God or the Big Bang

In message , Paul Schlyter
writes
In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:

It is just as much a matter of faith to believe N=0 as N=1 or for that
matter N1 as the Romans and Greeks did. They each have reserved names:

N=0 Atheist
N=1 Monotheist
N1 Polytheist

So what do you call someone who claims that 0N1 or that N0 ? g

Awkward :-)

0N1 It depends - I don't think the ancients ever considered that
case.

I guess they are either "rationalists" or "irrationalists" depending on
their exact choice of numerical value. Somehow believing in precisely
e/pi gods does not sound to me like it is going to be an easy religion
to sell to the masses.

N0 I suppose would have to be "negativists" g

I tried a few other N-theists in my dictionary out of curiosity.

N=2 Ditheist
believes in the existence of 2 supreme gods.

N=3 Tritheist
believes that Father, Son & Holy Ghost are separate
beings.


Regards,
--
Martin Brown

Martin Brown wrote:

0N1 It depends - I don't think the ancients ever considered that
case.

semi-theists. ;-)

-Matt
--
Remove 'TINLC' to reply.

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
In message , Rockett Crawford
writes

No. An atheist claims to have untestable knowledge about N, the number
of God(s) being exactly equal to zero.

Respectfully, why must it be assumed that
one takes up a position on this?

Because if you allow words with existing well defined technical meanings
to drift it becomes all but impossible to communicate.

No, what I meant is I respectfully think that your "N' logic is flawed
because it assumes everyone addresses or asserts the equation.

Also I disagree that atheism has a well defined technical meaning.

Some dictionaries include definitions of atheism as "immorral
godlessness" or "someone with nothing to touch their inner being."

The etymology of
the word is clear and it already has a perfectly well established
meaning in dictionaries that matches its derivation. Street talk not
withstanding.

I disagree. The term atheism is formed of the Greek prefix a-
(meaning "without" or "not") and the Greek-derived theism,
meaning a belief in a god (or gods).


I like Brain Tung's suggestion, that
it's best to clarify with the person
using the word exactly what they
mean, especially when it's defined
differently in different dictionaries.

*Is* it defined differently in different dictionaries though ?
In all the ones accessible to me the meaning is clear N=0.

I was curious about which US dictionaries are defining it differently ?

Granted that it may often be used incorrectly in common speech.

I don't have any hard cover dictionaries to reference. Here are some
online dictionaries: WordNet, UltraLingua English Dictionary, Rhymezone,
LookWAYup.

I will grant you that atheism is often used to indicate someone
who is in denial or disbelief of a god, but my suspicion is
that this use is mostly among theists which would make
sense. In my correspondance with many atheists all over the
world including England (I know a lovely lady there
named June Gill), we like the "without belief" definition
which is included in many dictionaries. If you would
like to call that "street talk" or "incorrect usage" you
are free to do so.

Also there are some atheists who do actively believe there
is no "god." I don't like this position. I personally think
it's it's not logical to assert the position in either direction
since there is no evidence I personally accept and you
can't prove a negative.


take care,
Rockett

"Victor Bruhn" wrote in message
...

your misunderstanding of Christ's full reason for coming

There is no misunderstanding on my part as to what mainline Christians
believe. I know it better than most non-believers.

I reject the notion that Christ was anything other than man, and I hate the
idea that life is eternal. I don't want eternal life. I want to live for a
time, and then have it be over. I look forward to raising my children to be
scientifically minded individuals, with respect for their religious choice,
and then passing on to diminish the excess population. Make all the faith
based arguments you want. I will take my denunciation of the resurection to
my grave. If that means the cessation of being, where I might have had
eternal life. So be it. Your God can take my life force and shove it up his
ass.

My motto is, "Life is hard, and then you die". "So make the best of it."
Astronomy is just one of my little "guilty" pleasures. When I look into
space, I am far, far away from this miserable existence of quiet
desparations and unrealized potentials. "Everything is
meaningless". -Ecclisiastes (pick a verse)

When I talk to God, he tells me to shut up and look through my telescope.

