Calling all atheists

[Guest Godless]

Perhaps it is the "everything else" that I want to talk about.

How do they make one "spiritual" if there isn't a God to try and please? Is being spiritual a way to master self? or more about explaining the universe or the human self?

Like Elphaba, I don't quite understand exactly what non-theist spirituality entails. I think it can be taken multiple ways though. On the one hand, spiritualism could address the relationship between the self and the universe. Or it could address the relationship between the self and the rest of our species. More than anything else though, I think it all boils down to the same thing that theist religions go for, purpose and direction. Rather than using the external influence of a deity to achieve this end, non-theist spiritualists try to harmonize themselves with their spirits and the world they live in. The sense of purpose comes from within the self, not from God. It's similar to the existentialist worldview, but it goes much deeper by venturing into the spiritual realm and finding relationships between the human soul and one's direction in life.

I hope some of that made sense. Please keep in mind that this is just my very limited understanding of non-theist spiritualism. I could be completely off the mark.

[thews]

I'd be interested to hear more about this viewpoint.

It's just my experience, but most atheists I've been exposed to are highly educated liberals. They tend to associate religion with politics, and in being pegged left-wing, use "Atheist" as sort of a statement against God who they associate with right wing politics. The other atheists I've been exposed to use it out of anger towards God in a way (I'm not working this well, because I don't want to speak for anyone, but again this is just my take).

My logic:

Atheist - God does not exist

Agnostic - I'm not sure whether or not God exists

Your argument: God does not exist, but spirits do.

Are you that sure God does not exist to claim to be atheist rather than agnistic? You have to be 100% convinced that spirits rule the afterlife... it doesn't make sense to me... why not just believe that, but remain unconvinced that God could possibly exist, and then you'd be an agnostic?

Atheism is defined as non-belief in God or gods. That's it. The textbook definition of atheism says nothing of non-deified spirits or any other supernatural concepts. Your view of atheism seems to be a purely materialistic one. While it's true that many atheists, including myself, are materialists, materialism/naturalism is not an all-encompassing feature of atheism. It's just one of multiple ways of viewing a godless world.

If you’re a vegetarian that eats chicken, are you really a vegetarian? Take it one step further and claim to be vegetarian because you only eat fish. One could theoretically claim to be vegetarian but only eat white meat, which includes birds but not pigs. Where do you draw the line?

If you’re so sure that God does not exist to the point where you remove even its possibility by claiming to be atheist rather than agnostic, how can you also truly believe spirits exist? I don’t believe this view is truly “atheistic” in nature, but rather agnostic.

To put it into some sort of perspective, the relationship between materialism and spiritualism could be compared to monotheism and polytheism within the theist worldview. Monotheism and polytheism are two very different concepts, but they both fall under the realm of theism. If I were to say that all theists believe in only one god, I'd be just as wrong as those who claim that atheists can't believe in spiritual things.

I disagree when we're talking about the question asked in this thread and how it relates to the definition on what comprises as atheist vs. an agnostic. How would you define an agnostic?

True. Most spiritual/religious atheists I know prefer to either be called non-theists or referred to by their specific religious categoration (Buddhist, Taoist, etc). However, they are still atheists by definition because they don't believe in the existence of a god.

This is semantics, but I see your point. My point is they are probably agnostic rather than atheist though they believe in some spirit force. The spirit force would have to remove any possibility that God exists to side with atheism rather than agnosticism.

Again, you're taking on a very materialist/naturalist view of atheism. As I mentioned before, there are many dimensions and possibilities within the atheist worldview. The only thing that unites us is our lack of belief in god/gods. Everything else is fair game.

I still think you're playing a name game. "Atheist" doesn't encompasses the possibility God exists, while the religions you mention could also be "Agnostic" when best describing what they believe.

[thews]

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.

OK. Would you associate that belief with being an atheist, or is it just possible?

No, it does not. It makes it a spirit force.

OK. So you believe there are spirit forces, but there is no God? So, without any understand of the origin of time and matter, you actually believe there are spirit forces, yet you also actually believe that a higher being in the afterlife is not possible?

The same way everything exists without a god.

If I were to concede the big bang came from one atom, blew up and "created" the universe, the chemicals mixed together and created us, and from us we hatch a soul that exists in the afterlife... if I gave you all that, what would your answer be to the origin of that one atom. Where did that one atom come from?

Your circular argument is a fallacy:

~~God creates spirit forces; atheists believe in spirit forces; therefore, atheists believe in God.~~

You should actually bounce a few thoughts back and forth before declaring victory. You've reworded the argument into something I did not say or mean. Something created the so-called spirit forces. Where did they come from. Note - unless you are infinite you cannot answer this question.

Atheists lack a belief in gods, period. Therefore, if a spirit force does exist, it does so without a god.

Your definition of "God" is just being twisted here. If a "spirit force" is the highest being, it is, for all intent and purposes, "God" ...IMO. If something cannot come from nothing, then the spirit force came from something else, and critical thought process would probably define that as a higher order, but also acknowledge that the human mind is fact finite in its thought process and therefore the logical conclusion is that the degree one can be certain that the possibility of God iz zero in minimal. If you are certain God does not exist, to the point where you define your "belief" as atheist, surly you should have an theory to the origin of matter and time... please enlighten me.

The same way everything exists without a god.

Then where did matter come from?

I don't discount that your God exists. I don't believe there is any god to discount. Thus I am an atheist, not an agonistic.

Elphaba

I am not sure (fact) my God does exist, but I believe what I do based on the decisions I've concluded based on the information I not only have, but can possibly have with a finite thought process. It's the conviction to that belief that defines what I call myself. I don't believe in hell by the way... but that's another thread topic.

[lalechemom]

OK, parden my ignorance...and yes I am a newbie...

but my definition Athiesm is a noun and the dicitonary refers to Athiesm as

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Atheisms Definition | Definition of Atheisms at Dictionary.com

USA: 15 Principles of Atheism

I. The Material World

A. Fundamental Principle of Atheism: There are no spiritual forces in the universe (1)

B. Atheists do not worship the devil. (2)

C. Life is physical matter in a biological configuration (3)

D. There are deep properties of matter (4)

E. Death is real (5)

[lalechemom]

Can I get a high five please??

maybe?

Anyone out there....?

[Guest Utahrulzz]

High Five!

[Guest Utahrulzz]

I've never heard of an athiest who believes in spirits before. Interesting take.

