• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Are all scientists this stupid?

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
Haz, please keep on posting. I have enjoyed your teachings in this thread immensely and it is a pleasure to find someone that talks about the Bible in terms of accuracy and totality rather than trying to describe it one verse at a time. I think that you have found as I that the Bible is a total book rather than picking and choosing what you want to hear.

I have a learning disorder that I could never be able to remember all of the parts and put them together the way that you are doing so it is great to be able to read them as you post them. I have told many people that if you quote a verse to prove your point there are usually many other verses that will be in conflict. They usually tell me I am crazy for saying that, among other things that they call me for it, but since I cannot remember exactly where I cannot support that idea. I have to research it and by that time we have moved on.

Keep up the good work.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
I'm enjoying reading this.

Hi Citizen,
I'm on your favorite device, my phone. :)
I think your post, or at least the question you brought up outlines my point; maybe unexpectedly. If something can come from nothing and turns the law of science on its head, what happens when the theories are exhausted? I'm not talking about something that MAY come from nothing until a new theory actually figures it out. I'm talking about when all anyone can do is shrug and say "It just is". This is why I just can't buy athiesm.

Haz, I've very much enjoyed reading your posts! I've had a few conversations with a pastor about the age of the world and I wish you were there.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
Hi Citizen,
I'm on your favorite device, my phone. :)
I think your post, or at least the question you brought up outlines my point; maybe unexpectedly. If something can come from nothing and turns the law of science on its head, what happens when the theories are exhausted? I'm not talking about something that MAY come from nothing until a new theory actually figures it out. I'm talking about when all anyone can do is shrug and say "It just is". This is why I just can't buy athiesm.

Haz, I've very much enjoyed reading your posts! I've had a few conversations with a pastor about the age of the world and I wish you were there.

You are an atheist, though. You don't believe in Wotan or Zeus as gods, do you? You are atheistic towards them, and thus, an atheist.
 

Brass Magnet

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
2,818
Location
Right Behind You!, Wisconsin, USA
You are an atheist, though. You don't believe in Wotan or Zeus as gods, do you? You are atheistic towards them, and thus, an atheist.

Hmmm... I'm not sure how you are defining it, but it seems to me that since I believe there is something, most likely a supreme being, which I would describe as a god, I'm not athiest. I said as much in my first post. Is it the god of any of the worlds religions and does this god even concern itself with us? Don't know, but everyone can't be right at the same time.

Agnostic maybe? Athiest, I don't think so.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
Atheist requires the same commitment to faith as does the most observant fundamentalist believer. The existence and the non-existence of a first principle is not falsifiable.
Keep telling yourself that, sparky. You'll still be wrong. Atheism is simply not believing in a god. You can be atheistic towards one god, towards many gods, or towards all gods.

Atheism is saying the following: "no evidence has been presented to me that would convince me a god exists, so I currently accept the null hypothesis and do not espouse the belief in a god." It is not saying that you have faith one does not exist, simply that you do not have faith one does exist.

"It is always better to have no ideas than false ones; to believe nothing, than to believe what is wrong."
-Thomas Jefferson
 

PT111

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2007
Messages
2,243
Location
, South Carolina, USA
I believe in "The Force" as described in "Star Wars". To me that described God's power and presence more than anything anyone else has ever described to me. Now The Force may not be God himself but it does describe his works in this world much better than a being with two hands, two legs and one head trying to do all these things at one time. It is His Spirit and through His Spirit that His actions are carried out.
 

Haz.

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
1,226
Location
I come from a land downunder.
Haz, please keep on posting. I have enjoyed your teachings in this thread immensely and it is a pleasure to find someone that talks about the Bible in terms of accuracy and totality rather than trying to describe it one verse at a time. I think that you have found as I that the Bible is a total book rather than picking and choosing what you want to hear.

I have a learning disorder that I could never be able to remember all of the parts and put them together the way that you are doing so it is great to be able to read them as you post them. I have told many people that if you quote a verse to prove your point there are usually many other verses that will be in conflict. They usually tell me I am crazy for saying that, among other things that they call me for it, but since I cannot remember exactly where I cannot support that idea. I have to research it and by that time we have moved on.

Keep up the good work.

