frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Atheism IS a Religion

12345679»



Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Coveny said:
    Erfisflat said:
    This is a belief system that erroneously led you to believe there is no God.
    It amazes me how people just can't comprehend the concept of not having blind faith or some type of belief system. You know how you responded that you didn't have enough information to know whether or not you believed if he had a dog or not? You understand the concept of not having a belief system, you simply just can't fathom someone living their life without blind faith though can you? How so very closed minded you are.

    @Coveny so I would know what you are debating here, can you please define "god" in your own words?

    Thanks.
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:
    Coveny said:
    Erfisflat said:
    This is a belief system that erroneously led you to believe there is no God.
    It amazes me how people just can't comprehend the concept of not having blind faith or some type of belief system. You know how you responded that you didn't have enough information to know whether or not you believed if he had a dog or not? You understand the concept of not having a belief system, you simply just can't fathom someone living their life without blind faith though can you? How so very closed minded you are.
    @Coveny so I would know what you are debating here, can you please define "god" in your own words?
    Thanks.
    I am debating that atheism can't be a religion because it makes to claim, and is a null value. Atheism is merely a statement that "I don't have that belief", where the belief is theism. (not "I have X belief" as CYDdharta claims) In other words "I'm not a theist" is what atheist means, it doesn't mean I believe god doesn't exist, it doesn't mean that I believe there is a way to know if god exists, it doesn't mean that I'm unsure if god does or does not exist, and it doesn't mean that I don't think there is enough information to know one way or the other but I still believe it's possible to know. It means that theists BELIEVE god(s) exist, and I don't have that belief, I'm lacking, absent, etc of belief. 

    Hasn't changed from the last time I defined it for you. This is by preferred definition of god.
    Oxford - a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes

    Here is a supporting link with three sources
    Your Dictionary - an image, person or thing that is worshiped, honored or believed to be all-powerful or the creator and ruler of the universe.
     - Webster - any of various beings conceived of as supernatural, immortal, and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature
     - American Heritage - A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Nightwing said:
    Evidence said:

    Nightwing said:
    @Evidence ; You seem to attribute everything to the Bible.

    Yes sir, .. since it covers everything from creation, the why's, the who's, everything, so yeah, it would be only reasonable to do so, right?

    I don't agree. The Bible is incomplete on many points, fails to discuss anything about any theory of science or the origins and use of mathematics as a couple of examples.

    Thinking the Bible covers everything just seems extremely limiting to me.



    OK, the Bible is definitely not "Merc's Manual" or the "Machinists Handbook", but a umm, .. a concentrated-Guide to human 'perfection'. Can you imagine how many Merc's Manuals, Machinist handbooks and Self Help books it would take to explain every detail in ones life from; getting married, buying a house, raising children, running a business, to be an example slave/employee, all the way to burying our dead? All the books in the world could not contain them, so God had several individuals to interpret what He said, .. what He wanted us to know about "all things" in the why's, the who's and how's in Creation. He did this from different perspectives, .. and it works.
    Not only that, but all that Jesus said while he was here, only a small fraction was recorded (John 21:25)

    But what Satan did was take these precious writings, and take control of the information in it. Sure he uses it to bring people in his Church, where everyone thinks they are there learn and to give honor to God, while in all actuality they are there giving homage to Lucifer himself. This is no longer a secret::



    And as we can see here:



    .. it is happily accepted by all the world Religious/Political Leaders on both sides of Organized Religion; theist/atheists alike bow to Lucifer!

    Just remember that; Jesus presence God, just as the Pope represents Lucifer.
    Erfisflat
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Coveny said:
    Evidence said:
    Coveny said:
    Erfisflat said:
    This is a belief system that erroneously led you to believe there is no God.
    It amazes me how people just can't comprehend the concept of not having blind faith or some type of belief system. You know how you responded that you didn't have enough information to know whether or not you believed if he had a dog or not? You understand the concept of not having a belief system, you simply just can't fathom someone living their life without blind faith though can you? How so very closed minded you are.
    @Coveny so I would know what you are debating here, can you please define "god" in your own words?
    Thanks.


    @Coveny said -  I am debating that atheism can't be a religion because it makes to claim, and is a null value. Atheism is merely a statement that "I don't have that belief", where the belief is theism. (not "I have X belief" as CYDdharta claims) In other words "I'm not a theist" is what atheist means, it doesn't mean I believe god doesn't exist, it doesn't mean that I believe there is a way to know if god exists, it doesn't mean that I'm unsure if god does or does not exist, and it doesn't mean that I don't think there is enough information to know one way or the other but I still believe it's possible to know. It means that theists BELIEVE god(s) exist, and I don't have that belief, I'm lacking, absent, etc of belief.

    In other words, .. by what you just explained to me above, you don't give a sh*t WHAT "theists" believe or don't believe, you just don't want to associate with them, correct? As you said: "it doesn't mean I believe god doesn't exist, it doesn't mean that I believe there is a way to know if god exists, it doesn't mean that I'm unsure if god does or does not exist, and it doesn't mean that I don't think there is enough information to know one way or the other but I still believe it's possible to know."

    Let me ask you, "are you firm on the above statement that reveals your faith in atheism?" If you are, then you have a belief system. But since you don't give a hoot what theists believe or not believe in, then your 'atheistic-faith' is built on "blind faith". Talking about Organized Religion, you are a perfect example of it.

    Coveny said: Hasn't changed from the last time I defined it for you. This is by preferred definition of god.
    Oxford - a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes

    You still don't get it. Look again, if I said "I don't believe in Superman", and I gave you my definition of "Superman" as:
    1. a US cartoon, TV, and film character who develops special powers, such as great strength and the ability to cling to surfaces, after being bitten by a radioactive spider.

    Wouldn't you at least try to correct me on my definition of Superman? You know, maybe if I understood who Superman really was, .. who knows, I might even become a big fan of his? It's like you're saying; I don't care what Superman is, where he came from, what he can do, what he wears, whether he is real or fiction, all I care is that I'm an a-Superman, or Superman-non-believer since I don't have the capacity to understand who or what he/she/it is? Yet, you claim to KNOW exactly who it is you don't believe in, because you say you're an atheist!

    Again, for the hundredth time:
    'Theists' believe in man made gods that they built Religions around. Then they chose Religious Priests to represent these gods and these special guys created doctrines, rules like do's and don'ts for the gods. Came up with which one of your kids the gods would prefer you should sacrifice for them, and which kids don't qualify, .. and how much money you should tithe to these gods, so on and so forth. They exist Coveny, you probably know a bunch of people who worship these gods. You cannot worship something that "doesn't exist". You can choose NOT to worship these gods, but that doesn't mean that you really believe "they don't exist". It only means you are either stubborn, or mentally challenged if you keep claiming that thousands of these gods, with billions of actual worshippers (many whom you know personally) simple don't exist.

    IMHO to be a true atheist, you'll have to know everything about these gods before you can choose "not to believe in them".

    I am a "True Atheist", because I know all about these man-made theistic gods, and I don't believe in their abilities, so I don't worship them.

    I also love all the DC and Marvel Comic characters and enjoy watching their movies, .. but I don't worship them either. I know the difference between fairytales and reality, between science and science fiction, between the theistic/atheistic gods and our Infinite and Eternal Spirit/Mind "I Am", the One and Only Possible uncreated God who "Is". See the huge difference? It's called "Walking in the light", VS "walking in darkness, by blind faith" in man made gods and the Religions they built around them.


    Coveny said: Here is a supporting link with three sources
    Your Dictionary - an image, person or thing that is worshiped, honored or believed to be all-powerful or the creator and ruler of the universe.
     - Webster - any of various beings conceived of as supernatural, immortal, and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature
     - American Heritage - A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

    That described just about every 'theistic god/gods' there is, which includes the fallen angel Lucifer. There are dozens that fit that exact description, so how can you say you don't believe they exist, .. you just defined them!?
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:
    Coveny said:
    Evidence said:
    Coveny said:
    Erfisflat said:
    This is a belief system that erroneously led you to believe there is no God.
    It amazes me how people just can't comprehend the concept of not having blind faith or some type of belief system. You know how you responded that you didn't have enough information to know whether or not you believed if he had a dog or not? You understand the concept of not having a belief system, you simply just can't fathom someone living their life without blind faith though can you? How so very closed minded you are.
    @Coveny so I would know what you are debating here, can you please define "god" in your own words?
    Thanks.


