• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"I Don't Know"

NWRatCon said:
You didn't actually read or comprehend the NAS statement, did you? Saying something is not inconsistent is completely different than saying it is confirmed.

I have no objection to people striving to understand that which is difficult to comprehend. Even bright people can fall into fallacy, as Collins, and his many predecessors (remember Rene Descartes?), did.
Click to expand...

I did read it and comprehend it. Numerous times - because I couldn't believe what the NAS was saying!
That statement had my jaw dropped!

YOU, however did not understand it!
Why do you expect the NAS to make a confirmation about the existence of God?


Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science's realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world."
Click to expand...
WMAP Site FAQs


Science does not deal with the supernatural!

Thus, the NAS can only speak about the physical aspect of it.....physical evidences that support the
possibility of God!


..... many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth.

This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution.

Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
lwf said:
Couldn't the same be said for theists?
Click to expand...

I freely admit...I have no knowledge of where God came from. It is the one unanswerable question.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The court, including a federal appeals court disagrees with you.
Federal Appeals Court to Declares Atheism a Religion

And disbelief and lack of belief is really splitting hairs don't you think? When Atheists stop suing for violation of their rights if they are exposed to religion they don't believe in ANYWHERE in the public sector, you might have a better argument. IMO, the Atheist declares he does not believe in God and he does not leave a door open for a possibility that god exists. If he DOES leave the door open for that possibility, he is agnostic, not Atheist.

But we can disagree.

I don't believe in a Santa Claus dressed in a red suit who drives a sleigh powered by flying reindeer. That isn't because there is lack of evidence of such. It is based on reason and logic that every such Santa ever witnessed has been an actor in that role, the logical conclusion that no mortal could accomplish such a global feat in a single night, and my understanding of physics and aerodynamics that is pretty conclusive that reindeer can't fly.
Click to expand...

That source is taking the ruling, and is taking things out of context. Why do you use sources that lie? Your source is using the method of 'quote mining' to lie. One part that it is ignoring is the following issue

From James J. Kaufman, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Gary R. Mccaughtry, et al., Defendants-appellees, 419 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 2005) :: Justia

The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a "religion" for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., ___ U.S. ___, 125 S. Ct. 2722, ___ L. Ed. 2d ___ (2005). The Establishment Clause itself says only that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls "nonreligion." In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of Establishment Clause analysis as "the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion." Id. at *10 (internal quotations omitted). As the Court put it in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 105 S. Ct. 2479, 86 L. Ed. 2d 29 (1985):
Click to expand...
 
RAMOSS said:
That source is taking the ruling, and is taking things out of context. Why do you use sources that lie? Your source is using the method of 'quote mining' to lie. One part that it is ignoring is the following issue

From James J. Kaufman, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Gary R. Mccaughtry, et al., Defendants-appellees, 419 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 2005) :: Justia
Click to expand...

Doesn't change one syllable of my argument. I wasn't arguing a SCOTUS ruling but the plaintiff WAS arguing that HIS religious freedom was being infringed and both a lower court and an appellate court agreed.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Doesn't change one syllable of my argument. I wasn't arguing a SCOTUS ruling but the plaintiff WAS arguing that HIS religious freedom was being infringed and both a lower court and an appellate court agreed.
Click to expand...

In other words, you don't care that your source lied, and you specifically said 'The 7th district', not the plaintiff, so you are moving goal posts there.

I pointed to the original 7th appellate court ruling, and what they wrote does not correspond to what you say they wrote.
 
Angel said:
Indeed, atheists might take heed of your wisdom and stop gassing about what they don't know.
Click to expand...

And maybe true believers might try the same approach? I've yet to see or hear of a person coming back from the dead after three days and saying heaven was great.
 
VanceMack said:
I freely admit...I have no knowledge of where God came from. It is the one unanswerable question.
Click to expand...

I, on the other hand, am absolutely certain where Gods come from.
 
Ah, the never ending 'why' question. Our brains are hardwired to put things into a proper place, it's drives us crazy when we can't find a pigeon hole to put something. I've lived long enough to realize, they're are plenty of things I will never know the answer to, why being one.

Some people just need to worry or believe there's more to life. I choose to believe what I can see, feel, hear, smell and what science can prove. Live for today, prepare for tomorrow.
 
tosca1 said:
I did read it and comprehend it. Numerous times - because I couldn't believe what the NAS was saying!
That statement had my jaw dropped!

YOU, however did not understand it!
Why do you expect the NAS to make a confirmation about the existence of God?



WMAP Site FAQs


Science does not deal with the supernatural!

Thus, the NAS can only speak about the physical aspect of it.....physical evidences that support the
possibility of God!
Click to expand...

Present one example of physical evidence of god and explain how it is.
 
AlbqOwl said:
The court, including a federal appeals court disagrees with you.
Federal Appeals Court to Declares Atheism a Religion
Click to expand...

So what? I do not agree with their decision.

