B.C. atheists deny taking umbrage with public menorah

[pinkyclown]

So if science cannot even consider it, then is its possible existence denied?

You seem to be going to great length to justify ignoring a possibility to which there is little or no evidence for or against. Isn't that a little close-minded?

A claim with little or no evidence can be dismissed with little or no evidence.

[Glacier]

A claim with little or no evidence can be dismissed with little or no evidence.

That's a good one. I'll have to remember this one in the future. If only I would have had this one my back pocket when zensiert made to following claim without the accompanying evidence:

Morality is doing what is right regardless of what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told regardless of what is right.

[zensiert]

So if science cannot even consider it, then is its possible existence denied?

You seem to be going to great length to justify ignoring a possibility to which there is little or no evidence for or against. Isn't that a little close-minded?

A claim with little or no evidence can be dismissed with little or no evidence.

Christopher Hitchens (author of God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything) said it best:
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence".

And that is why I can dismiss the psychopathic and narcissistic sky-god of the Abrahamic religions so easily: because he (it?) comes with ZERO evidence.

Show me the money (i.e., the evidence, which can be tested for and where the test itself includes the potential for disproof), and then we'll have something to debate. Until then, it's all fairy tales and unicorn farts. Or, at least, just about as grounded in reality.

[fluffy]

A claim with little or no evidence can be dismissed with little or no evidence.

Ah, but that's the point, I make no claim. There are those who claim there is a God, and those who claim there isn't, yet there is little or no evidence to support either claim. I maintain the only logical course of action would to wait until we know for sure one way or the other, but for a lot of people the phrase "I don't know" remains unpronounceable.

The atheist maintains that lack of proof in favour constitutes proof against, while the theist maintains that lack of proof against constitutes proof in favour. I maintain that both perspectives are flawed and that the real answer is still out there somewhere.

[zensiert]

A claim with little or no evidence can be dismissed with little or no evidence.

That's a good one. I'll have to remember this one in the future. If only I would have had this one my back pocket when zensiert made to following claim:

Morality is doing what is right regardless of what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told regardless of what is right.

And what is false with that statement?

Religion is the impression of authority from on high. You are to accept Jesus' teachings without comment or argument. In the same vein, you are to accept the teachings of the priesthood, because they represent the voice of god and its teachings. It doesn't matter if what they say is right or wrong, the point is: so it has been written, so shall it be done. Disobey, and you are a sinner, regardless of the morality behind your actions.

Morality is doing the right thing, no matter who tells you to do it. It requires logic, reason and critical thought, all three of which are anathema to Religion.

[JOF585]

A claim with little or no evidence can be dismissed with little or no evidence.

That's a good one. I'll have to remember this one in the future. If only I would have had this one my back pocket when zensiert made to following claim:

Morality is doing what is right regardless of what you are told.
Religion is doing what you are told regardless of what is right.

And what is false with that statement?

Religion is the impression of authority from on high. You are to accept Jesus' teachings without comment or argument. In the same vein, you are to accept the teachings of the priesthood, because they represent the voice of god and its teachings. It doesn't matter if what they say is right or wrong, the point is: so it has been written, so shall it be done. Disobey, and you are a sinner, regardless of the morality behind your actions.

Morality is doing the right thing, no matter who tells you to do it. It requires logic, reason and critical thought, all three of which are anathema to Religion.

Great post !!!

[Glacier]

And what is false with that statement?

I never said your statement was false. I said you didn't apply the scientific method that you claim to espouse. Instead of using personal opinions as you just did above, I challenge you to actually apply the scientific method to your claim.

[zensiert]

A claim with little or no evidence can be dismissed with little or no evidence.

Ah, but that's the point, I make no claim. There are those who claim there is a God, and those who claim there isn't, yet there is little or no evidence to support either claim. I maintain the only logical course of action would to wait until we know for sure one way or the other, but for a lot of people the phrase "I don't know" remains unpronounceable.

The atheist maintains that lack of proof in favour constitutes proof against, while the theist maintains that lack lack of proof against constitutes proof in favour. I maintain that both perspectives are flawed and that the real answer is still out there somewhere.

You are wrong with your second paragraph.

If I were to say that a fat blue invisible elf with four arms and three eyes was flying around and doing things to make sure that everyone met their true destinies, what would you say? That I was nuts, probably. However, this is exactly what the theists have been doing since time immemorial. I have seen many a theist argue that a lack of proof of god simply demonstrates his power, since he would want this world to appear exactly as we are finding it. The fact that all evidence shows it to be 4 billion years old is just a test for us -- that it really is 6,000 years old instead, simply because it says so in some musty tome.

Atheists, on the other hand, do not take the opposite viewpoint. We do not say that lack of proof constitutes proof against. In fact, the old saying, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is very true, even in the Scientific community. However, where Atheists draw the line is that when what is purported (say, an invisible sky-god) is so far beyond the realm of plausibility, that to take it into account provides no more benefit than to take every other drug-addled fantasy into account as well, and at the same time to boot.

So to put it bluntly, while there may very well be this invisible blue fairy that flies around and determines our destinies, our utter inability to detect it makes it so irrelevant to our day-to-day lives, that dismissing out of hand it will provide no negative results whatsoever.

And in fact, dismissing it out of hand usually proves to be beneficial for us, since we are no longer depending on that invisible blue fairy to "make things right" for us -- by dismissing it utterly, we end up taking responsibility for our own problems, and finding our own solutions.

