Will you oppose to scientific conclusions if they'll lead to theology?

sorry, it shoud be "nearly everyone on earth believes in a god/gods of some description"

quote:

---

So unless you can provide evidence, and define "pixie" as a similar definition to "God", then like I said previously - atheist's subjectivity.

---

Considering nobody has proven or demonstrated that your god exists much less provided evidence or a even a definition, Parsimonium's definition of pixie is similar if not identical to "god" and thus he has fulfilled your requirement. I would say that using your level of burden of proof to "prove" your assertion of god, one could replace
"thousands of Pixians" in the quote to which you were responding with absolutely any mythical being, religious icon, or pure fantasy one desires and it would carry equal weight as your mythical "god".

Pixie A fairylike or elfin creature, especially one that is mischievous; a playful sprite.Fairy A tiny imaginary being in human form, depicted as clever, mischievous, and possessing magical powers.GODA being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or realityOfcourse, the dictionary is somewhat limited pertaining to God. Nevertheless, nearly 50% of the world believe in the God of the bible, and that's not including Muslims.If pixies and faires are a serious concept to people, and they pray to these entities, I'd like some proof that they are therefore the equivalent to God, and I want to know how many people on earth, take these notions seriously.So far, you've proved that atheists see pixies and God as equivalent, the same thing. But even the dictionary doesn't partake in this subjective thinking. It tells it how it is.All I was and am saying is that atheists dismiss God as a equivalent of pixies for which there is no scriptures, and they are superstitious. This just means that I am not talking about the concept you have of God which is infinitely less mature than my scriptural theology and knowledge I have sought in my walk with God.(Edit; this wasn't to insult, it refers to a dismissal rather than a belief. Someone said that atheism is just a disbelief in God. Therefore it is logical that my belief in God will be whole - a complete conception according to a specific source, and a passionate belief of importance. Naturally - a disbelief is not the equivalent of my own belief, if it is JUST a disbelief/dismissal. ) I believe it was Crashfrog whom said this earlier on (pertaining to disbelief).SuperstitionAn irrational belief that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome.

​

A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
A fearful or abject state of mind resulting from such ignorance or irrationality.I don't have faith in magic or chance, and logically - prayer relates to my specific requests and specific outcomes, and therefore are not superstitious. Attributing chance-happenings to the manifold baramin doesn't mean anything pertaining to the glorious Creator that 50% of the world believe in. Many believe in God - many have ideas about him. But the scripture says that the nature of the Godhead is revealed in those things which are created. So Einstein's version of an orderly being must be derived as a serious notion and not a pixie. Moot point. I have only referred to God, in this argument, as a conception atleast. 90% of the world believe in God, according to the definition I provided from dictionary.com. I've highlighted your error.God existing has no connection to what I am talking about. My argument is that God is a serious notion to most of the planet,m whether an atheist subjectively equates him with pixies or not. What did you think my requirement was? My requirement is proof that pixies are an important and equally serious and proper proposition as God is, NOT proof of God and/or pixies existing!In general; Please don't equivocate with GOD. We all know to whom I refer.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-24-2005 08:29 AMThis message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-24-2005 08:36 AM

quote:

---

I've highlighted your error.

​

God existing has no connection to what I am talking about. My argument is that God is a serious notion to most of the planet,m whether an atheist subjectively equates him with pixies or not. What did you think my requirement was? My requirement is proof that pixies are an important and equally serious and proper proposition as God is, NOT proof of God and/or pixies existing!

---

However, given that the arguement is about two entitities for which there is no evidence that either exist, what difference does it make that there is more written about one than the other? It is subjective because there is no evidence for either existing no matter how much importance you put on you personal beliefs. You seem to be making a quantitative argument about your beliefs as you first claim 50% of people believe what you do (I am sceptical about that figure) or that 90% of people believe in god (also sceptical about that figure as there are over a billion buddhists which is an atheist belief in its original conception). If in a year there is one more believer in Jedi and the Force than there are christians and more books written about Star Wars would you be willing to claim we have to take the existence of Jedi and the Force more seriously? According to the logic of your argument, if this were the case, then Yoda should be more important a notion than your god.

quote:

---

In general; Please don't equivocate with GOD. We all know to whom I refer.

---

No, we do not know to whom you refer. As I do not believe your god exists, the debate is equivalent to a debate on pixies, Vishnu, Zeus, or whichever mythical figure one wishes to follow. Just because 90% of ancient Greeks (when there were no christians) probably believed in Zeus does it make the concept of Zeus more or less serious than God. And it is you who is equivocating with your god. You are trying to pump up figures (which do not help your arguement) by lumping muslims, buddhists, hindus and every other religious group into the same belief system as you hold. I doubt the Dalai-lama thinks he believes in your god.This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 02-24-2005 09:00 AM

not so,especially in the light of the following It is clear when you say 90% of the world believes in God you are meaning your god, as indicated clearly by that last sentence. Religions by Adherentsas you can see Christianity in all it's guises is only around 33% If combined with Islam and Judaism it only just scrapes past 50% so you can not justify a figure of 90% for god when you clearly admit it's your god you refer to.Just under half the world doesnt believe in your god. That's a bit diferent from "... nearly everyone on earth believes in God...."and as to the "At Least 90%" the total figure for those of a religious bent is closer to 86%

