ParanoiA

Interesting. Are you saying that we now believe there is no antimatter in the universe, or very little? So, then, could it be possible that antimatter could exist at a relatively condensed point in the universe, but not be all that detectable due to the low quantity in existence? I thought scientists were still looking for antimatter and were basically scratching their heads as to where all of the antimatter went. I'm also confused because I thought matter could not be created nor destroyed, just changed. So I figured antimatter would be the same way.

Why? I haven't seen any posts that were disrespectful. And I agree, I've really enjoyed Lucaspa's posts on this subject, but that's because of his style and intellect, not because of his position on the matter. That's exactly my point doG. I can't believe you typed this and didn't realize it. By definition, supernatural is unexplainable phenomena by the laws of nature - as we understand them. Of course we don't understand everything, that's why we call it supernatural. If we understood, it would simply be natural. The point I was making is that the ideas of deities and so forth are heckled because of their "supernatural" tendency. I wanted to point out that of course the explanation for the universe, whether it's always existed, or was created, or some other concept we haven't thought of yet, is supernatural. I guess you could call it semantics, but I think it matters because atheists have this tendency to snarl and make fun of theists and their supposed "fairy tales of the supernatural", when the alternative has the same potential for the supernatural. Unless you disavow any belief at all, holding out for the truth, then you have to deal with the "supernatural" implications of your position.

I was wondering...if matter makes up the universe, planets, life and so forth, then is it believed that anti-matter would exist as a mirror image of this? Or could anti-matter really exist in any form? Do we know? Could anti-matter all exist in one condensed point in the universe as one massive planet or a ridiculously cluttered solar system? Does it follow that the laws of physics, as they apply to matter, would have to apply to anti-matter?

One of the reasons I find this hard to accept is that in America, we can sell a molded piece of plastic for several dollars that costs a nickel to manufacture and make millions of dollars. If you consider how easy it is to make money in america, when you already have money, it doesn't make a lot of sense to manipulate the government in order to do it. Also, private business and government work together in america. As much as we gripe about the size of our government, it is still a limited federal government. So, we depend on the private sector to build stuff for government use. No matter how ethical they really are, they will always be suspect. If you're the typical anti-business american and enjoy distributing other people's money whom you have decided don't need it and didn't earn it, then this simply compliments your expectation. And if you're against "the war", then it naturally feeds into your agenda as well. We should be sure we're not falling for this class psychology. That said, it certainly does look suspicious since it was a no bid contract. How come the administration has never offered an explanation for this? I have little sympathy for any backlash received from this when they won't comment and take these things head on.

Bascule - aren't you a writer? I might be wrong, but I was thinking you mentioned something to that effect at one point, a long time ago. If so, I think your attitude is to be expected to some degree. I'm a musician, and I tend to frown upon radio music - popular music. I call it fast food music, because it's so predictable, contrived, cheap, unthoughtful and basically repeated over and over again. Most of these bands sound like they were put together in the studio, with songs written for them already - which are little more than cheesy choruses with parts thrown around them to call them songs. Everything's 4 minutes or less and follows the commercial structure standard...........boring... But they're popular because most people aren't in to music like I am. They don't want to put forth the effort to get into the bands I like, that aren't on the radio and don't write 4 minute love songs and cry about their sorry life and call it "art". And I can't blame them, really, because they're not music geeks - I am. I might be drawing a silly corrollation here, but it seems like those in the business or trying to be in the business have a tendency to brow beat the competition, so to speak. I don't think that's necessarily bad, although it might be taken offensively by others. And competition, even amongst artists, is a good thing in my opinion. Of course, if you're not an aspiring writer, then this post is even more off the mark....

Exactly. You must have misunderstood me. This is a good thing. Because "god did it" doesn't explain how, nor does it address the mechanics, there's no issue with science. There's still all of the inquiry. "I don't know" is an answer. If you can question the mental capacity of those who believe in a deity, then I can question the mental capacity of those who don't. "I don't know" is a refusal to accept the obvious - that unexplainable phenomena is responsible for the universe. That is essentially the same answer when you think about it, as we still have made no attempt to explain it, but rather recognized that the existance of space, time, life and etc is a supernatural experience. (By the way, I can see a gaping hole in my argument there, but I'm not going to tell on myself...) Like I said, I really think "the masses" believe that the deity is the explanation. And perhaps they believe it follows that all else will be explained by it as well. And all contrary fun aside, I do think it can be traced mentally. There are certain people susceptable to religion and its conveniently laid out checks and balances (like blind faith, no "testing" of power) to ensure its own evolution. I just don't think it's mentally ill. And then consider Lucaspa's repeated point about people who believe they've encountered god. Sure you can find quacks in any group of people, but many of these are very intelligent people, mentally healthy in every respect, and have a story to tell of their moment of realization - however that played out. To assume mental illness in these folks is more than a little insulting.

