Atheism?

[crazyhorse1]

There is mathematical "proof" for the idea about nothingness

Sorry, you fundamentally don't understand the field of mathematics. No mathematician would say this. They would say it is a logical calculation only, they would never say math proved the real world. What they say is that math can lead us to a logical conclusion, but only empirical data can "prove" they were correct.

If you read any of the greats like Brian Greene's book on string theory and the number of dimensions, Einstein or any of the others, they say exactly that. Research and not their calculations will prove their models right or wrong. They viewed their models as guides for empirical testing.

Note I put "proof" in quotes. In science, nothing is absolute. However, there is more "logical calculation" behind the "nothingness" concept than the "God" concept, which has as much "proof" as the tooth fairy.

[Irn-Bru]

The Classical arguments for the existence of God have been in the toilet for generations. It's hard to pick up a book featuring them that doesn't offer refutations. Hitchens' last book, his collection of essays from numerous sources, is chock full of refutations that are unassailable.

Are you talking about the atheist reader (or maybe it was the portable atheist)? The selections in that book weren't particularly damning to theism. Some authors, like Lucretius, are just as controversial as the theists they look to refute. Others he included, like Hobbes and Spinoza, were actually theists themselves. Or maybe it's Marx that you find unassailable?

If you want good arguments against theism, I wouldn't recommend a hack like Hitchens. He is thrilling to listen to as a speaker and a very sharp writer, but he wasn't above BSing when he thought it could win him an argument.

As for the classical arguments themselves; they are holding up fine. I've read and grappled with the critiques but they are not decisive. Thomas Aquinas in particular is alive and well in professional and progressing philosophy. In 500 years, no one will be reading Bertrand Russell, but you can bet they will still be reading Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, and the rest.

As a matter of fact, the arguments no longer even merit discussion, except for kids.

I'm sorry you find the idea so unSerious. Maybe you can join your buddy Hitchens in condemning the unSerious people who take a philosophical stance against torturing and bombing Middle Easterners until they submit to Western superiority.

I mean, as long as we are aiming at the unassailable paragon of human rationality, no?

[crazyhorse1]

The Classical arguments for the existence of God have been in the toilet for generations. It's hard to pick up a book featuring them that doesn't offer refutations. Hitchens' last book, his collection of essays from numerous sources, is chock full of refutations that are unassailable.

Are you talking about the atheist reader (or maybe it was the portable atheist)? The selections in that book weren't particularly damning to theism. Some authors, like Lucretius, are just as controversial as the theists they look to refute. Others he included, like Hobbes and Spinoza, were actually theists themselves. Or maybe it's Marx that you find unassailable?

If you want good arguments against theism, I wouldn't recommend a hack like Hitchens. He is thrilling to listen to as a speaker and a very sharp writer, but he wasn't above BSing when he thought it could win him an argument.

As for the classical arguments themselves; they are holding up fine. I've read and grappled with the critiques but they are not decisive. Thomas Aquinas in particular is alive and well in professional and progressing philosophy. In 500 years, no one will be reading Bertrand Russell, but you can bet they will still be reading Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, and the rest.

As a matter of fact, the arguments no longer even merit discussion, except for kids.

I'm sorry you find the idea so unSerious. Maybe you can join your buddy Hitchens in condemning the unSerious people who take a philosophical stance against torturing and bombing Middle Easterners until they submit to Western superiority.

I mean, as long as we are aiming at the unassailable paragon of human rationality, no?

The Portable Atheist, by Christopher Hitchens. Dozens of essays by world's greatest thinkers and writers. To mention a few: John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, Charles Darwin, Mark Twain, H. L. Mencken, Albert Einstein, Richard Dawkins, Salman Rushdie, Percy Shelley, etc. A huge collection, including definitive refutations of proofs, classical and other wise. Proof by natural order comes under fire, as well as proofs by such as Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, none of which are taken seriously now.

[KazooSkinsFan]

There is mathematical "proof" for the idea about nothingness

Sorry, you fundamentally don't understand the field of mathematics. No mathematician would say this. They would say it is a logical calculation only, they would never say math proved the real world. What they say is that math can lead us to a logical conclusion, but only empirical data can "prove" they were correct.

If you read any of the greats like Brian Greene's book on string theory and the number of dimensions, Einstein or any of the others, they say exactly that. Research and not their calculations will prove their models right or wrong. They viewed their models as guides for empirical testing.

Note I put "proof" in quotes. In science, nothing is absolute. However, there is more "logical calculation" behind the "nothingness" concept than the "God" concept, which has as much "proof" as the tooth fairy.

"Proof" in quotes didn't fix it when the word was used incorrectly. Hawking doesn't even argue there is no God, he says it's not necessary. He doesn't want the existence of the universe to be proof in itself there is a God.

Steven Hawking: "It is not necessary to invoke God to ... set the Universe going."

As for your argument that science is at conflict with God, you're only talking about the creationist ostriches, who while being a large group are a clear minority of Christians. For the rest, that God created science and that was the method he used to create the universe is a viable answer. No, that doesn't prove God exists. But Hawking neither set about proving God doesn't exist nor made that argument.

[Irn-Bru]

The Portable Atheist, by Christopher Hitchens. Dozens of essays by world's greatest thinkers and writers. To mention a few: John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, Charles Darwin, Mark Twain, H. L. Mencken, Albert Einstein, Richard Dawkins, Salman Rushdie, Percy Shelley, etc. A huge collection, including definitive refutations of proofs, classical and other wise. Proof by natural order comes under fire, as well as proofs by such as Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, none of which are taken seriously now.

Nonresponsive.

[crazyhorse1]

The Portable Atheist, by Christopher Hitchens. Dozens of essays by world's greatest thinkers and writers. To mention a few: John Stuart Mill, Karl Marx, Charles Darwin, Mark Twain, H. L. Mencken, Albert Einstein, Richard Dawkins, Salman Rushdie, Percy Shelley, etc. A huge collection, including definitive refutations of proofs, classical and other wise. Proof by natural order comes under fire, as well as proofs by such as Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, none of which are taken seriously now.

Nonresponsive.

I was asked what book I was referring to and I answered. What is nonresponsive about that?

[Irn-Bru]

I knew which book you were talking about.

[crazyhorse1]

There is mathematical "proof" for the idea about nothingness

Sorry, you fundamentally don't understand the field of mathematics. No mathematician would say this. They would say it is a logical calculation only, they would never say math proved the real world. What they say is that math can lead us to a logical conclusion, but only empirical data can "prove" they were correct.

If you read any of the greats like Brian Greene's book on string theory and the number of dimensions, Einstein or any of the others, they say exactly that. Research and not their calculations will prove their models right or wrong. They viewed their models as guides for empirical testing.

Note I put "proof" in quotes. In science, nothing is absolute. However, there is more "logical calculation" behind the "nothingness" concept than the "God" concept, which has as much "proof" as the tooth fairy.

"Proof" in quotes didn't fix it when the word was used incorrectly. Hawking doesn't even argue there is no God, he says it's not necessary. He doesn't want the existence of the universe to be proof in itself there is a God.

Steven Hawking: "It is not necessary to invoke God to ... set the Universe going."

As for your argument that science is at conflict with God, you're only talking about the creationist ostriches, who while being a large group are a clear minority of Christians. For the rest, that God created science and that was the method he used to create the universe is a viable answer. No, that doesn't prove God exists. But Hawking neither set about proving God doesn't exist nor made that argument.

It's impossible to prove the nonexistence of God. Being an atheist does not require such a feat. It only requires non-belief.

[Deadskins]

It's impossible to prove the nonexistence of God.

Then you can't state that He doesn't exist.

[Mississippiskinsfan2]

It's impossible to prove the nonexistence of God.

Then you can't state that He doesn't exist.

Well that would work both ways then

[Deadskins]

It's impossible to prove the nonexistence of God.

Then you can't state that He doesn't exist.

Well that would work both ways then

Which was my point.
Just as you say I can't prove God's existence, you can't prove God's non-existence. So believe what you believe and be happy.

[Mississippiskinsfan2]

It's impossible to prove the nonexistence of God.

Then you can't state that He doesn't exist.

Well that would work both ways then

Which was my point.
Just as you say I can't prove God's existence, you can't prove God's non-existence. So believe what you believe and be happy.

Sorry, people around here are a lot more hard headed with thier thoughts on this so not use to someone being willing to see it from both sides.

[crazyhorse1]

It's impossible to prove the nonexistence of God.

Then you can't state that He doesn't exist.

Well that would work both ways then

Which was my point.
Just as you say I can't prove God's existence, you can't prove God's non-existence. So believe what you believe and be happy.

Good idea.

