Athiest sign

[Afrobean]

Re: Athiest sign

I don't disagree with you on that. All I'm saying is that one cannot state "I know for a fact there is no (christian) god because there is no empirical evidence to suggest that he exists" when talking about disproving the existence of a being whose nature (by the definition of those who believe in said being) transcends the physical world as we perceive it.

Not being able to PROVE there is no such thing as a god does not lend any additional credence to those who would believe in it despite there being no logical reason to. If there is no evidence of something, no reason to even suggest it exists, it is safe to say that it does not exist.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

[Patashu]

Re: Athiest sign

It's a little silly to say that absence of evidence of the judeo-christian God is not evidence of absence when his existence should produce evidence everywhere. We wouldn't miss it.

[dore]

Re: Athiest sign

The idea of falsifiability can be used to draw a distinction between falsifiable and nonfalsifiable notions of God. The nonfalsifiable notions describe what we think of as God's transcendental qualities; because they are independent of anything in the physical world, no physical circumstances are sufficient to prove or disprove their existence.

Thanks, Afro.

Obviously we are never going to agree, just because of our different views of truth. You seem to believe that the truth is what is useful to us and can be observed/measured. I believe in an objective truth independent of our collective consciousness because (in my opinion) it's arrogant to assume that we are the highest forms of consciousness just because we cannot observe anything beyond that wall of consciousness. To me, the truth is the truth, whether or not our empirical evidence suggests any truth to be the truth.

mmm i love the redundancy of my ideologies

[Patashu]

Re: Athiest sign

Thanks, Afro.

Obviously we are never going to agree, just because of our different views of truth. You seem to believe that the truth is what is useful to us and can be observed/measured. I believe in an objective truth independent of our collective consciousness because (in my opinion) it's arrogant to assume that we are the highest forms of consciousness just because we cannot observe anything beyond that wall of consciousness. To me, the truth is the truth, whether or not our empirical evidence suggests any truth to be the truth.

mmm i love the redundancy of my ideologies

If something is true but the consequences of it being true cannot possibly ever ever ever even in theory be observed by us, then it's meaningless to say it's true.

A God (clearly not the judeo-christian one) who has absolutely zero interaction with this universe and its inhabitants and never ever ever will is equivalent to having no God.

[dore]

Re: Athiest sign

Once again the difference is a difference in your personal model of truth so it's pointless to argue. Our discrepancy can be illustrated with to mathematics: consider the the function f(x)=1/x. f approaches zero and gets infinitely close to zero but never actually reaches zero. At extremely large values of x, f is extremely close to zero, but there is no input that will create an output of zero.

Now, you can say that as x approaches infinity f approaches zero and you can even be so daring as to say that at x=infinity f=0, but you have to realize that infinity is not a number you can input into a function. The definition of 1/infinity is 0 but that is only because it is useful for practical applications of mathematics to make that assumption.

Your version of truth would say that 1/x eventually equals zero because we defined it that way because it is useful, but I say that it is never actually zero because there is no input for f(x) that equals zero.

To apply this to the debate at hand, I don't believe that you can make the leap from "no interaction with our universe" to "non-existent" because that overlooks the fact that to an omnipotent being our society (even our existence) is quite likely to be completely trivial and not worth interacting with, especially because it can act independently of our space-time constraints meaning that if we were to somehow manage to do something to cause a butterfly effect then it could just (in our view) go back in time and change the timeline without leaving any evidence of tampering. In our view, that event would be how it always was.

I think that jump from no interaction to non-existent is constrained too heavily in dualism because it overlooks the possibility that we are not the highest form of consciousness. Making that assumption seems to be one hell of a logical leap. It may be inconsequential to our lives for higher consciousness to exist but that doesn't make its lack of existence true.

[Heartseeker7]

Re: Athiest sign

"THERE'S PROBABLY NO GOD. NOW STOP WORRYING AND ENJOY YOUR LIFE".

Thats my outlook on life.

I don't complain about other religons posting and marketing their religons everywhere (billboards, flyer, etc.), but they complain about one single little sign near their display? It isn't even a real "offical" athiest sign (as it was said earlier, everything as simple as a triangle has been declared a relgious sign).
Yes it was used in a inappropreate manner, but is it really necessary to overreact THAT much?

[Afrobean]

Re: Athiest sign

now that ive successfully derailed this piece of ****, can we get a lock please

>