The Folly of Atheism

Nonsense.

Given that all "gods" were the creations of the imaginings of man, there is no logical reason to conclude that there may be a "Real God" somewhere, somehow.

Your assertion sounds similar to arguments I have heard another make.

I seriously doubt that you would say:

Any conclusion or extrapolation of 'there is no psychic snowflake', is a positive claim about the nature of the universe since we do not have any empirical evidence to make an informed conclusion. Ignorance of psychic snowflakes is the only default position, & is appropriate, since we do not have any empirical evidence to make an informed conclusion.​

 

How can that be if they claim that no amount of evidence could ever go against their own theory? Specific supernatural theories, like Biblical literalism, sure, but not the general some-sort-of-supernatural-out-there "supernaturalism" you have described and which you have said no observation could disprove.

Actually, my claim is that the natural universe has no outside cause. Hence why I don't believe in a supernatural cause. Because I believe in a four-dimensional universe (also known as block time or eternalism or the B-theory of time, much like Einstein believed in -- more on that below), the whole concept of the universe having a "cause" is completely nonsensical. A cause precedes its effect in time. The universe IS time, along with space, matter, energy, etc. The whole concept of causality is dependent on time. Asking for the cause of time is like asking, "What's north of the north pole?" The concept just doesn't apply.

As for my proof of the four-dimensional universe, it is a natural consequence of Einstein's theory of relativity. Because time is entirely relative to things like mass and acceleration, there is no such thing as the "present" as distinct from past and future. What we call the past and future are just as real as the present, just as objects in the foreground are just as real as objects in the background. Like space, time warps and bends around matter and energy and is itself a dimension of measurement just as space is. The four-dimensional universe is mainstream physics at this point and the alternative view, known as "presentism" or the "A-theory of time" can't be reconciled with natural observation.

You can actually demonstrate the basics of the relativity and physicality of time with a couple of middle school physics equations and some basic observations, if you are interested in hearing more. This is one of the reasons why creationists like William Lane Craig have gotten invested in trying to prove the A-theory of time, but with no success.

 

Doubt whatever you want to doubt, Ecco.

But unless a thing is established as impossible...it is possible.

- - - Updated - - -

No way...but continue to insist if you have to do so.

 

I'll keep this simple for the theists, can you show we Atheists one example of a consciousness living apart from a body or device as some disembodied self-aware entity even that of a lower life form a ethereal cat or dog, until you can demonstrate such an unusual claim with evidence then clearly this god concept makes very little sense to rational people. That's the narrative god is some kind of spirit entity without a body or device (I added device to include possible sentient AI).

 

Atheism is not invented by man. Everyone is born an atheist. The person must be indoctrinated (brainwashed) into believing in religion typically by their parents before they're old enough to reason for themselves.

Whether god exists or not is irrelevant. The atheist doesn't believe in religion created by man or any gods that men created for their religion. There's no evidence of any gods so gods don't matter.

Apparently a misreading of what I stated. There is extensive historical evidence supporting that religions evolve with time and that they spawn new religions that take some beliefs virtually as is or with modification, discard other beliefs completely, and create something new that makes the religion different (for marketing purposes). It's just re-branding of the same basic product.

For example we have the documented evolution of religion in ancient Mesopotamia that resulted in the "Epic of Gilgamesh" that later was plagiarized by a part of the Sematic people and included in the Books of Moses in creating the Jewish religion. The Jewish religion was the foundation for "Christianity" that started out as a Jewish cult and then added in some Hindu philosophy, and a little "Greek" mythology where Revelations introduces Hades the god of the underworld, and then it was brilliantly marketed to the Romans. Had it not been for these changes to create the new religion of Christianity that was marketed to the non-Jewish people Christianity would have disappeared just like hundreds of other Jewish cults.

Got to run for now.

 

Yes Frank, we've been through that.

 

Ridiculous. I don't need evidence for not having a belief.

If you feel that my words are ridiculing your faith, then you really should not be posting in forums trying to take on atheists and other non-believers. You are too weak for it.

