Zamboro: Accent: "I don't see how anyone can have a strong opinion without strong information."

Is absolute proof the only kind of "strong information"? How is it that convictions occur in cases where there is no absolute proof that the defendant is guilty?

Moreover, you're likely quite sure Santa doesn't exist. How do you justify that view? You cannot provide absolute proof that he doesn't, so by what means do you determine that Santa's existence is improbable?

if you live in an apartment tower, you know santa don't exist.

Pshhhh everyone knows all the religions are wrong! God is WATER people! Think about it! It gives us life!

The holy trinity existing as one supreme entity? 2 Hydrogen atoms (The holy ghost, and the father) and 1 oxygen (the son - which is a byprodct of fusion reactions in the sun, which existed after hydrogen, which, notably, the son was theorized 200 yrs after Jesus' time) all composing the singular molecule that makes life as we know it possible. Water!

Now keep in mind the concepts of god were theorized long before the idea that the world was round or that the earth revolved around the sun let alone that it was simply a giant ball of burning gas.

In the beginning there was "god" - in the beginning there was water.

God works in "mysterious ways" - the physics of water is still something only vaguely understood.

You can feel his spirit, but you can't see god - You can touch water but pure water is clear and if something is truly clear then you can't really see it now can you? And for those of you about to argue that pure water is blue, it takes a significantly large amount of water to produce blue, consider your interactions with water on a day to day basis. The water you drink is clear in your glass, the water that comes out of your shower and faucets is clear. The only reason you can even see it is because it's directly interacting with the things around it like air (which incidentally carries water in it).

God is in us - about 70% of the bodies cells are made of H₂O (which should be similar to the single-celled organism that science theorized was the start of life as we know it).

But God is perfect! - If you believe this then you haven't read the bible. Also, even drinkably "pure" (synonymous for perfect) water has contaminants.

God is about peace - Water always follows the path of least resistance

God is vengeful - Hurricane Katrina anyone? What happened to the levies? What happened to that New Orleans? Anyone recall that tidal wave in the indian ocean? Yeah, the water was disturbed and wreaked havoc in response.

God is omnipotent - Water can cut steel, shape stone, give life, provide energy and destroy. I'd say that covers a lot of the bases of omnipotence.

Omnipresence? Yeah water is found all over the solar system and traces of water are found throughout our galaxy.

Should I go on?

DeanMoriarty: "exactly. Which is why being agnostic or gnostic is not a subcategory of being atheist or theist."

The spectrum of theistic probability

omris: CuteAsFark: it's called brain-washing.

We should have a law against that. It's terrible.

For some reason this comment made me daydream about America electing a gerontologist for president. For five seconds, the world felt very cold.

I drunk what: quote mine out of context?

/am I getting warmer?
// :{

I mean cuz that same book said that God told Abraham to kill Isaac to test his faith, so clearly God is telling us that we all should kill our children...

He apparently does that quite a bit ^{(^)}.

Accent: where does HCl + H2O + NaOH come from

You mean, like Chlorine, Oxygen and Sodium, I'm sure you have heard of supernovae? ^{(^)}. The hydrogen was already there.

omris: Accent:
I don't see how anyone can have a strong opinion without strong information.

I have trouble with this idea too, but they keep doing it.

I guess I'll just sit here and get yelled at for not "choosing a side".

Same goes for global warming/climate change and politics.

Zamboro: You cannot provide absolute proof that he doesn't, so by what means do you determine that Santa's existence is improbable?

There is nothing in logic or science that says "in order to deny the existence of something you must provide absolute proof of it's non-existence."

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Denial requires nothing but the lack of evidence supporting the opposite position.

Zamboro:
Is absolute proof the only kind of "strong information"? How is it that convictions occur in cases where there is no absolute proof that the defendant is guilty?

No. There are lots of kinds of evidence, of varying strengths.


Moreover, you're likely quite sure Santa doesn't exist. How do you justify that view? You cannot provide absolute proof that he doesn't, so by what means do you determine that Santa's existence is improbable?

