Creationist Explains How Humans Could Have Hunted The Tyrannosaurus Rex

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

I always retain doubt in absolutely all things - I am 99.9^10% sure the sun will come up tomorrow, but I can easily imagine a whole bunch of vastly unlikely scenarios in which it wouldn't.

My only question here is whether you stole my philosophy or I stole yours. I used to be a believer, and the thing that led me to my present postition was doubt. I've been wrong so many times about so many things that I realized I could be wrong about my faith as well. Other things led me to stop thinking about it at all, and when I did I tried to believe again, but had too many doubts. I tried to be a devout Atheist, if you will, but knew I could be as wrong about that as well. At that point I started asking questions, and the more questions I asked the less answers I had.

[edit] I should add, faith in governments or nations appears to me to be indistinguishable from faith in religion.

Again I agree. I put my take on it into a song I wrote a few years ago.

I may be right and I may be wrong, but the same is true for you.
I know I don't know anything, but I think you only think you do.

[Sammi79]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

My only question here is whether you stole my philosophy or I stole yours. I used to be a believer, and the thing that led me to my present postition was doubt. I've been wrong so many times about so many things that I realized I could be wrong about my faith as well. Other things led me to stop thinking about it at all, and when I did I tried to believe again, but had too many doubts. I tried to be a devout Atheist, if you will, but knew I could be as wrong about that as well. At that point I started asking questions, and the more questions I asked the less answers I had.

I was brought up firmly agnostic, neither position on belief was encouraged or discouraged, for which I am grateful. Over my 34 years I have phased in and out of entertaining various metaphysical imaginations, none bearing any resemblance to any religion or scripture, apart from the soul concept, which between the ages of 11-16 I was more than confident in the truth of it. In those time I had a worldview roughly along the lines of a bad cosmic joke, that nothing that gradually evolved could become so ludicrous and contrary.

As you are agnostic, I feel comfortable relating one of my imaginations that stuck with me for a long time after the accidental death of a close school friend when I was 12. It was the first time I'd experienced that total numbing of emotion that occurs when a psychologically traumatic event is first felt, possibly as a shock absorbing mechanism. I cried for days but I felt nothing. It was a truly bizarre experience for me. The phrase 'I think therefore I am.' is more accurate if think is changed to feel. Anyway, after about a week, the emotions started to surface again one by one. Anger at the lorry driver and a furious desire to know the exact circumstances of his death came first, then later that week of course the grief set in, not having said goodbye etc. and upon learning the circumstances (like the trucker had his own 9 year old son in the cab with him, it was a complete freak accident on a warm sunny day, the truck was passing on the opposite lane and for some eternally unknowable reason Stanley on a bicycle suddenly swerved right out in front of him.) all anger and fury at the driver immediately melted into real pity for him and his son. I heard he stopped working and acquired an alcohol problem for a while but happily not too long, and with not much damage.

Now the first part of my imagining stems from a dream I had shortly thereafter. I was in the house I grew up in, and Stanley was there. Only he was all busted up in my imagination from being squashed by a truck. I said something like, 'Woah, Stan. You look awful, are you Ok?' to which he replied 'I feel [expletive] awful, what you think?' I felt another pang of grief and woke up. I thought for a few days about the feeling of his presence and at that time I was pretty convinced his soul had actually visited me, for which I was grateful, but a bit bemused about the circumstance of the dream. It wasn't very nice. Then a week later on the dot, I had another dream.

If you have read the 'Winnie the Pooh' books then you'll know about the final goodbye tea party at the end of the final book, in a light fir tree wood with a late afternoon sun shining through underneath the branches. A long wooden table with 2 long benches and a chair at either end. Symbolically this story is about Christopher Robin growing up, and leaving behind his childhood fantasies of talking stuffed pets, who are all the guests at his meal of honour. In my dream I was in the place I had imagined from my childhood reading. Stanley was there, absolutely back to his old self, smiling, mischievous. My parents and sister were also guests as were his parents and brother. I had such a warm feeling, it is very hard to describe, but without any doubt I knew that this was Stans goodbye tea party. I remember no more, but I will never forget what I do remember about it.