Also, bigotry is intolerance. Nothing I have said displays intolerance, other than for your ridiculous arguments. Maybe you need a safe space rather than an open political/religious forum.

 

Actually, Ecco, I pitched you one right down the middle here...and you can hit it over the fence with no trouble.

If you are sure I am wrong...you can prove that I am wrong with one post. ANY OF THE PEOPLE WHO THINK I AM WRONG ON THIS CAN EASILY DO THAT.

All you have to do is give ONE example of something that has not been established as impossible...but is impossible.

That's all...because I am saying that unless a thing is established as impossible...it is possible.

 

I have a limited window for posting, as i have a lot of irons in the fire with my hectic life. But i enjoy philosophizing with my mates here, & will try to keep up. But there are some times when i can't get to the forum, so please understand i am not whimpering in the corner somewhere, terrified by the power of the rebuttals given to my posts. ..early morning is the better time for me to post, but occasionally i can slip in a few replies at other times.

I just made a list of 'things to do' that are pressing.. business, personal, family, etc.. and it is fairly overwhelming. AND, i don't have 'bicker with forum posters' anywhere on that list! But i seem to find time to do this, even though i have a hard time justifying the time spent. It is an odd hobby we have, & something many people cannot understand.

'I want a hobby where other people ridicule me, call me names, & treat me like an idiot for anything i say!'

There has got to be some kind of warped mental condition for this malady. Perhaps in the future someone will study this (with some juicy grant, paid for by the taxpayers, of course!), & discover the source of this madness. I suspect it is just the same old human folly that has always existed, just a new expression for it.

Anyway, i'm often amused by my own (and others) foibles & the bizarre things we do & say. And since forum posting is only a written form of communication, it has many limitations as a communication medium. But, for many of us, it seems to have an attraction, as we have been doing this for decades.

.. my introspective thoughts for the morning.. now, back to debate!

 

I'm not insisting. I'm correctly pointing out you are scared of the analogy, which is why you refuse to address it.

 

I can't help but agree with Bill, who i think noted, 'Methinks thou dost protest too much'.

I don't see any functional difference between you saying, 'i believe the pats will win the superbowl', or 'i believe in a naturalistic theory of origins.' OR, you can substitute 'guess' for believe, or any number of synonyms. I'm dealing with reality, here, Frank, not mumbo jumbo, or word games. You seem to be hung up on the term, 'belief' for psychological reasons, not because of anything inherent in the term. Human beings from all philosophical roots & backgrounds have 'beliefs'. It is not a pejorative term, & it does not say anything more that an expression of an opinion.

So you can deny it all you want, but you in fact do, & illustrate it in almost every post, 'believing'. I don't define that term as narrowly as you do, or consider it a pejorative. It is a descriptor.. a term that indicates your opinion. It is not ALWAYS a dogmatic declaration of Faith in some human institution. It CAN be, in the right context, but nobody here has been using it that way.. i certainly haven't.

And of course, 'belief' in EITHER the supernatural or 'only natural' is a guess.. a surmise.. a speculation.. a conclusion based on one's personal experience, knowledge base, indoctrination, upbringing, & many other factors. NOBODY can escape their influences, so the more we face them head on, & factor them into our quest for knowledge, understanding, & enlightenment, the more we gain circumspection, & objectivity. Stubborn subjectivity is merely dogmatism, in whatever philosophical ideology it represents. the more we can detach ourselves from our personal subjectivity, & ESPECIALLY, our cherished belief system, the more likely we are to see the bigger picture, gain understanding, & expand our mental outlook.

I realize, more than most i suspect, that most of my reasoning is lost on irrational, biased, ideologues, who will not or cannot detach themselves from their ideology. I am constantly amazed at the level of dogmatism & the reliance on logical fallacies for so many, in these forums. But that is human nature, & i accept it.

I agree with your description of 'belief'. You can substitute 'guess' or other words to convey the same meaning. But that is why it is not as terrifying of a word as many here seem to think.

Let me repeat a couple of the numbered points i made to you, earlier.

• There is NO empirical evidence to compel any conclusion about the origins of the universe & life.
• A BELIEF in a supernatural or natural explanation for the origins of the universe & life is just that: A Belief.

