Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by doG


    Well if you are right in that time and matter existed for eternity, how do we get over the entropy barrier etc in an eternal reality?


    Imagine the possibility that the observable universe is but a subset of a larger universe beyond our observation capability wherein the observable universe was simply a redistribution of matter that had collapsed in that larger universe, perhaps through a big crunch, and gone through an event we refer to as the big bang. The observable universe may appear to us as a closed system even though it could actually be part of a larger system, a system which could possibly be infinite.


    I am hesitant to conclude that all we are able to see is all there is simply because it is all we can see. Draw no conclusions before their time.

  2. I suppose Evolution makes sense, up to a certain point. You can see that hydrogen atoms might combine with atoms of other elements, to make molecules of simple chemicals. And these simple chemicals might then interact with each other, and "evolve" into more complex chemicals. But,how far can this process go?



    You need to study a bit more on star formation, supernovea and heavy elements. Stellar fusion of hydrogen and subsequent elements is where all of the elements heavier than oxygen come from. As a carbon based lifeform you are mostly composed of stardust.


    do we not all believe in some form of creation??


    No actually. I believe time and matter have existed for eternity. Why believe everything or anything came from nothing?


    ...a science based forum should not have a sub-forum on religion all it does is spread discord among the members.



    I tend to disagree. Theists across the web seek out science forums to argue their case. A subforum here is a place to keep it all in one place and out of the mainstream discussion of science topics. It also offers the opportunity to expose these people to skepticism.


    In my opinion it is OK to some extent if someone wants to and chooses to believe in some higher being but it also important for them to understand that they should question what they are told by others. So many believe for no other reason other than that is what they were told when they were raised. Many were also told(taught) that their belief or faith includes a certain amount of intolerance and hatred of the beliefs of others. This is a disease on society itself and needs to be dealt with through education, particularly the philosophy of science and the scientific method. There is nothing wrong with questioning what we are taught but blind faith can be quite a dangerous thing and everyone should truly understand that it is not a reason to believe in anything. The people who seek out discussions here will not learn that at any of the religious forums they might patronize, only places like these where some of us will engage them.


    Then why the heck are you part of this debate? No one can comprehend an infinite entity not you or I, you asked for a definition I gave it and promptly dismissed it! No matter what definition I give you, you will always respond in the same manner, I never said my definition was correct or any other persons wrong because they differ from it


    And what proof of this alleged infinite entity can you show? It's dishonest to ask others to believe in something there is no evidence for.


    You were saying?


    And saying that all those who don't affirm their belief in a deity makes them automatically atheist is incorrect. There are those who has not decided their position on whether or not there is a god. Those people are referred to as "agnostic".

    Agnostics are the middle ground between theists and atheists. They are the ones who are "on the fence".


    Having done this so many times before I'm going to simply quote these posts from the past:


    Your definitions and understanding of these terms is flawed.


    Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claims—is unknown or unknowable. It's about knowledge, not theism. Agnosticism is NOT a point on the axis of theism for fence sitters that don't know if they believe in deities or not.


    Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Basically theists have an affirmative belief that at least one deity exists. Anyone that lacks that belief is atheist or not-theist. It does not mean that they have an affirmative belief that there are no deities or that they are not possible.


    Anyone that believes that man can never know the absolute truth is agnostic regardless of their belief, or lack thereof, in deities. Anyone that lacks an affirmative belief that one or more deities exist is atheist. I fit both of these conditions so I am an example of an agnostic atheist. Someone which claims to 'know' there are no deities is gnostic atheist, sometimes referred to as a strong atheist. Anyone that claims to 'know' there is a god is a gnostic theist. Those that believe in one or more gods but also believe man could never absolutely know for sure are agnostic theists.




    Not to derail the thread in semantic debate, but atheism and agnosticism have different academic and non-academic meanings (kinda like the way "theory" in science and "theory" in informal discussions with your friends have two totally different meanings). Academically speaking, certainty has nothing to do with being an atheist. Atheism and theism have to do with what you believe, whether the number of gods you believe in is greater than zero; agnosticism has to do with what you think you can know, such as whether you think the nature of God is fundamentally knowable through logic or science.


    People can be agnostic atheists (those who dont believe in any gods, but also say that concepts of gods arent subject to rational discourse), or gnostic atheists (those who dont believe in any gods, and believe that gods existence can be examined by philosophical arguments or scientific evidence), or agnostic theists (usually deists who believe in a god who has no other definable attributes), or gnostic theists (which make up the majority of theists, those who believe God is knowable through philosophy, science, or revelation).