When I awoke from this dream, the grief was still there, but somehow inhibited. It had the edge taken off. The funeral was bloomin' tragic, inevitably under the circumstances. the hymns in the church had just about everyone in uncontrollable tears. Over the subsequent years I mused on my dreams and my boosted conviction in the concept of the soul, and I came to the imagination that -

Imagine that there are an infinite number of alternate dimensions or realities co-existing simultaneously, but crucially each and every soul exists in all of them. When you make choices you step into realities limited by your choices. When in one reality a soul is subjected to an unnatural or unfortunate death, its experience is immediately and seamlessly Shifted into a reality where its choices did not lead inadvertently to its death. I had personally had a few real experiences that did not immediately occur to me that I was inches, or seconds, from my own painful death until afterward, and this seemed to support my imaginary world.

The implications of this metaphysical fantasy are quite profound. Every living thing gets to live a full natural life, without ever experiencing the pain of a premature or unnatural death. Maybe the last transference leaves you in heaven, I don't know. I have never liked the concept itself alongside hell, and I firmly believe that the scriptural meaning of these are symbolic descriptions of life in reality. Now, disregarding my lack of need for heaven, is that not a nice comforting thought? I don't often tell people about that as to my mind it would appear quite irrelevant to them being based on my own unfalsifiable experience. Of course I do not believe it now, I never truly did. It still brings me comfort to remember though. My current conclusion on the whole matter is that my subconscious mind built those dreams for me, in order to heal the grief wound. It didn't quite work the first time, so I got another, much more powerful and vivid one.

When I was 22, I read and re read Catch 22 - alongside Slaughterhouse 5 and found my favorite books of all time. Shortly after I met the first person in my life that would simply not entertain the concept of the soul, under any circumstances. That was intriguing to me as it seemed so rare, and at first I could not understand how anyone could deny the existence of souls. That was the start of a gradual slide to where I am now, with no conviction in metaphysics at all, a few old comforting imaginations, and no weight on my back.

So we came to similar conclusions after having life experiences half a world apart I guess. As a born agnostic and grown atheist if you will, I assume our experiences are markedly different. If I may ask, did you find any part of your transition unpleasant in any way, and how long did it take you?

It would gladden me to hear that you did not suffer.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Again I agree. I put my take on it into a song I wrote a few years ago.

Those are groovy lines Sailor Steve, I am a singer/guitarist myself of sorts though I tend to (not always) play covers. The best lines I ever came up with were;

Born with vision, learn to be blind.
Born to freedom, become self confined.
Lose the way, find it hard to find,
A little peace of mind.

Born to passion, gives way to lust.
Born to love, betrays mistrust.
All I am is worth my weight in dust.
Do what you must.

Not much I grant you, but I like it.

P.S. sorry for the text explosion I don't quite know how I became so verbose. I really enjoy discussions on this forum, like no other.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

I was brought up firmly agnostic, neither position on belief was encouraged or discouraged, for which I am grateful.

I guess that sort of applies to me as well. I like to say that I was brought up nothing at all. Nothing was ever said about it one way or the other.

So we came to similar conclusions after having life experiences half a world apart I guess. As a born agnostic and grown atheist if you will, I assume our experiences are markedly different. If I may ask, did you find any part of your transition unpleasant in any way, and how long did it take you?

Yes, no, maybe, maybe not. My stepmother made me go to chuch a couple of times. I've never been sure why, because she didn't go herself. Maybe she thought it would do me some good. When I was seventeen I became a Mormon. This was in Los Angeles, and it happened not because of any quest on my part, but because my best friend was doing so and they made it look pretty cool. This led me to spend a year in Utah at Brigham Young University. I hated it, not because of anything particular, but because college wasn't for me. I joined the navy. I got out of the navy. I moved to Utah. I met a girl who was a Born-Again Christian. I like her church, because it wasn't a church. On Sundays we met in a very large park and weekday bible meetings were at people's houses. I ended up married for eleven years. I was never an aggressive person, so my wife sort of guided everything we did. I gave up music for her, and pretty much everything else I liked. I started suffering from depression (a side note here: looking back I think I probably had a very real depression problem going back to childhood), and withdrew into myself. She thought I wanted a divorce and gave it to me. I was so far gone I didn't really care anymore. I didn't even grab the chance and start playing music again for another six years.