Do you agree with this assessment? I have presented it as a premise for discussion, & the basis for further reasoning. Without this basis, many of the arguments go past each other, as there is not agreement on the basics. In order to refute this premise, one would have to show REAL EVIDENCE that it is flawed. IOW, all anyone would have to do is present evidence that there is, indeed, some empirical evidence for a particular explanation of origins, or the existence of the supernatural (or not). But lacking any rebuttal with evidence, my premise stands, unrefuted, & for me remains the logical basis for further argument. If nobody can establish evidence for their 'belief', then it is a speculative belief, opinion, surmise, or guess. It has NO empirical basis, & it cannot be declared as 'fact', or 'settled science'.

If someone believes that THEIR 'opinion, guess, beliefs' are indeed rooted in empirical fact, then there is no basis for further discussion. We talk past each other, since i see your 'belief' as a 'guess, opinion, etc', but you see it as 'empirical Truth'. So unless there is an agreement on that first point, we have no common ground for further reasoning, as they are built on different assumptions.

Does this make any sense? I see the same arguments, repeated over & over, saying the exact same thing,

'I don't have a belief, I just don't have any evidence for a god, therefore there is no god'.

You (and others) have pointed out the logical fallacy of this claim, as it is indeed a positive statement of belief. And i am willing to accept your claim of pure agnosticism, & you have been consistent in your own personal claims of 'no belief'.. which is a reasonable position, if you have no evidence to the contrary.

I see the tendency for many on this thread to run in terror from the term 'belief'. You do it too! But why? It is an irrational fear of a term, nothing more. It makes no sense, other than an attempt to try to 'rise above' everyone else. It seems to me that most people phrase it like this:

'I don't have any faith, or believe in anything. That is for stupid, superstitious idiots, who have been brainwashed to believe in fairy tales! I believe in Science.. err.. scratch that.. I KNOW that the facts of science support my opinion...wait.. no, I merely live in an evidentiary based existence, with no beliefs at all. Logic & facts control my every thought, & i have no abstract opinions about the unknown.'

Do you see the problem? It is an attempt to remove any subjectivity from their thinking, & they make the assumption of personal omnipotence for any following conclusions or arguments. It is a denial of subjectivity, & a declaration of pure objectivism, which is absurd, as NOBODY is or can be purely objective, & divorce themselves from their upbringing, indoctrination, or other influences.

I have no problem saying, 'I am a theist'. This is a statement of belief, that i believe in a supernatural 'cause' for the universe, life, & man. I have influences & personal experiences to justify my conclusion. I do not try to pass it off as 'empirical fact!', as that is contrary to scientific methodology, logic, & objective reality. IOW, i can see the difference between my OPINION, & the facts i also know. There is a sharp line between 'facts' & 'beliefs', that many people keep deliberately fuzzy. But for the logically, scientifically minded person, you have to make that distinction. You have to be 'legalistic' in establishing the facts, before you can make an informed judgement.

So why do others have a problem saying, 'I am an atheist', & accept the consequences of that statement? They are asserting there to be 'no gods', as a positive statement of belief. There are no facts to support this, any more than there are facts to support the theists positive claim. It is not the same as a pure agnostic who would say, 'i have no evidence of a god, therefore i don't know'. That is not a positive claim. It is merely a statement of ignorance. But, it DOES reflect a belief system, & it affects the outlook of the bearer.

Ok.. sorry.. WAY too long. i need to try to communicate more in witty one liners & tweets..

 

You can believe this, if you want, Ken. This 'Logophobia' seems to be very prevalent in the forums.. perhaps it is contagious?

Seriously? You have not offered any logical rebuttals, for any of my points, but just fallacy after fallacy. That you include ad hominem is no surprise. My strength is in logic, facts, & Truth. I haven't seen you produce anything like that.

I suggest you pick up your toy beliefs & run along, if you don't have anything topical to contribute.. your personal problem with me will probably render you incapable of replying in a rational manner.

