The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
One nation under something founded by a bunch of dudes that believed in stuff that we are not allowed to talk about without upsetting everyone, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
it was kind of chiily when I walked to the office a few minutes ago. I'm heading out to go get a latte. I can make a faithful assumption that it will still be chilly out.
Doesn't mean I follow some weird weather religion cult thing.
But it does take an element of faith to say "God does not exist", correct?
Well, we can go down that slippery slope and say that the acknowledgement of reality and the existence of anything beyond self requires faith. Even in the acknowledgement of self there is faith that perceptually you are correct.
By your definition existence requires faith in existence.
However, that's not a proper definition of faith, since we have (as a species) come to a relatively universal consensus upon the existence of reality and the reinforcement of this reality by repeated observable data.
Atheism isn't a religion, that would be contradictory of the whole ideal basically, aside from the fact that whole ideal itself is kind of contradictory anyway.
Bergy on
I've been trying to reach you, but your extension cord doesn't reach that far.
But it does take an element of faith to say "God does not exist", correct?
However, that's not a proper definition of faith, since we have (as a species) come to a relatively universal consensus upon the existence of reality and the reinforcement of this reality by repeated observable data.
Which has been proven time and again to be wrong. The world was at one time observationally flat.
I mean it's one thing to say "I don't believe in God because there's no evidence he exists", it's quite another to get in someone's face and start screaming "HOW CAN YOU BE SO STUPID".
Which has been proven time and again to be wrong. The world was at one time observationally flat.
I mean it's one thing to say "I don't believe in God because there's no evidence he exists", it's quite another to get in someone's face and start screaming "HOW CAN YOU BE SO STUPID".
The world wasn't observably flat. It was that the tools of observation were projecting it as flat. Slight difference, but important. As our tools for observation become more refined our data set becomes more refined and adjusted. That doesn't change the fact that the reinforcement of observable data is ruined, it just means that it's malleable.
Also, saying that "I do not believe in God because the evidence which I, and others, have observed and using deductive reasoning to come to this conclusion." is quite a far cry from "I have faith that there is/isn't a god." Quite a bit of a difference, in fact. One uses evidence and the other does not.
However, the "You're stupid for believing in xxxx" isn't to do with one's belief system, but the fact that people are jerks. Myself included.
The world wasn't observably flat. It was that the tools of observation were projecting it as flat. Slight difference, but important. As our tools for observation become more refined our data set becomes more refined and adjusted. That doesn't change the fact that the reinforcement of observable data is ruined, it just means that it's malleable.
So we're one observation away from proving atheism wrong. They used to have a term "black swan" that was used for things that can never exist - until they discoverred Australia and found some black swans!
Also, saying that "I do not believe in God because the evidence which I, and others, have observed and using deductive reasoning to come to this conclusion." is quite a far cry from "I have faith that there is/isn't a god." Quite a bit of a difference, in fact. One uses evidence and the other does not.
So you're arguing the subjuctivity of observational data while completely discounting people's religious experiences and feelings?
The world wasn't observably flat. It was that the tools of observation were projecting it as flat. Slight difference, but important. As our tools for observation become more refined our data set becomes more refined and adjusted. That doesn't change the fact that the reinforcement of observable data is ruined, it just means that it's malleable.
So we're one observation away from proving atheism wrong. They used to have a term "black swan" that was used for things that can never exist - until they discoverred Australia and found some black swans!
Also, saying that "I do not believe in God because the evidence which I, and others, have observed and using deductive reasoning to come to this conclusion." is quite a far cry from "I have faith that there is/isn't a god." Quite a bit of a difference, in fact. One uses evidence and the other does not.
So you're arguing the subjuctivity of observational data while completely discounting people's religious experiences and feelings?
So, lets get on that evidence that God exists then.
SA on
WoW: Revash (Cho'Gall)
3DS: 5241-1953-7031
0
RankenphilePassersby were amazedby the unusually large amounts of blood.Registered User, ModeratorMod Emeritus
I'm gonna try not to argue with Deacon because I've seen this before. He won't listen to anything you tell him and his counterpoints are bent and full of holes. No matter how well you try to put a point to him he rebuffs it with a heavy worded equivalent of "nuh-uh".
So we're one observation away from proving atheism wrong. They used to have a term "black swan" that was used for things that can never exist - until they discoverred Australia and found some black swans!
So you're arguing the subjuctivity of observational data while completely discounting people's religious experiences and feelings?
Yes, we are one observation from proving Atheism to be wrong. We're also one observation from proving Thermodynamics wrong and disproving gravity. That's how science works. Those observations may never come, as they may never exist, but if they do you adjust the theory and move on. That's the point.
I am not arguing for the subjectivity of experience. I am arguing that claiming that observable data and deduction based upon that requires "faith" is a bit of a misnomer and applies an incorrect, and obtusely large, definition of faith which is beyond use.
