How can you possibly be an athiest?

[Az]

That's what I read, at least.

[Sava]

Originally posted by yavoon
if we were at the beginning of such an event which would be a miscalculation of the scale of the universe by many many powers of 10.

there would still e another issue, if we were off by that much we are already supposing unseeable matter as 90% of the universe. the new amt of matter in the universe required to contract the universe back on itself(considering the strength of gravity) would quickly become (INCOMING PUN) astronomical.

I never said the entire universe would collapse. I said my opinion was that black holes fall into each other until reaching a critical point where they "explode" like the Big Bang. And since I tend to believe the universe is infinite, the amount of matter is infinite, and it's existence infinite; it is a localized event (local by meaning in our region of the universe, but by no means small).

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Boshko

Exactly Boris. Good to see someone who knows the difference between strong and weak (or as you term it hard and soft) belief. Strong/hard atheism doesn't make any sense since we have no way of knowing that our senses aren't so completely fallable what we're not missing moutains of evidence to theism (so God is very improbable but possible).

But Strong Atheism is still more rational than Theism. Theism is stating absolute belief in something for which there is not any concrete evidence, while Strong Atheism is stating an absolute disbelief in something for which there is not any concrete evidence. Just as it is most rational to operate under a presumption of innocence in our justice system, it is most rational to operate under a presumption of Atheism when talking about theology. After all, believing someone guilty of a crime for which there is no evidence is not equally as rational as believing them innocent.

Burden of proof is on those who affirm the positive, which are the Theists.

[Sava]

While I tend to agree with you Boris on the whole burden of proof thing, logically, both are equally as wrong.

[yavoon]

if u say so=P

[Az]

I never said the entire universe would collapse. I said my opinion was that black holes fall into each other until reaching a critical point where they "explode" like the Big Bang.

Hey, I thought of that theory first!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Sava
While I tend to agree with you Boris on the whole burden of proof thing, logically, both are equally as wrong.

Explain the logic behind stating that an absolute belief in something sans evidence and an absolute disbelief in something sans evidence are equally irrational?

That's just not so. I would argue both are less rational than the Soft Atheistic belief, yes, but I wouldn't make then equal on the rational scale.

Are presumed innocent and presumed guilty equally rational?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Azazel

I never said the entire universe would collapse. I said my opinion was that black holes fall into each other until reaching a critical point where they "explode" like the Big Bang.

Hey, I thought of that theory first!

Prove it.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov


Explain the logic behind stating that an absolute belief in something sans evidence and an absolute disbelief in something sans evidence are equally irrational?

That's just not so. I would argue both are less rational than the Soft Atheistic belief, yes, but I wouldn't make then equal on the rational scale.

Are presumed innocent and presumed guilty equally rational?

It isn't rational presume anything in a scientific experiment until the results can be proven. Your hypothesis may be rational, but that's something different.

[Elok]

Wow, this got threadjacked...
I'd just like to reiterate my eternal and unchanging opinion that religion and science perform two completely different functions within society and to compare one to the other is like comparing a car engine to an oil pump; superficial similarities, different tasks. I'm not directing the statement at anyone in particular, just spitting out my broken-record routine as usual. Now I'll get the hell outta dodge before the argument really gets ugly. Good day, ladies and germs.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Sava

It isn't rational presume anything in a scientific experiment until the results can be proven.

That's what I'm saying. Presuming the existence of God is not equal to presuming the non-existence of God, since science (which often operates on assumptions, but rational ones) states that in the absence of evidence, it is more rational to assume the negative is true.

[Sava]

More rational, but not logical.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Sava
More rational, but not logical.

Ok, you're being neither rational nor logical. Are you sure you're not a creationist?

[Sava]

[Lincoln]

OK it's been about a hundred posts now. Have we got the definitions down yet? Anyway, if God must reveal himself before he is known it is only normal to be "without God." Therefore atheism is rather normal for anyone who has not studied DNA and the information it contains. But after such a study the belief that life arose without intelligent input requires blind faith in miracles. There is no known law of physics that allows for the creation of information such as is contained in DNA. Therefore an atheist certainly is not basing his belief (or lack of it) on the laws of physics.