NOMA - Is this the answer?

"btw: Fellow board personalities, some of us wished to understand Brad McFall, and some even wished for a rosetta stone to decipher his words. Now that wish is fulfilled--see how Anne talk with Brad? This lady is the key to Brad's thoughts!"NOTE: I try, but I have to infer many things becuase of his lack of use of simple sentence constructions among other things. I do not claim to be the perfect English writer, but I try to say things grammatically correct. As to my spelling, as long as I can get close and to where the word can be deduced, then I do not mind. It is only when the mispelling follows quickly after other words mispelled.I do not claim to understand his thoughts. The only thoughts he can write partially clear are those he uses other tnan his own ideas.As to understanding him, I have to take what I do understand him to be saying and apply it elsewhere, Occasionally I ask for clarification.See you around.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

A few suggestions.Can you please separate different subjects into paragraphs?Can you please use sentences that serve as TRANSITIONAL sentences so we can follow you as make jump to jump in different subjects.Can you please us the PERIOD and other sentence constructions that serve as a courtesy to other readers?I understood the last sentence, but had no idea how to understand the rest of the post. If you could please clarify, then perhaps we could understand what you are saying, and not assume what you are saying. Thus avoiding personal bashing which may have to come into order.Tkanks on behalf of myself and probably the rest of the forum.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

What do you think of Richard Boyd the Philosopher of Cornell. He is as "childish' as it gets. After my two illegit kids he STILL lied or was childish to me. That is more relativism than any stomach can stomach. He is a marXist.I did not either way get in the way. But my carreir was trashed so that the likes of his could remain. That is too much to ask a high school student to be the freshman thereof etc.Sorry all things academic are not always turning out the way one becamne one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by acmhttu001_2006:
It is really amazing how childish SOME not all of religious activists can be.

​

So question, becuase I am trying to at least partially understand the other side, is it their own personal fears that drive their relationship with their mytical gods. It is their own fears of non-acceptance that they have to think that there is a God who loves them? Why?

​

---

Read the passage in my thread "Why People Want To Believe There Is A God" again.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brad McFall:
What do you think of Richard Boyd the Philosopher of Cornell. He is as "childish' as it gets. After my two illegit kids he STILL lied or was childish to me. That is more relativism than any stomach can stomach. He is a marXist.

​

I did not either way get in the way. But my carreir was trashed so that the likes of his could remain. That is too much to ask a high school student to be the freshman thereof etc.

​

Sorry all things academic are not always turning out the way one becamne one.

---

WTF are you talking about? Is this intentional? Are you by-polar?

[QUOTE][B]So question, becuase I am trying to at least partially understand the other side, is it their own personal fears that drive their relationship with their mytical gods.[/QUOTE][/B]And how do you know the gods are mythical?You are supposed to have a scientific/logical bent. So how did you reach this conclusion and what evidence did you use? (Remembering of course Sagan's quote, "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.")And of course, if you can produce no evidence, will you concede that atheism and agnoticism are both religious views? [QUOTE][B]It is their own fears of non-acceptance that they have to think that there is a God who loves them? Why?[/QUOTE][/B]The view of the atheist is, to me, as incomprehensible as the view of the theist is to you. I see no justification for strong atheism. The only logical conclusion you can reach is that you just "don't know" if God exists. Any further than that and you are deceiving yourself.

Hey gene:

quote:

---

I see no justification for strong atheism. The only logical conclusion you can reach is that you just "don't know" if God exists. Any further than that and you are deceiving yourself.

---

I'm not sure that's necessarily the case. I'd say more likely it depends on how each individual assesses the "confidence level" of their epistemology or worldview.Consider: from my standpoint religions have had literally thousands of years and literally millions of adherents searching for or at least interested in uncovering factual evidence of the existence of God or gods. In spite of all that effort, to date no such evidence has been unearthed. It is therefore quite reasonable to assume no evidence exists - and therefore god(s) doesn't/don't exist. Is it an assumption? Yes, of course. Is it unwarranted? No.This is quite different from a belief that abiogenesis has occurred, for instance. While there hasn't been any objective "proof" uncovered yet that it did, there are multiply converging lines of evidence that give clues that it could have occurred. It certainly doesn't appear to violate any known natural laws or processes and can be reasonably postulated from known phenomena. Unlike, for example, an invisible, undetectable, unknowable super-entity.So whereas the statement "there are no gods" may be unsupported at the most fundamental logical level, it isn't unreasonable considering the vast amount of time and resources that have been unsuccessfully sunk into trying to find evidence for their existence. Could there be gods? I suppose anything is possible - just like quantum physics leaves open the possibility that my car might translate overnight from the garage to the street. However, the probability of this occurring is so vanishingly small that it is effectively zero. I'm not gonna hold my breath...

