10-10-2004 03:01									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Only cuz you aren't smart enough to figure out an anagram.

I am afraid that isn't it.

The anagram is just too stupid.

Wrong anagram, wrong time, wrong place.

-Drachasor

	10-10-2004 03:07									#32
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer it should be noted that religious people tend to be poorer and therefore not exposed to as much education...

sometimes, those exposed to education still end up stupid

	10-10-2004 03:08									#33
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller it was really unintelligent to be an atheist in the 1920s so therefore in general intelligent are more sure of themselves and don't want to beleive in a god the bible says something about this (something like the foolishness of God s better than the wisdom of man) Jon Miller

This is a misrepresentation.

It was unwise to publically declare yourself an atheist in the 1920s, that doesn't mean you were stupid if you were an atheist.

Heck, it isn't entirely wise to publically declare yourself an atheist these days. More Americans would vote for a Muslim candidate for President than they would for an Atheist one (The Muslim is about at 50%, and the Atheist is at 40%--the question in the survery was roughly "If a candidate has _____ belief, and you agreed with their policies, would you vote for them?").

America is a very religious country, and most people don't see it because they are religious. The people that see it best are atheists, agnostics, and immigrants (generally speaking).

Of course, Europe is much better about accepting atheism.

-Drachasor

	10-10-2004 03:24									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

no, there was no alternate, scientific explantation of the universe that didn't envolve a god

therefor it was unintelligent to be an atheist in 1920s

Jon Miller

	10-10-2004 03:26									#35
	Put an end to popups!

There is no scientific explanation of the cause of the universe now, beyond the assertion that there is no cause.

	10-10-2004 03:27									#36
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I thought hawkings bowl shaped theory worked

although I admit that I am not too interested in that area

JM

	10-10-2004 03:29									#37
	Increase Your PM Length

if what you say is true now, than it is unintelligent to be an athiest now

the only intelligent thing to be is an agnostic

JM

	10-10-2004 03:30									#38
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller no, there was no alternate, scientific explantation of the universe that didn't envolve a god therefor it was unintelligent to be an atheist in 1920s

Untrue. Just because I can't explain how the universe came into being doesn't mean that therefore the only intelligent conclusion is to believe in a diety.

	10-10-2004 03:30									#39
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller if what you say is true now, than it is unintelligent to be an athiest now the only intelligent thing to be is an agnostic JM

Occam's razor deals with that nicely.

	10-10-2004 03:32									#40
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

no it doesn't

and occams razor is ****

(and to Che, no, but it does make beleiving there is no deity to be unintelligent)

JM

	10-10-2004 03:37									#41
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Two ways to deal with it:

To demand a creator would demand a creator of that creator, ad infinitum. That's just stupid.

We only believe that one event causes another by the repeated conjoining of those two events. Since we cannot observe even any potential creator except through the supposed effect, the universe, we can only assign that creator exactly the power to cause the observed universe, no more. Since this is meaningless, we can safely say there is no creator.

	10-10-2004 03:42									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller no it doesn't and occams razor is **** (and to Che, no, but it does make beleiving there is no deity to be unintelligent) JM

Yes it does.

And agnostiscism, technically speaking, is a type of atheist.

An atheist is someone that isn't a theist. Agnostics aren't theists. Typically the term "agnostic" is used by people to try to soften the blow of them being atheists (not always the case, but often).

And Occam's razor is a very valid principle. The idea that you should use the simplist explanation possible is a very good one.

Anyhow, requiring god to explain the origin of the universe works like this:

1. God is sitting around and suddenly decides to make a universe.

2. Universe comes out of seeming nothingness.

This can be simplified by one step: Remove God.

Proposing god doesn't explain anything better. Afterall, where did God come from and what is your evidence for that origin? All it does is move the problem from the origin of the universe to the origin of god. You still have the same problem essentially.

Being an atheist does not require that you can explain everything in terms of science. It is perfectly acceptable to not have explanations, afterall there are many things that cannot be fully explained with theory *and* evidence by anyone.

-Drachasor

	10-10-2004 03:44									#43
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Two ways to deal with it: To demand a creator would demand a creator of that creator, ad infinitum. That's just stupid. We only believe that one event causes another by the repeated conjoining of those two events. Since we cannot observe even any potential creator except through the supposed effect, the universe, we can only assign that creator exactly the power to cause the observed universe, no more. Since this is meaningless, we can safely say there is no creator.

no, because a creator/supernatural event is not bound by physics

you can't say the same abotu physics because than you lose one of the basic assumptions of physics

Jon Miller

	10-10-2004 03:46									#44
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Drachasor Yes it does. And agnostiscism, technically speaking, is a type of atheist. An atheist is someone that isn't a theist. Agnostics aren't theists. Typically the term "agnostic" is used by people to try to soften the blow of them being atheists (not always the case, but often). And Occam's razor is a very valid principle. The idea that you should use the simplist explanation possible is a very good one. Anyhow, requiring god to explain the origin of the universe works like this: 1. God is sitting around and suddenly decides to make a universe. 2. Universe comes out of seeming nothingness. This can be simplified by one step: Remove God. Proposing god doesn't explain anything better. Afterall, where did God come from and what is your evidence for that origin? All it does is move the problem from the origin of the universe to the origin of god. You still have the same problem essentially. Being an atheist does not require that you can explain everything in terms of science. It is perfectly acceptable to not have explanations, afterall there are many things that cannot be fully explained with theory *and* evidence by anyone. -Drachasor

agnostics admit they don't know, even now the only intelligent choice

I actually do thing that it is stupid to be an athiest (whlie it is not stupid to be a theist) if there is no explanation for the creation of the universe (and no exaplanation appears possible)

JOn Miller

	10-10-2004 03:47									#45
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

OCcam's Razor is well known to me, doesn't stop it from being **** most the time

Jon Miller

	10-10-2004 03:48									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

btw, am in the middle of a GO game, so will not be able to make complete replies

Jon Miller

	10-10-2004 03:49									#47
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller no, because a creator/supernatural event is not bound by physics you can't say the same abotu physics because than you lose one of the basic assumptions of physics Jon Miller

Of course a creator is bound, ultimately, by the laws by which the universe (that is, the set of all that exists, as opposed to the particular contiguous region of spacetime that is being created) operates.

