Does this make sense-science and the athiest/religion extension thread.

[mitchymo]

In order for something to be true/real science must be able to prove it.

In order for something to be false/unreal science must be able to disprove it.

Anything which is supernatural exists outside the sphere of our sciences so cannot be proven nor disproven.

So, it stands to reason that to believe in God or to not believe in God are both based on nothing other than personal choice without scientific reasoning.

Agnosticism is therefore the new black!

 

[B_Hamadim]

It amazes me to see both Sex and Religion go both hand in hand in LPSG.ORG.

Agnosticism is Atheism but with some Doubt.

mitchymo, it is clear that you are coming from a Christian background, It is known that the Bible is empty of Science that matches with the modern world, Rather than Scientific reasoning, The Bible talks about some miracles and stories that people call nowadays as "Fictious stories".

If you are interested in the Scientific reasoning, there is a Book called "The Quran", That book came 14 centuries before, 600 years after Jesus christ.

That Book came between the hands of an Illiterate man who lives in the desert, he couldn't even write his own Name, that man is Mohammad, the one who is mentioned in the Bible of Jews as "Mohammadim" ( מחמדי&#1501 (Hebrew).

God talking:
Deutronomy 18:18 "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."

So it is clear that Mohammad came to supercede Jesus and to carry on the same Religion, but Unfortunately.. the Christians denied and still deny him.

Back to the Quran, The Quran talks about:

1- Origin of Life.
2- Big Bang Theory.
3- Cosmology.
4- Expansion of the Universe.
5- Evolution.
6- Embryology: Detailed Stages of the Development of Sperm inside the Womb.
7- Geology: Existance of Iron, Planets.
8- Conquest of Space.


All that proves the existance of God.

Go to a local Book shop and pick it up to read it by your own self.

 

[HazelGod]

So, it stands to reason that to believe in God or to not believe in God are both based on nothing other than personal choice without scientific reasoning.

This ignorant irony would be amusing if you weren't so bleeding tiresome.

 

[MarkLondon]

Mathematics has proofs, but most natural sciences only have observations and theories.

None of them can disprove an abstract concept.

 

[mitchymo]

It amazes me to see both Sex and Religion go both hand in hand in LPSG.ORG.

Agnosticism is Atheism but with some Doubt.

It is not with doubt, it is with scepticism

If you are interested in the Scientific reasoning, there is a Book called "The Quran",

A religion by any other name is still a religion, it does not use science any more or less to rationalise, if it did then the Islamic world would not be so homophobic or oppressive of women and would have its own space program.

That Book came between the hands of an Illiterate man who lives in the desert, he couldn't even write his own Name, that man is Mohammad, the one who is mentioned in the Bible of Jews as "Mohammadim" ( מחמדי&#1501 (Hebrew).

God talking:
Deutronomy 18:18 "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."

So it is clear that Mohammad came to supercede Jesus and to carry on the same Religion, but Unfortunately.. the Christians denied and still deny him.

Back to the Quran, The Quran talks about:

1- Origin of Life.
2- Big Bang Theory.
3- Cosmology.
4- Expansion of the Universe.
5- Evolution.
6- Embryology: Detailed Stages of the Development of Sperm inside the Womb.
7- Geology: Existance of Iron, Planets.
8- Conquest of Space.


All that proves the existance of God.

Go to a local Book shop and pick it up to read it by your own self.

It does not prove God, it proves natural science.

This ignorant irony would be amusing if you weren't so bleeding tiresome.

Oh what a surprise, is it any wonder people have an aversion to 'Gods'!

 

[mitchymo]

That Book came between the hands of an Illiterate man who lives in the desert, he couldn't even write his own Name, that man is Mohammad, the one who is mentioned in the Bible of Jews as "Mohammadim" ( מחמדי&#1501 (Hebrew).

God talking:
Deutronomy 18:18 "I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him."

So it is clear that Mohammad came to supercede Jesus and to carry on the same Religion, but Unfortunately.. the Christians denied and still deny him.

For over 4000years the story of Jesus has existed with a holy man often with the same number of disciples, often with similiar looking faces, with similiar occupations, able to perform strikingly similiar miracles.

