Is There a God?

[The Realm of God]

You know that William of Ockham also spelt Occum was a scholastic theologian and one of founders Nominalism a school of theology. He also invented Occum's Razor.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham

[Of the Free Socialist Territories]

It rests on no assumptions at all. It rests on observed facts.

There seems to be an effort here to interweave science and atheism. Atheism is not science, and science is not atheistic. Atheism might use scientific methods to assert its belief, but atheism cannot simply be substantiated by "because science". How, for instance, is it an 'observed fact' that deities do no exist? One can hardly disprove a concept. Moreover, how is it observed fact that the universe can account for its own existence, when this is an assumption? How is the existence of multiple universes an observed fact, when it is in fact an assumption? How it is an observed fact that natural laws are constant, when this is an assumption? How can you say that the laws of physics hold true for all galaxies, when this is an assumption that is currently being challenged?

To quote that article: "The fundamental constants being constant is an assumption. We're here to test physics, not to assume it."

To also quote that article, "But, he adds, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: "That's way beyond what we have here." He says the statistical significance of the new observations is too small to prove that alpha is changing."

[North Suran]

Are you reading my posts at all?

I am, and I am astounded at how far you will bend back to blame the actions of the religious on their religious belief while exculpating those without religious belief. If you are an atheist, and you hate theists because you are an atheist, and you commit a crime against a theist because you are an atheist, then accountability rests with your atheist beliefs, not the theist beliefs of your victim.

Which definition are you going by? If you go by the traditional definition you're wrong:

If you go with the more general dentition you're still wrong.:

I believe I stated religion "requires communal worship." Which is the exact definition given by your dictionary. It would take some serious manipulation to assert otherwise.

No, it isn't..

If you wish to persist in your claim that atheism is not an opinion or a conviction, then you are welcome to it. It still is, however.

[Mavorpen]

There seems to be an effort here to interweave science and atheism.

There isn't.

Atheism is not science, and science is not atheistic.

No shit. I never said they were.

Atheism might use scientific methods to assert its belief, but atheism cannot simply be substantiated by "because science".

Atheism is not a belief, so how it can use something to assert its belief is beyond me.

How, for instance, is it an 'observed fact' that deities do no exist?

It is an observed fact that all religions make the same erroneous claims without relying on actual testing, empiricism, and repeatably as well as falsifiability.

One can hardly disprove a concept. Moreover, how is it observed fact that the universe can account for its own existence, when this is an assumption?

Nope.

How is the existence of multiple universes an observed fact, when it is in fact an assumption?

What the actual fuck? Who said this?

How it is an observed fact that natural laws are constant, when this is an assumption?

It actually depends on the law.

How can you say that the laws of physics hold true for all galaxies, when this is an assumption that is currently being challenged?

It being challenged makes it an assumption?

To quote that article: "The fundamental constants being constant is an assumption. We're here to test physics, not to assume it."

It's not an assumption if the observed facts stated so. You do realize this is how science works, right?

[Salandriagado]

It rests on no assumptions at all. It rests on observed facts.

There seems to be an effort here to interweave science and atheism. Atheism is not science, and science is not atheistic. Atheism might use scientific methods to assert its belief, but atheism cannot simply be substantiated by "because science". How, for instance, is it an 'observed fact' that deities do no exist? One can hardly disprove a concept. Moreover, how is it observed fact that the universe can account for its own existence, when this is an assumption? How is the existence of multiple universes an observed fact, when it is in fact an assumption? How it is an observed fact that natural laws are constant, when this is an assumption? How can you say that the laws of physics hold true for all galaxies, when this is an assumption that is currently being challenged?

To quote that article: "The fundamental constants being constant is an assumption. We're here to test physics, not to assume it."

Go and learn what "atheism" means. It does not assume that deities do not exist. It does not assume that the universe can account for its own existence. It does not assume that multiple universes exist. It does not assume that all "natural laws" (whatever the fuck that is supposed to mean) are constant. It does not assume that the "laws of physics" (whatever they fuck that is supposed to mean).

[North Suran]

To also quote that article, "But, he adds, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: "That's way beyond what we have here." He says the statistical significance of the new observations is too small to prove that alpha is changing."