And disbelief and lack of belief is really splitting hairs don't you think? When Atheists stop suing for violation of their rights if they are exposed to religion they don't believe in ANYWHERE in the public sector, you might have a better argument. IMO, the Atheist declares he does not believe in God and he does not leave a door open for a possibility that god exists. If he DOES leave the door open for that possibility, he is agnostic, not Atheist.
Click to expand...

Again: Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system.

But we can disagree.
Click to expand...

We do.

I don't believe in a Santa Claus dressed in a red suit who drives a sleigh powered by flying reindeer. That isn't because there is lack of evidence of such. It is based on reason and logic that every such Santa ever witnessed has been an actor in that role, the logical conclusion that no mortal could accomplish such a global feat in a single night, and my understanding of physics and aerodynamics that is pretty conclusive that reindeer can't fly.
Click to expand...


Santa, as we see the being today is obviously constructed from the myth for marketing purposes.
 
Dragonfly said:
Please list a few of these "rights or privileges" that believers have lost due to atheists.
Click to expand...

Sorry but you know very well what they are. And I am not going to waste my time listing them yet once again.
 
RAMOSS said:
In other words, you don't care that your source lied, and you specifically said 'The 7th district', not the plaintiff, so you are moving goal posts there.

I pointed to the original 7th appellate court ruling, and what they wrote does not correspond to what you say they wrote.
Click to expand...

Since you don't have a clue what I care about, I'll wish you a pleasant evening.
 
NWO_Spook said:
So what? I do not agree with their decision.



Again: Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system.



We do.




Santa, as we see the being today is obviously constructed from the myth for marketing purposes.
Click to expand...

We can disagree. Have a pleasant evening.
 
NWRatCon said:
I, on the other hand, am absolutely certain where Gods come from.
Click to expand...
Thats the hilarious part. In the moment you make your snarky comment you prove are delusional.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Since you don't have a clue what I care about, I'll wish you a pleasant evening.
Click to expand...

I wish you enlightenment and learning.
 
VanceMack said:
Thats the hilarious part. In the moment you make your snarky comment you prove are delusional.
Click to expand...

How, pray tell, is that delusional? "God" is a human construct, a way of explaining the inexplicable. It is the same as the distinction between "magic" and a "trick". If one cannot explain how the trick works, it is "magic"! Before we understood diseases and microbes, inexplicable deaths were explained by way of all kinds of suppositions. Humans are storytellers. They like to create stories to explain things. There have been thousands of "gods" that have been invented by numerous human societies to explain why inexplicable things happen. Some belief systems are quite elaborate, and contain multiple stories, apocrypha, and parables. Some have multitudinous gods for separate areas of experience (e.g. gods of war, famine, death, fertility). Monotheism is a relatively recent development, apparently first introduced (and then rejected) in Egypt. Indeed, arguments about which is the "true" god have resulted in millions of deaths over the last few millenia.

God cannot and does not exist outside of human consciousness. God needs man to exist, man just wants "god" to exist.
 
NWRatCon said:
How, pray tell, is that delusional? "God" is a human construct, a way of explaining the inexplicable. It is the same as the distinction between "magic" and a "trick". If one cannot explain how the trick works, it is "magic"! Before we understood diseases and microbes, inexplicable deaths were explained by way of all kinds of suppositions. Humans are storytellers. They like to create stories to explain things. There have been thousands of "gods" that have been invented by numerous human societies to explain why inexplicable things happen. Some belief systems are quite elaborate, and contain multiple stories, apocrypha, and parables. Some have multitudinous gods for separate areas of experience (e.g. gods of war, famine, death, fertility). Monotheism is a relatively recent development, apparently first introduced (and then rejected) in Egypt. Indeed, arguments about which is the "true" god have resulted in millions of deaths over the last few millenia.

God cannot and does not exist outside of human consciousness. God needs man to exist, man just wants "god" to exist.
Click to expand...
It is delusional to presume that because some tell stories that God does not exist or that His influence hasnt been seen and made manifest throughout time. People write stories often to explain remarkable and even miraculous things they dont understand...that doesnt discount those things from occurring.
 
devildavid said:
So we can't know what is factual and what is not factual?
Click to expand...

How many people got tried in court..... and got away with their crimes?
Do you think we will know EVERYTHING that's factual?

How long has it been now - after so many theories - do we really know - FACTUALLY - the origin of life?
 
devildavid said:
Theistic evolution is not science nor endorsed in any way by science as being part of the body of scientific knowledge. It is and always will be a belief.
Click to expand...

Spin that any way you want. But I know what I read. :shrug:

You're arguing about nothing!
I don't even know why you argue, "theistic evolution is not science." Who sez it is?
No, it's not science - it's a religious belief!

The NAS does not endorse a religious belief, either.
But it makes a scientific statement - the closest it can get - about God.
It's simply stating a scientific fact.

The NAS says that there are physical evidence(s), REVEALED by various disciplines of science, that
support Theistic Evolution. The NAS even names some of those disciplines of science.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom