So that's it for the election.

[Lucky]

Based on ____________________

[Hitchens]

The fact that Franklin was in regular correspondence with other people working in the field?

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Hitchens [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The fact that Franklin was in regular correspondence with other people working in the field?

Not even just that, but scientific progression can only be stopped by mass destruction of knowledge, see the dark ages. Even during the dark ages scientific progression was progressing rapidly(for the time) in the middle east and far east (they just didnt have the internet for rapid transmission of ideas)

[Hitchens]

I think the stress of his awful IRC bet is starting to take its toll.

[bizzum]

Benjamin Franklin's corpse 2012.

[Lucky]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Lexical]

For anyone who wants to know the truth behind the history of electricity: http://inventors.about.com/cs/invent...lectricity.htm

okay, so the whole atheism vs religion debate is a tried and true one. The problem the religious side has is that it doesn't have concrete and quantifiable evidence that can hold up to the scientific rigors we hold true today. However, due to the polarity of the problem, the concept of a G-d is hard to prove to either exist or not exist.

This does not mean both sides are on equal playing grounds however. The atheist argument does have the upper hand in that they can invoke many of the common rules of the scientific method. The biggest one is that the burden of evidence is on the presenter(forgot what this property is called, sorry chaps [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]), which basically illustrates you must support your claim with tangible/quantifiable evidence or it is discarded. The problem with that is that the entire concept of G-d is that of something we could never fully understand. I do feel that the idea of some all powerful being sitting in the clouds and casting judgement on everyone is rather implausible, but that is a very juvenile stance on what G-d is. If you conceive the notion of G-d as the not yet understood or properly explained, then you find an infinite well of power that drives every man or woman to their end goals. It is the same essence many atheists prescribe to, but it holds a much more spiritual role than a lot of atheists are comfortable with.

The biggest problem with strong atheism is it places too much importance on the mundane and you worry more about the details than the overall message, and the biggest problem with organized religion is that it isn't conducive to change in progress and thus stagnates as human thought continues. Of course they adapt, but it takes time. Did you know that the catholic church originally thought forks were a heresy and called them the devil's pitchfork? Think how much the church has come from there. The big problem is when people prescribe too much to their beliefs(emphasis on the idea of belief) be it atheist or religious then they stagnant and become uncooperative.

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

For anyone who wants to know the truth behind the history of electricity: http://inventors.about.com/cs/invent...lectricity.htm

okay, so the whole atheism vs religion debate is a tried and true one. The problem the religious side has is that it doesn't have concrete and quantifiable evidence that can hold up to the scientific rigors we hold true today. However, due to the polarity of the problem, the concept of a G-d is hard to prove to either exist or not exist.

This does not mean both sides are on equal playing grounds however. The atheist argument does have the upper hand in that they can invoke many of the common rules of the scientific method. The biggest one is that the burden of evidence is on the presenter(forgot what this property is called, sorry chaps [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]), which basically illustrates you must support your claim with tangible/quantifiable evidence or it is discarded. The problem with that is that the entire concept of G-d is that of something we could never fully understand. I do feel that the idea of some all powerful being sitting in the clouds and casting judgement on everyone is rather implausible, but that is a very juvenile stance on what G-d is. If you conceive the notion of G-d as the not yet understood or properly explained, then you find an infinite well of power that drives every man or woman to their end goals. It is the same essence many atheists prescribe to, but it holds a much more spiritual role than a lot of atheists are comfortable with.

The biggest problem with strong atheism is it places too much importance on the mundane and you worry more about the details than the overall message, and the biggest problem with organized religion is that it isn't conducive to change in progress and thus stagnates as human thought continues. Of course they adapt, but it takes time. Did you know that the catholic church originally thought forks were a heresy and called them the devil's pitchfork? Think how much the church has come from there. The big problem is when people prescribe too much to their beliefs(emphasis on the idea of belief) be it atheist or religious then they stagnant and become uncooperative.

strong atheism is bunk, atheism is the product of logical conclusions, strong atheism is almost a religion

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

strong atheism is bunk, atheism is the product of logical conclusions, strong atheism is almost a religion

I agree. Militant atheists are generally so in love with science they don't really understand the entire philosophy behind it and worship it in a manner close to a religion.

