Is atheism non-belief in the existence of God or belief in the non-existence of God?
I can also say it as ;
God is naught or naught is God.
It's merely a matter of words and nothing more.
Finally it all boils down to the mindset one employ in approach to this life.
Thus ultimately determine whether it's unbelief or belief.
You can see either way one goes or even if he was to create other pairs of his own choosing it eventually boils down to the negative mindset which ultimately is the negative (unbelief).
Either way, it's just another form of delusion!
Are you referring to atheism??? Sorry, if there was something to perceive that atheists do not you might be right. But as there isn't any sign of "Him" or any colleague I don't think they are.
A belief in the non-existence of God. It doesn't even make any sense to me to say that you have a non-belief in something. What exactly is a "non-belief?" It's simply a belief that the thing in question doesn't exist.
I have a non-belief in fairies and trolls. See how weird this sounds? I have a belief in their non-existence, aka I believe they do not exist. Atheism makes the positive claim that God does not exist.
Atheists who claim "I lack belief in the existence of a God" means they have a belief that God does not exist. It's just playing a word game. Or, if atheism is a "non-belief" in the existence of God, meaning there are no beliefs one way or the other about God at all, then agnosticism is the better alternative, since the individual would not have beliefs about God one way or the other.
Either way, the first answer doesn't help the atheist.
P.S. I'm as close to being an atheist as an individual can be without being one. My hubs will show this.
Now that is logical. But I wonder how many atheists will accept this.
...Yet, everybody believes in something, no matter what that "something" is, unless, of course, you really are on hallucinogenics - as if a person was, anything is up for grabs, if ya will...
Belief is confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. It is impossible to believe in the non existence of something. End of story.
Is a'lo'ism non-belief in the existence of Lo or belief in the non-existence of Lo?
PS: Lo is Jupiter's moon.
Aloists in the former category would state: "I don't believe in the existence of Lo."
Aloists in the latter category would state: "I believe that Lo doesn't exist."
Irrespective of their beliefs Lo exists(or don't exist)!!
Ps: Belief is the confidence we have, that a given statement is true!
That is actually the point of the first formulation: "I don't believe in the existence of Lo."
When I am saying, essentially, "I do not accept as true the existence of Lo" I am not precluding the possibility of Lo's existence.
So when somebody say they believe or not believe in god what they are saying in effect is that they don't believe or not believe that statement.
Lo exists, whether I trust the scientists or not.
Similarly god exist or not exist based on the reasoning, people who believe or not believe is just putting their trust on another people instead of using reasoning/critical thinking.
From what I think, its a belief in the non-existence of God
99% of all self proclaimed atheists that I have met (including myself) define themselves as an atheist simply because they lack belief in a god.
As do I, most of these atheists claim to be agnostic. It is rare to find an atheist who claims adomantly that there is no god. It happens, but they are in the minority. Gnosticism is not a logical position when on the topic of a god since neither way can be demonstrated to be true.
It is my understanding that Atheism is a rejection of the belief system. A Theism is a belief in something.
The OED2 partially agrees with you:
"Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God."
Here are the definitions from the more relevant Princeton lexical database (wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn):
the doctrine or belief that there is no God
a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods
How about theists are in denial of the non-existence of a god?
Really, it depends on the atheist. For me, it's the former. Some atheists subscribe to a more positive formulation, often referred to as "strong" atheism.
This question comes up a lot. I'm curious why. As Chasuk said, it depends on the individual. Just as the religious individual has unique reasons for thinking as they do.
I realize the religious would like to put it into a pretty package so they could fine tune a sales pitch, but I don't think that is going to happen.
Switch a couple words around, and you'll define science...
The choice is in the mind of the person asking the question - I have no thoughts about what I might call myself because I don't believe in fairy stories.
I guess the person asking would believe in a god or they not be asking such stupid questions in the first place.
Nihilism is non-belief or a belief in nothing.
Atheism is the rejection theological doctrines and or precepts.
Theism is the absolute immersion into a doctrine, belief or religious sect.
These are my definitions, if one doesn't agree, they should read a dictionary.
I agree with kess. "It's merely a matter of words and nothing more."
Why so much of disagreement on the meaning of atheism? If I were to aask a simple question "Does God exist?" what would an atheist answer? He would say "No". So does he not believe that God does not exist?
The atheist answer would generally be "I don't know", stop putting words into the mouths of others. I'm not an atheist, but I really can't say that God exists either. I believe it is a conceptual, context thing and has nothing to with anything truly pertinent....
Well, i guess the answer must be a question, "What god?", "What are the characteristics of this god?", after assessing the characteristics of that god one can make a decision.
Imagine someone says his god is one particular mug, if i can see the mug and the persons around me can review and confirm my observation i have no reason to doubt that god, but if the person makes claims that the mug has some supernatural powers, well, i guess i have to remain skeptic until proof is shown.
"The atheist answer would generally be 'I don't know'"
Sorry but that is Agnosticism.
There are atheists bent on the idea, but they are not the majority. The assumption that they are strictly biased to God, is a judgement made with a great general overtone. My brother hangs out with an atheist community and I never heard them say no to that question. The only answer I've really ever gotten was "I really can't say".
Atheism and agnosticism doesn't exclude one another, probably the great majority, like 95%, of atheists are agnostics:
The atheist is an "agnostic atheist" when they don't want to be an atheist but feel that the burden of proof to think otherwise, just isn't there... A lot of "strong atheists" despise religion so much that they can't even see straight on the matter and refuse anything with the word "God" in it.
I see what some of y'all are saying, but I really wished things would have just stayed "theist, agnostic or atheist." I mean, why have so many additional titles? I just don't understand...
Oh, and yes, atheism is a belief whether they admit it or not...
Sure, the burden of proof is always in the one who makes the claim.
Well, i despise religions and i reject all the claims in the supernatural or paranormal, of course i will change my mind if proof is given, but i suspect i will die before that happens.
There are many additional titles because there are many different persons...
I can understand that religious people have a narrow mindset, and they always tend to see all things as "beliefs", it is particularly difficult to argue with this kind of people, they simple don't follow the rules and don't accept facts, because it's their "belief", atheism is a belief in the same way not believing in Santa Claus is a belief, atheism is a belief in the same way not believing in the tooth fairy is a belief, but i think when someone speaks in belief it is related with faith, well, atheism has nothing to do with faith!
OMG! You just related the mysteries of life and the creation of the cosmos with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy! Talk about being lame...
You are not being fair, i related the belief in gods with Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy!
...And your point is?
You made it look like what is really was..
That's not fair to make them be truthful about the relationship...
My point is that you were being dishonest, because i said nothing about the mysteries of life or the beginning of the universe...
I just compared the belief in gods with the belief in any other fairy tail, there is no difference between them...
"Sure, the burden of proof is always in the one who makes the claim."
Atheists are also making claims so this applies to you also.
Good answer, but I am sure Atheists claim they have facts on their side.
Hmmm.... they cant mean Science ,because even Christians believe in Science (it defines Gods creation)...unless non-believers have figured out how to create something from nothing?
(No, the dirt was already created) so you gotta start from scratch...
Hmmm now about those facts?
I wish that people would stop bringing the arguments to threads that have nothing to do with them.
The Church blocked science, in fact in informed people that the world was flat and always would be. Even though long before Jesus, one of the great philosophers stated that it was round. Then, after the Church and Jesus, others began to make such claims and were called heretics and all their works were burned. Yet Christians believe in science? You expect me to believe that? I tell you what, I'll believe it when Christians can figure out the difference between fact and theory.
Oh, Gawd... I suppose you believe in the "theory of evolution," as well? If so, get help, soon...
You bring up old stories of ignorant Church. It has been recorded in the Bible in a book that was written atleast 2000 BC that the earth is round. Some in the RC church ignorant of the Bible taught that the earth was flat. They wanted the control and that is why they taught the lies and even blocked science. But that is a different story. I though I will just put that in.
They claim that A God does not exist.
The claim is "god exists". Unless you can State what this 'god' thing is and explain rationally its presence, "there is nothing called God", is the default, not a positive claim. The onus on 'Proving' falls on the one who makes the positive claim.
That 'there is nothing called God', is the default," is your claim. That it is the default is your claim.
Yes, and that has to stay like that until proof is given, because there is no single piece of evidence for any god ever described to exist, 'there is nothing called God' is the default position and the only reasonable one.
Well if that is a claim then you are supposed to provide evidences for your claim.
Here is my claim. "God exists and that is the default". That claim has to stay lie that until proof is given, because there is no single piece of evidence for your claim that God doe not exist, 'there is God' is the default position and the only reasonable one.
What you understand is that what you say can be applied to you as well.
It is not a claim, it is the default position!
It's like "a man is innocent until proven otherwise", the default position is not assuming someone is guilty but the otherwise, in order for someone to be convicted you have to prove that he his guilty, the man doesn't have to prove he his innocent.
Other example, the default position about the Sun, is "there is no Sun", but with the huge amount of evidence of a star in the center of our solar system, one can CLAIM the Sun exists.
Do you understand and agree with this?
You claim that it is the default position. I do not agree.
That's the man operates. That is not the way God operates. Let me ask you a question. A murderer is brought to trial. Your default position is he is innocent. If they are unable to prove that he committed the murder what does that make him? Innocent? The fat is he is a murderer. Your way of working or what you assume does not change the fact.
Also note that this is the right way to operate in this world. I agree completely. But that does not apply when you are dealing with God.
Sun exist, is that a claim?
SFM does not exist, is that a claim?
A claim is "an assertion of something as a fact". If it is a fact, it is not a claim. Sun is not a claim because we can see or explain about sun. SFM is a claim because you cannot do either.
Nobody has seen god, only people like you, making such claims. For normal humanity god is just an explanation(an irrational explanation).
No god unless "proven" otherwise!!
Then I make the claim that there is an even mightier being that created your god [and the rest of the universe out of which your god has created his smaller one] called the flying spaghetti monster. Now, can you prove to me that my being does not exist and hasn't created your god? I even have texts written by IT through humans proving its existence.
I need not prove to you that your being does not exist because I did not claim that it does not exist. If you say that there is a being greater that God who created Him I would say I do not know if such a being exists. But I would not be foolish enough to make a blatant statement that such a being does not exist.
I only question those of positively affirm that God does not exist.
I would liken this (question) to THIS question: Is there such a "thing" as darkness? ... or is it (darkness) simply the absence of light?
How is it similar? Could you explain?
