the wilds, I think how majestic they are. I think of how old they are, how amazing they are, and how much mankind needs to preserve them for future generations. I feel a desire to understand the massive forces needed to create them, and the vast time scale needed for them to form -- and I am amazed at all that science has revealed to us about how the world works.

In the woods alone, or at home in bed, the religious books still have the same logical flaws and inconsistencies.

Asli
12-19-2011, 03:42 PM
Because that is the point of science. Reject that which is known to be untrue and replace it with something better, until something still better comes along.



Sadly, that's not true. If it were, all scientists would be religious.

Therefore, you can't rely on science for everything. It itself does not have the answers--it needs to falsify to be sure--there are other means to getting an answer much faster. For example, people don't need to have a DNA test to make sure that their father is their father, in most cases.

Science has many limitations. That said, it does not mean that I am against science.

Moreover, don't paint all scientists with one brush.

:)

faye
12-19-2011, 04:06 PM
Then they would be able to prove their faith scientifically. They can't, ergo it is blind faith.
i wasn't talking about faith, i was talking about knowing, which is an experience. rationality and science worship is also a limited belief, ergo faith.
can you prove scientifically, that scientific proof is the only valid way of knowing what is true?

ozymandias
12-19-2011, 04:33 PM
Therefore, you can't rely on science for everything. It itself does not have the answers--it needs to falsify to be sure--there are other means to getting an answer much faster. For example, people don't need to have a DNA test to make sure that their father is their father, in most cases.



Indeed -- but if the DNA evidence, and the blood types did not match up, science can answer that question still. Science is very much about finding the best answer that fits all the facts.



Science has many limitations. That said, it does not mean that I am against science.

Moreover, don't paint all scientists with one brush.

:)

Don't worry -- I'm not painting them with one brush. I'm simply making a point that many, if not all, scientists have questioned, and most answered the questions 'what are we doing here' -- it's not a new, or novel question, and their are many more answers than simply 'religion'.

ozymandias
12-19-2011, 04:35 PM
i wasn't talking about faith, i was talking about knowing, which is an experience. rationality and science worship is also a limited belief, ergo faith.



What in the world is science worship? Is that like a Cargo Cult? I have never heard this term before.



can you prove scientifically, that scientific proof is the only valid way of knowing what is true?

Pretty much, yeah. Name one other possible way to know what is true without using science and logic. The only way humans have to validate these other claims is with science and logic. In fact, anything that goes against science and logic either causes new science to be created to better fit the facts, or disproves those claims.

faye
12-19-2011, 05:34 PM
science worship is my categorisation of your attitude, lol. what, you gonna put our experiences, our knowing, under a microscope? good luck with that effort.
when you know, you know you know.

ozymandias
12-19-2011, 08:06 PM
science worship is my categorisation of your attitude, lol.



Ah. It is miscategorizations such as that that erect unneeded road blocks into the conversation. There is nothing at all close to worship in what science minded people do.



what, you gonna put our experiences, our knowing, under a microscope? good luck with that effort.



Microscopes would be but one minor tool. Physiology and psychology are far more important to the physical side. These will use some microscopes, but more statistics and chemistry.

I'm not planning on doing any such analysis of your experiences -- with the exception of people that make the mistake to think that their subjective experience of something constitutes 'proof' of their belief. In that case, it's not so much analyzing them as informing them as to their mistake, and why their 'evidence' is insufficient to convince a non-believer.



when you know, you know you know.

This sword cuts both ways.

faye
12-19-2011, 08:31 PM
oh. my subjective experiences are proof enough for me but you want to inform me that i am mistaken?? ho ho ho...... i don't wish to prove anything about my experiences to anyone else. you choose to believe and i choose to believe, what we believe.
these days reality is being considerd a hologram, by some of science, innit?

Asli
12-19-2011, 08:38 PM
Indeed -- but if the DNA evidence, and the blood types did not match up, science can answer that question still. Science is very much about finding the best answer that fits all the facts.



Don't worry -- I'm not painting them with one brush. I'm simply making a point that many, if not all, scientists have questioned, and most answered the questions 'what are we doing here' -- it's not a new, or novel question, and their are many more answers than simply 'religion'.

Yes, but before DNA testing was a available the world was not at a standstill. Therefore, I am pretty sure that you did not need a DNA test to prove your father is your father.