    @Coveny said -  I am debating that atheism can't be a religion because it makes to claim, and is a null value. Atheism is merely a statement that "I don't have that belief", where the belief is theism. (not "I have X belief" as CYDdharta claims) In other words "I'm not a theist" is what atheist means, it doesn't mean I believe god doesn't exist, it doesn't mean that I believe there is a way to know if god exists, it doesn't mean that I'm unsure if god does or does not exist, and it doesn't mean that I don't think there is enough information to know one way or the other but I still believe it's possible to know. It means that theists BELIEVE god(s) exist, and I don't have that belief, I'm lacking, absent, etc of belief.

    In other words, .. by what you just explained to me above, you don't give a sh*t WHAT "theists" believe or don't believe, you just don't want to associate with them, correct? As you said: "it doesn't mean I believe god doesn't exist, it doesn't mean that I believe there is a way to know if god exists, it doesn't mean that I'm unsure if god does or does not exist, and it doesn't mean that I don't think there is enough information to know one way or the other but I still believe it's possible to know."

    Let me ask you, "are you firm on the above statement that reveals your faith in atheism?" If you are, then you have a belief system. But since you don't give a hoot what theists believe or not believe in, then your 'atheistic-faith' is built on "blind faith". Talking about Organized Religion, you are a perfect example of it.

    Coveny said: Hasn't changed from the last time I defined it for you. This is by preferred definition of god.
    Oxford - a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes

    You still don't get it. Look again, if I said "I don't believe in Superman", and I gave you my definition of "Superman" as:
    1. a US cartoon, TV, and film character who develops special powers, such as great strength and the ability to cling to surfaces, after being bitten by a radioactive spider.

    Wouldn't you at least try to correct me on my definition of Superman? You know, maybe if I understood who Superman really was, .. who knows, I might even become a big fan of his? It's like you're saying; I don't care what Superman is, where he came from, what he can do, what he wears, whether he is real or fiction, all I care is that I'm an a-Superman, or Superman-non-believer since I don't have the capacity to understand who or what he/she/it is? Yet, you claim to KNOW exactly who it is you don't believe in, because you say you're an atheist!

    Again, for the hundredth time:
    'Theists' believe in man made gods that they built Religions around. Then they chose Religious Priests to represent these gods and these special guys created doctrines, rules like do's and don'ts for the gods. Came up with which one of your kids the gods would prefer you should sacrifice for them, and which kids don't qualify, .. and how much money you should tithe to these gods, so on and so forth. They exist Coveny, you probably know a bunch of people who worship these gods. You cannot worship something that "doesn't exist". You can choose NOT to worship these gods, but that doesn't mean that you really believe "they don't exist". It only means you are either stubborn, or mentally challenged if you keep claiming that thousands of these gods, with billions of actual worshippers (many whom you know personally) simple don't exist.

    IMHO to be a true atheist, you'll have to know everything about these gods before you can choose "not to believe in them".

    I am a "True Atheist", because I know all about these man-made theistic gods, and I don't believe in their abilities, so I don't worship them.

    I also love all the DC and Marvel Comic characters and enjoy watching their movies, .. but I don't worship them either. I know the difference between fairytales and reality, between science and science fiction, between the theistic/atheistic gods and our Infinite and Eternal Spirit/Mind "I Am", the One and Only Possible uncreated God who "Is". See the huge difference? It's called "Walking in the light", VS "walking in darkness, by blind faith" in man made gods and the Religions they built around them.


    Coveny said: Here is a supporting link with three sources
    Your Dictionary - an image, person or thing that is worshiped, honored or believed to be all-powerful or the creator and ruler of the universe.
     - Webster - any of various beings conceived of as supernatural, immortal, and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature
     - American Heritage - A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

    That described just about every 'theistic god/gods' there is, which includes the fallen angel Lucifer. There are dozens that fit that exact description, so how can you say you don't believe they exist, .. you just defined them!?
    And your back to the TLDR crazy talk. 

    Theists believe in god(s)
    Atheist do not believe in god(s)
    If you believe in a creator, spiritual being, or supernatural power you are a theist. If you don't have this you are an athiest, or a non-theist. 
    Atheists do not have religion, don't have faith, as an atheist I'm not making any claims that require faith, and you can't be religious about not being a part of a team.
    Just because you know the characteristics of something doesn't mean it exists
    Just because there is a book, picture, or whatever doesn't mean I believe it exists
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Coveny said:
    Evidence said:
    Coveny said:
    Evidence said:
    Coveny said:
    Erfisflat said:
    This is a belief system that erroneously led you to believe there is no God.
    It amazes me how people just can't comprehend the concept of not having blind faith or some type of belief system. You know how you responded that you didn't have enough information to know whether or not you believed if he had a dog or not? You understand the concept of not having a belief system, you simply just can't fathom someone living their life without blind faith though can you? How so very closed minded you are.
    @Coveny so I would know what you are debating here, can you please define "god" in your own words?
    Thanks.


    @Coveny said -  I am debating that atheism can't be a religion because it makes to claim, and is a null value. Atheism is merely a statement that "I don't have that belief", where the belief is theism. (not "I have X belief" as CYDdharta claims) In other words "I'm not a theist" is what atheist means, it doesn't mean I believe god doesn't exist, it doesn't mean that I believe there is a way to know if god exists, it doesn't mean that I'm unsure if god does or does not exist, and it doesn't mean that I don't think there is enough information to know one way or the other but I still believe it's possible to know. It means that theists BELIEVE god(s) exist, and I don't have that belief, I'm lacking, absent, etc of belief.

    In other words, .. by what you just explained to me above, you don't give a sh*t WHAT "theists" believe or don't believe, you just don't want to associate with them, correct? As you said: "it doesn't mean I believe god doesn't exist, it doesn't mean that I believe there is a way to know if god exists, it doesn't mean that I'm unsure if god does or does not exist, and it doesn't mean that I don't think there is enough information to know one way or the other but I still believe it's possible to know."

    Let me ask you, "are you firm on the above statement that reveals your faith in atheism?" If you are, then you have a belief system. But since you don't give a hoot what theists believe or not believe in, then your 'atheistic-faith' is built on "blind faith". Talking about Organized Religion, you are a perfect example of it.

    Coveny said: Hasn't changed from the last time I defined it for you. This is by preferred definition of god.
    Oxford - a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes

    You still don't get it. Look again, if I said "I don't believe in Superman", and I gave you my definition of "Superman" as:
    1. a US cartoon, TV, and film character who develops special powers, such as great strength and the ability to cling to surfaces, after being bitten by a radioactive spider.

    Wouldn't you at least try to correct me on my definition of Superman? You know, maybe if I understood who Superman really was, .. who knows, I might even become a big fan of his? It's like you're saying; I don't care what Superman is, where he came from, what he can do, what he wears, whether he is real or fiction, all I care is that I'm an a-Superman, or Superman-non-believer since I don't have the capacity to understand who or what he/she/it is? Yet, you claim to KNOW exactly who it is you don't believe in, because you say you're an atheist!

    Again, for the hundredth time:
    'Theists' believe in man made gods that they built Religions around. Then they chose Religious Priests to represent these gods and these special guys created doctrines, rules like do's and don'ts for the gods. Came up with which one of your kids the gods would prefer you should sacrifice for them, and which kids don't qualify, .. and how much money you should tithe to these gods, so on and so forth. They exist Coveny, you probably know a bunch of people who worship these gods. You cannot worship something that "doesn't exist". You can choose NOT to worship these gods, but that doesn't mean that you really believe "they don't exist". It only means you are either stubborn, or mentally challenged if you keep claiming that thousands of these gods, with billions of actual worshippers (many whom you know personally) simple don't exist.