Exactly because our understanding is incomplete and perhaps unable to ever be completed due to physiological limitations, is why it's supernatural. It doesn't have to follow our understanding of the laws of nature at all, that's my point. You all have probably wrestled with infinity more than I, no doubt. So my point may be out of ignorance. But my thought is, length, width, depth, time - all origins are unexplainable phenomena. And that's before we get to the inventory that populates these dimensions - where did that come from? How can it be anything other than supernatural, at this point in our understanding?

You're talking about "facts" based on overwhelming evidence, or observed imperical evidence, so we have "faith", for good reason. That's completely different than "faith" without evidence, much less observed imperical evidence. I'm assuming science uses the term "fact" as the former statement.

It represents the end of inquiry as to ultimate origin, which is compatible with science since its concerned with "how" and the mechanics. Glad we agree. Because agnostic makes the prediction that we will never know - that's faith, just like theism. Why assume something came from nothing? Wouldn't that be supernatural? Creationism is based on the supernatural too. Maybe both are mentally ill... Because the deity is supernatural, and there is no explanation by natural law, by definition. Of course, the same can be said for the universe's supernatural infiniteness as well. I'm just making the point that assuming the universe has no beginning is just as "supernatural" as assuming the universe was created by a deity. Neither is any more absurd than the other. No mental illness. Just closed mindedness.

It could. And that would make it supernatural since it doesn't follow the laws of nature as we understand them. Now is a "being" involved in that supernatural process? Anything is possible since we're talking about supernatural forces. A "being" is a plausible as "no being".

I have my own arguments against the idea of the christian god and, in fact, any god that resembles human constructs. Because what else would you call a process, or being, above or beyond what is natural (to us); unexplainable by natural law or phenomena? It's only logical to conclude something cannot be made from nothing, as we understand nature. So, anything that defies that logic would have to be supernatural, by definition. Our universe requires an, as yet, unexplainable phenomena for its existence.

Atheist 1) a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings. 2) One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. Disbelief 1. the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true. 2. Refusal or reluctance to believe. 3. a rejection of belief I don't know. You make a good case here. By these definitions you are right, atheism appears to be a rejection of truth about the existence of deity, not a statement of truth about the non-existence of deity. In fact, the theme here is rejecting something as being considered "true" or fact. I have to point out, there are some good arguments in this thread. Respectful, logical and patient. About god no less. I'm impressed... But that's testing how we use the terms' date=' not what they actually [i']mean[/i]. My son says that his new game is "the bomb", but it's not an explosive device...

Aren't non-creationists mentally ill? I don't mean creationists as how they've been politically defined - my head spins wading through the various definitions of "god did it" science. To believe something came from nothing is quite irrational isn't it? Where did the universe and life come from? The materials? Humans are built to understand things a certain way, to borrow from Dawkins. We require a "something" in order to make "something else". So for people to believe that "something" created what we understand to be the universe, is quite rational. It's those who learn about the mechanics of evolution and then draw conclusions about origin that are irrational. A false sense of knowledge. Just because I know how an engine works, doesn't mean it wasn't manufactured by humans. Why would any rational scientist equate knowledge of mechanics to knowledge of origin?

Then you are agnostic, by definition by the same source. I don't know if you fall in this category or not, but it seems like atheists really just want the idea of god to be as silly as any other fairy tale and prefer a "label" that will express that idea and at the same time be considered "truth". That's why they hate the idea of their position to be on faith, because it ruins that implication they so desparately want science to represent. But the tooth fairy is just as plausible as god. Science shouldn't be any more atheist about the tooth fairy than god - rather should be agnostic about both. Again, it's not like absurdity loses it's poison. I think it's just as absurd to believe in god as it is the tooth fairy - both smack of creation by man - yet I can't prove the non-existence of either one. I simply reject the ideas based on faith - faith that evidence would be available if such things actually existed (at least in the way that man has so far defined it). That's just my personal take, which is unprovable. But you said "personal experiences of flying in my dreams" - so you knew you were dreaming. So of course you wouldn't assume you could fly outside of your dreams. What if you started flying on your way to work? Awake? Even though the rest of us will shake our heads at your insistance, you will be personally convinced. Now you can certainly "judge" the evidence, case by case. But to reject evidence of god because it's evidence of god is not ingenuous, and that, I believe, was Lucaspa's point. But science doesn't ask why, it asks how. Saying "God did it" doesn't really matter to science. You can say snowbunnies did it, but science is concerned with how it's done. I don't see any conflict there. Nor I on the non-existence of god. There doesn't seem to be any rational merit to the idea of the existence of the universe without something creating it. What made quarks? What made the forces? What gave the big bang the inventory to create the universe? God doesn't have to be the old guy up in the sky with a white beard of wisdom - it could be a multi-dimensional being and the universe and life is merely 4 dimensional thoughts.

You know, that's true, and I hate to sound cliche, but really, what about the parents? I don't know many parents that really push reading on their kids - and I don't mean book report pushy, rather consistent encouragement. I let my kids read anything they ask for, short of porn and heavy violence and language. Turns out they make good choices - and Harry Potter wasn't one of them... Good point. There's a lot of value - literary, artistic, intellectual - to be had from fiction that you wouldn't otherwise get from non-fiction. I really enjoy both, but I read more fiction anymore.

