RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice?

RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

GotSteel -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/3/2010 1:00:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Since an "atheist" is utterly certain of their position, The post you responded to with this explains why you are full of shit for making this statement.

FirmhandKY -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/3/2010 1:10:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Since an "atheist" is utterly certain of their position, The post you responded to with this explains why you are full of shit for making this statement. Who is throwing insults around now, GS? If an atheist doesn't have utter certainty that their position is correct ("there is no god"), and are "open" to "proof" to the contrary ... doesn't that make them agnostic? How can you be an atheist, and not be "utterly certain" of your position? Are you not utterly certain that there is no god? Firm

GotSteel -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/3/2010 1:25:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Since an "atheist" is utterly certain of their position, The post you responded to with this explains why you are full of shit for making this statement. Who is throwing insults around now, GS? If an atheist doesn't have utter certainty that their position is correct ("there is no god"), and are "open" to "proof" to the contrary ... doesn't that make them agnostic? How can you be an atheist, and not be "utterly certain" of your position? Are you not utterly certain that there is no god? Firm Yes that was meant to be insulting. I just had a thread that turned out to be around 60 pages that explained why what you are doing has no place in an honest discussion. So, when you're not willing to engage in an honest discussion, you have no business expecting more in the way of a response then for me to call bullshit on your lies.

FirmhandKY -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/3/2010 2:04:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY Since an "atheist" is utterly certain of their position, The post you responded to with this explains why you are full of shit for making this statement. Who is throwing insults around now, GS? If an atheist doesn't have utter certainty that their position is correct ("there is no god"), and are "open" to "proof" to the contrary ... doesn't that make them agnostic? How can you be an atheist, and not be "utterly certain" of your position? Are you not utterly certain that there is no god? Firm Yes that was meant to be insulting. I just had a thread that turned out to be around 60 pages that explained why what you are doing has no place in an honest discussion. So, when you're not willing to engage in an honest discussion, you have no business expecting more in the way of a response then for me to call bullshit on your lies. I could make some scathing comments, but I'll restrain myself. It's pretty simple. Either you are "utterly certain" of your position, or you are not. Is that a trick question? I don't think so. Firm

Kirata -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/3/2010 2:31:27 PM)
Firm, Unless I am misunderstanding, you seem to be taking the position that anything less than absolute certainty would, properly speaking, make an "atheist" really an agnostic. But that's not correct. Agnosticism asserts that the ultimate essence and nature of reality is unknowable; not that it is simply in doubt, or unknown at present, but that it cannot be known. K.

heartcream -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/3/2010 2:43:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: heartcream You have a way of searching for answers that is better for YOU! My method for searching for answers is amazing but you would not be open to it, I can already tell. It doesnt make your way better though bro. How do you figure? Mine actually works. Yours works for YOU! Yay! You found what works for you. Isnt it wonderful the way so many people have things that work for them but not for others? Isnt it fascinating? Your ways do not do all the work needed for me and I already know vice versa is true for you. Lots of room for all of us and out different ways etc.

FirmhandKY -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/3/2010 2:49:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Firm, Unless I am misunderstanding, you seem to be taking the position that anything less than absolute certainty would, properly speaking, make an "atheist" really an agnostic. But that's not correct. Agnosticism asserts that the ultimate essence and nature of reality is unknowable; not that it is simply in doubt, or unknown at present, but that it cannot be known. K, That is indeed one of the definitions of agnostic, and I'll take it, if that is the one that an agnostic wishes to give. However, it isn't the only one, nor the one most commonly used - at least in general conversation, such as here on the forums. My question is to atheists, however: Do they have "utter certainty" or not? If not, then where and what is the "uncertainty"? I'm not trying to tag them with the "agnostic" label, necessarily. Firm