    IMHO to be a true atheist, you'll have to know everything about these gods before you can choose "not to believe in them".

    I am a "True Atheist", because I know all about these man-made theistic gods, and I don't believe in their abilities, so I don't worship them.

    I also love all the DC and Marvel Comic characters and enjoy watching their movies, .. but I don't worship them either. I know the difference between fairytales and reality, between science and science fiction, between the theistic/atheistic gods and our Infinite and Eternal Spirit/Mind "I Am", the One and Only Possible uncreated God who "Is". See the huge difference? It's called "Walking in the light", VS "walking in darkness, by blind faith" in man made gods and the Religions they built around them.


    Coveny said: Here is a supporting link with three sources
    Your Dictionary - an image, person or thing that is worshiped, honored or believed to be all-powerful or the creator and ruler of the universe.
     - Webster - any of various beings conceived of as supernatural, immortal, and having special powers over the lives and affairs of people and the course of nature
     - American Heritage - A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.

    That described just about every 'theistic god/gods' there is, which includes the fallen angel Lucifer. There are dozens that fit that exact description, so how can you say you don't believe they exist, .. you just defined them!?
    And your back to the TLDR crazy talk. 

    Theists believe in god(s)
    Atheist do not believe in god(s)
    If you believe in a creator, spiritual being, or supernatural power you are a theist. If you don't have this you are an athiest, or a non-theist. 
    Atheists do not have religion, don't have faith, as an atheist I'm not making any claims that require faith, and you can't be religious about not being a part of a team.
    Just because you know the characteristics of something doesn't mean it exists
    Just because there is a book, picture, or whatever doesn't mean I believe it exists


    @Coveny said: Just because you know the characteristics of something doesn't mean it exists

    Got it, .. unfortunately you don't.

    Just one more question and I'm done with this theist/atheist religion stuff.  What if that "something that you can define the characteristics of weigh 20lb. .. like a Lord Shiva statue or some other god, and falls on your head, .. would you still say "it doesn't exist"?
    Erfisflat
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:
    Coveny said:
    And your back to the TLDR crazy talk. 

    Theists believe in god(s)
    Atheist do not believe in god(s)
    If you believe in a creator, spiritual being, or supernatural power you are a theist. If you don't have this you are an athiest, or a non-theist. 
    Atheists do not have religion, don't have faith, as an atheist I'm not making any claims that require faith, and you can't be religious about not being a part of a team.
    Just because you know the characteristics of something doesn't mean it exists
    Just because there is a book, picture, or whatever doesn't mean I believe it exists
    @Coveny said: Just because you know the characteristics of something doesn't mean it exists

    Got it, .. unfortunately you don't.

    Just one more question and I'm done with this theist/atheist religion stuff.  What if that "something that you can define the characteristics of weigh 20lb. .. like a Lord Shiva statue or some other god, and falls on your head, .. would you still say "it doesn't exist"?
    Again a book exists, that doesn't mean the fictional characters in the book exist. If my children pretends to be character from Harry Potter for Halloween that doesn't mean they could cast spells, or that magically they become that character. Also I'm still waiting for you to go talk to some nice doctors and tell them how you feel about Harry Potter existings. You won't have to let me know if you do, because I'll just take your absences as proof that you've been locked up.
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    Coveny said:
    Evidence said:
    Coveny said:
    And your back to the TLDR crazy talk. 

    Theists believe in god(s)
    Atheist do not believe in god(s)
    If you believe in a creator, spiritual being, or supernatural power you are a theist. If you don't have this you are an athiest, or a non-theist. 
    Atheists do not have religion, don't have faith, as an atheist I'm not making any claims that require faith, and you can't be religious about not being a part of a team.
    Just because you know the characteristics of something doesn't mean it exists
    Just because there is a book, picture, or whatever doesn't mean I believe it exists
    @Coveny said: Just because you know the characteristics of something doesn't mean it exists

    Got it, .. unfortunately you don't.

    Just one more question and I'm done with this theist/atheist religion stuff.  What if that "something that you can define the characteristics of weigh 20lb. .. like a Lord Shiva statue or some other god, and falls on your head, .. would you still say "it doesn't exist"?
    Again a book exists, that doesn't mean the fictional characters in the book exist. If my children pretends to be character from Harry Potter for Halloween that doesn't mean they could cast spells, or that magically they become that character. Also I'm still waiting for you to go talk to some nice doctors and tell them how you feel about Harry Potter existings. You won't have to let me know if you do, because I'll just take your absences as proof that you've been locked up.

    @Coveny - Again a book exists, that doesn't mean the fictional characters in the book exist.

    My Lord Coveny, how could you say that the "fictional character Harry Potter doesn't exist"??? How?? Now why don't YOU call Mrs. J. K. Rolling and tell her that, and see which Mental Hospital they put you in England?

    Coveny - If my children pretends to be character from Harry Potter for Halloween that doesn't mean they could cast spells, or that magically they become that character.

    Yes, let's hope your children don't become Harry Potter and start flying around the house on a broom. This is why it is a good idea to keep "fictional fairytale characters" just as they were created to be: "fictional characters in a storybook".

    The same way people should NOT take the Greek theos-gods like ISIS, Odin, Zeus, the trinity gods of Christianity and so on, as anything more than fictional made up god-characters that people built Religions out of. Now what I show you is NOT REAL, OK? They are fictional gods, and creatures.



    But you can become a non-Sindbad believer and claim the fairytale character "never existed".
    Erfisflat
  • JoePineapplesJoePineapples 138 Pts   -  
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSgyoeqdMpo
    I know that Caroline Munroe exists, because she lives near me.

    @Evidence
    Are you seriously saying that if I create an entirely fictional character then that character suddenly exists in reality, rather than just the concept of that character existing?
    Coveny
    I don't get a great deal of free time, for this reason there may be long periods between my posts.
    Please don't expect me to respond with insults and memes, I don't have time for it.
    Please don't expect me to respond to Gish-galloping, I don't have time for it.
  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSgyoeqdMpo
    I know that Caroline Munroe exists, because she lives near me.

    @Evidence
    Are you seriously saying that if I create an entirely fictional character then that character suddenly exists in reality, rather than just the concept of that character existing?
    I've been going round and round with him on this one. And don't get me started on his belief that he's an atheist that believes in an uncreated creator that isn't a god because there isn't a religion craziness.
  • NightwingNightwing 54 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:
    May I ask you as to What is the "theory of creation"? What I mean is, let's say I pick up a rock, observe it and say: "This is a rock", .. is that a theory? Just asking?
    The Theory of Creation simply states that life originated on Earth due to the action of some kind of intelligence. It does not specify what that intelligence was or whether the action was intentional. We could be the result of a lab accident that someone decided to dispose of on this planet for all we know. The most popular version is that life originated intentionally through the action of a god. Here in the United States and much of the Western world, that god is the Christian God.

    Nightwing - None of these four theories are falsifiable.

    Sure they are, the big-bang-evolution stories are, because they claim that a hot-rock subjected to the vacuum of space proves that it will create enough moisture to cover it completely and in 4 billion years life will sprout from it.
    No, the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are about unobserved past events. We can't test such a theory.
    - Science  has no theories about unobserved past events. There is no way to test such a theory to try to destroy it.
    Well evolutionists 'observe' the rock in the present, so that's science, no? But their claim how it came about is not science, ..  now that's easy to destroy.
    Observation is not science. Neither is it a theory. Observing a rock is not science. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.
    - Supporting evidence is not used in science. It IS used in religions, however.
    I don't understand? Are you just messing around? How can Religion, which requires 'blind faith' require supporting evidence?
    It doesn't require supporting evidence. It may use it however. Science does not use supporting evidence. Christians, for example, use the Bible as supporting evidence.
    Observations is not used in science. It is evidence only. It is subject to the problems of phenomenology. Everyone interprets what they observe in different ways, depending on their view of how the universe works. That view is as unique to each of us as a fingerprint.

