RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - General


Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )


Calling all atheists and agnostics...(48 posts)

Calling all atheists and agnostics...eschelon
Oct 2, 2003 1:09 PM
How about a jersey for us? Heh heh heh...sorry...I just couldn't resist.
re: Calling all atheists and agnostics...WrigleyRoadie
Oct 2, 2003 1:12 PM
But wouldn't it just be blank?
re: Calling all atheists and agnostics...CHRoadie
Oct 2, 2003 1:25 PM
Circle with a slash for atheists, a big-ass question mark for agnostics.
How about a shirt with a big '$' sign for Mammon?...nmbicyclerepairman
Oct 2, 2003 4:16 PM
re: Calling all atheists and agnostics...AFrizzledFry
Oct 2, 2003 1:17 PM
http://www.cafeshops.com/landoverbaptist.3956904

perfect :)
they actually have one there for atheistsColnagoFE
Oct 2, 2003 1:57 PM
http://www.cafeshops.com/landoverbaptist/33509
re: Calling all atheists and agnostics...bicyclerepairman
Oct 2, 2003 4:19 PM
http::/www.landoverbaptist.org
The best website on the internet.
Enjoy hellSkooter
Oct 3, 2003 12:06 AM
cause you have a seat reserved for you!!!!!!!!!!!
There is no hell. Warning: knowledge is liberating. nmSpunout
Oct 3, 2003 3:47 AM
Sure, next thing you know...Dwayne Barry
Oct 3, 2003 5:09 AM
people are going to be saying Santa Claus is made up as well.
Blasphemy! rofl. nmSpunout
Oct 3, 2003 5:38 AM
I Hope you are joking, otherwise...serbski
Oct 3, 2003 10:08 AM
you are a narrow-minded fool who only reinforces every stereotype about bible-beating religious zealots. Your attitude, if it is indeed real, is no different from that of any Al-Queda member as they are just as certain regarding the fate of "non-believers" (and that includes YOU). I'm sure that the man upstairs would be very happy to see that you are preaching intolerance in his name. Extemism is a real road to unhappiness. If the afterlife is filled with judgmental cretins then make my reservation for Hell immediately. If, however, your post was sarcastic please disregard my rant!
A funny for youlotterypick
Oct 2, 2003 1:20 PM
When I contacted Louis Garneu I explained about being Christian and about the jersey. While we were talking about the minimums, they calculated it and the total was $666.

I told her That's wouldn't do. She said what would you like. I said $333. Pretty funny.
"Beware the man of a single book" -Bertrand Russell nmtz
Oct 2, 2003 1:27 PM
Actually, the Bible has 66 of them. nmKen of Fresno
Oct 2, 2003 2:04 PM
There's no such thing.Rich_Racer
Oct 2, 2003 2:46 PM
How can someone be an atheist/agnostic? How many other things are named by the lack of something (diet coke perhaps being the exception!). Usually the word "non" or "not" just precedes the thing you don't have. eg. I'm not-religeous.

These are religeous terms for people who aren't religeous - it doesn't make sense!

(Maybe this is pushing this towards the off-topic board a little too much!)
Well, agnosticism...Dwayne Barry
Oct 2, 2003 2:59 PM
is not defined by not being religious. It is a term coined by T.H. Huxley in the late 19th century to describe a philosophy, which in essence says it's wrong to assert truths that aren't demonstrable via our senses (i.e. science). Naturally religion, which relies on faith for its validity, falls outside of the realm of belief of a proper agnostic.

IMHO, athiests are just as guilty as theists because what they assert is based on faith not evidence.
questionSteve_0
Oct 3, 2003 3:58 AM
if it's 'wrong' to believe (admittedly the faith portion) that the stories of the bible are factual because they are not demonstrable via science, is it also wrong, to an agnostic, to believe our history books?

Both are merely stories as told by a supposed authority.
Well, there are the "sciences" called...Dwayne Barry
Oct 3, 2003 5:15 AM
history and archaeology which allow one to be reasonably sure of the occurrance or not of past events, or at least give one the means to say "I don't know" if such is the case.

