Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific (page 9)

_Morpheus

Thor- god of Thunder and lightning. Kicks frost giant ass. Lack of frost giants is just one of the many proofs that Thor is real. Believe that, mr coffy!

I've only been on the site for just over 2 years, but I've seen it evolve to being more rational and less religious/scripture. If it hadn't I would have left a long time ago

I posit that this rationality has to translate into theology:

1. Restorasionist/Literalist thinking about genesis/creation will recede.

2. Religionists will have to deal with the irrational of the concept of hell. I've looked at alternatives and Universalism seems to be a way out.

3. Homosexuality will have stronger arguments for its acceptance, just as abolitionism was argued for in the early 19th century.

4. In the first part of the 21st century Millenialist thinking should continue to increase up until about 2050. You can't pin it down because revelation has some trippy language.

5. The trinity is still a beautiful concept because it keeps the mystery of God alive.

6. God arguments will be entirely philosophical with sprinkles of entropy/enthalpy thrown in.

7. Ecumenical ideas should become more prevalent as Churches experiences receding numbers.

---

Now this is a lot of conjecture, but if you let your mind go on the subject it makes for some fascinating ideas.

freemindfade

_Morpheus lol!

Ice giants... NEW LIGHT!

You guys are all great. Love your insights and humor too.

And those were some good points about how theism has been changed. Never thought of it thay way. They try to incorporate the atheism rationale... but as cofty implies for what????

"Oh yea. Well you can't prove GOD doesn't exist!!" Take that!! Ok. I can live with that. Thanks! Lol

To the OP. Who created your god. Every house is built by someone. Who build his?

cofty

Jesus promised to destroy wicked people

Thor promised to destroy Ice Giants

I don't see any Ice Giants.

C0ntr013r

1. So how did belief enter science?
2. How did scientists get to that belief?

It did not, that was my point.

Science have not investigate santa or the flying spaghettimonster either, to my knowledge at least.

Science is not a entity that can hold a belief... It is a system we use to investigate the world, it has no beliefs.

What I meant was that; maybe the reason for this is that most PEOPLE don't believe in them...

And this conversation is again derailing, it is not about fairies. It is about; lack of evidence does not prove non existence.

So lets forget about the fairies and get back on topic.

One of the examples in the link I gave is that which the discussion started with. It should prove to you that you are incorrect in your understanding:

I. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric.
A. The informal structure has two basic patterns:
Statement p is unproved.
Not-p is true.
Statement not-p is unproved.
p is true.
B. If one argues that God or telepathy, ghosts, or UFO's do not exist because their existence has not been proven beyond a shadow of doubt, then this fallacy occurs.

I know you don't like Wikipedia, but since you apparently prefer to use Wikipedia's reference I thought I use it anyway:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

A false dilemma may take the form:
If a proposition has not been disproven, then it cannot be considered false and must therefore be considered true.
If a proposition has not been proven, then it cannot be considered true and must therefore be considered false.
"There is no evidence of aliens, and therefore, aliens do not exist" appeals to an absence of evidence
There are plenty of examples of this fallacy, both on Wikipedia and it's sources.

C0ntr013r

One also cannot prove that Elves do not exist.
One also cannot prove that Fairies do not exist.
One also cannot prove that Lord Xenu does not exist.
One also cannot prove that the universe is not the ejaculate of a Giant Space Penis.
...............
Absence of evidence is good enough to discount ALL of the above for any practical and scientific purpose.

And all of these statement you made are examples of this fallacy.

Do you see the resemblance?

"There is no evidence of aliens, and therefore, aliens do not exist"

There is no evidence of fairies, and therefore, fairies do not exist

There is no evidence of God, and therefore, God does not exist

freemindfade

as all these things digress into, a debate about how well everyone debates.

The OP he says he envies anyone who says they are not certain. I don't believe anyone who would be labeled and atheist would be stupid enough to say they are certain there is not (lets not say god) higher intelligence, higher level, responsible party something. None. Atheist are all agnostic technically. But we suggest no higher power, no god, not responsible party, that takes theists to make shit up. No atheist ever said something like gravity is not a physical law of the universe, its zues farting or yhwh pulling strings.

what do you guys wish to accomplish? is there a belief you are trying to promote? or just arguing for the sake of circular arguing? Are you trying to make a case for the abrahamic god? or any other myth? if not then we are all in the same boat.

No one knows and who gives a f%$#. The more we discover the more we chip away at all the supposed actions of your bronze age goat herder god and all the other foundation myths. Science doesn't lead us to god, its been leading us to reason which seems to kill the gods of men.

_Morpheus

Which, my friend freemind, is why coffy started by asking him to define god. Its telling that op hasnt done so yet. He most likely belives in some iteration of the desert god but since there is no rational for it he tries to falsely define and attack athiests

Labeling one self "Atheist" is Unscientific

_Morpheus

Saintbertholdt

DJS,

I've only been on the site for just over 2 years, but I've seen it evolve to being more rational and less religious/scripture. If it hadn't I would have left a long time ago

I posit that this rationality has to translate into theology:

1. Restorasionist/Literalist thinking about genesis/creation will recede.

2. Religionists will have to deal with the irrational of the concept of hell. I've looked at alternatives and Universalism seems to be a way out.

3. Homosexuality will have stronger arguments for its acceptance, just as abolitionism was argued for in the early 19th century.

4. In the first part of the 21st century Millenialist thinking should continue to increase up until about 2050. You can't pin it down because revelation has some trippy language.

5. The trinity is still a beautiful concept because it keeps the mystery of God alive.

6. God arguments will be entirely philosophical with sprinkles of entropy/enthalpy thrown in.

7. Ecumenical ideas should become more prevalent as Churches experiences receding numbers.

---

Now this is a lot of conjecture, but if you let your mind go on the subject it makes for some fascinating ideas.

freemindfade

cofty

freemindfade

_Morpheus

C0ntr013r

It did not, that was my point.

Science have not investigate santa or the flying spaghettimonster either, to my knowledge at least.

Science is not a entity that can hold a belief... It is a system we use to investigate the world, it has no beliefs.

What I meant was that; maybe the reason for this is that most PEOPLE don't believe in them...

And this conversation is again derailing, it is not about fairies. It is about; lack of evidence does not prove non existence.

So lets forget about the fairies and get back on topic.

One of the examples in the link I gave is that which the discussion started with. It should prove to you that you are incorrect in your understanding:

I know you don't like Wikipedia, but since you apparently prefer to use Wikipedia's reference I thought I use it anyway:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

C0ntr013r

freemindfade

_Morpheus

Share this

I. Argumentum ad Ignorantiam: (appeal to ignorance) the fallacy that a proposition is true simply on the basis that it has not been proved false or that it is false simply because it has not been proved true. This error in reasoning is often expressed with influential rhetoric.
	A. The informal structure has two basic patterns:
		Statement p is unproved. Not-p is true.	Statement not-p is unproved. p is true.

	B. If one argues that God or telepathy, ghosts, or UFO's do not exist because their existence has not been proven beyond a shadow of doubt, then this fallacy occurs.