[hordak]

Can I get a high five please??

maybe?

Anyone out there....?

high five on the avatar. However atheism (the philosophy) is more complex then that.

Definitions of the term "Atheism"

Michael Martin: "...an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist."

Gordon Stein, Ed., "To be without a belief in God merely means that the term 'god' has no importance or possibly no meaning to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is the lack of belief." 9

[thews]

high five on the avatar. However atheism (the philosophy) is more complex then that.

Definitions of the term "Atheism"

Michael Martin: "...an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist."

Gordon Stein, Ed., "To be without a belief in God merely means that the term 'god' has no importance or possibly no meaning to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is the lack of belief." 9

Please explain to me what you define as an agnostic?

[Guest Godless]

My logic:

Atheist - God does not exist

Agnostic - I'm not sure whether or not God exists

Your argument: God does not exist, but spirits do.

Personally, I don't believe that spirits exist. That's my personal viewpoint. It is directly related to the fact that I am an atheist, but it isn't an automatic conclusion resulting from my atheist worldview. My contention is that it is possible to believe in the existence of spirits without believing in the existence of God. The main point I'm trying to make, however, is that belief in the existence of spirits has nothing to do with atheism. Spirits =/= Gods.

Are you that sure God does not exist to claim to be atheist rather than agnistic? You have to be 100% convinced that spirits rule the afterlife... it doesn't make sense to me... why not just believe that, but remain unconvinced that God could possibly exist, and then you'd be an agnostic?

Emphasis mine. There is no such thing as 100% certainty. I am not 100% certain that God does not exist. In fact, you'd be very hard-pressed to find an atheist who does claim to be 100% sure. I am an atheist because I find God's existence to be highly improbable, so improbable that the possibility isn't even worth entertaining. But, due to lack of definitive proof, I am not 100% certain. Similarly, no theist can honestly claim to be 100% sure that God exists (though many like to try).

If you’re so sure that God does not exist to the point where you remove even its possibility by claiming to be atheist rather than agnostic, how can you also truly believe spirits exist? I don’t believe this view is truly “atheistic” in nature, but rather agnostic.

Such a worldview would include a spiritual existence without God. The best way I can describe it is to say that it's the same as this current state of existence. I live this in this physical/natural state without belief in God. There are theists who find this inconceivable. They say "How can you not see the hand of God in the world we live in?" You're basically asking the same question, but of the spiritual realm. If I, as an atheist, can make sense of this existence without accounting for God, then I have no doubt that some of my counterparts can do the same for the spiritual realm. I can't say for sure how they do it, but they do.

I disagree when we're talking about the question asked in this thread and how it relates to the definition on what comprises as atheist vs. an agnostic. How would you define an agnostic?

An agnostic is a person who believes that the answer to God's existence is unknowable. There is not enough evidence to support or debunk his existence, so they don't make a claim in either direction. Again, this is in reference to God and God alone. Non-deified spiritual entities are another question altogether.

This is semantics, but I see your point. My point is they are probably agnostic rather than atheist though they believe in some spirit force. The spirit force would have to remove any possibility that God exists to side with atheism rather than agnosticism.

Why does it have to remove the possibility? The way I see it, God's existence is irrelevant. If I choose to follow a non-theist religion, I do so under the pre-conceived notion that there is no God. Thus, that religion doesn't have to try to disprove God. God is irrelevant. He's not a factor in my belief system.

I still think you're playing a name game. "Atheist" doesn't encompasses the possibility God exists, while the religions you mention could also be "Agnostic" when best describing what they believe.

Just to be clear, one doesn't have to be an atheist to follow the non-theist religions I mentioned. There are agnostics who follow the Eastern religion, and I'm sure there are theists who do so as well. As I said, God is irrelevent. You can follow these belief systems regardless of whether or not you believe in God.

I. The Material World

A. Fundamental Principle of Atheism: There are no spiritual forces in the universe (1)

B. Atheists do not worship the devil. (2)

C. Life is physical matter in a biological configuration (3)

D. There are deep properties of matter (4)

E. Death is real (5)

These "principles" are needless additions to the textbook definition of atheism put in place by people who want to try to unite atheists under one materialist banner. In reality, the only thing that unites us is our lack of belief in God. The principles listed apply to materialist atheists, but not all atheists are materialists.

Edited September 10, 2009 by Godless

[thews]

Personally, I don't believe that spirits exist. That's my personal viewpoint. It is directly related to the fact that I am an atheist, but it isn't an automatic conclusion resulting from my atheist worldview. My contention is that it is possible to believe in the existence of spirits without believing in the existence of God. The main point I'm trying to make, however, is that belief in the existence of spirits has nothing to do with atheism. Spirits =/= Gods.

Now I understand your perspective, but we'll just have to agree to disagree on the spirit thing. We are talking about a dimension we have no concept of, and to conclude "spirits" exist as something other than God, would have also require one believe they have that much resolution on what exists on the other side... if you believe anything exists. Your stance is cut and dry... no God. That's what an atheist is, and not some varriant of what encompasses the soul on the other side.

Emphasis mine. There is no such thing as 100% certainty. I am not 100% certain that God does not exist. In fact, you'd be very hard-pressed to find an atheist who does claim to be 100% sure. I am an atheist because I find God's existence to be highly improbable, so improbable that the possibility isn't even worth entertaining. But, due to lack of definitive proof, I am not 100% certain. Similarly, no theist can honestly claim to be 100% sure that God exists (though many like to try).

I agree with your logic, and conclude my opinion is no more warranted or "correct" than your opinion though they differ.

Such a worldview would include a spiritual existence without God. The best way I can describe it is to say that it's the same as this current state of existence. I live this in this physical/natural state without belief in God. There are theists who find this inconceivable. They say "How can you not see the hand of God in the world we live in?" You're basically asking the same question, but of the spiritual realm. If I, as an atheist, can make sense of this existence without accounting for God, then I have no doubt that some of my counterparts can do the same for the spiritual realm. I can't say for sure how they do it, but they do.

Again I agree with your logic, as my opinion is different but not more correct, but stop short of finding some middle ground where "spirits" exist but God doesn't ...it doesn't make sense from its definition, and from what I can tell, it doesn't make sense to you, though you feel it falls under the heading of what an "atheist" is vs. an "agnostic" viewpoint...

