It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut
If we must consider Yahweh seriously, then we must also seriously consider Zeus, Odin, ra, Vishnu, Osiris, Quetzalcoatl, Allah, Buddha and every other theological figure, to be fair to all of creationism as a realm of origin hypotheses. To assume it is one god or supernatural agency over another seems premature. As I have said before, this agency is poorly defined, hence agnosticism. Not enough data to reach a definitive conclusion.
Comparative Theology and Comparative Religion are subjects taught in many academic institutions. You'd probably be surprised at the numbers who attend such courses.
I'd venture a guess that they aren't subjects that would be of interest to an atheist.
originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut
Hay digger.
you said.
To say "I don't know, therefore I don't accept the possibility", to draw a conclusion from no evidence, is argument from ignorance.
How long have people tried to prove god/s? Thousands of years no? What scientific evidence has been found? Zero.
Gotta bite the bullet at sometime and come to the conclusion that the god hypothesis is wrong.
you said.
You seem to have the wrong ideas of religious history. Those "stories of old" seem to usually be about people doing their own thing regardless of the dictates of gods.
Go read the stories. The god/s walked amongst humans at one point in the past. Even the christian god! Check out genesis and adam and eve.
Hell most god/s mated and procreated with us.
Coomba98
p.s. sorry about the lack of quotes im on my phone and its to much of a hassel if im quoting sections of a post.
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut
If we must consider Yahweh seriously, then we must also seriously consider Zeus, Odin, ra, Vishnu, Osiris, Quetzalcoatl, Allah, Buddha and every other theological figure, to be fair to all of creationism as a realm of origin hypotheses. To assume it is one god or supernatural agency over another seems premature. As I have said before, this agency is poorly defined, hence agnosticism. Not enough data to reach a definitive conclusion.
Comparative Theology and Comparative Religion are subjects taught in many academic institutions. You'd probably be surprised at the numbers who attend such courses.
I'd venture a guess that they aren't subjects that would be of interest to an atheist.
That must make for an interesting discussion. So what's the general consensus in comparative theology? There's a lot of factors to consider when weighing gods...particularly since the exact properties of divinity havent been observed, tested, measured, or otherwise quantified in an experimental setting. Venture all the guesses you want, curiosity compels all kinds of people to do their homework.
originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: chr0naut
Show us a single credible piece of scientific evidence that supports "the hypothesis of the existence of god". Not something you personally attribute to God in some vague, wishy washy way but something explicit.
originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut
Hay digger.
TzarChasm answered the first part so ill go to your 2nd part of the post.
God hasn't left.
So where the bloody hell is he. Lol.
(Auzzie ad joke)
Actually ill answer one part of the 1st part of your response.
All scientific evidence indicates that there is order and a knowable system of rules to the way things occur.
Another argument from ignorance claim.
From wiki.
Argument from ignorance (from Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance represents "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proved false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,
true
false
unknown between true or false
being unknowable (among the first three).[1]
In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.
(These examples contain or represent missing information.)
Statements that begin with "I can't prove it but ..." are often referring to some kind absence of evidence.
"There is no evidence of foul play here" is a direct reference to the absence of evidence.
"There is no evidence of aliens, and therefore, aliens do not exist" appeals to an absence of evidence
Negative results Edit
When the doctor says that the test results were negative, it is usually good news.
Under "Termites" the inspector checked the box that read "no".
Evidence of absence Edit
(These examples contain definite evidence that can be used to show, indicate, suggest, infer or deduce the non-existence or non-presence of something.)
A biopsy shows the absence of malignant cells.
One very carefully inspects the back seat of one's car and finds no adult-sized kangaroos.
The train schedule does not say that the train stops here at 3:00pm on a Sunday.
Arguments from ignorance Edit
(Draws a conclusion based on lack of knowledge or evidence without accounting for all possibilities)
"I take the view that this lack (of enemy subversive activity in the west coast) is the most ominous sign in our whole situation. It convinces me more than perhaps any other factor that the sabotage we are to get, the Fifth Column activities are to get, are timed just like Pearl Harbor ... I believe we are just being lulled into a false sense of security." – Earl Warren, then California's Attorney General (before a congressional hearing in San Francisco on 21 February 1942).
...
I dont know therefore god/s.