    Yep, .. your just messing around, .. typical of Religionists, theists/atheists.
    noun
    noun: science
    the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
    Nope. Not messing around. This definition of science is wrong. It actually could be used to 'prove' many religions. Be aware that dictionaries are not authoritative meanings of words. They are not a substitute for philosophy.
    - Take, for example, the sunrise. We observe it every day.
    So what your saying is that a scientist wouldn't do that, .. you know, "observe the sun"?
    He may, but that is not science. That is just observation. To come up with a theory about why the Sun rises, then testing that theory against its null hypothesis, is science.
    - To those of us what grew up with things like the space program, we see the Earth rotating and causing the sunrise. To another culture, the SAME observation has a different cause, such as a god of some kind carrying the Sun across the sky, or the Sun orbits around the Earth (the so-called Terracentric universe).

    Galileo showed the terracentric theory to be false, by showing that moon orbit Jupiter. This meant the Earth wasn't the center of everything. Galileo falsified the earlier theory. Copernicus had put forth a new theory, that the Earth orbited the Sun, which Galileo agreed with. That theory was not falsified until Einstein.

    How could Einstein 'falsify' something that you claimed wasn't 'science' to begin with?
    It WAS science. The terracentric theory was falsifiable, and was tested for its null hypothesis, just the same as other theories of science. The heliocentric theory was also falsifiable. It too has been tested for the null hypothesis. In both cases, conflicting evidence appeared and falsified those theories.
    Today, the theory is that the Earth and the Sun orbit each other. It's all relative. Nothing is stationary, so nothing is a reference point except for what you choose it to be.

    Theory? I thought you just said "it's not falsifiable"? Has anyone 'observed' the Flat Earth orbit the sun?
    Yes. A theory. The Theory of the Flat Earth has also been falsified, through the observation of the position of the Sun, Moon, and stars as one traveled around the world. That theory was never a scientific theory, since it failed its first test.
    Besides, .. what does this have anything to do with the OP - "Atheism IS a Religion"???
    If you follow the thread upwards, much discussion is about what science actually IS. There, I was discussing how those that try to prove the existence or non-existence of a god or gods is not using science, and is simply making circular arguments. All religions are based on some initial circular argument. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'.

    Theories are arguments. Like all arguments, they make some assertion and provide some type of reasoning to support it. All theories start out as circular arguments. The only support they have is themselves and the thing that inspired that theory (usually an observation, but it doesn't have to be). A scientific theory is one that has been tested against the null hypothesis at least once. Such theories are usually formalized into a mathematical formula as well, giving the theory power of prediction. Because of surviving such a test, the theory is no longer a circular argument. It will remain a theory, however, until it is destroyed.



  • NightwingNightwing 54 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:
    Nightwing said:
    Evidence said:

    Nightwing said:
    @Evidence ; You seem to attribute everything to the Bible.

    Yes sir, .. since it covers everything from creation, the why's, the who's, everything, so yeah, it would be only reasonable to do so, right?

    I don't agree. The Bible is incomplete on many points, fails to discuss anything about any theory of science or the origins and use of mathematics as a couple of examples.

    Thinking the Bible covers everything just seems extremely limiting to me.



    OK, the Bible is definitely not "Merc's Manual" or the "Machinists Handbook", but a umm, .. a concentrated-Guide to human 'perfection'. Can you imagine how many Merc's Manuals, Machinist handbooks and Self Help books it would take to explain every detail in ones life from; getting married, buying a house, raising children, running a business, to be an example slave/employee, all the way to burying our dead? All the books in the world could not contain them, so God had several individuals to interpret what He said, .. what He wanted us to know about "all things" in the why's, the who's and how's in Creation. He did this from different perspectives, .. and it works.
    Not only that, but all that Jesus said while he was here, only a small fraction was recorded (John 21:25)

    But what Satan did was take these precious writings, and take control of the information in it. Sure he uses it to bring people in his Church, where everyone thinks they are there learn and to give honor to God, while in all actuality they are there giving homage to Lucifer himself. This is no longer a secret::

    The Bible contains many useful teachings. It also shows examples of what happens to a people that leaves those teachings. It is by no means complete. Even the Bible itself says it is incomplete.

    If you want to blame Satan for anything, it is to convince people that this book is complete, closed, and unchanging, like a detailed book of law. It is to remove both God and Jesus Christ from the equation, and to remove any possibility of a prophet ever appearing again.

    Kind of like seeing a field of wildflowers in a desert valley, and thinking this is all there is.
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSgyoeqdMpo
    I know that Caroline Munroe exists, because she lives near me.

    @Evidence
    Are you seriously saying that if I create an entirely fictional character then that character suddenly exists in reality, rather than just the concept of that character existing?
    Simple logic says that fictional characters exist as fictional characters. Batman is a fictional character, Batman exists.

    Ssshh, .. I'm having a conversation with a four year old:

    "But dad, how does Batman exist?"
    As a fictional character.
    "But daddy, is he real?"
    Yes, as a fictional character. All fictional characters exist as fictional characters. You can even dress up as Batman the fictional character, and now you are Batman (the fictional character!)

    "Daddy, do gods exist?"
    Yes son, many gods exist in this wicked world, and many theists worship them.
    "What are theists daddy?"
    They are those dummies who worship all these made up gods, and kill for them, even sacrifice their children to them.
    "What are atheists daddy?"
    They are even bigger dummies who deny the existence of all the thousands of gods that are obviously out there that the billions of people worship.

    "Do you believe in gods?"
    Yes son, I believe there are thousands of gods in the world, you can even buy them on eBay.
    "If you believe that there are tens of thousands of gods in the world, then are you a theist daddy?"
    No son, .. theists not only believe that there are these made up idol gods, but pick a few, or some even a bunch of these gods, and actually pretend that they are real, and pray to them as if they could grant them their wishes!? Besides long and repetitious prayers, they offer food and even their children to these god or gods.
    "So don't you believe in God daddy?"
    Yes son, I believe in God our One and Only Possible Creator!

    "Aren't any of the other theistic gods creators?"
    Yes, some of the Religion-created gods are creators, .. like Zeus, Joseph Smith, Eric Dubay who believes he is God, and there is Odin, and many others that you can read up on in Religious fairytales.
    "Why is your Creator God any different than those Religion-created gods who can also create?"
    Well son, because our Creator is Infinite and Eternal. You cannot see Infinite because He has no boarders, nor is He made up of His creation. He is the Creator of all that is created, including man, and their man-made gods.
    "Oh I understand it now daddy, my preschool teacher told us about Infinite, that it is borderless. So there is nothing to see in Infinite. But how can Infinite create finite things?"
    Wow son, you sure are smart for a 4 year old, good question; "how can Infinite God create finite things?" Well actually it is pretty easy to explain son, where even you can understand it;

    Now close your eyes. Got it? Now imagine your favorite toy, or create a toy from your imagination.
    "Got it daddy, I made a funny looking bunny with three ears, one for his tail too, .. he, he, he"
    There you go, that is about how our Infinite Creator does it. Only He is all Mind/Spirit, and what He imagines, it stays like that. Only He defines his creation in detail by rules and laws, and they stay in His mind, or in Him. All things are in God, for there can nothing exist outside of, or besides Infinite/God.
    CovenyErfisflat
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    May I ask you as to What is the "theory of creation"? What I mean is, let's say I pick up a rock, observe it and say: "This is a rock", .. is that a theory? Just asking?

    Nightwing - The Theory of Creation simply states that life originated on Earth due to the action of some kind of intelligence. It does not specify what that intelligence was or whether the action was intentional. We could be the result of a lab accident that someone decided to dispose of on this planet for all we know. The most popular version is that life originated intentionally through the action of a god. Here in the United States and much of the Western world, that god is the Christian God.

    The "Christian god/gods" are not the God of the Bible, who is our Infinite Creator. The Christian gods are just one or three of the Greek gods in theos, those are man made gods wrapped in Organized Religion. Yes, the Christians do have a theory like you said, and they also have a Sci-fi theory with it, and both of these theories were created by the Christian Religion, remember? The Jesuit Priest George Lemaitre created the Big-Bang theory. I don't know how they call it a theory, but that's what everyone calls it.

    Nightwing - None of these four theories are falsifiable.