Hi 'PT111;1385038'

Thanks for your kind words mate. And to think I began many years ago trying to debunk and dissprove the Bible. The more I studied it and learned the more I realized it's great confomity. Like you said, there are many Scriptures which can be taken and used to make several different points. The thing is, to make a particular point and prove that it is doctrinally accurate one must be able to find two, three or even many more to back up what is being taught by that scripture. Regards, Haz.
 

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Keep telling yourself that, sparky. You'll still be wrong. Atheism is simply not believing in a god. You can be atheistic towards one god, towards many gods, or towards all gods.

Atheism is saying the following: "no evidence has been presented to me that would convince me a god exists, so I currently accept the null hypothesis and do not espouse the belief in a god." It is not saying that you have faith one does not exist, simply that you do not have faith one does exist.

"It is always better to have no ideas than false ones; to believe nothing, than to believe what is wrong."
-Thomas Jefferson


I don't want to start an argument. I just want to clear up something.

When I read the quoted post, I initially thought I misunderstood the word atheist.

So, I looked it up. The dictionary definition is a little different than Tawnos represents here. The common usage (this is how a word gets in the dictionary) of the word atheist is one who disbelieves in god(s) or denies the existence of god(s).

This is a little different from one who lacks a belief either way.

Tawnos seems to be confusing atheist and agnostic.

Do I have something sideways?
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
This is a little different from one who lacks a belief either way.

Tawnos seems to be confusing atheist and agnostic. Do I have something sideways?
Based upon the evidence presented here, he is confused, deeply confused. Remember that this thread started with the false premise that "scientist" can be an epithet.

The first chapter of Angelo Codevilla's Advice to War Presidents is 'Use a Dictionary'. Many of our correspondents here are equally unlettered and illiterate, thinking what is good enough for the goose president is good enough for the gander subjects. See this abuse of historical letters
http://johnrlott.blogspot.com/2010/10/obama-gets-einstein-quote-backwards.html#links
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
I don't want to start an argument. I just want to clear up something.

When I read the quoted post, I initially thought I misunderstood the word atheist.

So, I looked it up. The dictionary definition is a little different than Tawnos represents here. The common usage (this is how a word gets in the dictionary) of the word atheist is one who disbelieves in god(s) or denies the existence of god(s).

This is a little different from one who lacks a belief either way.

Tawnos seems to be confusing atheist and agnostic.

Do I have something sideways?

Yeah, you do (let's not even get started on whether common usage and dictionary have meaning... look up "moot" for example). Atheist is one who is a non-believer in God or deities. It comes from combining a-, which means "not a", with "theist", which means "believer in god(s)". The word atheism simply means you have not expressed that you believe in any particular gods, it does not require that you deny the existence of god(s).

As for agnosticism, I'll quote Huxley, who coined the word:
...They were quite sure they had attained a certain "gnosis,"–had, more or less successfully, solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble.

So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the appropriate title of "agnostic." It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the "gnostic" of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant. To my great satisfaction the term took.
...
Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle... Positively the principle may be expressed as in matters of intellect, do not pretend conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable.
It's a scale which stands independent of theism or atheism, because it deals with knowledge or proof, rather than belief. There are degrees of atheism, just as there are degrees of theism, and those degrees happen on a gnostic scale. Moreover, the degree of gnosis for a particular position changes depending on the item (or god) in question.

Doug Huffman's exclamation that "atheism requires the same commitment to faith" is simply wrong, in that it presumes the opposite of belief must be disbelief, rather than non-belief. It takes no faith to simply assert one has seen no evidence of phenomena, and thus does not believe it exists. Why should it, as it leaves open the possibility that, should evidence come along providing the missing proof, that opinion could change?
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
Atheist is one who is a non-believer in God or deities. It comes from combining a-, which means "not a", with "theist", which means "believer in god(s)". The word atheism simply means you have not expressed that you believe in any particular gods, it does not require that you deny the existence of god(s).

What a twist on words this is. If one is "not a believer of God(s)", then one is not a believer of any God(s).

You seem to be grabbing at straws here Tawnos. I thought you were presenting a good arguement (however misguided) until now.
 

Doug Huffman

Banned
Joined
Jun 9, 2006
Messages
9,180
Location
Washington Island, across Death's Door, Wisconsin,
Barbara Streisand, that Huxley "coined" agnosticism.