Sorry, augustine.... I won't bite for that. My submittal should be self-explanatory... and if you don't see that, then I can't drill it in to your head any other way....
Alright you would like to play it safe. I am fine with that. Let us see.
Yes darkness is the absence of light. I agree. But when there is absence of light in a room there is presence of something. What is present is not a thing, however we still call whatever is present there "darkness".
Another angle to it. What is light anyway? It is not a thing either!
We agree.... some "things" aren't "things" after all.... only the consequences of "not (something else)".... light/darkness, quenched/thirsty, white/black, sexuality/chastity.... .the list is extensive... and makes a fun "thinking game" to come up with others...
"What is light, anyway?" is a great question.... and better minds that your's (maybe) and mine (certainly) have struggled with that "concept" for decades.... Remember "the ether?" "We" couldn't get our hands around a "vacuum."
Except that light _is_ a "thing," at least in the sense that it is capable of affecting unarguably existent things. It exerts pressure. It refracts. It has a measurable wavelength.
I think you are chipping at the edges of just the dilemma that I am referring to.... Is light a particle (photon) or a wave (only motion of other "things")?
If you substitute "heat" for light and "cold" for darkness, don't you end up with a similar dilemma?
What dilemma? Do you live on Pluto?
The "dilemma" is seeing/touching/knowing about something tangible, versus using a noun ("cold" or "darkness" ) for something that is intangible but which, in our lexicon, we speak of as if if WERE "something"......
Look at the sun, stare at it if ya will, and tell me that it isn't tangible! Ha-ha!
cold is an absence of heat.. darkness is an absence of light..
Heat is tangible.. light is visable.
Heat is energy which produces light......
Is this hard to understand for most people or something?
When you read your email you will see that darkness is the absence of ight as explained by A Einstein.
All believers are also atheists, by definition. (Except UUs, perhaps.). To believe in Jehovah/YHWH, you must non-believe in Qutezlcoatl or Zeus. To believe in Odin, you must disbelieve in Shiva or Jehovah.
Atheists just go one god further.
This is probably the best response to atheism I have seen on HubPages.
Spot on, Scott.
Thanks! I can't take credit, though - I heard it from Richard Dawkins...
JAMES! how are you?
Holy crap! I'm not James, but how are you?
I haven't talked to you in ages, it seems. Yeah, remember me? I'm the diverse being from the spaceship...
What is wrong with you?
You want to be stuck here on earth like they did our fellow beings on saturn??
Don't make me transport over there!
Geeshhh... The humans are rubbing off on you....
You say, "Geeshhh... The humans are rubbing off on you...."
Well, why is it that the ones doing the "rubbing off" are not doing it right?
I do have standards, ya know?
What do you expect from something that thinks they advance without innovative design? They think they "generate" and "degenerate" both without any effort.. lol Maybe they'll figure out they are seperate processes one day.
They are worse than space worms.
OMG! How are YOU?! L o n g time. Much to discuss...
You said "to believe in Jehovah/YHWH, you must non-believe in Qutezlcoatl or Zeus." So that also means to non-believe in Qutezlcoatl or Zeus I must believe in Jehovah or someone else. So atheist also believes something to non-believe in God. Right?
The account of atheism that Dawkins originated and scottcgruber shared is clever, but it is wrong. First, it is only applicable if one assumes monotheism. A monotheist -- a believer in one God -- automatically excludes belief in Quetzalcoatl (and all other Gods) by believing in Odin. An atheist believes in no gods. One cannot believe in one god only and no gods simultaneously.
Atheism is only a point of view, I am afraid, can not be regarded as a kind of belief.
You don't believe in your "points of view?" They sell hallucinogenics, just down the road, eh?
So "believing" in evolution doesn't make it your "belief"???
Am I missing something here? lol..
A belief is "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof" there is a difference between, the bible says God exists, the evidence says that evolution is correct.
You must not know yet.. Let me help.
Evolution is a "theory"
Has no answer for the beginning of life, and missing links without number..
They have less evidence than creationists have and draw lots of cartoons. It's called a sustaining circle.
Please explain how the evidence says it is correct?
Because it is impossible to do so.
Need to do some more homework first next time.
You need to do your research, there are mountains of physical evidence proving evolution, and beyond the "bible says so" or I don't understand therefore "magic" arguments creationism has no legs to stand on.
I know more than you about evolution I assure you, I don't back something I do not have full knowledge of. I know its a theory, but so is gravity.
Come on down and show me then... I have a "Hub" about it, as well...
Explanation of the the first replicating cell and it's origin then please.
And you have no clue what I know so you are very bold to say you know more.
Please provide your proof now. If there are indeed mountains of proof for the first cell.
Scientific theory is different than someones' "theory" of something. It's scientific theory, which is based on facts. If one puts the musical notes c,e,and g together, it becomes a "C" chord. That is a fact. Yet the procedure is called "music theory".
It is actually "cosmic poetry," blah, blah!
It still lacks foundation.
The most important fact is how something 'begins'..
You can't build something, on nothing..
All the facts mean nothing if the "nothing" they built them on turns out to be "something"...
That's pretty deep. But you're assuming that some one, or entity, needs to start something. Can't something just "happen"? Like the big bang (theory)?
That's my point man.
Does anything "just happen" or do we always find something "caused" the "effect"?
Of course we do. Wind causes waves. They don't just happen.
The sun produces light. It just happen? No, it's a chemical process called nuclear fusion emiting light.
When ripples form on top of a pond, even though you can't see what caused it, does that mean it just happened? No, the indirect evidence you see on the surface is the result of something below the surface called a fish. We know fish exist so we know what causes large ripples most of the time.
Now if everything else works this way, why do athiests think it's so intelligent to assume something "just happened" when that sounds like something a child tells it's mother?
There is nothing in the known existence of the universe that doesn't have a "cause" and they think it's any different with the universe itself?
I've been doing this a long time with non-believers and the longer I do it the more obvious it is to me God is real and the Bible is true.
They can't get past judging the people God used to write His Word to even consider it. If they don't review it in it's entirety and pick it apart, OF COURSE they aren't going to see anything in it.. lol
And yes, the Bang Theory is accepted by me.. If God created the Heavens and the Earth [universe] in 6 days, the explosion of activity would probably be immense.
Evolution and millions of years though? No way.
Volcanos, melting ice, climate changes.. Every time I see some secular scientists studying the earth I hear the SAME THING..
"The changes are much faster than we thought."
"Our estimates were no where near this large."
"Such massive changes over short time. It's unlike anything we've ever seen."
I nearly died laughing yesterday. I couldn't stop laughing with all their baffled expressions.. lol
If they weren't looking into a billion year pit they would quit being so baffled about large rapid changes.
Supposedly, as I haven't looked into it in a while [ I debate, then stop for awhile.. repeat ], they found a leg bone of a dino with MARROW in it still..
That puts evolution in it's grave forever......
I'll look for it too. If you are genuinely interested.
Just ask if you want it and I'll look again, cuz I aint searching for nothing.
Which means that the bones formed a protective covering over the marrow just like amber covered fossilized insects. You might want to add that Woolly Mammoths have been found with the entire carcass preserved enough to eat. Just saying.
You have your theories... based on a religious book and others have their theories based on scientific data.
Mammoths in ice, were preserved...
The bone aint froze.. you do get the difference?
And if you think that bone will protect the marrow over a million years I suggest you stop explaining decay rates now for your own sake.
Run along and quit trolling with useless accusations.
Moving very close to personal attacks there. Just saying.
Here's a useless accusation... the area that the dinosaur fossil was found in contained peat bogs.
Here's another... The marrow wasn't fresh, not even close. The bone had been completely sealed therefore fresh air/bacteria could not enter to decay. Even at that the "marrow" had degraded to the point that it wasn't really marrow at all. It was simply capable of being re-hydrated and chemically stained to be recognizable.
There is not one shred of evidence that your idea of what this discovery means is anything but your own. If you have such evidence please present it. If not then yield point.
*Edit: Nice removal of the troll comment. If you learn to control your temper enough to post in the first place then you won't need to edit again.
*Edit 2: Indecision much?
I'll take that as yielding point. Thank you.
The comment was edited to correct intent, not removed.
Goodbye does not mean "I give"..
Just in case you needed to know.
Goodbye means.. goodbye..
This is contentious on so many levels. God used people to write his word, yet some of the books didn't make the cut; they was chosen by emperor Constantine, who identified Christianity as the perfect method of control. So, were those books sub-standard? If they were God's word, how could that be?
And science has proven carbon dating to be accurate. I concede that science is ever changing/improving, but that's what makes it flexible. Beliefs tend to be rigid.
Also, if I understand your line of reason, everything had to start somewhere. I submit this to you: when did God start? If your answer is he/she was always there, why would it be so hard to believe that everything else hasn't always been there? According to Krishna, there was never a time you didn't exist, and there will never be a time when you don't (channeling George Harrison).
Well, much of Eastern belief hints that the Universe itself is "God." But not the Cosmic Sheriff kind of Divinity, of course. And certainly not the idea of God most Westerners have in general. Something completely different. More of a transcendental "force" that the life we observe springs from, all of us are part of it, can choose to be one with it (through meditation and the like, or rather realize that we are all a part of it already, actually) but we have no true obligations and it need not be worshipped, it doesn't judge, it isn't good or bad, it needn't and doesn't claim "ownership" over us. It just is. And how we approach it is a manner of our own choosing. But it is more fitting for our fellow beings and ourselves if we choose a balanced path. That's not everything, but that's a taste. I find Eastern thoughts/beliefs fascinating, though I adhere to none.
That's the way I like to see God; as the power source of the universe of which we are all extensions. The idea of a guy upstairs keeping score just reeks of a way to control the masses. Like I told Insane before, I choose to believe in a power, not a punisher.
E=MC2 doesn't equal evolution, dear challenged one! LOL!
He believes cartoon pretenses = reality
And he isn't going to get that Insane lol...
btw, getitrite... get it right... it's a theory, unproven, and with no foundation, and countless problems.
You complain about people believing in something without understanding, yet you don't have a clue about the details of what you're pushing.
Ah, that would explain all of his depictions and pictorial posts then...
vector, Insane: Please look at peanutroaster's reference. Look at it.... Then, after you've viewed it, tell me just WHAT do you have as "evidence" that Creation took place?????
For purposes of this question, you should NOT consider that you may cite a book which was written some 200-400 years after the events, claimed therein, took place.... you MUST offer SCIENTIFIC proof of what you claim.