An agnostic is a person who believes that the answer to God's existence is unknowable. There is not enough evidence to support or debunk his existence, so they don't make a claim in either direction. Again, this is in reference to God and God alone. Non-deified spiritual entities are another question altogether.

Who is the one defining "God" in the answer? In this logic, you are wrong. The existence of God is unknowable... that's a fact unless you can prove it to me, or me you. I understand you believe God does not exist, but you also acknowledge you don't know, which would make you an agnostic. If you don't believe God exists, then IMO you are an athiest. If you have come to the conclusion that something exists after you die, then you have a soul, and if you have a soul, then the possibility of God existing would be much higher than someone who didn't believe in God at all. Hence the difference between the two words, and belief in "spirits" would fall under the "agnsotic" header, while belief that God does not exist and we cease to exist when we did to be an atheist's perspective. This isn't semantics, as I see it as the conviction required to come to the conclusion that one either does or does not exist after death, and not the resolution of what that existence entails.

Why does it have to remove the possibility? The way I see it, God's existence is irrelevant. If I choose to follow a non-theist religion, I do so under the pre-conceived notion that there is no God. Thus, that religion doesn't have to try to disprove God. God is irrelevant. He's not a factor in my belief system.

Ok. I get what you believe, but it's not a "religion" then. I still fail to get your point now that I understand what you beleive.

Just to be clear, one doesn't have to be an atheist to follow the non-theist religions I mentioned. There are agnostics who follow the Eastern religion, and I'm sure there are theists who do so as well. As I said, God is irrelevent. You can follow these belief systems regardless of whether or not you believe in God.

Just to be clear (IMO):

When we die, we cease to exist = Atheist

Not sure if we exist or in what form when we die = Agnostic.

These "principles" are needless additions to the textbook definition of atheism put in place by people who want to try to unite atheists under one materialist banner. In reality, the only thing that unites us is our lack of belief in God. The principles listed apply to materialist atheists, but not all atheists are materialists.

To reach this conclusion you must have thought about it a lot. I ask for your opinion. Where did matter come from?

[hordak]

Please explain to me what you define as an agnostic?

I honestly would go with the "common"

Atheist= "knows" there's no God

Agnostic= unsure believes there is no God

However A theism means just that. Not theism, like A typical.

while many of us would define Atheist as the above definition, many atheist do not. This allows them to still believe in spiritual things and complicates things.

In conclusion we cannot put people in boxes based on labels. Just like Christianity can run the gambit from Dinosaurs bones are here to mess with us to God used evolution to make us.

Atheism can be , dieing and becoming plant food, to many lifes determined by our spiritual awareness.

[lalechemom]

high five on the avatar. However atheism (the philosophy) is more complex then that.

Definitions of the term "Atheism"

Michael Martin: "...an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist."

Gordon Stein, Ed., "To be without a belief in God merely means that the term 'god' has no importance or possibly no meaning to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is the lack of belief." 9

Well, if you are going argue Philosophy....

The LDS Restorationist movement, including The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

umm, you gave the source. THey don't seem to be on our LDS side.

Terms used by the LDS Restorationist movement

It is saying the Joseph Smith founded/established the mormon church.

Who wrote the Book of Mormon?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and other denominations and sects in the LDS Restoration movement, teach that Joseph Smith was led by an angel to uncover some buried golden plates. Later, Smith was able to translate the text on these plates with the help of magical stones. He arranged for them to be published as the Book of Mormon. 11 Smith believed them to be writings of ancient Hebrews who had migrated from Israel to the Americas.

Skeptics and most archeologists believe that the Book of Mormon is a hoax, and that it was written in the early 19th century by Joseph Smith or some other individual(s).

If I was going to give a site for argument sake. I would take it from something with a bit more knowledge.

YOu gave a site that is clearly leaning on the side that our church is a cult.

So if they aren't giving legitimate and correct knowledge of our church.

How can you honestly and ethically say they would be giving legitimate knowledge and correct information on atheisms?

[thews]

I honestly would go with the "common"

Atheist= "knows" there's no God

Agnostic= unsure believes there is no God

Are you saying one can "know" conclusively that God does or does not exist?

However A theism means just that. Not theism, like A typical.

while many of us would define Atheist as the above definition, many atheist do not. This allows them to still believe in spiritual things and complicates things.

Well, the way I see it is trying to define the cognitive dissonance one feels if claiming to believe they will cease to exist. If you really think (operative word = "think" vs. "know") that God doesn't exist, then death is the end of you. It would also mean that death is the end of everyone you know (your kids, spouse, parents, etc.)... this is less pleasent that belief that you are going on to a heavenly existence. This dissonance is sort of filled by belief that something exists, just not God. Not sure what, but it's not nothing. Again why all the confusion? I still don't understand your definition of an agnostic, other than paint it into something that supports your opinion.

In conclusion we cannot put people in boxes based on labels. Just like Christianity can run the gambit from Dinosaurs bones are here to mess with us to God used evolution to make us.

Atheism can be , dieing and becoming plant food, to many lifes determined by our spiritual awareness.

Someone once asked me (an athesit) if I thought God planted the fossils (I don't believe in evolution) just to mess with our heads? It really took me back, because the way I see life, belief in God is not verifiable either way. I can't prove to you God exists, just as you can't prove to me he doesn't. We can't "know," and I sorta figured that was the plan. If we don't "know" either way, we will live life knowing what life is like without God... the knowledge of good and evil. The only way it works is if you can't know, because if God showed up through the clouds tomorrow morning you'd believe in him. Conversly, you can't quite explain where matter came from, because the concept is infinite. In conclusion, I believe the fossils were planted by God to weigh the scales of each argument. In the end, if an atheist doesn't believe in God, but God does exist, I don't believe burning for all eternity is a just punishment. It's just my opinion, but it is what I concluded, which is why I don't believe in hell. It's a learning experience to know what evil is, because evil doesn't exist in the afterlife, which is why it exists here on eart. JMHO.

[Guest Godless]

Well, if you are going argue Philosophy....

The LDS Restorationist movement, including The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

umm, you gave the source. THey don't seem to be on our LDS side.

Terms used by the LDS Restorationist movement

It is saying the Joseph Smith founded/established the mormon church.

