quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I think you've made a poor example. Atheism is the positive position that there is no god(s). This differs from a lack of belief in god(s). Not believing in the existence of a thing is not the same as asserting that there is no thing, as the latter requires the asserter to claim they have knowledge whereas the former requires the non-believer to claim they have no knowledge. My issue with atheism is that it is impossible to have any knowledge regarding god(s), only belief or a lack of belief.

Actually, atheism comes in many different flavours. It can be:

1. The affirmation of the nonexistence of gods (i.e. I believe ¬B), also known as strong atheism ;
   
2. A rejection of theism (i.e. I don't believe B), a form of weak atheism;
   
3. Or, in an even more subtle, the absence of theist beliefs (i.e. nontheism), which is not quite the same as agnosticism, by the way, the difference being that to an agnostic, we can't know the truth, while a nontheist just doesn't care at all; just so we can keep our categorisation tidy, that's yet another form of weak atheism.
   

___________________
Indiana Clones Upcoming Sets
[ I May Upload Something Someday ]

I'm listening to Lennox' conclusion right now, what are you talking about Capitalizt?

Lennox is absolutely pounding Dawkins into the ground concerning Dawkins' misquotes in his book, IE: using quotes from Hume and others to make a point that none of those people he quoted from intended.

Also Lennox offers plenty of proof concerning the reliability of the historian that was Luke, whereas Dawkins uses an anesthesiologist as proof that the Bible is historically incorrect? What?

Not to mention if you'd listened properly to the debate you'd know why Lennox ended off with his comments concerning Jesus. Dawkins throughout the debate had been questioning Jesus' intentions, and Lennox absolutely did not make Jesus' ressurection the corner stone of ALL his arguments throughout the debate, he made it the corner stone of his beliefs and why he believes in what he believes in. My goodness dude! Atheists and Dawkins lovers really do jump at everything he says and immediately accept it as truth, yet if a theist does anything to that effect they get called "mentally disordered". Nice standard there

Dawkins ends the debate in typical Dawkins fashion, with "petty, earthbound and irrelevant" insults that an atheist could go and chuckle to himself about but he really did not offer any evidence for any of his points, as usual.

quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard I think you've made a poor example. Atheism is the positive position that there is no god(s). This differs from a lack of belief in god(s). Not believing in the existence of a thing is not the same as asserting that there is no thing, as the latter requires the asserter to claim they have knowledge whereas the former requires the non-believer to claim they have no knowledge. My issue with atheism is that it is impossible to have any knowledge regarding god(s), only belief or a lack of belief.

But what if the atheism is far less interested in the existence (or not) of god, and more concerned with the disproportionately powerful influence of religion in the public sphere? I call myself an atheist even though I entertain the possibility that god exists. That's not really what im worried about. The difference between the two adherents of the "positive positions", is that atheism's position starts and ends with "there is no god", whereas religious followers go much futher than "there is a god".

___________________

alex, how could it NOT be a mental disorder when a mathematician like Lennox..someone supposedly concerned with the hard sciences..with rigid rules for deduction and finding absolute proofs would throw these things out the window to worship and advocate something that not only can't be proved and has no proof (aside from the "resurrection, lol) but is also extremely EXTREMELY improbable (near impossible) on a statistical level? When someone with a strong scientific and mathematical mind is forced to contort and disregard his own common sense and knowledge of reality so he can believe in "miracles" and other nonsense with no evidence, what else would you call it? If not a mental disorder, then most certainly a handicap.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt alex, how could it NOT be a mental disorder when a mathematician like Lennox..someone supposedly concerned with the hard sciences..with rigid rules for deduction and finding absolute proofs would throw these things out the window to worship and advocate something that not only can't be proved and has no proof (aside from the "resurrection, lol) but is also extremely EXTREMELY improbable (near impossible) on a statistical level? When someone with a strong scientific and mathematical mind is forced to contort and disregard his own common sense and knowledge of reality so he can believe in "miracles" and other nonsense with no evidence, what else would you call it? If not a mental disorder, then most certainly a handicap.

Wow.

So Francis Bacon had a mental disorder?

Galileo?

Einstein believed in a deity as well.

Even Darwin's attack dog, Huxley didn't go full on atheist, that's why he more or less invented the term agnostic.

You really come across as poorly informed when you talk about "absolute proofs" for the existence of a God, claim the statistics are extremely low for such a probability (yet provide none and then criticize brilliant minds (greater than mine or yours) so harshly for believing in the existence of God.

After all, Bacon must have been mentally challenged, he only invented the Scientific Method, not like we have made any use of that or anything

You need to read more of Dawkins/Hitchens/Atkins before you try and say that there needs to be absolute proof for the existence of God, they don't even agree that there needs to be absolute proof because even Dawkins admits a lot of the science HE uses is often based on assumptions.

I'm sorry but any intelligent person will have realized by now that the existence of God is not a question of using science or the scientific method.

not that it matters but

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Einstein believed in a deity as well.

no he didnt.

___________________

Taken from Wiki:

quote:

Albert Einstein is on record as saying that he did not believe in a personal God. They keyword is personal. Einstein did not believe that god knows or cares about you on a personal level, that he hears your prayers or interferes in anyway in response to prayers. Instead, he believed that there was a God that maintained and created the harmony of the universe.

You old troll PKC

like i said, it doesn't matter, but since you're wrong...

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Taken from Wiki: You old troll PKC

well, luckily i don't take wiki as a definitive source for all knowledge. id prefer to listen to what albert had to say on the subject:

quote:

The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.

quote:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

basically, anything quoted from einstein regarding a "god" is merely a euphamism for "the universe" or "nature". einstein has never made any mention of believing in a supernatural deity, but its a source of constant amusement for me and others when theists vainly try to claim him as one of their own

___________________

You've taken 2 quotes of his concerning the existence of a personal God, moron.