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/3/2010 3:03:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML The questions that come to mind are 1. where did all this stuff come from? (how did the primordial atom become?) 2. how were the gravitational forces overcome and the expansive forces let loose? 3. are/were there other primoridal atoms to explode into other Universes. 4. What is the space surrounding the primordial atom and into which it is expanding? 5. finally the epistemological question: how do we know this shit? Just in passing (I'm not trying to start a hijack), the short answer may be that the Big Bang theory is wrong. Anomalous Redshift Data and the Myth of Cosmological Distance K. psssst! Don't tell DomKen. He prays to the God of the Big Bang, and refuses to accept any substitutes. [8D][:D] Firm Ratcliffe and Arp are at the fringes of cosmology, and their data and conclusions are far from universally accepted. They cannot even attract mainstream physicists to their "alternative cosmology" conferences. Red shift anomalies are explainable by dark matter and dark energy, which Ratcliffe in particular dismisses because it doesnt fit his theories. Is the Standard Model a complete and wholly consistent theory? Not yet. It has evolved considerably even over the last 3 years. However Ratcliffe's "anomalies" are far from the death knell for the SM.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/3/2010 3:09:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Firm, Unless I am misunderstanding, you seem to be taking the position that anything less than absolute certainty would, properly speaking, make an "atheist" really an agnostic. But that's not correct. Agnosticism asserts that the ultimate essence and nature of reality is unknowable; not that it is simply in doubt, or unknown at present, but that it cannot be known. K, That is indeed one of the definitions of agnostic, and I'll take it, if that is the one that an agnostic wishes to give. However, it isn't the only one, nor the one most commonly used - at least in general conversation, such as here on the forums. My question is to atheists, however: Do they have "utter certainty" or not? If not, then where and what is the "uncertainty"? I'm not trying to tag them with the "agnostic" label, necessarily. Firm I am as agnostic about god as you (I presume) are about the tooth fairy and a fat man from the North Pole that flies reindeer and delivers gifts through chimneys. You cannot be 100% certain that they don't exist, yet I dont think you would claim to be agnostic about them. If you can define your lack of belief in them as "agnosticism" fine, then there is no such thing as an atheist. I think you would be considered lunatic fringe to call yourself agnostic and not atheist about the TF and SC though.

Kirata -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/3/2010 3:23:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Ratcliffe and Arp are at the fringes of cosmology, and their data and conclusions are far from universally accepted. They cannot even attract mainstream physicists to their "alternative cosmology" conferences. That statement illustrates why some people regard the current scientific paradigm as functionally indistinguishable from a religion. K.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/3/2010 3:46:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Ratcliffe and Arp are at the fringes of cosmology, and their data and conclusions are far from universally accepted. They cannot even attract mainstream physicists to their "alternative cosmology" conferences. That statement illustrates why some people regard the current scientific paradigm as functionally indistinguishable from a religion. K. Or they just dont want to waste their time.

vincentML -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/3/2010 8:30:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML The questions that come to mind are 1. where did all this stuff come from? (how did the primordial atom become?) 2. how were the gravitational forces overcome and the expansive forces let loose? 3. are/were there other primoridal atoms to explode into other Universes. 4. What is the space surrounding the primordial atom and into which it is expanding? 5. finally the epistemological question: how do we know this shit? Just in passing (I'm not trying to start a hijack), the short answer may be that the Big Bang theory is wrong. Anomalous Redshift Data and the Myth of Cosmological Distance K. Also pondering just in passing that the Big Bang Theory might be wrong .... doesn't really matter insofar as the ultimate question is concerned. We are still confronted with the existence of mass/energy. So, has mass/energy always existed or was it created out of nothing? If the latter... we are logically required to accept some pre-existing force capable of the creation of mass/energy. Perhaps you know of some example where mass/energy was/is created from nothing in Nature. I do not. Since I cannot get past affirming that creation event I don't see how I can make a leap to a Creator without entering into supernatural speculation.

vincentML -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/3/2010 8:53:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata Firm, Unless I am misunderstanding, you seem to be taking the position that anything less than absolute certainty would, properly speaking, make an "atheist" really an agnostic. But that's not correct. Agnosticism asserts that the ultimate essence and nature of reality is unknowable; not that it is simply in doubt, or unknown at present, but that it cannot be known. K, That is indeed one of the definitions of agnostic, and I'll take it, if that is the one that an agnostic wishes to give. However, it isn't the only one, nor the one most commonly used - at least in general conversation, such as here on the forums. My question is to atheists, however: Do they have "utter certainty" or not? If not, then where and what is the "uncertainty"? I'm not trying to tag them with the "agnostic" label, necessarily. Firm Firm, it really doesn't matter the degree of certainty or uncertainty that an atheist or a theist has. We are not being cross-examined as eye-witnesses to an event. This is not a court of Law. However, we are compelled to judge the nature of reality so we can procede to construct meaning to our lives. As an atheist I have concluded the nonexistence of a Creator, especially one who warrants and demands worship. Having made that decision I can construct meaning for my life and anticipation for my death. In her letters or diaries, it was reported, Mother Theresa lamented her uncertainty and the lapses in Faith. Did not matter. She still constructed her life's values around her basic judgment of the existence of God. You are simply creating a strawman when you demand to know whether an atheist has utter certainty or not ... and if not he is an agnostic. I mean really who gives a fuk what the label is? The point is that a judgment has been made regarding ultimate reality and life's meaning is constructed from that judgment, and from the constructed meaning flow values and actions. I am calling bollocks on your game of semantics. [:)]