"Scientific" is NOT allowed to be defined as "at odds with religious teachings" but MUST be accepted as "the scheme by which hypotheses are shown ("proven") to be accurate ("correct") because they can be seen, measured and verified.... AND that verification can be duplicated....
P.S. I'm STILL waiting for Jesus Christ to show his face in my neighborhood!!!!!
Have ya looked at the sun yet? LOL!
Maybe he doesn't know that the sun ins't a fire ball but a nuclear fusion power plant.
I wonder how it got there?
Oh yeah, from nothing.
I wouldn't consider gigatons of hydrogen to be "nothing"....
If you have ever seen a ball fall to the ground, you know about gravity. It works on hydrogen, too, bringing it together to form a large ball of gas. Being the simplest element possible there is a LOT of hydrogen in the universe.
OK! Since you two mental giants are so awesome, I think we should cancel science, and all believe in magic.
I bet they subscribe the Stork Theory:
http://gnuatheism.blogspot.com/2012/03/ … heory.html
Legit as creationism...
Yeah, we already know you believe in magic..
Why do you assume that this is what I believe? Actually my stance is that I don't know what happened.
It's much better than your beliefs...which causes you to constantly worry that some mythical savior and his father might send you to hell.
"I don't know what happened, but God doesn't exist."
Again, stop the childish and premature assumptions. I have not stated that God does not exist. My stance is that there is no evidence for the existence of a God.
Furthermore, I think the god that you, personally, believe in shows a completely foolish, backward, and elementary thinking pattern regarding the unknown.
Hence, YOUR beliefs are childish, foolish, ridiculous, absurd...!
"Your God is just as imaginary as the other gods."
Thread: If there is a God, why would he care for christians alone?
You're getting silly sir.
If the others are imaginary, and so is mine.. What is left?
No God... Which is exactly what you've said before.
But I figured I'd use fresh material to be fair..
Lying is not nice.
Oh and uh...
Because he said that your God and all of the other Gods are imaginary, doesn't necessarily mean that He's saying A God doesn't exist, it's just that all the ones currently spoken of as God don't have enough proof that they are in existence, in his opinion, thus he calls them imaginary. It's not necessarily the same as saying the existence of God is "impossible," just that it's not well-proven.
I don't make things up sweety. I believe in honesty.
"The thought that God and Satan may exist is completely absurd to people who have the courage to use their common sense."
Thread:Atheists, why bother visiting insane Christian forums?
He said it, and he lied about not saying it.
He doesn't like to admit it when his plans backfire on him.
Unfortunately, I'm around to call him on it.
Actually you are here to make yourself look foolish, by taking things out of context, and jumping to conclusions. It seems that you have a severe comprehension problem. Jesus must be proud.
They can read the posts, I included the thread genius.
I love how you are so twisted when your words are blatent.
Good! Then everyone can see how you took my statements out of context...genius.
Calm down dude. Then go back and make sure you're not mistaken. Do this by actually reading the entire conversations where you lifted the isolated statements.
You also keep forgetting that your version of a deity is NOT the only imaginary being associated with the term god. All beliefs actually seem synonymous with delusion. No evidence of any god involved whatsoever.
Based upon a lifetime of observation, and years of scientific research and experimentation, I have no more need to go around shouting that I believe in a god than I do the Easter Bunny..
You're a grownup who believes in Santa Claus, yet you refer to someone else as silly.
Reality. There is no evidence to support the existence of a ANY God.
So far the only gods you have come up with are imaginary...but in staying within the parameters of science, it is apparent that one cannot state an absolute. That's why logically I must state that "there is no evidence to support the existence of a God"
Apparently it's perfectly ok to lie and slander for Jesus. What a wonderful psychotic savior you serve.
You harass any notion presented regarding the belief of any god..
You are so mentally confused you don't know what you're doing here.
All you do, do, is harass other people's beliefs, and present nothing but insults.
And your broken record insults are getting quite sad.
Asking you to confirm your claims is not harassment. In fact it's civil discourse...until you get angry because you have nothing of substance to back your claims.
Yet I'm not the one making false testimonies, then when asked for proof get angry, and hurl immature, vicious insults.
And all you've done is insult our intelligence with the garbage you've tried to present to us as truth. I have been straightforward with my objections to your outlandish claims. I presented, and laid out, some of the contradictions, and outright silliness of your beliefs, but you see it as nothing but INSULTS?!!!
Actually there are plenty of evidences for God you just do not have the ability to see it. Science is man's study and your problem you want God to provable but the man's knowledge. That is the error and unless you understand the error you will not see any evidences.
That's because I'm not delusional.
BTW, can you see the evidence for the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The evidence is there, you just don't have the ability to see it. GET REAL!!!
Since we are human, how can we see anything other than through man's knowledge. Are you just spouting off nonsense to make yourself appear to know something on a preterhuman scale, or do you really have a logical claim for making such an assertion?
LoL, I can't remember who I was talking to, it may have my boyfriend... anyways, whoever it was was saying how one day the people who came up with the idea of the Flying Spaghetti Monster who were indeed kidding and mocking Christianity and other religions, may have created something that people in the future might actually refer back to and become convinced that IS actually real and there would be this whole Flying Spaghetti Monster religion. I doubt it. But it tickles me to think about.
We are human yet er do have a spirit. What we can't see whit our physical knowledge God reveals to us in the spirit. But you do not understand that there could be anything other than the physics you see. So you cannot see the evidences of the existences of God. But you can see if you believe in Him.
That's called delusion. Nothing more than delusion. You have not been given any special ability by some imaginary, invisible entity. That is completely childish and foolish. This is a narcissistic disconnect from reality.
How can you say this? You are being judgmental without knowing anything about me. I know more about me that you do. And yes I do have some special gifts. You can't deny this because you do not know me.
I would like to know the special sense organ you got by which you see god!
You're right. I can't prove anything. For all I know you could be Ironman, cleverly disguised as augustine72.
But there is a guy named James Randi who is offering a 1 million dollar prize to anyone who can show evidence of any paranormal or supernatural activity. You should apply. It seems that you are so sure of your ability, that you should win the money with no doubt, and silence your detractors.
Here is the application: www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challen … ation.html
Nope. Don't see any truth there.
You have no conclusion for cause of the material universe.
Evolution is atheism's claim to fame, and it says everything came from nothing.
Wait, your picture doesn't even mention anything about the beginning of everything.
And if they deny it because they don't have any evidence or follow any information whatsoever... well, that's just claiming "I prefer ignorance."
Back to the drawing board?
I agree with you, Atheism doesn't make any claims about the beginning of the universe or beginning and evolution of life on earth we trust in science for that...
The prefix of "A" comes from the Latin language and means "without". Hence, "A"theism means without theism.
I am an atheist and I am without belief in a god. The word only describes what is lacking (belief) and does not denote or require any belief in anything else.
You dont have to believe in evolution in order to not believe in a god. That would be silly.
He doesnt have to go back to the drawing board since he is 100% accurate.
You just dont like it when you have nothing to argue against.
P.S. The theory of evolution doesnt say anything about things comeing from nothing. It explains how life forms evolve. It doesnt say a single thing about the origin of anything at all. The only thing I know of that claims something came from nothing, is religion, you know, when god magicked the universe in to existence.
You might want to do some research and get some better arguments......
God is not nothing number one.
Number two, MY POST regarded the beginning of everything being the reason it's silly not to believe in God because everything in existence is complex and with design.
We extract designs from the world in which we live, therefore the world in which we live must have been designed.
How can you obtain a design from that which has no design?
And how can something which by nature holds design in it's very structure itself not have been designed?
He answered my post with what? A definition of atheism?
Yes, we know the claim "no God" as that is simply understood.
To ignore the latter subject of my post and reasoning and say, "we don't need that to 'not believe' is silly as everyone knows you obviously don't need anything to not believe in anything.
The point was the answer to the outcome of existence and the cause which "created" the effect.
Atheists believe in what then? Nothing about nothing?
And I need the better argument? lol
Are you a pantheist?
Lets back up a minute there. Design? Where? Cancer? HIV? The horrible reality of survival?
Who says the universe needed a "cause" and what shows it was "created"?
Atheists can believe in anything they want as long as it isnt a god. They coud believe in santa claus that still wouldn't negate them being an atheist.
Considering your original argument seemed to be a mish mash of something about evolution and something from nothing, Im not sure you even have an argument.
Man is so insanely arrogant to think the universe is about nothing but him. Where does the idea of causation stem? I would venture it comes from our experiences as humans - but what experiences do we have concerning initial cause? Why do we assume an initial cause is necessary?
We see life - it starts and stops.
We see machines - they are built and become nonfunctional.
We have never seen a beginning or an end to a universe - why do we think that what pertains to our measley lives and experiences has any bearing on an eternal universe?
We fit our interpretations of data and our cosmological notions into a box that is outlined by our biases - beginnings and ends - but there is nothing other than life and machinery to base that bias upon.
Name something in the earth's atmosphere without a cause for it's effect.
If you don't follow through with a response pertaining to my above statement, I will gladly leave it at this and post no further.
My point will have been proven effectively.
Now you know why I never reply to you.
Sarcastic thread cluttering.
I don't mind sarcasm, but that was pointless.
If you want logical arguments put proper premises, not logical fallacies.
That is another logical fallacy, argumentum ad hominem.
Jeeze Jomine, did you ever take Symbolic Logic in university? I did, and found it absolutely marvelous-still have Leonard Copi's books, "Intro to Logic" and "Symbolic Logic"...think those were the exact titles, but I'm not certain. I even aced SL! What a grand tool for teaching thinking, logic is. Argumentum ad hominem did tip me off!
Its from 'the art of deception' by Nicholas Capaldi, a book that teaches practical logic.
Ahh, I'll have to check that out. Have you ever heard of Copi?
No. There is another book 'introduction to logic' but I think the authors name is Patric, but can't say for sure.
Copi did write a book called "Introduction to Logic" I think-if a senior moment hasn't stepped in.
Of course not. It doesn't support your psychotic beliefs.
Your inability to disregard your presupposition is the real problem to the answer.
Nope. The Theory of Evolution is totally separate from Atheism. An atheist DOES NOT have to concern himself with Evolution at all to see that there is no evidence supporting the existence of a god. You just can't stop misrepresenting people.
If everything did not come from nothing, then WHERE DID YOUR GOD GET THE MATERIAL TO CREATE EVERYTHING! Oh! He made it from nothing.