There is going to be a certain amount of subjectivity in any observation (double-slit ololz), but this can be discounted with repeated and dissparate(sp) experiments which produce similar or identical results.
So we're one observation away from proving atheism wrong. They used to have a term "black swan" that was used for things that can never exist - until they discoverred Australia and found some black swans!
You are also that many away from proving it right. But the thing about God is that he can neither be proven or disproven. Which is why it falls under the classification of faith and not science.
So you're arguing the subjuctivity of observational data while completely discounting people's religious experiences and feelings?
Once again it's science versus faith. Observational data can be tested and verified while the religious experience and feelings of a person can't in any way be studied or quantified.
Marathon on
0
RankenphilePassersby were amazedby the unusually large amounts of blood.Registered User, ModeratorMod Emeritus
I'm gonna try not to argue with Deacon because I've seen this before. He won't listen to anything you tell him and his counterpoints are bent and full of holes. No matter how well you try to put a point to him he rebuffs it with a heavy worded equivalent of "nuh-uh".
I'm gonna try not to argue with Deacon because I've seen this before. He won't listen to anything you tell him and his counterpoints are bent and full of holes. No matter how well you try to put a point to him he rebuffs it with a heavy worded equivalent of "nuh-uh".
So you admit to mining in Trammel then.
n00b
oh god no I used to raid that deamon temple on trammel and on felluca I had a theif that I would use to loot corpses during faction battles
Observational data can be tested and verified while the religious experience and feelings of a person can't in any way be studied or quantified.
I respectfully do not agree. You can certainly measure biochemical changes and brainwave variations in someone undergoing a religious experience of some kind, can't you?
Posts
3DS: 5241-1953-7031
Hi!
But it does take an element of faith to say "God does not exist", correct?
Sup brosef
Doesn't mean I follow some weird weather religion cult thing.
By your definition existence requires faith in existence.
However, that's not a proper definition of faith, since we have (as a species) come to a relatively universal consensus upon the existence of reality and the reinforcement of this reality by repeated observable data.
Faith in what? Yourself?
I suppose if you had to have faith in something, it would be in yourself or your friends and family.
I really doubt that constitutes atheism as a religion.
3DS: 5241-1953-7031
I hate it when that happens. Ruins a good pair of pants.
3DS: 5241-1953-7031
I've been trying to reach you, but your extension cord doesn't reach that far.
Which has been proven time and again to be wrong. The world was at one time observationally flat.
I mean it's one thing to say "I don't believe in God because there's no evidence he exists", it's quite another to get in someone's face and start screaming "HOW CAN YOU BE SO STUPID".
HIS WORD IS LAW
3DS: 5241-1953-7031
Well it's an active and sometimes deeply held belief in something that can't be scientifically proven.
*shrug*
Also, saying that "I do not believe in God because the evidence which I, and others, have observed and using deductive reasoning to come to this conclusion." is quite a far cry from "I have faith that there is/isn't a god." Quite a bit of a difference, in fact. One uses evidence and the other does not.
However, the "You're stupid for believing in xxxx" isn't to do with one's belief system, but the fact that people are jerks. Myself included.
on SE++
THIS IS BLASPHEMY!!!
THIS IS MADNESS!!!
STEAM!
Anti-theists are the dudes who call people who believe in God stupid.
Not all atheists are anti-theists. Only the huge jerks.
edit: God has to be capitalized or something, I think. My bad.
3DS: 5241-1953-7031
At the Church of Java.
3DS: 5241-1953-7031
In Jux Hur Ylem
In Jux Hur Ylem
In Jux Hur Ylem
fofofofofofofof
So we're one observation away from proving atheism wrong. They used to have a term "black swan" that was used for things that can never exist - until they discoverred Australia and found some black swans!
So you're arguing the subjuctivity of observational data while completely discounting people's religious experiences and feelings?
So, lets get on that evidence that God exists then.
3DS: 5241-1953-7031
Satan.
Satan is awesome.
Hail Satan
3DS: 5241-1953-7031
word, dogg
Hypocritical atheists though...
I am not arguing for the subjectivity of experience. I am arguing that claiming that observable data and deduction based upon that requires "faith" is a bit of a misnomer and applies an incorrect, and obtusely large, definition of faith which is beyond use.
There is going to be a certain amount of subjectivity in any observation (double-slit ololz), but this can be discounted with repeated and dissparate(sp) experiments which produce similar or identical results.
Once again it's science versus faith. Observational data can be tested and verified while the religious experience and feelings of a person can't in any way be studied or quantified.
so you prefer the hypocritical religious types to the hypocritical atheist types?
So you admit to mining in Trammel then.
n00b
oh god no I used to raid that deamon temple on trammel and on felluca I had a theif that I would use to loot corpses during faction battles
I respectfully do not agree. You can certainly measure biochemical changes and brainwave variations in someone undergoing a religious experience of some kind, can't you?