Moreover, don't mix religion with the existence of God.

Life ends with death, but that cannot be the end of existence.

faye
12-20-2011, 12:54 AM
ozmosis, unneeded roadblocks can also be erected by those who have closed minds and adhere to a dogma, which they believe to be the only true truth, such as science.
so you will 'inform them as to their mistake'. who will be informed of their mistake and how does the informant know that the one who has not yet been analysed is mistaken?
early days for getting the sword out, ozmosis. the science of psychology might take that to symbolise agression. you certainly can't be chopping up peoples 'knowing', with a sword. brain matter you could.

ozymandias
12-20-2011, 10:47 AM
Yes, but before DNA testing was a available the world was not at a standstill. Therefore, I am pretty sure that you did not need a DNA test to prove your father is your father.



That's right -- but DNA is a better tool than all those that proceeded it. You may think someone is your father, but the DNA can disprove that -- or prove it -- and the DNA is the evidence that matters. That's how science works. You take a theory -- "my father is the man that lives with my mother, and helped raise me", and you take additional evidence to either confirm or deny that theory.



Moreover, don't mix religion with the existence of God.



I'm sorry -- but the two are inexplicably linked, by the very definitions of the words. Religion is the belief in a supernatural being. Gods are supernatural beings, belief in gods is religion.



Life ends with death, but that cannot be the end of existence.

Cannot? Why not? What evidence do you have to the contrary? Chemistry says it is the end. Physics says it is the end. Biology says it is the end. Logic says it is the end. In fact, not one school of science says it is *not* the end of the existence of anything more than the deteriorating corpse of someone.

ozymandias
12-20-2011, 10:50 AM
ozmosis, unneeded roadblocks can also be erected by those who have closed minds and adhere to a dogma, which they believe to be the only true truth, such as science.



Huh? Name one other logical method to finding out truth, and I will examine it. The absence of alternatives does not make belief in science 'dogma'.



so you will 'inform them as to their mistake'. who will be informed of their mistake and how does the informant know that the one who has not yet been analysed is mistaken?



I'm sorry -- what are you even asking here?



early days for getting the sword out, ozmosis. the science of psychology might take that to symbolise agression. you certainly can't be chopping up peoples 'knowing', with a sword. brain matter you could.

...?

faye
12-20-2011, 05:14 PM
are you confused lol. perhaps being rutted in logic and raltionalism, has left you unable to approach the world, belifs and ideas, from a creative and spontaneous manner.

ozymandias
12-22-2011, 02:49 PM
are you confused lol. perhaps being rutted in logic and raltionalism, has left you unable to approach the world, belifs and ideas, from a creative and spontaneous manner.


I just think there is a language barrier. What you wrote does not seem to form coherent thoughts.

Asli
12-22-2011, 03:41 PM
You missed the point!

Science does not invent anything new. It simply is a way of answering why things are the way they are.

If science is only a way, meaning one of many ways, to answer why things are the way they, therefore, once we know why things are the way they are, with its help, we must then question what set things in motion--once we have all the answers. Now, the question is: do you wanna wait until then, meaning when we have all the answers? Of course not! You will be never be able to answer everything, that is you will never be able to answer all the whys using sheer empirical science! You must rely on other means at one point. Otherwise, you are living a contradiction. For example, I am sure you don't bring out scientific evidence to show the waiter you are hungry when ordering something to eat. Or you don't assume every time a baby cries that it is hungry. There are a lot of factors in life and a simple black and white answer is not always the answer. In fact, most of the time it is not the answer. Everything in life serves a purpose. One must consider the teleological aspect of the way things happen or work.

There is too much intelligence in everything in nature for it to be random. Today, all the money that is being invested in all sorts of research is to know exactly why things are the way they are, and if everything was random, then there would be no point in research because there would be no way to keep up with creating or coming up with new apparatuses in order to create a platform for research to even take place. Moreover, if something appears to be random, it is not. Its platform is there, it is invisible, one just has to wait for it to take its natural course and the randomness would not be so random once it settles. For example, we hear because not only do we have ears and all the logic for a functioning ear, but without an apparatus in order to the transmit the voice to the ear the whole purpose of the ear is futile. That in and of itself cannot be random.