However, atheism in generally still prescribes to the belief that there is definitively no G-d which is just as unproven as the existence of G-d. The common argument I hear for the lack of existence of G-d(and I am open to hear other ones but I will probably find some logically fallacy in it) is the burden of proof argument which only is applicable when one makes the statement G-d exists. It becomes your burden of proof when you make the claim G-d does not exist.

One can not simply make the argument that since there is no evidence to support something exists, then it does not exist. This is a logical fallacy and a misuse of the scientific method which most if not all atheists prescribe to. One can only make the claim that the existence of G-d can not be determined and therefore neither side can logically claim it is right. The scientific community actually assumes a lot of things to exist before actually proving that they do. This is so we can model all areas of a field so it is easier to understand. We see such happenings in the scientific community all the time. For example, the Higgs boson which people were sure it existed but we had no proof of its existence for sometime. The scientific community developed many theories including the standard model all under the assumption that the Higgs boson existed (and thankfully we found that it does [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]) and science was able to grow. The standard model was taught in all classes as a strong theory(not fact as the scientific model does not support "facts") for a long time based on this certainty. We still treat gravity as its own separate force despite having absolutely no evidence of a gravitron force particle.

The underlying issue is that when you state "G-d does not exist" then you are saying without a doubt G-d does not exist. The scientific method can never and will never support such a bold claim so you are only left in the realm of philosophy. This makes logical reasoning very hard as you are trying to logically reason something outside that of logic and reason since both are man made constructs and therefore could not comprehend what G-d is.

[Alawen]

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I agree. Militant atheists are generally so in love with science they don't really understand the entire philosophy behind it and worship it in a manner close to a religion.

However, atheism in generally still prescribes to the belief that there is definitively no G-d which is just as unproven as the existence of G-d. The common argument I hear for the lack of existence of G-d(and I am open to hear other ones but I will probably find some logically fallacy in it) is the burden of proof argument which only is applicable when one makes the statement G-d exists. It becomes your burden of proof when you make the claim G-d does not exist.

One can not simply make the argument that since there is no evidence to support something exists, then it does not exist. This is a logical fallacy and a misuse of the scientific method which most if not all atheists prescribe to. One can only make the claim that the existence of G-d can not be determined and therefore neither side can logically claim it is right. The scientific community actually assumes a lot of things to exist before actually proving that they do. This is so we can model all areas of a field so it is easier to understand. We see such happenings in the scientific community all the time. For example, the Higgs boson which people were sure it existed but we had no proof of its existence for sometime. The scientific community developed many theories including the standard model all under the assumption that the Higgs boson existed (and thankfully we found that it does [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]) and science was able to grow. The standard model was taught in all classes as a strong theory(not fact as the scientific model does not support "facts") for a long time based on this certainty. We still treat gravity as its own separate force despite having absolutely no evidence of a gravitron force particle.

The underlying issue is that when you state "G-d does not exist" then you are saying without a doubt G-d does not exist. The scientific method can never and will never support such a bold claim so you are only left in the realm of philosophy. This makes logical reasoning very hard as you are trying to logically reason something outside that of logic and reason since both are man made constructs and therefore could not comprehend what G-d is.

And you, sir, have just committed the logical fallacy of hasty generalization. I am a declared atheist because I find absolutely no reason to believe in a deity. I spent many years trying to understand why there was such a widespread belief when I felt absolutely nothing. I found great peace when I ultimately discovered the theory of a proto-Indo-European religion.

As for Frieza's proposed scenario, it is patently ridiculous despite Alarti's poor refutation of it. No one chooses to believe in Christianity or any religion based on evidence or historicity. There is no verifiable evidence for even the existence of Buddha, Jesus Christ, or Muhammad, much less the authenticity of any of their claims. People seem to believe in religion either because their parents told them to or because they feel an unfulfilled need in their lives.

The most interesting thing about this thread, to me, is that it turned into an argument against atheism rather than addressing the very clear differences between Mormonism and more common Christianity. Apparently no one wants to defend magic underwear and teleporting Jesus.