 

There's lots of supportive evidence historically. How many religions have existed historically that have since been discarded? The belief in the "Sun God" that has existed in many religions including ancient Egyptian beliefs and that belief lasted for thousands of years. "Plenty of very smart people" believed in the sun god "Ra" in ancient Egypt and how many believe in Ra today? There were very smart people in ancient Greece that believed in "Greek Religion" that's now referred to as mythology so how many people believe in it today? Today Christians believe in Jesus that was "part god, part mortal" (a demigod). There's no fundamental difference in the story of Perseus that was the child of the Greek god "Zeus" and the "Virgin Danae" (daughter of King Acrisius of Argos) and Jesus that was the child of the "God of Abraham" and "Virgin Mary" (wife of Joseph) with the possible exception that the story of Perseus is perhaps more entertaining because it's viewed as being mythology as opposed to being taken seriously.

Religions themselves are actually the best source of validation because religions typically identify themselves as the "only true religion" and therefore anyone that believes in any another religion, no matter how smart they might be, is ignorant of "the true religion" that's being promoted.

No, I've read history and the nature of religion is to provide a "moral code of conduct" (that's often immoral in actuality) as well as providing inventive answers to questions most often of which are: why am I here?; where did we come from?; what caused this disaster?; and what happens when I die? These are very troubling philosophical questions for most people. Without these questions being answered people are generally insecure because the "natural" explanation of "you're a product of nature, with the purpose of survival of the species, that disasters don't require a reason, and that you die when you die" doesn't seem to satisfy them.

Once again I find it strange that some believe that atheism is "marketed" because I know that was never the case for me personally. My "atheistic" beliefs were established by a personal desire to learn about religion and atheism was never something I considered, it was never a goal, but instead was a result of studying religion. My intent was never to disprove religion nor was I influenced in any way by any "atheist" in even beginning my quest to understand religion.

While you can argue that "progressivism, humanism, marxism, etc" are marketed none of them are based upon "atheism" per se. Progressive is simply the opposite of regressive so do we want to learn and improve through knowledge and understanding or do we want to forget what we've learned and return to the dark ages (that was spawned by religion)? (Secular) Humanism is the establishment of a moral code based upon logic and reason as opposed to the blind acceptance of what someone else defined as a moral code. Marxism is a political-economic system that like Capitalism as we know it violates the fundamental Natural Right "Of Property" because both are based upon "ownership" (that allows possession without the right to possess) as opposed to the "natural right to possess" of the people/person. It could be argued that "progressivism, humanism, marxism, etc" are marketed but none of them are based upon whether a person has religious beliefs or doesn't have religious beliefs.

Religion grants political power to the leaders of the religion over the common believer. Examples are so easy to find. Above you address what Thomas Jefferson, a person that didn't believe in religion but advocated for freedom of religion, mentions in his letter to the Danbury Church:

Your references related to this principle that a "religion is a matter which lies solely between man (person) and his God" and yet we see that corrupted by the leaders of religion repeatedly because the leaders wield political power based upon the followers of the religion. A perfect example is the Catholic Church where the leaders of the Catholic Church, all MEN, declare that the belief of the followers, a matter that resides solely with the followers personal beliefs, oppose birth control when studies indicate that 90% of Catholic women use birth control at some point so obviously their "Catholic religion" that is personal between them and their "God" is completely different that the leaders of the religion. The Men that are leaders of the Catholic Church are politically imposing on their own followers a belief that the followers disagree with.

The "Leaders of Christianity" in the United States nefariously changed our Pledge of Allegiance to include the phrase "One Nation Under God" and that's a blatant lie. We're "One Nation Under The Constitution" and not "Under God" and it was the "political power of Christians" that introduced a lie into our national identity. The same "Leaders of Christianity" also changed the historical national motto of "E Pluribus Unum" ("from many" backgrounds, races, religions/non-religions, etc. to unite together as "one" under our political ideology) to "In God We Trust" that instantly divided the nation into those that believed in "God" and were included under the National Motto and those that didn't believe in "God" and were disparaged by exclusion. The "atheist" can't believe in the National Motto or the Pledge of Allegiance and is arguably "UnAmerican" based upon religious beliefs in a nation that rejected religious beliefs when it was created as a secular nation.

