'kind of' means nothing as 'kind of' is not an absolute. Besides not being an absolute, the inference would tend to discredit the claim made by scientists... of course, you are not a scientist, so you are at liberty to attempt your own discredit of science.
Oh, and trying to trap me with words won't make the claim "there is a god" any more scientific, nor will it make "there is no god" any less the null hypothesis.
Actually you are a chum. Feel free to use either definition. "Principle Hypothesis testing works by collecting data and measuring how probable the particular set of data is, assuming the God hypothesis is true. If the data-set is very improbable (usually defined as observed less than 5% of the time), then the experimenter concludes that the God hypothesis is false. If the data do not contradict the God hypothesis, then only a weak conclusion can be made; that the observed data-set provides no strong evidence against the God hypothesis. In this case, the God hypothesis could be true or false; in some contexts this is interpreted as meaning that the data gives insufficient evidence to make any conclusion, on others it means that there is no evidence that for changing from a currently useful behavior to a different one." The word God as used in the above quote was originally "null", and the word 'behavior' was originally 'regime'. On this forum, the purpose of the Atheist and non-Theist for being in this 'religious' forum is to 'collect data-sets', PROBABLY to be entered into some giant data-base wherein a later analysis can be achieved using such data as is gathered here and other similar forums, for the purpose of attempting to prove that God does not exist. Once enough data is collected, then the null hypothesis would be rendered as 'false', and according to their particular form of 'logic', they could justifiably say that 'God does not exist' or 'there is no need to change our behavior because God does not exist'. The whole matter is 'Rationalization' (making excuses) to justify their own sordid behavior.
I said to some it is religion, and I said to Wolverine it was his blind faith and bigotry. Do not generalize my statements to all atheists when on this very thread I have specifically said otherwise. I'd be happy to have a polite conversation--but don't mistake polite to mean one can be insulted repeatedly and not respond with assertive rebuttal. A polite conversation requires both parties to be polite. BTW, it is not polite to make false accusations or misrepresent what others have said.
Make no mistake--I have said to YOU it is just like religion. I have known many atheists to whom it is just a lack of belief--not a belief system. You, however, are not one of those. That is why I made the distinction of "fanatical" atheists, as opposed to the run o' the mill atheist or agnostic.
yes, that is true. kind of like egyptian beliefs evolved into abrahamic; judaism, christianity, islam............. each cycle a new evolution from the previous combinations that is how science works too. no big deal to accept and understand I mean, even you are more capable of starting a fire, than jesus, moses or muhammed combined. Heck, most any 12 yr old kid could kick newton, einstein and tesla's butt on the usage of an iphone. In fact, if i had a bic lighter in the first century, i could have been called 'god'.
What is my belief system? Basing my opinion of the world on observations? Is that really a belief system akin to religion? No, it is not. Not even close. Now if I chose to accept views that contradicted observations, and held on to those beliefs under the guise of faith, then yes, that would be akin to religion. There is irony in this post.
That is good to know: Why? Because I also now know that your incessant spew of material relating to EM as being God or Jesus or "the name to know" is just a guess. No verifiable proof. So that is what all those Evolutionists are talking about. Perhaps not for you. Yep. Just a little potash, sulfur and sugar mixed tightly together can give you a good bang for the buck. Then of course there is the possibility of mixing a little chlorine (crystaline form as used in swimming pools) with a little bit of transmission fluid and like results will manifest. Well, that aint saying much,,, to me, those Iphones are a piece of crap. Give me the conventional keyboard along with its computer system and internet connection then I could probably give those guys you listed a run for their money. Or you could have been stoned to death for being labeled a demon.
Then you are admitting that you have no observations pertaining to the spiritual realm? Or are you admitting that the spiritual realm is an observable part of the world?
Or how about the third option that you conveniently omitted, there is no evidence to suggest the existence of the spiritual realm.