Society existed before religion, God existed before society; false religions can distort the real imagine of God. Therefore, one has to know how and when to make a division.

ozymandias
12-22-2011, 06:04 PM
You missed the point!

Science does not invent anything new. It simply is a way of answering why things are the way they are.

If science is only a way, meaning one of many ways, to answer why things are the way they, therefore, once we know why things are the way they are, with its help, we must then question what set things in motion--once we have all the answers. Now, the question is: do you wanna wait until then, meaning when we have all the answers? Of course not! You will be never be able to answer everything, that is you will never be able to answer all the whys using sheer empirical science! You must rely on other means at one point. Otherwise, you are living a contradiction. For example, I am sure you don't bring out scientific evidence to show the waiter you are hungry when ordering something to eat. Or you don't assume every time a baby cries that it is hungry. There are a lot of factors in life and a simple black and white answer is not always the answer. In fact, most of the time it is not the answer. Everything in life serves a purpose. One must consider the teleological aspect of the way things happen or work.



You are right -- why I am hungry doesn't matter to the waiter. There are many reasons a baby cries, and it would be wrong to assume that the same answer explains it every time. Instead of assuming with no evidence, you look into why the baby is crying and do what you can about it.

Both of those cases are very great examples. Just like explaining why I am hungry is unneeded to a waiter, a god is unneeded to explain the universe. It's irrelevant. Just like I would not assume the same answer to why a baby is crying with no evidence, I do not assume the same answer to any other question I face. I don't assume there is a god, and try to force the evidence to fit that assumption.



There is too much intelligence in everything in nature for it to be random.



False -- and this is a logical fallacy. Just because you see semblance of order does not mean it took intelligence to create that order. Oil and water separate based on their physical characteristics. When I see a bottle of separated salad dressing, I don't think "that took too much intelligence to sort out the oil and vinegar, little fairies must live in my fridge"



Today, all the money that is being invested in all sorts of research is to know exactly why things are the way they are, and if everything was random, then there would be no point in research because there would be no way to keep up with creating or coming up with new apparatuses in order to create a platform for research to even take place.



Huh? This makes no sense. Developing better farming and animal husbandry makes perfect sense in a world with evolution and random changes. In fact, animal husbandry almost requires evolution to be used to full effect.



Moreover, if something appears to be random, it is not.



Unless it is. Many things are genuinely random in this world.



Its platform is there, it is invisible, one just has to wait for it to take its natural course and the randomness would not be so random once it settles. For example, we hear because not only do we have ears and all the logic for a functioning ear, but without an apparatus in order to the transmit the voice to the ear the whole purpose of the ear is futile.



Not at all. The ear, without a voice, is still a wonderful tool to observe the world around you and protect you from danger. It improves the survival chance, even without a voice.



That in and of itself cannot be random.



Ah -- in this you are right. Evolution is not merely random. The genetic changes are, but the survival of the fittest means evolution is not random. Think of it this way:

I have a bag with 10 balls, numbered 1-10. Pulling one ball out is random. The odds pulling each ball out, in order is fairly high (1 in 10*9*8*7*6*5*4*3*2) -- but if I add in a selection process, say putting any ball that does NOT meet the desired patter back in the bag and re-drawing, the odds become 1 in 1. The same randomness is there, but you added in the selection. Evolution requires not just random changes, but selection according to some criteria -- that which has the most offspring that survives, typically.



Society existed before religion,



Indeed. Gods are a fairly recent invention in the big scope of things.



God existed before society;



Depends on how you define society. I would say any group of people capable of creating a god and religion constitute a society by any reasonable definition of the word.



false religions can distort the real imagine of God.



That implies some religion is *not* false -- and there is no evidence to that claim.



Therefore, one has to know how and when to make a division.

Indeed. I divide at "what has evidence" from "what does not" -- where do *you* draw the line?

faye
12-22-2011, 06:42 PM
Pretty much, yeah. Name one other possible way to know what is true without using science and logic. The only way humans have to validate these other claims is with science and logic. In fact, anything that goes against science and logic either causes new science to be created to better fit the facts, or disproves those claims.
knowing is not a measureable thing. it is an experience. you can track the physical workings of a body when it is being burnt but can you track the experience?
you can see that you have pulled the number one ball out of the bag and you can speculate that it is random but it may be preordained, it may be that you are psychic and subconsciously chose to choose that particular ball. no proof either way.
to feign confusion and 'we do not speak the same language' can be a mind game,can be a defense mechanism. it can be that one is not intellectually versatile, can be that a left handed brain cannot fathom the workings of a right handed brain. you KNOW your truth, others can only speculate.

ozymandias
12-28-2011, 02:59 PM
knowing is not a measureable thing. it is an experience.



