Tons of textwalls here.
YAY!
I mistakenly posted here and it keeps popping up on my "new replies to posts" shit.
You have my condolences, but I think that it is an overreaction to shut down a thread to remove a single item from your replies list. But if you are willing to go through this entire thread making an honest summary of all the points then I am willing to start a new thread that you can avoid with a nice summary page to start it...
Anyways. The entire argument here is invalid.
Atheists cannot prove "god" exisits, and theists cannot prove "god" exisits.
You are basically arguing about nothing.
That is one position, but some people disagree with it and you don't seem to have any supporting arguments. If you demonstrate specifically why there is no mechanism by which conclusions can be made on the topic then I would welcome the input, but if you don't, then I expect that your position won't be respected by the conversation...
There are parts of physics and qualities of the universe science cannot measure or understand. If you cannot measure it, it is NOT science. Quantum physics is like that. You have particles that EXIST and DO NOT EXIST all at the SAME TIME.
Hmmm, time is constant, existence is not... I have no problem with paradoxes, I kind of like to think that they are out there, and they certainly exist in artificial settings. But depending upon your definition that may not even be a paradox, it is all a matter of perspective, which can be changed easily without progressing time.
If you can't measure something, then you make a prediction about its influence upon something that you CAN measure and measure that...
Statement: god does not exist.
Hypothesis: god would not act or possess any presence beyond that created by humans.
Experiments: study two numerically significant groups of people, ensure there is no
religious bias between either group. Collect a significant number of people, have them request god's intersession in the health of one group, ensure that they are ignorant of the other group. Compare health information of the two groups, if there is significant deviation between the groups then there is evidence, far from conclusive evidence, but evidence none the less for god, otherwise there is evidence that supports the theory that god does not exist, there are other theories that it would also support, but those need to be tested independently...
Experiment: Compare something of divine significance, an artefact from the religion you are testing for example. Construct an otherwise identical item that has no divine significance. Compare the two items. If an item with the same material components in the same state cannot be discerned from a divine item then it suggests that there is no divine presence in the world.
Statement: god created the world as an amusement, god considers all of our existence to be abstract, god does not consider anything to have rights, inherent worth, justification, or, in short, any reason to be respected at all...
Hypothesis: the world exists to provide experiences to a being that can create worlds, much as humans can imagine scenarios, and computers can model scenarios. There would be records, experiences would be exaggerations of topics that would be of interest to an entity that can create such a world. Records would be reviewed, experiences would focus on limitations, lack of knowledge, struggles, and interactions between entities.
Experiment: Take a focus of activity, a human for example, seal it in a room with stimuli that are not known by the testers. Take a second object, one that does not experience significant activity, a tree for example, seal it in an otherwise identical room. If the testers can derive more information from something that is more interesting then it stands to reason that god is more interested in activity than life.
Then observe the focus of activity and look for signs of it being harvested...
Experiment: Take two people, motivate one to create, ensure that the other is not. If the one that is motivated to create struggles more than the other than it suggests that creation is fundamentally opposed by the world, which would imply that any entity that controls it is pursuing curiosity of an environment in which creation is limited than it is in the happiness of the entities within it...
Of course there are multiple ways to interpret the results, but it is about building up evidence to support a theory, if you think your theory is better, than find more evidence for it. People seem to be opposing this on principal...
If you cannot even measure and define your own universe, how could you possibly understand or measure an intelligence that not only understands everything you know, and do not know, but actually created that?
If there is a "god" it is something immeasurably vast and its nature is unknowable to humans. Maybe "god" is just beyond mankind's abililty to measure or comprehend.
Oceans are vast beyond my experience, and the state of their existence is completely alien to my own, that does not stop me from understanding them. People do not WANT to understand god, and so they pretend that it is beyond them, and that is good, because without god many people would despair, and many do. But people then give god authority, and direction, and suddenly god is justifying people, even when they are unable to justify themselves, and commanding people toward ends that they would not otherwise accept.
You can buy a hardwood table, and know everything about it. The material it is made from, the dimensions of it, the plastic coating over it, the tarnish on the wood's surface, but you will never really know WHO make it.
Thats beyond our grasp.
I may never find out who made it, but I can find out how to make tables, and understand the thoughts that go into it, I can even get to know people who do. But to be fair to the metaphor, I cannot make tables, and I cannot meet tablemakers, but I can study the table and discern how it was put together, and guess as to why it was done that way.
I guess. Believe whatever you want, it will not matter in the end.
Do you have any evidence to suggest that there will actually be an end?
The United States of America has a democractic-style that generally does what the voting population tells it to.
except when they are voting. sorry, couldn't resist.
Representative democracy is limited democracy, if anyone tried it in their country they would be livid, when it comes to foreign policy the united states of America's bark comes from a different place than it's bite...We are not here to discuss politics, don't look at this...
Personally, I think all marriage should be abolished. If you want to make contracts between another person, then arrange them. There should not be some "bonus pak" of legal obligations that tie two people together that is called "Marriage" under any laws in the USA.
It seems to me that marriage is a tradition, and that changing a tradition to suit you defeats the purpose. But that there are many situations in which a commitment between people would be appropriate, and government may well work better if it acknowledges it. But I think that relationship law and sexual law should be separate, if a man, his sister, his other sister, who is a sheep, an anchovy (he isn't related) and two 4 year-old twin orphans; or two old war buddies who spent 2 years together in a foxhole under an artillery barrage and go catatonic if they are separated, want to call themselves a family, then that should be respected for its own merits. There should be other laws to control the spread of disease, inviable offspring, or abuse of people, animals, school stationary prior to sale, or whatever...Not on topic, move along please...
Its sophomoric just because the height of its dicussion has been acheived by just about everyone. Yeah, it was a big deal, the argument between Atheism and Theism back in the ole daye's O' Yore. But look. It ain't the olde dayes o' yore anymore.
It never was the "ole daye's O' Yore", it has always been topical and there has always been room for new insights. Religion is considered by many to be a personal choice. Doesn't everyone deserve a chance to seek the truth for themselves?
Yeah it is kinda silly people believe in strange things, but you will be hard-pressed to convince that guy his "lucky rabbit's foot" isn't lucky. You could drone on and on about how its just a peice of dead animal on his keychain and it can't effect anything, he will cite 500 things he swears his lucky rabbit's foot is responsible for.
Take the foot, produce an imitation, give one to a third party for one day, then give the other for a different day, have the guy record all instances of luck over the two days, then inform them of which day it was the lucky foot and which day it was an imitation. It IS possible to derive evidence to support or oppose the theory, you just need to provide something more convincing than their 500 anecdotes...
Of course, they may be happier with their good luck charm than without it. And just because the idea of something attracting luck energy or something similar seems like nonsense doesn't make it impossible. But there is a very real danger of bunny mutilations that would be best avoided...
Author
Topic: Atheists (Read 365459 times)