You're right, I am quite certain that Santa is imaginary. I justify that view in the absence of absolute proof using all of the strong evidence suggesting that it is a story, part of a lovely tradition of imaginary stuff that makes people happy even when it's only a made up story. Just like I do with religion.

Zamboro: Accent: "I don't see how anyone can have a strong opinion without strong information."

Is absolute proof the only kind of "strong information"? How is it that convictions occur in cases where there is no absolute proof that the defendant is guilty?

Moreover, you're likely quite sure Santa doesn't exist. How do you justify that view? You cannot provide absolute proof that he doesn't, so by what means do you determine that Santa's existence is improbable?

You know Santa doesn't exist, because you know your kids will cry all day if you don't go out and spend hard earned money to buy presents, and put them under the tree yourself.

Cthulhu Theory: Pshhhh everyone knows all the religions are wrong! God is WATER people! Think about it! It gives us life!

The holy trinity existing as one supreme entity? 2 Hydrogen atoms (The holy ghost, and the father) and 1 oxygen (the son - which is a byprodct of fusion reactions in the sun, which existed after hydrogen, which, notably, the son was theorized 200 yrs after Jesus' time) all composing the singular molecule that makes life as we know it possible. Water!

Now keep in mind the concepts of god were theorized long before the idea that the world was round or that the earth revolved around the sun let alone that it was simply a giant ball of burning gas.

In the beginning there was "god" - in the beginning there was water.

God works in "mysterious ways" - the physics of water is still something only vaguely understood.

You can feel his spirit, but you can't see god - You can touch water but pure water is clear and if something is truly clear then you can't really see it now can you? And for those of you about to argue that pure water is blue, it takes a significantly large amount of water to produce blue, consider your interactions with water on a day to day basis. The water you drink is clear in your glass, the water that comes out of your shower and faucets is clear. The only reason you can even see it is because it's directly interacting with the things around it like air (which incidentally carries water in it).

God is in us - about 70% of the bodies cells are made of H2O (which should be similar to the single-celled organism that science theorized was the start of life as we know it).

But God is perfect! - If you believe this then you haven't read the bible. Also, even drinkably "pure" (synonymous for perfect) water has contaminants.

God is about peace - Water always follows the path of least resistance

God is vengeful - Hurricane Katrina anyone? What happened to the levies? What happened to that New Orleans? Anyone recall that tidal wave in the indian ocean? Yeah, the water was disturbed and wreaked havoc in response.

God is omnipotent - Water can cut steel, shape stone, give life, provide energy and destroy. I'd say that covers a lot of the bases of omnipotence.

Omnipresence? Yeah water is found all over the solar system and traces of water are found throughout our galaxy.

Should I go on?

Interesting theory, I love it, kudos to you.

Zamboro: Accent: "I don't see how anyone can have a strong opinion without strong information."

Is absolute proof the only kind of "strong information"? How is it that convictions occur in cases where there is no absolute proof that the defendant is guilty?

Moreover, you're likely quite sure Santa doesn't exist. How do you justify that view? You cannot provide absolute proof that he doesn't, so by what means do you determine that Santa's existence is improbable?

I didn't say I needed absolute proof.
one side: Why is there pretty strong proof of evolution if we were created in one image?
other side: Where in the hell did the first atom, bit of energy, anything come from to begin with?

Clan Xpy: omris: CuteAsFark: it's called brain-washing.

We should have a law against that. It's terrible.

For some reason this comment made me daydream about America electing a gerontologist for president. For five seconds, the world felt very cold.


probably from the spray from cthulu cracking a beer.

I don't know
If i go somewhere special when I die
So i'll just go on living my way

Agnosticism is a philosophical proof. Maybe some agnostics are truly just unsure, but I'm completely certain that we humans do not know whether or not there is a god. I'm glad to have closed my mind on the right answer.

maddogdelta: I drunk what: quote mine out of context?