    Evidence - Sure they are, the big-bang-evolution stories are, because they claim that a hot-rock subjected to the vacuum of space proves that it will create enough moisture to cover it completely and in 4 billion years life will sprout from it.
    Nightwing - No, the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are about unobserved past events. We can't test such a theory.

    I thought that's what the Germans are doing at CERN? They say they proved that the Big Bang happened exactly 13.7 billion years ago. How did you miss that?

    - Science  has no theories about unobserved past events. There is no way to test such a theory to try to destroy it.

    Well evolutionists 'observe' the rock in the present, so that's science, no? But their claim how it came about is not science, ..  now that's easy to destroy.
    Nightwing - Observation is not science. Neither is it a theory. Observing a rock is not science. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.

    So no observation necessary, just make some theories about nature? What do you base those theories on?

    Nightwing - Supporting evidence is not used in science. It IS used in religions, however.
    Evidence - I don't understand? Are you just messing around? How can Religion, which requires 'blind faith' require supporting evidence?
    Nightwing - It doesn't require supporting evidence. It may use it however. Science does not use supporting evidence. Christians, for example, use the Bible as supporting evidence.

    I don't understand? The Christian god/gods are NOT our Infinite Creator mentioned in the Bible, so the Bible is NOT supporting evidence for the Christians. You are assuming it is because of 1,700 years of Religious indoctrinations that we've been subjected to.

    Observations is not used in science. It is evidence only. It is subject to the problems of phenomenology. Everyone interprets what they observe in different ways, depending on their view of how the universe works. That view is as unique to each of us as a fingerprint.

    Evidence - Yep, .. your just messing around, .. typical of Religionists, theists/atheists.
    noun
    noun: science
    the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

    Nightwing - Nope. Not messing around. This definition of science is wrong. It actually could be used to 'prove' many religions. Be aware that dictionaries are not authoritative meanings of words. They are not a substitute for philosophy.

    I actually agree with you there, definitions in our dictionaries can be very wrong. That's what I am debating here, that the definition of "atheism" is wrong, because atheism IS a religion, backed up by 'blind faith'.


    Nightwing - Take, for example, the sunrise. We observe it every day.

    Evidence - So what your saying is that a scientist wouldn't do that, .. you know, "observe the sun"?
    Nighthawk - He may, but that is not science. That is just observation. To come up with a theory about why the Sun rises, then testing that theory against its null hypothesis, is science.

    So scientists observing the sun is not science? Even if the scientist is out on the beach with his family, and he starts observing the sun, that would be science. Maybe enjoying the sun is not, but observing it is.

    Nightwing - To those of us what grew up with things like the space program, we see the Earth rotating and causing the sunrise. To another culture, the SAME observation has a different cause, such as a god of some kind carrying the Sun across the sky, or the Sun orbits around the Earth (the so-called Terracentric universe).
    Galileo showed the terracentric theory to be false, by showing that moon orbit Jupiter. This meant the Earth wasn't the center of everything. Galileo falsified the earlier theory. Copernicus had put forth a new theory, that the Earth orbited the Sun, which Galileo agreed with. That theory was not falsified until Einstein.
    Evidence - How could Einstein 'falsify' something that you claimed wasn't 'science' to begin with?
    Nightwing - It WAS science. The terracentric theory was falsifiable, and was tested for its null hypothesis, just the same as other theories of science. The heliocentric theory was also falsifiable. It too has been tested for the null hypothesis. In both cases, conflicting evidence appeared and falsified those theories.

    Our Earth is not orbiting anything, it is stationary and unmovable. The stars (not planets) which are in a place called heaven above our dome rotate around the earth, this is obvious with a little observation.

    Nightwing - Today, the theory is that the Earth and the Sun orbit each other. It's all relative. Nothing is stationary, so nothing is a reference point except for what you choose it to be.
    Evidence - Theory? I thought you just said "it's not falsifiable"? Has anyone 'observed' the Flat Earth orbit the sun?
    Nightwing - Yes. A theory. The Theory of the Flat Earth has also been falsified, through the observation of the position of the Sun, Moon, and stars as one traveled around the world. That theory was never a scientific theory, since it failed its first test.
    Evidence- Besides, .. what does this have anything to do with the OP - "Atheism IS a Religion"???
    Nightwing - If you follow the thread upwards, much discussion is about what science actually IS. There, I was discussing how those that try to prove the existence or non-existence of a god or gods is not using science, and is simply making circular arguments. All religions are based on some initial circular argument. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'.

    Yes I agree that "all religions are based on some circular argument, or fantasy. Like simply putting our Infinite Creator God along with the religiously created god/gods, this is sooo wrong. Or stating that the BB-Evolution theories are science, or that all 'faith' is "Religious blind faith", and so on. But here we are, after 1,700 years of Religion ruling over mankind, and ruling over science, and claiming the Bible as a 'religious book', people can't even start to reason regarding these subjects.
    They (our Religious Leaders) can make a science fiction movie about a man stuck on Mars, and thousands of volunteers show up at NASA wanting to be the next in line for a trip to Mars to save Matt Damon.

    Nightwing - Theories are arguments. Like all arguments, they make some assertion and provide some type of reasoning to support it. All theories start out as circular arguments. The only support they have is themselves and the thing that inspired that theory (usually an observation, but it doesn't have to be). A scientific theory is one that has been tested against the null hypothesis at least once. Such theories are usually formalized into a mathematical formula as well, giving the theory power of prediction. Because of surviving such a test, the theory is no longer a circular argument. It will remain a theory, however, until it is destroyed.

    That's what I've been trying to tell you, but you said that observation has nothing to do with a theory, .. but now you say it can, .. lol.
    How could a theory pop in your head without first observing the thing.

    Here is a theory without observation: "I have a theory that Flagmack3 orbits Mt. Everest every 3 days, that causes rain to fall in Miami Florida!"
    All we have to do now is find what Flagmack3 is? We got a theory.

  • NightwingNightwing 54 Pts   -  
    @Evidence

    Nightwing - The Theory of Creation simply states that life originated on Earth due to the action of some kind of intelligence. It does not specify what that intelligence was or whether the action was intentional. We could be the result of a lab accident that someone decided to dispose of on this planet for all we know. The most popular version is that life originated intentionally through the action of a god. Here in the United States and much of the Western world, that god is the Christian God.
    The "Christian god/gods" are not the God of the Bible, who is our Infinite Creator. The Christian gods are just one or three of the Greek gods in theos, those are man made gods wrapped in Organized Religion. Yes, the Christians do have a theory like you said, and they also have a Sci-fi theory with it, and both of these theories were created by the Christian Religion, remember? The Jesuit Priest George Lemaitre created the Big-Bang theory. I don't know how they call it a theory, but that's what everyone calls it.
    Because it IS a theory. It just isn't a scientific one.

    Nightwing - No, the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are about unobserved past events. We can't test such a theory.
    I thought that's what the Germans are doing at CERN? They say they proved that the Big Bang happened exactly 13.7 billion years ago. How did you miss that?
    No one at CERN has proved the Big Bang theory at all, much less how long it ago it happened.

    Nightwing - Observation is not science. Neither is it a theory. Observing a rock is not science. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.
    So no observation necessary, just make some theories about nature? What do you base those theories on?
    Theories require no base. A theory may arise out of a thought experiment, manipulating the equation for an existing theory using algebra, an observation, reading a book, dreams, even watching an episode of "Star Trek". The only requirement of a theory is that it be internally consistent. No theory may be based on a logical fallacy. It is the test of falsifiability that makes a nonscientific theory into a scientific one.

    Nightwing - It doesn't require supporting evidence. It may use it however. Science does not use supporting evidence. Christians, for example, use the Bible as supporting evidence.
    I don't understand? The Christian god/gods are NOT our Infinite Creator mentioned in the Bible, so the Bible is NOT supporting evidence for the Christians. You are assuming it is because of 1,700 years of Religious indoctrinations that we've been subjected to.
    The Bible mentions Jesus Christ and His teachings, who claimed he is the Son of God, and that he is part of the godhead. Belief in that statement is what defines a 'Christian'. If you deny Jesus Christ existed or is not who he said he is, then you are not a Christian. If you are not a Christian, you deny major sections of the Bible, so you cannot use it as evidence for much of anything else.

