Agnosticism

[ozymandias]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 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]

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. 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]

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

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]

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

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]

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???
get back to me when you have proof that a creator/ god does not exist, ok.