There are many good books that deal with the historical validity of the bible, both old and new testament.
What is the truth?jose_Tex_mex
Oct 3, 2003 4:28 AM
Our natural senses being science? Hmmm. I cannot detect radio waves, would Huxley assert Am/FM as hocus pocus if there was no such thing as the radio.

Perhaps, agnosticism is just not being explained properly to me. However, their whole basis and argument just seems silly to me.

I have several degrees in science and mathematics. The first thing I remember learning is that science is a tool used for analysis of the natural world. Any attempt made to use science for the analysis of an un-natural or supernatural world is by definition wrong.

We know science to be a flawed limited system. Even our best science is extremely limited by its initial conditions. Think about how overly simplified Newton's Laws are. If there were a supernatural world, science would not be the tool to analyze it.

Science tells us that there are no truths. NOTHING IS KNOWABLE. Science just gives us a feel good statistic that the probability of and effect given a cause is likely.

That's my problem with agnostics. Apply your belief to science and it fails just as religion. What then - throw out science? Nope. The argument sounds more like - they believe in a level of Proof with which they are comfortable but not true proof.

By the way, heaven and God are a matter of faith - not proof. That's kind of the point. Why? I'll ask God when I see him.

Peave
I don't disagree with most of what you say...Dwayne Barry
Oct 3, 2003 5:26 AM
although, when I use the word senses, I don't just mean the traditional five. We can build instruments and observe phenomenom etc. that make us more than reasonably sure that a thing such as radio waves exist.

And when I say truth, yes I mean a scietific truth, something that we can be reasonably sure is indeed a real phenomenom (but always open to revision/refutation). I'm sorry if that somehow offends your sensibilities that there, for some reason, should exists absolute TRUTHS in the religious sense.

And yes, I don't know how science could possilby analyze the supernatural world. In fact, I don't know why anyone would actually believe in a supernatural world?

Could not agree more, that heaven and God are entirely faith based. You seem to somehow think that because I believe agnosticism is a useful philosophy that I think science refutes the existence of heaven/God, rather than just making it silly to believe in something for which there is not one ounce of proof.
what's the equation for Love?jose_Tex_mex
Oct 3, 2003 1:18 PM
I seriously ask this question on day 1 to my Physics students. I am clear that in Physics we are going to study the natural world - and an extremely small portion of it as well. I tell them there is no equation for love, yet I know love exists. Maybe God is just love then.

Hope the following doesn't sound too combative - it is not meant to be - apologies in advance.

The problem I have with the argument presented by most Agnostics is the same I have with your post above. You begin by using a scientific sounding argument - which probably works on people in general. However, once you question the basic concepts, the argument quickly changes to one of "reasonable."

Your argument now says that you will believe in something if you are reasonably sure - that is if it meets your personal comfort level. That's about as un-scientific as you can get. Actually it kind of sounds like a personal journey - something you have to figure out yourself.

In life you cannot prove anything. Nothing is knowable. EVERYTHING in your life is a matter of faith or credulity.

As for why someone would believe in the Supernatural I offer the following.

Many Scientists believe in the big bang - the universe started from an ordered arrangement. In Thermodynamics we learn the Universe is getting more and more disordered (Entropy increasing) and that this is defined as a natural process. To have the Universe become more ordered would be considered an un-natural process as Entropy would decrease.

Five minutes ago the universe was more ordered than it is right now. Keep going back and the Universe becomes more and more ordered until we arrive at the point in time where the Universe was ordered - prior to the big bang. This is un-natural. How does one go from a natural process to an un-natural process? Hmmm, how about by Supernatural?

There's a nice little "proof" of God or at least a Supernatural process. However, since it upsets comfort levels most agnostics just will not accept it.

Perhaps, every quantum instant of your life is a miracle. Maybe miracles are so common in your life you have learned to take them for granted, like we often do to those who we love. Just because we have grown accustomed to them does not make them any more provable than God.

Science does well on science problems. However, not when it comes to God.

TGIF, oops, should I say T_IF? Just kidding, it's time ride!!!

Peace
You seem to persist in...Dwayne Barry
Oct 3, 2003 2:47 PM
wanting science to say something about God (either ya or nay?) when in fact, by almost anyones concept of God it can not even address the question.