Yep, because you still have NOTHING, as usual.
You may not know that when the theory of evolution was presented by Darwin the Atheistic scientists who were holding key positions then fought tooth and nail to promote it because they had now got an alternative to creation theory and with this theory they could promote atheism. Thanks to their effort today the theory of evolution is considered a scientific fact.
Ok. Let's dismiss the Theory of Evolution.
Do you have evidence for the existence of a god?
Atheist don't base their non belief in gods on the Theory of Evolution or the Big Bang, or anything other than...there is no evidence supporting the existence of a god.
Atheism is a lack of belief.
Insane Mundane: I'm quite certain that you are trying to be "cute" with your submittals.... but, in this case, for example, the "answer" is so obvious that I simply MUST call you on it......
Atheism is a lack of belief THAT THERE IS A GOD OR SOME "SUPREME BEING".....
There, IM.... that's your "in what?".... now please go back to your cookies and milk, take your nap when your Mommy tells you to do so..... and wait until you have something ADULT to offer before putting any (more) of your inane comments on this real, adult thread!!!!
So, you "believe" there is no God? Your extra verbiage goes into the trash can, little guy...
The definition of belief is: confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof.
You can't believe something doesn't exist.
So if I say big orange super rocks that make orange juice are in outer space..
You have to believe it exists because you can't believe something doesn't exist?
Well as the laws of physics apply to the whole universe it is impossible for such a "rock" to produce orange-juice, no matter where. So there is no necessity again to believe such a thing. And augustine72 is right that it is not the atheists claiming something but the theists. They are seeing things and therefore would have to prove that what they see does not just exist in their imagination, atheists are not ignoring things as there never has been anything that could be ignored till today. By the way I've heard fabulous stories of the effect of LSD et al. where people talked to trees and swore they existed until they came "back". They were the only ones who have "seen" the talking tree. If they hadn't know they were on a trip, they would have had a hard time convincing the non-trippers of what they have experienced.
The semantics were the topic, not the orange super rocks claim.
Hehe, V7! Hey, why aren't you V8? Love the stuff, as should you-it's good for you, you know!
But is that not what atheists are trying to do?
Oh, geez, now you're telling me that you "believe" in the dictionary... LOL!
belief (n) - Bing Dictionary
be·lief [ bi lf ] Audio player
acceptance of truth of something: acceptance by the mind that something is true or real, often underpinned by an emotional or spiritual sense of certainty
trust: confidence that somebody or something is good or will be effective
something that somebody believes in: a statement, principle, or doctrine that a person or group accepts as true
Where do you get your definitons from anyway?
The oxford dictionary, and even by that looser definition, you can't believe in the non existence of something.
You can't believe that there is not a God?
Could you tell me what that phrase means now?
It means that the non-existence of something is something you can't "believe" in, not that you can't have a an opinion that god doesn't exist, I am merely answering the question. Why do you insist on turning this discussion into something it isn't?
Could you explain why non-existence is something you can't believe in?
So all of these defintions that the majority of the rest of the world agrees on are wrong?
You can not believe in the dictionary, because it is immediately susceptible to rigorous proof, its just fact that it exists. You are throwing words around incorrectly. and really this should end the discussion on this thread, because I have 100%, no doubt answered the question. I hope that the OP reads this. Anyways, both of you can stop replying to me if you don't have anything real to say.
FOT: I'll "join" you in ignoring any future submittals from those who really aren't intent on adding anything to this thread. Seems they only want to "see their names in lights"!!!!!
That was Insane's comment hot shot..
Are you lost?
And enforcement may be necessary because I just might post where I see fit.
You got it, IM.... The rest of the verbage is meant to "ask" you (or shame you) in to posting submittals that we could believe were actually made by an adult.....
Are you suffering from "adult denial" or something? Why do you speak of such?
I am not here to teach you, do your own research, your knowledge is not my problem, now, you have an innate inability to stay on topic with the thread, I will not be responding to you any longer, as long as it is off-topic.
I'm just going to unfollow this, I have answered the question factually based on the actual definition of belief, I don't feel the need to deal with people who can't stay on topic.
Your definition of belief is a definition of religion.
If I believe a person is capable of something, then I have belief in them.
If I believe this because I have had proof they are capable it does not mean that because I believe with proof that I have no belief in them.
My belief is simply validated..
A simple point to anything illogical there?
Your belief in them is usually not susceptible to "immediate rigorous proof" and if it is, then it is no longer a belief, and it is just a fact that they can do whatever it is.
I don't know why hub pages wont stop notifying me, but, all those definitions are the same, and all support what I am saying. Good job.
Do ya believe? LOL!
What she doesn't know is that evolution isn't a fact but a belief.
Which she clarified very well for me.
I am not a she. You dumb bitch.
That wasn't necessary. Your thumbnail includes long hair and half a face.
I suggest you act like a civilized person.
Oh, cool... Can we start calling each other a "bitch" on here? Thanks!
Oh god tell your parents! someone said a cuss word. If you are going to ignore the topic and reference what I look like, without actually making sure you are correct in your assumption, then I am going to reply in a far from civil tone.
Flow I wouldn't let these guys get to you. They make a habit of going into forums that have nothing to do with them and trying to cause trouble. I'd just let it go and walk away from it, no matter what, they will never listen anyway.
You're right, I lost my head a bit. Sorry to anyone I offended, besides those two of course.
Nothing to do with us?
I believe that is sad you think we aren't equal human beings to be allowed to partake here.
And I am not intending to cause any trouble, but thanks for more pretenses.
I have been debating points, not just repeating, 'your wrong'...
If someone wishes not to debate with me or respond to my reply, they DO have the option.
And we ARE human beings with equal right to debate, discuss, or state opinions.
And I was very close to agreeing on a particular point before my honest mistake was met by a childish response.
But, hey.. we are whatever you say we are right?
Your not atheist and your not agnostic. The Original question was not for an opinion on basis of Christianity, or I'm sure it would've been placed under the Christian forums. So what purpose did you come here for if not to do some more preaching or trouble causing?
As for debating points, you have been debating semantics. This thread, like many others, has been directed off topic again.
I agree that we all have the equal right to debate, and that no one has to reply to you if they don't want to. However, this thread was aimed at atheists and agnostics, hence why it was placed under Atheism and Agnosticism. You are a Christian and you are very belligerent about it. No qualms with that, but this wasn't a thread directed at Christians. As a result, it is shoved completely off the course of the original question.
So again I ask, if your not here to preach and cause trouble, then what reason are you here?
Ohh ho whoa..
Att i tude..
Time of the month?
I actually got taught something today, and that is one of the reasons I'm here.
Atheists are not the only people who understand semantics nor belief - non-belief - atheism - or agnosticism....
Where'd you read "athiests please tell me" at?
Just because there are sub-topics that were brought up by OTHER people and possibly myself as well doesn't mean anyone de-railed the thread or is attempting to cause trouble.
You should ease up on your finger pointing and condemning.
Get off your royal horse little fella, daddy wants it back.....
Truth not based on evidence, my lack of belief in god, is due to the evidence. You have a creative way of reading these definitions, I am reading them literally and applying them literally, which is what matters in this discussion.
Evolution is what you claim as evidence correct?
First replicating cell is REQUIRED for it to be fact, therefore it is not proof.
No, my opinion on evolution has nothing to do with my lack of faith in god actually, I was an Atheist before I understood the basics of evolution, there was a time where i actually rejected the theory entirely, and still did not believe in god.
"A belief is "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof" there is a difference between, the bible says God exists, the evidence says that evolution is correct."
What does the evidence say for origin of the universe?
And what is the evidence for your denial of a God then?
For one, this is still off topic, but, why does everything have to be explained? Just because we aren't yet sure how the universe came to be, doesn't automatically mean the bible is correct. Also, by definition, you can not believe in the non-existence of anything. It is by definition a disbelief, or non-belief.
It really just boils down to semantics. It could be two different, but similar meanings or they could mean the same -- depending on the person who states it.
You could say you want a sandwich, or you don't not want a sandwich; either way, you're suggesting in the end, you desire a sandwich.
Take that and apply it to atheism and beliefs... a non-belief in a god is nearly the same as the belief that god does not exist. They might have slightly different meanings per person based on the wording and context, because the first version explicitly states a non-belief, but in the second phrasing we're just turning that around and saying I believe there is no good -- therefore making it a belief.
In the same sense that saying, "I don't not want a sandwich," would suggest I want a sandwich, but at the same time I could go without and be fine.
Translated into more normal conversation, to say I don't not want a sandwich gives two options - "I do want a sandwich," or "I could take it or leave it," but leaves out the option, "I don't want one at all."
Another example is saying "I am a non-conformist," vs. "I conform to going against the grain." Do they mean the same thing? Roughly, but depending on how the person takes it, in the second phrasing, a certain level on conformity is suggested.
Subtle word choice; semantics; context; personal meaning. Know your audience so you know to be clear.
I certainly was jdflom.
And you're absolutely welcome.
You deserve it, the post is awesome.
Oh my goodness. I don't know what your own personal beliefs are (or lack of beliefs), but that was absolutely the best answer this forum has seen.
All things are conceptual, for we explain their meaning with words. But they are words none the less, just sounds we make in order to communicate with others of the same species. Words are labels, the illusion is that the labels truly mean anything.
There is a crystalization of a concept, but only when that concept is in agreement with established norms. So then words surrounding a concept, are really only the workings of an individual observer.
Do you prefer bologna or peanut butter in between ya bread? LOL!
I guess the question I have here is why does it matter? Why would an atheist care whether or not atheism is defined as a belief or not. And the second question would be why on Earth would a theist care? I can sort of see caring about the definition if you are an atheist but how would it concern a theist in any way shape or form?
Well, of course every forum on HubPages becomes a theological debate. It's like, unwritten HubPages law. Maybe it's written and I just don't know.
Not saying that I don't add to the problem. Just saying that it happens so often, that maybe it is written somewhere and I"m just unaware.
Because if atheism is a belief then a question would arise "what is basis of that belief?"
Atheism is not a belief, it's a rejection of a belief. If someone blocks a punch, you wouldn't say they threw one. But I must say, this is an awesome question for a thread. Ya know, i went to St. Augustine's school in Oakland Ca.!
You are just playing with words. Everything is a rejection of something else.
A block is also a form of throwing. You need to use as force if not more to block or you get hurt. Not a apt example.
