Finally! More Young Americans Accept Evolution than Believe in Creationism...

[McBell]

They believe in a god. That they self identify as such, according to their beliefs about their chosen god settles their stance.

I am not disagreeing with that.
I am disagreeing with your addition of the word "strong" ...

 

[McBell]

.... therefore have nothing to say about the reality of God ...

Sad that your faith is so weak and fragile

 

[McBell]

indirect observation as a means of making a firm acknowledgment........?

gravity...

 

[Revoltingest]

indirect observation as a means of making a firm acknowledgment........?
I believe in God.
too much complex stuff to say there is none.....

Indirect observations (ie, consequences of direct ones) are the method
for 'seeing' many accepted things, eg, relativity.
IMO, this doesn't have any bearing on the existence (or not) of gods.
It can debunk claims of some religions though.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Have you been to my website, Timeless Myths, Ben?

I have read and research on Greek, Norse and Celtic myths, it doesn't mean I have to believe in the stories that I've enjoyed reading and researching.

So bloody what that I had enjoy reading the gnostic Apocryphon of John, and called my avatar, gnostic.

What I read, especially what I enjoy reading, doesn't mean that I have to believe what I read.

My all-time favourite books are The Iliad and The Odyssey. Does that mean I believe in Greek religion and worship Zeus, Poseidon or Athena?

And I have enjoyed reading The Hobbit and The Lord Of The Rings, does that mean that I believe in the existence of Sauron, Gandalf, hobbits, elves and orcs?

You have been ignorantly narrow-minded about this.

My avatar is just a fricking bloody name, Ben, so stop harassing me about this. I don't judge the name you have given to yourself, whether it is really or not your name. Stop b1tching about the name.

This is your last warning, Ben. I'll report you if you continue to harass me over the name I used.

I have already explained I do not care if you use the label gnostic but declare yourself an agnostic...I am saying to you that I judge you to be an atheist... If you were an agnostic,,,,you would not be so critical of those who accept the reality of God for whatever persuasive reason they they have based their judgement on....that such persuasive evidence or reason has not come your way yet does not mean that it won't, so be patient.....

And if you think I am harassing you, you are mistaken....but by all means put me on ignore if you want...or you could just not respond to my posts, for I am only responding to your posts...I am not initiating any...

 

[McBell]

I have already explained I do not care if you use the label gnostic but declare yourself an agnostic...I am saying to you that I judge you to be an atheist... If you were an agnostic,,,,you would not be so critical of those who accept the reality of God for whatever persuasive reason they they have based their judgement on....that such persuasive evidence or reason has not come your way yet does not mean that it won't, so be patient.....

And if you think I am harassing you, you are mistaken....but by all means put me on ignore if you want...or you could just not respond to my posts, for I am only responding to your posts...I am not initiating any...

By what authority do you feel you can dictate to others what they think and believe?

 

[prometheus11]

indirect observation as a means of making a firm acknowledgment........?
I believe in God.
too much complex stuff to say there is none.....

That has to be the most ridiculous argument for god, ever. "Cool stuff; therefore, invisible and undetectable sky wizard!!!!"

Just use faith. No argument against that.

 

[prometheus11]

indirect observation as a means of making a firm acknowledgment........?
I believe in God.
too much complex stuff to say there is none.....

No, direct observation.

 

[prometheus11]

I am not disagreeing with that.
I am disagreeing with your addition of the word "strong" ...

Ok, but I'm saying that a person either does or doesn't have belief. Degree is inconsequential when the fact has been established. It hardly matters to what degree I believe in Zeus to those people who find out I believe in Zeus.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Jumping in here......
Dark matter is not only detectable (hinted at by its discovery), but detection (by
motion of stars & by gravitational lensing) is precise enuf to create maps of it....

Dark energy is detectable by measuring the velocity of stars.
This is indirect observation, but observation nonetheless.

Amazing stuff, eh?

Wrong....dark energy is not detectable by any and all of the space and ground based scientific instruments in existence at this time....it is inferred to exist by indirect observation...ie. mathematical calculation to do with the expansion of the 5% matter of the universe Now indirect observation is not detection is the sense of having any data about it....it is undetectable across the whole electromagnetic spectrum and is thus invisible...