And also you want Science to give TRUTHS, rather than truths. Of course there are certain truths that have so much evidence to back them up that you'd have to be delusional to not believe them. And then there are others that you can't even get a concensus on amongst people knowledgable in the field. So what, I comfortable with that. The philosophy of science, as a means for knowing about the universe works. The proof is in the pudding. The most concrete example being medicine.

As for your "proof" of God, that's just a what if? Maybe the beginning of the universe is something we can not even conceive of, who knows? Why not just say I don't know? I don't see why your ideas lead to a concept of "God".
Turn it around -Stampertje
Oct 3, 2003 8:12 AM
Science can not always prove what's right. However, any good scientific statement should be *disprovable* if it's wrong. ("You can't prove the null hypothesis.")

This is trickier with history, for example, than for physics, where experiments will prove the validity of your theory. Still, objective evidence in the form of historical documents may support or disprove historical theories.

For pretty much this reason you can't really explain "science" to "faith" - except perhaps expose charlatans. (And then usually only based on statistical evidence.) Faith is not disprovable by its very nature.

Similarly, you shouldn't apply "belief" to "science" - if you can't prove it's true that doesn't mean it isn't. ("Law" is a whole different kettle of fish.)

P.S. I consider myself "agnostic" bordering on atheist. I don't believe there is a god but I can't prove there isn't, and therefore "God" is not part of my world view.
What is the truth?weatherx
Oct 3, 2003 2:31 PM
if what supposed to be the "truth" is not knowable, it is not truth. the definition of truth as "being true in itself and is unknowable" is inherently logically flawed. only falsifiable statements CAN be true. what truth is defined in philosophy and consequently science--this is how the peer-review system came by--is that what passed the falsifying tests (and tests for universality, the peer-review part) will remain true within its own realm of application, until disproved. newton's theories ARE true within the realm of non-relativistic, non-quantum, classical cases.
Turn it around -Stampertje
Oct 4, 2003 7:17 AM
Science can not always prove what's right. However, any good scientific statement should be *disprovable* if it's wrong. ("You can't prove the null hypothesis.")

This is trickier with history, for example, than for physics, where experiments will prove the validity of your theory. Still, objective evidence in the form of historical documents may support or disprove historical theories.

For pretty much this reason you can't really explain "science" to "faith" - except perhaps expose charlatans. (And then usually only based on statistical evidence.) Faith is not disprovable by its very nature.

Similarly, you shouldn't apply "belief" to "science" - if you can't prove it's true that doesn't mean it isn't. ("Law" is a whole different kettle of fish.)

P.S. I consider myself "agnostic" bordering on atheist. I don't believe there is a god but I can't prove there isn't, and therefore "God" is not part of my world view.
Well, agnosticism...mcteague
Oct 3, 2003 8:18 AM
Dwayne Barry - IMHO, athiests are just as guilty as theists because what they assert is based on faith not evidence.

Rubbish. Atheists, at least honest ones, don't say they can prove that God does not exist. We don't need to. I don't believe in Gods because there is no compelling proof. Provide the evidence, see if it withstands peer review and then we shall see. I don't believe in Santa Claus, Bigfoot, Men from Mars, etc. for the same reasons. I fail to see how that line of reasoning is analogous to religion. Faith and Science are not on equal footing.

Tim McTeague
Well, agnosticism...Rom12_1
Oct 3, 2003 8:49 AM
How does the atheist answer the question:

"where did the universe come from?"

I can only think of 2 options:
1) matter spontaneously developed out of nothing
2) matter has eternally existed without being created

I am interested to here responses from the atheists here to how you deal with the origin of matter. Scott
#2 (nm)lemmy999
Oct 3, 2003 9:10 AM
Well, agnosticism...weatherx
Oct 3, 2003 2:01 PM
1). more or less.

matter and antimatter can be produced spontaneously in pairs. for some reason that we don't know, after the big bang and subsequent events, more matter than antimatter stayed in our corner of the universe.

it might not have been developed out of nothing, as there are various competing theories. there might be a singularity or the like at the very beginning, or the bang might have been caused by another universe. no conclusion about that.

before the big bang there was no space, so there was no time to talk abou either. "eternal" doesn't make sense, unless you are talking about an oscillating universe model(expand--contract--expand--contract), but so far the experimental evidence is pointing toward ever expanding model of the universe that we live in right now.