Please, don't give me a bunch of crap that religion isn't "political" in nature because religion has been used as a political "weapon" throughout recorded history and this has absolutely nothing to do with the individual person's religious beliefs. It has to do with the leaders of the religion using the religion politically more often than not for nefarious purposes of oppression and tyranny. Today the Trump administration, with the support of Christian leaders and followers, is attacking the Muslim religion with a nefarious ban on Muslims from seven countries where there's no intelligence reports indicating that any of these nations has any plans to send "terrorists" to the United States. Iran, a Shi'ite nation, isn't even associated with the Sunni Muslims of al Qaeda and ISIS that are the primary sources of international Islamic terrorist activities that almost never attempt terrorist attacks in the United States. Religion is used as a political tool for oppression and has always been used as a political tool for oppression.

Most of this is a skewed belief about man & his spiritual quests. It is a biased, anti supernatural rant trying to elevate the beliefs of atheistic naturalism over the alternative. It is plain old religious bigotry, with no empirical basis. [/quote]
This is a false assumption based upon your own personal projection because we're not discussing spiritualism but instead we're discussing religion that the atheist rejects. I have no problem at all with the philosophy or doctrine pertaining to a spiritual aspect of existence but this is an internal, not external, spiritual existence. The Native-American beliefs in the spirit of the Earth and Nature are not offensive to me because I accept that for me there is a "spiritual" appreciation and experience internal to my own being that inspires me with awe. It isn't that the Earth or Nature contains a spiritual existence but instead that there is a spiritual existence inside of each of us unrelated to logic and reason and that we experience emotionally. I would pity anyone that fails to experience this spirit inside of themselves.

My point is merely that what "religion" promotes as spiritualism is a fraud because religion itself is a fraud. The spirit grows within the person, dies with the person, and is not separate from the person. It is purely internal in the self and not external or separate to the self.

What is interesting from a historical standpoint related to religion is that most religions assign human characteristics to the gods they invent. People can relate to the god because the god is so much like the person. I found that interesting because arguably a "god" would be no more like a person than the biologist is to a bacteria that they're growing in the laboratory. The analogy is logical if we consider a "bacteria that could think and reason" because the bacteria would "invent" the biologist with the same characteristics as the bacteria because the bacteria would have no foundation for imagining the biologist being anything different.

Only #1 is based upon observation. #2, #3, & #4 are all inventions of man. [/quote]
This is asserted, with no arguments or reasoning provided. How? You have NO WAY of 'knowing' that the universe originated by purely natural methods.. there is nothing empirical to suggest that.. that is simply a belief. If you state it dogmatically, it is a religious view. [/quote]

No, there's no way of knowing if a supernatural entity was responsible for the creation of the universe but no one has ever been able to provide a logical argument for the existence of a supernatural entity. Where did this entity come from and how did it come into existence? What we do know is that "creationism" (or it's stepchild natural design) is a fraud because it's one of hundred or thousands of different religious beliefs about the origin of the universe and life and it's not logical.

In Kansas a local school board wanted to introduce "natural design" (creationism) in the science classroom which would have been inappropriate but it would have a place in a philosophy classroom that does include religious beliefs. From an academic standpoint the subject of "creationism" would have to address all of the different religious beliefs in creation and not just the Christian belief and there are some really interesting (and funny) religious beliefs that "explain" the creation of the universe and life on Earth. If these varied beliefs, that are literally in the hundreds or thousands based upon the history of religion were all presented to the student they would reject them all based upon the absurdity of the beliefs and the scientific knowledge, as limited as it might be, of we do know. The school board in Kansas didn't want "creationism" taught because it would have addressed all religious beliefs in creationism. They wanted Christianity taught in their public schools because then it would not be equated to the absurdity of "creationism" based upon historical religious beliefs.

There's also something else that we can logically conclude. If a supernatural entity did exist it wouldn't be involved in the individual creation of anything except for providing the initial energy required to create the universe (i.e. the Big Bang). From there on it would be based upon the "laws of nature" that we continue to learn and understand. To have to repeatedly intervene, such as creating life on a planet, would reflect a rather stupid supernatural entity. It's also absurd to believe that a supernatural entity would be concerned with any life on a "personal" basis that would develop in a universe it created. By analogy it would be like the biologist caring about what each individual bacteria is "thinking about or doing" in the laboratory.