[QUOTE][B]Consider: from my standpoint religions have had literally thousands of years and literally millions of adherents searching for or at least interested in uncovering factual evidence of the existence of God or gods. In spite of all that effort, to date no such evidence has been unearthed.[/QUOTE][/B]Consider though that every religion claims to have had interaction with god(s) in the past. We don't actually *know* that no religion has uncovered evidence, we just choose to disbelieve most or all of it (one God seperates me from weak atheism so I must include myself in that group). [QUOTE][B]This is quite different from a belief that abiogenesis has occurred, for instance. While there hasn't been any objective "proof" uncovered yet that it did, there are multiply converging lines of evidence that give clues that it could have occurred.[/QUOTE][/B]That's true. But abiogenesis is a subject covered by organic chemistry, which is an empirical science that we have over a century of experience with. We can model abiogenesis because we know how molecules react under different conditions and we can make educated guesses about the conditions present on early Earth. In short abiogenesis, even though we can't go back in time, is something that is accessible to us. Theology isn't a science, it is not acceptable to us. It's a very foggy area and probably of no practical use, other than perhaps helping somebody decide if they 'believe'. [QUOTE][B]I'm not gonna hold my breath...[/QUOTE][/B]That's entirely respectable for a personal belief but it is my opinion that it doesn't justify strong atheism, which I consider, actively opposing religion. Note though that I'm not classifying you as such. My chief problem is when somebody "knows" there is no God, and that's usually the colloquial meaning of atheism.

Will do------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

Okay, first and foremost. I do not know if they are mythical. I do not acknowledge their existence or non-existence. I was just trying to respond in the same vein as the message that I replied to.Had no evidence nor any logic. If I had, I would have stated it. I wished that I would have, but then the other side would not have liked that. I never did say that God did or did not exist. Merely defined him again the the response to a certain message in the thread.Sure, I believe anything is a religion that one has has beliefs or morals come from. That is true, not sure if God exists or does not exist. But if he did, I would hate to be in your shoes when you get to "heaven" and he asks why you did not do a better job in convicing the rest of us. But then again, there is free choice.But any further from not knowing, yes I would be deceiving myself. I agree with that.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

Nope would not want to die holding my breath either.Gene, would love to find probablities regarding "God". May post the results in this thread.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

quote:

---

Originally posted by gene90:
Consider though that every religion claims to have had interaction with god(s) in the past. We don't actually *know* that no religion has uncovered evidence, we just choose to disbelieve most or all of it (one God seperates me from weak atheism so I must include myself in that group).

---

That's sort of in agreement with my point. I would venture that any religion that had irrefutable evidence (or at least evidence too concrete to ignore) of the existence of their particular deity would rapidly become dominant. Hell, even I could be convinced, I suppose. As to the other - lol - that's really the only thing that separates us: I merely believe in one less god than you do.

quote:

---

That's true. But abiogenesis is a subject covered by organic chemistry, which is an empirical science that we have over a century of experience with. We can model abiogenesis because we know how molecules react under different conditions and we can make educated guesses about the conditions present on early Earth. In short abiogenesis, even though we can't go back in time, is something that is accessible to us. Theology isn't a science, it is not acceptable to us. It's a very foggy area and probably of no practical use, other than perhaps helping somebody decide if they 'believe'.

---

I agree completely.

quote:

---

That's entirely respectable for a personal belief but it is my opinion that it doesn't justify strong atheism, which I consider, actively opposing religion. Note though that I'm not classifying you as such.

​

My chief problem is when somebody "knows" there is no God, and that's usually the colloquial meaning of atheism.

---

Well, if I had to classify myself (often a rather silly, self-referential sort of endeavor), I probably WOULD classify myself as "strong atheist". I don't say I "know" there is no god. OTOH, I do say that the complete absence of confirming evidence and lack of any compelling logic (i.e., no phenomena examined to date have given any reason to drag in extra complications like deities), gives me fairly high confidence to state: "There is no god".

AUTHOR WAS Q's name I havent been able to remember to spell yet,

quote:

---

Consider: from my standpoint religions have had literally thousands of years and literally millions of adherents searching for or at least interested in uncovering factual evidence of the existence of God or gods. In spite of all that effort, to date no such evidence has been unearthed.

---

​

AUTHOR WAS GENE90
Consider though that every religion claims to have had interaction with god(s) in the[/B][/QUOTE]dO YOU "hear" yourselves. You said all together now, that the deity is not on EARTH. Is there some reason that I. Newton was narrating the science of comets and some elastic and electric Spirit in the same print?? Seems to me if you were NOT talking religion shop then THAT would be the "science" the two of you together meant to say about in the topic that is rather a bit more objective than none of the three of us being the subject.[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-26-2002]

After thinking long and hard about the definitions of weak and strong atheists, I would classify myself as a strong atheist, based on the viewpoints listed in the message that I am replying to.------------------
Anne C. McGuire
Cell and Molecular, Mathematics, Piano and Vocal Performance Majors
Chemistry and Physics minors
Thanks and have a nice day

From Q:

quote:

---

I don't say I "know" there is no god. OTOH, I do say that the complete absence of confirming evidence and lack of any compelling logic (i.e., no phenomena examined to date have given any reason to drag in extra complications like deities), gives me fairly high confidence to state: "There is no god".

---

I largly agree with your reasonings for this self appraisal, except, to me, a "fairly high confidence" would be more of a "medium atheist". The requirements for being a "strong atheist" would be an honest "absolute confidence" that there is no god. I don't believe that one with a rational mind can have such absolute confidence in dealing with such a nebulous concept as God's existance.Cheers,
Agnostic/Weak Atheist Moose