coffeesippin

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

It is a commandment of the Catholic church my  friend, from memory as a former good Catholic boy, the third. Yes, I most certainly reject the paranormal and supernatural, as having absolutely no empirical evidence to support either, and as being unscientific myth.

Then why do many Catholics including people I have coffee with often at a cafe go to church tonight for mass?  Saturday is, as you know, certainly not Sunday.   I've never been Catholic, attended mass with friends twice, but I'm not Protestant either.    Have you always believed in Non Locality?  Where you ever aligned with those who considered Non Locality supernatural, pseudo science, myth, etc?  If so, when did you stop believing in Non Locality as supernatural?  Discovering Non Locality was real was a real revolution in scientific thought, and very recent.  Five years ago it was still considered supernatural by many who think themselves scientific.

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Strange said he didn't believe in a god or gods of any sort.

You said you believe in on particular god.

I didn't say what I believe in so you have no basis for attempting to link me to the above statement.

 

In any case the original poster posed the following question which has been answered in the negative

 

since at least one member here has stated they do not believe in any sort of god.

 

Remember this is a Philosophy section of the forum.

As I said, Preaching is not even allowed in the Religion section, it must be discussed intellectual and academic terms.

You did not read the meanings of the word preaching, Studiot.  I'll include one of the meanings again:  

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

I said "gods" not "God"

"I don't belief in gods (yours or anyone else's) there for atheism is not dead."    My God is God .. there are no others.  So, are you professing you belief in God?   

22 minutes ago, beecee said:

 No where near the facts that philosophical banter actually lacks.

Not sure if one can believe what you say, particularly as you have given no reputable references, still, as I said, convention actually holds true in my opinion, and many, probably the vast majority, adhere in name only...eg: How many christians go to church on a Sunday...afterall that is one of the ten commandments...how many christians continue to lie through their teeth?

Of course there is....I for one, accept science and the scientific method because of the questions it has obviously answered, as well as the good it has done for mankind in general, despite your denial of those facts.

Those are not really scientific questions although at least in one case science does offer evidence in agreement. 

sadly for you, who is ignorant of the basics of science, you simply attempt to practise your philosophy on others. As I said, I don't hold to the terms atheists, agnostics, or theists, rather I follow the observations, experimental successes and sensibility of the scientific method in rejecting that which is supernatural, paranormal as totally unscientific. 

"Not sure if one can believe what you say, particularly as you have given no reputable references,"   And what references have YOU given, Beecee, to your claims of Christians lying through their teeth which is quite a statement indeed, of not going to church on Sunday (which is not a commandment by the way rather all believers of all faiths are encouraged to get together for their own enjoyment and benefit with certain days sometimes being offered as good times to enjoy their own company) what is the substantiation of anything you say for instance, that you follow observations rejecting the paranormal and supernatural .. so you reject the reality of non-locality which has been demonstrated clearly, a non-locality that Einstein called 'Spooky,' or is 'Spooky' not supernatural and paranormal enough for you? 

10 minutes ago, studiot said:

So you admit to preaching?

As far as I am aware that contravenes forum rules.

Those who profess science proves there is no God are preaching, Studiot, according to the meaning of the word preaching.

• publicly proclaim or teach (a religious message or belief).

  "a church that preaches the good news"

  synonyms:

  proclaim, teach, spread, propagate, expound "he preached the gospel to them"

• earnestly advocate (a belief or course of action).

  "my parents have always preached toleration and moderation"

  synonyms:

  advocate, recommend, advise, urge, teach, counsel "they preach toleration"

9 minutes ago, mistermack said:

How many would be believers without being indoctrinated as little children? It's nothing to take pride in when it's the result of the abuse of immature minds. 

My conversion had nothing to do with childhood upbringing except that I had respect for law and the right of others' existence.   Who are you to say bringing up a child in a moral way like Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Confucius, etc is abuse of immature minds.  I am certain ALL of those belief systems let the child know they cannot stand behind their parents skirts or trousers, but must find God or truth on their own, that their upbringing is a first step in that process.  Now you may say 'Oh those idiot Born Againers' but that's what Christianity teaches .. that being born to parents is a first step .. that a person must be born of God.  Yes I know T.V. makes a mockery of God and Born Againers, but you have to get beyond T.V. Mack.

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

START ANOTHER THREAD IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THIS 

You're the one who brings it up .. you said you believe in verifiables .. you start the thread.  I'll jump in.

4 minutes ago, studiot said:

How has this thread turned from a discussion about Aetheism, (which could be conducted without a single reference to Big G), to a discussion about Big G?