Shortly followed by my quote, by Michael Murphy of Swinburne University. Hence why I said that assumption is being challenged, not that it is being conclusively overridden. Scientific opinion is based on consensus. These findings challenge that consensus. Just because they are not unanimously accepted does not mean that they are insignificant or disreputable.

[Leepaidamba]

How, for instance, is it an 'observed fact' that deities do no exist?

Well, in no current theories any deity plays a part. Thus, for all intents and purposes at least, none exists.

One can hardly disprove a concept.

If you let me choose a concept, I'll disprove it for you right now.

Moreover, how is it observed fact that the universe can account for its own existence, when this is an assumption?

Because we our current knowledge has come up with a way to account to the universe's existence involving only the universe.

How is the existence of multiple universes an observed fact, when it is in fact an assumption?

Multiple universe are not a necessity. The fine-tuning argument is total bunk.

How it is an observed fact that natural laws are constant, when this is an assumption?

Because we've observed them to be constant.

How can you say that the laws of physics hold true for all galaxies, when this is an assumption that is currently being challenged?

Because its our current understanding, which we'll revise if ever the concensus changes.

You know that William of Ockham also spelt Occum was a scholastic theologian and one of founders Nominalism a school of theology. He also invented Occum's Razor.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham

Lot's of religious people aided in the demise of their religion. Lots of others aided in keeping it up to date. Ockham is among the former, Mendell is among the latter.

[Mavorpen]

I am, and I am astounded at how far you will bend back to blame the actions of the religious on their religious belief while exculpating those without religious belief. If you are an atheist, and you hate theists because you are an atheist, and you commit a crime against a theist because you are an atheist, then accountability rests with your atheist beliefs, not the theist beliefs of your victim.

So you're not reading my posts...at all. I'm not exculpating anything. The person in question was Joseph Stalin, whose actions had nothing to do with Atheism. In 1943, he reinstituted the Russian Orthodox church. Why would he do that if he was an Atheist driven by his atheism to destroy religion? Reason: political power. You cannot hate theists because you are an atheist, because by definition that is antitheism. You would hate theists because of your antitheism.

Also, another major strawman is your inability to understand that I have never said the blame falls to religious beliefs. Let me emphasize again: nonreligious beliefs can be as dangerous as religious beliefs. Political beliefs can lead to heinous crimes like religious beliefs. I said that in Stalin's case, his reasons were nonreligious, and political. You're equating nonreligious with atheistic.

I believe I stated religion "requires communal worship." Which is the exact definition given by your dictionary. It would take some serious manipulation to assert otherwise.

That is not the exact definition. It says:

Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.

That is not communal worship. That is having actual belief systems.

If you wish to persist in your claim that atheism is not an opinion or a conviction, then you are welcome to it. It still is, however.

So basically, "no matter what you say, I'm right! So take that, atheist!"

[Mavorpen]

Shortly followed by my quote, by Michael Murphy of Swinburne University. Hence why I said that assumption is being challenged, not that it is being conclusively overridden. Scientific opinion is based on consensus. These findings challenge that consensus. Just because they are not unanimously accepted does not mean that they are insignificant or disreputable.

Except it wasn't an assumption in the first place if what we observed was the laws of the universe being uniform. That is how science works. We create a model of the universe and change it according to new observations.

[North Suran]

How is the existence of multiple universes an observed fact, when it is in fact an assumption?

What the actual fuck? Who said this?

You did:

No, they don't. Natural laws may vary between universes, however they hold true for all galaxies.

How, for instance, is it an 'observed fact' that deities do no exist?

Well, in no current theories any deity plays a part. Thus, for all intents and purposes at least, none exists.

The Big Bang theory has no atheist bent. It provides a model for the creation of the universe, but not a source. Theism can easily be inserted as an explanation in that theory, just as much as cosmological self-accountability.

Because its our current understanding, which we'll revise if ever the concensus changes.

If something is subject to change based on consensus, then it is not constant and infallible. As such, it would be ill-advised to treat physical laws as such, since what we term laws are rather our understanding of laws, which shifts and varies as new evidence comes to light and old assertions are discredited.

Lot's of religious people aided in the demise of their religion. Lots of others aided in keeping it up to date. Ockham is among the former, Mendell is among the latter.

This is what I mean about conflating atheism with science.

That is not the exact definition. It says:

Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values.

That is not communal worship. That is having actual belief systems.

A belief system can entail no more than communal worship, as your other definition - the one I responded to - describes. Holy books and hierarchy are not essential to religion.