I didn't say he believed in a personal God, I know his position very well, but he does admit to believing in some basis for the observable order in the universe that is itself not a physical law or phenomenon. And what exactly does that translate to? Something that doesn't abide by physical laws nor is it an observable phenomenon HMMMM sounds like a deity to me.

quote:

its a source of constant amusement for me and others when theists vainly try to claim him as one of their own

It's a source of amusement for me when poorly informed atheists such as yourself distort my statements and turns it into something that it isn't. Typical "intellectual deception" as you would call it pkc.

I never said Einstein was a Christian, try reading peoples posts before replying to them with nonsense.


I noticed also that while you may not trust wiki as a source for everything, you seem to trust the fruits of a 3 second google search as I found your exact quotes while searching for Einstein's positions myself.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex You've taken 2 quotes of his concerning the existence of a personal God, moron.

so, find me ANY quote where he plainly states a belief in a supernatural god.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex I didn't say he believed in a personal God, I know his position very well, but he does admit to believing in some basis for the observable order in the universe that is itself not a physical law or phenomenon. And what exactly does that translate to? Something that doesn't abide by physical laws nor is it an observable phenomenon HMMMM sounds like a deity to me.

well it would sound like a deity to you, because that's what you want to believe. what ive already stated is correct; einstein used "god" as a euphamism for nature, get over it. there isn't a single recorded quote from albert even approaching 'i believe in a deity'.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex It's a source of amusement for me when poorly informed atheists such as yourself distort my statements and turns it into something that it isn't. Typical "intellectual deception" as you would call it pkc. I never said Einstein was a Christian, try reading peoples posts before replying to them with nonsense.

i said theists, not christians. how about you swallow some of your own medicine and read posts properly, assclown.

quote:

Originally posted by Alex I noticed also that while you may not trust wiki as a source for everything, you seem to trust the fruits of a 3 second google search as I found your exact quotes while searching for Einstein's positions myself.

yeah, well ive had this argument with krypton before so i knew which quotes i was looking for. and yes, i trust that they are the words of einstein because i cross-referenced them some time ago. i already knew this information. you went to wiki to try and confirm your non-sensical bias.

___________________

I will admit that I obviously cannot find a quote where he says "I believe in a deity" but he did say he believed in Spinoza's God and while it was thought that Spinoza had offered an alternative to atheism, theism or deism his idea of a "living god in/of nature" was leaning much more towards a deity than anything else.

And come on, I AM a theist so I don't see why you'd direct your comments to all the other theists that will read your post. Cough, none, cough, since there are no other theists around here that I know of. Or maybe you were just making a passing comment, but still, it would be like me making a comment about atheists and not intending on it being taken to heart by the 900 billion atheists here.

And how is it not possible that I was doing the exact same thing by going and finding a proof on the internet vs picking up one of my philosophy books and typing out the shit in there instead of copy pasting? (which is a shitload easier).


Also the term assclown has been played out way too hard since Office Space

quote:

Originally posted by Alex I will admit that I obviously cannot find a quote where he says "I believe in a deity" but he did say he believed in Spinoza's God and while it was thought that Spinoza had offered an alternative to atheism, theism or deism his idea of a "living god in/of nature" was leaning much more towards a deity than anything else.

i know you hate him but

quote:

Originally posted by richard dawkins Let's remind ourselves of the terminology. A theist believes in a supernatural intelligence who, in addition to his main work of creating the universe in the first place, is still around to oversee and influence the subsequent fate of his initial creation. In many theistic belief systems, the deity is intimately involved in human affairs. He answers prayers; forgives or punishes sins; intervenes in the world by performing miracles; frets about good and bad deeds, and knows when we do them (or even think of doing them). A deist, too, believes in a supernatural intelligence, but one whose activities were confined to setting up the laws that govern the universe in the first place. The deist God never intervenes thereafter, and certainly has no specific interest in human affairs. Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a nonsupernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings. Deists differ from theists in that their God does not answer prayers, is not interested in sins or confessions, does not read our thoughts and does not intervene with capricious miracles. Deists differ from pantheists in that the deist God is some kind of cosmic intelligence, rather than the pantheist's metaphoric or poetic synonym for the laws of the universe. Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down theism. There is every reason to think that famous Einsteinisms like 'God is subtle but he is not malicious' or 'He does not play dice' or 'Did God have a choice in creating the Universe?' are pantheistic, not deistic, and certainly not theistic. 'God does not play dice' should be translated as 'Randomness does not lie at the heart of all things.' 'Did God have a choice in creating the Universe?' means 'Could the universe have begun in any other way?' Einstein was using 'God' in a purely metaphorical, poetic sense. So is Stephen Hawking, and so are most of those physicists who occasionally slip into the language of religious metaphor.

http://richarddawkins.net/firstChapter,1

quote:

Originally posted by Alex And come on, I AM a theist so I don't see why you'd direct your comments to all the other theists that will read your post.

well, because as i said above, ive had this exact conversation before!

quote:

Originally posted by Alex And how is it not possible that I was doing the exact same thing by going and finding a proof on the internet vs picking up one of my philosophy books and typing out the shit in there instead of copy pasting? (which is a shitload easier).

yes, it certainly is possible. however imo wiki is good for facts and data, not on interpretation (which is what we're doing).

quote:

Originally posted by Alex Also the term assclown has been played out way too hard since Office Space

really? when do they mention assclown? i love that movie (have it on DVD!) and i dont remember hearing it. i originally got it from Roy & HG on ABC (Oz) tv.

___________________