I was going to pass this stupid thread by - but I guess at least it provides one place where can find nearly all the total fundamentally challenged dimwits of hubpages.
that's a good question. When someone says he's a theist, he believes in the existence of God. When he says he's an athiest, he believes that there's no God. Either way, its only your BELIEFs that make your God work or otherwise...
The truth is, without the ability to prove one's opinion either way; atheism is as much a belief as is theism. But, most don't want it labeled that way so when I interact with an atheist, out of courtesy, I agree to let them label it however they feel most comfortable. The same as I do with the religious.
I've never met an atheist who didn't understand that it was a belief. What did they think that it was? Some special classification of knowledge?
I am not doubting that you have met these people, Emile, but I am flabbergasted that they exist.
Well, the truth is; they are mostly on hub pages. Real life atheists are usually more mellow and comfortable with their stance.
LoL. Real life atheists. That made me giggle. I'm not mocking you, it really made me giggle.
Hey, finding a live person who openly admits to atheism is a bit like hunting snipe in this area. Most say they are like me, agnostic. I see a clear line between the stances in my mind. You either accept that you can't know, or you claim non belief. Non belief is atheism by my definition. But, agnostic by a lot of others I've run across.
Atheist just means non-theistitic/religious, it doesn't necessarily entail a belief or non-belief in a god...
by definition you may be right .. however ,, that is kinda like saying a profesional fisherman doesn't necessarily smell like fish/bait when he gets off his boat.
I don't see where your analogy is applicable at all.
Well, I guess you could say that Theism is the structure in which a belief in god exists, Atheism is the oposit if theism.
Theism is based on the belief in a God
Is Atheism based on the belief that the structure is wrong or that the basis for it is wrong?
Every fisherman I have known smells like fish when they get off the boat.
Every Atheist I have known believs there is No God to base their theism upon.
If he's good... he won't. I'm a professional painter, I rarely get paint on myself. I am not however a professional speaker, my vocabulary is limited...
I've ben a frofesional painter for most of my life, and every painter that worked for me, who didn;t get any paint on themselves were very slow painters.
I didn't get paid hourly for painting, I got paid per square foot.
I didn;t worry about getting a little paint on me. I worried about how many walls got painted.
I think I'm getting off topic.
I'm not slow, just carefull. I don't like making mistakes, especially when I'm getting paid for services renderred.
Professional fisherman might not spell like fish, but professional fishmongers do. Maybe Jerami was referring to professional fishmongers.
Well, I guess I was talking about me?
I don't seem to be able to walk past a fishing boat without getting some of it on me.
And I don't walk past a can of paint without getting a spot of paint on my jeans.
I must be a monger?
So I would like to know what your definition of god is.
Before saying whether an apple exist or not, before answering you cannot know to comment on its existence, one should know what an apple is!
The point was, that is how I see the answer. It doesn't imply that this is the way you would see it. Nor did it imply that I am interested in a protracted debate that will culminate in us being back at the point we started. I know where your argument lies. I don't agree with it because I haven't noticed what I consider to be a valid argument. I will continue to read your posts to others, in hopes that you might adequately clarify your position. If such a time comes, I'll be interested in discussing it.
If somebody tell you Lo exist, I assume your first question will be, what this Lo is, before offering your opinion.
My position is very clear, we know all these exist and no human being in his history has seen matter spontaneously appearing or disappearing, hence we have no reason to assume a beginning or creation. Also time by definition is a concept which denotes motion, hence again we cannot assume any beginning.
As there is no beginning there is need of creation and hence no creator.(god is supposed to be a creator). Logic also preclude creator, for if we take the premise everything need creator then based on the premise the creator will also need to be created ad infinitum, which will be a logical contradiction.
If something exist there is only two options either it was always there or it was created(any form). If creation is impossible, then by default it was always there, eternal(time as a concept is making it more valid.)
Many Eastern beliefs don't see the need to separate the Universe and God. I.e. the Universe itself is Divine, but not anything like the Western idea of "God." God isn't actually the best word to use, because when translated into English, it has a very finite meaning.
I agree, in bhagavad Gita(Hindu bible), god is equated with the universe, but then the universe/god is impersonal. It does not equate with the anthropomorphic Abrahamic god(who partake in human affairs), hence none will accept it as god(not even Hindus).
Indeed, but they will still accept a Christian, though. LoL. While a Christian (ignorantly) calls them polytheists and "Pagans."
I need to make a correction here. The Githa is not the Hindu Bible. The Vedas are.
Sorry. Saying something has always been there is a cop out. I prefer 'we don't know' as opposed to accepting silly conclusions.
Many people find it hard to just say "I don't know." I think, if people stopped spending so much time trying to figure out something that probably can't be figured out, and more time dealing with everything that's going on today and what we can all do collectively to stop it. But dogmatic tendencies, religious and non-religious alike, cause unnecessary strife that essentially gets us nowhere.
Your "always" comes from the concept of "time". If you can define time your confusion will be over.
When the switch can either be only "on" or "off", then claiming another option as I don't know might be silly.
Either it existed eternally or it is created, it is binary(for as we exist, we cannot claim nothing exist). When you say you do not know, you are simply saying, you do not know which one to choose from the above.
I do not know how exactly evolution occurred, but logic tells me all complex organisms should be evolved from simpler things. I can only show the logic of evolution, but cannot make the claim.(The counter claim will be everything needs to be created, then by the same logic, the creator too needs to be created and will go on like the "tortoise all the way down", which is oxymoron. :I choose evolution because it is more easy to explain)
From where I'm standing, you are the one confused. I don't see any reason at this juncture to agree with either side. We need more information. Period.
Time is a concept. Agreed. Without time there would be a sense of having always been. But, that does not mean things have always been. Not in this universe, or in the totality of all known and unknown reality. Nor does it imply creation.
You limit your conclusions to what we know so far. I can't limit my conclusions because what we know so far brings up more questions than it answers. The jury will remain out until we find evidence to clinch our knowledge of the way the universe was formed, what causes the appearance of expansion, what is dark matter, what are black holes, is there life beyond this planet and a host of other questions. Not to mention that we need to be able to see to the true edges of this universe and beyond.
Basically, I don't expect to have the data I need to stand on either side of the fence within this lifetime.
We don't need any more information, we only need to apply logic and reason.
Can you see, how you are contradicting yourself? Time is a concept that need not only motion but also memory to remember the motion. If you stay outside the galaxies, what you will be seeing is objects moving in relation to each other, some times joining together, sometimes separating from each other. If you loose your memory, you have nothing to say about 'always been'. In fact if you lose your watch, you cannot even say the time!!
Data and evidence are subjective. Persuading the jury is different from using critical thinking. Dark matter,Black holes.... are an invented nonsense to justify relativity.
That one statement you made best showcases the reason you aren't taken seriously in this forum and the reason your attempt to have a dialogue with me comes to an end now.
No problem. Argumentum ad populum and argumentum ad verecundiam are not my turf but only reason and logic.
If you really like to know, nobody has seen any dark matter but only a proposition put forward to explain galactic rotation. When I come across something that interests me I study it and apply reason instead of trusting authorities or taking a middle position arguing that there is not enough material available.
Its your choice, my experience has taught me that neither a horse be forced to drink nor a human be forced to think.
If you can supply proof of the proper credentials that would lead anyone to believe you are qualified to dispute scientific theory in this manner; you might garner some of my interest. As it stands, your statements appear to be sour grapes by someone who doesn't understand what they have read. Although it is true that the current explanation is simply an attempt to explain, it is certainly a better explanation than the one you are offering.
Your analogy of leading a horse to water is foolish, because you offer nothing but refusal to think and denial of the efforts of others. Scoffing may be fun in the short run, but you eventually have to back it up with something that shows some semblance of intelligent thought. At this moment, I haven't seen any backup from you. It's all run around. It may frustrate the theists and atheists....it garners little more than an eye roll from me.
Pray what explanation did I offer? I only said what is taught as truth is irrational. Suppose a bridge is broken, will you use it in the premise that, that is the only available one? Then why you chose relativity based on such premise?
I'll give you an example(as I don't have access to my computer and as I've written some hubs on it I'm not going to elaborate.)
Theory of simultaneity
"In physics, the relativity of simultaneity is the concept that simultaneity–whether two events
occur at the same time–is not absolute, but
depends on the observer's reference frame"
But in real physics observer has no role, physics is objective, observer independent. Whether two events are simultaneous are solely based on the definition of 'simultaneous'. The whole relativity is just that, 'relative', observer dependent, hence subjective, while science is objective.
Now if you want more study about it instead of questioning other peoples understanding or if you think my understanding is faulty point out which premise is false instead of appealing to authority. But of course its again your choice, you can accept authorities unquestioningly or you can think for yourself.
My only premise is one should define ones key words and use it consistently and arguments should be based on logic and reason and the only fact we can say for sure is matter exists. There are no theories I offer, but I'll dissect any theory and say whether it is rational, I need no evidence for I'm not going to persuade any jury. Whom you chose to believe is upto you.
Science has often been wrong, and at times spectacularly so. I'm not so certain credentialing is the best form of determing the validity of an argument. After all, wouldn't Einstein himself fail this test with his earliest work?
I'm not sure if you know the name Ptolemy, but he was a well-known and respected scientist who came up with the idea of epicycles to explain retrograde motion of planets - and this idea actually fit better if one used a circular orbit rather than the actual eliptical orbits.
The point being that Ptolemy was trying to form an explanation that conformed observation to the main theory of his time - that the earth was the center of the universe.
This, to me, is much like what is occurring with dark matter and dark energy ideas in Big Bang - the scientific-mathematical community is so vested into Big Bang that a Ptolemy-like irrational explanation is better received than an argument that the big theory is wrong.
Anyway, that's a bone to gnaw on for a while.
That wasn't really a bone to gnaw on. I've heard of Ptolemy, but I hadn't heard that. And I don't think Einstein fell into that category. The point is, we take what we know as fact and attempt to explain phenomena within the parameters of those facts. Granted, with the presentation of a fact that directly contradicts our assumptions we will be forced to scrap any assumptions that are refuted by the now known fact.
Simply insisting that theories are wrong because we don't like the theories, without substantiating our concerns with anything of substance, doesn't warrant a second look. Bring a fact to the table and you might have something of an argument; and a scrap of a bone.
What is a fact other than an opinion? Ptolemy considered it fact that the earth was the center of the universe. Is that the kind of fact you mean?