False. That is exactly what knowing is.



you can track the physical workings of a body when it is being burnt but can you track the experience?



Actually, yes, yes you can. You can measure the brain activity, the chemical activity, and record the whole thing. There have even been experiments in reproducing these experiences to people not actually experiencing the stimulus.

You are talking two different definitions of 'knowing', here. One definition is the concrete definition regarding knowledge of a fact, and the other is the definition regarding experiencing a fact. The two are not the same thing.



you can see that you have pulled the number one ball out of the bag and you can speculate that it is random but it may be preordained, it may be that you are psychic and subconsciously chose to choose that particular ball.



Considering that psychic powers have never been proven, and, in fact, have been consistently disproven, it may be that the picker is psychic -- but it's not.



no proof either way.



There is plenty of proof that psychic powers do not exist.



to feign confusion and 'we do not speak the same language' can be a mind game,can be a defense mechanism. it can be that one is not intellectually versatile, can be that a left handed brain cannot fathom the workings of a right handed brain. you KNOW your truth, others can only speculate.

....?

faye
12-28-2011, 05:48 PM
False. That is exactly what knowing is.

Actually, yes, yes you can. You can measure the brain activity, the chemical activity, and record the whole thing. There have even been experiments in reproducing these experiences to people not actually experiencing the stimulus.

You are talking two different definitions of 'knowing', here. One definition is the concrete definition regarding knowledge of a fact, and the other is the definition regarding experiencing a fact. The two are not the same thing.

Considering that psychic powers have never been proven, and, in fact, have been consistently disproven, it may be that the picker is psychic -- but it's not.

There is plenty of proof that psychic powers do not exist.



....?
knowing transcends words/logic. what i know may never be proven or disproven by science or logic. it is part of my essence and memory and experience, in the moment.
words are the description of reality not the reality itself. if i speak of god/creator/infinite intelligence or the non-existence of god, it is only words, whether they be logical or illogical.
"absence of understanding does not warrent abscence of existence" ibn sina.
so, what is the proof that god does NOT exist, then?

ozymandias
12-28-2011, 06:08 PM
knowing transcends words/logic. what i know may never be proven or disproven by science or logic.



That is not knowledge then. That is belief.




it is part of my essence and memory and experience, in the moment.
words are the description of reality not the reality itself.



Indeed.



if i speak of god/creator/infinite intelligence or the non-existence of god, it is only words, whether they be logical or illogical.



Indeed.



"absence of understanding does not warrent abscence of existence" ibn sina.
so, what is the proof that god does NOT exist, then?

None. There is no proof that there is no god out there somewhere, because the concept of 'god' is too nebulous and intangible to be falsifiable. Unfortunately for the theists, it is not the role of the atheists to disprove the existence of gods, but the role of the theists to prove them.

If all known facts are adequately explained without a god, then it is the role of the believer to find a reason a god is even needed.

faye
12-28-2011, 06:44 PM
That is not knowledge then. That is belief.

Indeed.

Indeed.

None. There is no proof that there is no god out there somewhere, because the concept of 'god' is too nebulous and intangible to be falsifiable. Unfortunately for the theists, it is not the role of the atheists to disprove the existence of gods, but the role of the theists to prove them.

If all known facts are adequately explained without a god, then it is the role of the believer to find a reason a god is even needed.

if. once upon a time, i put my hand into a fire and got burnt, i would then have the knowledge that the fire hurts. i do not have to then 'think','believe' again about not putting my hand into a fire. i 'know' not
to do that again. unless, of course, i am a masochist, who enjoyed the experience.:smile1: which, i, personally, am not.
ah, ''all known facts", which are limited, due to the proof that 'known facts' continue to become 'known'.
'adequately' explained according to scientists, with limited knowledge and understanding, do you mean? which is then expected to be blindly accepted by one and all. right? if one claims 'there is no god', one needs to prove it, surely. who says only the theists have to give proof? scientists? is this just a one way street debate then. the assumption that only the scientists are correct, with their 'theories' and assumptions?

ozymandias
12-28-2011, 07:06 PM
if. once upon a time, i put my hand into a fire and got burnt, i would then have the knowledge that the fire hurts. i do not have to then 'think','believe' again about not putting my hand into a fire. i 'know' not
to do that again. unless, of course, i am a masochist, who enjoyed the experience.:smile1: which, i, personally, am not.