How about a fourth option that you, through ignorance of the subject matter and personal prejudice, conveniently omitted, there is a spiritual realm and it frightens you, therefore you reject all evidence of a spiritual realm? Because yours was not a question but rather a declaration, I will require you to prove that positive claim.
em is light, not god. Light is a part of existence/god. You are alive because of light (em). No choice in the matter. And light is a 'cross' of electric and magnetic fields nope. That is just from my research. imagine that, you are following 'science' versus bible. It's about time! you and your choice is obsolete. The kids are capable and apparently kicking your butt with capabilities in which they could be riding a skateboard and eating an ice-cream cone while typing on an iphone at 70wpm or like perhaps using the new software which allows just talking into it, and the print uploads by verbal commands. You and your beliefs are obsolete. i know........ because to out think the old timers, they would just as soon kill a smarter person or discount anything that is beyond their comprehension. kind of like you holding onto your keyboard and a modem connection.
did you know, i am often at the lake while posting onto this forum? Toes in the water under an umbrella, enjoying 'heaven'. that is how to ride the 'light'.
i see the relm. you hate evolution, so basically you hate the gifts (spirit) left of darwin's gift to existence (what he left, that is combining with mankinds knowledge) He started a spark and it will live forever. Idiots of the incorporeal BS will find them lies are a dead end and perish with nothing but garbage as their life's end. I kind of like making an example of people like you as then at least your loss of life is someone elses gain. kind of like eating; a life is gone to feed another. The incorporeal garbage is like a landfill!
what's the argument? talking is supernatural to an idiot. this computer is supernatural to many headhunters of the amazon jungle. A bic lighter would have been super natural to Jesus.
Possible, but I do not buy it. The various documentaries regarding the issues leave much to be desired...... such as a degree by those advocating the idea. How about we stick with the third instead of your ridiculous conspiracy? As for the proving the positive, look around you. This is simply ones of your ploys to sneak a negative in there and jump up and down when someone is unable to search all of time and space to disprove the existence of your fairy tale.
Is the "ridiculous conspiracy" hitting too close to home? Is that why you desire to disregard that option? Then remainder of your posting is nothing more than another of your biased and prejudicial statements that you are noted for. I look around me, and everywhere my vision focuses, I see God manifested into various forms. If you can't see likewise, then you might want to open your spiritual eyes.
You are reading too deeply. I suspect the ramped paranoia in your mind hampers your ability to read a sentence in a literal sense. If read literally, How about we stick with the third instead of your ridiculous conspiracy?, what exactly does that mean? I am very biased against the use of fallacies. I am very biased against the repeated use of these fallacies to prove a vague and essentially non-existent point. I am very biased against such fallacies being used for the foundation of an argument. I am very biased, I don't deny that. Asking someone to prove a negative is you fail safe fall back position to make yourself feel good.
It means that I need to question your intent for disregarding the 4th option. Why are you so biased? Again, why are you so biased? Well, in mathematics, a negative x a negative = a positive. How about that one?
Nietzsche declared that God is dead, not in a literal sense...but as a way of saying that people are no longer able to believe in any such Universal order since they themselves no longer recognize it. Nietzsche went on to predict that the death of God not only leads to the rejection of a belief of cosmic or physical order but also to a rejection of absolute values themselves. Say what what you will about him, madman or genius...but Nietzsche's foretelling of moral relativism predicts the 20th Century...the bloodiest 100 years in human history, fundamentally supported by two idealogues... fascism and communism...which take the concept of God out of the equation and plug in Aryan idealism as God in the case of fascism...and the State as God in the case of communism. Atheists envision some sort of utopian humanist World in the absence of religion... and Nietzsche is proving to be correct in the context of history. The absence of religion leads to disorder...not order. Though Nietzsche was a proponent of rejecting all Christian values, and that God was mere superstition... Man as God, simply doesn't work either...Nietzsche thought Nihlism was the natural order of things...so to speak.... and Nihlism..is where we seem to be headed.
Your supposed point of not being able to prove a negative is likewise meaning nothing. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/theory.html