You are right, I was trying to be funny. If it offended you, I apologize. I tried, but I can't. I guess Pixians aren't that statistically inclined. Wrong. You are arguing the positive in disguise. You are in effect saying that - contrary to Pixies - God exists. I, on the other hand, am the one who is really arguing the negative - twice - in implying that both Pixies and God do not exist. Denying your claim that Pixies and God aren't equivalent is merely my roundabout way of pointing out that they are in fact equivalent, albeit in only one respect: their non-existence. In short, the burden of proof is not on me, the honour is yours. Oh dear. Or, as Charles Knight would have it: Oh dear. "Pixies versus evolution"? No, no, no, that would never do. Don't you know I could never find such a site? Pixies are a very scientific concept. Why, there is even The Atomic Pixie TheoryYes, nearly everyone. Not counting, of course, roughly 1 billion Hindus, most of 1.2 billion Chinese, just under 1 billion agnosticists, and give-or-take 250 million strong atheists. Stretching the term 'nearly' to the point of becoming meaningless, yes, well, you could say that, I guess. I sincerely regret giving you this easy way out. If you stay for debate, I promise I will ridicule your position quite humourlessly. I am dead serious about fighting religious and superstitious nonsense. And humour just happens to be one of the more effective weapons at my disposal. Although it's lost on some - notably, you - it usually provokes a response. It did now, anyway. Indeed. Quite true. But, to me, understanding the people behind the superstition is much more important. I can't talk to God, but I can talk to you. That is, if you stay for debate.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

I haven't equivocated at all.I have gave a definition of God which is what I am working with.Look at the definitions of pixie, fairy etc, and then God. Everything I mentioned precedingly is there. About God bringing about reality etc.The fact is that if I am quantatively saying my notion has weight - then are you saying that no quantative amount of evolutionary evidence matters? Well then, that's what I've always said. I'm glad you're now creationist. Incorrect.They all agree to the definition of God as I have quoted from the dictionary - even Einstein.The fact is that I doubt even ten thousand people believe in pixies as a serious and equivalent concept(for debate) as God.What matters is that it does matter that you think as God as a pixie or santa fantasy. Because that then tells us that your idea of God is that of a childish one. Indicating that you never got past that childish understanding.Also - you have ignored what I said pertaining to Crashfrog saying atheism is just a disbelief. And I don't blame you for ignoring what I said, because it proves I am correct.Think about it. If atheism is just a lack of belief in God, then that means that YOU as atheists dismiss God, as you do the pixies.Don't try and bring "evidence" in at this stage. That's just so lame that you try and get God under science so you can refute him according to your ideological methodo naturalistico/.Your error was that of trying to change the subject into mike having to prove God exists. Re-read what I said.Th claimant Parisomnium claims that pixies are equivalent. He must show that pixies are a concept similar to that of the creator of the universe, the supernatural being whom existence is for. Clearly these pixies are just as described by the dictionary. And I invite all to objectively read my message, they are quite clearly different notions.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-24-2005 09:19 AM

Superstition involves belief in chance and magic, as defined by the dictionary.Humor was lost on me, I'll admitt it. But I thought you were trying to provoke me into a response because of my refrain. I thought your motive was that of provoking me to anger. So now I know you were joking, that's fair enough then.However, my only nitpick (which has now caused many people to respond to me, which is not easy - it's quite a bit of work, because naturally the other side wants to pick on me as usual, pertaining to every little thing I say). My nitpick, was that as Crashfrog says that atheism is just a lack of belief in God/s. Then I think that atheists subjectively dismiss God - as equivalent to that of pisies. Therefore - I already know that it's because from the atheist perspective, there is no evidence. Ofcourse - that means that you look at God scientifically.Our whole belief in God is that of faith. Faith is the substance of all things hoped for. BELIEF in Christ is our passionate belief. Some people dedicate their lives to God. It is very serious. People have been put to death in times past for even having an idea against God.And so my point is your point. That your concept of God is a completely different thing to mine. Wasn't that my only point?

Well, if it was, then I suppose we agree. I'll not bite your head off this time then.But you said this: so I'll stipulate exactly what my concept of God is, namely: an extremely dangerous meme that should be eradicated sooner than later. (And I should emphasize that it's the meme that should be gotten rid of, not the people carrying it, let that be absolutely clear.)Because, you see, it's not just in the past that these things happened. It's still going on today, and it could be on your doorstep tomorrow.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

quote:

---

The fact is that if I am quantatively saying my notion has weight - then are you saying that no quantative amount of evolutionary evidence matters? Well then, that's what I've always said. I'm glad you're now creationist.