Luckily, painful experiences are not the only way to convey knowledge. You can also teach a child that fire is hot, and painful without burning them.



ah, ''all known facts", which are limited, due to the proof that 'known facts' continue to become 'known'.
'adequately' explained according to scientists, with limited knowledge and understanding, do you mean?



Huh? I don't think I mean that, because I don't even understand what you are trying to say.



which is then expected to be blindly accepted by one and all. right?



Only the religious demand blind acceptance and faith. Scientists and skeptics demand proof, evidence, reproducible, logic, and consistency.



if one claims 'there is no god', one needs to prove it, surely.



No, if one claims there is a god, they need to prove it. The burden of proof is on those making a claim. Those that do not believe in a god are not making a claim -- they are rejecting one.



who says only the theists have to give proof?



Reality. Logic. Rational discourse. They are the ones making a claim.



scientists?



Them, too -- but they demand proof for every claim, so don't act singled out.



is this just a one way street debate then.



You could look at it that way -- but any extraordinary claim is treated the same way.



the assumption that only the scientists are correct,



Nope. The assumption is that a theory or belief is only valid if it is supported by all the evidence, and does not contradict logic.



with their 'theories' and assumptions?

Nope. The fact that you put 'theories' in quotes and paired it with 'assumptions' implies you do not understand the scientific definition of 'theory'. A scientific theory is no different than a scientific law when it comes to accuracy, veracity, and actuality. In scientific discourse, a theory is treated as a fact, not a guess or assumption.

faye
12-28-2011, 08:07 PM
Luckily, painful experiences are not the only way to convey knowledge. You can also teach a child that fire is hot, and painful without burning them.

Huh? I don't think I mean that, because I don't even understand what you are trying to say.

Only the religious demand blind acceptance and faith. Scientists and skeptics demand proof, evidence, reproducible, logic, and consistency.

No, if one claims there is a god, they need to prove it. The burden of proof is on those making a claim. Those that do not believe in a god are not making a claim -- they are rejecting one.

Reality. Logic. Rational discourse. They are the ones making a claim.

Them, too -- but they demand proof for every claim, so don't act singled out.

You could look at it that way -- but any extraordinary claim is treated the same way.

Nope. The assumption is that a theory or belief is only valid if it is supported by all the evidence, and does not contradict logic.

Nope. The fact that you put 'theories' in quotes and paired it with 'assumptions' implies you do not understand the scientific definition of 'theory'. A scientific theory is no different than a scientific law when it comes to accuracy, veracity, and actuality. In scientific discourse, a theory is treated as a fact, not a guess or assumption.

it appears we have a different definition of what knowledge is. you seem to think that knowledge is only words, thoughts, ideas, analysis, logic. my view is more comprehensive than that. it also incorp[orates experience. you may pass on a belief about an experience of being burned, to the child. if it is not experienced by the child and they take your word for it, then it is just a belief, to them.

sorry if i confuse you, which appears to be quite easy, but it is not intentional.

i am also a sceptic. i am sceptical about logical athiests and the scientific community expecting the masses to take their ideas as fact. the average individual has no real way of proving everything we are told by these 'experts on reality'. the problem is, they are not experts on, non-reality, which is where they tell us the big bang came from.
so, get to work:tongue:

haha, you are playing now. god forgive you.
i do believe that atheism is a belief in no god. therefore they know there is a claim that there is a god. wouldn't denial of that claim, be, in a sense, a claim.

who says that those that believe in god NEED to prove the existence of god? i don't care if you don't believe in god, that is your reality, so why do you care if there is a belief in god? does it threaten you in some way?

in, what i classify as, my reality some of what science tells us, is only a theory, whether they reclassify theory, to please themselves, or not. in other words, i do not believe they have proof that there is NO creator,infinite intelligence/allah/rainbow serpent/god/etc,etc,etc.

ozymandias
12-29-2011, 01:04 PM
it appears we have a different definition of what knowledge is. you seem to think that knowledge is only words, thoughts, ideas, analysis, logic. my view is more comprehensive than that. it also incorp[orates experience. you may pass on a belief about an experience of being burned, to the child. if it is not experienced by the child and they take your word for it, then it is just a belief, to them.



