Atheist 1 - Christian guy 0

i gotcha. so just curious.. but on the gravity issue.. i used that as a fundamental because i know most people believe in it. but have you seen "thunderbolts of the gods" yet? I thought it was a pretty interesting documentary. Its about things working i guess you could say "magnetically" instead of gravitationally. very intriguing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chronic_jiujitsu

i gotcha. so just curious.. but on the gravity issue.. i used that as a fundamental because i know most people believe in it. but have you seen "thunderbolts of the gods" yet? I thought it was a pretty interesting documentary. Its about things working i guess you could say "magnetically" instead of gravitationally. very intriguing

---

I haven't, but I'll have to check it out. I'm pretty up to speed on the gravity issue. It's a hot topic in 'science magazine.'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pete Daly

I don't believe in anything, from a religious stand point. I have no idea what happens when you die etc.

I don't really have an opinion on how things started, but the big bang is the most plausible answer. Gravity and the water cycle definitely have explanations, but that's a totally different subject (science). Gravity is under attack atm, but I think it will be proven once again.

I'm not sure why i'm interested in these things, but I definitely am. Just the way I was built I suppose. I'm constantly questioning my beliefs. It's like jiu jitsu; something has worked for me in the past, but that doesn't mean it's the best way (see London).

As it happens, I was confirmed Lutheran, but I thought my way out of the belief. I got myself an education, attended logic classes, science classes, etc. and applied them to the things I knew before. The new information was not congruent with my former beliefs, so I dropped said beliefs.

---

Good for you getting educated! To few people doing that these days! I've been reading some of Theodore Jacobson's old reaserch on gravity and thermodynamics and have been trying to slowly work my way through Erik Verlinde's reaserch on gravity as an entropic force. It does have me wondering but I'm pulling for gravities existance.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIbUK3c9zak

thats part one.. you can just follow the links for the rest

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chronic_jiujitsu

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tIbUK3c9zak

thats part one.. you can just follow the links for the rest

---

Thanks man that's awesome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by andrew maxwell

good for you getting educated! To few people doing that these days! I've been reading some of theodore jacobson's old reaserch on gravity and thermodynamics and have been trying to slowly work my way through erik verlinde's reaserch on gravity as an entropic force. It does have me wondering but i'm pulling for gravities existance.

---

cmon isaac newton!!!

I believe in evolution.

So to me going on this fact would make it seem obvious why so many cultures throughout human evolution have developed so many views of of afterlife and religion.

Once what ever evolved in our brain that allowed us to ask "I wonder what happens to me when I die?" I think the only answers are you could continue to have some sort of existence or none, right?

I think the more favored would be to exist. You can see the evolution of this hopeful answer to the age old question in fossil records. It's evolved as we have.

I just can't seem to come to any other conclusion.

Nice video

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew Maxwell

I get what you are saying now, but i still don't see Atheism as a default. The default would be like Nihilism or some thing like that. Where one has no opinion or believes nothing at all

---

I've tried to explain it, but the semantic of atheism that myself, Dawkins, Hitchens, (you know the types) etc... place themselves under is not that of a person who believes that there is no God. It is simply the absence of a belief in all gods. You are really just making headway with a strawman here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AJ Camacho

I've tried to explain it, but the semantic of atheism that myself, Dawkins, Hitchens, (you know the types) etc... place themselves under is not that of a person who believes that there is no God. It is simply the absence of a belief in all gods. You are really just making headway with a strawman here.

---

It's not strawman it's pointing out that the way the term "Athiest" as it is used by Dawkins, Hitchens, etc is incorrect, the word Agnostic has been around longer then they have and its the word that acually means what their use of "Athiest" is ment to mean, so there was no reason to change the peramiters of the term. The dictionary hasn't changed the meaning yet because there is no reason to. There is already a word in place with that defenition. It wouldn't be strawman, if I was commiting a fallacy it would be the fallicy of equivocation, when you slide between two or more different meanings of a single term or phrase in an arguement withoutmaking it explicit. But my terms haven't changed thay are the same as defined by the dictioary.