Question Your Beliefs...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BrianS

So you are a follower of Carl Sagan's and use his opinion to determine the validity of your belief systems is what I'm hearing?

Just sayin'.

:D

---

No I'm a follower of reason and evidence (methods promoted by Sagan) and I use those methods to determine what I believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redmanfms

I suggest you read the book.



And yes, atheism is a belief system. You can no more scientifically prove there is no God (or gods, or flying spaghetti monster) than I can prove to you (using things like the Big Bang or unexplained order) that God exists. You believe God doesn't exist, but have absolutely no way to prove it. Reads a lot like faith to me.

Lack of evidence does not in fact equal evidence in the negative. It's a fairly basic scientific precept and one discussed at length in the book.

ETA: Berlinsky is agnostic/secularist, FYI.

ETA 2: I find it more than a little amusing that a member of a group of so-called questioners (atheists), is the first to react poorly to having beliefs questioned......

---

And that is why I'm specifically agnostic.

However with the God / No God question it essentially comes down to this.

If all things need a creator, then who created the creator? And if a creator can be eternal or exist spontaneously, then so can the creation without the need for a creator.

And given that, lack of a creator actually simplifies things to a certain degree. So I would not be surprised to learn there is "no creator." But I don't think anyone is making the claim and stating evidence to support it exists. It is simply a belief no matter which you choose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Littlelebowski

Lack of belief in the supernatural does not make one a believer. Using your logic, the Easter Bunny could exist. Silly crap.

---

Technically there is no evidence to prove the Easter Bunny doesn't exist. It is extremely unlikely but you cannot disprove the existence of something without evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Littlelebowski

Nice bowing out. So much for the burden of proof being on the one who asserts that supernatural beings exist.

Anyway, your assertion that supernatural being exist is truly a matter of faith. Until you start making claims as to what they have done. Are you doing more than throwing your hands up in the air and saying I don't know, therefore supernatural beings exist!

And you actually criticize atheists for not believing in what they cannot physically quantify? Seriously?

You are attempting to rationalize your own belief in the unprovable by criticizing those who ask for proof. Intellectual paupery.

From my favorite book....



But this is your last post in this thread..... Go pray to your unprovable, quantifiable boogeyman in the sky, and whisper to yourself "those atheists are religious just like me.". It obviously makes you feel better.

---

Boy you are a hostile little man aren't you?

My belief isn't based on criticizing you. Apparently your belief is.


And you clearly, in you belligerent ignorance, missed my point completely. You are no more capable of proving there is no god than I am of proving there is, therein lies the rub. You, and other atheists, claim a reasoned, scientific position based on fact but have a belief no more based on fact than my belief in God.

If you are going to make a claim (there is NO God), the burden of evidence lies on YOU.

I "believe" in God. I find logical relevance in the existence of order and "existence" itself. I have faith and have no more evidence to support my belief other than what I mentioned above. I, however, never claimed that my belief was based on anything other than faith (and tangential evidence).

Belief systems can (and do) exist absent ceremony and ritual. Atheism is one such system. I never made the claim that it is a religion.



Your quote from Zelazny is cute, but no more relevant or reasoned than a Bible quote.



You are projecting your intellectual failings on others. You clearly gain satisfaction is believing you are intellectually superior to people who believe in God. The validity of my beliefs are not based on what others think of them. I don't care if you believe in God or not. I do find it interesting (and illustrative) that you react so belligerently to someone challenging your beliefs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteyrAUG

No I'm a follower of reason and evidence (methods promoted by Sagan) and I use those methods to determine what I believe.

---

As an example of this, try polling the world's physicists about string theory. You'll find many in that field are not terribly fond of it.

Why? Well, string theory catches criticism as unscientific because it is so difficult to test by experiments. It concerns two properties:

1. It is widely believed that any theory of quantum gravity would require extremely high energies to probe directly, higher by orders of magnitude than those that current experiments such as the Large Hadron Collider can attain.

2. String theory as it is currently understood has a huge number of solutions, called string vacua, and these vacua might be sufficiently diverse to accommodate almost any phenomena we might observe at lower energies.

So as an example, string theory does not have the weight of evidence behind it to be as fully accepted as, say, plate tectonics or relativity. That's how science works: people come up with compelling hypotheses and share them with the community, and we all investigate as well as we might to either prove or disprove them.

Threads like these, unfortunately, tend to spin off into arguments. I'm open to discussion, though I will not attack anyone's faith-based (i.e. non-rational) beliefs. As they saying goes, you can lead a horse to reason but you can't make it think. To each their own, with peace and respect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Littlelebowski

Nice bowing out. So much for the burden of proof being on the one who asserts that supernatural beings exist.

Anyway, your assertion that supernatural being exist is truly a matter of faith. Until you start making claims as to what they have done. Are you doing more than throwing your hands up in the air and saying I don't know, therefore supernatural beings exist!