Who wrote the Book of Mormon?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and other denominations and sects in the LDS Restoration movement, teach that Joseph Smith was led by an angel to uncover some buried golden plates. Later, Smith was able to translate the text on these plates with the help of magical stones. He arranged for them to be published as the Book of Mormon. 11 Smith believed them to be writings of ancient Hebrews who had migrated from Israel to the Americas.

Skeptics and most archeologists believe that the Book of Mormon is a hoax, and that it was written in the early 19th century by Joseph Smith or some other individual(s).

If I was going to give a site for argument sake. I would take it from something with a bit more knowledge.

YOu gave a site that is clearly leaning on the side that our church is a cult.

So if they aren't giving legitimate and correct knowledge of our church.

How can you honestly and ethically say they would be giving legitimate knowledge and correct information on atheisms?

The quotes he cited are spot-on. One thing to keep in mind about the website he got them from is that they do their best to remain objective when discussing various religions. Hence, not only does it make sense to describe the LDS faith from an outsider's perspective, but it is also perfectly acceptable for them to mention what critics say about the Church. I see no bias in that.

Regardless though, I as an atheist can vouch for the impeccable accuracy of the quotes he posted on atheism.

[Guest Godless]

Again I agree with your logic, as my opinion is different but not more correct, but stop short of finding some middle ground where "spirits" exist but God doesn't ...it doesn't make sense from its definition, and from what I can tell, it doesn't make sense to you, though you feel it falls under the heading of what an "atheist" is vs. an "agnostic" viewpoint...

Actually, I am saying that it can fall either way. Agnostics can be just as spiritual as any theist or atheist. However, this thread is about atheists specifically, so that's what I'm trying to address.

Who is the one defining "God" in the answer? In this logic, you are wrong. The existence of God is unknowable... that's a fact unless you can prove it to me, or me you. I understand you believe God does not exist, but you also acknowledge you don't know, which would make you an agnostic. If you don't believe God exists, then IMO you are an athiest. If you have come to the conclusion that something exists after you die, then you have a soul, and if you have a soul, then the possibility of God existing would be much higher than someone who didn't believe in God at all. Hence the difference between the two words, and belief in "spirits" would fall under the "agnsotic" header, while belief that God does not exist and we cease to exist when we did to be an atheist's perspective. This isn't semantics, as I see it as the conviction required to come to the conclusion that one either does or does not exist after death, and not the resolution of what that existence entails.

Okay, I think I see what you're getting at here. And you're right, belief in an afterlife could easily open up the possibility for the existence of God to some degree. It is for this reason that most atheists lean towards materialism. However, the fact remains that there are atheists who are able to view the afterlife and see just as little room for God there as there is here. I don't know how they come to that viewpoint, just as I don't know how theists are able to see God's hand in this natural state of existence. I think we may both have to concede ignorance on this matter.

I do, however, want to address your concern regarding certainty. Yes, it is impossible to prove or disprove God's existence. However, that doesn't make us all agnostic. I lack belief in God. I don't "know" that he doesn't exist. I simply lack belief that he does. I could be wrong, but I have no reason to believe that I am. Similarly, I don't believe that leprechauns exist even though I can't prove that they don't. To me, the idea of God is just as fictional as a leprechaun.

Agnostics lack belief as well, but they aren't willing to write off the possibility that God exists. To them, God is a mystery rather than a thing of fiction. Thus, they leave the door open, and it swings both directions.

Ok. I get what you believe, but it's not a "religion" then. I still fail to get your point now that I understand what you beleive.

Just to be clear, you're saying that Buddhism (to use an easy example) is not a religion because belief in God is irrelevent to the practice of the religion? If that's what you're trying to get at, then I'd have to disagree. Theism does not have a monopoly on religion.

Just to be clear (IMO):

When we die, we cease to exist = Atheist

Not sure if we exist or in what form when we die = Agnostic.

No. Atheism makes no presumptions about what happens when we die. Atheism, by definition, is lack of belief in God. It says nothing of the afterlife.

To reach this conclusion you must have thought about it a lot. I ask for your opinion. Where did matter come from?

I'm not a physicist, so I can't adequately describe the process. In short though, I accept the natural explanation for the origin of matter (Big Bang and so forth). I also want to make it clear that I agree with the five principles of atheism that lalechemom posted due to the fact that I'm a materialist. The point I was trying to make is that those principles don't apply to all atheists, only materialists like myself.

[thews]

Actually, I am saying that it can fall either way. Agnostics can be just as spiritual as any theist or atheist. However, this thread is about atheists specifically, so that's what I'm trying to address.

I'm tyring to address the same thing too, and you continue to change the definition of an agnostic, to somehow find a place for post life existence without God, which makes no sense, but fills in the cognitive dissonace with something that is nothing more than rewording of something to make you feel better. The odd thing is, you dont' even believe it, so the conviction for your argument is someone else's opinion, regarding what you define yourself to be.

Atheist = No God no past life existence.

Agnsotic = Not sure if there is a God or not

Okay, I think I see what you're getting at here. And you're right, belief in an afterlife could easily open up the possibility for the existence of God to some degree. It is for this reason that most atheists lean towards materialism. However, the fact remains that there are atheists who are able to view the afterlife and see just as little room for God there as there is here. I don't know how they come to that viewpoint, just as I don't know how theists are able to see God's hand in this natural state of existence. I think we may both have to concede ignorance on this matter.

I agree... we can't "know" either way.

I do, however, want to address your concern regarding certainty. Yes, it is impossible to prove or disprove God's existence. However, that doesn't make us all agnostic. I lack belief in God. I don't "know" that he doesn't exist. I simply lack belief that he does. I could be wrong, but I have no reason to believe that I am. Similarly, I don't believe that leprechauns exist even though I can't prove that they don't. To me, the idea of God is just as fictional as a leprechaun.

Ok, but in your definition you've posted regarding what constitutes an "agnostic," it states the difference is based on the word "know," and again I contend we both don't know, so it hardly makes sense to lump them both in one pile of semantics which embraces the "belief" in spirit without belief in God ...this simply doesn't make sense, not that it's not "correct," but correct in the sense of what does or does not define an agnostic. In my opinion, it's simply a place for someone who calls themselves an atheist, yet to ease the cognitive dissonance they feel, they make a special place where they exist within the word Atheist, but God does not. This is a conflict... is it not?

Again...

Atheist = No God/No afterlife

Agnostic = God not sure.

You can't be both, which is the definition of cognitive dissonance, as you are attempting to be two things at the same time.