And why all the preaching?

Amen!  I suggested closing the thread because Strange answered the question by saying he does not believe in God .. but he suggested the thread would continue.   The preaching arises because the question concerns God.  The discussion on BB arises from people saying science proves there IS no God, which isn't the question, but whether Atheism is dead.   Yes, wandering widely indeed, but seemingly all connected and logical.  However, as the answer HAS been answered, Atheism is NOT dead, why not close the topic and open topics for question raised in the topic.  Phew.

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

That's not pride. It is based on verifiable facts. 

Verifiable?  Like the Big Bang, Black Holes, Dark Matter?  Those are ideas still under examination necessary for lack of evidence.  Do you believe in Black Holes or Black Stars or another variation?  Dark Matter or Modified Gravity?  Big Bang or cosmic seeding of quantum fluctuation?  Outside of Consensus every idea is idiotic to the Consensus.

7 minutes ago, Strange said:

But if your god can change its mind once what's to say it won't change it again and go back to being cruel and vindictive?

I don't belief in gods (yours or anyone else's) there for atheism is not dead. 

I'm quite happy to ask the mod to close this but, so far, it has been reasonably polite etc so it probably wouldn't be. 

The beginning and the end has been written, there will be no revisions.        But God was never cruel, he was merely a judge with authority and responsibility.  'And God said to Noah, the earth was filled with violence through man ... and I will destroy them.'   Drowning is far more merciful than the firebombings carried out for the sake of the English speaking empires in WW2 which were not judgments of God but greed of man.  (Put up thy sword.)    If you want cruelty, just look at the U.S. news concerning maniacs with guns.   

6 minutes ago, Zosimus said:

It is rare to see a post so devoid of any semblance of fact.

Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world followed closely by Christianity. By 2050, the number of Muslims and Christians will be the same. By way of comparison, only 9 percent of the US population disbelieves in God and only 3 percent are atheists. Even then, 8 percent of atheists believe in God, and 2 percent of atheists are certain that God exists.

There is no correlation between the rise of the scientific method and general rejection of God — and with good reason. Science is incapable of answering the questions that concern people. Questions such as whether abortion should be legal, whether gay marriage should be acceptable, or whether Honduran immigrants should be allowed to petition for asylum in the US simply cannot be answered by science.

Sadly for you, a person who carries only a hammer sees everything as a nail to be pounded.

8% of atheists cannot believe in God because atheism is the disbelief in God .. so 2%of atheists cannot be certain that God exists. 

Just now, beecee said:

Except it is religion and ID mythical beliefs that are close to death, rather then atheism, although as I have said, most probably held onto in name only, and that inner fear in some, of eternal damnation.

Those things are not the topic of discussion.  the death of Atheism is the topic.  And you are wrong in your statement, religions are flourishing, whether that is good or bad is another question and would take months of discussion.  Some of those old established denominations are approaching death, but that is not religion in general.  Mythical beliefs have nothing to do with Atheism except truths to a believer are called myths by the unbeliever.  If you fear eternal damnation, believe in Jesus, for he died for not only your sins but the sins of the whole world, as those old books in the bible say. 

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

All science is speculation until shown otherwise. That is the greatest benefit of science and the scientific method.

Amen!

1 minute ago, mistermack said:

To be honest, coffeesippin, your mix preaching and throwing in big words is becoming ridiculous. 

I can't see how it can be classed as science of philosophy. Both supposedly work from evidence. Not scribblings from old books from the iron age, or imaginary lights in the sky. If you want to debate with people here in an honest way, why not try doing so from a factual basis?

Mack .. the topic we are discussing is Is Atheism Dead.  Are you going to discuss or simply hurl accusations of dishonesty?  A factual basis for Is Atheism Dead can be presented by one person saying, "I do not believe in God."  That would prove that Atheism is NOT dead, and would be the end of the discussion.  Perhaps you would like to say you do not believe in God, and so Atheism is not dead, and suggest the moderator close the topic?

2 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Why do bunnies keep dogs?

 

To keep Elmer Fudd and his shotgun away?

9 minutes ago, beecee said:

It's totally true though. Perhaps you need to check out the speculative sections and of course trash. Plus of course many simply like to attempt to trash science or some aspect of it, as a crusade type of endeavour against the sciences in general, because it has pushed the need for any deity back into near oblivion. The fear of the unknown, the fear of the myth of eternal damnation is strong.

