Things about atheism that should be self-evident.

[BulletProof]

You've spoken to every single Jewish rabbi on the planet?!?! I'm impressed. How long did that take?

Not as long as you think, because again you understand nothing.

I understand you're full of shit. Here's, at least, one Jewish teacher who thinks "God Exists" is a fundamental of Judaism.

G-d Exists
The fact of G-d's existence is accepted almost without question. Proof is not needed, and is rarely offered. The Torah begins by stating "In the beginning, G-d created..." It does not tell who G-d is or how He was created.

In general, Judaism views the existence of G-d as a necessary prerequisite for the existence of the universe. The existence of the universe is sufficient proof of the existence of G-d​

Now, I suppose you are right that a Jew doesn't believe God exists. However, that's not because they are atheist, rather it is not a matter of belief, but an affirmation of a proposition. A Jew does not believe God exists. The reality that God exists is a simple statement of reality, in the mind of a Jew, not entirely unlike "Water is wet".

Your link describes the Jews' [glaringly non-biblical] view of their god, not whether or not belief in God is definitively, as you claim, part of being a Jew. Consider this from that website, "A Jew is any person whose mother was a Jew...
It is important to note that being a Jew has nothing to do with what you believe." That absolutely does allow room for Atheist Jews, and many Jews are Atheists and are universally accepted as full Jews, even by the most orthodox.

You should digest this from the page you linked to: "The sin of the Golden Calf incident was not that the people chose another deity, but that they tried to represent G-d in a physical form." That's both an admission that belief in God isn't part of being a Jew and that it's a sin to believe in Jesus.

 

[westwall]

Agnostics are smarter than Athiests.

Weird, since they are atheists.

Wrong. Agnostics merely acknowledge that there is neither proof for, nor against, a God. We also don't care if a person is religious or not. It simply doesn't matter to us.

 

[Meriweather]

So, in response, I say: The next time you ARE in a science classroom and don't have to listen to ID or creationism being presented , thank people like me! You're welcome!

I AM in a science class! Neither Intelligent Design or Creationism crop up, or have cropped up in the twenty years I've been involved. People talk about a lot of things, go to court over a lot of things. As I said, unless you do live in a different universe, it is not a big deal. Not where I live or the schools where I've taught. You live in a very small world if everyone you know believes the Bible is literal and that religion is about to invade science class. I was taught evolution in a Catholic school and that was decades ago.

There is no reason for anyone to be fearful unless wish to be.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Agnostics are smarter than Athiests.

Weird, since they are atheists.

Wrong. Agnostics merely acknowledge that there is neither proof for, nor against, a God. We also don't care if a person is religious or not. It simply doesn't matter to us.

Agnostics do not accept a belief in god. If you accept an atheist is anyone who does not accept a belief in god, then all agnostics are atheists.

Yes, you're an atheist.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, in response, I say: The next time you ARE in a science classroom and don't have to listen to ID or creationism being presented , thank people like me! You're welcome!

I AM in a science class! Neither Intelligent Design or Creationism crop up, or have cropped up in the twenty years I've been involved. People talk about a lot of things, go to court over a lot of things. As I said, unless you do live in a different universe, it is not a big deal. Not where I live or the schools where I've taught. You live in a very small world if everyone you know believes the Bible is literal and that religion is about to invade science class. I was taught evolution in a Catholic school and that was decades ago.

There is no reason for anyone to be fearful unless wish to be.

I am glad they havent. But, being a science teacher, surely you realize it is absurd to argue your anecdotal experience as proof for or against any of this. Or maybe you dont realize it.

Again, you can thank people like me for helping to keep it out of your classroom.

 

[westwall]

Agnostics are smarter than Athiests.

Weird, since they are atheists.

Wrong. Agnostics merely acknowledge that there is neither proof for, nor against, a God. We also don't care if a person is religious or not. It simply doesn't matter to us.

Agnostics do not accept a belief in god. If you accept an atheist is anyone who does not accept a belief in god, then all agnostics are atheists.

Yes, you're an atheist.

Wrong. An atheist BELIEVES there is no God. I have no idea if there is one or not. There is no evidence either for or against.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Agnostics are smarter than Athiests.

Weird, since they are atheists.

Wrong. Agnostics merely acknowledge that there is neither proof for, nor against, a God. We also don't care if a person is religious or not. It simply doesn't matter to us.

Agnostics do not accept a belief in god. If you accept an atheist is anyone who does not accept a belief in god, then all agnostics are atheists.

Yes, you're an atheist.

Wrong. An atheist BELIEVES there is no God. I have no idea if there is one of not. There is no evidence either for or against.

No, I think an atheist can simply be someone who doesn't accept a belief in any gods.

By the definition you present, I am an agnostic. But I am about as agnostic about gods as I am about leprechauns and uniorns.

Your agnosticism is a copout, in a way. There could never BE any evidence for or against magic and miracles, precisely because they are magical. That would seem to include gods.

 

[Tresha91203]

I spend "an inordinate amount of time" arguing against dangerous stupidity.

It's too bad you couldn't have conveyed that to infamous atheists such as Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Korean stooges, Castrol, etc., etc., etc. that have murdered tens of MILLIONS in the past century alone. Hitler and the Jihadists can't come anywhere close to the numbers murdered by the aforementioned atheists. Atheism's contribution to humanity in the 20th century was mountains of dead bodies and oceans of blood.

This fails as a guilt by association fallacy, as well as a red herring fallacy.

And theists have just as much blood on their hands, if not more.

Atheist collectivist governments have murdered orders of magnitude more people in only the last 100 years than ALL of the religious murders over the last 2,000 years. It isn't even close.

"Guilt by association". You demonstrated the problem in your post. "Atheist collectivist governments". Collectivism/Communism is the problem. Those governments are not atheist. Sure, they denounce traditional theism - Christianity, or any other traditional religion. But, they don't replace it with rational reason, as an enlightened atheist society, like Sweden, for instance, would do. Rather they replace it with the theism of the state - statism. The state became the god of the collectivists. And that is just as bad as traditional theism. It is just another example of how authoritarian theism - whether the god of that theism is a supernatural entity, or the state - leads to all atrocities being forgiven in the name of the deity.

Sweden is Christian. The Church of Sweden is comparable to Lutheran. While more secular than some countries, religion plays a ritual and cultural role in Sweden.

 

[westwall]

Agnostics are smarter than Athiests.

Weird, since they are atheists.

Wrong. Agnostics merely acknowledge that there is neither proof for, nor against, a God. We also don't care if a person is religious or not. It simply doesn't matter to us.

Agnostics do not accept a belief in god. If you accept an atheist is anyone who does not accept a belief in god, then all agnostics are atheists.

Yes, you're an atheist.

Wrong. An atheist BELIEVES there is no God. I have no idea if there is one of not. There is no evidence either for or against.

No, I think an atheist can simply be someone who doesn't accept a belief in any gods.

By the definition you present, I am an agnostic. But I am about as agnostic about gods as I am about leprechauns and uniorns.

Your agnosticism is a copout, in a way. There could never BE any evidence for or against magic and miracles, precisely because they are magical. That would seem to include gods.

A copout? No, it is merely the considered reasoning of a scientist who relies on observation to make decisions. I don't "believe" in anything. I merely observe the natural world and try and describe what I see with the tools I have available to me. That's the difference. Atheism requires belief every bit as much as theism.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Weird, since they are atheists.

Wrong. Agnostics merely acknowledge that there is neither proof for, nor against, a God. We also don't care if a person is religious or not. It simply doesn't matter to us.

Agnostics do not accept a belief in god. If you accept an atheist is anyone who does not accept a belief in god, then all agnostics are atheists.

Yes, you're an atheist.

Wrong. An atheist BELIEVES there is no God. I have no idea if there is one of not. There is no evidence either for or against.

No, I think an atheist can simply be someone who doesn't accept a belief in any gods.

By the definition you present, I am an agnostic. But I am about as agnostic about gods as I am about leprechauns and uniorns.

Your agnosticism is a copout, in a way. There could never BE any evidence for or against magic and miracles, precisely because they are magical. That would seem to include gods.

A copout? No, it is merely the considered reasoning of a scientist who relies on observation to make decisions. I don't "believe" in anything. I merely observe the natural world and try and describe what I see with the tools I have available to me. That's the difference. Atheism requires belief every bit as much as theism.

It's a copout, and a fine one at that. I don't disagree with it. But, it's a pure copout, when it stops short of including the idea that there can BE no such evidence. How could one possibly provide evidence of magic?