Agnostics lack belief as well, but they aren't willing to write off the possibility that God exists. To them, God is a mystery rather than a thing of fiction. Thus, they leave the door open, and it swings both directions.

Actually, you almost get it right IMO, but the door is one or the other and not both. You're clearly attempting to make one definition fit the other using semantics with "God" being the operative word, and not what encompasses "God." It's one or the other, but not both by its definition.

Just to be clear, you're saying that Buddhism (to use an easy example) is not a religion because belief in God is irrelevent to the practice of the religion? If that's what you're trying to get at, then I'd have to disagree. Theism does not have a monopoly on religion.

No that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that an Atheist is not a Buddist, and a Buddist is not an Atheist, or, a Buddist could be an agnostic, but an agnostic could also be a Buddist. This is belief in a diety, and claiming "spirit" instead of "God" is where the argument falters, but again even you agree that are no so-called "spirits" in the afterlife. It's just wordplay.

No. Atheism makes no presumptions about what happens when we die. Atheism, by definition, is lack of belief in God. It says nothing of the afterlife.

I agree 100%... nothing of the afterlife, as the afetrlife is "nothing." "Noting" is ashes to ashes, not some pseudo-diety which you are attempting to define as valid under the guise of what encompasses an "Atheist."

I'm not a physicist, so I can't adequately describe the process. In short though, I accept the natural explanation for the origin of matter (Big Bang and so forth). I also want to make it clear that I agree with the five principles of atheism that lalechemom posted due to the fact that I'm a materialist. The point I was trying to make is that those principles don't apply to all atheists, only materialists like myself.

No theory huh? Interesting. Nothing just "happened" and exploded, are from that explosion the universe just took off... then chemicals mix together, life sprouts, and here we are. No idea huh? Where did matter come from? I'll let you know what I think... it doesn't exist ...its finite. In a finite dimension, the finite ceases to exist in an infinite dimension. We have finite minds ...a man's got to know his limitations.

[Elphaba]

OK. Would you associate that belief with being an atheist, or is it just possible?

I don’t understand your question. I have been clear that I am an atheist.

OK. So you believe there are spirit forces,

I apologize, because I have confused this issue.

I, personally, do not believe in the existence of spiritual forces. I’ve been using them as an illustration because they came up in the conversation as something spiritual that does not require a god.

I will keep using them as an example, only because our conversation has already established them as the supernatural force. But my comments apply to any force, supernatural or other, that science has not yet defined.

but there is no God? possible?

No, I don’t believe any gods exist. But that doesn’t mean our hypothetical spirit forces are the only force in the universe. Realistically, there are innumerable possibilities.

So, without any understand of the origin of time and matter,

Mankind does not require a god to comprehend the origin of time and matter. We do not know the origins today, but that does not mean we won’t discover them in the future. In fact, I am very confident that will happen. (I know scients know far more about it than most people are aware). )

You actually believe there are spirit forces,

As I explained above, my “spiritual forces” are real only for this conversation, which I know has confused the issue, and I am sorry about that.

=yet you also actually believe that a higher being in the afterlife is not possible.

That depends on how you define higher being. If you mean it as a god, then no, I do not think it’s possible. If you mean other forces in the universe that are higher functioning, then yes, that is possible.

I do not believe in the afterlife

If I were to concede the big bang came from one atom, blew up and "created" the universe, the chemicals mixed together and created us, and from us we hatch a soul that exists in the afterlife.

You keep referring to a soul and an afterlife. I do not believe in either of them; therefore, I do not believe the Big Bang created them.

.. if I gave you all that, what would your answer be to the origin of that one atom. Where did that one atom come from?

Of course I don’t know that. No one knows that for sure, though science makes inroads into this often, and I believe the day will come when we do understand it. But whatever the answer is, it does not require a god.

I would also respond to your question "Where did the one atom come from," with "Where does your god come from?"

You should actually bounce a few thoughts back and forth before declaring victory.

Down boy! I never declared anything.

You've reworded the argument into something I did not say or mean.

How so?

Something created the so-called spirit forces. Where did they come from. Note - unless you are infinite you cannot answer this question.

Neither can you. That doesn’t mean they were created by a god.

Your definition of "God" is just being twisted here.

I never attempted to define “God.”

If a "spirit force" is the highest being, it is, for all intent and purposes, "God" ..

I never said a “spirit force” is the highest being.

.IMO. If something cannot come from nothing, then the spirit force came from something else, and critical thought process would probably define that as a higher order,

You are using “critical thinking” within the confines of your religious belief. A scientist most likely would reject that assumption.

I believe there will come a day when science does discover these mysteries of the universe, and that all of them will be shown to be part of our physical universe, with predictable observations. None of these discoveries will require a god.

but also acknowledge that the human mind is fact finite in its thought process and therefore the logical conclusion is that the degree one can be certain that the possibility of God iz zero in minimal.

I don’t understand what you’re saying here.

If you are certain God does not exist, to the point where you define your "belief" as atheist,

I do not define my “belief” as atheist. I lack a belief in any gods. There is a difference.

Later addeed: Your example is the same as saying I define my disbelief as atheism because I do not believe in the Easter Bunny god. Rather, I lack a belief in any gods, so it doesn't consciously occur to me to not believe in the Easter Bunny god.

surly you should have an theory to the origin of matter and time... please enlighten me.

I don’t claim to be an expert on the beginnings of the universe. I know the theory of relativity predicts it. I know the Big Bang was not the product of one atom. I also know that string theory predicts several parallel universes and the Big Bang may be a result of two of these universes colliding.

However, it does not take a god for scientists to discover the answer to your question. The same is true for me.

I am not sure (fact) my God does exist, but I believe what I do based on the decisions I've concluded based on the information I not only have, but can possibly have with a finite thought process. It's the conviction to that belief that defines what I call myself.

That’s cool.

I don't believe in hell by the way... but that's another thread topic.

Yes, it is given a number of people on the board do believe there is a hell. You should start a new thread.

Elphaba

Edited September 10, 2009 by Elphaba

[Guest Godless]

I'm tyring to address the same thing too, and you continue to change the definition of an agnostic, to somehow find a place for post life existence without God, which makes no sense, but fills in the cognitive dissonace with something that is nothing more than rewording of something to make you feel better. The odd thing is, you dont' even believe it, so the conviction for your argument is someone else's opinion, regarding what you define yourself to be.