Coomba98
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut
If we must consider Yahweh seriously, then we must also seriously consider Zeus, Odin, ra, Vishnu, Osiris, Quetzalcoatl, Allah, Buddha and every other theological figure, to be fair to all of creationism as a realm of origin hypotheses. To assume it is one god or supernatural agency over another seems premature. As I have said before, this agency is poorly defined, hence agnosticism. Not enough data to reach a definitive conclusion.
Comparative Theology and Comparative Religion are subjects taught in many academic institutions. You'd probably be surprised at the numbers who attend such courses.
I'd venture a guess that they aren't subjects that would be of interest to an atheist.
That must make for an interesting discussion. So what's the general consensus in comparative theology? There's a lot of factors to consider when weighing gods...particularly since the exact properties of divinity havent been observed, tested, measured, or otherwise quantified in an experimental setting. Venture all the guesses you want, curiosity compels all kinds of people to do their homework.
Wikipedia on Comparative Religion, Wikipedia on Comparative Theology.
The general consensus in Comparative Theology leans towards Christianity. This is probably due to the majority of courses being run by Christians.
In regards to the properties of divinity being observed, tested, measured, or otherwise quantified in an experimental setting being a requirement of any discussion of divinity. That is like saying you have to know the current-voltage profile of all thicknesses of MOSFET junctions to use a computer.
The definitions of terms used to describe divinity are clear and simple enough that there is little semantic argument to their meaning. Words like omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, atemporal and immortal are sufficiently adequate.
A similar example is that we don't have to know all the cases of infinity to understand that an infinte series does not come to an end. Nor do we have to define the littleness of zero, rounded to a googolpex of decimal places, to understand what it means.
The argument that we haven't defined the concepts well enough is like the reducto ad absurdum of Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the Tortise.
originally posted by: chr0naut
It is not rational to reject or accept a belief that does not have evidence to support it.
It IS reasonable to NEITHER believe nor disbelieve in the existence of Zeus, or in the existence of supernatural pixie beings, because of an absence of evidence.
However, in regard to the existence of the Judeo-Christian God, YHWH, I do have subjective evidence that, to me validates my belief and this also stands to negate belief in both Zeus and Pixies. I'm not the only person to do so.
You have made the assumption that no-one has evidence for the existence of any god because you don't (or won't accept it). The truth is that the majority of humans believe and have believed in the existence of a god or gods.
The US Declaration of Indepenence states; "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" - No atheist can truthfully state that! Most of humanity see and understand the "self-evident" evidence spoken of in the Declaration.
From my point of view, there is voluminous, enourmous, stupendous evidence for the existence of God. All of existence speaks of its Creator. The implicate order, reasonability and interrelational complexity in everything does not speak of random action. Random doesn't 'do' order. Yes, the ample evidence can be doubted but it exists none the less.
The atheist case, that there is no evidence of the existence of God, falls apart entirely if there is the slightest evidence that disproves it. This is because even the slightest evidence falsifies the condition that 'there is no evidence'. Using Popper's words as a metaphor, "a single black swan falsifies the statement that all swans are white". In this case, a single piece of evidence falsifies the statement that 'there is no evidence'.
Even the smallest number has a greater magnitude than nothing. This holds in philosophy, science and mathematics, and shouldn't be too hard to understand. Atheism waves the 'nothing' flag. Theism upholds a thin, tattered and diaphanous 'evidence' flag but it has more substance than 'nothing' that atheism requires.
originally posted by: chr0naut
It is not an argument from ignorance to find objective data showing complexity counter to entropy (chaos) and hypothesize as to how it may have come into being. A god hypothesis may provide a possible answer, until disproven and eliminated by test, it remains possibile. You can't discard scientific method and claim 'science'. The formation of hypotheses and theories does not represent ignorance, as they may be correct. Hypotheses and theories are part of the process toward knowledge.
To say "I don't know, therefore I don't accept the possibility", to draw a conclusion from no evidence, is argument from ignorance.
originally posted by: chr0naut
Despite your denial, there IS scientific evidence that would support the hypothesis of the existence of god. All scientific evidence indicates that there is order and a knowable system of rules to the way things occur. One possibility is that it is like this because it was intended to be so. The data supports the hypothesis. Without definitive proof that this is not so, it is a possibility and may be true.
The only thing that there 'isn't', is proof supportive of the hypothesis that there is no god (that is what the 'no evidence', that you claim, means).