[langleyparkjoe]

*TEBOWING*

and then..

*GRIFFINING*



God's awesome, whether real or not.

[crazyhorse1]

*TEBOWING*

and then..

*GRIFFINING*



God's awesome, whether real or not.

God's also horrible, if he exists. No need to recite all the evidence.

[langleyparkjoe]

*TEBOWING*

and then..

*GRIFFINING*



God's awesome, whether real or not.

God's also horrible, if he exists. No need to recite all the evidence.

There's evidence?????

[Deadskins]

*TEBOWING*

and then..

*GRIFFINING*



God's awesome, whether real or not.

God's also horrible, if he exists. No need to recite all the evidence.

There's evidence?????

Good point, Joe!

[crazyhorse1]

*TEBOWING*

and then..

*GRIFFINING*



God's awesome, whether real or not.

God's also horrible, if he exists. No need to recite all the evidence.

There's evidence?????

Disease, wars, death of children, torture, evil, Holocaust, etc.

[Deadskins]

So you admit there's evidence?

[KazooSkinsFan]

*TEBOWING*

and then..

*GRIFFINING*



God's awesome, whether real or not.

God's also horrible, if he exists. No need to recite all the evidence.

There's evidence?????

Disease, wars, death of children, torture, evil, Holocaust, etc.

So your teacher is horrible if they let you get a bad grade for not studying enough? Your parents are horrible if you don't get an allowance for not doing your chores? Trials are how people grow. If everything went right in my life and there were no consequences for my poor choices, I wouldn't grow and I wouldn't appreciate what I had.

We have the power to be happy, no "horrible" God would give us that power. Those are examples of an intelligent God, not a horrible one. One who believes that personal responsibility goes with personal freedom, something more and more lacking in this country right now.

[crazyhorse1]

*TEBOWING*

and then..

*GRIFFINING*



God's awesome, whether real or not.

God's also horrible, if he exists. No need to recite all the evidence.

There's evidence?????

Disease, wars, death of children, torture, evil, Holocaust, etc.

So your teacher is horrible if they let you get a bad grade for not studying enough? Your parents are horrible if you don't get an allowance for not doing your chores? Trials are how people grow. If everything went right in my life and there were no consequences for my poor choices, I wouldn't grow and I wouldn't appreciate what I had.

We have the power to be happy, no "horrible" God would give us that power. Those are examples of an intelligent God, not a horrible one. One who believes that personal responsibility goes with personal freedom, something more and more lacking in this country right now.

Now you're saying that God, who may or may not exist, punishes us if we or our relatives are bad. Gases us maybe and shoves us into ovens for our own good--to improve our character? This makes him good? Actually, if I were a God and wanted to be horrible, I would stir in a little happiness to make losing everything all the more dreadful.

[KazooSkinsFan]

Disease, wars, death of children, torture, evil, Holocaust, etc.

So your teacher is horrible if they let you get a bad grade for not studying enough? Your parents are horrible if you don't get an allowance for not doing your chores? Trials are how people grow. If everything went right in my life and there were no consequences for my poor choices, I wouldn't grow and I wouldn't appreciate what I had.

We have the power to be happy, no "horrible" God would give us that power. Those are examples of an intelligent God, not a horrible one. One who believes that personal responsibility goes with personal freedom, something more and more lacking in this country right now.

Now you're saying that God, who may or may not exist, punishes us if we or our relatives are bad. Gases us maybe and shoves us into ovens for our own good--to improve our character? This makes him good? Actually, if I were a God and wanted to be horrible, I would stir in a little happiness to make losing everything all the more dreadful.

There is no possible way to get what you said out of my analogy. None.

[Redskin in Canada]

24 pages of back and forward on theological questions on a Washington Redskins Board.

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh !!!

I thought this kind of thing happened only during the offseason.

My GOD!!!!

There, you have it. Proof that GOD exists (after all, people would not repeat His name as often if he didn't, right?).

Find another topic to kill your time with nothing else to do.

[UK Skins Fan]

24 pages of back and forward on theological questions on a Washington Redskins Board.

Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh !!!

I thought this kind of thing happened only during the offseason.

My GOD!!!!

There, you have it. Proof that GOD exists (after all, people would not repeat His name as often if he didn't, right?).

Find another topic to kill your time with nothing else to do.

Why?

[UK Skins Fan]

PS - Art Monk is in the hall now. We haven't got many big issues to deal with anymore.