Atheist = No God no past life existence.

Agnsotic = Not sure if there is a God or not

Alright, let's back up a bit. Why do you believe that there can be no afterlife without God? You seem to think that the two are inseparable, and I'm trying to figure out why that is.

Ok, but in your definition you've posted regarding what constitutes an "agnostic," it states the difference is based on the word "know," and again I contend we both don't know, so it hardly makes sense to lump them both in one pile of semantics which embraces the "belief" in spirit without belief in God ...this simply doesn't make sense, not that it's not "correct," but correct in the sense of what does or does not define an agnostic. In my opinion, it's simply a place for someone who calls themselves an atheist, yet to ease the cognitive dissonance they feel, they make a special place where they exist within the word Atheist, but God does not. This is a conflict... is it not?

When defining agnosticism, I said that agnostics believe that the answer to God's existence is unknowable. And they are absolutely correct. I don't "know" that God doesn't exist, so technically you could say that I'm agnostic to a very limited extent. To quote Richard Dawkins, "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden" (or leprechauns, to return to my earlier example). I don't care for a lot of the things that Dawkins has to say about religion, but I think he was spot-on when he addressed the varying degrees of agnosticism in The God Delusion. He contends that belief in God is not about certainty, but rather probability. Atheists like Dawkins and myself believe that God's existence is extremely (let's say 99.9%) improbable. Strong theists believe that God's existence is extremely (99.9%) probable. Some will even claim to know 100%, though there is no objective basis for such certainty in either direction. Agnostics believe that God's existence is equiprobable, 50%.

Atheist = No God/No afterlife

Agnostic = God not sure.

Again, where are you getting the correlation between belief in God and belief in an afterlife?

No that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that an Atheist is not a Buddist, and a Buddist is not an Atheist, or, a Buddist could be an agnostic, but an agnostic could also be a Buddist. This is belief in a diety, and claiming "spirit" instead of "God" is where the argument falters, but again even you agree that are no so-called "spirits" in the afterlife. It's just wordplay.

If a Buddhist doesn't believe that God exists, then he is an atheist, is he not? He may not like being called an atheist, but he fits the definition nonetheless. And as much as you don't like it, it is absolutely necessary to separate "gods" from "spirits", especially if the spiritual entity you're referring to is what is commonly known as the human soul, and I believe that that's usually the case. The human soul is a concept that's completely independent of the God concept when you look at it objectively.

I agree 100%... nothing of the afterlife, as the afetrlife is "nothing." "Noting" is ashes to ashes, not some pseudo-diety which you are attempting to define as valid under the guise of what encompasses an "Atheist."

I think you misunderstood what I said. When I say that the definition of atheism says nothing of the afterlife, I mean that it is open to individual interpretation. It is only materialistic atheism that dictates that there is no afterlife.

[Moksha]

Would it be fair to say that even atheists are enhanced by believing there is some greater purpose in life than mere existence? When I ask this, I think back to Dr. Viktor Frankl's observation, that those who survive adversity in life best are those who have a defined meaning in life.

:)

[Elphaba]

lalechemom: The LDS Restorationist movement, including The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

umm, you gave the source. THey don't seem to be on our LDS side.

There is nothing in that article that is not accurate. It should not give any Saint pause.

Terms used by the LDS Restorationist movement

IIt is saying the Joseph Smith founded/established the mormon church.

Joseph did found/establish the Mormon Church. There is nothing in this article that is inaccurate.

Who wrote the Book of Mormon?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and other denominations and sects in the LDS Restoration movement, teach that Joseph Smith was led by an angel to uncover some buried golden plates. Later, Smith was able to translate the text on these plates with the help of magical stones. He arranged for them to be published as the Book of Mormon. 11 Smith believed them to be writings of ancient Hebrews who had migrated from Israel to the Americas.

Skeptics and most archeologists believe that the Book of Mormon is a hoax, and that it was written in the early 19th century by Joseph Smith or some other individual(s)..

There is nothing in this article that is inaccurate.

YOu gave a site that is clearly leaning on the side that our church is a cult.

No, it clearly does not.

Is the Mormon church a cult?

The primitive Christian movements, including Jewish Christianity, Pauline Christianity and Gnostic Christianity, would have qualified for these meanings of "cult" back in the first century CE. The LDS Church would have qualified as a "cult" in the 1830s shortly after Joseph Smith founded the Church of Christ.

However, the LDS Church has been established for almost two centuries, and has in excess of 13 million adherents around the world. The sociological definition definitely does not fit. Under this definition, the LDS Church is not a cult.

In conclusion, after examining this evidence, it is clear that, though Mormonism does essentially fit three traditional definitions of what a cult is, those definitions are inadequate to society's view of what a cult is. If we follow those definitions, we can call Mormonism as well as anything else we want to, a cult. However, when we realize that the particular beliefs of a church do not a cult make, and we understand what we ourselves view as a cult, we can see that this is not the case.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not a cult and is much more than a religious movement or a sect. Instead, it is a new and legitimate faith in and of itself. In the process of its evolution, LDS Church has taken the next great step along the same path its Abrahamic cousins have already traveled.

We have seen "cult" used to refer to Evangelical denominations, the Roman Catholic Church, Unification Church, Church of Scientology, United Church of Christ, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Wiccans other Neopagans and many other faith groups. The term is essentially meaningless.

How can you honestly and ethically say they would be giving legitimate knowledge and correct information on atheisms?

I am an atheist, and I know the definition the site provides is accurate.

Elphaba

[Guest Godless]

Would it be fair to say that even atheists are enhanced by believing there is some greater purpose in life than mere existence? When I ask this, I think back to Dr. Viktor Frankl's observation, that those who survive adversity in life best are those who have a defined meaning in life.

:)

Absolutely. Everyone wants to have a meaningful existence. Many atheists take the existentialist approach, meaning that we define our own existence rather than relying on religion to do it for us. Life is only as meaningful as you make it. That's my philosophy.

[thews]

I don’t understand your question. I have been clear that I am an atheist.

I apologize, because I have confused this issue.

I understand you're an atheist, but what I don't agree with are the atheists who have claimed one can be an atheist and also believe in spirit forces. This is the crux of my questions, as "agnostic" encompasses "spirit forces," while an atheist believe (IMO) that they will cease to exsit after death.