If you wish to persist in your claim that atheism is not an opinion or a conviction, then you are welcome to it. It still is, however.

So basically, "no matter what you say, I'm right! So take that, atheist!"

Except that's not what I say, it is what the dictionary and common understanding say. Atheism is without a doubt an opinion. Any given thought is an opinion. It is a conviction that deities do not exist. And it is a belief. You can argue against the latter, but I literally cannot fathom how any one can claim that atheism is not an opinion.

[Leepaidamba]

Well, in no current theories any deity plays a part. Thus, for all intents and purposes at least, none exists.

The Big Bang theory has no atheist bent. It provides a model for the creation of the universe, but not a source. Theism can easily be inserted as an explanation in that theory, just as much as cosmological self-accountability.

Yes, theism can be added, but it's redundant as such. Thus science does not incorporate it and remains totally godless.

Because its our current understanding, which we'll revise if ever the concensus changes.

If something is subject to change based on consensus, then it is not constant and infallible. As such, it would be ill-advised to treat physical laws as such, since what we term laws are rather our understanding of laws, which shifts and varies as new evidence comes to light and old assertions are discredited.

Just because we review our understanding of the laws of nature constantly to reflect our newest finding doesn't mean the laws of nature are themselves not constant either. They are, by definition, because if they're not constant, they're not laws.

Lot's of religious people aided in the demise of their religion. Lots of others aided in keeping it up to date. Ockham is among the former, Mendell is among the latter.

This is what I mean about conflating atheism with science.

Mendell was a scientist, and yet not an atheist. I am not conflating the two, you are.

[Mavorpen]

You did:

No, they don't. Natural laws may vary between universes, however they hold true for all galaxies.

Oh, you took it out of context. That's fine.

The Big Bang theory has no atheist bent. It provides a model for the creation of the universe, but not a source. Theism can easily be inserted as an explanation in that theory, just as much as cosmological self-accountability.

Actually, no it can't, until a God has actual evidence in the first place.

If something is subject to change based on consensus, then it is not constant and infallible. As such, it would be ill-advised to treat physical laws as such, since what we term laws are rather our understanding of laws, which shifts and varies as new evidence comes to light and old assertions are discredited.

No one is treating physical laws as such. It seems you've resorted to making up arguments for us.

A belief system can entail no more than communal worship, as your other definition - the one I responded to - describes. Holy books and hierarchy are not essential to religion.

You might want to actually specify what you're talking about then. By the way, I actually didn't copy the whole definition I don't think.

religion Pronunciation: /rɪˈlɪdʒ(ə)n/
Translate religion into French | into German | into Italian | into Spanish
Definition of religion
noun
[mass noun]
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:
ideas about the relationship between science and religion
[count noun] a particular system of faith and worship:
the world’s great religions
[count noun] a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion:
consumerism is the new religion

Except that's not what I say, it is what the dictionary and common understanding say. Atheism is without a doubt an opinion. Any given thought is an opinion.

No. An opinion is a subjective belief. Facts are not beliefs. The fact that no deity has been empirically observed is not an opinion. Lack of belief is not an opinion in any sense of the word.

It is a conviction that deities do not exist. And it is a belief. You can argue against the latter, but I literally cannot fathom how any one can claim that atheism is not an opinion.

Except that's not what atheism means. Atheism means without God etymologically. It is a lack of belief, thus a lack of conviction, thus a lack of opinion as well. It is neither a view nor a judgement. It is lack of belief.

[DaWoad]

this is false. There's this thing called burden of proof which basically means that the person attempting to claim something exists has to prove it. It's why we don't go around assuming that there is a magical invisible unicorn with wish granting powers around each corner. You can't prove it's not there but you're also not going to believe

Except your not saying that my concept of a deity doesn't exist. Or that any single given deity exists. You are rejecting the existence - and the potential existence - of any deity or deities. And that is an independent belief. If I say "God exists", and you say "No", then you are simply contradicting me; if I say "I believe that there are deities", and you say "I believe that the concept of deities is wrong and unscientific", then that is an independent belief. Atheism is an independent belief. It is not simply a counter-point to Christianity.

No I am acting under the assumption that no deity exists in the same way that i act under the assumption that santa doesn't exist. I haven't once said " believe that the concept of deities is wrong and unscientific", what I am saying is "without proof I refuse to believe in your god". This is the same position I espouse on any subject with a objective answer. It's not a belief, it's the lack of one.