Since then I've come to realize that I really don't have any answers to any of the major questions, and I wonder if anyone else does. Everyone I've met who claims to have answers seems to be operating within a very narrow framework, usually clinging to one answer which seems to work for them, so they claim it's the only answer and insist it will work for me too. I don't blame anyone else for my disaffections or my problems, but I don't trust anyone else with them, especially people who say they know what's wrong and what can fix it.

It would gladden me to hear that you did not suffer.

Sorry, but I've left out a lot. Suffering seems to be what I do best.

Not much I grant you, but I like it.

Not bad at all. Do you have music for it? A link?

P.S. sorry for the text explosion I don't quite know how I became so verbose. I really enjoy discussions on this forum, like no other.

Introspective people sometimes have to let it out. Others think "He just likes to talk about himself", but it helps.

[NeonSamurai]

Ugh multi-quote so this is going to be long... sorry...

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I'll agree about Hitchens, but then I'm biased, having a great distaste for his style. Where Dawkins is concerned, no less a scientific authority than Neil DeGrasse Tyson would disagree with you. That he respects Dawson and his opinions carries a lot of weight in my book.

There are many people I respect, but just because one of them likes someone else doesn't mean much to me.

I disagree to a point. Evidence is not proof. On the other hand proposing something for which there is no evidence is not science at all. You need evidence to have a hypothesis in the first place.

Ah you hit on the biggest conundrum of all in philosophy of science. You can't have evidence with out a theory or hypothesis as you can't identify it as being evidence without the theory saying it is. This is where genius lies in science, being able to develop a theory out of the endless facts and thoughts.

Yes you can. I have often proposed the hypothesis that there are little bug-eyed blue men from Atlantis living in the ocean. There is no proof for this, nor even the slightest bit of evidence. The only proof I have is that you can't disprove it. Based on that alone you should believe me, because I say it is so.

I am really not sure where your argument lies here. A lack of evidence is not proof, it is simply a lack of evidence. this does not mean you should therefore believe the theory (I would argue that you should not fully believe any theory, as they are all likely wrong). It only means you cannot rule the theory out, so your theory of blue men may be true as we don't know the oceans very well, but it may not be very probable (something else we can't calculate either).

Not so. You don't have to prove anything to me, but if you want me to believe you then you suddenly do. If a believer wants his faith to spread, then he needs to provide something that will convince his listeners. The atheist, on the other hand, merely needs to ask for that proof. He doesn't have to disprove anything, any more than you have an obligation to disprove my little bug-eyed blue men. If I want you to believe it then I have to show some evidence. If I don't care whether you believe it or not, then why would I tell you about it at all?

People believe things for all kinds of foolish reasons without being rational about it in the slightest. Proof doesn't really exist, the truth is unknowable. The atheist asking for proof is a hypocrite as he has no proof for his stance either, and they also proclaim that they posses the truth. By your logic, would they also not have to present evidence that they speak truth as well? Like I said, a lack of evidence is not evidence itself.

Very true. When it comes to the origins of the earth it becomes a different story. Creationists want their faith to get equal time in schools with the Theory of Evolution. To do this they attempt to bring down Evolution by finding flaws in it. What they fail to do is to apply the same tests to their own version. Therefore they want a faith-based conception with no evidence to back it up at all taught equally with a valid and accepted scientific theory. In this case the burden of proof is very much on them.

Absolutely, in this case there is very strong evidence from multiple sources that the world was not created 6000-10000 years ago. Evolution has not been proven true, and never will be. It just has not been proven false as of yet. Cherry picking is a big problem with many who support creationism, they pick and choose what evidence to include in their "testing" and what they do not, this is a key reason why it is not scientific, even though the young earth theory could be considered a scientific theory as it is testable and refutable.

And that's where I ended up, though I don't like that label. Where God, or any supernatural being is concerned, there is no evidence, one way or the other. None at all. The question for me is this: Is it more logical to believe in something for which there is no evidence, or to not believe in something for which there is no evidence. I have ended up with the conclusion that the rational answer is the latter.

I still argue that the null answer is the most rational. I have little doubt that all of the worlds religions are wrong, in that none of them posses the truth. I view all of them as being flawed human creations, and not things I can believe in. On the other hand, I cannot refute the existence of a creator or group of creators, or give any estimation as to probability of their existence. If such an entity(ies) exist, they would be so far beyond our ken to even begin to imagine about, let alone begin to comprehend.

Originally Posted by Safe-Keeper

Nope. All the universe was compressed into a single point, the singularity, which then expanded. Whether you think it sounds too incredible to be true doesn't really matter, what's important is the evidence -- and it points towards the so-called "big bang". Which of course wasn't an explosion at all, despite the misleading name of the theory.

As I have written several times now evidence neither proves nor points to theories. Given how infinitesimally small our knowledge of the universe is, it is utter hubris on our part to claim such.

Originally Posted by Skybird

Neon,
have you ever actually read Dawkin's "The God Delusion"?

Not to completion, although my mother did. I myself couldn't finish it. I know my mother thought very negatively about it, and she and I tend to think alike on such matters. She raised me and my sister with the freedom to choose religion or ignore it, and the home was religion free. I also have great respect for her opinions as they are generally very well thought out. My view is based on what I read of his work, and my mother's criticism of it.

I would agree that Hitchens is the more aggressive of the two, he is more polemic and he did not hide that that was what he wanted to be - which does not mean that his intellectual arguments are weaker for that reason. They are not. The videos that occasionally were linked here by me or others, showed that.

The thing that I tend to hate most is hypocrisy in people, and I feel that many atheists tend to be rather hypocritical as do many theistic people. As much as many atheists like to proclaim their view is not belief based, it is. Their belief is not grounded in science as they can't disprove god. Most Atheistic attacks center around religious conundrums and obvious errors.

The book by Dawkins I have read myself - and in parts twice. I am aware of the criticism and attack against him, Google easily finds you plenty of that stuff. But since I know the book quite well, I know how intentionally misleading, demagogic and often simply wrong these criticisms are, especially when they come from pro-church/faith/God/religion activists of any kind, and that should not be of surprise to anyone. Often the claims are simply wrong and can easily be shown wrong by just referring to the book itself. Sometimes it is blatant lies told about the book, and what should have been said in there.

I bring my own thoughts to the table, not anyone elses' without my own careful thought on the matter. I am also neither pro nor anti faith directly, though I do find blind belief in anything very worrying (be it religion or politics or whatever.

I also fail to see Dawkins to be arrogant, he certainly is no in the book, and by the many videos I saw him appearing in on youtube, I must say that mostly he usually speaks very calm and friendly, witty and humorous, and very much british gentleman-like. That must not mean there may be films where he bites like a rabid dog. But I am not aware of these, I have not seen them, if they would exist.

Several of his arguments I don't entirely disagree with; I consider the biblical god to be extremely unlikely (but not impossible). I do find his strong assertion that god(s) in any form do not exist at all period to be arrogant, as he is asserting knowledge of something he cannot possibly posses, just like many theists do.

And finally, his scientific standards. Well, the book on God is very rationally arguing, and very scientific in approach, forming two hypothesis (God exists, God exists not), and then comparing what can be found about their probabilities of being true. The formulation that God most likely does not exist, is by Dawkins. He does not say God exists, he says that the matter is scientific for two reasons: first, that is showing in his approach, and second, because religion has played such a suppressive role in trying to prevent science producing insights into life and cosmos that the church did not like. What he finally concludes, is this: the probability for a godf existing, is so small that it does not jusatify to take it as a possibility he wishes to seriously deral with, and also, according to Ockahm'S razor that demands to keep explanations as simple as possible, God also is not needed for explanations. Dawkins asks at one point whether it really would be less pleasuring to enjoy the beauty of a blossoming garden if not assuming that there are fairies living in the underground there?

His arguments at best are philosophical, not scientific, as they are entirely logic driven. The idea that he can calculate probabilities from his twin hypothesis is beyond laughable as he has absolutely nothing to measure them by or calculate them on. Also Occam's Razor does not demand that explanations must be simple, just that the simplest explanations are often the best to examine first. As for his last statement, I fail to see what that has to do with the possibility of a creator existing.