It's humorous that those that create religions and supernatural entities have such a limited concept of how intelligent the supernatural entity would have to be. This probably relates to the fact that people generally can't even grasp the concept of infinity where 0=1 and that 1=2 (both functions of infinity). What they propose is beyond their ability to even imagine. Of course they don't have to be able to imagine the attributes of a supernatural entity capable of creating the universe because many of the followers aren't even smart enough to understand AGW is real and why it's real.

So whether a supernatural entity was involved in the creation of the universe is irrelevant to the atheist because it doesn't change the fact that all religions known to mankind are a fraud and that the universe exists based upon the laws of nature.

The fact that the definition of "Empiricism" was misrepresented and false was not addressed.

I don't disparage the personal beliefs of anyone but do note that a "worldview" based upon ignorance isn't really a valid argument for anything. If someone wants to believe in god I don't have any problem with that and I don't go out of my way to influence them not to believe. I'll leave that to Richard Dawkins (a person I'd never even heard of until Christians brought him up).

I'm only sharing what lead me to ultimately reject all religions and it wasn't because someone tried to convince me to become an atheist or even included any investigation into what atheists had to say. It was based solely upon a personal investigation into religion where I was attempting to validate religion and the validation failed.

As long as a person keeps their religion "solely between themselves and their God" I have no problem with anything they believe. My only objection is when they attempt to force their religious beliefs upon me. When religion is used for political purposes then it's tyrannical and I oppose tyranny. Remove "In God We Trust" and "One Nation Under God" and stop the campaigns to violate the Right of a Woman to have an abortion and stop placing "religious advertisements" such as the Ten Commandments on our public buildings and stop discriminating against people based upon personal religious beliefs and we'll get along just fine. I would appreciate it if they stop brainwashing their children with religious beliefs before they're old enough to reason for themselves (i.e the age of majority that's typically 18 under the law) but I'm not going to insist upon that. I just believe they're doing a disservice to their children by brainwashing them with religious beliefs.

 

How are they not? You merely assert this. I have described them correctly just not exhaustively, which is the only valid criticism of this summary. But the OP was long enough, without posting disclaimer after disclaimer about hybrids, overlap, & other nuances of expression of 'world views'.

Injection of ad hominem. You have no idea of what i am aware of. You are merely trying to poison the well & discredit my points.

More assertions & dismissal. You have not rebutted my point with any reasoning or evidence.

More patronizing ad hominem.. are you ever going to make a case for YOUR opinion? Or are you going to just continue to dish out fallacies? I know we have had many 'discussions' over the years, & you have not always been happy with the outcome. But i suggest that this is YOUR problem, not mine. I have presented logical, sequential premises for analysis. So far, you have rebutted with fallacies.

You are mostly deflecting with technical terminology. You are not saying anything here that i was not implied in the OP, regarding term usage. I found it unnecessary to delve into a detailed definition of 'empiricism', & have gone with a general, common usage of the term. Those are fine qualifiers, which provide detail to the usage, but they do not contradict anything i said, as you assert. I have used 'empiricism' as synonymous with 'rationalism' or 'objectivism'.. i'm not going to quibble about fine points of definition, as my usage was general in nature, not an exhaustive examination of the term.

You offer no rebuttal, other than assertion, for my claim of 'empiricism' as the root of (and correlated with) the age of reason, the enlightenment, & the scientific revolution. How can you make such an assertion? You see NO correlation in those eras & the use of scientific methodology, reason, & empirical knowledge? You think 'empiricism' came from nowhere, & the scientific revolution just happened, without any empirical basis or emphasis?