---

Step back a minute mike, and see how poor the logic you are using is. You are saying that your notion has weight. All you can do is repeat what you are saying. That you say it and say it often does not increase its veracity. You have in no way establsihed that your god or its definition in any way supports your notion of god in such a way that I am compelled to believe it. I on the other hand do not have to take the evidence for evolution on anybody's say so. I can repeat their experiments, examine their data, make my own observations and either come to the same conclusion or try to show them wrong. I do not have this luxury with your supposed weight of evidence for your god...so sorry, I am not compelled to become a creationist.

quote:

---

They all agree to the definition of God as I have quoted from the dictionary - even Einstein.

---

As Parsimonium already broke down the number of people who do not agree with your definition of god I will not repeat it.

quote:

---

The fact is that I doubt even ten thousand people believe in pixies as a serious and equivalent concept(for debate) as God.

---

So in your mind, majority rules? The majority of Germans in the late 1930's and early to mid 1940's thought Hitler's government was a serious alternative to democracy...was democracy in Germany therefore not a serious concept? You are resting your beliefs on a fairly lousy base.

quote:

---

What matters is that it does matter that you think as God as a pixie or santa fantasy. Because that then tells us that your idea of God is that of a childish one. Indicating that you never got past that childish understanding.

---

No this is not what it tells you. It tells you that I hold all irrational beliefs in equal regard. I think they are all childish.

quote:

---

Think about it. If atheism is just a lack of belief in God, then that means that YOU as atheists dismiss God, as you do the pixies.

---

No, it means we do not believe in god...it is not an active process at all. It is no more an active process of dismissal as my dismisal of the notion that an invisible all powerful monkey is sitting on my shoulder at this moment and powering my computer. If I were to actively dismiss all irrational ideas I would have scant time for anything else.

quote:

---

Don't try and bring "evidence" in at this stage. That's just so lame that you try and get God under science so you can refute him according to your ideological methodo naturalistico/.

---

We would not want evidence for what we assert to get in the way of discussion...sigh...

quote:

---

Th claimant Parisomnium claims that pixies are equivalent. He must show that pixies are a concept similar to that of the creator of the universe, the supernatural being whom existence is for.

---

He must show no such thing. By that logic you must show that your concept of a god is equivalent to every personal belief of every person in the world including those without belief...given there are billions of people in the world..you have your work cut out....all non-existent things are equivalent mike...pixies, gods, and syamsu's arguements...it is trivial to argue about which non existent entity is more important. That your chosen belief is important to you is fine...but it is no more important thant he chosen irrational beliefs of anyone else...they all lack any evidence and thus are equal.

You see, you've admitted you think that God is a childish notion. You've said you disregard it the same as pixies. Is it reasonable for me to say that you dispassionately disregard God?Now all these things are the sum of what I have been saying.I have not stated that numbers make me correct.What I have said, is that people take God as a serious issue world-over.If my claim is that they do take him seriously, then I must back up that assertion with numbers that prove that assertion. Therefore, I MUST include numbers as I am NOT saying that quantative = proof of God. I AM saying that quantity = proff that people take this seriously. I think you mis-understand my comparison. I made it to emphasize that my point about people taking God seriously, and believing world-over, is evidencially established, if that's a word. In the same way evolutionists say that evidence for evolution is overwhelming.To equivocate with different concepts of the same basic concept is not the correct action Mammuthus. It's fallacious. It's the fallacy of distraction.. We are not dealing with religion, we are talking about God the concept in a theistic capacity.I have fairly provided a definition of God from the dictionary. The people I am talking about - all believe in the basic tenets of the Creator.That he created the universe, and is supernatural etc...Be fair and inherit a prosperous baba bonanza.I've tried to calm down but I'm frustrated, like Bruc Lee thrashing at the thin air already.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 02-24-2005 10:14 AM

I say the opposite. Have you read my recent topic-rejection?For me - only God is good. And if we were to get what we deserve, we would all be dead my friend. This emphasizes my point, that theologically, we are very different creatures.You see - it was people that killed people. Yet you think God is the terribly injust concept. I suggest that people know good and evil - and therefore know that they cannot escape a just God, or the mis-use of scripture or religious position.

Hi mike,
I am not trying to frustrate you. But in this discussion you have made a few false comparsions and derived conclusions from them that I wanted to point out.Fair enough, you say that a lot of christians take their belief in their god seriously. I don't disagree. That there are christians all over the world is also a fact. Fine.But I disagree with what you imply in this part of your statement

quote:

---

have fairly provided a definition of God from the dictionary. The people I am talking about - all believe in the basic tenets of the Creator.

​

That he created the universe, and is supernatural etc...

---

You are ascribing your Xian belief to people that do not belief in xianity. A hindu may devotely believe in a pantheon of gods. Some of their gods are female....one is part elephant...so they do not believe that "he" created the universe..they do not believe in the same tenets of "the creator"...you and a hindu are not talking about the same beliefs or traditions...not even remotely. By lumping beliefs together the way you are doing you are making arguments about religions being equivalent at the same time that you are saying it is inappropriate to make claims that mythical beings cannot be equated. See what I am saying? Why is this any worse than comparing pixie's and your god?

Who killed all the first born of Egypt Mike?Brian.

Let's head back towards the topic. Who did what or even the actual existence of GOD is NOT what this thread is all about.

---