And your soul will simmer in tomato sauce with the rest of the deniers...

Then they had no interest in reading in the first place. These are kids that likely had no intention of picking up a book at all, but then reconsidered and jumped into harry potter, then put it away. How is that any worse than never having picked up a book in the first place? Second, the article is crying about people not interested in fiction. How is that bad in the least? Gee...people are more interested in reality than fiction and this is a bad thing?

Well, I'm not sure if you mean to or not, but you're coming off rather smug . While I understand the greater intellectual depth of the works you mention, that doesn't, in itself, justify striking Harry Potter as literature. It's just a different style. For instance, while the books you list might be more "realistic", or with a more creative narrative, Harry Potter might be more imaginative, thicker plots, not so much emphasis on "writing" as "story telling". I agree, in that I doubt you'd get much out of them. Your style of literature compliments your intelligence, so, at the risk of sounding smug and elitist myself, perhaps that's why you don't care much for Harry Potter as it's just not a highly intelligent driven type of work? And maybe those girls are just not intellectually strong enough to appreciate what you're reading? I don't know. My parents, avid readers, are reading Harry Potter and they love them. I have no drive to read even the inside cover - just doesn't interest me. But given my parent's clout in my life, I have to believe there's something to be appreciated in them. Edit: I will say, from forced HP movie watching, that the depth of Harry Potter in terms of storytelling and character development is quite genuine. I might be wrong, but I think Harry Potter just might be the Lord of The Rings for the magical genre. I don't read much in that genre so I could be way off...

But not science, right? I agree in that some things seem so probable that I may be so convinced of them, it may as well be fact, but they aren't facts - they are beliefs based on faith since I can't prove them. I may have a great reason to believe this - but that doesn't magically make it fact.

Someone who has never heard of the idea of god doesn't have a belief. So they are not an atheist. Disbelief is not a "default" condition. If I've never heard of the spaghetti monster, it doesn't mean I don't believe in it by default. Belief is a conscious decision - a conviction, or opinion. You can't have an opinion or conviction about that which you are unaware of. Also, that would imply there are only two conditions available - belief or disbelief. Agnostics avoid a conviction, or opinion - belief - in a diety. The third condition of "I don't know" exists. But you're still admitting to faith being required for atheism. That's the only point I was making. Incidentally, as much as I've argued for agnosticism, and I did say that it describes me perfectly, I think I actually lean more towards atheism in the context of the popular definition of god. I say that because while I prefer the purely logical humility of agnosticism, deep down, I have to admit that I really don't believe god exists - as man as presented it. So, I'm rejecting the belief in god as presented by man (faith), but accepting the possibility of "god / no god" in some other capacity - due to lack of present knowledge. So what the hell am I really?

But "something" is just the variable - x. The "x" itself can be a positive or negative value, but it doesn't change the equation. You're trying to change the equation by adding "not" in front of "something". "Something" is not an inherent positive, rather can be a negative or a positive. From the link - http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...hew/intro.html: If "one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not" then one wouldn't say they don't believe in it. Why does "disbelief in something" get interpreted as "not sure"? Disbelief is a "sure" statement that you do not believe something.

It is 2b (1) - you have a firm belief in the lack of a god. You have faith there is no god. See (2) in the definition of faith. You have no proof - since you can't search the entire universe for evidence. Perhaps you can answer this question yourself by telling me how you can disagree there are flying lions on neptune based on proof. If you can't prove it's wrong, then how can it be anything other than faith? It's simple logical deduction. It doesn't change anything about absurdity. It's still just as absurd to assume unicorns formed the universe. It's just there is no proof unless you can search the entire universe and prove it. If you can't query the entire possible space, then how can you claim otherwise? Theists face the same dilema. I really think this is the crux of this semantics argument. Tell me what is different about saying "I believe there is no god" from "I don't believe there is a god". That said, my wife altered the subject matter a bit and retorted with this: Is "I believe the children are our future" the same as "I don't believe the children aren't our future". I think if we look at english like math and say that the two negatives cancel, then you're left with the first sentence - that "children" are being applied exlusively. However, intuitively, the second sentence seems to imply that "children" are not exclusive to our future.

You know, I had a problem with this implication earlier, (see post above), but the more I think about it, the more it makes sense. I can dream up anything I want and if you can't prove it one way or the other then you disagree on faith or you agree on faith. How can it really be any other way? Don't misinterpret this to mean the onus is on you to prove it - unless of course you're trying to prove I'm wrong. The burden of proof is mine if I declare it as fact or whatnot. I think Lucaspa also makes a great point about semantics concerning "belief that something doesn't exist" verses "disbelief that something exists". I'm still chewing on it, but it's compelling.

Sorry, my selective reading skills aren't allowing me to read it....

Atheism 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God. 2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings Theism 1. the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism). 2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism). So, yes, atheism and theism both require faith. Any statement declaring something doesn't exist, like leprachauns, requires faith since they can't be proven. However, simply not believing in them does not. Sounds like you fall in that latter sentence.