Facts are irrelevant unless you are selling an idea. The only relevancy is what is possible - what does reasoning tell us? Reasoning tells us that there is no such thing as "mental energy" that affects reality - but if you went simply according to "facts" you would swear you saw Uri Geller bend a spoon using nothing but his "mental energy" - unless James Randit showed you the trick. And if you relied on "credentials", you would still be fooled because the credentialed paranormal investigators of the day claimed Geller had genuine psychic abilities.
Instead of relying on authority to do our thinking for us - the authoritarian mindset - isn't it better to use our own brains and reasoning to ask: can something lack height, width, and length and still exist? That is a necessary question to answer in order to accept the validity of quantum theory.
If they can't explain it, it doesn't mean it is wrong - but it does mean their calims have more to do with spoon bending than science. Until it can be explained rationally, it is just a trick of mathematics.
What we think we know and what is real are often at odds. Concerning your belief that Einstein did not fit the category of non-credentialed:
(Einstein....evaluated patent applications for electromagnetic devices. In 1903, Einstein's position at the Swiss Patent Office became permanent, although he was passed over for promotion until he "fully mastered machine technology".)
The patent office clerk's first important work was published in 1901, and he was still a "non-credentialed" source two years later.
OK. We are in the philosophy section, so that statement makes sense; philosophically. But, let's be honest. You are arguing science here. And scientifically we know that a fact is any observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and accepted as true. This is a modern scientific definition. What Ptolemy considered fact was simply what was believed at the time. I, personally, can see the difference. Can you?
Again, here in the philosophical forum that holds true. Does it hold true in a scientific circle? You guys need to stop attempting to mix the two. It doesn't work. I admit that there have been times that a few 'snake oil salesmen' have hoodwinked the scientifice community. But, is it your contention that this is the norm? That science is baloney?
I'm sorry, I have no idea what relevance that has to the discussion. So, you believe in magic until someone explains to you how the trick is done?
So, you consider paranormal investigators to be credentialed? By whom, the Ghost Busters?
That sounds reasonable, but then again; you believe in credentialed paranormal investigators. How reasonable is that?
Well, if you think quantum theory is another form of magic....I don't know. You could be right. Or you could be wrong. I prefer to let the scientists move ahead with their work and give them the benefit of the doubt until such time as their work begins to look magical to me.
Yes, the mystics of mathematics.
Yes, that is true. But, you can't apply that sentiment across the board and assume that all we think now is completely at odds with reality.
I don't think Einstein's being categorized as a 'non-credentialed' source falls quite into the category of a bunch of faceless people typing posts on Hub Pages; but if you want to pretend that it does.... feel free to proceed.
Einstein? Noncredentialed? Please! AKA Winston may be a faceless person posting here on HP, but to say Einstein was 'less than' is ridiculous.
You do realize I am not the one who said that about Einstein?
Oh my god Einstein, how this people are writing blasphemy against you, let them burn in hell!
As usual, you bring nothing more than disdain to the table. Got anything else under your hat?
Got anything in side your head? Nothing suddenly getting width, breadth and length to become something, is great. Observers sees length contracting, mass increasing and time dilating is "fact". And you have benefit of doubt and look for the third option in a dichotomy. Your nonsense can only be surpassed by your nonsense.
Got any argument that is rational? Oh I forgot unless somebody throws it on your face, you are agnostic!
K. I should probably leave you to your quest to understand the definition of vehemence. I'm sure that will take up most of your day.....if not longer, judging from the intelligence level displayed in your posts.
1.Extrapolation of yourself to others!
Both are sound logical arguments!
When we have great intelligent persona like you, why we need 'believers'?
You may be right. You'd have to give me something to dodge in order to prove it. I haven't seen anything that qualifies yet.
If you have no capacity to understand what is written, nobody can help you!
This is silly. We've degraded to picking at each other. We disagree. It would have been best to have left it at that.
Hi, Emile R.,
I am sorry I did not make the points well enough for you to understand my position, as you restated some incorrectly. Let me try again.
I don't look at credentials - but when you disregarded the paranormal investigators versus your idea of "real science" it only revalidates my point that: you are talking subjectives.
Reality is objective. Neither your opinion or my opinion matters.
So, if we are trying to understand reality, isn't it best to reduce the complexities to objective rather than subjective? In other words, we should eliminate opinion as much as possible - at that point we enter the realm of reason, not proof and evidence.
The point about credentials being that, yes, in a good many cases credentials and knowledge have a correlation - but it is not always the case. It is fine to check credentials, but had that been the overriding concern of the publisher, Einstein's initial work would not have been published.
You do not need credentials to make a valid argument or state rational claims. It is what is said rather than who says it that is key.
Don't you think?
I agree that everything is subjective, to a degree. We simply have to look at to what degree of subjectivity we are willing to reduce our opinions to and still claim credibility and objectivity. If all it takes is for me, personally, to believe that something is true, I'm not being very objective; am I?
I agree that a valid statement can stand on its own merit. However, you are arguing in defense of a statement that the notion of dark matter and black holes is irrational. All I have said is that we need to understand the nature of dark matter and black holes. I haven't argued in favor of anything other than additional data. Are you opposed to additional data?
You know what they say about those who are easily amused?
I have never seen anybody arguing so vehemently about something which they have no idea about. And the argument, all fads must be true till new ones come, rather pathetic!
Emile R., yes, paradigms do define our perceptions, faulty or not.
And to quote you, "Simply insisting that theories are wrong because we don't like the theories, without substantiating our concerns with anything of substance, doesn't warrant a second look. Bring a fact to the table and you might have something of an argument; and a scrap of a bone."
I have a dog somewhat like jomine's and he just adores bones!
I don't dispute that. What I do raise an eyebrow at is when someone laughs at the pursuit of knowledge within that framework without supporting their disdain with any more than a chortle.
Laughing is easy. And usually nonproductive.
Emile R.-"You know what they say about those who are easily amused?" Haha, I know what 'they' say!
In response to "I have never seen anybody arguing so vehemently about something which they have no idea about. And the argument, all fads must be true till new ones come, rather pathetic!"
Shows how twisted jomine's thought process seems to be, IMO. A paradigm is not a 'fad', it's the truth-until it shifts.
Sorry jomine, I just see your point as 'pathetic' itself.
What is 'truth'? And who decide whether something is true?
Got me, jomine! What I mean is that truth is relative depending on the current paradigm. It shifts when a new discovery is made or something changes in the way we see the world.
"What is 'truth' is a very funny question.
Reality doesn not depend on what we think, reality just is. Truth is just an opinion and you are right, truth changes. And opinions that changes are called fads(only a difference in duration). We make theories to explain and we are forced to revise if it is incomplete and retract if it is irrational.
God theory is incomplete(rather there is nothing other than 'I don't know'), is just argument from ignorance and relativity is irrational.
Einstein may be the authority in relativity but in an argument appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. If you can, show how relativity is possible objectively.
Your logic is lop sided.
"... hence we have no reason to assume a beginning or creation."
Nor do we have any reason to assume there was no beginning. Since we have no reason to assume a beginning you assumed we did not have a beginning. You are then proceeding on that assumption. So the statement "As there is no beginning" is only an assumption and the conclusion you draw is wrong.
"...if we take the premise everything need creator...."
Your premise has an error. Everything physical need a creator. Now try to work your logic.
"If creation is impossible"
Again an erroneous assumption.
Great. Only physical things exists. Non physical are called concepts, and it need somebody to conceive. Nothing will never attain, length, breadth and width to become something. As the person making the claim that it can, please show how that can be done
At least tell me, whether your god is physical, that is an object or non-physical, a concept.
Again, Please show how creation is possible.
"Only physical things exists". Lets get a fix on that. Are you telling me that light, magnatism, and air are concepts?
You did bring up an interesting point though.
Can an Atheist be one and believe in God?
Is it God they don't believe in or is it the presentation of that god that they have arguement with?
I personally "believe" that when you end up with a certainty on any side it's a belief. There is no 100% proof either way, so unless you say "I don't know," it's a belief system. The only problem is when either side spends their collective time pushing their beliefs or non-beliefs on anyone else. Neither side should do it.
Hear, hear. Like George Carlins' 11th commandment:
"Thou shall keep thy religion to thyself!"
It's really just an exercise in word play...
One could definitely argue that it's a belief to deny the existence of god. If one were to say, "I believe god does not exist," they are validating a belief, but if they said, "I don't believe in god," it's the language that suggests a lack of any belief.
Again, just word play, context, personal opinion... Poh-tay-toe, Poh-taw-toe.
An insomniac+an agnostic+ a dyslexic= someone who lies awake at night wondering if there really is a dog.
If it makes you feel better to pretend that people agree with you....how are you different from the theist that claims an atheist is a theist in denial?
Theist and atheist are both fools.
Theist believe a magical being created universe, while atheists believe a magical singularity self created.
Let as examine.
Theist believe god exists.
Atheist do not believe god exists.
The key word here is belief, And belief is defined as the confidence we have in a statement. So they have confidence in that particular statement, but the statement is made by someone else, so in effect they are trusting that someone else.
You believe/don't believe sun exists, sun exists. And sun exist is a fact.
If you are blind I can tell you about science and explain to you rationally what sun does, which can make you understand what sun is, if you are an otherwise normal human being.
Similarly, since no human being have seen or heard god, can anybody explain rationally what this god thing can do? If not there is no god. And the existence of god has nothing to do with belief!!
You do not understand a lot of things but the example of the sun you gave was excellent.
Sun exist and it is a fact. What one believes about its existence does not really affect the fact. I would equate the blind man to atheists. You can explain all you want to them and they can feel the heat. But they refuse to believe that there is a big ball up in the sky. They refuse because no one can proove to them that a big ball of fire is up there. Their problem is one of their sense is not working.
They can sit around not believing that a ball does not exist. But that does not change the fact.
Proof is an opinion, the only question is whether you can explain rationally.
Define 'exist' then you'll understand which are concepts and which are objects.
It does exist, what your brain makes of it is the illusion.
In other words, you have no evidence whatsoever, so you stoop to insulting the people who are smarter than you are, by suggesting that they are SLOW. This is the problem with your delusion. For some reason, you think that you are given the right to arrogantly and blatantly insult others who don't share your psychotic beliefs.
Then, by your logic, there is evidence that the following exist, but you just sit around not believing:
But Thor and Superman ARE real, dammit! You just don't know it! But I've met Thor personally.