I'm not exactly athiest though, neither an astrophysicist.
I guess it depends on what kind of atheist you are...Dwayne Barry
Oct 3, 2003 9:22 AM
the ones who say I don't believe in God because there is no proof, which I think is essentially the agnositic view, or the kind that says God doesn't exist. I would say the latter are guilty of believing something purely on faith. Afterall, the possibility does exist that there is something we would call God and we just haven't discovered the right techniques to observe it yet. I don't think anybody has developed a test to show God doesn't exist?
and of coure there are Deistslemmy999
Oct 4, 2003 5:34 AM
that believe there is a God that created everything but then he abandoned the universe and does not want us to worship him/her/it and when we die, game over.
you abviously aren't one.Synchronicity
Oct 2, 2003 5:21 PM
Go and look both words up in the dictionary. They aren't the least bit "religious terms for people who aren't religous".

Ha ha ha! I totally LOVE the T-shirts.
--gets out credit card--
There's no such thing.russw19
Oct 2, 2003 5:40 PM
People who aren't religious don't feel the need to describe themselves in religious terms.... it's the terms that the religious use to describe those who don't share their beliefs.

Russ
There's another term...briburke
Oct 2, 2003 9:02 PM
There's a group asserting a non "non" term for it. The term is "Brights". Info at www.the-brights.net

enjoy!
Brian
How about "areligious"?torquer
Oct 3, 2003 6:11 AM
Not as in "amoral", which has an obvious judgemental value, but as in "apolitical". The apolitical just don't give much thought to matters of dems vs. 'pubs, etc., but aren't condemned for it. If anything, the partisans should make greater efforts to engage them by honing their arguements so that the apolitical become interested.

Some of us just don't worry about if there's a creator or afterlife (those things will take care of themselves), much less whether its a he or she, or which way to face while praying.
There's no such thing.lemmy999
Oct 3, 2003 6:26 AM
Your comments make no sense. Do you describe african-americans and asians as "non-white" if you are white? I see your point somewhat about atheism, but we are all agnostic until we are taught about religion and then we either believe or not. So agnosticism is the default position. Maybe religious people should be described as non-agnostic...
You forget...53T
Oct 3, 2003 8:25 AM
Clipless pedals
Threadless forks
Paperless office
Unleaded Gas
Decaf Coffee

I do agree that I don't need a religeous term to describe me, since I don't get involved in "that sort of thing".
Ollie Ollie Oxen Free! (nm)spluti
Oct 2, 2003 3:53 PM
I don't believe in atheists nm.amflyer
Oct 2, 2003 6:34 PM
I'm picturing a Calvin pissing on Jesus logo....KSC
Oct 2, 2003 8:52 PM
But that may unleash the devil in some motorists.
everybody, grow the f@#$ up.JS Haiku Shop
Oct 3, 2003 5:35 AM
we have a common interest here--cycling.

even threads with religious undertones are doomed.

I appreciate your shot at the original christian jersey thread. i felt it borderline, and didn't care to open it.

however (not directed as eschy), let's all keep our IMHOs to ourselves, or on the non-cycling board.

there are enough bike things to argue over.

no additional controversy, name-calling, accusation, or damnation (either way) is required.

no offense intended to anyone (in this thread).

thanks and have a nice day.
We should move this thread to the agnostic forum. nmSpunout
Oct 3, 2003 5:39 AM
J; you da man! Well said. nmKG 361
Oct 3, 2003 2:12 PM
There is a God! His name is Ernesto Colnago. (nm)Asphalt Addict
Oct 3, 2003 6:03 AM
nm
Evidently Ernesto gave the Pope a gold plated C-40 (nm)ColnagoFE
Oct 3, 2003 8:06 AM
If there is a God, I hope his warranty's better(nm)Dream plus
Oct 3, 2003 8:59 AM
Prize the doubt--lower kinds exist without nmContinental
Oct 3, 2003 6:07 AM