So when you base your assessment on just some propagandists throwing mud at the man without knowing how he has structured the book and how he argues there, you necessarily must consider him to be violating scientific standards, and I can only recommend you then start to care a little bit for his book itself instead, to get your facts right.

I thought you would know me better than that by now, when have I ever just randomly thrown propagandists into the mix?

BTW, his early book on genetic evolution (The selfish gene) is today seen as an academic standard work, the university of Oxford installed a new chair just for him to mediate science better to a wider public ("public understanding of science"), and beside writing many books he assisted media and government as scientific advisor. He is often referred to as one of the most influential biologists of modern times.

There are plenty of scientist out there who are very well respected and influential, who don't know the first thing about how it all really works (in fact I would say large swaths of the scientific community don't understand it very well). I've known a few myself. Your quote suggests he doesn't really, since he was going with the need for scientific "proof". As if science actually "knows" anything (I call that arrogance on the part of the scientist). Their theories are just somewhat more objective and rigorous.

Before you start to attack him over his standards, make sure you really got your acts together properly. Chances are he easily outclasses you, me, or anyone here. I have seen him doing that in many discussion fora on stage, friendly, calmly, elegantly. I can understand if somebody does not like Hitchen's determined cavalry charges, although they are well founded as well, but Hitchens and Dawkins really were two very different men. One should not try to compare the two.

I was not comparing their styles so to speak, more the arrogance of the absolute natures of their positions, and how I feel it mirrors many on the other side of the equation. This is what I mean by hypocrisy. I also think he has it totally backwards, being comfortable with not knowing is a good thing, it leads to open-mindedness, humility, and caution. The problem with both sides is, both are convinced they know, and both are wrong. Being a skilled debater also does not make his arguments more correct either.

As for the second part of his book, does he really think humanity needs religion to act like total <insert censored word here>? Blind faith in anything is bad (even blind faith in science). People will do all kinds of horrible unspeakable things to each other over any old excuse, often because of difference. We are generally not a very nice species, and not having religion wouldn't have changed much. We could come up with another excuse to do utterly nasty things to each other.

Originally Posted by Sammi79

As the positive proposition is that of the theists, it is their burden of disproof if you like, not sure quite how you worked the switch around there. And you cannot propose a Theory which is an explanation of falsifiable facts, if you do not have them. [edit2] Upon re reading your post you do clearly state that the religious ideas are unscientific but I didn't miss it did I, - ninja edit

Simple really, if you disagree with a theory, you are the one that needs to show it false. A tested theory is no more valid than an untested theory. You can test a theory millions of times and not have it fail, but it doesn't mean it won't fail on the next test. This is why I say the burden of disproof lies with the critic. A honest theoretician or experimenter will try their best to disprove their own theories, but I honestly suspect that many scientists don't try very hard. Publishing results is what gives you your livelihood, and disproving your own theories will lead you to starving.

As (A)theism is a lack of belief which is dissimilar to belief, Am I to be defined as an (A)trainspotter and an (A)tennis fan, as well as all the other things I am not? Atheism simply means I am unconvinced by each and every argument and their sum total I have ever heard for theism.

Theism or religious belief is a position that requires a complex personal construction of varying degrees of imagination about metaphysics, oft containing contradictions to established scientific facts. This is very difficult for discussion as the facts have already been shown to be falsifiable, and everyone is encouraged to repeat or renew the process. The facts may be false of course and we still might never know, but until this is demonstrated we will remain more confident that the fact is true.

As both are words describing ones position of belief, neither are mutually exclusive with Agnosticism which is a word describing ones position on knowledge.

I'm going to pull out the dictionary as I don't think you are using the words theism, atheism, and agnosticism quite right.

Originally Posted by Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Definition of ATHEISM

1
archaic : ungodliness, wickedness

2
a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Definition of THEISM
: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world

Definition of AGNOSTIC
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

2: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

So like I said, theism and atheism are both faith (belief) based and not entirely logical. Agnosticism is I don't know.

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

.....I still argue that the null answer is the most rational. I have little doubt that all of the worlds religions are wrong, in that none of them posses the truth. I view all of them as being flawed human creations, and not things I can believe in. On the other hand, I cannot refute the existence of a creator or group of creators, or give any estimation as to probability of their existence. If such an entity(ies) exist, they would be so far beyond our ken to even begin to imagine about, let alone begin to comprehend.....