    Talking about certainty is totally different, its a concept seperate from a/theism and a/gnosticism. A person can be a weakly agnostic atheist (apathetic to god questions), or a strongly gnostic theist (fundies), or any other mix. So there are 3 axes of belief:

    1) atheism / theism axis

    2) agnosticism / gnosticism axis

    3) certainty / doubt


    A lot of websites like to say "there are no such things as atheists, because they cant be absolutely certain without being god themselves, so they are agnostics", which is pretty absurd because even if it were true, all of those agnostics can count the number of gods they worship on no hands.


    and from the etymology of the word atheist:


    atheist (n.) dictionary.gif 1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see Thea).


    Notice the a- is simply a not modifier, therefore a-theist simply means not theist in the same way that a-synchronous simply means not-synchronous.

  7. But because religion doesn't necessarily involve belief in gods, then that explains why atheists can also be considered religious.


    Correction: because some religions don't necessarily involve belief in gods, then that explains why some atheists can also be considered religious.


    And by it's very definition, Atheism is the disbelief in a deity.


    FALSE!!! Atheism is the lack of belief in deities. It does not require that you believe there are no deities. The term atheist literally means not-theist, nothing more. There are people who have an affirmative belief that there are in fact deities and they are theist, everyone else is atheist, i.e. not-theist because they are not in the group that believe in deities. They do not have to believe there are no deities, they only need to lack belief that there are. Bottom line: you believe that the existence of one or more deities is a fact or you are atheist.

  8. The degree to which they identify as atheist is of importance. Those who feel more strongly about there being no god will defend that viewpoint that much more vehemently. Those who aren't concerned about it will shrug it off and move onto the next topic. This also applies to whether or not a person perceives a comment as being offensive or discriminatory.

    I tend to disagree with that. I consider myself a 6 on Dawkins scale of theistic probability, a De facto atheist. I don't particularly argue that viewpoint with theists though, I let them believe what they want even if I disagree with it. If they challenge my viewpoint I give them my reasons for not believing as I do. I really don't much care if they agree with me. Many do agree that my position is valid, that it is they that have leapt to an unsupported conclusion on deities.

  9. I'm not saying this is true of all atheists, but it still gives a good feel of how a portion of that community acts.

    but that right there is key. There's not just a portion of Christians that believe in Christ and his teachings, it's all of them. There's more than just a portion of Islam that believes in and follows the Koran. The same is not true of atheists. They only have one thing in common, they lack belief in deities. No other beliefs, values, morals, ethics, etc. can be said to be true for all atheists. It is not a belief system or a culture. It involves zero worship. It is not religious. There are some atheists that are militant over their lack of belief but that does not make them religious, it makes them militant. There is no need to blur the meaning of the word religion over this. As it stands when one refers to someone as religious it implies a belief in one or more gods. Once you include atheists then the meaning of religion becomes meaningless. This defeats the purpose of having words like 'religion' in the language at all when you redefine them and take away the clarity that exists in the language.

  10. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.


    this is the definition.

    Yes, that is the definition of religion but atheists lack belief of any a superhuman controlling power or a personal God or gods. Now can you see why atheism is not a religion?

  11. I am not trolling. I think it's pretty simple stuff. We have conflicting opinions, but I think...


    Yes, it is pretty simple.


    Merriam-Webster says:



    : the belief in a god or in a group of gods

    : an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods

    : an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group




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


    Unless you rewrite the dictionary to mean what you want then your assertion is incorrect. Just because you want the word religion to mean what you want does not make it so.

  12. What if I attach two 120v american cord plugs into the 240v hand blender, would this work? A "Y" type design cord with two 120v cords feeding into the 240v hand blender and the two 120v plugs into the two wall sockets.

    If you happened to use two wall sockets that are on different phase legs then you could get 240 but that's a poor approach. Is your intent to try to run the german blender in the U.S.? If so you need to look at the blender motor for it's operating frequency. I suspect it's 50hz and U.S. power systems operate at 60 hz. This means the blender will run about 20% faster than the speed it is designed for.

  13. If it works for England, France, and Germany, then it should be able to work for the USA.


    Other countries have shown that successful implementations are possible but I'm not convinced the U.S. has chosen a method of implementation that will be successful. As far as I know the current attempt to implement a system is not a tried and true method from other nations that have been successful.

  14. At first glance it resembles a King Cobra and they do get over 18 feet long so it could be real.


    At another glance I see it could also be a reticulated python, but the color is off a little, or a male burmese python. It would help to know where the picture was taken.

  15. Perpetual motion in a closed system is impossible.

    Small nitpick. Newton's first law of motion implies that all motion is perpetual until acted on by an outside force. IMO, a more accurate statement is that free energy is impossible.

  16. Did you guys vote?

    from the looks of the responses everyone but kindheart seems to think we are not at all overpopulated. But the poll says everyone agrees with me that we are already over populated. confused.gif


    I thought my previous post implied I believe we are over populated but I'll state it explicitly here.

  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.