Over the years there have been variants from one culture to the next but for the mainstay the story is consistent and Mohammad is simply another reincarnation of that original story.

If you watch Zeitgeist Addendum or the Esoteric Agenda or the Zeitgeist movie they show the evidence thay have for this highlighting numerous religious idols that is the applicable Jesus of their time or culture.

Islam is a more strict culture which holds that story together not even it being allowed to convert to another faith i believe. Eventually when even totalitarian regimes cannot enforce the 'story of the holy man' then organised religion will die off completely, it has already started with science being the dominant tool of reasoning.

 

[JustAsking]

In order for something to be true/real science must be able to prove it.

In order for something to be false/unreal science must be able to disprove it.

Anything which is supernatural exists outside the sphere of our sciences so cannot be proven nor disproven.

So, it stands to reason that to believe in God or to not believe in God are both based on nothing other than personal choice without scientific reasoning.

Agnosticism is therefore the new black!

Your first and second premises are wrong. You are taking the position of Logical Positivism, which has as many critics as any other ontology.

However, I agree with your last proposal. My faith in the God known through Jesus is not based on anything empirical whatsoever, and I don't expect to find any empirical evidence one way or the other.

A better way of stating it is that since science restricts itself to being concerned with only natural processes as a practical matter, it is blind to anything supernatural. This is by definition.

As such science has nothing to say about the supernatural, so any faith in anything supernatural must be only a matter of choice without scientific reasoning.

I am not sure why this notion changes the status of agnosticism. This has been true for thousands of years.

 

[deleted213967]

It amazes me to see both Sex and Religion go both hand in hand in LPSG.ORG.



Back to the Quran, The Quran talks about:

1- Origin of Life.
2- Big Bang Theory.
3- Cosmology.
4- Expansion of the Universe.
5- Evolution.
6- Embryology: Detailed Stages of the Development of Sperm inside the Womb.
7- Geology: Existance of Iron, Planets.
8- Conquest of Space.


All that proves the existance of God.

Go to a local Book shop and pick it up to read it by your own self.

:biggrin1: :scratchchin:

:smile:

 

[mitchymo]

Your first and second premises are wrong. You are taking the position of Logical Positivism, which has as many critics as any other ontology.

I enjoyed reading that wiki link. :smile:

I am not gifted to be fair in great intellect so when i write it tends to be pretty basic, i'm not sure if you understood me as i intended. I did'nt literally mean that things are only real or unreal if science can prove or disprove them, i was trying to convey to Hilaire above anyone else in a way that he might understand.

I don't believe that all ravens are black for the very reason given in the article which would not make me a logical positivist right?

It is true that i used logical positivism because it is the best way i think to debate against someone else if they happen to be using it. I think Hilaire was using it to superiorise atheism over organised faith which as an agnostic i don't accept.

I hope i'm making some sense and i am quite doubtful whether the word 'superiorise' actually exists or is just a mitchyism :redface::smile:

 

[deleted213967]

Back to the Quran, The Quran talks about:

1- Origin of Life.
2- Big Bang Theory.
3- Cosmology.
4- Expansion of the Universe.
5- Evolution.
6- Embryology: Detailed Stages of the Development of Sperm inside the Womb.
7- Geology: Existance of Iron, Planets.
8- Conquest of Space.

Interesting how 1-through-8 eventually happened in the heads of "infidels", wouldn't you say?

 

[Phil Ayesho]

It amazes me to see both Sex and Religion go both hand in hand in LPSG.ORG.

Agnosticism is Atheism but with some Doubt.

Um- no.
Agnosticism has no doubt about God. It is the position that God in, by definition, unknowable.

A true agnostic is absolutely certain that ALL claims about God are false or delusional.

 

[DiscoBoy]

I posted this a while ago in a much older thread on religion and atheism but here it is again:

THE SPECTRUM OF BELIEF

1. Strong Theist. 100% probability of god. In the words of C. G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know'.

2. Very high probability but short of 100%. De Facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in god and live my life on the assumption that he is there'.

3. Higher than 50% but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in god'.

4. Exactly 50%. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existance and non-existance are exactly equiprobable'.

5. Lower than 50% but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether god exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical'.

6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De Facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think god is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there'.

7. Strong atheist. 'I know there is no god, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one'.

Anyway, it seems as if you're generalizing all atheists into that final, extreme category, which is akin to generalizing all theists as fundamentalists. I believe most atheists would in fact describe themselves as De Facto, as it is essentially impossible to know of a supreme being's inexistence just as it is impossible to know of one's existence. There is no certainty when it comes to things said to be ethereal. Rather, there can't be certainty, until it can be ultimately proven or disproven.

This holds true with any mythical or supernatural being. We can't know for certain that unicorns don't exist, but we do live our lives on the assumption that they don't. This is obviously the most logical and rational approach as we've no reason to actually believe they exist. Nor do we have to disprove its existence. The burden of proof always lies with the party making the claim. So, just as it is perfectly rational to assume the inexistence of unicorns, it is perfectly rational to assume the inexistence of a supreme being.

 

[deleted213967]

I posted this a while ago in a much older thread on religion and atheism but here it is again:
Anyway, it seems as if you're generalizing all atheists into that final, extreme category, which is akin to generalizing all theists as fundamentalists. I believe most atheists would in fact describe themselves as De Facto. as it is essentially impossible to know of a supreme being's inexistence just as it is impossible to know of one's existence. There is no certainty when it comes to things said to be ethereal. Rather, there can't be certainty, until it can be ultimately proven or disproven.

This holds true with any mythical or supernatural being. We can't know for certain that unicorns don't exist, but we do live our lives on the assumption that they don't. This is obviously the most logical and rational approach as we've no reason to actually believe they exist. Nor do we have to disprove its existence. The burden of proof always lies with the party making the claim. So, just as it is perfectly rational to assume the inexistence of unicorns, it is perfectly rational to assume the inexistence of a supreme being.

Dawkins himself didn't rate himself a 7. I would consider myself a 6 indeed.

 

[nineinchnail4u2c]

In order for something to be true/real science must be able to prove it.

In order for something to be false/unreal science must be able to disprove it.

Anything which is supernatural exists outside the sphere of our sciences so cannot be proven nor disproven.

So, it stands to reason that to believe in God or to not believe in God are both based on nothing other than personal choice without scientific reasoning.

Agnosticism is therefore the new black!

1. There are two types of Atheism: Positive Atheism, or the affirmative belief that gods do not exist; and Negative Atheism, or the absence of belief that gods exist. Agnosticism, the belief that the existence of gods is unknown or unknowable is a form of Negative Atheism.
   
   
2. If gods do not exist, then there would be no evidence of their non-existence. It is for this reason that the claim that gods do not exist cannot be substantiated. However, it does not follow from the inability to prove that gods do not exist that gods do exist or that it is reasonable to believe that gods exist.

 

[JustAsking]

I enjoyed reading that wiki link. :smile:

I am not gifted to be fair in great intellect so when i write it tends to be pretty basic, i'm not sure if you understood me as i intended. I did'nt literally mean that things are only real or unreal if science can prove or disprove them, i was trying to convey to Hilaire above anyone else in a way that he might understand.

I don't believe that all ravens are black for the very reason given in the article which would not make me a logical positivist right?

It is true that i used logical positivism because it is the best way i think to debate against someone else if they happen to be using it. I think Hilaire was using it to superiorise atheism over organised faith which as an agnostic i don't accept.

I hope i'm making some sense and i am quite doubtful whether the word 'superiorise' actually exists or is just a mitchyism :redface::smile:

mitch,
I think your writing belies your intelligence. By that I mean that you are more intelligent than your writing often reveals. Its as if you missed some opportunities in your education, but if you had studied them, you would have mastered them easily.

For example, you nailed my point about Logical Positivism and what I was trying to accomplish with it here and with hilaire, immediately upon reading the link. And regardless of whether "superiorise" is a word or not, I think you summed up what hilare was trying to accomplish very succinctly with it.

My point with hilaire was as you say, that he was trying to assign a role to science that makes it far more definitive in being the arbiter of universal truth than science would claim for itself.

 

[JustAsking]

1. There are two types of Atheism: Positive Atheism, or the affirmative belief that gods do not exist; and Negative Atheism, or the absence of belief that gods exist. Agnosticism, the belief that the existence of gods is unknown or unknowable is a form of Negative Atheism.
   
   
2. If gods do not exist, then there would be no evidence of their non-existence. It is for this reason that the claim that gods do not exist cannot be substantiated. However, it does not follow from the inability to prove that gods do not exist that gods do exist or that it is reasonable to believe that gods exist.

Yes.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

1. There are two types of Atheism: Positive Atheism, or the affirmative belief that gods do not exist; and Negative Atheism, or the absence of belief that gods exist. Agnosticism, the belief that the existence of gods is unknown or unknowable is a form of Negative Atheism.
2. If gods do not exist, then there would be no evidence of their non-existence. It is for this reason that the claim that gods do not exist cannot be substantiated. However, it does not follow from the inability to prove that gods do not exist that gods do exist or that it is reasonable to believe that gods exist.

My only quibble is with that word "belief". In order for it to be the case that I believe in the non-existence of god there would have to be good reason for me to think that god's existence was a fact, or other reasons to think that god's non-existence was purely a matter of belief and not just an unavoidable reality. In the absence of those good reasons my disbelief is not a belief, but an acceptance of reality as it presents itself to me, no ?

 

[nineinchnail4u2c]

My only quibble is with that word "belief". In order for it to be the case that I believe in the non-existence of god there would have to be good reason for me to think that god's existence was a fact, or other reasons to think that god's non-existence was purely a matter of belief and not just an unavoidable reality. In the absence of those good reasons my disbelief is not a belief, but an acceptance of reality as it presents itself to me, no ?

Disbelief, the state or quality of being disinclined or indisposed to believe, is a form of unbelief, the state or quality of not believing. Belief is conviction. The former describes Negative Atheism and Agnosticism, and the latter describes Positive Atheism and Theism.

 

[Calboner]

that man is Mohammad, the one who is mentioned in the Bible of Jews as "Mohammadim" ( מחמדי&#1501 (Hebrew).

This is a canard. Some Muslims trolled through the Bible to find a Hebrew word that resembles the name of the Prophet. They found this one. It occurs, for example, in the Song of Solomon, 5:16, a verse variously translated as "His mouth is most sweet; yea, he is altogether lovely" (King James Version), "His mouth is full of sweetness, and he is wholly desirable" (New American Standard Version), and so on. The Hebrew word "machamadim" is the one that is translated as "lovely" and as "desirable." It has absolutely no connection with the Arabic name "Mohamed," and even if it did, that would hardly support the inference that it refers to the bearer of that name who was born several centuries after the passage was written.

More detailed debunking of this fanciful claim may be found here and here.

 

[B_Hamadim]

This is a canard. Some Muslims trolled through the Bible to find a Hebrew word that resembles the name of the Prophet. They found this one. It occurs, for example, in the Song of Solomon, 5:16, a verse variously translated as "His mouth is most sweet; yea, he is altogether lovely" (King James Version), "His mouth is full of sweetness, and he is wholly desirable" (New American Standard Version), and so on. The Hebrew word "machamadim" is the one that is translated as "lovely" and as "desirable." It has absolutely no connection with the Arabic name "Mohamed," and even if it did, that would hardly support the inference that it refers to the bearer of that name who was born several centuries after the passage was written.

More detailed debunking of this fanciful claim may be found here and here.

I respect your interference, Allow me to add something.

You see, In the original version of the Bible that is in hebrew(Song of Solomon 5:16), Mohammadim is written there, and It was in Plural of respect (im), so without it, it would be Mohammad.

In Judaism, the word for God is Elloh, but the jews are used to using the Plural of Respect so the name becomes Ellohim (Hence the im).

When Christians translated the Hebrew Bible, they also Translated the name Mohammadim to "altogether lovely" which you can't Associate with the word "Mohammad".

You have no right to translate the names of people, For example, Mr Black is british thou he is White, I have no right to call him Mr Aswad (Aswad is Black in Arabic) or call him Mr Omnyama (Omnyama is Black in Zulu) or call him Mr Kala (Kala is Black in Urdu).

So the names should be retained.

God bless.