To proclaim, with 100% certainty, that there are no gods is a type of faith. However, to live your life as if there are no gods is merely a determination, like being confident your car will start tomorrow morning. And someone who is agnostic based on "no evidence for/against" would rationally live under this determination.

And then they would be a particular type of atheist: de facto.

 

[westwall]

Wrong. Agnostics merely acknowledge that there is neither proof for, nor against, a God. We also don't care if a person is religious or not. It simply doesn't matter to us.

Agnostics do not accept a belief in god. If you accept an atheist is anyone who does not accept a belief in god, then all agnostics are atheists.

Yes, you're an atheist.

Wrong. An atheist BELIEVES there is no God. I have no idea if there is one of not. There is no evidence either for or against.

No, I think an atheist can simply be someone who doesn't accept a belief in any gods.

By the definition you present, I am an agnostic. But I am about as agnostic about gods as I am about leprechauns and uniorns.

Your agnosticism is a copout, in a way. There could never BE any evidence for or against magic and miracles, precisely because they are magical. That would seem to include gods.

A copout? No, it is merely the considered reasoning of a scientist who relies on observation to make decisions. I don't "believe" in anything. I merely observe the natural world and try and describe what I see with the tools I have available to me. That's the difference. Atheism requires belief every bit as much as theism.

It's a copout, and a fine one at that. I don't disagree with it. But, it's a pure copout, when it stops short of including the idea that there can BE no such evidence. How could one possibly provide evidence of magic?

To proclaim, with 100% certainty, that there are no gods is a type of faith. However, to live your life as if there are no gods is merely a determination, like being confident your car will start tomorrow morning. And someone who is agnostic based on "no evidence for/against" would rationally live under this determination.

And then they would be a particular type of atheist: de facto.

How do you know there can never be evidence? Two hundred years ago everyone knew that the dream of flying was fantasy. It took weeks to months to cross the Atlantic Ocean in a wind powered vessel, the people of that time could not conceive of mankind traversing that same distance in a few hours. They not only didn't have the imagination to think of it, they didn't even have the ability to ask a relevant question about it.

As our instruments improve we may eventually get to a point where a much smarter person than you or I comes up with an experiment that can provide evidence for the existence of a God. We simply don't know. The older I get the more I learn of what we as humans truly don't know. Furthermore it becomes ever more apparent that not only do we not know much, but we don't even know the correct questions to ask.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Agnostics do not accept a belief in god. If you accept an atheist is anyone who does not accept a belief in god, then all agnostics are atheists.

Yes, you're an atheist.

Wrong. An atheist BELIEVES there is no God. I have no idea if there is one of not. There is no evidence either for or against.

No, I think an atheist can simply be someone who doesn't accept a belief in any gods.

By the definition you present, I am an agnostic. But I am about as agnostic about gods as I am about leprechauns and uniorns.

Your agnosticism is a copout, in a way. There could never BE any evidence for or against magic and miracles, precisely because they are magical. That would seem to include gods.

A copout? No, it is merely the considered reasoning of a scientist who relies on observation to make decisions. I don't "believe" in anything. I merely observe the natural world and try and describe what I see with the tools I have available to me. That's the difference. Atheism requires belief every bit as much as theism.

It's a copout, and a fine one at that. I don't disagree with it. But, it's a pure copout, when it stops short of including the idea that there can BE no such evidence. How could one possibly provide evidence of magic?

To proclaim, with 100% certainty, that there are no gods is a type of faith. However, to live your life as if there are no gods is merely a determination, like being confident your car will start tomorrow morning. And someone who is agnostic based on "no evidence for/against" would rationally live under this determination.

And then they would be a particular type of atheist: de facto.

How do you know there can never be evidence? Two hundred years ago everyone knew that the dream of flying was fantasy. It took weeks to months to cross the Atlantic Ocean in a wind powered vessel, the people of that time could not conceive of mankind traversing that same distance in a few hours. They not only didn't have the imagination to think of it, they didn't even have the ability to ask a relevant question about it.

As our instruments improve we may eventually get to a point where a much smarter person that you or I comes up with an experiment that can provide evidence for the existence of a God. We simply don't know. The older I get the more I learn of what we as humans truly don't know. Furthermore it becomes ever more apparent that not only do we not know much, but we don't even know the correct questions to ask.

How can there be? For one, there can be no evidence of "magic", by definition. So that's out.

Now then, say God doesn't perform magic, or that the evidence of the existence of gods does not involve magic. So, what would evidence of gods be? Give me some examples. I can't think of any.

I think you'll find the concept of determinism is going to pull the rug out from under all of this equivocating, weak philosophy of "evidence for gods".

 

[westwall]

Wrong. An atheist BELIEVES there is no God. I have no idea if there is one of not. There is no evidence either for or against.

No, I think an atheist can simply be someone who doesn't accept a belief in any gods.

By the definition you present, I am an agnostic. But I am about as agnostic about gods as I am about leprechauns and uniorns.

Your agnosticism is a copout, in a way. There could never BE any evidence for or against magic and miracles, precisely because they are magical. That would seem to include gods.

A copout? No, it is merely the considered reasoning of a scientist who relies on observation to make decisions. I don't "believe" in anything. I merely observe the natural world and try and describe what I see with the tools I have available to me. That's the difference. Atheism requires belief every bit as much as theism.

It's a copout, and a fine one at that. I don't disagree with it. But, it's a pure copout, when it stops short of including the idea that there can BE no such evidence. How could one possibly provide evidence of magic?

To proclaim, with 100% certainty, that there are no gods is a type of faith. However, to live your life as if there are no gods is merely a determination, like being confident your car will start tomorrow morning. And someone who is agnostic based on "no evidence for/against" would rationally live under this determination.

And then they would be a particular type of atheist: de facto.

How do you know there can never be evidence? Two hundred years ago everyone knew that the dream of flying was fantasy. It took weeks to months to cross the Atlantic Ocean in a wind powered vessel, the people of that time could not conceive of mankind traversing that same distance in a few hours. They not only didn't have the imagination to think of it, they didn't even have the ability to ask a relevant question about it.

As our instruments improve we may eventually get to a point where a much smarter person that you or I comes up with an experiment that can provide evidence for the existence of a God. We simply don't know. The older I get the more I learn of what we as humans truly don't know. Furthermore it becomes ever more apparent that not only do we not know much, but we don't even know the correct questions to ask.

How can there be? For one, there can be no evidence of "magic", by definition. So that's out.

Now then, say God doesn't perform magic, or that the evidence of the existence of gods does not involve magic. So, what would evidence of gods be? Give me some examples. I can't think of any.

I think you'll find the concept of determinism is going to pull the rug out from under all of this equivocating, weak philosophy of "evidence for gods".

Fifty years ago the concept of teleportation was considered magic as well. Today..... Like I said, we don't even know the questions to be asked.

And I have already stipulated that neither you, nor I, are smart enough to figure out a experiment that would determine Gods existence.

Connectivity
First Object Teleported from Earth to Orbit
Researchers in China have teleported a photon from the ground to a satellite orbiting more than 500 kilometers above.


A single photon is the first object to be teleported from the ground to an orbiting satellite

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, I think an atheist can simply be someone who doesn't accept a belief in any gods.

By the definition you present, I am an agnostic. But I am about as agnostic about gods as I am about leprechauns and uniorns.

Your agnosticism is a copout, in a way. There could never BE any evidence for or against magic and miracles, precisely because they are magical. That would seem to include gods.

A copout? No, it is merely the considered reasoning of a scientist who relies on observation to make decisions. I don't "believe" in anything. I merely observe the natural world and try and describe what I see with the tools I have available to me. That's the difference. Atheism requires belief every bit as much as theism.

It's a copout, and a fine one at that. I don't disagree with it. But, it's a pure copout, when it stops short of including the idea that there can BE no such evidence. How could one possibly provide evidence of magic?

To proclaim, with 100% certainty, that there are no gods is a type of faith. However, to live your life as if there are no gods is merely a determination, like being confident your car will start tomorrow morning. And someone who is agnostic based on "no evidence for/against" would rationally live under this determination.

And then they would be a particular type of atheist: de facto.

How do you know there can never be evidence? Two hundred years ago everyone knew that the dream of flying was fantasy. It took weeks to months to cross the Atlantic Ocean in a wind powered vessel, the people of that time could not conceive of mankind traversing that same distance in a few hours. They not only didn't have the imagination to think of it, they didn't even have the ability to ask a relevant question about it.

As our instruments improve we may eventually get to a point where a much smarter person that you or I comes up with an experiment that can provide evidence for the existence of a God. We simply don't know. The older I get the more I learn of what we as humans truly don't know. Furthermore it becomes ever more apparent that not only do we not know much, but we don't even know the correct questions to ask.

How can there be? For one, there can be no evidence of "magic", by definition. So that's out.

Now then, say God doesn't perform magic, or that the evidence of the existence of gods does not involve magic. So, what would evidence of gods be? Give me some examples. I can't think of any.

I think you'll find the concept of determinism is going to pull the rug out from under all of this equivocating, weak philosophy of "evidence for gods".

Fifty years ago the concept of teleportation was considered magic as well. Today..... Like I said, we don't even know the questions to be asked.

Connectivity
First Object Teleported from Earth to Orbit
Researchers in China have teleported a photon from the ground to a satellite orbiting more than 500 kilometers above.


A single photon is the first object to be teleported from the ground to an orbiting satellite

"Fifty years ago the concept of teleportation was considered magic as well. "

Exactly my point. And they were wrong. We are in agreement, here. You are confirming what I am saying. If we witnessed such an event, we would not throw up our hands and say, "magic is real!!!"... and if we did, we would be incurious fools.

 

[westwall]

A copout? No, it is merely the considered reasoning of a scientist who relies on observation to make decisions. I don't "believe" in anything. I merely observe the natural world and try and describe what I see with the tools I have available to me. That's the difference. Atheism requires belief every bit as much as theism.

It's a copout, and a fine one at that. I don't disagree with it. But, it's a pure copout, when it stops short of including the idea that there can BE no such evidence. How could one possibly provide evidence of magic?

To proclaim, with 100% certainty, that there are no gods is a type of faith. However, to live your life as if there are no gods is merely a determination, like being confident your car will start tomorrow morning. And someone who is agnostic based on "no evidence for/against" would rationally live under this determination.

And then they would be a particular type of atheist: de facto.

How do you know there can never be evidence? Two hundred years ago everyone knew that the dream of flying was fantasy. It took weeks to months to cross the Atlantic Ocean in a wind powered vessel, the people of that time could not conceive of mankind traversing that same distance in a few hours. They not only didn't have the imagination to think of it, they didn't even have the ability to ask a relevant question about it.

As our instruments improve we may eventually get to a point where a much smarter person that you or I comes up with an experiment that can provide evidence for the existence of a God. We simply don't know. The older I get the more I learn of what we as humans truly don't know. Furthermore it becomes ever more apparent that not only do we not know much, but we don't even know the correct questions to ask.

How can there be? For one, there can be no evidence of "magic", by definition. So that's out.

Now then, say God doesn't perform magic, or that the evidence of the existence of gods does not involve magic. So, what would evidence of gods be? Give me some examples. I can't think of any.

I think you'll find the concept of determinism is going to pull the rug out from under all of this equivocating, weak philosophy of "evidence for gods".

Fifty years ago the concept of teleportation was considered magic as well. Today..... Like I said, we don't even know the questions to be asked.

Connectivity
First Object Teleported from Earth to Orbit
Researchers in China have teleported a photon from the ground to a satellite orbiting more than 500 kilometers above.


A single photon is the first object to be teleported from the ground to an orbiting satellite

"Fifty years ago the concept of teleportation was considered magic as well. "

Exactly my point. And they were wrong. We are in agreement, here. You are confirming what I am saying. If we witnessed such an event, we would not throw up our hands and say, "magic is real!!!"... and if we did, we would be incurious fools.

Nope. I am confirming my point. That is simply that we currently have no way to test for if there is a God. In the future we may. I am not so arrogant as to claim anything impossible. Remember, according to quantum mechanics it is possible (though highly unlikely) for you to walk through a solid wall thanks to the "magic" of quantum tunneling.

 

[Czernobog]

I spend "an inordinate amount of time" arguing against dangerous stupidity.

It's too bad you couldn't have conveyed that to infamous atheists such as Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the Korean stooges, Castrol, etc., etc., etc. that have murdered tens of MILLIONS in the past century alone. Hitler and the Jihadists can't come anywhere close to the numbers murdered by the aforementioned atheists. Atheism's contribution to humanity in the 20th century was mountains of dead bodies and oceans of blood.

This fails as a guilt by association fallacy, as well as a red herring fallacy.

And theists have just as much blood on their hands, if not more.

Atheist collectivist governments have murdered orders of magnitude more people in only the last 100 years than ALL of the religious murders over the last 2,000 years. It isn't even close.

"Guilt by association". You demonstrated the problem in your post. "Atheist collectivist governments". Collectivism/Communism is the problem. Those governments are not atheist. Sure, they denounce traditional theism - Christianity, or any other traditional religion. But, they don't replace it with rational reason, as an enlightened atheist society, like Sweden, for instance, would do. Rather they replace it with the theism of the state - statism. The state became the god of the collectivists. And that is just as bad as traditional theism. It is just another example of how authoritarian theism - whether the god of that theism is a supernatural entity, or the state - leads to all atrocities being forgiven in the name of the deity.

Sweden is Christian. The Church of Sweden is comparable to Lutheran. While more secular than some countries, religion plays a ritual and cultural role in Sweden.

Well...that may, technically be true, but the reality is a bit more secular:

2) Sweden & 3) Denmark. It might not seem immediately obvious why high numbers of non-believers in a country would make life better for atheists, but the examples of Sweden and Denmark show why this is true. When non-belief or even outright atheism is widespread, atheists can go about their lives free from the fear that their lack of belief will cause people to mistrust, hate, or even discriminate against them. These two countries, in which only 17% and 18%, respectively, of the population consider religion important, have become icons of secularist values to the rest of the world. Phil Zuckerman, a sociologist from Pitzer College in Claremont, Calif., spent a little more than a year talking to citizens to find out why. He discovered that your average Danish or Swedish citizen simply doesn’t think much about religion; in these two cultures, religion has largely been relegated to a ceremonial role. For the typical atheist who likes to have a Christmas tree without the burden of having to believe in the Virgin Birth, the Danish and Swedish attitude towards religion should fit like a cozy sweater.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's a copout, and a fine one at that. I don't disagree with it. But, it's a pure copout, when it stops short of including the idea that there can BE no such evidence. How could one possibly provide evidence of magic?

To proclaim, with 100% certainty, that there are no gods is a type of faith. However, to live your life as if there are no gods is merely a determination, like being confident your car will start tomorrow morning. And someone who is agnostic based on "no evidence for/against" would rationally live under this determination.

And then they would be a particular type of atheist: de facto.

How do you know there can never be evidence? Two hundred years ago everyone knew that the dream of flying was fantasy. It took weeks to months to cross the Atlantic Ocean in a wind powered vessel, the people of that time could not conceive of mankind traversing that same distance in a few hours. They not only didn't have the imagination to think of it, they didn't even have the ability to ask a relevant question about it.

As our instruments improve we may eventually get to a point where a much smarter person that you or I comes up with an experiment that can provide evidence for the existence of a God. We simply don't know. The older I get the more I learn of what we as humans truly don't know. Furthermore it becomes ever more apparent that not only do we not know much, but we don't even know the correct questions to ask.

How can there be? For one, there can be no evidence of "magic", by definition. So that's out.

Now then, say God doesn't perform magic, or that the evidence of the existence of gods does not involve magic. So, what would evidence of gods be? Give me some examples. I can't think of any.

I think you'll find the concept of determinism is going to pull the rug out from under all of this equivocating, weak philosophy of "evidence for gods".

Fifty years ago the concept of teleportation was considered magic as well. Today..... Like I said, we don't even know the questions to be asked.

Connectivity
First Object Teleported from Earth to Orbit
Researchers in China have teleported a photon from the ground to a satellite orbiting more than 500 kilometers above.


A single photon is the first object to be teleported from the ground to an orbiting satellite

"Fifty years ago the concept of teleportation was considered magic as well. "

Exactly my point. And they were wrong. We are in agreement, here. You are confirming what I am saying. If we witnessed such an event, we would not throw up our hands and say, "magic is real!!!"... and if we did, we would be incurious fools.

Nope. I am confirming my point. That is simply that we currently have no way to test for if there is a God. In the future we may. I am not so arrogant as to claim anything impossible. Remember, according to quantum mechanics it is possible (though highly unlikely) for you to walk through a solid wall thanks to the "magic" of quantum tunneling.

You are not confirming your point, you are reaffirming it. Big difference. And you are ignoring my points. And, your intent is irrelevant to the truth of the statement , "you are confirming my point", which is true, and you did, inadvertently or otherwise.