 

[Revoltingest]

Wrong....dark energy is not detectable by any and all of the space and ground based scientific instruments in existence at this time....it is inferred to exist by indirect observation...ie. mathematical calculation to do with the expansion of the 5% matter of the universe Now indirect observation is not detection is the sense of having any data about it....it is undetectable across the whole electromagnetic spectrum and is thus invisible...

Applying that line of thought to other things, then relativity isn't observable either.
It seems we're using different definitions of "observable".
What about using the word "detectable" instead?

 

[Aset's Flames]

Because the change at source is what birthed us. And whatever is the ultimate beginning it must be simplistic is itself, is must be so simplistic as to us, to not seem to exist. It is the realisation of self that brings about consciousness and then us. Complexity must be explained; that is what we do with evolution, atoms, planet and star formation, the big bang, the poss multiverse string theory etc.

I think he was wishing for evidance of your stance.

 

[prometheus11]

Wrong....dark energy is not detectable by any and all of the space and ground based scientific instruments in existence at this time....it is inferred to exist by indirect observation...ie. mathematical calculation to do with the expansion of the 5% matter of the universe Now indirect observation is not detection is the sense of having any data about it....it is undetectable across the whole electromagnetic spectrum and is thus invisible...

You can be wrong. No problem here. 2+2=7. See, I can insist on I'm right while being wrong, too. It's not that hard. Three year olds do it all day long.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Oh, I'll talk about whatever I want to. I'll talk about your god all day long.

I am a theist. I believe in Zeus. By faith. No evidence or proof required. Nothing you can say against my perfect faith in Zeus.

Yes, dark matter and dark energy are KNOWN by our detection of their presence. If we hadn't detected them, we wouldn't have named them. You're simply misinformed. Educate yourself.

Haha...how do you talk about a god you don't believe in all day long......by repeating.."I believe there is no god!" a 100,000 times...

It seems you do not understand what is said to you....I said if you think dark energy can be detected directly....please provide the evidence... Inferring the existence of dark energy indirectly by observation of the expanding universe is not the same thing... Dark energy is invisible and not directly detectable...

 

[gnostic]

I could not care less about your user name.....what I am trying to determine is your position wrt religion...are you a believer in God, a non-believer in God, or presently undecided?

No, you're being pettily obnoxious.

I have already given my stance quite fully, twice already. You just don't like that I don't have my answer in the way you like it, with gift-wrapped in a pretty bow ribbon.

Read posts 261 & 263 again.i have stated that my agnosticism is flavoured with scientific approach, because I not going to repeat my justification to you when I have already done so, in those 2 posts. If you don't like them, then that's all I am giving you.

Either accept it or reject it...just move the bloody hell on, because I am truly sick of you, because my finger is just itching to put you in the ignore list.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You can be wrong. No problem here. 2+2=7. See, I can insist on I'm right while being wrong, too. It's not that hard. Three year olds do it all day long.

Prove me wrong...show me the evidence that dark energy is not invisible and is detectable directly be contemporary science?

 

[prometheus11]

Haha...how do you talk about a god you don't believe in all day long......by repeating.."I believe there is no god!" a 100,000 times...

It seems you do not understand what is said to you....I said if you think dark energy can be detected directly....please provide the evidence... Inferring the existence of dark energy indirectly by observation of the expanding universe is not the same thing... Dark energy is invisible and not directly detectable...

I believe in a god, just not your god. Zeus. I presume you are able to discuss Santa without personally believing he exists?

Dark matter and dark energy were ONLY named because of their direct observations, but please do continue to insist that two plus two equals seven. It's fun to observe.

 

[prometheus11]

Prove me wrong...show me the evidence that dark energy is not invisible and is detectable directly be contemporary science?

No. Do your own research.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Sad that your faith is so weak and fragile

Haha,,,,I think it is the other way round...if atheists were satisfied in their belief there was no God....that would be it,,,what possibly more could they learn about God to make there belief more satisfactory....I think they can only keep their belief afloat against the inherent intuitive subconscious knowledge that God is, by repeating the mantra....

 

[Thief]

Indirect observations (ie, consequences of direct ones) are the method
for 'seeing' many accepted things, eg, relativity.
IMO, this doesn't have any bearing on the existence (or not) of gods.
It can debunk claims of some religions though.

not interested in debunking religion.....I ain't got one
Too much creation to say there is no Creator