Atheist Plans New Lawsuit Over Phrase 'Under God'

[Pie]

Originally posted by lookout123
but anyway - pie, Can you conclusively prove there is no God?

Irrelevant. Can you conclusively prove there is one?
I won't live my life as a slave to someone else's delusions... Prove they're not delusions, and I'll consider it on its merits. Otherwise, it's a load of hooey.

- Pie

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by lookout123
i once heard that scientifically that it is impossible to prove anything - it is only possible to disprove alternatives.

That's true, but only for alternatives that are defined in a disprovable way. It is not possible to disprove God, because no matter what is discovered, you can always say, "God is omnipotent - He made it that way." Therefore, it is not a question that science can address.

[lookout123]

Originally posted by Pie

Irrelevant. Can you conclusively prove there is one?
I won't live my life as a slave to someone else's delusions... Prove they're not delusions, and I'll consider it on its merits. Otherwise, it's a load of hooey.

- Pie

whether there is or is not a god, is not the issue. can you PROVE either idea? if not, then your belief must rest on faith.

[lookout123]

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
That's true, but only for alternatives that are defined in a disprovable way. It is not possible to disprove God, because no matter what is discovered, you can always say, "God is omnipotent - He made it that way." Therefore, it is not a question that science can address.

i know that - that has actually been my idea in this whole thread. i was just asking in general. i think i was referring to one of Pie's posts but i don't remember.

[Happy Monkey]

Originally posted by lookout123
atheist = there was and is not supreme being, creator, etc.
agnost = there was a creator who has left us on our own with no further input.

Like I said, the definitions are not always agreed upon.

A quick trip to Google found this:

It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. "Weak atheism" is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. "Strong atheism" is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are "strong atheists". There is a qualitative difference in the "strong" and "weak" positions; it's not just a matter of degree.

...

The term 'agnosticism' was coined by Professor T.H. Huxley at a meeting of the Metaphysical Society in 1876. He defined an agnostic as someone who disclaimed both ("strong") atheism and theism, and who believed that the question of whether a higher power existed was unsolved and insoluble. Another way of putting it is that an agnostic is someone who believes that we do not know for sure whether God exists. Some agnostics believe that we can never know.

In recent years, however, the term agnostic has also been used to describe those who simply believe that the evidence for or against God is inconclusive, and therefore are undecided about the issue.

To reduce the amount of confusion over the use of term agnosticism, it is recommended that usage based on a belief that we cannot know whether God exists be qualified as "strict agnosticism" and usage based on the belief that we merely do not know yet be qualified as "empirical agnosticism".

By those metrics, I am an "empirical agnostic" and a "weak atheist".

Originally posted by lookout123
atheist = there was and is not supreme being, creator, etc.
agnost = there was a creator who has left us on our own with no further input.

Actually, an agnostic is someone who says God may or may not exist. Period. Someone who believed in a creator who left us to our own devices would still be a believer in God.

And I didn't mean to imply that I think there's any scientific proof regarding God one way or the other. As far as I'm concerned, science can neither prove nor disprove the existance of God. Either way its a matter of faith.

[Pie]

Originally posted by marichiko
As far as I'm concerned, science can neither prove nor disprove the existance of God. Either way its a matter of faith.

Do you believe or "have faith" in all things unprovable? If not, why did you pick this one?

By your argument, I also "have faith" that undingquat don't exist.

It's an irrational argument.

- Pie

[lookout123]

B]BRICK WALL[/b]



*SMACK*

i think we've hit the wall folks

The problem is that people keep comparing apples and oranges. Faith is not the pervue of science. An imaginary colony of mice on the other side of the moon or a unicorn is hardly in the same category as God. In the former cases we are speaking of things that if they existed would give solid physical proof of doing so. By definition "God" is not a physical entity. I have chosen to believe that a higher power exists because I find it psychologically and morally appealing to believe that there is an Intelligence which animates the universe. I cannot prove this, but no one can disprove this either. I have no problem with someone who chooses to believe there is no God, but its still just a belief either way.