I think I understand you better now. I have no problem saying that God is the reason behind what I, or science as I'll side with, cannot explain. It is as valid as any other descriptor by all means. I just don't buy the grumpy father figure, full of righteous, nearly drunken anger management problems God. I don't respect that behavior in anyone, you see?

[Sammi79]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

Simple really, if you disagree with a theory, you are the one that needs to show it false. A tested theory is no more valid than an untested theory. You can test a theory millions of times and not have it fail, but it doesn't mean it won't fail on the next test. This is why I say the burden of disproof lies with the critic. A honest theoretician or experimenter will try their best to disprove their own theories, but I honestly suspect that many scientists don't try very hard. Publishing results is what gives you your livelihood, and disproving your own theories will lead you to starving.

No sir. You are quite wrong about that and that is not an opinion. You are correct that it is simple as there is one rule, and one rule only, for fair and reasonable discussion that being;

If you make a claim or statement of fact, you inherit the burden of proof required to support that claim.

Consider someone who had never heard of or read about god until you told them your theory about it (for the purposes of disambiguation you should use hypothesis to distinguish between the deeper overarching scientific definition of Theory) and they refused to believe you until you provided some convincing corroborating evidence, or simply tell you 'Well I don't think so.' why should they then have to prove your claim wrong? why must they accept your hypothesis unless they can produce proof of its fallacy? are they being hypocritical? If what you say is true, why do we not compile encyclopedias of facts by the premise that they cannot be proven false? All are strictly rhetorical - they don't, they don't, no and that would be insane.

To take a real world example, in a court of law the accused need not prove their innocence, rather the prosecution must prove the defendants guilt.

If you deny the responsibility of this, or to attempt to shift that burden, you should not take umbrage if people either ignore or refuse to grant respect or equal status alongside a falsifiable tested scientific Theory for your claim, as you have offered no supporting case for it. You should also be aware that proof burden shifting is a starkly obvious logical fallacy and a serious reasoning error so expect to be called on it each and every time.

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

I'm going to pull out the dictionary as I don't think you are using the words theism, atheism, and agnosticism quite right.

Since that is an accusation of improper word use, I plead innocence. For my defense, please explain the contradiction between my description of atheism and your dictionary definition 2a, because I say my description is sound. Disbelief is simply a refusal to believe, and the reason for my disbelief in the existence of deities is because I have heard neither convincing evidence nor sound reasoning in support of their existence.

Again with theism, how is my description in contradiction with your dictionary definition?

With agnosticism, your dictionary appears to be limited to definitions involving god.

ag·nos·ti·cism (g-nst-szm)n.

1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agnosticism

So my statement that agnosticism is a position on knowledge stands. The defense rests.

Who will be the jury? I recommend Sailor Steve be the judge.

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

So like I said, theism and atheism are both faith (belief) based and not entirely logical. Agnosticism is I don't know.

Belief is neither equivalent to nor a function of faith. Belief with good reason and disbelief in the absence of good reason for belief are both entirely logical positions. Since atheism can be defined as the latter as I have demonstrated above, it may not always be entirely logical, but it certainly can be.

[Skybird]

Rejection of a belief is not a belief. It is rejecting a given a belief, and the act of believing itself. Atheism is no religion. When somebody refuses to drive in a car or walk outside on the street, you cannot somehow argue that nevertheless he participates in public traffic while truth is he sits at home and has not left the house.

Atheists refuse to share beliefs in deities. Simply this, not more, not less. Some think there is/are no god(s). Others simply do not care for dealing with the question in the first, are simply uninterested.

Agnosticism: to know that one cannot know the final truths about things existing, life, universe, deities. That is the basic idea. It is a form of scepticism that does not dare to take any position pro or against deities existing. To me, it is indifference, maybe even a form of intellectual cowardice that does not want to call itself atheist for whatever a reason. But while not all atheists are agnostics, all agnostics in the end are atheists, if you think it to the end. That's why I do not see myself as agnostic, though i say myself that as human beings we cannot think (and thus: know) outside the tracks the define what "human" is. I know we cannot gain absolute knowledge. We can increase and foster our understanding of the world, life, things, ourselves. But we cannot gain a total, final, absolute knowledge. For that, we would need to be the entire universe itself, not just a part of it.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by NeonSamurai

Ugh multi-quote so this is going to be long... sorry...