    Nightwing - Nope. Not messing around. This definition of science is wrong. It actually could be used to 'prove' many religions. Be aware that dictionaries are not authoritative meanings of words. They are not a substitute for philosophy.
    I actually agree with you there, definitions in our dictionaries can be very wrong. That's what I am debating here, that the definition of "atheism" is wrong, because atheism IS a religion, backed up by 'blind faith'.
    It certainly has been practiced that way by many claiming to be atheists. As I have already mentioned, anyone that tries to prove a god or gods do not exist is making a circular argument (and failing to recognize it). That position would be a religious one.

    There ARE atheists that do not try to prove anything. They simple state they aren't convinced a god or gods exist. This is a negative statement, which does not require a proof. In that case, they are NOT making a religious argument, but a logical one.

    Nighthawk - He may, but that is not science. That is just observation. To come up with a theory about why the Sun rises, then testing that theory against its null hypothesis, is science.
    So scientists observing the sun is not science?
    No. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature. Observing the sunrise is not a theory. It may inspire a theory, but it is not a theory in and of itself. Once the theory exists, the sunrise means nothing anymore, other than as a predicate to the theory existing. Once the theory has been tested for the null hypothesis, the observation no longer is of any concern. The theory (now a scientific one, assuming it survives the test) now stands on its own and is now part of the body of science automatically.

    Nightwing - It (the terracentric theory) WAS science. The terracentric theory was falsifiable, and was tested for its null hypothesis, just the same as other theories of science. The heliocentric theory was also falsifiable. It too has been tested for the null hypothesis. In both cases, conflicting evidence appeared and falsified those theories.
    Our Earth is not orbiting anything, it is stationary and unmovable.
    The stars (not planets) which are in a place called heaven above our dome rotate around the earth, this is obvious with a little observation.
    The terracentric theory of the universe was falsified by Galileo. If Earth is the center of everything, why do we observe moons orbiting Jupiter? What are the planets and how do they move across the sky, since they are obviously not stars and don't move with them?

    Nightwing - Yes. A theory. The Theory of the Flat Earth has also been falsified, through the observation of the position of the Sun, Moon, and stars as one traveled around the world. That theory was never a scientific theory, since it failed its first test.
    Evidence- Besides, .. what does this have anything to do with the OP - "Atheism IS a Religion"???
    Well...I guess it does, since you brought it up. We can drop this particular subthread here if you wish.

    Nightwing - If you follow the thread upwards, much discussion is about what science actually IS. There, I was discussing how those that try to prove the existence or non-existence of a god or gods is not using science, and is simply making circular arguments. All religions are based on some initial circular argument. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'.
    Yes I agree that "all religions are based on some circular argument, or fantasy. Like simply putting our Infinite Creator God along with the religiously created god/gods, this is sooo wrong. Or stating that the BB-Evolution theories are science, or that all 'faith' is "Religious blind faith", and so on. But here we are, after 1,700 years of Religion ruling over mankind, and ruling over science, and claiming the Bible as a 'religious book', people can't even start to reason regarding these subjects.
    Religions DO have reason. Reason is not science, but part of logic. Even though all religions are based on some initial circular argument, it is only failure to recognize the circular argument that produces the circular argument fallacy. At least Christians admit to their religion being based on faith.

    Your religion is not a Christian one. It does believe in an omnipotent creator, but that's about as close as it gets. I am not here to debate which religion is 'true'. I am pointing out what I see are logical faults I see in any side of the religious 'atheist' question, how science is not the proper venue for this, and why current philosophy of the meaning of science goes to great lengths and how to separate science from religion.

    Nightwing - Theories are arguments. Like all arguments, they make some assertion and provide some type of reasoning to support it. All theories start out as circular arguments. The only support they have is themselves and the thing that inspired that theory (usually an observation, but it doesn't have to be). A scientific theory is one that has been tested against the null hypothesis at least once. Such theories are usually formalized into a mathematical formula as well, giving the theory power of prediction. Because of surviving such a test, the theory is no longer a circular argument. It will remain a theory, however, until it is destroyed.
    That's what I've been trying to tell you, but you said that observation has nothing to do with a theory, .. but now you say it can, .. lol.
    Observation can inspire a theory. Beyond that, it has nothing to do with science. The theory it inspires is not a scientific on until the test for falsifiability is satisfied.
    How could a theory pop in your head without first observing the thing.
    Easy. It just does.
    Here is a theory without observation: "I have a theory that Flagmack3 orbits Mt. Everest every 3 days, that causes rain to fall in Miami Florida!"
    All we have to do now is find what Flagmack3 is? We got a theory.
    This is not a theory. It is a fallacy known as a void argument. It's relationship of some effect at Mt Everest to Miami with no description of how is also a non-sequitur fallacy. No theory may be based on a logical fallacy. You must first be able to define all terms of the argument without using circular definitions and you must define how Miami is related to some event at Mt Everest.

    To be a scientific theory, in addition it would have to be externally consistent (it cannot conflict with any existing theory of science) and falsifiable (the null hypothesis for it must be testable, using a specific test producing a specific result).


  • CYDdhartaCYDdharta 1823 Pts   -   edited October 2017
    Coveny said:

    1) Webster - a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods
    2) Oxford - A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
    3) Urban - A person who lacks belief in a god or gods.
    4) Your dictionary -  The definition of an atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of any kind of God or higher power.
    5) Macmillian - someone who does not believe that God exists
    6) Free Dictionary - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being.
    7) WordWeb - Someone who does not believe in god;
    8) American Heritage - Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
    9) Newbury - a person who does not believe in the existence of God
    10) Atheist American - A lack of belief in gods.
    11) Wiki - in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.
    12) All about philosophy - Atheist, in the strict and proper sense of the word, is one who does not believe in the existence of a god, or who owns no being superior to nature.
    13) Thought co - anyone who doesn't believe in any gods.
    14) The Secular Web - Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god
    15) Reasonable Faith - lack belief in God

    Lacks, disbelieves, absence, or does not believe from 15 different sources as 10 was not enough for you. Atheism covers anyone who doesn't believe god(s) exist. It is a null value, it makes no claim. It is merely stating that I am NOT a part of your group with the prefix "A" in front of the group "theist". I am a non-theist if you just can't use the word atheist correctly. (they mean the SAME thing)
    Now this reply is a wonderful example of an;



    You're like Hillary, you do all the things accuse others of doing.  It's uncanny.  Rather than compound your fallacy, I'll just go back to YOUR ORIGINAL SOURCES.  Let's look at the definitions from YOUR ORIGINAL SOURCES  once again;



    atheist

    noun
    1. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

    atheist

    n.
    a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being.

    atheist

    countable noun
    An atheist is a person who believes that there is no God.
    https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/atheist

    atheist

    someone who believes that God does not exist
    http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/atheist
    These were the definitions from the sources you used before you went dictionary shopping for someone, anyone, who would agree with you.  Why is it that none of these sources, that were good enough for you to quote elsewhere agree with your position?? 



  • CovenyCoveny 419 Pts   -  
    CYDdharta said:
    atheist

    noun
    1. a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

    atheist

    n.
    a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being.

    atheist

    countable noun
    An atheist is a person who believes that there is no God.
    https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/atheist

    atheist

    someone who believes that God does not exist
    http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/atheist
    These were the definitions from the sources you used before you went dictionary shopping for someone, anyone, who would agree with you.  Why is it that none of these sources, that were good enough for you to quote elsewhere agree with your position?? 
    On what page did I post those as my definitions? Actually NM you're likely another flat earther mod who can edit my posts to make it so I say whatever you want me to say...
  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    @Evidence

    Nightwing - The Theory of Creation simply states that life originated on Earth due to the action of some kind of intelligence. It does not specify what that intelligence was or whether the action was intentional. We could be the result of a lab accident that someone decided to dispose of on this planet for all we know. The most popular version is that life originated intentionally through the action of a god. Here in the United States and much of the Western world, that god is the Christian God.
    The "Christian god/gods" are not the God of the Bible, who is our Infinite Creator. The Christian gods are just one or three of the Greek gods in theos, those are man made gods wrapped in Organized Religion. Yes, the Christians do have a theory like you said, and they also have a Sci-fi theory with it, and both of these theories were created by the Christian Religion, remember? The Jesuit Priest George Lemaitre created the Big-Bang theory. I don't know how they call it a theory, but that's what everyone calls it.
    Because it IS a theory. It just isn't a scientific one.

    https://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html

    Me - The European Council for Nuclear Research (CERN) works to help us better understand what comprises the fabric of our universe.
    https://futurism.com/4-groundbreaking-study-could-uncover-secrets-of-the-big-bang/
    Sounds sciency to me? So you're saying CERN is not performing "scientific experiments" to prove the Big-Bang one way or another?