Eternal damnation is done away with by the scripture I included here .. "... saviour of all men, especially of those who believe."   All science is speculation.  "Man will never fly .. man will never walk on the moon."  Those were solid affirmations of 'truth' by respectable scientists.  But lunatics like Jules Verne were not trying to destroy their foundation of belief .. only build on a foundation of science.

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

There is no such thing. You may be thinking of inflation but that is hypothesised for a completely different reason. 

This is off topic so if you want to discuss it further, start a new thread 

Yes, Inflation, sorry, my aging memory and all that.  Last word.

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I just now asked God for a sign and my dog licked herself. I wasn't sure that was how God would present himself to me so I asked for another sign, and my OTHER dog licked herself. If that isn't proof of God I don't know what is.

I hope you're on your knees giving thanks.  

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

But you just said this...."The evidence for Big Bang became immediately so tenuous that a fabrication had to be thrown in .. Expansion, the only evidence for Expansion being the need for it. 

The evidence for the BB rests on four major cosmological pillars;

[1] The observed expansion.[not fabricated] 

[2] The CMBR at 2.7K.

[3] The abundance of the lighter elements.

[4] Galactic formation and large scale structure.

 

The rest is simply coincidence, nothing more, nothing less. If any mythical god would like to prove himself, he would logically do it for the world....not one isolated individual....something like making every person on Earth, suddenly defy gravity and float in the air. If that happened with some voice from the clouds announcing such a momentous event, I would humbly get down on my knees in adoration.

     The Expansion I referred to was the period of rapid expansion inserted into the original theory after measurements showed the universe was larger than it should have been, which is why I added the capital 'E' to Expansion (at least I hope I did.)  Yes, the universe appears to be expanding, and at an increasing rate which in one scenario leads to The Big Rip described in the book of Peter, with the 'elements flying apart'  the atomic structure itself exploding as the Rip says it will.  Regarding the Big Bang, if you put a little gasoline on water, you will also see that kind of expansion, with no explosion of Big Bang.  I see that as a possibility after a seeding of quantum fluctuation.  But we are straying from the topic, I hope forgiveness rules the mods.  

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

What pride? I said nothing about myself, just the deluded people who post silly ideas on science forums. That is a statement of fact so, again, I don't know where you think pride comes into it. 

Your pride tells you that you know so much that the other ideas are silly.  

1 minute ago, Strange said:

The only place I see "science" like that is when crackpots post their "theories" on forums like this. 

I'm disappointed at that statement, Strange.  I hoped you were beyond that kind of pride.  

2 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Why people tell lies isn't always logical. Your question could have a multitude of answers. Including self delusion. Lying to yourself is still lying. Probably one of the commonest. Why would people lie to themselves? I don't know, but they do. 

Most lies, in my experience, come from fear or desire for gain.  I have nothing to fear here, nothing to gain.  

Just now, Strange said:

There are no fabrications and a large amount of solid evidence. It is a bit silly to make up objections like this. 

Meteors are common especially at certain times. If you see one, you are quite likely to see another soon after from the same source and on the same course   

These two were completely isolated.  I had been watching the sky for quite a while, lying on my back in my sleeping bag.  I watched the sky for quite a while after.  It was not a shower, and of course I've seen showers.  They were also very large, and you know how rare they are.  But of course you have only my word for these things.  A word from which I have nothing to gain.

9 minutes ago, beecee said:

Some science by necessity is speculative. That is the step before it advances to theory status, the highest rung on the ladder for science. eg:  https://www.astrosociety.org/publication/a-universe-from-nothing/ but this is off topic I think so perhaps if you are inclined, start another thread?

 

I wasn't attempting to interject scientific discussion, only to clarify my position in this discussion, that my belief in God is not because of an unbelief in science.  All of the sciences though, in my knowledge, act as evidence for God, and increase my fascination with science, and my desire to explore science increases.

5 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Pack of lies.

An honest and flatly stated opinion.  But what would be the benefit to me of making such lies, unless I wanted to be seen as a liar and a crackpot?   I'm not paid to preach God.  I'm 71 years old having no need of income other than my Seniors' pension which did not come from preaching God.  Why, Mistermack, do you think I would tell such a whopper .. a tale that would require a far greater imagination than I have seen in almost any tale of fictional adventure.  

1 minute ago, beecee said:

Perhaps more correctly the person who believes in god is just not aware of the evidence that is available to show that perhaps this god is just not needed and is superfluous as all the stuff he was supposed to have done, can be explain with supporting evidence by science, and perhaps the person who does not believe in god, is just aware of this evidence that shows him/her/it as unnecessary and superfluous. And finally perhaps the majority that claim ID  status, as opposed to being atheist and/or agnostic, are more driven by fear and convention to maintain a semblance of that belief.

I believe in pure science that seeks answers rather than false science which claims to have the answer, I have believe in that science since my childhood microscope and the nickname given to be by my friends Sputnick because of my interest what I now call cosmology.   I have only stopped denying God's existence since riding atop a pile of lumber on a freight train through the Rocky Mountains on a cloudless night at or near midnight 41 years ago when I asked, "God, if you're real and you're up there give me a sign.'  And a cosmological sign, a huge meteorite flashed across the sky, and my heart and mind changed to belief.  About 20 minutes later though doubt entered,  and I asked, "God, if you're real, and you're up there, do it again."  I asked for the exact same sign, knowing the mathematical improbability of that sign.  It seemed the SAME meteorite flashed across the sky, the same brightness, the same length of travel.   Now I know that God CAN do that by an act of creation, or because scripture says he can guide our thoughts, he could have caused me to ask for that same sign, with the meteorite on its way in his good time.  It's not important to me which method he used.

14 minutes ago, Strange said:

While I would share your concern with an extreme reaction to someone denying the big bang model, there is a difference : there is evidence for the big bang model so belief doesn't come into our ; there is no evidence for gods so that is purely a matter of belief. 

The evidence for Big Bang became immediately so tenuous that a fabrication had to be thrown in .. Expansion, the only evidence for Expansion being the need for it.  For evidence of God you can read my post on my freight train hopping, and suspect I'm either fabricating, which I'm not, or had experienced coincidence, but you will have to admit the coincidence was mathematically challenged.

A biblical example .. "And straightway the father of the child cried out, and said with tears, Lord, I believe; help thou mine unbelief."

7 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Also, I think there's a difference between saying I don't believe something, and I disbelieve something. 

The first to me just means that you don't positively believe something. It doesn't mean you've discounted the possibility.

Reaction to the comments "I don't believe something" or "I disbelieve something" is much more important than the statement.   If someone says, "I don't believe in the Big Bang," and he is cast out as intellectually limited and not worthy of consideration, then those casting him out are condemning themselves to disbelief in the possibility that perhaps there WAS no big bang.  Same with someone saying, "I don't believe in God"  or for that matter "I believe in God."   Perhaps the person saying "I believe in God" is deceived, and the person who says, "I don't believe in God" is deceived, perhaps the latter person DOES believe in God but isn't intellectually aware of God, but DOES believe in love, which is what God is.

12 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

Here I am.

That short statement could open up a few days or years discussion among bible believers and disbelievers .. not all critical or condemning of your statement.   However, that discussion would take away from the topic 'is atheism dead.'     

The old testament is for those who are under the law with its curses on lawbreakers.  The new says "He who is without sin cast the first stone."

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

That has been said about many people but I but you can't provide any evidence. 

Except when saying an eye for an eye, or condemning people to eternal torment. Your god is also a cruel and jealous god

You included me? How sweet

 

If thou judgest thyself to be such a fortunate man that pride does not blind you you must be a happy man, I hope your judgement is true.    "Eye for eye" was under the Mosaic law, and men were so violent in that day that that same law also commanded them to no longer eat raw meat, but to cook it first.  The new law which came after man had been somewhat open to non violence through the law (for penalty under law does inhibit violence) is the law of the spirit of love which says, "For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe."  1 Timothy 4:10     That same Spirit in that same book says, "Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."   Mathew 26:54      It's no wonder so many people DON'T believe in God, with so many in imperialist pulpits preaching for war (resulting in the promotion of their own personal imperial empire.)

7 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Sounds like you are at a pulpit.

At this time I'll consider that a compliment, though at other times I'd consider it an insult, but as I mature I have to see the people at formal government approved pulpits as mere imperfect humans.  I consider myself ordained by belief in God who is love, and the Word in the KJV to have a duty and pleasure to preach, but my ordination is not of man, and pulling the pin on a grenade is something I preach against.   

Just now, Strange said:

This is obviously not true. I know at least one person who doesn't think like that. 

I included that person in my statement that it is whether or not we bow down and worship pride or not that either blinds our minds or enables us to think freely.   

A person may say, "I do not believe in God."  That same person is not saying, "I will never believe in God."  Stephen Hawking seems to have necessitated for himself his own formal unbelief in God, and therefore of judgement, when he rejected his wife, who had so lovingly and continuously dedicated herself to him that she not only saved his life, but enabled him to become the scientist he was.  It's sad that he formally restated that position shortly before he passed on to meet him.  Oh well, surprises happen.   And God is merciful.