	10-10-2004 03:50									#48
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller Che, no, but it does make beleiving there is no deity to be unintelligent JM

No it didn't. Just because you can't explain the origin of the universe yet does not mean there is evidence of a God. In the absense of evidence for a God, the person who relies strictly on intelligence would not believe.

	10-10-2004 03:50									#49
	Support Apolyton

ok, you are trying to treat god as a part of the physical world

someone who beleives in the supernatural doesn't do that (so god no longer needs to follow that rule)

only science needs to follow that rule

if there is no possible exaplanation for something, than it is supernatural

Jon Miller

	10-10-2004 03:51									#50
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller agnostics admit they don't know, even now the only intelligent choice I actually do thing that it is stupid to be an athiest (whlie it is not stupid to be a theist) if there is no explanation for the creation of the universe (and no exaplanation appears possible) JOn Miller

Atheist means you do not believe in a god.

Agnosticism means you admit one can't know for certain one way or another, but always implies a lack of theism. In other words, they don't believe in god, but they admit they might be wrong. Agnostics are atheists.

-Drachasor

	10-10-2004 03:51									#51
	Got spare money?

We also can't know that there aren't little undetectable elves dancing on the surfaces of electrons, and an infinite number of other things of which we have no evidence and no reason at all to postulate in the first place. That doesn't mean it's wrong to say "they don't exist", because it is absurd to propose them at all!

	10-10-2004 03:51									#52
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I'd say the idiots are the people who came up with a completely unwarranted concept in the first place.

	10-10-2004 03:52									#53
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller ok, you are trying to treat god as a part of the physical world someone who beleives in the supernatural doesn't do that (so god no longer needs to follow that rule) only science needs to follow that rule if there is no possible exaplanation for something, than it is supernatural Jon Miller

There is no evidence a Supernatural World even exists.

Proposing fantasy to explain the origin of the universe, and then saying that fantasy doesn't work like anything else known to man, does not give a decent explanation.

-Drachasor

	10-10-2004 03:52									#54
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker Of course a creator is bound, ultimately, by the laws by which the universe (that is, the set of all that exists, as opposed to the particular contiguous region of spacetime that is being created) operates.

this comes down to your wacky definition of universe then

I am not gonig to play your deffinition games

Jon Miller

	10-10-2004 03:54									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker We also can't know that there aren't little undetectable elves dancing on the surfaces of electrons, and an infinite number of other things of which we have no evidence and no reason at all to postulate in the first place. That doesn't mean it's wrong to say "they don't exist", because it is absurd to propose them at all!

if there is no possible explanation for something, htan defacto the only reasonable explanation for it is that it is supernatural in origin

Jon Miller
(personally I do think there is a scientific reason for the universe, and think that it will work out from physics, in which case beleive in god is purely faith, but if there is no reasonable explanation from physics, than beleive in the supernatural is the only reasonable thing tod o)

	10-10-2004 03:56									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Drachasor There is no evidence a Supernatural World even exists. Proposing fantasy to explain the origin of the universe, and then saying that fantasy doesn't work like anything else known to man, does not give a decent explanation. -Drachasor

there is stuff that we have no possible way to explain with science

science explains the natural world

therefore, stuff that cannot be explained by science is the supernatural, or unnatural world

Jon Miller

	10-10-2004 03:57									#57
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller ok, you are trying to treat god as a part of the physical world

I have no capacity to know anything but the world of which I am a part. Neither I, nor any other person, has the ability to detect something which is posited to exist in a supernatural world.

quote: if there is no possible exaplanation for something, than it is supernatural

Who said there was no possible explanation? Saying I don't know something yet is not saying that something is unknowable.

	10-10-2004 03:58									#58
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Drachasor Atheist means you do not believe in a god. Agnosticism means you admit one can't know for certain one way or another, but always implies a lack of theism. In other words, they don't believe in god, but they admit they might be wrong. Agnostics are atheists. -Drachasor

I am well aware that most agnostics are really athiests

but there are some that are theists

and some who don't care

still is the most/only intelligent option

Jon Miller

	10-10-2004 03:58									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller stuff that cannot be explained by science is the supernatural, or unnatural world Jon Miller

Stuff that cannot be explained by science doesn't exist.

	10-10-2004 04:00									#60
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller ok, you are trying to treat god as a part of the physical world I have no capacity to know anything but the world of which I am a part. Neither I, nor any other person, has the ability to detect something which is posited to exist in a supernatural world. quote: if there is no possible exaplanation for something, than it is supernatural Who said there was no possible explanation? Saying I don't know something yet is not saying that something is unknowable.

your whole deffinition of detection relies upon science

if it appears unknowable, than than it is supernatural (to you)

now as to if there is stuff, that is supernatural to everyone, I think that that is pretty obvious

Jon Miller