I, personally, do not believe in the existence of spiritual forces. I’ve been using them as an illustration because they came up in the conversation as something spiritual that does not require a god.

I don't understand. This is clearly defined as "agnostic," as spirit forces without God is a atp dance of semantics. If you disagree, then we agree to disagree.

I will keep using them as an example, only because our conversation has already established them as the supernatural force. But my comments apply to any force, supernatural or other, that science has not yet defined.

No, I don’t believe any gods exist. But that doesn’t mean our hypothetical spirit forces are the only force in the universe. Realistically, there are innumerable possibilities.

Mankind does not require a god to comprehend the origin of time and matter. We do not know the origins today, but that does not mean we won’t discover them in the future. In fact, I am very confident that will happen. (I know scients know far more about it than most people are aware). )

I think where this conversation is going is outside of what you believe, which is why I fail to see your conviction to spirit forces = atheists rather than spirit forces = agnostic.

As I explained above, my “spiritual forces” are real only for this conversation, which I know has confused the issue, and I am sorry about that. That depends on how you define higher being. If you mean it as a god, then no, I do not think it’s possible. If you mean other forces in the universe that are higher functioning, then yes, that is possible.

Getting outside of semantics, the way I see this is the definition of what believes happens when we die. If an atheist believes in evolution, it hardly makes sense to me to also believe the result of evolution includes a spirit. Would you agree?

I do not believe in the afterlife

You keep referring to a soul and an afterlife. I do not believe in either of them; therefore, I do not believe the Big Bang created them.

Of course I don’t know that. No one knows that for sure, though science makes inroads into this often, and I believe the day will come when we do understand it. But whatever the answer is, it does not require a god.

OK. You are no more correct than I, nor am I more correct than you.

I would also respond to your question "Where did the one atom come from," with "Where does your god come from?"

Well, I believe in God and IMO God is infinite, while I am finite. This answer won't appease you if you don't believe in God, but it does appease me. But, rather than answer the question with a question, I just find it hard to not wonder where all this matter came from?

Down boy! I never declared anything.

OK my bad. This is a stalemate as all matters of opinion not based on facts usually are.

How so?

I'm getting lost in the length of these topics. I'll go back later.

Neither can you. That doesn’t mean they were created by a god.

I never attempted to define “God.”

I never said a “spirit force” is the highest being.

You are using “critical thinking” within the confines of your religious belief. A scientist most likely would reject that assumption.

My point is that I associate "spirit forces" with an afterlife, which would fall under the definition of an agnostic. Claiming an atheist (non-theist) also believes in spirit forces just doesn't make logical sense. i would think the scientific community would agree.

I believe there will come a day when science does discover these mysteries of the universe, and that all of them will be shown to be part of our physical universe, with predictable observations. None of these discoveries will require a god.

I don’t understand what you’re saying here.

I disagree with you. If you want to hold onto a theory that may come about that "explains" how nothing became something I'll disagree. This is a false hope IMO, and claiming not to know is fine, but claiming an answer will be found someday is really a reach when the answer is truly infinite in its construct.

I do not define my “belief” as atheist. I lack a belief in any gods. There is a difference.

I fail to see the difference, as we're talking about the definition of the word.

Later addeed: Your example is the same as saying I define my disbelief as atheism because I do not believe in the Easter Bunny god. Rather, I lack a belief in any gods, so it doesn't consciously occur to me to not believe in the Easter Bunny god.

Did you really need to add this in a lefthanded way to insult what I do believe? The definition of athesit is one who lacks a belief in God. Call yourself whatever you choose, but you can't change the definition of the word to embrace what you want it to.

I don’t claim to be an expert on the beginnings of the universe. I know the theory of relativity predicts it. I know the Big Bang was not the product of one atom. I also know that string theory predicts several parallel universes and the Big Bang may be a result of two of these universes colliding.

However, it does not take a god for scientists to discover the answer to your question. The same is true for me.

You still claim that infinite concepts can be discovered "some day" by finite minds. IMO, the "God" you place faith in are the people who comes up with the discoveries, and what they embrace as fact.

That’s cool.

Yes, it is given a number of people on the board do believe there is a hell. You should start a new thread.

Elphaba

I will if they don't kick me out.

PS - Look up the definition of "antimatter" and see what it claims to be. The accepted theory (from what I've read), is that antimatter is made up of antimatter particles. So, the opposite of what exists is made up of smaller pieces of things that don't exist. In other words, this attempt at bridging the gap of cognitive dissonance between waht is finite and what is infinite cannot be done with a finite thought process ever... the conclusion is foregone that it cannot be reached IMO.

[thews]

Alright, let's back up a bit. Why do you believe that there can be no afterlife without God? You seem to think that the two are inseparable, and I'm trying to figure out why that is.

Because it doesn't make logical sense. If you believe we came from a random mix of chemicals, yet also believe those chemicals produce "something" that exists after death, then the soul is also made up of random chemicals. Further attempting to define "spirit forces" as somehow different than God is just failing to follow any logic, but rather arguing semantic to embrace what some people cling to, in an attempt to find solace and appease the cognitive dissonance in labeling themselves "athesit" but also believing in an afterlife.

When defining agnosticism, I said that agnostics believe that the answer to God's existence is unknowable. And they are absolutely correct. I don't "know" that God doesn't exist, so technically you could say that I'm agnostic to a very limited extent. To quote Richard Dawkins, "I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden" (or leprechauns, to return to my earlier example). I don't care for a lot of the things that Dawkins has to say about religion, but I think he was spot-on when he addressed the varying degrees of agnosticism in The God Delusion. He contends that belief in God is not about certainty, but rather probability. Atheists like Dawkins and myself believe that God's existence is extremely (let's say 99.9%) improbable. Strong theists believe that God's existence is extremely (99.9%) probable. Some will even claim to know 100%, though there is no objective basis for such certainty in either direction. Agnostics believe that God's existence is equiprobable, 50%.

You aren't making sense to me. Both atheists and agnostics and theists don't "know" for sure, so using "know" to define agnostic doesn't make sense. I again fail to see your point other than force an agenda where an afterlife somehow exists without God and therefore that belief is athestic in nature rather than agnostic. I see you definition of agnostic as incorrect and misleading.

Again, where are you getting the correlation between belief in God and belief in an afterlife?