    Nightwing - No, the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are about unobserved past events. We can't test such a theory.
    I thought that's what the Germans are doing at CERN? They say they proved that the Big Bang happened exactly 13.7 billion years ago. How did you miss that?
    No one at CERN has proved the Big Bang theory at all, much less how long it ago it happened.

    See above.

    Nightwing - Observation is not science. Neither is it a theory. Observing a rock is not science. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.
    So no observation necessary, just make some theories about nature? What do you base those theories on?
    Theories require no base. A theory may arise out of a thought experiment, manipulating the equation for an existing theory using algebra, an observation, reading a book, dreams, even watching an episode of "Star Trek". The only requirement of a theory is that it be internally consistent. No theory may be based on a logical fallacy. It is the test of falsifiability that makes a nonscientific theory into a scientific one.

    Me - In other words, any whacko idea can become a scientific theory as long as another whacko scientist backs it up, .. with a test?
    Look at EVERYTHING that comes out of NASA and CERN, all cartoon or CGI-3D cartoons, anyone can create another nonscientific cartoon to 'test the falsifiability' of the original CGI 3D cartoon, and then WhaLa, it becomes a scientific theory.
    Commandant Higgs 40 years ago suggested the "boson".
    40 years later CERN did a falsifiability on it, and what do you know, they printed a dot matrix 70's Peace--love-you-man printout of the boson, so now it's scientific, right?
    http://cms.web.cern.ch/news/cms-search-standard-model-higgs-boson-lhc-data-2010-and-2011

    Nightwing - It doesn't require supporting evidence. It may use it however. Science does not use supporting evidence. Christians, for example, use the Bible as supporting evidence.
    I don't understand? The Christian god/gods are NOT our Infinite Creator mentioned in the Bible, so the Bible is NOT supporting evidence for the Christians. You are assuming it is because of 1,700 years of Religious indoctrinations that we've been subjected to.
    The Bible mentions Jesus Christ and His teachings, who claimed he is the Son of God, and that he is part of the godhead. Belief in that statement is what defines a 'Christian'. If you deny Jesus Christ existed or is not who he said he is, then you are not a Christian. If you are not a Christian, you deny major sections of the Bible, so you cannot use it as evidence for much of anything else.

    Me - No, .. I DON'T deny Jesus Christ, I deny the Christian Religions version of Jesus Christ. And yes, I am NOT a Christian.
    Just like I don't deny science, .. what I deny is that what NASA gives us is science, and I don't care how many falsifiability experiments they done to prove space, or the big bang, or that our world is a globe spinning and twirling through the redshift space fabric!
    Just because a Religion claims to have a god, or a thousand gods doesn't mean that now our Infinite Creator "I Am" is that God, or 'one of those gods', nor that their tall white blond blue-eyed trinity-gods Jesus is Biblical Jesus.

    Nightwing - Nope. Not messing around. This definition of science is wrong. It actually could be used to 'prove' many religions. Be aware that dictionaries are not authoritative meanings of words. They are not a substitute for philosophy.
    I actually agree with you there, definitions in our dictionaries can be very wrong. That's what I am debating here, that the definition of "atheism" is wrong, because atheism IS a religion, backed up by 'blind faith'.
    It certainly has been practiced that way by many claiming to be atheists. As I have already mentioned, anyone that tries to prove a god or gods do not exist is making a circular argument (and failing to recognize it). That position would be a religious one.

    Me - Agreed!

    There ARE atheists that do not try to prove anything. They simple state they aren't convinced a god or gods exist. This is a negative statement, which does not require a proof. In that case, they are NOT making a religious argument, but a logical one.

    Lol, sorry but that sounds silly: "atheists that do not try to prove anything, .. they are NOT making a religious argument, but a logical one." So 'not proving something' is logical to you?

    Nighthawk - He may, but that is not science. That is just observation. To come up with a theory about why the Sun rises, then testing that theory against its null hypothesis, is science.
    So scientists observing the sun is not science?
    No. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature. Observing the sunrise is not a theory. It may inspire a theory, but it is not a theory in and of itself. Once the theory exists, the sunrise means nothing anymore, other than as a predicate to the theory existing. Once the theory has been tested for the null hypothesis, the observation no longer is of any concern. The theory (now a scientific one, assuming it survives the test) now stands on its own and is now part of the body of science automatically.

    Me - How is any scientist going to do any tests without observation? And please don't cut out the rest of my sentence just so you can think you sound smart. Be honest, OK?
    This is what I said: So scientists observing the sun is not science? Even if the scientist is out on the beach with his family, and he starts observing the sun, that would be science. Maybe enjoying the sun is not, but observing it is.

    I'm done with you, you got to be working for either CERN, or NASA, .. you can go on and on till you think you derailed me from what we're talking about?

    NASA: "But, but, look at the pretty pictures! Doesn't it look like the Mars in the movies? So there, it must be true you cows!"

    Me - "So scientists observing the sun is not science? Even if the scientist is out on the beach with his family, and he starts observing the sun, that would be science. Maybe enjoying the sun is not, but observing it is."

    You: "No. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature. Observing the sunrise is not a theory. It may inspire a theory, but it is not a theory in and of itself. Once the theory exists, the sunrise means nothing anymore, other than as a predicate to the theory existing. Once the theory has been tested for the null hypothesis, the observation no longer is of any concern. The theory (now a scientific one, assuming it survives the test) now stands on its own and is now part of the body of science automatically."

    Me - A scientist observes things before he can make any theories about whatever he is observing, the sun in this case. Will it survive the test? Well I don't know, what do you think?



    Nope, .. not as chance: "observation no longer is of any concern. The theory (now a scientific one, assuming it survives the test) now stands on its own and is now part of the body of science automatically! A small step for man in a studio, a GIANT leap for NASA with their 2 trillion dollar budget!
  • NightwingNightwing 54 Pts   -  
    Evidence said:
    @Evidence

    Because it IS a theory. It just isn't a scientific one.

    Me - The European Council for Nuclear Research (CERN) works to help us better understand what comprises the fabric of our universe.
    Sounds sciency to me? So you're saying CERN is not performing "scientific experiments" to prove the Big-Bang one way or another?
    No, CERN is not performing scientific experiments to prove the Big Bang theory one way or another. They are simply assuming the Big Bang theory and continue to try to find evidence to support it. Science does not use supporting evidence.

    Theories require no base. A theory may arise out of a thought experiment, manipulating the equation for an existing theory using algebra, an observation, reading a book, dreams, even watching an episode of "Star Trek". The only requirement of a theory is that it be internally consistent. No theory may be based on a logical fallacy. It is the test of falsifiability that makes a nonscientific theory into a scientific one.

    Me - In other words, any whacko idea can become a scientific theory as long as another whacko scientist backs it up, .. with a test?
    Doesn't even have to be a different 'whacko'. It can be the same one! The test is to try to break the theory, and is based on the null hypothesis of the theory itself. Not just any test will do.

    Look at EVERYTHING that comes out of NASA and CERN, all cartoon or CGI-3D cartoons, anyone can create another nonscientific cartoon to 'test the falsifiability' of the original CGI 3D cartoon, and then WhaLa, it becomes a scientific theory.
    They aren't testing the falsifiability of a theory in most cases. They are usually just spewing propaganda and calling it 'science'.

