10-10-2004 04:01									#61
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Stuff that cannot be explained by science doesn't exist.

there is a lot of stuff that can't be explained by science

there is even a lot of stuff that can never (as far as we know right now) be explained by science

JM

	10-10-2004 04:03									#62
	Get a bigger avatar today!

agnosticism/soft-atheism is the only prudent belief...

	10-10-2004 04:06									#63
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Of course, Europe is much better about accepting atheism.

True. The reason for this is that in the industrial age, when scientific advance should have made everything easier for mankind, it did not thanks to the greed of the industrials and the rich in general. In those times the catholic church here (I'm talking especially about Belgium now) accepted large donations from the rich in return for support. That is keeping the masses stupid and making them accept their misery in that in the afterlife it would not matter anyway; they would be free from sorrow.
The church hardly did anything to improve the status of the working class, and that drove the 2 groups apart.

An answer to this was the socialist movement. In fact this socialist movement had the same goals as the catholic church. Improving the lives of the common people, but as the catholic church was totally corrupted another way out was sought out by the people itself. So therefore it's not surprising that many people were disgusted with the church. Not that they all became atheists all of a sudden but that was the first step of the fall of the decadent and evil church

o well, most of the know-it-all apolytoners know this already I guess

	10-10-2004 04:08									#64
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: 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.

Sorry thats crap. I'm agnostic and I don't count myself as an atheist. Being agnostic means that there is no evidence either way. There could be a God, there could not be. The doesn't automatically make me a atheist. Sure some slide towards atheism and some slide more towards theism.

Anyways to whoever said Agnostics are the only intelligent way to go

And this research doesn't surprise me any, though I do believe intelligent people can believe in God and religion.

	10-10-2004 04:08									#65
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller there is a lot of stuff that can't be explained by science there is even a lot of stuff that can never (as far as we know right now) be explained by science JM

bs. It's not because we are too stupid to understand that it can't be explained by science. Some things might be so complex that the human brain will never understand it, but that doesn't mean it can't be explained by science.

	10-10-2004 04:10									#66
	Full PM-box? Change here!

so now you are starting to treat science as the supernatural

please don't, it makes it harder for us who do science with others mistake the two

JM

	10-10-2004 04:17									#67
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller this comes down to your wacky definition of universe then I am not gonig to play your deffinition games Jon Miller

It has nothing to do with definition games or a wacky definition. It has to do with the fact that while they may not be the ones describing the motions of particles, there are rules governing the behavior of your supposed creator.

	10-10-2004 04:18									#68
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller there is a lot of stuff that can't be explained by science there is even a lot of stuff that can never (as far as we know right now) be explained by science JM

BS.

"What is the purpose of life?"

Science: there is no purpose.

"What created the universe?"

Science: nothing. It just is.

And even if there ARE questions unanswerable by science, blind assertion and faith certainly can't provide anything true.

	10-10-2004 04:20									#69
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Stuff that cannot be explained by science doesn't exist.

That's a pretty bold claim. Do you truly believe there to be nothing that is fundamentally unknowable?

	10-10-2004 04:21									#70
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller your whole deffinition of detection relies upon science

BS. By undetectable I mean there is no possible action that could lead to me experiencing anything that could even possibly imply the existance of such beings.

quote: 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

Supernatural is one of the most idiotic words invented. Everything is part of nature.

I maintain that the idiot is the one who comes up with a creator in the first place, because logically that person is required to enumerate every OTHER thing that we can't know whether or not it exists. Get started.

	10-10-2004 04:25									#71
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Dauphin That's a pretty bold claim. Do you truly believe there to be nothing that is fundamentally unknowable?

Depends on to whom. Everything could, theoretically be explained by science. That doesn't mean that the ability to do so hasn't been lost, like Ozymandius' kingdom. Nor does it mean that the explanation can be understood by human beings (at least at present). In theoretical mathematics we have already reached far beyond the ability of most people to understand it, and is only possible via the use of computers.

	10-10-2004 04:36									#72
	Support Apolyton

high level theory hardly uses computers at all

a lot of peopel say that they have had supernatural experiences (I am not saying that I agree with them)

yet you would say that they haven't, why?

because your deffinitino of detection is scientific, it requires that it be repeatable

Jon Miller

	10-10-2004 04:41									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Depends on to whom. Everything could, theoretically be explained by science. That doesn't mean that the ability to do so hasn't been lost, like Ozymandius' kingdom. Nor does it mean that the explanation can be understood by human beings (at least at present). In theoretical mathematics we have already reached far beyond the ability of most people to understand it, and is only possible via the use of computers.

Ok.

I was coming at it from this position. If you assume the human concept of 'laws of science' are an approximation of fundamental true 'laws of nature', I believe that the laws of science will forever be nothing more than an approximation because we can never learn enough to have true understanding. Not least because of the consequential self-referential problem. That is to say, I believe no-one or thing can ever understand or know or explain everything so long as they exist within the constraints of the laws they attempt to explain.

Of course the assumption I make is that there are fundamental truths to be known, but then living without that assumption is not conducive to a sane living experience.

	10-10-2004 05:24									#74
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Personnally, everything is possible to be known and proven using science its just that we aren't knowledgable to do it yet and may never possibly be so.

	10-10-2004 05:43									#75
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Trajanus True. The reason for this is that in the industrial age, when scientific advance should have made everything easier for mankind, it did not thanks to the greed of the industrials and the rich in general. In those times the catholic church here (I'm talking especially about Belgium now) accepted large donations from the rich in return for support. That is keeping the masses stupid and making them accept their misery in that in the afterlife it would not matter anyway; they would be free from sorrow. The church hardly did anything to improve the status of the working class, and that drove the 2 groups apart. An answer to this was the socialist movement. In fact this socialist movement had the same goals as the catholic church. Improving the lives of the common people, but as the catholic church was totally corrupted another way out was sought out by the people itself. So therefore it's not surprising that many people were disgusted with the church. Not that they all became atheists all of a sudden but that was the first step of the fall of the decadent and evil church o well, most of the know-it-all apolytoners know this already I guess

Oooh, somebody had to watch the Daems* movie at school....


* VERY good movie btw
[/plug]

	10-10-2004 05:43									#76
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller high level theory hardly uses computers at all

I know string theory at least has equations that even computers haven't been able to figure out fully. And I know the formula for the roots of a fourth-order polynomial is too complicated for anything but a computer.

quote: a lot of peopel say that they have had supernatural experiences (I am not saying that I agree with them) yet you would say that they haven't, why?

Most of them contradict each other, and pretty much all are easily explainable without resorting to believing them.

	10-10-2004 05:54									#77
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller no, because a creator/supernatural event is not bound by physics

Not bound by physics or logic.

Thus, intelligent people will reject such a notion.

	10-10-2004 05:59									#78
	Suffering from ads?

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)

Would you answer "I don't know" when somebody asks you "Do you believe that there is an invisble, non-coporeal dog under your bed?"

"I don't know" is not a legit answer to questions like these.

	10-10-2004 06:01									#79
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller there is a lot of stuff that can't be explained by science there is even a lot of stuff that can never (as far as we know right now) be explained by science

Cannot or not yet?

On what basis do you make such an assertion?

	10-10-2004 06:02									#80
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Flip McWho Sorry thats crap. I'm agnostic and I don't count myself as an atheist. Being agnostic means that there is no evidence either way. There could be a God, there could not be. The doesn't automatically make me a atheist. Sure some slide towards atheism and some slide more towards theism. Anyways to whoever said Agnostics are the only intelligent way to go

An atheist doesn't believe in god.

If you are uncertain as to wether god exists, then you do not *believe* that he does. Hence you are an atheist; without active belief in god's existence you cannot be a theist. Atheist is the more general term, agnostics are a particular type of atheist.

All people are either atheists or theists; you either have a belief in god's existence or you do not.

So yes, specifically I am an agnostic, but I shy away from using that term on myself because it is prone to being misunderstood. The term "atheist" typically conveys my position better than "agnostic" to the average person.

-Drachasor

	10-10-2004 06:16									#81
	Put an end to popups!

Anything that is part of the natural world can be detected. That is the principle basis of science and it is wholly accurate. Two competing scientific theories have to ask this question: under what conditions will they predict different things? Assuming they agree everywhere else when tested (and you have tested them), then you test where they disagree to determine which one is correct (if either one is).

Now, if some phenomenon is detected that falls outside the bounds of *current* scientific theory, then that theory must be revised. In this way scientific theory grows and becomes better and better at explaining the world.

The problem with the term "supernatural" is that it is beyond nature (e.g. everything observable), and hence it can never have an observable effect on the world. For when anything does have an observable effect it is part of nature.

Hence, the problem with proposing "god" as an answer to any question is that "god" is by definition non-observable. Therefore, "god" isn't an answer to anything, but it is putting up a sign saying "I give up, and we shouldn't bother trying to come up with a real answer." In practical terms this produces the "God of Gaps", a god that "explains" everything we don't yet understand and slowly grows less and less significant as we understand more. For all intents in purposes this is pure silliness to engage it; it is far, far better to put the label "we don't yet know" on such things, as it encourages people to figure it out and work on it.

