quote:

ORIGINAL: provfivetine

1. Agnosticism is the only belief system that adheres to the rigors of the scientific method. The phrase "God exists" (positive theism) and/or "God does not exist" (positive atheism) are both non-falsifiable propositions. If you argue either of the aforementioned propositions then you are ignoring the scientific method and are committing the gravest possible error in scholarly research. Positive theists and positive atheists have a lot in common; they both are smug cranks that attempt to pass off their own normative judgements as truth.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Thats not quite correct.

You run into a snag when because unless they are knowledge-less of the subject they fall under some belief one way or the other which gets us into faith etc etc as I explained in depth in my thread where I posted the supreme court determination that atheism it in fact a religion.

quote:



They only way they can make the claims they are is if the create a new word or start hunting through the dictionary for a term which bypasses the function of human reason and at the same time includes it.

The OP of this thread was used to mop the floor in that thread thats why the ridiculous rules....  LMAO

quote:

ORIGINAL: provfivetine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

Thats not quite correct.

You run into a snag when because unless they are knowledge-less of the subject they fall under some belief one way or the other which gets us into faith etc etc as I explained in depth in my thread where I posted the supreme court determination that atheism it in fact a religion.

Yes, atheism is a religion, but belief has nothing to do with science. You're conflating negative atheism/theism with positive atheism/theism. A negative atheist that asserts "I believe God does not exist" is just making a normative statement just as a theist that asserts "I believe God exists." To to be a positive a(theist) is to make a claim that cannot be tested and to be a negative a(theist) is to make a normative statement. This is why I stated before how both sides ignore the rigors of the scientific method. Again, normative statements are not scientific; simply believing in something does not make it true.

quote:



They only way they can make the claims they are is if the create a new word or start hunting through the dictionary for a term which bypasses the function of human reason and at the same time includes it.

The OP of this thread was used to mop the floor in that thread thats why the ridiculous rules....  LMAO

This practice is very common (more so in political debates than in religious ones) and when people start doing this they lose the argument. After all I can define any word as I please, but if this is the case then the world would be engulfed in chaos. For example, you could claim that 2+2=6 (simply by defining your terms differently) or you could tell your employer that your 9 o'clock AM start time really means 12PM; somehow I think your math teacher and your supervisor would not take kindly to such arguments.

quote:


ORIGINAL: provfivetine
1. Agnosticism is the only belief system that adheres to the rigors of the scientific method. The phrase "God exists" (positive theism) and/or "God does not exist" (positive atheism) are both non-falsifiable propositions. If you argue either of the aforementioned propositions then you are ignoring the scientific method and are committing the gravest possible error in scholarly research. Positive theists and positive atheists have a lot in common; they both are smug cranks that attempt to pass off their own normative judgements as truth.
2. Yes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
I explained in depth in my thread where I posted the supreme court determination that atheism it in fact a religion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata
To interpret a myth literally is the functional equivalent of taking a metaphor literally. It proves you are illiterate, not that the God of Genesis doesn't exist.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
abide by the rules.
Agnostics (people who do not deny the existence of God, but also do not affirm that God exists) only.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
Consider God a person (that is, a "who", and not only a "what") who created the universe.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster
1) Why are you agnostic?
2) Do you have a nose?

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

I can't believe it... after more than FIVE HUNDRED MESSAGES regarding the subject about Atheism being a religion or not... some of your are so OBSESSED that they try to CARRY ON HERE!!
!!

Ok...

quote:


ORIGINAL: provfivetine
1. Agnosticism is the only belief system that adheres to the rigors of the scientific method. The phrase "God exists" (positive theism) and/or "God does not exist" (positive atheism) are both non-falsifiable propositions. If you argue either of the aforementioned propositions then you are ignoring the scientific method and are committing the gravest possible error in scholarly research. Positive theists and positive atheists have a lot in common; they both are smug cranks that attempt to pass off their own normative judgements as truth.
2. Yes.

Good, thank you.

Now, let me consider a being. I am not saying that he exists, I am only describing a being.

Its name is "Unoser". He is an extraterrestrial and lives in a planet far beyond the reach of our astronomical instruments. In his planet, the civlization is more than one million years more advanced as the one of the Earth in technology (don't tell me that this is impossible because we won't survive that much, I am just trying to express things in a simple way, not writing a contract with the devil). So, their technology is so extreme that it looks like magic for us.

He has a hobby: Around far planets with life, he looks for and internet and then for internet forums. And there, he looks for people whose alias in the forums is provfivetine. Of course, he uses his extreme technology for this, as well as his extremely advanced mind (so advanced that we cannot even imagine his reasons to do this). And then, when he finds one, he substitutes their nose with an illusion.

The substitution is made in such a way, that the technological devices he uses (which can be artificial intelligences far beyond our natural one) influence all the environment. When a victim tries to touch his nose, the mechanisms of the illusion care about that he feels the nose (interfering with the neural channels, maybe). They care that the victims sees the nose in the mirror. They care that a doctor can see it too (even if it is not there, they can also interfere with the doctor's perception). They can change the results of X-Ray analysis, etc, etc, etc... in other words... there is no way, for us, to discover the illusion. And still - it is an illusion. The victim has no longer a nose.

And Unoser did found you some time ago. Before you wrote your first message in this thread.

Please remember that I define Unoser this way. If something about the being is not like I described, he is no longer Unoser. Unoser is only Unoser if he accomplishes all this definition.

My next questions are:
* Can you affirm that Unoser exists?
* Can you deny that Unoser exists?

Best regards.

quote:

ORIGINAL: provfivetine
(HINT: because you can't confirm or falsify the existence of a deity).

quote:

ORIGINAL: provfivetine
Yes, one that we cannot test for.

quote:

ORIGINAL: wittynamehere

quote:

ORIGINAL: provfivetine
No.

quote:

Niccolo Machiavelli
Severities should be dealt out all at once, so that their suddenness may give less offense; benefits ought to be handed out drop by drop, so that they may be relished the more.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SpanishMatMaster

They are two questions. Please provide two answers, I do not know to which question you are answering.

I might suppose that you are answering "no" to both, but I prefer not to rely on suppositions. I took the care of writing that text, please take the time to write two times "no" if this is the case.

Best regards.