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut
If we must consider Yahweh seriously, then we must also seriously consider Zeus, Odin, ra, Vishnu, Osiris, Quetzalcoatl, Allah, Buddha and every other theological figure, to be fair to all of creationism as a realm of origin hypotheses. To assume it is one god or supernatural agency over another seems premature. As I have said before, this agency is poorly defined, hence agnosticism. Not enough data to reach a definitive conclusion.
Comparative Theology and Comparative Religion are subjects taught in many academic institutions. You'd probably be surprised at the numbers who attend such courses.
I'd venture a guess that they aren't subjects that would be of interest to an atheist.
That must make for an interesting discussion. So what's the general consensus in comparative theology? There's a lot of factors to consider when weighing gods...particularly since the exact properties of divinity havent been observed, tested, measured, or otherwise quantified in an experimental setting. Venture all the guesses you want, curiosity compels all kinds of people to do their homework.
Wikipedia on Comparative Religion, Wikipedia on Comparative Theology.
The general consensus in Comparative Theology leans towards Christianity. This is probably due to the majority of courses being run by Christians.
In regards to the properties of divinity being observed, tested, measured, or otherwise quantified in an experimental setting being a requirement of any discussion of divinity. That is like saying you have to know the current-voltage profile of all thicknesses of MOSFET junctions to use a computer.
The definitions of terms used to describe divinity are clear and simple enough that there is little semantic argument to their meaning. Words like omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, atemporal and immortal are sufficiently adequate.
A similar example is that we don't have to know all the cases of infinity to understand that an infinte series does not come to an end. Nor do we have to define the littleness of zero, rounded to a googolpex of decimal places, to understand what it means.
The argument that we haven't defined the concepts well enough is like the reducto ad absurdum of Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the Tortise.
Omniscient, omnipotent, atemporal and immortal as divine properties have not been observed, tested, measured, or otherwise quantified in an experimental setting. You say this doesn't matter, and that is your opinion. My opinion is that these properties ought to be vigorously tested.
originally posted by: chr0naut
Perhaps we should suspend Mathematics until someone has observed nothingness or the infinite?
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut
If we must consider Yahweh seriously, then we must also seriously consider Zeus, Odin, ra, Vishnu, Osiris, Quetzalcoatl, Allah, Buddha and every other theological figure, to be fair to all of creationism as a realm of origin hypotheses. To assume it is one god or supernatural agency over another seems premature. As I have said before, this agency is poorly defined, hence agnosticism. Not enough data to reach a definitive conclusion.
Comparative Theology and Comparative Religion are subjects taught in many academic institutions. You'd probably be surprised at the numbers who attend such courses.
I'd venture a guess that they aren't subjects that would be of interest to an atheist.
That must make for an interesting discussion. So what's the general consensus in comparative theology? There's a lot of factors to consider when weighing gods...particularly since the exact properties of divinity havent been observed, tested, measured, or otherwise quantified in an experimental setting. Venture all the guesses you want, curiosity compels all kinds of people to do their homework.
Wikipedia on Comparative Religion, Wikipedia on Comparative Theology.
The general consensus in Comparative Theology leans towards Christianity. This is probably due to the majority of courses being run by Christians.
In regards to the properties of divinity being observed, tested, measured, or otherwise quantified in an experimental setting being a requirement of any discussion of divinity. That is like saying you have to know the current-voltage profile of all thicknesses of MOSFET junctions to use a computer.
The definitions of terms used to describe divinity are clear and simple enough that there is little semantic argument to their meaning. Words like omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, atemporal and immortal are sufficiently adequate.
A similar example is that we don't have to know all the cases of infinity to understand that an infinte series does not come to an end. Nor do we have to define the littleness of zero, rounded to a googolpex of decimal places, to understand what it means.
The argument that we haven't defined the concepts well enough is like the reducto ad absurdum of Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the Tortise.
Omniscient, omnipotent, atemporal and immortal as divine properties have not been observed, tested, measured, or otherwise quantified in an experimental setting. You say this doesn't matter, and that is your opinion. My opinion is that these properties ought to be vigorously tested.
Perhaps we should suspend Mathematics until someone has observed nothingness or the infinite?
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut
If we must consider Yahweh seriously, then we must also seriously consider Zeus, Odin, ra, Vishnu, Osiris, Quetzalcoatl, Allah, Buddha and every other theological figure, to be fair to all of creationism as a realm of origin hypotheses. To assume it is one god or supernatural agency over another seems premature. As I have said before, this agency is poorly defined, hence agnosticism. Not enough data to reach a definitive conclusion.