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/3/2010 9:25:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML we are logically required to accept some pre-existing force capable of the creation of mass/energy. Perhaps you know of some example where mass/energy was/is created from nothing in Nature. I do not. Actually quantum theory dictates that mass and energy are indeed created from nothing in Nature in the form of matter/anti-matter pairs. They are created out of the vacuum and when they annhilate each other they release energy.

Kirata -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/4/2010 1:05:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Actually quantum theory dictates that mass and energy are indeed created from nothing in Nature in the form of matter/anti-matter pairs. They are created out of the vacuum and when they annhilate each other they release energy. The masses of particles are the frequencies of their characteristic wave patterns in the vibrating energy that permeates our universe. When particle/anti-particle pairs wink into existence and annihilate, neither mass nor energy is being created ex nihilo. K.

GotSteel -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/4/2010 8:21:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY It's pretty simple. Either you are "utterly certain" of your position, or you are not. Is that a trick question? I don't think so. I answered that question when I stepped into this conversation and that wasn't the first time or the second or even the fifth time I've explained this to you. Here it is again: quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel I don't claim to have the answers ...What I do claim is that you don't have the answers either and that there's a method of searching for the answers that's better than yours. quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY How can you be an atheist, and not be "utterly certain" of your position? I get that you're having trouble understanding my position, but that doesn't change my position. That atheists consistently disagree with you when you tell them what their position is should clue you in that something's wrong. That you keep doing it anyway is one of the reasons that you're full of shit.

Rule -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/4/2010 10:00:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Ratcliffe and Arp are at the fringes of cosmology, and their data and conclusions are far from universally accepted. They cannot even attract mainstream physicists to their "alternative cosmology" conferences. That statement illustrates why some people regard the current scientific paradigm as functionally indistinguishable from a religion. lol. I have briefly corresponded with Arp in about 2000. I solved the redshift problem in my astronomy book, but Arp was not interested in anything other than his own speculations.

NorthernGent -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/4/2010 12:32:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Yes that was meant to be insulting. I just had a thread that turned out to be around 60 pages that explained why what you are doing has no place in an honest discussion. So, when you're not willing to engage in an honest discussion, you have no business expecting more in the way of a response then for me to call bullshit on your lies. Problem here mate is that you appealed to Voltaire.....and I told you exactly why Voltaire is not an authority on the matter....and you swerved it....dishonest at worst.....avoidance at best.

vincentML -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/4/2010 1:14:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML we are logically required to accept some pre-existing force capable of the creation of mass/energy. Perhaps you know of some example where mass/energy was/is created from nothing in Nature. I do not. Actually quantum theory dictates that mass and energy are indeed created from nothing in Nature in the form of matter/anti-matter pairs. They are created out of the vacuum and when they annhilate each other they release energy. Will, this makes no sense at all in the macro/mythological conceptional abilities of my mind. Are you referring to time zero or are you suggesting these are on-going events? Where would I search for this phenomenon in the world of particle physics? If I find god there I will alert you.

vincentML -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (8/4/2010 1:27:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Actually quantum theory dictates that mass and energy are indeed created from nothing in Nature in the form of matter/anti-matter pairs. They are created out of the vacuum and when they annhilate each other they release energy. The masses of particles are the frequencies of their characteristic wave patterns in the vibrating energy that permeates our universe. When particle/anti-particle pairs wink into existence and annihilate, neither mass nor energy is being created ex nihilo. K. K, accepting the wave structure of matter for the moment and that mass is a function of the amplitude of waves, and even that the Big Bang wasn't, the Law of Conservation of Energy holds. I still cannot get past lacking some creation event that would lead me to a Creator .... unless you have some other corner I should look into.

Page: << < prev 12 13 14 [15] 16 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875