Skepticism is a more difficult word, as it has different usages in different contexts. I was using it, & i stated that clearly, as the 'greek skepticism' definition.
From the OP:
I added a 4th, but don't really consider it a 'worldview' in its own right, because it is merely admitting ignorance. But there is an element of dogmatism in that view, too. Many not only claim 'agnosticism', but they claim that view is absolute. It is similar to #3 in that it claims that knowledge about these things are unknowable. So for that reason, i usually combine 3 & 4, as being the same basic worldview. It is reflected in Greek skepticism, "Nothing can be known, not even this". Carneades (c. 214 - 129 B.C.)
You seem to be taking the more common usage of the term, & critiquing my usage with it. I clearly defined my terms, so your objection is invalid, as my definition is also correct, in the right context.

You are again going into detail about the term, & alternate definitions, and are just critiquing my usage, which i defined for this discussion.

I see the correlation of the naturalistic world view, reflected in marxism, darwinism, & other 'isms' that insist on a naturalistic view of the universe, and the relativistic views within those ideologies. I have merely shown the correlation between the naturalistic views of the universe, & the consequential conclusions about relativity, regarding man. It seems to be fairly evident in modern society. Those who hold to a naturalistic only view seem more 'relative' than those who hold to a supernatural view. Claiming there are exceptions is not a rebuttal. I am not making any dogmatic statements, just general observations. I welcome any reasoned & evidenced rebuttal to my points, & would hope for a rational debate over them, not just assertions of disagreement. My POV is evidenced, by history, the evolution of ideology, & by following the tenets of the ideology. Of course there will be disagreement, but it should be grounded in something, not just belief.

 

...which is my point. These are all beliefs about the nature of the universe, with nothing empirical or factual to compel a conclusion in any of them. You cannot provide any 'absolute proof' of 'no possible existence of the supernatural', so it always has to be there.. lurking in the dark, waiting to spring out & surprise you.

In the same way a 'supernaturalist' cannot provide anything empirical or factual to compel his conclusions, so it, too, is an expression of belief, based on subjective experiences & influences.

Outside or inside.. steady state, or big bang.. matter is, & many surmise a 'cause' for it. And, many surmise a naturalistic view, with varying beliefs as to the specific details. But none have objective, empirical evidence. They are all based on suppositions, extrapolations, or assertions.

I submit to you that this is an example of a 'belief system'. You do not have anything that can PROVE your beliefs, empirically, yet it is your conclusion, based on the information you have, your experiences, influences, etc. How is your set of opinions expressed here any different than someone who posits alien seeding, or divine creation, or quantum gravity, string theory, oscillating, static, steady state, roman gods... the list goes on & on, for specific, detailed BELIEFS about the nature of the universe. Some have a few facts sprinkled in.. some are purely speculative.. some are visibly flawed. But they ALL are merely beliefs or opinions about the universe.

 

My belief that time is a dimension of our physical universe is based on empirical observation. It is nonsensical to say that time had a cause, so the universe has no cause. Maybe there is some supernatural thing out there, but it can't logically be credited with the creation of the universe, therefore I don't believe that the universe has a supernatural cause.

Relativity, which is where all of my claims here are deriving from, is different from alien seeding, divine creation, quantum gravity, string theory, Roman gods, etc. because it can be demonstrated and empirically verified. Even the satellites that your phone uses for GPS rely on relativity to work and have to calculate time dilation in order to operate.

Relativity isn't some fringe theory; it is an empirical observation. Denying relativity isn't like denying the existence of the Roman gods, it is like denying the existence of the sun. There is actually a really neat experiment you can do with a chocolate bar and a microwave to calculate the speed of light. Einstein realized that, if the speed of light does not change depending on your frame of reference (and we have observed that it doesn't), then time has to be relative. Sensitive clocks have been used to show that, yes, indeed, time is relative. If you are zooming around in a jet while your buddy is on the ground and you both have atomic clocks, those clocks will tick by at different speeds.