    Commandant Higgs 40 years ago suggested the "boson".
    40 years later CERN did a falsifiability on it, and what do you know, they printed a dot matrix 70's Peace--love-you-man printout of the boson, so now it's scientific, right?
    That was not a test of falsifiability.

    The Bible mentions Jesus Christ and His teachings, who claimed he is the Son of God, and that he is part of the godhead. Belief in that statement is what defines a 'Christian'. If you deny Jesus Christ existed or is not who he said he is, then you are not a Christian. If you are not a Christian, you deny major sections of the Bible, so you cannot use it as evidence for much of anything else.

    Me - No, .. I DON'T deny Jesus Christ, I deny the Christian Religions version of Jesus Christ. And yes, I am NOT a Christian.
    Okay. We've established that. There ARE such things as Christians out there, however. I was simply using them as an example religion.

    Just like I don't deny science, .. what I deny is that what NASA gives us is science,
    A good idea, considering the tripe that NASA has been putting out recently.

    and I don't care how many falsifiability experiments they done to prove space,
    Don't need to prove space. Space is proven by the law of identity. This is a formal proof in logic.
    or the big bang,
    The Big Bang theory is not falsifiable. The only valid test for the null hypothesis is to go back and look to see what actually happened.
    or that our world is a globe spinning and twirling through the redshift space fabric!
    Since you believe in the terracentric theory of the universe, how do you explain Jupiter's moons?

    Just because a Religion claims to have a god, or a thousand gods doesn't mean that now our Infinite Creator "I Am" is that God, or 'one of those gods', nor that their tall white blond blue-eyed trinity-gods Jesus is Biblical Jesus.
    Jesus Christ is probably not blue-eyed or blond. Although we have no physical description of him, we do know he was a Jew born in Israel. He probably looked more like someone with darker skin and dark hair. We really don't know. The images you described were created by the Germans.

    There ARE atheists that do not try to prove anything. They simple state they aren't convinced a god or gods exist. This is a negative statement, which does not require a proof. In that case, they are NOT making a religious argument, but a logical one.

    Lol, sorry but that sounds silly: "atheists that do not try to prove anything, .. they are NOT making a religious argument, but a logical one." So 'not proving something' is logical to you?
    It is completely logical to take such a view. It is known as the argument of abstention. It is not a fallacy.

    Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature. Observing the sunrise is not a theory. It may inspire a theory, but it is not a theory in and of itself. Once the theory exists, the sunrise means nothing anymore, other than as a predicate to the theory existing. Once the theory has been tested for the null hypothesis, the observation no longer is of any concern. The theory (now a scientific one, assuming it survives the test) now stands on its own and is now part of the body of science automatically.

    Me - How is any scientist going to do any tests without observation?
    One way is by thought experiment. The 2nd law of thermodynamics was tested in just this way. See the writings of Carnot.

    I'm done with you, you got to be working for either CERN, or NASA,
    I work for neither. I am a provider of instrumentation for industrial, medical, and aerospace applications. I am actually not a fan of NASA at all. It's sad to see what NASA has become today. As far as CERN, they have produced many useful theories. They also were instrumental in developing a major portion of the internet. You are using their technology even now.

     .. you can go on and on till you think you derailed me from what we're talking about?
    It is not my intent to derail. I am simply responding to your questions and comments. If you do not to discuss a subject further, that's your choice. It is you that keeps bringing up these questions and arguments.

    Me - "So scientists observing the sun is not science? Even if the scientist is out on the beach with his family, and he starts observing the sun, that would be science. Maybe enjoying the sun is not, but observing it is."
    No, it is not science. It is observation only. No theory need come from watching the sunrise at all. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

    You: "No. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature. Observing the sunrise is not a theory. It may inspire a theory, but it is not a theory in and of itself. Once the theory exists, the sunrise means nothing anymore, other than as a predicate to the theory existing. Once the theory has been tested for the null hypothesis, the observation no longer is of any concern. The theory (now a scientific one, assuming it survives the test) now stands on its own and is now part of the body of science automatically."

    Me - A scientist observes things before he can make any theories about whatever he is observing, the sun in this case.
    This is actually a fallacy known as a compositional error. You are attempting to extend a single case across all cases.

    Observation is not part of science. Not even if a theory is formed about the Sun by looking at it. Once the theory has been tested against the null hypothesis of that theory, the observation is no longer needed at all. Some theories are inspired by no observation at all. The 2nd law of thermodynamics comes to mind. Einstein's Theory of Relativity is another. Einstein observed nothing different than anyone around him at the time. He simply imagined riding a beam of light and worked out the consequences of what he would see as a result. One of those consequences was the elimination of the luminiferous aether. Another was the realization that there was no such thing as a stationary object.

    That theory of relativity was tested for the null hypothesis using observations. The theory of the 2nd law of thermodynamics was tested with a thought experiment.

    Another example is Planck's law, which came about as a result of algebra. It tied the Stefan-Boltzmann law and Wien's law together and corrected Wien's law for all frequencies of light.

    Will it survive the test?
    What theory are you testing? Observing the Sun is not a theory.
    Well I don't know, what do you think?
    I think there is nothing to test.
    Nope, .. not as chance: "observation no longer is of any concern. The theory (now a scientific one, assuming it survives the test) now stands on its own and is now part of the body of science automatically!
    A small step for man in a studio, a GIANT leap for NASA with their 2 trillion dollar budget!
    NASA has a lot of problems. They are not science, they are a government agency. A lot of crap they've been publishing lately violate physics or chemistry. Another fair bit of it comes out of egregious math errors. They have also created paradoxes in their own arguments and follow agendas of government, not science.

  • EvidenceEvidence 814 Pts   -  
    @Nightwing said:
    No, CERN is not performing scientific experiments to prove the Big Bang theory one way or another. They are simply assuming the Big Bang theory and continue to try to find evidence to support it. Science does not use supporting evidence.

    OK, let me ask you this? After having spent billions and billions and billions of $$, .. does CERN have anything to do with "science"?

    Most of their work is about "big-Banging tiny imaginary-particles" in this 17 mile long sci-fi tube, .. looking for imaginary particles that they got from an 'assumption' out of the Big-Bang science fiction story. You should tell them that this is NOT science, but religion, and to steal peoples money for Religious rituals claiming it's in the "name of science" is WRONG! .. (and I don't care what you say, as far as "They" are concerned, .. they at CERN claim they are scientists doing scientific experiments, .. I kid you not!)

    Like when "They" at CERN claim they found Mr. Higgs 'boson', .. all the money they took in for that they wrote off as "scientific experiments". Now Peter Higgs thinks his idea of this what they named:  "God Particle", is real, .. as in "science real" and that he now has "supporting evidence" from CERN that it exists! And they claim that if combined with the magical gravity, it is what supernaturally/magically created their universe, .. which they force on the Worlds populations as scientific reality!

    But to make things even worse, is that they forced this garbage in our children science books, and is taught as real science! But like you said, it's not even a good hypothesis, even though a hypothesis can be about ANY idea even Sponge Bob, right?

    So just like CERN and NASA, ..  I, or anyone could "assume" that; "Make up Sparkles" are "Pixy-dust" and that it "can make someone fly!"   This would be a good assumption/hypothesis, right?

    Now look about 'supporting evidence', .. NASA could take my "Pixy-dust hypothesis" on their special Zero-G plane, sprinkle some on that "Perm-Lady" scientist/Astronaut, that we always see on the Zero-G ISS plane, .. and on the planes descent make her look like she is really floating/flying! Couldn't this be now considered "supporting scientific evidence" since NASA is considered science?
    Well maybe not for you and me, but you know, this is what and how both CERN and NASA makes billions of dollars a month, all under the tittle "science"!

    Anyways I agree with you 100% that "Religious theist/atheist assumptions/hypothesis" should never be claimed as "science". And CERN even proudly shows off their god Lord Shiva right in their front lawn, .. all in the name of "science", .. can you imagine that?

This Debate has been closed.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch