If you say you dont have faith that you are right, then you are not an atheist. Atheists have faith in the nonexistence of any deity.

There is a statistical probabilitly that I am right. Faith (in a religious context) is for bridging gaps in logic. I have little use for it.

there is also a statistical probability that i'm right.

michiu kaku the co-founder of superstring theory,

loves the superstring theory because it unites the world's major religions.

the judeo-christian and muslims have their creation with the big bang,

the eastern religions have their nirvana, in a permanent, everlasting, and perfect 10 dimensional universe.

that has always existed and will always exist.

here's a theoretical physicists take on god, and you will see he is not an atheist, nor is hawking.

"But scientists usually are reluctant to engage in theological debates about god and creation. one problem, i have found, is that "god" means many things to many people, and the use of loaded words full of unspoken, hidden symbolism only clouds the issue. To clarify this problem somewhat, i have found it useful to distinguish carefully between two types of meanings for the word god. It is sometimes helpful to differentiate between the god of miracles and the god of order.

when scientists use the word god, they usually mean the god of order."

here's the important part though and the part that atheists cannot seem to look past.

i think the reason is not because they don't believe in god, they don't want to believe in god.

so they pick an easy target, like this god...

"however to non-scientists, the word god almost universally refers to the god of miracles. and this is the source of miscommunication between scientists and non-scientists. where the god of miracles intervenes in our affairs, performs miracles, destroys wicked cities, smites enemy armies, drowns the pharoah's troops, and avenges the pure and noble, most scientists, IT IS SAFE TO SAY, believe that there is some form of cosmic order in the universe."

many people also believe they have a free will, let's see julian barbour has to say about that in regards to the wave function, another theoretical physicist, from his book the end of time.

"however, the many instants interpretation puts an intriguingly different slant on causality, suggesting that it operates in nothing like the way we normally believe it to. in both classical physics and everett's original scheme, what happens now is a consequence of the past. but with many instants, each now 'competes' with all the other nows in a timeless beauty contest to win the highest probability. the ability of each now to resonate with other nows is what counts. Its chance to exist is determined by what it is in itself. the structure of things is the determining power in a timeless world.
the same applies to us, for our conscious instants are embedded in the nows. the probability of us experiencing ourselves doing something is just the sum of probabilities for all the different nows in which that experience is embedded. everything we experience is brought into existence by being what it is. our very nature determines whether we shall or shall not be. i find that consoling. we are because of what we are. our existence is determined by the way we relate to (or resonate with) everything else that can be. although darwinism is a marvellous theory, and i greatly admire and respect richard dawkins writings, one day the theory of evolution will be subsumed in relativity,just as newtonian physics was subsumed in relativitywithout in any way ceasing to be great and valid science. for this reason and the remarks i just made i do not believe we are robots or that anything happens by chance. that view arises because we do not have a large enough perspective on things. species, ultimately genes, exist only if they fit in an environment."

perspective is the key.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lostmind:
there is also a statistical probability that i'm right.

---

No because we can't both be right.

quote:

---

michiu kaku the co-founder of superstring theory, loves the superstring theory because it unites the world's major religions. the judeo-christian and muslims have their creation with the big bang, the eastern religions have their nirvana, in a permanent, everlasting, and perfect 10 dimensional universe.

---

I think Kaku has spilled a little astrology into the astronomy beaker. Note that I took the liberty of removing your LF's.

quote:

---

...one day the theory of evolution will be subsumed in relativity...

---

Not really. The principles of relativity are physically based and can be applied universally whereas evolution is driven by nature and dictated by a local environment. Relativity can dictate only the mechanics of how an organism is assembled molecularly, it has no control over its behavior and thus it's evolution.

"No because we can't both be right."

so because there is a statistical probability of rolling a 6,

rolling a 1,2,3,4, or 5 is impossible?

it would seem the statistical probability for just one answer would be the incorrect one when faced with the probability of all the other answers.

"I think Kaku has spilled a little astrology into the astronomy beaker. Note that I took the liberty of removing your LF's."

so one of the most profound physicists of all time, whose theories will be taught to schoolchildren along with darwin's is full of shit, because he believes in a god?

"The principles of relativity are physically based and can be applied universally whereas evolution is driven by nature and dictated by a local environment."

so are you saying nature is spiritual?

isn't an environment physical?

"Relativity can dictate only the mechanics of how an organism is assembled molecularly"

you contradict yourself here,

"it has no control over its behavior and thus it's evolution."

how does behavior dictate evolution?

Hes still opposing the God that symbolizes his asshole father, dont ask him to make sense man. Hes right and youre wrong, atheism is the sole truth of the order of the universe, infidel! The problem is that other religions are wrong and only User X and people who think just like him are exactly right.

Spirit, I don't understand why you handle yourself like that


You can't prove God, but you can't disprove him, I don't understand arguing about it.

Your'e right there is no point arguing about it.
If to argue the point that god doesnt exist is the only reosan that athiests come here, then why bother because it impossible to win.
Instead, why don't all the atheists consider the possibility of gods existence and try to understand what god is?

quote:

---

Originally posted by lostmind:
...so because there is a statistical probability of rolling a 6, rolling a 1,2,3,4, or 5 is impossible? it would seem the statistical probability for just one answer would be the incorrect one when faced with the probability of all the other answers.

---

The die has 6 faces. The way I see it (based on scientific evidence) 5 sides have 'no god' and 1 side has 'god'. I get ONE roll. Only one of us will be right. And yes, I might roll a 'god' but I will have lost the farm because my chips were on the 'no god' square.

quote:

---

...so one of the most profound physicists of all time, whose theories will be taught to schoolchildren along with darwin's is full of shit, because he believes in a god?

---

No (remember - I'm the one trying to sell science here) It was an offhand, smart-ass comment that his thinking is tainted.

quote:

---

so are you saying nature is spiritual?

---

*he smells a trap*

Sure, as long as you don't drag god and soul into it. I can commune with nature without having to believe it was 'put here by an unseen omnipotent being'

quote:

---

how does behavior dictate evolution?[/B]

---

http://primate_behaviour.homestead.com/
http://home1.gte.net/ericjw1/sociobiology.html
http://www.amsci.org/amsci/articles/95articles/Stanford-full.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
...Hes still opposing the God that symbolizes his asshole father...

---

Your presumption that I have authority issues with my father is probably based on observations of your classmates behaviour. And it's probably valid - at your school.

My old man is also atheist and he rarely disciplined or set rules for me. His philosophy was to warn me of the possible repercussions of my actions and then set me loose to learn about life through personal experience. I'm better for it.

Yeah I sure am dead on right about the majority of atheists just hating dad and society. If thats not true of you, wonderful, but you still show plenty of signs of such trauma in your constant opposition to the logical conclusion that you may be wrong and there is a good chance of something bigger than you.

And why are you still arguing the Omnipotent being crap? Who said God was omnipotent? This is a new construct that theocracies foster to scare people; a majority of the worlds religions since the dawn of time said nothing of the perfection and infinite might of Gods.

Is it so impossible for atheists to move beyond the shadow of Golgotha? There is more to religion than what sprang from Judea. God does not = a jewish prince nailed to a stick, or a chubby Indian coddled prince, or even a cool one-eyed man with a powerful spear and an 8 legged horse. These are human inventions to communicate the divine in terms they understand and relate to. Look at the big picture.

Spirit,

If my memory serves me (and probably doesn't), I recall that you and I broched the subject of theist/atheist before.

The last part of your last post seemed to refer heavily on the paper you wrote for school and posted here.

I will be counted among those who are identified as believing in that/something/...you fill in the noun, just leave out god (that word is overused) which is greater that man. It could be called life force/universe/whatever, but however you describe the concept, that is what takes mere matter the next step and is responsible for life.

All of the above gets me to the point of this post. I sense that you lads are smashing the semantics of god versus atheism with a sledgehammer. The whole concept of god and the supernatural orginated in the caves throughout the world. The difference between us and the cave dwellers is a significant difference in understanding what was then unknown. To the cave dweller, unknown = god. Now we know better.

A direct question for you spirit: How do you explain the origin of life?

Nox

Beany,
If you want everyone to accept the possibilty that there might be a God, You have to accept the possibility that there might not.
Otherwise, stop preaching.
Don't be a hypocrite.

Don't call me an atheist, I don't deny that there might be a God, but the majority is in favor of God, so I usually choose to argue that there might not be one.

<<<<If you want everyone to accept the possibilty that there might be a God,You have to accept the possibility that there might not.>>>>

Who was it that said i don't accept the possibility? Stop trying to mould what i have said.

<<<Don't call me an atheist>>>>
Who called you an atheist?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
Yeah I sure am dead on right about the majority of atheists just hating dad and society...

---

http://dictionary.msn.com/find/entry.asp?search=stereotype

What? You use a stereotype to judge an entire group? No fucking way!

quote:

---

...but you still show plenty of signs of such trauma...

---

Well.. he did accidently pitch me out of a speeding car when I was 3 months old. He was getting rid of the neighbors cat and had it inside a burlap bag in the back seat. When he went to toss the cat out, he grabbed me by accident.

quote:

---

And why are you still arguing the Omnipotent being crap? Who said God was omnipotent?

---

Alright. I stereotyped god.

quote:

---

This is a new construct that theocracies foster to scare people...[quote]

By my definition, this statement makes you an atheist. God is just a label that describes the unseen being in those religions that use it. It might be a stereotype, but that's how I see it. And I don't know jack about ancient/obscure religions or whether their gods were omnipotent. If you're trying to say that your god is one whose charachteristics are different than the gods of popular religion then come right out and say it. Describe him. I might even say 'Yeah, sure, thats possible'. But until you do, I have to use a stereotypical version of god to reference what you are saying. And, it will be much more difficult for me to picture what you are thinking. Then, you get frustrated and the quality of your posts go to hell.

[quote]Is it so impossible for atheists to move beyond the shadow of Golgotha?

---

I'm game. Just point me in the right direction with some links. I'm here to learn just as much as to argue and be a wise-ass.

quote:

---

These are human inventions to communicate the divine in terms they understand and relate to.

---

Sounds like atheism to me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nox:
...that is what takes mere matter the next step and is responsible for life.

---

I'll admit that this is the weakest part of my atheist beliefs.

quote:

---

...you lads...

---

I don't think either one of us liked being called that.

"The die has 6 faces. The way I see it (based on scientific evidence) 5 sides have 'no god' and 1 side has 'god'. I get ONE roll. Only one of us will be right. And yes, I might roll a 'god' but I will have lost the farm because my chips were on the 'no god' square."

several hundred years ago, based scientific evidence, 5 sides would have flat earth, and one side would have heresy punishable by death.

"No (remember - I'm the one trying to sell science here) It was an offhand, smart-ass comment that his thinking is tainted."

first, you don't have to sell me science, the perfection and order to everything is part of my reason for believing, besides i'm a deist, jesus did not walk on water, god did not dictate the 10 commandments, the dead guy was probably in a coma, noah couldn't have supported all the creatures of the earth for 40 days and 40 nights, with some of them being strict carnivores.

i don't believe in miracles.

"Sure, as long as you don't drag god and soul into it. I can commune with nature without having to believe it was 'put here by an unseen omnipotent being'"

i don't believe in spiritual entities, planes of existance.

to me everything is physical, consider this, there are 6 physical dimensions that you are not even aware of, their definitive proof of existance impossible, since we cannot perceive it,

however upperdimensional events can manifest themselves in our four-dimensional reality.

for instance in spheres, although not physically detectable, and impossible to quantify, is the existance of a tetrahedron, a three sided pyramid, that depending on the position of the axis will cause disturbances at specific points either 39.6 degrees north or 36.9 degrees south latitude.

on earth it has been associated with the region called the bermuda triangle.

on mars the massive volcano olympus mons

on jupiter the great red spot

on saturn, because of the high speed of rotation it creates a band of clouds that when viewed from the polar region appear to make right turns at precise points to form a hexagonal shape to the band of clouds.

on neptune the great black spot, which was predicted with hyperdimensional physics using tetrahedral geometry, before the probe even arrived.

although unseen, the effects of these geometries in higher dimensions do have an effect.

considering what man sees is called the visible light spectrum, which occupies an extremely small part of the the spectrum, seeing is believing, but not seeing doesn't mean not existing.

just because i can't see the signal from my remote control doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

to be quite honest, there's probably 5 billion people who have no clue i exist do i have to prove myself to all of them, why should i, why should god.

in fact what if i don't exist, and i'm just some persona created by another user like trog,

and if i'd realized you were talking about behavioural evolution, i was talking about bacteria to man,

but behavioural evolution is totally dependant on your environment, which is a product of the wave function,

in fact i can create an instantaneous occurence of behavioural evolution, with a leather strap and a bare ass, as long as i align myself so the probability of the strap striking the ass has a higher probability than if it doesn't

To the five affected by this:

quote:

---

Originally posted by user X:
I don't think either one of us liked being called that.