Huxley is cited as having used "agnosticism" and "agnostic" in 1870. It is a simple construction in Greek with the root 'gnostic' appearing in English literature the Seventeenth Century.

You must understand how your references work beyond making tangential use of them. The user's citation may be from the Oxford English Dictionary. Mine is from a forty year old microprint edition.
 

Ruby

Regular Member
Joined
May 5, 2010
Messages
1,201
Location
Renton, Washington, USA
Hi all. I started reading this thread yesterday and just finished. I have enjoyed it tremendously. Very fascinating, very intelligent discussion, one of the most intelligent I have read in a very long time. It reminds me of a time many, many years ago when I took a philosophy class (love philosophy). Some of the class would get together after class and have coffee and continue the discussion. I loved it, loved the intelligent discussion based on ideas, beliefs, theories, rather than the news in the media, latest gossip, etc. This thread has brought to mind that very happy memory.

My personal beliefs are probably close to what irish described. I have been around long enough to see the damage done by religion, hence I no longer subscribe to it. The true purpose and beauty of religion as been usurped by those who use it for their own evil ends. This has happened in most, if not all religions. The Crusades come to mind, as well as the present Muslim terroists. Not all Christians agreed with the Crusaders nor are all Muslims terrorists; not saying that at all. I am not nearly as well informed as the rest of you, I only know what I believe and have experienced. I have found some of the ideas expressed here do challenge me and I like that. I like to have my thinking challenged and possibly see another way to look at things. Do you, those of you posting on this thread, realize what a rare thing this is these days?!?

Though I do not believe in religion, I can see the value it holds and the beauty it has when it is not corrupted by those wanting to use it for their own ends. It unites people of similar faith and gives them comfort in knowing that there are others around them of similar faith. That faith is what sustains us in difficult times and gives meaning to our lives. I do not believe in organized religion, going to church, etc. because I see that as someone having power over other people. I do, however, have a great amount of faith; faith in a power and an intelligence much greater than that of anyone on this earth. I don't think it matters what it is called, whether that be God, Allah, Great Spirit, etc. I think one of the problems with this kind of discussion it that we are trying to describe something infinite using finite parameters, which is an exercise in futility. How do you describe the indecribable?!? The same thing with the "something from nothing" paradox. Why can't something come from nothing, especially since we don't know the nature of this "nothing"?!? We are just at the beginning of understanding our small part of the universe, let alone the whole thing, the nature of "nothing", "something", or "God" for that matter. We are trying to wrap finite minds around infinite concepts. We have an extremely difficult time trying to understand that all of "this" existed long before us and will exist long after us. The human mind wants a definite beginning and end, wants parameters, because we live in a finite world with limits and boundaries; it's what our brains deal with best, it's what they were created for. It's when we try to go beyond that that we run into difficulties. We cannot prove that anything existed prior to our own existence. If it did, we were not here to experience it. We have stories, handed down of what was before humankind was and we accept it based on faith, or not. One of my greatest wishes is that people would accept the fact that what they believe is true for them is true FOR THEM, not necessarily the rest of the world. It seems so many people feel threatened in some way unless others believe the same way they do. Hogwash! Let everyone believe the way they want to without any interference from others and stop trying to foist your beliefs off on other people. This is a general statement to people who do this, NOT in reference to anyone posting on this thread. The only exception I would make is if a person's beliefs threaten harm to other people; I would definitely draw the line there.

Just my .02, YMMV
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
What a twist on words this is. If one is "not a believer of God(s)", then one is not a believer of any God(s).

You seem to be grabbing at straws here Tawnos. I thought you were presenting a good arguement (however misguided) until now.

Uh, you are repeating me (changing "of" to "of any", which is fine). I said that atheism means one does not believe in god(s), but that "it does not require that you deny the existence of god(s)." One is a non-affirmation of belief, the other is an affirmation of non-belief.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
Huxley is cited as having used "agnosticism" and "agnostic" in 1870. It is a simple construction in Greek with the root 'gnostic' appearing in English literature the Seventeenth Century.

You must understand how your references work beyond making tangential use of them. The user's citation may be from the Oxford English Dictionary. Mine is from a forty year old microprint edition.

