So then, the Earth is sometimes flat and sometimes, humans can shit unicorns.
LOL. I just watched two programs about multiverses. Some speculate that every possibility, no matter how unlikely, is real in some multiverse somewhere, because they are infinite. It's disturbing to think there might be a place where the equivalent of angels are real. I don't worry about gods, because logically contradictory stuff isn't just very improbable, that's impossible.
The unicorns would have to be rather small. You bet Prep H is big business there.
One multiverse is fine, but everything in existence is still one everything. And no matter what the shape of the extra dimensions and the subsequent behavior of the vibrating strings, magic cannot happen, I know. For magic, gods, angels and miracles would no longer be such, the moment they have any specific identity or manifestation in reality. The people that speculate about any possibility, I'm sure, well, I hope, only refer to the possible, not the impossible. There is not another universe within the multiverse that, say, houseplants can start a car with a peanut butter and jelly sandwich or that 2+2=51.7. Impossible is impossible, wherever you are. And who says that shitting unicorns wouldn't be a pleasant experience? It might feel like eating rainbows, which can make you taller if you do it on a Thursday morning.
I think there needs to be a distinction drawn quickly from doubt. At my stand point I have no doubt that there is no "God" but realize also that there is no way I can prove it does not exist. Same as disproving the existence of an invisible teapot from whence pours all life. Obviously one cannot disprove something that people cannot even prove exists. I think this is not an admittance of doubt but just a comical pointing out of the absurdly true. However, the inability to disprove the existance of something should give no creedence to it's existence. "prove it exists" "no, prove it does not exist" This argument always hits a dead end or runs circular and should be removed from any reasonable discussion in my opinion. As with the age old "What if your wrong?" argument which is always as valid as the response: "well what if you are wrong?" So basically I think one should not use that absurd truth as a basis for doubt.
Also, as sure as I am of that, to go into any argument assuming that you know the one hundred percent truthfulness of anything and leave no chance in your mind for a possibility that you are completely wrong or even off a little on an idea seems like a very self-serving standpoint in an open environment of growth and inquiry. I mean that when we debate or argue a point it is not to just prove that point right or prove one's self right as much as it is to see what truths we (in said discussion) can discover.
conversely, I have not had the personal view of earth from outer space to see the truth of its supposed roundness. So for all I "know" the earth could be flat and the scientists could be lying to us. Does that mean I think there is a possibility that the earth is flat? Not at all, but as skeptic as I am, not till I see it with my own eyes. :)
I shit a unicorn once. Boy did it hurt. I am not sure it was a unicorn, but it felt like one.
Doubt is healthy. Fundies have no doubt. Or do they?
If I am more than 99.99999999% sure that there is no god, what is the point of discussing it? (I am 99.99% sure.) I don't have to convince myself or convert anybody. Lets argue if water is wet, if the sun is hot, or ice is cold. The better discussion is how can any educated person think otherwise? Why does 56% of American don't believe in evolution?
You did not shit a unicorn. Constipation or anal fissures or hemorrhoids don't count as unicorns. Doubt that 2+2=4 is not healthy. I care not, nor do I think it germaine, that fundies are certain of their faith, which is retarded. Many many people believe in god and not evolution, despite their "education", which in the matters of reason and logic, is quite deficient. The point is that if you are only 99.999999999% sure, that means you think that the possibility of the impossible can happen is greater than 0, which in effect means that you think anything is actually possible, which is about as smart as creation 6000 years ago. The statement that anything is possible is false.
"Doubt is healthy" is the first principle of atheism and of science. It can not be used to have a second doubt on your first one!
Atheism has principles? I always thought atheism had nothing to offer the world, and I still think this way. And I will probably continue to think this way.
And the first principles of science have to do with observations. After that, it's all about proving what you think about your observations.
"Doubt is healthy". That sounds more of a sceptics philosophy.
Leveni, I am surprised and disappointed to read you question if atheists have principles, yet that is the first question I get from believers. I am an honest person, reliable, dependable, responsible, generous, compassionate, loving and I could go on listing a whole bunch of other attributes but the issue is that I am a human being with the ability to think, reason, observe, compare and contrast. I live pro-socially because it is inside me. I would no more cheat you than spit on you. My decency does not come from some external power but from my internal care and love and compassion.
Atheists have nothing to offer the world? Well, I was a teacher and a very good one. I am a mother and do a very good job. I was a wife and managed very well even as my husband broke the bones of our children, bruised and battered them. Seeking help from my ministers, church members and church leaders, I was given what I call the "Passive Gospel": yield, pray, obey, submit, do not rile him, love him to the lord, sacrifice myself daily in imitation of the crucified christ and rejoice in my crucifixion. Not very healthy advice coming from my religious family and community.
Do all religious people commit domestic violence? No! Do any atheists commit domestic violence? Yes! Religious and non-religious commit physical, emotional, and spiritual assaults on people who love them. Is that the test?
When I observe a child being mistreated in the grocery store is it loving and compassionate to turn away and do nothing?
When I observe a woman with bruises on her face and body is it loving and compassionate to not recognize the signs?
When I observe a man being brow-beaten by his wife and I obligated to remain silent?
From where does your motivation for pro-social living come?
Where have I written atheists don't have principles?
Where have I written atheists have nothing to offer the world?
Excuse me, Leveni! You wrote,
"Atheism has principles? I always thought atheism had nothing to offer the world, and I still think this way. And I will probably continue to think this way."
How are things?
Yep, "Atheism has principles? I always thought atheism had nothing to offer the world, and I still think this way. And I will probably continue to think this way." is what I said.
I never said:'atheists don't have principles?'
I never said:'atheists have nothing to offer the world??'
Atheism is the absence of a belief in God. But as far as principles go, atheism has nothing to offer. But if you think atheism does have principles please share them with me and explain how it is that the principles in your explanation are a part of atheism.