 

[BreezeWood]

If you're saying what I think you are - that science does not provide moral direction - you're right...to a point.


that has yet to be determined, moral direction could very well describe the evolutionary process involved with the creation template of life all beings have evolved from and would distinguish science in a theistic lite where forces of Good vs Evil do become part of the equation and like gravity may someday be calibrated to determine an outcome - leading eventually to the true religion that is responsible for physiological existence.

theism can be a belief in a finite morality necessary to generate an organic existence, the religion of life and as such would require a theoretical "Almighty" whether one existed or not as a functioning being. allowing for a spontaneous universe bound by that religion as the origin of our existence.

Okay. Now you're backing up, and changing direction. I'm still waiting for an answer to my question :

I don't see a tantrum there, hon. I think he was making fun of you.

Then you're not as bright as I thought you were.

Actually, she's right on. Your the one who ignornatly proposed, "Hey. Ignore all the evil shit they do, because they do nice things, too, " I just simplified it, to demonstrate what a stupid proposal that is.

Where did I state that bit of drivel? Hmm. Point to it.

"And you ignore the good it does."

Unless your point was that "the good it does" makes up for all of the evil, cruel, and harmful that it engenders, and has engendered, then what was your point of that statement? And if your answer is, "just that it does good, " then my response is so what?

You accused me of claiming that you said something you never said. I posted exactly what you said, and asked for you to clarify. Before we move on to some new point you want to make, why don't we finish with your first point. I'll wait...

.

5. Science and theism cannot co-exist. At all.

If you're saying what I think you are - that science does not provide moral direction - you're right...to a point.

that has yet to be determined, moral direction could very well describe the evolutionary process involved with the creation template of life all beings have evolved from and would distinguish science in a theistic lite ...

Okay. Now you're backing up, and changing direction. I'm still waiting for an answer to my question :

5. Science and theism cannot co-exist. At all. They are opposite, nemeses, antonyms, call it whatever you wish. Anyone who claims to live by both is fooling themselves and not truly following either.

If you're saying what I think you are - that science does not provide moral direction - you're right...to a point.

that has yet to be determined, moral direction may very well describe the evolutionary process involved with the creation template of life all beings have evolved from and would distinguish science in a theistic lite ...


Okay. Now you're backing up, and changing direction. I'm still waiting for an answer to my question


claim =/= necessity

I answered your question, science very well in providing an answer between atheism / theism would necessarily require a moral consideration to resolve the answer as life's origination / progress is an example for its necessity. your #5 assertion is simply absurd and really does not warrant a rebuttal.

 

[Czernobog]

If you're saying what I think you are - that science does not provide moral direction - you're right...to a point.


that has yet to be determined, moral direction could very well describe the evolutionary process involved with the creation template of life all beings have evolved from and would distinguish science in a theistic lite where forces of Good vs Evil do become part of the equation and like gravity may someday be calibrated to determine an outcome - leading eventually to the true religion that is responsible for physiological existence.

theism can be a belief in a finite morality necessary to generate an organic existence, the religion of life and as such would require a theoretical "Almighty" whether one existed or not as a functioning being. allowing for a spontaneous universe bound by that religion as the origin of our existence.

Okay. Now you're backing up, and changing direction. I'm still waiting for an answer to my question :

Then you're not as bright as I thought you were.

Actually, she's right on. Your the one who ignornatly proposed, "Hey. Ignore all the evil shit they do, because they do nice things, too, " I just simplified it, to demonstrate what a stupid proposal that is.

Where did I state that bit of drivel? Hmm. Point to it.

"And you ignore the good it does."

Unless your point was that "the good it does" makes up for all of the evil, cruel, and harmful that it engenders, and has engendered, then what was your point of that statement? And if your answer is, "just that it does good, " then my response is so what?

You accused me of claiming that you said something you never said. I posted exactly what you said, and asked for you to clarify. Before we move on to some new point you want to make, why don't we finish with your first point. I'll wait...

.

5. Science and theism cannot co-exist. At all.

If you're saying what I think you are - that science does not provide moral direction - you're right...to a point.

that has yet to be determined, moral direction could very well describe the evolutionary process involved with the creation template of life all beings have evolved from and would distinguish science in a theistic lite ...

Okay. Now you're backing up, and changing direction. I'm still waiting for an answer to my question :

5. Science and theism cannot co-exist. At all. They are opposite, nemeses, antonyms, call it whatever you wish. Anyone who claims to live by both is fooling themselves and not truly following either.