[zzontar]

Morality is doing the right thing, no matter who tells you to do it. It requires logic, reason and critical thought, all three of which are anathema to Religion.

Aren't those also 3 of the prerequisites to pulling off a big bank heist?

[zensiert]

And what is false with that statement?

I never said your statement was false. I said you didn't apply the scientific method that you claim to espouse. Instead of using personal opinions as you just did above, I challenge you to actually apply the scientific method to your claim.

Wow. Do you even know what the "Scientific Method" involves? You're just throwing out challenges in an attempt to find out what sticks. I provided you with a verbal Tautology; nothing more, nothing less. I certainly did not make a claim about some physical aspect of the real world (the existence of Bigfoot or Unicorns, for example) that required the Scientific Method.

[fluffy]

If I were to say that a fat blue invisible elf with four arms and three eyes was flying around and doing things to make sure that everyone met their true destinies, what would you say? That I was nuts, probably. However, this is exactly what the theists have been doing since time immemorial. I have seen many a theist argue that a lack of proof of god simply demonstrates his power, since he would want this world to appear exactly as we are finding it. The fact that all evidence shows it to be 4 billion years old is just a test for us -- that it really is 6,000 years old instead, simply because it says so in some musty tome.

Atheists, on the other hand, do not take the opposite viewpoint. We do not say that lack of proof constitutes proof against. In fact, the old saying, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is very true, even in the Scientific community. However, where Atheists draw the line is that when what is purported (say, an invisible sky-god) is so far beyond the realm of plausibility, that to take it into account provides no more benefit than to take every other drug-addled fantasy into account as well, and at the same time to boot.

So to put it bluntly, while there may very well be this invisible blue fairy that flies around and determines our destinies, our utter inability to detect it makes it so irrelevant to our day-to-day lives, that dismissing out of hand it will provide no negative results whatsoever.

And in fact, dismissing it out of hand usually proves to be beneficial for us, since we are no longer depending on that invisible blue fairy to "make things right" for us -- by dismissing it utterly, we end up taking responsibility for our own problems, and finding our own solutions.

I see something going on here in the way that religion in general is being painted with what appears to be a Christianity brush. There are countless variations on the "God" theme, the all-powerful benevolent dictator favoured by Christianity is but one, and one that I think stretches the bounds of credulity.

My point continues to be that while you and others may hold no belief in an invisible blue fairy the fact remains that there are many who do. And since there is no way (by your own admission) to either prove or disprove the existence of said fairy then the whole "I'm right and your not" debate takes on a rather futile appearance from both sides.

[cliffy1]

1: Religion is used in the context of this discussion to mean Christianity, Judaism and Islam, the there based on Abraham and the war god of the desert. These three make up only about half of the world's religious and non-religious communities. All three are based on older texts from Sumeria, Babylon, Assyria and Egypt with some evidence of more ancient Hindu texts. None of them are original, none were intended to be used as historical documents.

2: On the unseen side of things, the so called spiritual, we have seen great inroads in quantum physics and mechanics, where spirituality and science are beginning to close the gap. In fact science and spirituality are both based on the search for the truth, where as religion is based on the presumption of presenting the truth.

[zzontar]

And what is false with that statement?

I never said your statement was false. I said you didn't apply the scientific method that you claim to espouse. Instead of using personal opinions as you just did above, I challenge you to actually apply the scientific method to your claim.

Wow. Do you even know what the "Scientific Method" involves? You're just throwing out challenges in an attempt to find out what sticks. I provided you with a verbal Tautology; nothing more, nothing less. I certainly did not make a claim about some physical aspect of the real world (the existence of Bigfoot or Unicorns, for example) that required the Scientific Method.

Science is based on what we know, which is very little in the big picture. A lot of people for instance would have a hard time believing God has existed forever with no beginning. Do you believe anything could exist in this manner?

[fluffy]

because it is unquantifiable/unmeasurable/untestable

Nothing that exists within the realm of reality exhibits these characteristics. NOTHING.

Nothing but the unknown. Shall we address the creation/evolution debate briefly with the question "What was here before?" In dealing with topics firmly rooted in the unknown then any guess is as good as the next, no matter how far fetched. The point is that they are all just guesses, and I would challenge anyone who professes to have knowledge of the unknowable to show me the money. Until then I will remain on the fence in the is/isn't debate as it appears that the ground is soft on both sides.

[5VP]

<snip religious babble />
It's easier to just have faith....

So...

What religion are assuming here???

Yours.

Anyways...

As I've stated about 25 gazillion times on this forum, "I have no religion!" and do not go to church.

I am not close minded enough to follow one faith over another.

Since this thread was started as a an atheistic statement about the menorrah and since christianity is not mentioned in the Bible and since the Hebrews are called God's chosen people; by using the "scientific method" it can be concluded that zensiert is an anti semite or a satanist.

The problem with any scientific mindset is that it overlooks the inherent emotional characteristics of humanity.

For example:

Which scenario is more likely to be of comfort to a family who's loved one(s) have died or been killed?

The belief in faith that the loved ones are in God's hands in a better place or the atheistic scientific method of describing in full horrific detail how the loved one died.

Apply the scientific method to the family of the 3 who died a few days ago in a mobile home fire in Sicamous and at least try to understand how faith can be of greater comfort than some sort of automated mechanical belief in nothing.

Atheists...

Lord luv 'em...