why does sklansky spend so much time on the philos section?and other?s

[siegfriedandroy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
just seems like a fairy tale to me. that's my ultimate reason for rejecting atheism.

[/ QUOTE ]

If that's your ultimate reason, then perhaps you still have hope. Have you ever stopped to consider that possibly you're in no way qualified to make judgements about what is 'insane,' regardless of how it might 'seem' to you? Have you studied Quantum Physics? There's some crazy-ass [censored] going on that would 'seem insane' to almost any layperson, and yet.....

[/ QUOTE ]


Hope for what? Is one 'better off' being an atheist, even if it were true? Does quantam physics in any way lend itself to verifying atheistic philosophy? If so, please describe how in layman's terms. I have heard of numerous scientists in the recent decades rejecting naturalistic philosophy/traditional evolutionary theory as new scientific discoveries unfold.

[siegfriedandroy]

gh

[siegfriedandroy]

gh to you, too, sir. apparently, though, your iq is probably around sub-80 levels as you dont believe in God. So much for Sklansky's 130+ theory.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
so then what is the difference between atheism and agnosticism? How is atheism different? I thought agnostics believed that they simply dont know. Perhaps they believe further that it's IMPOSSIBLE to know.

[/ QUOTE ]

Been there before on trying to define those words and no-one was able to agree. It doesn't help, so lets move on.

Whatever you want to call my beliefs, I don't know how anything came to exist in the first place (ignoring the clever retort that nothing is something).

I also don't believe anyone else knows (though I can't be sure of that) and I doubt its possible to know because I can't conceive of any possible method of finding out (could be wrong about that as well).

I think arguments about the big bang miss any important point about theism.

I have sympathy, although I'm not sure I agree, with the view that the question about the existence of god is meaningless but that's philosophy which is frowned upon on this forum. [Edit: nothing to do with the problem of definition]

chez


PS Can you help simple souls like me by giving some clue as to which response you are replying to.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe that the big bang was the beginning of the universe, or that the universe existed before it? I believe Russell believed the universe was eternal. To many scientists, the big bang clearly implies or perhaps explicitly shows that the universe had a definite beginning, some near 20 million years ago. What evidence is there that God had such a beginning. What evidence do you have that God is not eternal? What evidence do you have that God does not exist?

[/ QUOTE ]

1. I don't have (and currently can't have) any evidence about nthe universe before the big bang, so I believe nothing about it before that event as there is no basis for any particular "belief."

2. The fact that there was a big bang does *not* imply that there must have been a "beginning." The singularity that was the universe could have existed for "eternity" (whatever that means before time) just like your God, or it could endlessly be contracting/expanding, or it could be a slice of a higher dimensional space which "predates" it, etc. But since there can be no evidence beyond the big bang due to its singular nature, these are all just wild ass guesses not based on physical evidence, much like your religion.

Oh, and this is precious: "What evidence do you have that God does not exist?" What evidence do YOU have that the flying spaghetti monster didn't create the universe?

[ QUOTE ]
The question, of course, remains. Who created the Big Bang? I believe it was God. What is your belief?

[/ QUOTE ]

Who created God? And stop saying he always was if you also can't say that whatever or whoever was the universe before the big bang always was.

[ QUOTE ]
kid, please do not be as illogical as the theta dude,

[/ QUOTE ]

You calling me "illogical" is music to my ears based on your demonstration of "logic" thus far.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe "the rest come easier" means that once you are fooled into accepting one theory without evidence

[/ QUOTE ]

OK I'm done. If yoyu want to debate fine, but I can't keep arguing when you continually refuse to be rational.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just have faith and reason isn't necessary, or so I thought???

[ QUOTE ]
kid, as an atheist, why is it 'dangerous' for the general population to believe incorrectly about the universe? Does it really matter? In 100 years, it will mean nothing. Why do you care? Why not believe crazy myths yourself. What harm can that cause in your atheistic world view?

[/ QUOTE ]

Would you fly in an airplane if the designers relied on unsupported faith to build it?

[Maddog121]

question 6: why do many atheists on this forum despise the ID movement and argue vehemently that it should not be taught in school. assuming it's not legitimate science, so what? if you are an atheist, why the hell would you care whether or not the 'true' scientific theory of origins is taught to your kids. why the hell would it matter? many 'evolutionists' seem to elevate their ideas to such exalted heights and defend it as if disbelief in the theory would lead to eternal suffering of your soul in gehenna. to me it seems irrational for them to care so passionately abou this issue. if i was an atheist, i really wouldnt give a sh*t about what my kids believed about origins.

Intelligent Design should not be taught in a science class because it is not science, it is philosophy. Here is an elementary explanation of the scientific method with an example of a non-falsifiable hypothesis that would be equivalent to intelligent design:

Science proceeds by making observations of nature (experiments). If a hypothesis does not generate any observational tests, there is nothing that a scientist can do with it. Arguing back-and-forth about what should happen, or what ought to happen, is not the way science makes progress.

Consider this hypothesis:

Hypothesis A:

"Our universe is surrounded by another, larger universe, with which we can have absolutely no contact."

This statement may or may not be true, but it is not a scientific hypothesis. By its very nature it is not testable. There are no observations that a scientist could make to tell whether or not the hypothesis is correct. Ideas such as Hypothesis A are interesting to think about, but science has nothing to say about them. Hypothesis A is a speculation, not a hypothesis.

Intelligent design is not testable. It has no predictive value in an experimental setting.