Comparative Theology and Comparative Religion are subjects taught in many academic institutions. You'd probably be surprised at the numbers who attend such courses.
I'd venture a guess that they aren't subjects that would be of interest to an atheist.
That must make for an interesting discussion. So what's the general consensus in comparative theology? There's a lot of factors to consider when weighing gods...particularly since the exact properties of divinity havent been observed, tested, measured, or otherwise quantified in an experimental setting. Venture all the guesses you want, curiosity compels all kinds of people to do their homework.
Wikipedia on Comparative Religion, Wikipedia on Comparative Theology.
The general consensus in Comparative Theology leans towards Christianity. This is probably due to the majority of courses being run by Christians.
In regards to the properties of divinity being observed, tested, measured, or otherwise quantified in an experimental setting being a requirement of any discussion of divinity. That is like saying you have to know the current-voltage profile of all thicknesses of MOSFET junctions to use a computer.
The definitions of terms used to describe divinity are clear and simple enough that there is little semantic argument to their meaning. Words like omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, atemporal and immortal are sufficiently adequate.
A similar example is that we don't have to know all the cases of infinity to understand that an infinte series does not come to an end. Nor do we have to define the littleness of zero, rounded to a googolpex of decimal places, to understand what it means.
The argument that we haven't defined the concepts well enough is like the reducto ad absurdum of Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the Tortise.
Omniscient, omnipotent, atemporal and immortal as divine properties have not been observed, tested, measured, or otherwise quantified in an experimental setting. You say this doesn't matter, and that is your opinion. My opinion is that these properties ought to be vigorously tested.
Perhaps we should suspend Mathematics until someone has observed nothingness or the infinite?
originally posted by: coomba98
a reply to: chr0naut
Nope didnt miss it. Ill go back a few pages.
Athiest means 'rejection of gods pending evidence.'
Its literally the rejection of god claims due to not only a lack of evidence, but also the rejection of being and accepting intellectually dishonest thoughts and opinions.
I dont know therefore god is totally unacceptable to a rational thinker.
Coomba98
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TzarChasm
originally posted by: chr0naut
originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: chr0naut
If we must consider Yahweh seriously, then we must also seriously consider Zeus, Odin, ra, Vishnu, Osiris, Quetzalcoatl, Allah, Buddha and every other theological figure, to be fair to all of creationism as a realm of origin hypotheses. To assume it is one god or supernatural agency over another seems premature. As I have said before, this agency is poorly defined, hence agnosticism. Not enough data to reach a definitive conclusion.
Comparative Theology and Comparative Religion are subjects taught in many academic institutions. You'd probably be surprised at the numbers who attend such courses.
I'd venture a guess that they aren't subjects that would be of interest to an atheist.
That must make for an interesting discussion. So what's the general consensus in comparative theology? There's a lot of factors to consider when weighing gods...particularly since the exact properties of divinity havent been observed, tested, measured, or otherwise quantified in an experimental setting. Venture all the guesses you want, curiosity compels all kinds of people to do their homework.
Wikipedia on Comparative Religion, Wikipedia on Comparative Theology.
The general consensus in Comparative Theology leans towards Christianity. This is probably due to the majority of courses being run by Christians.
In regards to the properties of divinity being observed, tested, measured, or otherwise quantified in an experimental setting being a requirement of any discussion of divinity. That is like saying you have to know the current-voltage profile of all thicknesses of MOSFET junctions to use a computer.
The definitions of terms used to describe divinity are clear and simple enough that there is little semantic argument to their meaning. Words like omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, atemporal and immortal are sufficiently adequate.
A similar example is that we don't have to know all the cases of infinity to understand that an infinte series does not come to an end. Nor do we have to define the littleness of zero, rounded to a googolpex of decimal places, to understand what it means.
The argument that we haven't defined the concepts well enough is like the reducto ad absurdum of Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the Tortise.
Omniscient, omnipotent, atemporal and immortal as divine properties have not been observed, tested, measured, or otherwise quantified in an experimental setting. You say this doesn't matter, and that is your opinion. My opinion is that these properties ought to be vigorously tested.
Perhaps we should suspend Mathematics until someone has observed nothingness or the infinite?
No one worships math.
You are still missing the point. Omniscience has not been demonstrated or measured, atemporality has not been demonstrated or measured, omnipotence and immortality have not been demonstrated or measured. These are adjectives employed to circumvent methods of measurement. Doesn't that strike you as even a little convenient?