Please start making sense. You continue to assert that "atheist" can encompasses an afterlife, which I disagree... that would make you an agnostic, because that's what an agnostic is. You are clearly attempting to re-define the word to open this supposed "revolving door" and combining the two definition of atheist and agnostic to fit an agenda. These are definitions of words, and not up to your interpretation of those words.

If a Buddhist doesn't believe that God exists, then he is an atheist, is he not? He may not like being called an atheist, but he fits the definition nonetheless. And as much as you don't like it, it is absolutely necessary to separate "gods" from "spirits", especially if the spiritual entity you're referring to is what is commonly known as the human soul, and I believe that that's usually the case. The human soul is a concept that's completely independent of the God concept when you look at it objectively.

Saying the same thing a 100 times doesn't validate you point.

Afterlife = theist, agnsotic

No afterlife = atheist

I think you misunderstood what I said. When I say that the definition of atheism says nothing of the afterlife, I mean that it is open to individual interpretation. It is only materialistic atheism that dictates that there is no afterlife.

Stop redefining the word "atheist" to fit your definition of what it encompasses. Your relvoving door argument is clearly attempting to make the definition of atheist change to incorporate agnostic. Seriously, regardless of what you believe, you aren't making sense to me. "Know" is not part of the definition of agnostic, no atheist, nor theist.

[Elphaba]

I understand you're an atheist, but what I don't agree with are the atheists who have claimed one can be an atheist and also believe in spirit forces. This is the crux of my questions, as "agnostic" encompasses "spirit forces," while an atheist believe (IMO) that they will cease to exsit after death.

Both Godless and I have tried to explain this to you.

An atheist is someone who lacks a belief in any god. Period. That's it.

I don't understand. This is clearly defined as "agnostic," as spirit forces without God is a atp dance of semantics.

To a theist it is. To an atheist, it is not.

I think where this conversation is going is outside of what you believe, which is why I fail to see your conviction to spirit forces = atheists rather than spirit forces = agnostic.

Atheist = a lack of belief in gods. Period.

Getting outside of semantics, the way I see this is the definition of what believes happens when we die.

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Period.

I don't happen to believe in an afterlife, but I'm sure there are atheists who do. An afterlife does not require a god.

If an atheist believes in evolution, it hardly makes sense to me to also believe the result of evolution includes a spirit. Would you agree?

I'm sorry, but I don't understand your question.

If you're asking me if, because I believe in evolution. a spirit would be the result of that evolution, I could entertain that thought. It does not mean I am not an atheist if I do so.

Well, I believe in God and IMO God is infinite, while I am finite. This answer won't appease you if you don't believe in God, but it does appease me.

Atheism is the lack of belief in gods. Period.

These is nothing preventing an atheist from believing s/he is finite.

But, rather than answer the question with a question, I just find it hard to not wonder where all this matter came from?

Matter came from the Big Bang. I think your question is what came before that caused the BB. That is an excellent question, but one, I believe, can, and will be answered with time. I do think that timeline is far, far into the future.

But something in the physical universe happened, and given the technologies continuosly improve to do what we previously never thought possible, makes it a strong possiblity.

For example, RELEVANT Magazine - Detailed Molecule Seen for the First Time

This is the first time a molecule has ever been seen. That gives me goose bumps. But to the point, there was a time when no one could have foreseen this happening.

My point is that I associate "spirit forces" with an afterlife,

I know you do. And neither one of them precludes a person from being an atheist.

which would fall under the definition of an agnostic. Claiming an atheist (non-theist) also believes in spirit forces just doesn't make logical sense. i would think the scientific community would agree.

An atheist is a person who lacks a belief in gods. Period.

No, the scientific commmunity would not agree with you because it is not interested in changing the definition of an atheist. It would be impossible to do so.

I disagree with you. If you want to hold onto a theory that may come about that "explains" how nothing became something I'll disagree. This is a false hope IMO, and claiming not to know is fine, but claiming an answer will be found someday is really a reach when the answer is truly infinite in its construct.

You get to disagree.

Did you really need to add this in a lefthanded way to insult what I do believe?

I did not intend to insult your beliefs. I attempted to demonstrate how, to me, it is as impossible for me to believe in a god than it is for me to believe in an Easter Bunny. I can dance around that forever, but sometimes it takes silly examples like this to get someone to finally get what I mean by "no gods."

The definition of athesit is one who lacks a belief in God. Call yourself whatever you choose, but you can't change the definition of the word to embrace what you want it to.

No, you can't.

a·the·ist [áythee ist]

(plural a·the·ists)

n

unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Funk & Wagnalls Standard Desk Dictgionary, 1980

atheist: one who denies or disbelieves in the existence of God.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oxford Dictionary: atheism: (from Greek atheos, "without God, denying God") Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged

atheism: (from Greek atheos, "godless, not believing in the existence of gods) 1a: disbelief in the existence of God or any other deity b: the doctrine that there is neither God nor any other deity 2: godlessness esp. in conduct : ungodliness, wickedness.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`

You still claim that infinite concepts can be discovered "some day" by finite minds. IMO, the "God" you place faith in are the people who comes up with the discoveries, and what they embrace as fact.

Except for the "God" part, I agree.

PS - Look up the definition of "antimatter" and see what it claims to be. The accepted theory (from what I've read), is that antimatter is made up of antimatter particles. So, the opposite of what exists is made up of smaller pieces of things that don't exist.

Your mention of anti-matter is perfect to describe what I mean about technological advances furthering our scientific knowing:

In Search of Antimatter Galaxies | International Space Fellowship

Antimatter galaxies, dark matter, strangelets–these are just the phenomena that scientists already know about. If history is any guide, the most exciting discoveries will be things that nobody has ever imagined. Just as radio telescopes and infrared telescopes once revealed cosmic phenomena that had been invisible to traditional optical telescopes, AMS will open up another facet of the cosmos for exploration.

“We will be exploring whole new territories,” Ting says. “The possibility for discovery is off the charts.”

In other words, this attempt at bridging the gap of cognitive dissonance between waht is finite and what is infinite cannot be done with a finite thought process ever... the conclusion is foregone that it cannot be reached IMO.

First, you're using "cognitive dissonance" incorrectly. I'll let you look it up.

Second, I reject your conclusion. I do believe the entire physical world can be proven by physics and mathematics. As I said earlier, I know it won't happen soon--it may take centuries. But whatever exists can be discovered and explained.

Elphaba

Edited September 13, 2009 by Elphaba