Evidence for God from Science

sandy_mcd wrote:

KBCid wrote:Atheism is a stance against the existence of a god without evidence to back it. (a belief)
Agnostics are the only ones who can take a simple stance of not knowing and thus not taking a stance
Theism in all its vatieties is a stance for the existence of a god. (a belief)

And
polytheism: stance for the existence of gods (a belief).

The point of this post escapes Sandy. Please explain the relevance.

KBCid wrote:Atheism is a stance against the existence of a god without evidence to back it. (a belief)
Agnostics are the only ones who can take a simple stance of not knowing and thus not taking a stance
Theism in all its vatieties is a stance for the existence of a god. (a belief)

sandy_mcd wrote:And polytheism: stance for the existence of gods (a belief).

Byblos wrote:The point of this post escapes Sandy. Please explain the relevance.

Many atheist try to take the stance that they are not asserting a belief when in fact they are. Atheism is defined as a positive belief that no god / gods exist.
Agnosticism came about as the proper stance to assert when one neither believes nor disbelieves in a concept. It is the only truly neutral stance a person can take if they wish to base their knowlege on what can be proven.
Theism is one of several stances that are in direct opposition to atheism in that they hold a positive belief in a single god.
Polytheism is another stance that is in direct opposition to atheism in that they hold a positive belief in multiple gods.
Thus in three cases the stances depend on an a priori belief in the truth of an assertion. This is exactly what a belief is;
belief
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/belief

Thus, if an atheist asserts that they have no beliefs it is a lie plain and simple. You cannot assert the truth of something without holding a belief.

I hope that covers it Byblos.

Someone didn't read the thread.

Beanybag wrote:Someone didn't read the thread.

Pretty sure he did.


I think you are confused by how you identify your belief's.

You seem to me to be Agnostic, but you also identify as some kind of atheist when the term doesn't really fit your description.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

Beanybag wrote:Someone didn't read the thread.

Pretty sure he did.


I think you are confused by how you identify your belief's.

You seem to me to be Agnostic, but you also identify as some kind of atheist when the term doesn't really fit your description.

While this may (or may not) be true, I don't think it had anything to do with the comment Beany made above (that someone didn't read the thread). You see, Sandy made a comment on polytheism, to which I asked what the relevance is to the discussion at hand. Then KBC assumed (I believe) that I was confused about the topic and gave a summary of it, albeit unrelated to my question to Sandy. Beany knew I was previously engaged in the thread so I am well aware of the topic and that, I believe, why he said 'someone didn't read the thread', meaning that KBC wasn't aware that I was in fact engaged in the topic. Woof, I hope THIS clears up any confusion.

So going back to my question to Sandy, I'd still like to know how polytheism is relevant to the discussion.

While this may (or may not) be true, I don't think it had anything to do with the comment Beany made above (that someone didn't read the thread). You see, Sandy made a comment on polytheism, to which I asked what the relevance is to the discussion at hand. Then KBC assumed (I believe) that I was confused about the topic and gave a summary of it, albeit unrelated to my question to Sandy. Beany knew I was previously engaged in the thread so I am well aware of the topic and that, I believe, why he said 'someone didn't read the thread', meaning that KBC wasn't aware that I was in fact engaged in the topic. Woof, I hope THIS clears up any confusion.

lol byb im more

neo-x wrote:

While this may (or may not) be true, I don't think it had anything to do with the comment Beany made above (that someone didn't read the thread). You see, Sandy made a comment on polytheism, to which I asked what the relevance is to the discussion at hand. Then KBC assumed (I believe) that I was confused about the topic and gave a summary of it, albeit unrelated to my question to Sandy. Beany knew I was previously engaged in the thread so I am well aware of the topic and that, I believe, why he said 'someone didn't read the thread', meaning that KBC wasn't aware that I was in fact engaged in the topic. Woof, I hope THIS clears up any confusion.

lol byb im more

I know, I read that back and I myself am more confused than ever. So never mind.

I am going to go hide in a corner for a bit.

Byblos wrote: You see, Sandy made a comment on polytheism, to which I asked what the relevance is to the discussion at hand.

KBCid wrote:
Atheism is a stance against the existence of a god without evidence to back it. (a belief)
Agnostics are the only ones who can take a simple stance of not knowing and thus not taking a stance
Theism in all its vatieties is a stance for the existence of a god. (a belief)

sandy_mcd wrote:
And polytheism: stance for the existence of gods (a belief).


Byblos wrote:
The point of this post escapes Sandy. Please explain the relevance.

If you read the above as I did it appears that you are speaking to me about sandy not getting the point of my post since she was replying to my post and you clipped a piece of my post to show reference. Sorry if I misunderstood.

If you had said "The point of this post escapes 'me' Sandy. Please explain the relevance." then I think all would have been well.

KBCid wrote:

Byblos wrote: You see, Sandy made a comment on polytheism, to which I asked what the relevance is to the discussion at hand.

KBCid wrote:
Atheism is a stance against the existence of a god without evidence to back it. (a belief)
Agnostics are the only ones who can take a simple stance of not knowing and thus not taking a stance
Theism in all its vatieties is a stance for the existence of a god. (a belief)

sandy_mcd wrote:
And polytheism: stance for the existence of gods (a belief).


Byblos wrote:
The point of this post escapes Sandy. Please explain the relevance.

If you read the above as I did it appears that you are speaking to me about sandy not getting the point of my post since she was replying to my post and you clipped a piece of my post to show reference. Sorry if I misunderstood.

If you had said "The point of this post escapes 'me' Sandy. Please explain the relevance." then I think all would have been well.

And now it is clear, thank you KBC. I was definitely addressing Sandy and merely forget the ME in "The point of this post escapes ME Sandy". Sorry about all the confusion.

Byblos wrote:

KBCid wrote:

Byblos wrote: You see, Sandy made a comment on polytheism, to which I asked what the relevance is to the discussion at hand.

KBCid wrote:
Atheism is a stance against the existence of a god without evidence to back it. (a belief)
Agnostics are the only ones who can take a simple stance of not knowing and thus not taking a stance
Theism in all its vatieties is a stance for the existence of a god. (a belief)

sandy_mcd wrote:
And polytheism: stance for the existence of gods (a belief).


Byblos wrote:
The point of this post escapes Sandy. Please explain the relevance.

If you read the above as I did it appears that you are speaking to me about sandy not getting the point of my post since she was replying to my post and you clipped a piece of my post to show reference. Sorry if I misunderstood.

If you had said "The point of this post escapes 'me' Sandy. Please explain the relevance." then I think all would have been well.

And now it is clear, thank you KBC. I was definitely addressing Sandy and merely forget the ME in "The point of this post escapes ME Sandy". Sorry about all the confusion.

Byblos, please stop confusing people. There's only enough room for one confusing Moderator here. And, that's my job.

RickD wrote:Byblos, please stop confusing people. There's only enough room for one confusing Moderator here. And, that's my job.

I'll try not to encroach on your territory any more Rick.

Byblos wrote:And now it is clear, thank you KBC. I was definitely addressing Sandy and merely forgot the ME.

Welcome

I see an oportune moment to pass on something funny that was emailed to me by someone at work when I told them I 'forgot' something on a drawing;

Then you must not yet have the Holy Ghost...to bring all things to your remembrance...(John 14:26)

I did reply that this is an interpretational error.

Buuuut, here is a good segue to another thought, why didn't forgetfulness evolve out. Why don't we all have full time rememberance? Consider this statement; "oh crap I forgot about this pit of snakes being here..."