/am I getting warmer?
// :{

I mean cuz that same book said that God told Abraham to kill Isaac to test his faith, so clearly God is telling us that we all should kill our children...

He apparently does that quite a bit (^).

Accent: where does HCl + H2O + NaOH come from

You mean, like Chlorine, Oxygen and Sodium, I'm sure you have heard of supernovae? (^). The hydrogen was already there.

Yeah, I know what a supernova is.
Where did Hydrogen come from?

SobrietyFighter: "if you live in an apartment tower, you know santa don't exist."

Heh. You really don't, though. If as many adults were emotionally invested in the existence of Santa as in Yahweh, there'd be a centuries old tradition of Santanian apologetics ready to fill all of the gaps with superficially plausible excuses. Didn't receive gifts? You displeased Santa in some way. Satellite imagery shows no workshop at the North Pole? Santa possesses elven technology which makes his workshop imperceptible to our sensors, and so on.

Most would agree that it's eminently reasonable not only to lack belief in Santa but to conclude (provisionally, with the possibility for reversal still on the table) that he does not exist.

What it comes down to ultimately is how we know what we know. Anyone who tells you that we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God doesn't understand how disproofs are actually accomplished in science, nor have they ever sat down and asked themselves why the countless notions science cannot disprove are not taught as potentially legitimate in the classroom. Science is our means of sorting truth from falsehood, and untestable hypotheses do not get a free pass.

trivial details are trivial.

People who are unsure of their own beliefs are less open minded. Suck it agnostics.
People who know that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof are less likely to believe someone else's BS.

Atheists confuse the null hypothesis with a negative result.

The default position of science is not to say that something doesn't exist. It's to say that there's no evidence that it does (i.e. relegated to being irrelevant or unknown). There's a huge difference.

That's what blows the whole "why don't you believe in unicorns and the tooth fairy?" argument out of the water. You only have to justify it if you claim you've seen them or been affected by them.

Until then, the set is null. Not negative, null.

Accent: I guess I'll just sit here and get yelled at for not "choosing a side".

Same goes for global warming/climate change and politics.

You needn't choose a side. But not choosing a side doesn't make you agnostic. Being agnostic means that you think that people on both sides cannot know for certain. That it cannot be known. But you can choose a side regardless.

I am agnostic, because there simply is no way to PROVE the existence or lack of existence of a god. But I see no evidence to support one, so I reject theism, making me an atheist. I also happen to think it's a meaningless distinction, and the distinction of agnostic versus gnostic is much more important.

Mr.Z: I'm looking at a chair. My belief is... it is a chair. What exactly is a chair anyway? What makes it a 'chair'? Is it because I sit on it? Well, I can sit on a log --- then is not the log also a 'chair'? I can sit on a guard rail, too. I sit on the toilet (a whole other conversation)...... wait, it's no longer a chair, it's a 'throne'. I can't sit on my thumbs....they're not chairs...or they're not 'capable chairs', no feckin' armrest. Dammit, how does one 'sit on their arse'? What makes a chair a 'chair'? If I believe it's a chair, does that make it a chair? If so, who said? Who was the first one that said "I'll call this a 'chair'?" What, 'noodle' didn't sound right?
Damn this thread!

I had an art teacher who told us to draw a teacup, then failed all the drawings because it could not be a teacup if there was no tea in it. And since all the drawings were two dimensional, they could not hold tea.

Anyway, I'm quite sure that I'm unsure about the existence of all the various higher powers. Does that make me open or close minded?

At work, I'm usually the fundies' favorite heathen. Seems they've never met an agnostic they liked before. I think it's because I allow them their beliefs, and then insist that it goes two ways that they must allow me mine. Works with 99% of them anyway.

For instance, there's occasions they pray for me, like when I lost my dad a few months ago If nothing else I know it's a gesture of personally supporting me out of love and friendship. They spent a moment wishing us the best by asking someone, their god, to take care of us. Whether anyone else hears that prayer is completely besides the point to me. What counts is the thought behind the gift of that moment they spent on me, which is to hope things get better for me and my dad. So you bet I'll thank them for it too.

Try it. Respect. It works!

if they consider themselves atheists, how are they confused? seems like they have a pretty firm ideology.

Has anyone pointed out that agnosticism simply means that you believe the truth of God's existence is unknowable.

It has nothing to do with whether you believe in God or not.

Believing and Knowing are two different things.

If you KNOW God exists = Gnostic Theist
If you BELIEVE God exists = Agnostic Theist
If you BELIEVE God doesn't exist = Agnostic Atheist
If you KNOW God doesn't exist = Gnostic Theist

omris:

Almost the entire above thread is 'one side' yelling at the 'other side'.

Agnostics (semantics aside) being yelled at by both.

does god know he exists?

Cthulhu Theory: Should I go on?

Tell us the story about how Jeebus turned himself into wine.

Accent: "I didn't say I needed absolute proof.
one side: Why is there pretty strong proof of evolution if we were created in one image?
other side: Where in the hell did the first atom, bit of energy, anything come from to begin with?"

What of the problems that cognitive neurobiology poses for those who believe in a soul? What of the mountains of evidence confirming that consciousness is produced by the brain, that cognition cannot be sustained outside of the brain just as you cannot process data outside of a physical processor?

As for the origin of the big bang, I actually have answered that one in a recent thread:

Zamboro: "What you seem to be arguing is that "matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed", a popular paraphrasing of the law of conservation. However the actual wording is "In a closed system, the total energy remains constant". Natural causation of the Big Bang is presently thought to have occurred by way of particle pair origination, i.e. Hawking radiation.

Supposing you were to add 1 and -1. You'd get zero, right? Now suppose you were to carry out the same operation in reverse, separating 1 and -1 out of 0. It would appear that you've gotten something from nothing, right? Except of course you haven't. You've gotten something and 'anti-something' from nothing, a particle and its anti-particle equivalent, creating an imbalance which nonetheless has a total energy state of zero. I like to describe it as digging a hole of level ground; where before you had flat ground, you now have a pile and a hole, identical in volume.

As it turns out matter (which, as you know, is interchangeable with energy) is actually distorted vacuum energy:

"It's Confirmed: Matter is Merely Vacuum Fluctuations"

These vacuum energy fluctuations occur by themselves (driven by entropy) as the collapsed, imbalanced particle/antiparticle state is actually *more stable* than the state of nothingness out of which they separate. Here's another good explanation on how this occurs:

"Something From Nothing is a Quantum Possibility"

Finally, here's the math that proves that the total energy state of the universe works out to be zero, which we might expect it to be if it were to have originated in the manner described above. The fact that the energy state is zero confirms that the spontaneous origination of the universe did not violate the law of conservation.

"Calculating the Zero Energy of the Universe"

Jack31081: Has anyone pointed out that agnosticism simply means that you believe the truth of God's existence is unknowable.

It has nothing to do with whether you believe in God or not.

Believing and Knowing are two different things.

If you KNOW God exists = Gnostic Theist
If you BELIEVE God exists = Agnostic Theist
If you BELIEVE God doesn't exist = Agnostic Atheist
If you KNOW God doesn't exist = Gnostic Theist

I lol'd.

Accent: Where did Hydrogen come from?

Well, I will tell you that cosmologists have a damned good idea of what has happened since 1*10^-47 second after the instant of the start of the big bang. Because hydrogen started forming about 300,000 years after that.
If you want to get technical and ask "What about before that?", I'll just answer a question with a question..."So what?" If you want to argue the possibility of a deistic creation, have a blast. If someone wants to argue that they can prove an interventionist god whose ass we must continually kiss, I will ask you to provide evidence.

And considering a deistic style god, and no god, can anyone demonstrate a difference to me?

Zamboro: DeanMoriarty: "exactly. Which is why being agnostic or gnostic is not a subcategory of being atheist or theist."

The spectrum of theistic probability

The fact that Dawkins made up a series of percentages for a book does not change the actual meaning of the words.