If you're saying what I think you are - that science does not provide moral direction - you're right...to a point.

that has yet to be determined, moral direction may very well describe the evolutionary process involved with the creation template of life all beings have evolved from and would distinguish science in a theistic lite ...


Okay. Now you're backing up, and changing direction. I'm still waiting for an answer to my question


claim =/= necessity

I answered your question, science very well in providing an answer between atheism / theism would necessarily require a moral consideration to resolve the answer as life's origination / progress is an example for its necessity. your #5 assertion is simply absurd and really does not warrant a rebuttal.

No your not. When I pointed out all of the immorality perpetrated by religion, and Christianity in particular, you said, "And you ignore the good it does."

Now, unless your point was that "the good it does" makes up for all of the evil, cruel, and harmful that it engenders, and has engendered, then what was your point of that statement? And if your answer is, "just that it does good, " then my response is so what?

I will not move on until you address my question. I'll wait. And if you keep trying to change the subject to what science can, and cannot accomplish morally, I will just keep bringing it back to your unresolved defence of religion.

I'll wait...

 

[westwall]

If you're saying what I think you are - that science does not provide moral direction - you're right...to a point.


that has yet to be determined, moral direction could very well describe the evolutionary process involved with the creation template of life all beings have evolved from and would distinguish science in a theistic lite where forces of Good vs Evil do become part of the equation and like gravity may someday be calibrated to determine an outcome - leading eventually to the true religion that is responsible for physiological existence.

theism can be a belief in a finite morality necessary to generate an organic existence, the religion of life and as such would require a theoretical "Almighty" whether one existed or not as a functioning being. allowing for a spontaneous universe bound by that religion as the origin of our existence.

Okay. Now you're backing up, and changing direction. I'm still waiting for an answer to my question :

Actually, she's right on. Your the one who ignornatly proposed, "Hey. Ignore all the evil shit they do, because they do nice things, too, " I just simplified it, to demonstrate what a stupid proposal that is.

Where did I state that bit of drivel? Hmm. Point to it.

"And you ignore the good it does."

Unless your point was that "the good it does" makes up for all of the evil, cruel, and harmful that it engenders, and has engendered, then what was your point of that statement? And if your answer is, "just that it does good, " then my response is so what?

You accused me of claiming that you said something you never said. I posted exactly what you said, and asked for you to clarify. Before we move on to some new point you want to make, why don't we finish with your first point. I'll wait...

.

5. Science and theism cannot co-exist. At all.

If you're saying what I think you are - that science does not provide moral direction - you're right...to a point.

that has yet to be determined, moral direction could very well describe the evolutionary process involved with the creation template of life all beings have evolved from and would distinguish science in a theistic lite ...

Okay. Now you're backing up, and changing direction. I'm still waiting for an answer to my question :

5. Science and theism cannot co-exist. At all. They are opposite, nemeses, antonyms, call it whatever you wish. Anyone who claims to live by both is fooling themselves and not truly following either.

If you're saying what I think you are - that science does not provide moral direction - you're right...to a point.

that has yet to be determined, moral direction may very well describe the evolutionary process involved with the creation template of life all beings have evolved from and would distinguish science in a theistic lite ...


Okay. Now you're backing up, and changing direction. I'm still waiting for an answer to my question


claim =/= necessity

I answered your question, science very well in providing an answer between atheism / theism would necessarily require a moral consideration to resolve the answer as life's origination / progress is an example for its necessity. your #5 assertion is simply absurd and really does not warrant a rebuttal.

No your not. When I pointed out all of the immorality perpetrated by religion, and Christianity in particular, you said, "And you ignore the good it does."

Now, unless your point was that "the good it does" makes up for all of the evil, cruel, and harmful that it engenders, and has engendered, then what was your point of that statement? And if your answer is, "just that it does good, " then my response is so what?

I will not move on until you address my question. I'll wait. And if you keep trying to change the subject to what science can, and cannot accomplish morally, I will just keep bringing it back to your unresolved defence of religion.

I'll wait...

Using your perverted logic we would hold all scientists accountable for the very real evil that some of them engage in. The Tuskeegee experiments, the Downwinders, etc. etc. etc. All of these people suffered from the unethical behavior of scientists. You choose to ignore their vile behavior because yet again it demolishes your meme. That's all you seem to be a single subject meme.