 

I think mankind would be astonished, if the entire truth of mankind was revealed. For indeed it is only the truth that can set us free, for anything else would be living a lie. Personally, I believe that is what were doing, and not just living one lie, but an incalculable amount of lies. For like knowledge in science is gained, so is knowledge in evil. Pharaohs, kings, queens, telling lies to their people as to take another kingdom for resources, gold, and power. Writing down ways to manipulate and deceive their own peoples as to sway them in a desired direction, and over time gaining great knowledge thereof, including today's technology that only takes away privacy, delivering more power to those in high places. Deception at it's best all throughout mankind. A continuous pattern that has plagued mankind from knowing the truth. Why was people enslaved with such evil intent? How is it that a group of people (army) can be persuaded into such evil, all for the ones giving orders, and receiving not death but wonderful foods, water, riches, power, and a complete life of luxury and happiness (of course until death approaches).

In my opinion, the "observations" of both good and evil, is an absolute proof of the existence of both God (love), and satan (evil). The manifestation from both entity's is abundantly clear and observable. Especially within the mind of every individual, where our thoughts are strictly our own either good or bad. The feeling of guiltless and the feeling of guilty, are established not by others but in our own individual minds. For before a court, judge, or peoples, finds someone guilty, they themselves already know they are. This is the spirit, and the knowledge thereof. This is what leaves us "without excuse".

 

I am not scared of you or any argument you have presented, Rahl...but if it makes your life more bearable to delude yourself into thinking that I am...be my guest.

It doesn't bother me...in fact, I actually get a kick out of it.

K?

 

As I said, I do not want to disguise what I am saying...so I do not use the words "believe" or "belief" that way.

If it is necessary for you to think that I am doing that out of ideology or terror or whatever...be my guest. I'll merely point out that is not why I am doing it.

I do not think it is terrifying...I just do not want to disguise what I am saying.

As I mentioned above, if it is necessary for you to think that I am doing that out of ideology or terror or whatever...be my guest.

In a way...although, and this might surprise you, I consider most conclusions about the REALITY of the universe or life to be blind guesses. Some people like to call their blind guesses "beliefs"...so that they can ask for respect for the blind guesses.

Anyone who says they KNOW how this thing we humans call "the universe" came into existence...whether theistic or atheistic...is kidding him/herself.

It is a mystery we may never solve...but in any case, it has not been solved at this time.

There is NO unambiguous evidence in either direction on the question of whether or not this "universe" is a creation or not.

I have NO IDEA of what you are talking about here.

What do you suppose my opinion, guess, "belief" is about this issue?

I ask, because I sure as hell do not know what my opinions, guesses, or "beliefs" are on the issue.

A lot of what you say makes LOTS of sense. But then you drift off.

(See my response directly above.)

We are five by five so far.

I'll read what you say next...BUT I DISAGREE WITH THIS PARAGRAPH COMPLETELY.

I have no fear of the word. I prefer to use other words.

Not sure why you have such a problem with that...but that is something you have to deal with.

Other than the rendition you offered for "I do not do 'believing"...there is nothing here I find appealing. It doesn't apply to me.

There is no way I deny subjectivity.

Not sure why you think I do.

I agree. There is a huge difference between facts and "beliefs."

Beats me why they do it. (I do have a guess which I will share if you want.) Many atheists seem to want to argue that the only reason they use the descriptor "atheist" is because they lack a "belief" in any deities. I think, guess, suppose, speculate, conjecture...that the reason for the use of the descriptor goes way beyond that.

Not at all. What you had to say was interesting.

When things get as involved as this is getting, though, it sometimes helps to focus on just one aspect of the issue...and resolve that, before moving on to others.

Perhaps you can pick out your primary disagreement with me (my position)...quote what I have said on the matter and lay out your disagreement. We can discuss it.

 

I correctly pointed out you are scared of the analogy frank. Not that you are scared of me or my argument.

 

I am not scared of you...or of any arguments you have made...including the ones that pretend to have included an analogy, Rahl.

But...really, if it makes you feel better about yourself to pretend I am...go for it.

It amuses me...so we have a win/win situation.

 

My voice will not my believe on Gud.

Maybe one Christian want Jesus Christ and I've realize he just 10 years from begun.

 

I didn't make an argument, or pretend anything. I correctly pointed out you are scared to address the analogy.

 

Last 3100 days I wanted Gud in my faith.

 

C'mon, Rahl.

You gotta do better than that.

Ole Ole is making more sense than you.