SobrietyFighter: does god know he exists?

Since god doesn't believe in a higher power, he must be an atheist. And if it's good enough for god, it's good enough for me.

absoluteparanoia: "That's what blows the whole "why don't you believe in unicorns and the tooth fairy?" argument out of the water. You only have to justify it if you claim you've seen them or been affected by them."

Nearly all Christians do make such a claim, however. A Christian who had never seen or been affected by God would hardly have a defensible reason for believing such a being exists.

That said, "why don't you believe in X" is not meant to be a novelty "gotcha" style question. I'm sincerely curious. Why don't you believe in Santa? It's not rhetorical at all, I want to hear some reasons.

Jack31081:
If you KNOW God exists = Gnostic Theist
If you BELIEVE God exists = Agnostic Theist
If you BELIEVE God doesn't exist = Agnostic Atheist
If you KNOW God doesn't exist = Gnostic Theist

I'm gonna assume you just forgot that A in the last line.

Drakin020: Pocket Ninja: It's interesting how the words used in this headline manage to complete misdirect the actual point of the studies while still being technically accurate.



/Amused.fark you Frank.

maddogdelta: SobrietyFighter: does god know he exists?

Since god doesn't believe in a higher power, he must be an atheist. And if it's good enough for god, it's good enough for me.

thats deep

Dean Moriarty: "The fact that Dawkins made up a series of percentages for a book does not change the actual meaning of the words."

The fact that you do not understand the definitions of words like "agnostic" and "atheist" does not somehow change where people stand on the question of whether a god or gods exist. The spectrum is merely a handy way to express ones degree of certainty to others.

I am an agnostic atheist. You may not recognize the validity of the term, but I am one nonetheless.

Cthulhu Theory: Pshhhh everyone knows all the religions are wrong! God is WATER people! Think about it! It gives us life!

But, Bruce Lee was water.

Wait....... Oh. My. God.

maddogdelta: If you want to get technical and ask "What about before that?", I'll just answer a question with a question..."So what?" If you want to argue the possibility of a deistic creation, have a blast. If someone wants to argue that they can prove an interventionist god whose ass we must continually kiss, I will ask you to provide evidence.

And considering a deistic style god, and no god, can anyone demonstrate a difference to me?

No, they can't. You cannot prove it either way. Leaving an open mind to either solution should not get someone coming after your balls in a conversation.
Welcome to the club.

Zamboro
I am not arguing that the Big Bang did not happen.
The theories of conservation of mass and energy does not prove where the first anything came from.
Please read "Newscientist" with a grain of salt.

wmoonfox: "But, Bruce Lee was water."

...He was also an atheist. With that, the final puzzle piece falls into place.

Jubeebee: We know that the Universe is finite in space, but it is expanding. And we know roughly when it (and therefore time) began, so it is finite in time as well.

Only had enough time to read this part of your response, gotta skidoodle out of the office.

I think your "statements of fact" require clarification. We do not know that the universe is finite in space. We do know that the observable universe is finite. However, since most people define the universe as the observable universe, your point may stand with clarification.

Same is true with the "finite time" thing. True for observable universe, but not a statement on anything that could be outside of that. The universe that contains our universe could have it's own start of time, or perhaps no start/end of time.

maddogdelta: SobrietyFighter: does god know he exists?

Since god doesn't believe in a higher power, he must be an atheist. And if it's good enough for god, it's good enough for me.

I lol'd at this!

Zamboro: I am an agnostic atheist. You may not recognize the validity of the term, but I am one nonetheless.

I totally do. That's what I've been arguing. Agnosticism pertains to knowledge, atheism pertains to faith.

One could very easily be an agnostic theist. In fact, I think that's very prevalent. I've heard many people admit that they have no proof or knowledge supporting their faith, yet are very strong in that faith.

Dawkins argues that agnosticism is a level between theist and atheist. It isn't, and it's not even a qualifier to one's level of faith. It's simply term relating to one's level of knowledge of a god.