In short, proposing an entity that one can never tell wether it exists or doesn't exist to explain our current ignorance is a worthless endeaver.

-Drachasor

	10-10-2004 07:26									#82
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Kuciwalker quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller high level theory hardly uses computers at all I know string theory at least has equations that even computers haven't been able to figure out fully. And I know the formula for the roots of a fourth-order polynomial is too complicated for anything but a computer. quote: a lot of peopel say that they have had supernatural experiences (I am not saying that I agree with them) yet you would say that they haven't, why? Most of them contradict each other, and pretty much all are easily explainable without resorting to believing them.

that is because computers are dumber than people

really high level theorists use their mind, just use computers for simple but tedious calculations

Jon Miller

	10-10-2004 07:28									#83
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Cannot or not yet? On what basis do you make such an assertion?

because, for example, for some things we would need an accelerator the size of the universe

Jon miller

	10-10-2004 07:32									#84
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Drachasor An atheist doesn't believe in god. If you are uncertain as to wether god exists, then you do not *believe* that he does. Hence you are an atheist; without active belief in god's existence you cannot be a theist. Atheist is the more general term, agnostics are a particular type of atheist. All people are either atheists or theists; you either have a belief in god's existence or you do not. So yes, specifically I am an agnostic, but I shy away from using that term on myself because it is prone to being misunderstood. The term "atheist" typically conveys my position better than "agnostic" to the average person. -Drachasor

there are agnostics who beleive in god

so your point is wrong

Jon Miller

	10-10-2004 07:32									#85
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: An atheist doesn't believe in god. If you are uncertain as to wether god exists, then you do not *believe* that he does. Hence you are an atheist; without active belief in god's existence you cannot be a theist. Atheist is the more general term, agnostics are a particular type of atheist. All people are either atheists or theists; you either have a belief in god's existence or you do not. So yes, specifically I am an agnostic, but I shy away from using that term on myself because it is prone to being misunderstood. The term "atheist" typically conveys my position better than "agnostic" to the average person.

Ahhhh I see what your getting at. I myself prefer to force people to accept that I'm agnostic, than atheist because although I see your point I'm not atheistic and i'm not theistic either, I'm trying to walk the middle ground here.

quote: Would you answer "I don't know" when somebody asks you "Do you believe that there is an invisble, non-coporeal dog under your bed?"

Ummmmmm a question concerning a dog with those qualities is a little bit different when compared to a God, especially considering a Dog doesn't really have the other qualities that a God would have (i.e. the three o's)

	10-10-2004 07:49									#86
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller there are agnostics who beleive in god so your point is wrong Jon Miller

quote: agnostic \Ag*nos"tic\, n. One who professes ignorance, or denies that we have any knowledge, save of phenomena; one who supports agnosticism, neither affirming nor denying the existence of a personal Deity, a future life, etc.

That's the typically definition of the word, and the one almost anyone actually means when they use it. There is a broader definition, one that acknowledges belief in a god is irrational (but doesn't state that belief isn't present), but this is almost *never* used.

I prefer to go by the definition that is really in common usage. When almost anyone says they are agnostic they mean "I don't believe in god, but I acknowledge I may be wrong." (and similar positions are held for all religious beliefs). This sort of sentiment is saying that such a person is an atheist, in particular a type of known as a "soft atheist." On the other hand they are clearly not "hard atheists" who actively deny that god exists.

-Drachasor

	10-10-2004 08:17									#87
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Standardized tests show Blacks are intellectually inferior to the Great White race.

	10-10-2004 08:33									#88
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Stefu and Kid are onto something, tagging along with higher intelligence are greater curiosity and skepticism - higher standards of proof. Religion appears to lack the proof needed to satisfy greater enquiry by skeptics, so "Doubting Thomas'" are less inclined to accept a belief in God based on what someone else told them to believe. But frankly, the more intelligent (generalisation alert) have not made a sufficient enquiry into the existence of God to know one way or the other. Simply rejecting religion out of a dis-satisfaction with other people's proof for it is not enlightenment. Look for the proof yourself first...

	10-10-2004 08:47									#89
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Agnosticism. Best site I've found on it.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/agnostic.htm

	10-10-2004 09:00									#90
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Jon Miller there is even a lot of stuff that can never (as far as we know right now) be explained by science

Own goal