First I do not believe that I have insulted anyone. If I quote the exact sentence which contains the insult.
You have given me a list and said that by my logic they exist. Weather they exist. Weather they do or they don't does not affect me in any way. But God is is different story.
Man has a spirit. That spirit is encased in the body. After death the encasement is gone but you still will exist. You will feel the same way minus the body for eternity. So God matters. But you will sweep it away calling it delusional. What I am saying is what ever you call it or whatever you believe fact is fact. We are all going to die one day and know the truth then. But it will too late then.
Saying that ONE OF THE ATHEIST'S SENSES IS NOT WORKING, is an OUTRIGHT insult! Or are you just too holy to recognize your transgressions?
What a radically prejudiced way of thinking! That is an absolute double standard. The question is do you believe that these other characters exist? If not, why?
Before going forward, I'm gonna have to stop, and ask you to submit valid, irrefutable evidence of this claim.
I can't just believe your words, especially since they sound completely absurd. EVIDENCE PLEASE!!!
I can't see how something that has no evidence supporting its existence MATTERS. Could you explain how that could be anything other than delusional?
Of course we are going to die, but the dead know nothing. And you can dispense with the subtle threats. Those only work on the weak and fearful.
Let me clarify. Every one is born with one sense working. Only God can get that working for us. It is not the atheists alone who have this disability but we all have this.
Ok I will answer that straight. No I do not believe that they exist. I have not even given a thought about their existence because there are no claims they exist.
Let me give you an example. Suppose you found a stone and you lick it and find that it is sweet. You will say it is sweet. Can you give irrefutable proof that it tastes sweet? Can you make anyone know that it is sweet by your evidences? No. While the fact is that it is sweet you will not be able to make anyone believe that it is sweet. One can know the truth only by tasting it themselves. Similarly you cannot prove that man has a spirit. But you can know when the spirit that is there in you become active.
Let me show you something. When someone says that you will still feel the same way after death you do not accept because there are no evidences. But you say "the dead know nothing" and believe this even thought this also does not have evidences. Why do you believe that the dead knows nothing when there are no evidences for this?
Man has a spirit and and after death it will still live. But you will know this only when your spirit becomes active.
Thankyou Tammy for all your advice, now I will stop worrying. But I now have trouble finding out how to submit a hub for the contest, every time I go in and put the name of the hub and choose a catergory it wipes out and starts all over again, where does one write "Writing Contest" as suggested in the rules to put in the TAG line? Gosh I wish they'd add diagrams with instructions or am I the only dumb one on this site?
lol, you aren't dumb lucky!
Once you do it the first time it'll be cakework the next go around.
No one know's how to do things on the first attempt.
And the wipe out thing might be your browser.
Do a google search with "submit hubpages writing contest" and see what you get.
Someone may have wrote a hub or article elsewhere with instructions.
I'm still waiting for a reply from yesterdays questions:
If you are so hung up on when everything started, when did God start.
Also, if the Bible is the word of God, why were many books not included?
lol, Scott, Scott, Scott.. You're alright man.
First question needs clarification. Are you asking where God came from?
He was, is, and always will be. That is His answer. If God is eternal and has no end, why in the world would he have a beginning?
Don't get mushy on me. This is where eternity is absolutely proven, but we don't understand it's operations exactly. We are after all, humans. There are much less significant things we don't know.
What was included were the books that agreed with each other in their entirety. And there are many specific criteria I haven't memorized which they used in order to know what is and isn't.
All I need to do is read what is there, and I can tell. If you look at it without criticism, then things start popping out at you. And you can SEE! lol, that is why amazing grace says, I once was lost and blind, but now I'm found and SEE.
It isn't some jedi mind trick secret to seeing it.. It's putting down your defenses against lies down long enough to realize it's pure and true. If you think this, that, or the other might be lies, then you'll pick it apart before anything makes sense and that's all you'll see is lies. [that aren't there]
God is not a mindless power, like the sun... If that were so, why would something based purely on numbers and material structure include emotions in it's creation?
The sun has power, but is not alive. Therefore it has no emotion.
Alternatively, God is alive. And certainly cares about His creation. Otherwise why 'give' life? Giving is doing good, and we all know that it is a pleasurable feeling to give to our children and see them happy.
Money isn't worth jack if you have no one to share it with.
God has more than money. He has life to give, and gives it freely because it brings Him pleasure to see His creation happy, thankful, and loving towards Him for the good He's done.
Yes, I added. He wants you to know this though.
Agree or not, I must tell you.
i do understand, bro, and you're alright too! But at the same time, I have to think about the way I deal w/ my kids; and that is in a pragmatic way. The way I have (tried ) to influence my kids, is that their natural, inherent instinct is to be GOOD. There are no threats. Kids naturally know how to be good; and instead of threatening them with punishment, that's what should be nurtured.
The certainty of it all is what bothers me.
The natural, inherent instinct of children is NOT to be GOOD but BAD. I may sound stupid but that is the truth. They easily begin to lie and be stubborn and to cheat without anyone teaching them. You need to teach the child to be good.
I disagree, at least with my kids. I (respectfully) ask when you last dealt with one of your own? From my personal experience, they don't lie about anything. That's the time you enforce it. If your children's instinct was to be bad, I would look inward, not at children in general; after all, they were born without sin (am I right?).
Children are born without sin but are inclined to sin. Are your children perfect? Have you ever scolded them for anything at all? Have you ever corrected them? No as a parent you have to constantly teach the right thing to your child and guide them in the right way.
We are all born with sin augustine.
And they certainly do need direction on right and wrong.
Otherwise schools wouldn't have discipline systems and strategies.
Even adults need direction, let alone children. If they didn't we wouldn't need law enforcement to patrol the streets.
No, not by any means are they perfect, and yes, I scold them often. I guess what I mean is that I find children to be naturally honest, but learn bad habits. I definitely don't think it is one's instinct to be bad. Bad behavior is learned. Most people know what is right and what is wrong (what they choose to do is a different matter). Nurturing ones' natural instincts is more positive (to me) than threatening them with damnation, scaring them into submission.
That's not how my Father works at all Scott. Let me attempt to explain.
The image of truth God, the Father in Heaven that Christ Jesus taught us about, has given us through The Holy Bible is something like this in summary as best I feel I can convey it:
God has always existed, as if He were created He would not be God. How exactly this works I cannot explain, but if He is truly God I personally think this would be the case, that is, that there are some things about a being as magnificent as God we obviously would lack ability as human beings to understand or comprehend. If we understood everything about God, then there probably wouldn't be that much to Him, but the case is He is unimaginably glorious and beyond our comprehension. Which is exactly why He is God.
Now that we know that God has always existed, we can look at what is next in the timeline. Our Father created beings called angels. These angels lived with God and served Him reaping all the good you could possibly imagine. They do as God says and they are happy to do so because He gives them love, purpose, peace, joy, everlasting happiness..
In Heaven, under God there is a law in place by God's very nature which is unchangeable. This nature of God is good, and He is nothing but good and righteous, and just, and pure, and perfect. This is the only thing God will never betray because it is who He is and He never changes.
This law is the law of doing and being good. Good to God, and good to others. No one in God's kingdom [this is before earth] is allowed to do bad to anyone, period. They cannot lie, they cannot steal, they canot cheat, hurt, mock, be mean in any fashion.. In this kingdom God rules with power and love bringing immediate consequence to any evil [bad, hurt, pain, damage, destruction - this is what evil is] action, deed, or choice.
Now God has given the beings He created, angels, both free will and the complete knowledge of the law. They know exactly what they are and are not suppose to do. In order for them to have free will He cannot make them do what is right by His law by force or they are not given all choices. But on the same account He cannot allow them to break His law which they know of and the consequences of without requiring their repayment of what was inflicted pain on, hurt, damaged, destroyed, etc. Otherwise He would be allowing the innocent to suffer and giving rise to pain, which God will not allow in His kingdom.
So the angels have all this, and the world in which they live things are not temporary but eternal things. Eternal love, eternal happiness, eternal peace, eternal good health, etc.
Now they have life, love, free will, knowledge of what they are and are not suppose to do, and a mind of their own to think and reason with. This means that if they break the law there, they are as adults are here, aware of the consequences responsible for their actions. If we did not hold people accountable here, and have consequences for being evil [all things mentioned above], then we would be allowing pain and destruction which good men [nature of God is good] will not allow without justice, or repayment for taking and destroying things not theirs to take nor destroy. Free will in a world of beings given ownership of certain things requires rules to keep one person's free will from destroying the other person's free will, otherwise you would be allowing one person to take free will away from others. [i.e. - slavery]
So an angel decides to break the law and be evil wanting things given to others or things which are God's, and convinces those who are less powerful angels to follow his lead, more than likely giving them promises of more power under him and lying[lies are evil]. So this angel has not only taken other angels from God who God loved dearly and caused them to hate Him, but took other angel's friends and their love. He through his actions caused pain and loss, and God in that kingdom has given guidelines for no pain at all which he broke. So God immediately casts Satan the angel who broke the law and those who listened to him and also lied from His kingdom, and began to prepare their repayment [punishment to me is payment in the eternal, because I think somehow once the balance is broken it must have a constant replacment. i.e. - you take everlasting peace you must pay back peace eternally. If you must give back something you took it must come from you, and therefore you will not have any peace for eternity as it is being taken from you to be given back to those you took it from.. eternally. If you destroy the peace of others then you have taken it, yet don't possess the thing which you destroyed, and therefore you won't have any peace, love, happiness left once God takes from you to give back all you destroyed and you begin falling into the opposite of whatever you took.. hope, love, peace, joy, pleasure.. etc. Which is essentially Hell, which is proven because when in pain it's opposite of pleasure and we call it Hell.]
Now while Satan is banned from God's kingdom, for what reason exactly I cannot say for certain, but from how I understand it God created man to be another creation - next level up from angels I'm assuming - who were not created in the beginning with no other choice but God. These creations were created,walked and talked with God and given the choice to listen to God only, or listen to Satan.
Human beings are able to reproduce, and when they do so they pass on traits of their mother[s] and father[s] [grandmothers/grandfathers as well that is] and in doing so when Eve listened to Satan and Adam followed these traits were passed on as they now knew of things they weren't suppose to do but Satan says "look I give you power and a way to have more if you do things this way" whereas God says things MUST be this way for all to be good, and for none to suffer. If you choose him and his ways you are running away from me and will be held under his power and ultimately I will have no choice to help you because his sentence is set, and if you are with him and refuse to come to me I cannot save nor help you. [i.e. - I cannot give you what you will not accept.]
So God makes a way to show humans the good and bad and experience both and decide to come to Him or to listen to Satan. If God makes people accept Jesus then He would be would not be giving free will to choose, and if He allowed evil [pain, destruction, lies, stealing] without consequence, then He would not be fair nor good.
So God sends Jesus Christ to fulfill all the promises to save man from Satan's lies and pay the payment for whatever wrong the man has done and free him from the consequences of the law once the man understands and wants to do good and love God and love his brothers and sisters.
So Jesus says "Come to me and the sin [evil] that has cursed you and caused all this pain you now see, I will heal you and pay your payment for you and free you from your sentence for breaking the law, I know you did not first understand so now that you do, and though I know you will still make mistakes, if you try to do good by loving God and loving brother and sister as youself then I will fix anything you have done and free you and give you life back, and once I raise you from the death brought about from evil you will never feel pain or die as I will have freed you from the curse."
Now if that person refuses to accept Jesus' offer they are practicing their free will and choosing not to acceppt His help to free them from Satan's lies.
If your child grows up and decides as an adult to be a murderer and listen to a gang leader and kill people and destroy and steal, does that make you a bad parent? Would you then rather replace all your children with autobot styled people who don't choose you because they love you but because they have to?
Where Jesus says He will leave the ninety nine sheep to go save the one that has run away into danger. Just like you would go plead with your son to not murder and straighten up and come home and do good and you would forgive him for anything he done. You would tell him everything is going to be fine and if he comes home he can start over and be a good man. You would do that for your son because you know that he has a choice and you love him and you wouldn't have a son that loved you for you if he HAD to love you because he was made to.
Would you lock your son up in a room and make him stay and try to force him to be good and choose right and make him hate you because of it? Or would you let him go and plead with him every chance you got and have him come home because he loves you and realizes he wants to do good and chooses it himself?
Those who choose to refuse God do so because God requires us to do only good, and they don't want to be controlled and think Christians have an over-demanding God with His absolute requirements [Which are only love God above all and others as self] where they think Satan is fun and great because you can do whatever you want....
Mom says only this much candy, so what does the kidnapper do? Makes it 'look like' the grass is greener and holds out a bag of candy, BUT with a requirement... You have to leave mom to get it. [And who knows what the horrible person plans after that]
Satan is holding out candy and lying about the consequences, and people are choosing Hell for the fact of the candy because God says too much candy will hurt you..But the rebelious children who put themselves above their parents pleads and advice are the ones who choose the candy and if they don't choose God, then they are refusing to let God keep them from jumping into a trap. God is trying to help them, but they become proud and say "I'm not afraid of anyone" and decide to choose the candy and refuse God and His ways for those of evil...
God doesn't punish out of personal pleasure to do so. He does it because somehow the law of good requires certain things, and God must enforce these things for life, and good to continue without being destroyed.
My Father loves everyone. And His ways can't be understood completely by children [us] , just like your children don't understand everything you tell them. If you tell them about something bad that will hurt them and say "stay away, don't do this, and don't do that because this will happen" you aren't being mean or trying to scare your children. If they do what you say they have no reason to be afraid because you know what is best for them right? Same thing with God and us.
He will help anyone that allows Him to, and will not make anyone do anything. They say the world is not black and white but has shades of grey.
The same is true of life in eternity, and things aren't as simple as they make them within their mind. And everyone knows that everyone will die, and no one but God [Jesus Christ] knows what is on the other side.
Jesus Christ is the nurturing God gives to teach us the way and save us.
He is always there to help, not hurt. To save, not condemn.
There is both good and bad in this world. Why does the child choose to learn the bad. Because that is their instinct. They are inclined towards the bad.
I must agree augustine!
My little cousin is a BRAT! I love her to death, but she lies and tries to be sneaky alllllll the time. And she is so MEANN..
Her mother CERTAINLY DID NOT teach her to be that way.
Some children may be worse than others but I've also seen plenty of other kids as well in the same boat doing the same things.
Speaking of kids, mine are stirring, so I better get my azz upstairs. Goodnight to all of you; I hope we can continue tomorrow where we left off.
Take care all!
Thanks Vector, Whew! glad I'm not dumb!.....will keep trying.
I imagine it could be called a 'belief' system. It is, after all, a belief in the non-existence of any God.
Well,I don't like to be a Atheist ,I believe in God and I think we should believe in that too
Science is philosophy. A look at the history of science and philosophy shows the same great minds. Socrates, Plato, and Pythagoras were all great scientists, but they were also great philosophers. They believed that the two were the same thing. I think people are trying to redefine philosophy into something spiritual, but it's not.
philosophy (n) - Bing Dictionary
phi·los·o·phy [ fi lóssəfee ] Audio player
examination of basic concepts: the branch of knowledge or academic study devoted to the systematic examination of basic concepts such as truth, existence, reality, causality, and freedom
school of thought: a particular system of thought or doctrine
guiding or underlying principles: a set of basic principles or concepts underlying a particular sphere of knowledge
Philosophy is not limited to the physical proof.
It includes thoughts and concepts as well.
Philosophy is not easily placed in a box, especially not one labelled science.
As I said, trying to redefine. As with everything else, it seems to be ok to take what it is for a little while, and then turn into something totally different just because we can.
Just to be clear, the actual meaning of the word philosophy comes from philo which means love and sophy or sophos. Sophy was the Goddess of wisdom and sophos means the wise. So the word literally translates to "love of wisdom" or "love of the wise".
Exactly, and you called it science.
I didn't re-define anything.
I posted the definition, which is the definition agreed upon by the world and scholars as well.
I am aware of it's meaning, definition, origins, and implications. I am a philosopher.
Just to be clear, you're making things elementary that are not so.
Things are always elementary. People just wish their worlds to be more complex then what they are. Hence you get definitions of words that do not relate to the words themselves at all. The first person to use the term Philosopher was Pythagoras. Yes, I said it INVOLVED science, not was science. Pythagoras believed that wisdom took a combination of knowledge and experience. Since we know this man helped pave the way for modern science, and we know that he believed wisdom was at least partially gained through knowledge, it's safe to say that wisdom involves science. This would mean that philosophy involves science.
The imagination can create machines to move mountains, but there is no way one can produce a god/God.
Lol so much discussion over something so simple.
Do you believe in god? Yes? Then you follow a believe in god.
Do you insist god does not exist? Yes? Then you believe god does not exist. (It is belief, because you can not prove it to be fact)
Do you think there may be a god, or gods, but don't believe in what organized religions teach? Then you believe there is, or might be, something out there.
If you have an opinion on *anything* that can not be proven as fact, then you have a belief.
I do not *believe* that the christian "god" exists. This is just as much a belief as anything else, because that sentence can be re-worded. "I believe god does not exist."
This entire thread is simply a question of semantics. Belief is nothing more than a word. This word can be defined by other words, which can be defined by other words. I "love" my woman, and I "love" my mom. They obviously aren't the same thing, but they are the same word. And that is all they will ever be - words....which will never be anything more than a means for human beings to communicate to each other. Not divine symbols with divine meaning.
I believe this thread gives me a headache.
Many atheists believe in only what science tells them. If there was evidence of God, they would believe it. This is why the scientific communit is by and large atheist.
I believe you mean:
"If there were [scientific] evidence...etc, etc"
And a entire world with designed structure and order doesn't pop up without effort from something...
Which I personally hold as evidence, irregardless if it is denied. Fingerprints are still fingerprints..
Atheism is a belief. It's adherants are just as likely to believe in the many theories with no personal ability to prove or disprove any of them, which means they believe much of what they believe on faith. Faith in a genius, faith in science or faith in man. Who says that a supreme entity must be paranormal. On this planet mankind itself is the definition of paranormal. We stand alone, outside of nature, outside of the "norm". We not only stand alone outside of nature, but in direct opposition to it. Numero uno may be so far removed from our human concepts, we can't immediately say that an ultimate lifeform is paranormal or not...after all, we can't even perceive our own nature.
Interesting, although highly questionnable and very disputed.
Druid Dude I have to say you remind me of Gnostics. Just wanted to let you know that.
If atheism is a belief as you say, then what is the belief? Theism is belief in a god, what is atheism a belief in?
Since gnosticism means "with knowledge" and agnosticsm means "without knowledge" the letter "A" being prefixed defining the "without" part, why does atheism not mean "without belief in a god" when theism means "with belief in a god"?
This is just basic language derived from latin.
I would like to see how you explain your claim of atheism being a belief.
Belief is the confidence in a statement.
So Theists believe in priests(that is they trust the priests or believe the statements of priests are true).
Atheists believe in scientists.
Contrary will be,
Theists do not believe in scientists
atheists do not believe in priests.
Both are beliefs.
You can rate everything ,, from zero to ten ....
zero meaning not enough to count
and ten being ...... TTTOooooo much
nobody should be supprised!
by Brittany Williams 3 years ago
Atheism only means the lack of a belief in God. Why is it so hard for Christians to realize that we dismiss their religion for the same reasons that they dismiss all other religions? It doesn't make us horrible people, immoral, or mean that we are going to hell. It just means that we think the...
by Cattleprod Media 12 years ago
I find most people are clueless. They say they are atheist, but can't properly form an argument as to WHY, or they say they are agnostic, with zero clue as to WHAT that is.Ignorance, above all, is our weakness. Not religion. Although ignorance and religion are good bedfellows.
by Rhonda D Johnson 10 years ago
I was about to reply to rickylidea's forum "How Did You Become an Atheist?" when it dawned on me that I might not qualify as a bona fide atheist. Some of you may remember from my previous hubs that I hesitate to apply a label to what I do and do not believe. Still, there...
by il Scettico 9 years ago
Many believe Atheism is not a religion because it does not follow traditional beliefs. Others believe it is a religion because it has to do with existentialism. What do you think?
by Mahaveer Sanglikar 2 years ago
Many believers like to say that Atheists should prove that there is no God. Believers should know that existence has to be proved, not the non-existence. If a thing exists, it is possible to prove its existence. So believers should prove the existence of God if he exists. But if they want to do it,...
by Luke M. Simmons 6 years ago
Does anyone have any evidence for the existence of God?I am an atheist, which to me only means that I haven't been shown requisite evidence to convince me of an omnipotent, all-knowing deity of any kind. If you would, please bring forth this evidence and deliver me from a fiery...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|