Sorry, I use the dictionary definition, which is a problem when you make up your own definition to use:
knowl·edge/ˈnälij/

Noun:

Information and skills acquired through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
What is known in a particular field or in total; facts and information.


It is fully possible for a person to know something through education.




sorry if i confuse you, which appears to be quite easy, but it is not intentional.



Once you start using actual definitions of words, we will be fine.



i am also a sceptic. i am sceptical about logical athiests and the scientific community expecting the masses to take their ideas as fact.



Good. That's the first step. The second step is to look into how they discovered those facts.



the average individual has no real way of proving everything we are told by these 'experts on reality'. the problem is, they are not experts on, non-reality, which is where they tell us the big bang came from.
so, get to work:tongue:



Um... no. Non-reality is the realm of authors and the religious. Scientists stick to reality -- which is why they are not experts on religion.



haha, you are playing now. god forgive you.
i do believe that atheism is a belief in no god.



You are wrong. More accurately, it is lack of belief in a god.



therefore they know there is a claim that there is a god. wouldn't denial of that claim, be, in a sense, a claim.



If your definition were accurate -- you might have a point. Most atheists don't fit that definition, however.



who says that those that believe in god NEED to prove the existence of god?



Anyone that cares about science, or logic. It is always up to the person making the claim to provide evidence that it is believable.



i don't care if you don't believe in god, that is your reality, so why do you care if there is a belief in god? does it threaten you in some way?



In the scope of this forum? I don't care, other than it provides an interesting view into your world, and it is interesting to see what you believe, and why.

In the real world, other people's religion impacts me *vastly*, due to all those that choose to try and force their religion on others, through legislation and violence.



in, what i classify as, my reality some of what science tells us, is only a theory, whether they reclassify theory, to please themselves, or not.



Again, you misuse the word 'theory'.



in other words, i do not believe they have proof that there is NO creator,infinite intelligence/allah/rainbow serpent/god/etc,etc,etc.

Good. No one really claims they have such proof -- other than the fringe crazies. It's logically impossible to disprove all gods, since the concept of a god is so poorly defined. The best that can be done is to do things like prove specific gods as impossible, or illogical -- such as an all-knowing god making specific mistakes in the 'divine revelations'.

faye
12-29-2011, 09:00 PM
i have to confess, i am now bored with debating a rigid consciousness. definitions of knowledge and theory have not been misused by me. if you can manage to step outside your box and consider all the definitions for both those words.
you enjoy your reality and i'll enjoy mine. 'emptiness is form, form is emptiness' don't ya just love that???:wub:
get back to me when you have proof that a creator/ god does not exist, ok.

ozymandias
12-30-2011, 11:40 AM
i have to confess, i am now bored with debating a rigid consciousness. definitions of knowledge and theory have not been misused by me. if you can manage to step outside your box and consider all the definitions for both those words.



Funny how you accuse me of this, when you think knowledge cannot be taught, only experienced -- using only a partial definition of the word....



you enjoy your reality and i'll enjoy mine. 'emptiness is form, form is emptiness' don't ya just love that???:wub:
get back to me when you have proof that a creator/ god does not exist, ok.

Sigh. Too often the religious run away from a discussion about a creator when they figure out who carries the burden of proof. Have fun burying your head in the sand.

faye
12-30-2011, 06:09 PM
:rofl1:huh?

roadrunner
01-30-2012, 05:10 PM
it appears we have a different definition of what knowledge is. you seem to think that knowledge is only words, thoughts, ideas, analysis, logic. my view is more comprehensive than that. it also incorp[orates experience. you may pass on a belief about an experience of being burned, to the child. if it is not experienced by the child and they take your word for it, then it is just a belief, to them
serpent/god/etc,etc,etc.

It would be blind belief. Most require some proof as they grow up a bit.

faye
01-30-2012, 05:44 PM
what, a blind belief in words, logic and other peoples assumptions. choose your blind belief, roadie.