Accent: "I am not arguing that the Big Bang did not happen."

I know that.

Accent: "The theories of conservation of mass and energy does not prove where the first anything came from."

I didn't suggest such a thing. Read the rest of the quoted portion. If you come across something you don't understand, ask for clarification.

Accent: "Please read "Newscientist" with a grain of salt."

I do. However the studies in question were not carried out by the NewScientist staff. It's a bit like Wikipedia; the articles themselves can't be presented as any sort of authority, but the studies they refer to can be. The fact that legitimate studies are referenced on a wikipedia page (or in this case paraphrased in a NS article) does not somehow diminish their legitimacy.

You also did not address the materials I provided re: cognitive neurobiology and its implications for those who believe in souls. I'm interested to know what you think about that.

Zamboro: Nearly all Christians do make such a claim, however. A Christian who had never seen or been affected by God would hardly have a defensible reason for believing such a being exists.

That said, "why don't you believe in X" is not meant to be a novelty "gotcha" style question. I'm sincerely curious. Why don't you believe in Santa? It's not rhetorical at all, I want to hear some reasons.

It's not that I don't believe in Santa. It's that it's a nonsense question in the absence of data. It's like saying "Why can't you smell the color green?"

It's because I haven't and it doesn't jive. It's not a rejection so much as a "I never claimed he existed." It's like the difference between "meh" and "no".

Jack31081: If you KNOW God exists = Gnostic Theist
If you BELIEVE God exists = Agnostic Theist
If you BELIEVE God doesn't exist = Agnostic Atheist
If you KNOW God doesn't exist = Gnostic Theist

since Jesus is the only gnostic, maybe it would be a more useful definition to separate the divide as

gnostic = one who has learned-studied, and in light of the information available is pretty sure (about their belief)

agnostic = one who has not learned-studied OR has learned-studied but cannot make an educated guess one way or the other, but they feel their belief is true

?

though I agree your original definition is probably the most accurate

Zamboro: He was also an atheist. With that, the final puzzle piece falls into place.

I'm not sure if that distant pop I just heard was the universe cracking or just a strained blood vessel in my pounding head.

DeanMoriarty: "I totally do. That's what I've been arguing. Agnosticism pertains to knowledge, atheism pertains to faith."

But that makes no sense. Is a-fairyism an article of faith? Is a-Santaism? If there's anything you don't believe is true but which cannot in principle be disproven, why do you feel it's reasonable to disbelieve?

Once again, not rhetorical. I'm actually asking you why you don't believe in Santa, for instance. Once we can agree that it's perfectly reasonable to disbelieve in Santa, everything else follows.

I drunk what: gnostic = one who has learned-studied, and in light of the information available is pretty sure (about their belief)

Not really - a gnostic can simply be someone who is sure because of what they know (no matter how limited that knowledge). They don't need to have a lot of information at their disposal; they just need to be using information as the basis.

A woman who sees god's face in a piece of toast, and thereby declares that god is real, is gnostic.

absoluteparanoia: "It's not that I don't believe in Santa. It's that it's a nonsense question in the absence of data. It's like saying "Why can't you smell the color green?"

It's because I haven't and it doesn't jive. It's not a rejection so much as a "I never claimed he existed." It's like the difference between "meh" and "no"."

Do you believe in Santa Claus, yes or no? Step outside of the "must win argument" mindset and be real with me for a moment. Is it reasonable to conclude, based on all of the available information, that Santa Claus doesn't exist?

so god is really just lapses in quality control?

Zamboro:

I've been through many articles like these before. The bottom line that you and I both come to is that we don't know* either way.

The difference is I am not convinced strongly enough either way to believe* either side. Scientific theories have changed many times over history... and each one was accepted as "the new one" because it was thought to have been right.

Either way... if I understand this right... this God fella is a pretty forgiving guy, and I'll be alright if I grovel enough if I meet him. If he isn't there, then why waste my time trying to prove or disprove.. as you stated... Santa Clause