---

the word I used was Lads, as opposed to Ladies. There was zero (Don't you take offense Zero) intent to insult anyone. When I desire to use words negatively, I am normally quite adept. This was NOT one of those times.

I am finding this discussion totally fascinating. I can almost hear the wheels grinding inside people's heads. God, I love it! ooops.

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by lostmind:
...consider this, there are 6 physical dimensions that you are not even aware of, their definitive proof of existance impossible, since we cannot perceive it,

---

Why six levels? When I think about dimensions, the number is infinite. It makes it more interesting.

quote:

---

...it has been associated with the region called the bermuda triangle.

---

What doo voodoo hafta doo wit it?

quote:

---

...just because i can't see the signal from my remote control doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

---

No shit? Really? A little empirical evidence huh? How do you know which appliance to point it at?

quote:

---

do i have to prove myself to all of them...

---

No. Just the clerk at the grocery store when you write a check.

quote:

---

...i can create an instantaneous occurence of behavioural evolution, with a leather strap and a bare ass...

---

*suddenly distracted*

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nox:

There was zero...intent to insult anyone.

---

Lighten up.

I love when LostMind makes the atheists seem stupid and they reply with snide and stupid bitter childish bullshit.

Lostmind answers his challenges and that puts him light-years ahead of you.

Yeah cool son. Where did anyone ask me anything?

Hehe
I disagree with some of the stuff he says
but User X cracks me up.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Spirit of '22:
Is it so impossible for atheists to move beyond the shadow of Golgotha?

---

Link me up babe.

Hello, I just wanted to post a theory that seems to be of a minority here. (mainly just me, I dont really know) What if (if, im not saying this is right, this is just what I beleive based on experiances that I have had) What if "God" or "Odin" or "The Goddess" were all actually different beings, instead of just one that is viewed differently by different cultures, or instead of just "one" being correct and the others not in existance? What if these "Gods" were all just mortals who at one time died and went on to the Astral Plane, living out the rest of their existance as spirits free of the body? One that "lived" on the Astral Plane would become more and more powerfull, and eventually be able to affect the material world again. (as material forces can affect the Astral Plane if directed apropriatly) What if when a man in Ancent greenland sees a vision of Odin in his dream, and a preist of today see a vision of God, they are not seeing the same thing or going crazy, but are having out of body experiances and going to the realms of their individual "dieties"?

Just a thought, not saying im right (although i beleive it a lot) just want some feedback. (by the way i do notice the huge amounts of "what ifs" i placed in this post, I beleive "what ifs" are the basis of human thought and creativity, so try to not flame me or whatever its called about it.)
cool man
-Glexian

what if? what if? what if?

If you can prove all the what ifs then its reasonable. Otherwise it goes on the self with the rest of the canned ideas. You can put them next to mine.

Lostmind,

whatever you post always intriges me. You speak of this god of order. The force that drives this universe into what it is today. I would think the thing that is the god of order is so simple (the simplier it is, the harder it is to make chaos out of it), that it can't be intellegent. Intellegence is too complex and therefore prone to chaos.

actually soullace i find intelligence excels at simplicity.

a man who knows how to hammer can build a house, but he may have to struggle at unforeseen factors that arise out of the simplicity of a square with a cover.

a man who knows how to build a house will do it not in a complicated manner, but in the most simplistic and efficient fashion he can.

haven't you ever said, there's got to be an easier way to do this.

and in finding that easier way, you've increased your intelligence, and increased the simplicity of what you are doing.

Could be that there are a lot of Gods. I used to think that, but it was too clear that a lot of them were borrowed or hijacked from other people, so I dont really think that anymore. But I still maintain every people has its own "god", wether or not its an actual unique extraplanar being is up in the air though.

"actually soullace i find intelligence excels at simplicity."

I think intellegence has the ability to make something complex simple. But the actual intellegence has to be complex to handle the different possiblities.

So i tend to believe that the more intellegent a thing is the more complex that thing must be.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lostmind:
and in finding that easier way, you've increased your intelligence...

---

Only if the new-found time is put to use feeding your mind.

not necessarily,

you knew one way to do things,

now you know two,

hasn't your knowledge increased?

No. I'll pick the most efficient method, get it done, and then go on to something else. I won't do it twice just because I know of two methods to achieve the same result.