They usually are. It's the nature of the beast.

There are many people I respect, but just because one of them likes someone else doesn't mean much to me.

You said neither Hitchins nor Dawkins understands basic scientific principles. I only wanted to show that one of the most respected scientists around disagrees with that assessment.

I am really not sure where your argument lies here. A lack of evidence is not proof, it is simply a lack of evidence. this does not mean you should therefore believe the theory (I would argue that you should not fully believe any theory, as they are all likely wrong). It only means you cannot rule the theory out, so your theory of blue men may be true as we don't know the oceans very well, but it may not be very probable (something else we can't calculate either).

Actually I was agreeing with you. I was also pointing out what I consider to be the greatest flaw in Creationist arguments. A concept (hypothosis) is proposed on the sole basis that someone said it is so. There is no evidence at all, yet they dare you to disprove it and attack a theory is is based on evidence. I decided to do the same.

The atheist asking for proof is a hypocrite as he has no proof for his stance either, and they also proclaim that they posses the truth. By your logic, would they also not have to present evidence that they speak truth as well? Like I said, a lack of evidence is not evidence itself.

The problem is that the theist wants to tell you about his God. When told he can't prove that his God even exists he brings up your "negative" argument. If the athiest proclaims that "There is no God", then indeed your argument is true. If he askes that the proclaiming theist give proof for his claim, then he is not making a counterclaim but merely challenging the original claim. This is very much more common than the other.

I still argue that the null answer is the most rational. I have little doubt that all of the worlds religions are wrong, in that none of them posses the truth. I view all of them as being flawed human creations, and not things I can believe in. On the other hand, I cannot refute the existence of a creator or group of creators, or give any estimation as to probability of their existence. If such an entity(ies) exist, they would be so far beyond our ken to even begin to imagine about, let alone begin to comprehend.

This is why I will never claim to be an Atheist. As long as I can't show for a fact that there is no God I will have to be lumped into the 'Agnostic' category.

Everything else was addressed to someone else, so I'll stay out of that part.

[Sammi79]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

I guess that sort of applies to me as well. I like to say that I was brought up nothing at all. Nothing was ever said about it one way or the other.

That sounds more familiar than I was expecting. I was probably around 6 or 7 when I first quizzed my parents over the whole issue, wondering why if as they taught in school that this biblical account of events was historical reality, did it not seem to figure in our lives? I was met with 'some people believe, some don't. It's up to you to decide whether you think it is true or not.' and upon further 'When dealing with apparent dilemmas it is important to make sure there is not a third option or middle way.' and without the mental faculty to understand the latter I became what you could describe as firmly atheist until high school when the myriad complexities of natural reality and ludicrous nature of human politics and social rituals started to push me back towards metaphysics.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Sorry, but I've left out a lot. Suffering seems to be what I do best.

Understood. I'm quite practiced myself actually... but then I have been haunted by the eerie beauty of sorrow just as much as the elation of joy ever since I was played Barrios by my father before I could form memories. My favorites aren't on youtube, but stuff like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=090ptcp1jA8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kZTndq2qdXY

should give an idea of the emotive range of such an instrument. I have a handmade Spanish guitar and play it but this stuff takes decades of scales and theory.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Not bad at all. Do you have music for it? A link?

Sadly, no link. that was part of a song, and I have the music in my head. I have barely recorded anything and for a long time now I've just been learning rock/blues covers that can be transcribed down to 1 man and his guitar, as over the years my experiences with bands have been frustrating - kids, jobs, college, uni make it practically impossible for 3 people to get together all at the same time for a few hours a week.

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Introspective people sometimes have to let it out. Others think "He just likes to talk about himself", but it helps.

I try not to worry too much about what people think about me, rather than simply what they think. Though point taken about the monologue I just feel I get relatively few responses to arguably reasonable questions and in the end, often just simply explain how I see it instead.