-Stephen Paul

Michael A. Covington wrote:
Lack of belief as to whether or not there is a God is called =
"agnosticism."
snip
Agnosticism: "The doctrine or tenets of agnostics."
Agnostic: "One who holds that the existence of [...God...] is =
unknowable."


Lack of belief and holding something to be unknowable are not the same =
things. Read your definition for agnostic again. It does NOT say lack of =
belief. It says you don't know either way.

-Florian

Lack of belief as to whether or not there is a God is called
"agnosticism."

"Atheism" is the belief that there is definitely no God.

These are well-understood philosophical terms and are confirmed by the
Oxford English Dictionary, latest CD edition:


Atheism: "Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God." (No other
definitions.)

Agnosticism: "The doctrine or tenets of agnostics."

Agnostic: "One who holds that the existence of [...God...] is
unknowable."
(It's actually wordier than that.)


Michael,

It would be redundant to cover all the information again. Just
suffice to say that it has been brought up that there are many
different usages of the word in different dictionary and the
etymology isn't clear. If you would like an atheist's viewpoint,
I and many atheists that I know prefer the dictionary definition
"without belief" as a common usage which follows one
interpretation of the etymology.

take care,
Rockett

On 8 Sep 2003 14:27:22 -0700, (Cousin Ricky)
wrote:

Is this so? Can you provide documentation (preferably with a nihil
obstat attached)?

Sorry, nope, I'm not a theologian, just passing on what I've been
told. (I don't even know what a nihil obstat is )

The best that i'm aware of is that the Church doesn't consider the Big
Bang to be in conflict with "Let there be light."

Fair enough - this would still mean that as far as the official
position is concerned, it's not either-or, which was my main point.

--
"Sore wa himitsu desu."
To reply by email, remove
the small snack from address.
http://www.esatclear.ie/~rwallace

"Michelle Stone" wrote in message
om...

God...what future do you think you have if you only count on 70-80
years here on earth???

How bout 70-80 years here on earth? How about the life that will
spring forth from our remains? I've heard it referred to the "cycle
of life". Earth is a living thing and we are part of it.

I can see how people wonder with awe and respect to their God when
viewing the splendors of the universe. I too stand in awe with a
strong spiritual reverance when at the eyepiece.

I think that in this point, most of us are in agreement.

I think we are all pretty much in agreement that viewing
the splendors of the universe is pretty awe striking.
I personally don't consider it a spiritual experience,
but I do appreciate it just as much.

I think we evolved to have a sense of awe and
wonder at nature. This and curiosity were
IMHO crucial for the development of intelligence.

take care,
Rockett

I think what we've done is push this assignment
of gods to the unknown back to our own modern
version of the unknown which is the beginning of the
expansion of the universe which is where most
Christian religions now place a God and science
places a question mark.

take care,
Rockett

Hi Rockett,
I certainly do understand the difficulty presented by the concept
of God to a person who is attempting to consider all perception from
an intellectual viewpoint. I also would not fault that person for
disallowing that concept from consideration because of the notable
complications it presents to one’s natural understanding and
moral obligations. I am, however, puzzled by the fact that one can be
aware of peculiar occurrences in nature such as an aphid’s body
being shaped as a leaf, a "walking stick" patterned after a branch,
fake "eyes" imprinted on a butterfly’s wings, all to deceive
predators, or a bird’s organ and bone structure which make
flight possible, not to mention the extreme intellectual inequity
between man and animal, or the ramifications of a "point of origin"
introduced by an expanding universe, and still somehow disallow the
possibility of "intelligent design". We are surrounded by
impossibilities, both of time, space, and quantum. How can we
intellectually eliminate the possibility of a Creator? I think what we
have done is eliminated a viable theory of the visible universe, based
on the horrendous example that past and present civilizations have
provided in their attempt to find Him.

Regards,
Stan Martin

We are surrounded by impossibilities, both of time, space, and quantum.


If they surround us how can they be impossible? The other things you=20
mentioned (leaf-shaped insects, butterflies with fake eye-like wing=20
patterns, etc) are all perfectly explained by evolution.

-Florian