Supernatural and Atheism

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Where did you learn how to read that you drew that out of my comment?

I figured your comment was derisive. It was, wasn't it?

Seriously, mate? You’ve been offered a cookie. Just take it.

Boru

[Thumpalumpacus]

By "so far", the above formula will never become invalid, ever, at least in our Universe.  The standard model of quantum mechanics is totally complete at low to very high energies.  Physicists are only looking for TOEs at energies thar are well out of reach of the present particle accelerators and may be forever out of reach.  In short, no discovery will invalidate radiometric dating any more than Science will someday discover that all apples rise slightly first before falling.

Right ... so far.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Where did you learn how to read that you drew that out of my comment?

I figured your comment was derisive. It was, wasn't it?

Of course it was derisive. It's nice that you have an opinion was my point. How does that say anything about what I believe? The derision comes from your apparent inability to read plain English, and respond to what was written, without injecting a silly question -- not to mention your ability to miss what I had thought was an obvious point.

Hopefully that clears matters up for you.

[LinuxGal]

You state, "another variable in the equation we have yet to account for"; this is a profound claim, which suggests the existence of so-called hidden variables.  The following equation describes our World extremely well:

The Lagrangian fits on a T-shirt.

[Jehanne]

The Hamiltonians are, in my opinion, sexier:

[Mister Agenda]

You can be an agnostic atheist (don't know, don't believe) or an agnostic theist (don't know, believe anyway).

All atheists and theists alike are agnostic (don't know) so in the interest of parsimony we just cancel out the extraneous terms on both sides of the equation.

Really the term indicates someone who knows they don't know, IMHO. Not everyone does. But I agree going into whether someone is gnostic or agnostic in their position is getting into the weeds and needn't be brought up unless it's the topic.

[Objectivist]

You can be an agnostic atheist (don't know, don't believe) or an agnostic theist (don't know, believe anyway).

All atheists and theists alike are agnostic (don't know) so in the interest of parsimony we just cancel out the extraneous terms on both sides of the equation.

I'm not agnostic.  I'm a strong atheist.  The notion of God violates the axiom of existence. The notion of God violates the axiom of consciousness. The notion of god violates the axiom of identity.  The notion of God violates the primacy of existence.  The notion of God violates the law of causality.  The notion of God commits the fallacy of pure self-reference.  The notion of God commits the fallacy of the stolen concept.  The notion of God is a floating abstraction.  The concept of God is invalid as it can't be reduced to sense data.  The claim that God exists is self-contradictory, making use of the primacy of existence in making the claim while denying the primacy of existence in the content of the claim.  I can go on with much more.  

While most atheists are agnostic, some are not and I'm one.   I don't even think it's debatable.  Debate presupposes the primacy of existence, the notion of gods assumes the primacy of consciousness.  To even debate it is to make use of stolen concepts.

[Angrboda]

[Jehanne]

All atheists and theists alike are agnostic (don't know) so in the interest of parsimony we just cancel out the extraneous terms on both sides of the equation.

I'm not agnostic.  I'm a strong atheist.  The notion of God violates the axiom of existence. The notion of God violates the axiom of consciousness. The notion of god violates the axiom of identity.  The notion of God violates the primacy of existence.  The notion of God violates the law of causality.  The notion of God commits the fallacy of pure self-reference.  The notion of God commits the fallacy of the stolen concept.  The notion of God is a floating abstraction.  The concept of God is invalid as it can't be reduced to sense data.  The claim that God exists is self-contradictory, making use of the primacy of existence in making the claim while denying the primacy of existence in the content of the claim.  I can go on with much more.  

While most atheists are agnostic, some are not and I'm one.   I don't even think it's debatable.  Debate presupposes the primacy of existence, the notion of gods assumes the primacy of consciousness.  To even debate it is to make use of stolen concepts.

Nice summary. I am an agnostic atheist, but I think that all the points that you list are valid.

[HappySkeptic]

I'm not agnostic.  I'm a strong atheist.  The notion of God violates the axiom of existence. The notion of God violates the axiom of consciousness. The notion of god violates the axiom of identity.  The notion of God violates the primacy of existence.  The notion of God violates the law of causality.  The notion of God commits the fallacy of pure self-reference.  The notion of God commits the fallacy of the stolen concept.  The notion of God is a floating abstraction.  The concept of God is invalid as it can't be reduced to sense data.  The claim that God exists is self-contradictory, making use of the primacy of existence in making the claim while denying the primacy of existence in the content of the claim.  I can go on with much more.  

While most atheists are agnostic, some are not and I'm one.   I don't even think it's debatable.  Debate presupposes the primacy of existence, the notion of gods assumes the primacy of consciousness.  To even debate it is to make use of stolen concepts.

There are god-concepts that do not require the primacy of consciousness, but I agree that most do.

Pantheism and Christian process-theology posit that God evolves, and that we are part of the evolution of God.  It makes no sense to me either, but at least it isn't an primal magician.