And you actually criticize atheists for not believing in what they cannot physically quantify? Seriously?

You are attempting to rationalize your own belief in the unprovable by criticizing those who ask for proof. Intellectual paupery.

From my favorite book....



But this is your last post in this thread..... Go pray to your unprovable, quantifiable boogeyman in the sky, and whisper to yourself "those atheists are religious just like me.". It obviously makes you feel better.

---

The man is right.

The burden of proof is on the guy who says Man walked with Dinasaurs as well as on water, Noah's special world saving Ark really existed, talking snake corrupted the first human being.. Adam and Eve, Virgins in Heaven/Virgins having babies, who the hell keeps up with all these tales....

Bottom line is some use evidence to prove and disprove beliefs....this is hardly a universal or recognized religion or religious view, and its completely individual based...the religious are people who as individuals don't seek evidence themselves but rather trust some special doctrine that spells it out already in the most vague and unverifiable way possible..they are group thinkers, members of a sheep colony, nothing wrong with that...sometimes its really scary to think deep for yourself and require a certain burden of proof in order for it to become an actual belief. No fairy tales for me and the Dude:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SteyrAUG

And that is why I'm specifically agnostic.

However with the God / No God question it essentially comes down to this.

If all things need a creator, then who created the creator? And if a creator can be eternal or exist spontaneously, then so can the creation without the need for a creator.

And given that, lack of a creator actually simplifies things to a certain degree. So I would not be surprised to learn there is "no creator." But I don't think anyone is making the claim and stating evidence to support it exists. It is simply a belief no matter which you choose.

---

Bingo.

Basically you are saying that you can't make a determination one way or the other on the existence of God because you lack sufficient evidence. Agnosticism is by far the most "reasoned." It isn't based on belief or faith AT ALL. Were lebowski to follow Zelazny's quote, he'd recognize that and be an agnostic as you are.

My only problem with atheism isn't that people don't believe in God (because my faith is unaffected), it's that they take that position (while offering no supporting evidence) and then have the temerity to claim that "science and reason is on our side." It isn't.

I eventually came to the conclusion that God exists for reasons more of less divorced from scientific evidence. I think order is a strong supporter, but it isn't "proof" per se.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kartoffel

As an example of this, try polling the world's physicists about string theory. You'll find many in that field are not terribly fond of it.

Why? Well, string theory catches criticism as unscientific because it is so difficult to test by experiments. It concerns two properties:

1. It is widely believed that any theory of quantum gravity would require extremely high energies to probe directly, higher by orders of magnitude than those that current experiments such as the Large Hadron Collider can attain.

2. String theory as it is currently understood has a huge number of solutions, called string vacua, and these vacua might be sufficiently diverse to accommodate almost any phenomena we might observe at lower energies.

So as an example, string theory does not have the weight of evidence behind it to be as fully accepted as, say, plate tectonics or relativity.

---

And that is why it is a THEORY.

Plate tectonics is not, it is fact. And for the most part General Relativity is no longer just a theory.

Theories are not FACTS. Now there is "some evidence" to suggest String or Membrane "might" be what is going on and that evidence brings it up from the status of Scientific Idea to Scientific Theory but it is a LONG way from a proven fact.

And again it is part of the methods of reason and evidence why we simply don't accept string theory as fact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kartoffel

So as an example, string theory does not have the weight of evidence behind it to be as fully accepted as, say, plate tectonics or relativity. That's how science works: people come up with compelling hypotheses and share them with the community, and we all investigate as well as we might to either prove or disprove them.

Threads like these, unfortunately, tend to spin off into arguments. I'm open to discussion, though I will not attack anyone's faith-based (i.e. non-rational) beliefs. As they saying goes, you can lead a horse to reason but you can't make it think. To each their own, with peace and respect.

---

So I just read the second part of your post and we are more or less saying the same things, which makes me wonder of course where the original debate was.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TRIDENT82

The man is right.

The burden of proof is on the guy who says Man walked with Dinasaurs as well as on water, Noah's special world saving Ark really existed, talking snake corrupted the first human being.. Adam and Eve, Virgins in Heaven/Virgins having babies, who the hell keeps up with all these tales....

Bottom line is some use evidence to prove and disprove beliefs....this is hardly a universal or recognized religion or religious view, and its completely individual based...the religious are people who as individuals don't seek evidence themselves but rather trust some special doctrine that spells it out already in the most vague and unverifiable way possible..they are group thinkers, members of a sheep colony, nothing wrong with that...sometimes its really scary to think deep for yourself and require a certain burden of proof in order for it to become an actual belief. No fairy tales for me and the Dude:)

---

This is true if the questioner is an agnostic.

The theist is no less unjustified in demanding proof from the atheist.

BTW, none of the claims listed above are relevant to the discussion.


And thanks again to another "reasoned" atheist for playing the logical fallacy game.:D


Last. You atheists have at it.