quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Since an "atheist" is utterly certain of their position,

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Since an "atheist" is utterly certain of their position,

The post you responded to with this explains why you are full of shit for making this statement.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Since an "atheist" is utterly certain of their position,

The post you responded to with this explains why you are full of shit for making this statement.

Who is throwing insults around now, GS?

If an atheist doesn't have utter certainty that their position is correct ("there is no god"), and are "open" to "proof" to the contrary ... doesn't that make them agnostic?

How can you be an atheist, and not be "utterly certain" of your position?

Are you not utterly certain that there is no god?

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
Since an "atheist" is utterly certain of their position,

The post you responded to with this explains why you are full of shit for making this statement.

Who is throwing insults around now, GS?

If an atheist doesn't have utter certainty that their position is correct ("there is no god"), and are "open" to "proof" to the contrary ... doesn't that make them agnostic?

How can you be an atheist, and not be "utterly certain" of your position?

Are you not utterly certain that there is no god?

Firm

Yes that was meant to be insulting. I just had a thread that turned out to be around 60 pages that explained why what you are doing has no place in an honest discussion. So, when you're not willing to engage in an honest discussion, you have no business expecting more in the way of a response then for me to call bullshit on your lies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: heartcream
You have a way of searching for answers that is better for YOU! My method for searching for answers is amazing but you would not be open to it, I can already tell. It doesnt make your way better though bro.

How do you figure? Mine actually works.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Firm,

Unless I am misunderstanding, you seem to be taking the position that anything less than absolute certainty would, properly speaking, make an "atheist" really an agnostic. But that's not correct. Agnosticism asserts that the ultimate essence and nature of reality is unknowable; not that it is simply in doubt, or unknown at present, but that it cannot be known.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

The questions that come to mind are 1. where did all this stuff come from? (how did the primordial atom become?) 2. how were the gravitational forces overcome and the expansive forces let loose? 3. are/were there other primoridal atoms to explode into other Universes. 4. What is the space surrounding the primordial atom and into which it is expanding? 5. finally the epistemological question: how do we know this shit?

Just in passing (I'm not trying to start a hijack), the short answer may be that the Big Bang theory is wrong.

Anomalous Redshift Data and the Myth of Cosmological Distance

K.

psssst!  Don't tell DomKen.

He prays to the God of the Big Bang, and refuses to accept any substitutes.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Firm,

Unless I am misunderstanding, you seem to be taking the position that anything less than absolute certainty would, properly speaking, make an "atheist" really an agnostic. But that's not correct. Agnosticism asserts that the ultimate essence and nature of reality is unknowable; not that it is simply in doubt, or unknown at present, but that it cannot be known.

K,

That is indeed one of the definitions of agnostic, and I'll take it, if that is the one that an agnostic wishes to give.

However, it isn't the only one, nor the one most commonly used - at least in general conversation, such as here on the forums.

My question is to atheists, however: Do they have "utter certainty" or not?  If not, then where and what is the "uncertainty"?

I'm not trying to tag them with the "agnostic" label, necessarily.

Firm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Ratcliffe and Arp are at the fringes of cosmology, and their data and conclusions are far from universally accepted. They cannot even attract mainstream physicists to their "alternative cosmology" conferences.

That statement illustrates why some people regard the current scientific paradigm as functionally indistinguishable from a religion.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

The questions that come to mind are 1. where did all this stuff come from? (how did the primordial atom become?) 2. how were the gravitational forces overcome and the expansive forces let loose? 3. are/were there other primoridal atoms to explode into other Universes. 4. What is the space surrounding the primordial atom and into which it is expanding? 5. finally the epistemological question: how do we know this shit?

Just in passing (I'm not trying to start a hijack), the short answer may be that the Big Bang theory is wrong.

Anomalous Redshift Data and the Myth of Cosmological Distance

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Firm,

Unless I am misunderstanding, you seem to be taking the position that anything less than absolute certainty would, properly speaking, make an "atheist" really an agnostic. But that's not correct. Agnosticism asserts that the ultimate essence and nature of reality is unknowable; not that it is simply in doubt, or unknown at present, but that it cannot be known.

K,

That is indeed one of the definitions of agnostic, and I'll take it, if that is the one that an agnostic wishes to give.

However, it isn't the only one, nor the one most commonly used - at least in general conversation, such as here on the forums.

My question is to atheists, however: Do they have "utter certainty" or not?  If not, then where and what is the "uncertainty"?

I'm not trying to tag them with the "agnostic" label, necessarily.

Firm

Firm, it really doesn't matter the degree of certainty or uncertainty that an atheist or a theist has. We are not being cross-examined as eye-witnesses to an event. This is not a court of Law. However, we are compelled to judge the nature of reality so we can procede to construct meaning to our lives. As an atheist I have concluded the nonexistence of a Creator, especially one who warrants and demands worship. Having made that decision I can construct meaning for my life and anticipation for my death.

In her letters or diaries, it was reported, Mother Theresa lamented her uncertainty and the lapses in Faith. Did not matter. She still constructed her life's values around her basic judgment of the existence of God.

You are simply creating a strawman when you demand to know whether an atheist has utter certainty or not ... and if not he is an agnostic. I mean really who gives a fuk what the label is? The point is that a judgment has been made regarding ultimate reality and life's meaning is constructed from that judgment, and from the constructed meaning flow values and actions.

I am calling bollocks on your game of semantics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


we are logically required to accept some pre-existing force capable of the creation of mass/energy. Perhaps you know of some example where mass/energy was/is created from nothing in Nature. I do not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
It's pretty simple.  Either you are "utterly certain" of your position, or you are not.  Is that a trick question?  I don't think so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel
I don't claim to have the answers ...What I do claim is that you don't have the answers either and that there's a method of searching for the answers that's better than yours.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
How can you be an atheist, and not be "utterly certain" of your position?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
Ratcliffe and Arp are at the fringes of cosmology, and their data and conclusions are far from universally accepted. They cannot even attract mainstream physicists to their "alternative cosmology" conferences.

That statement illustrates why some people regard the current scientific paradigm as functionally indistinguishable from a religion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

Yes that was meant to be insulting. I just had a thread that turned out to be around 60 pages that explained why what you are doing has no place in an honest discussion. So, when you're not willing to engage in an honest discussion, you have no business expecting more in the way of a response then for me to call bullshit on your lies.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML


we are logically required to accept some pre-existing force capable of the creation of mass/energy. Perhaps you know of some example where mass/energy was/is created from nothing in Nature. I do not.

Actually quantum theory dictates that mass and energy are indeed created from nothing in Nature in the form of matter/anti-matter pairs. They are created out of the vacuum and when they annhilate each other they release energy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

Actually quantum theory dictates that mass and energy are indeed created from nothing in Nature in the form of matter/anti-matter pairs. They are created out of the vacuum and when they annhilate each other they release energy.

The masses of particles are the frequencies of their characteristic wave patterns in the vibrating energy that permeates our universe. When particle/anti-particle pairs wink into existence and annihilate, neither mass nor energy is being created ex nihilo.

K.