This post doesn't make sense to me. Are you arguing that Huxley didn't coin agnosticism? Using a word for the first time in a previously unused fashion is the very definition of coining a word, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. Others may have expressed a similar idea before him, but he put a term forth to describe it.
 

rodbender

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 23, 2008
Messages
2,519
Location
Navasota, Texas, USA
Uh, you are repeating me (changing "of" to "of any", which is fine). I said that atheism means one does not believe in god(s), but that "it does not require that you deny the existence of god(s)." One is a non-affirmation of belief, the other is an affirmation of non-belief.

What you are saying here, since it is OK to sub "of any" for "of", is that to be an atheist one must not have a belief in any god. Let me go back to this previous post then.

Tawnos said:
You are an atheist, though. You don't believe in Wotan or Zeus as gods, do you? You are atheistic towards them, and thus, an atheist.

What you are saying here is if one does not believe in ALL gods one is an atheist. A tad contradictory don't you think?.
 

Tawnos

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 4, 2008
Messages
2,542
Location
Washington
What you are saying here, since it is OK to sub "of any" for "of", is that to be an atheist one must not have a belief in any god. Let me go back to this previous post then.



What you are saying here is if one does not believe in ALL gods one is an atheist. A tad contradictory don't you think?.
Not at all, why or how would it be? You can be atheistic towards one or more gods. Most that call themselves "atheists", though, simply go one god further and don't have any belief in your god.

How does the concept that atheism is about non-belief, rather than explicitly requiring denial, conflict with the idea that one can be atheistic towards a particular god or gods? I suppose you're getting hung up on how one could be atheistic towards some god, thus making them an "atheist" in a limited scoped discussion, versus one who is an atheist, period. That shouldn't be a problem if you are capable of adjusting your scope of discussion.
 

Haz.

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 19, 2010
Messages
1,226
Location
I come from a land downunder.
When I was an outspoken atheist I based my position on what I believed to be purely objective, purely secular, truly scientific teachings about the origin and nature of the cosmos, of the earth itself, and all life forms on earth.

In short, I passionately believed that the Copernican paradigm, the Big Bang paradigm, the Darwinian paradigm, and the Relativity paradigm explained all the pertinent facts related to the subjects with which they dealt.

Because of these convictions (reinforced by mostly tons of b.s, and a ton or two of now, in my opinion, suspect books), I concluded that only red-necked ignorami in bib-overalls could still believe in Biblical explanations for all the origins-related phenomena (or the Koran’s explanations, for that matter). Science had turned those explanations into superstitions unbecoming to the educated mind. And that was that those conclusions were logical and understandable if, I say if the scientific models we have all been taught are:

(a) demonstrably true, and, (b) not merely the beliefs of some religious system posing as secular science.

Any atheist who really wants to know can find out what I (and no small number of others) are finding out about those two big if's.

Consider this. There truly is no proof or any evidence whatsoever which conclusively demonstrates that the universe and the earth and all that exists came to be via the “Big Bang” explosion of a “cosmic egg” some 15 billion years ago.

There is, however, truly mountainous evidence from design alone which demands that there be a Designer. This evidence erases any possibility that everything got to be as it is by accident resulting from an explosion. Any claim that purely secular Big Bangism provides an intelligent explanation for everything that exists must depend on a logic-denying faith in the impossible, a faith which must also throw hard laws of true science to the wind.
 
Last edited:

irish52084

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2010
Messages
285
Location
Puyallup< WA
Haz, I have enjoyed your contributions greatly. You haven't, in my eyes, overstepped your bounds or made exotic claims. With that said, I have an issue with part of your last post.

The big bang theory does not demand a belief in the impossible or shatter any "hard laws" of science. The big bang theory also doesn't attempt to explain how all things began, just how our ever expanding space came to be the way it is. As a working theory it is far more useful than how Einstein believed in a static universe and how his explanation of gravity keeping everything moving. Einstein was not as correct in his theories on gravity as we once believed. I claim once again that science requires no faith, it is used to answer the infinite questions of our world. There is no mystery to the scientific system, it has a transparency or the conclusions drawn from it are invalid.

The other thing I want to talk about is the idea of scientific "laws". The law of gravity is only a law in our local environment, the earth. The laws we follow in earths atmosphere change drastically in different areas of space. Extraordinarily dense objects warp everything around them and change how we must calculate their forces, applying our laws of science to things that don't abide by them is ridiculous. The idea of hard laws of science is antiquated.

I hope this makes some sense.
 
Top