[Veladio]

Except your not saying that my concept of a deity doesn't exist. Or that any single given deity exists. You are rejecting the existence - and the potential existence - of any deity or deities. And that is an independent belief. If I say "God exists", and you say "No", then you are simply contradicting me; if I say "I believe that there are deities", and you say "I believe that the concept of deities is wrong and unscientific", then that is an independent belief. Atheism is an independent belief. It is not simply a counter-point to Christianity.

No I am acting under the assumption that no deity exists in the same way that i act under the assumption that santa doesn't exist. I haven't once said " believe that the concept of deities is wrong and unscientific", what I am saying is "without proof I refuse to believe in your god". This is the same position I espouse on any subject with a objective answer. It's not a belief, it's the lack of one.

^ I cannot fathom how the above post is apparently so hard for some people to understand.

[Person012345]

Yes there is a God and Jesus! Where do you think you go when you die?!

Where do animals go when they die?

[Chinese Regions]

Yes there is a God and Jesus! Where do you think you go when you die?!

The underworld, reincarnated, Vallhalla, Heaven, Hell? I never heard you going inside god and/or jesus when you die, that would be very strange.
I don't doubt Jesus's existence, his mystical properties/abilities and even his depiction as a blonde haired blue eyed person on the other hand.

[Nordengrund]

I am a devout Christian and think all the Christian groups with the possible exception of Jehova Witnesses are going to Heaven. I prefer the Southern Baptist denomination because they match my beliefs the best. I respect all other divisions and denominations though I do find the Mormons and JW's strange but nice people. I also prefer to not have anything to do with the Orthodox.

[Veladio]

I am a devout Christian and think all the Christian groups with the possible exception of Jehova Witnesses are going to Heaven ¹. I prefer the Southern Baptist denomination because they match my beliefs the best. I respect all other divisions and denominations though I do find the Mormons and JW's strange but nice people. I also prefer to not have anything to do with the Orthodox.²

1. Why? They believe in Christ.
2. Why?

[Nordengrund]

I am a devout Christian and think all the Christian groups with the possible exception of Jehova Witnesses are going to Heaven ¹. I prefer the Southern Baptist denomination because they match my beliefs the best. I respect all other divisions and denominations though I do find the Mormons and JW's strange but nice people. I also prefer to not have anything to do with the Orthodox.²

1. Why? They believe in Christ.
2. Why?

1) They are polytheist, but I do not condemn or judge them

2) They do not tolerate my beliefs.

[Grand Britannia]

Could you explain to me how Jehovah's Witnesses are polytheist?

[The Realm of God]

1. Why? They believe in Christ.
2. Why?

1) They are polytheist, but I do not condemn or judge them

2) They do not tolerate my beliefs.

We tolerate you, we just don't accept 'Sola Scripta' as valid

[Veladio]

1. Why? They believe in Christ.
2. Why?

1) They are polytheist, but I do not condemn or judge them

2) They do not tolerate my beliefs.

1. Actually the reject the trinity. It seems they are the closest to monotheistic than other Christian denominations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jehovah%27s_Witnesses#Sources_of_doctrine
2. Fair enough.

[Nordengrund]

Could you explain to me how Jehovah's Witnesses are polytheist?

Most Christians believe in only one God. Actually all Christians believe in one God except the Witnesses. They believe that the Holy Trinity is three different gods instead of one God. Even their bible says: "In the beginning was the Word. The word was with God, and the Word was a God"

[Veladio]

Could you explain to me how Jehovah's Witnesses are polytheist?

Most Christians believe in only one God. Actually all Christians believe in one God except the Witnesses. They believe that the Holy Trinity is three different gods instead of one God. Even their bible says: "In the beginning was the Word. The word was with God, and the Word was a God"

From the wiki article, "They believe that Jehovah is the only true God"

[Grand Britannia]

Could you explain to me how Jehovah's Witnesses are polytheist?

Most Christians believe in only one God. Actually all Christians believe in one God except the Witnesses. They believe that the Holy Trinity is three different gods instead of one God. Even their bible says: "In the beginning was the Word. The word was with God, and the Word was a God"

Can't recall seeing any of that back in my days as a Jehovah's Witness.