NationStates Jolt Archive

Will if your going to debate me fine. But if your going to do it in an asinine way dont bother. I respect you and your point of view so please return the favor.
The point is that your context needs changing! You have a distorted view of reality, that only looks at one context, a literal one.

I never said murder is as wrong as eating pork. I merely said there are evils that people can agree on and some that people cant. I would ask god to remove such evils that everyone agrees on like murder and rape from existance. There a big problem with that?
A huge problem. God does not interfere in our reality. If he did, we would have no free will.

True but then again it depends on where the morals come from. I believe that they arent nessecarly derived from a supreme being but something humanity has come about to create. And we legislate morals all the time we just dont do it in a religious sense. We say rape is wrong because it harms others, killing is wrong because it harms others, etc. If we can do this down here why cant god just remove these things from existance if he loves us so much?
Because god doesn't interfere in reality.

The OT and NT seem to disagree with you there.
They are a mythology, a very useful one, but redundant if you take them literally.

The point is that your context needs changing! You have a distorted view of reality, that only looks at one context, a literal one.
All I'm saying is look we have a society down here that agrees that certain acts like murder and rape are wrong. If god is all powerfull perfectly good being he should be able to remove these things from society in a way that keeps our free will intact.


A huge problem. God does not interfere in our reality. If he did, we would have no free will.
But I dont agree with you there. I think that god could interfere in our reality and in a way where we would still have free will. We do it all the time. If someone tries to kill themselves we put them in a place where they cant hurt themselves and where they can get better. Sure some of their free will is taken away but not all of it. If we can do this why cant god?


Because god doesn't interfere in reality.
Thats one interpretation. Another is that there is no god. The one presented is put in such a light that he is perfectly good and yet incapable of interfering and helping us which is really odd if not completely rediculous.


They are a mythology, a very useful one, but redundant if you take them literally.
So I suppose you dont believe in any of the miracles in it like Jesus' resurection or say the immaculate conception?

All I'm saying is look we have a society down here that agrees on certain acts like murder and rape. If god is all powerfull perfectly good being he should be able to remove these things from society in a way that keeps our free will intact.
Ah, I see. You want a god who is "magic." A lot of people do.

But I dont agree with you there. I think that god could interfere in our reality and in a way where we would still have free will. We do it all the time. If someone tries to kill themselves we put them in a place where they cant hurt themselves and where they can get better. Sure some of their free will is taken away but not all of it. If we can do this why cant god?
We never impede each other's free will--we cannot. We all have the capacity to make choices at any moment in our lives, even if the choice is acceptance of circumstances (what we commonly refer to as "I had no choice").

I accept that you have a different image of god than I do. So be it.
Thats one interpretation. Another is that there is no god because the one presented is put in such a light that he is perfectly good and yet incapable of interfering and helping us which is really odd if not completely rediculous.
Or, the "one" presented is not the only one presented. Shop around a bit--I'm sure you can find a god more to your liking. I did.

So I suppose you dont believe in any of the miracles in it like Jesus' resurection or say the immaculate conception?
I am not a Christian; right.

Well lets look at the government again for an example. We limit our freedom in order to maintain a better society in many different ways. We dont totally take control of people's lives and force them to act in a rigid set of ways but we do limit our freedom enough to enjoy life without harming others. Surely the christian god could do the same thing?

Yes.
But it's still a balancing act. Freedom vs better society.
And you're assuming that what is important to you is important to a good, kind God.
Assuming that any suffering on earth that happens over even the longest human lifespan will be nothing but a blink of an eye in the scale of our immortal souls, (and I know that's a BIG assumption), then really....can't we accept that the good of letting us have more freedom in our lives, and giving us more chance to prove ourselves as good people outweighs the cost of the suffering (which, relatively, will be over almost instantly)


I think the point is that we dont enjoy doing the wrong thing but we enjoy having the choice. And today we limit that freedom to an extent, nothing huge but there are still limitations, and what I'm trying to get at is why cant an all powerful god do the same thing? I mean were talking about a being that can do anything and yet were supposed to believe that this is the best we can hope for?

Well, the whole point of the Tree of Knowledge, Adam & Eve, and all that jazz, is that it's *our* job to make the world a better place. Sure, God could just click His fingers and make it all better, but what would we learn from that?
Instead, your or I could go out, and make the world a better place. THAT is meaningful, whether you're Christian or not.



Except that you know that there are certain things that even though you have free will you wont do? I mean part of my free will is that today I could end someones life. But I dont and its because I realize that harming other people isnt something I should do. And if you think that what I have suggested would require the changing of human nature do you mean that you think that humans aren't naturally good beings?
I think humans have the *potential* to be not-good. Humans have the potential to be outright evil. That's why it's so gosh-darn nice when we're good instead of evil. When I trip and fall, it's really *nice* when another person helps me up and checks that I'm alright. Partly it's nice because I might have needed help getting up, but mostly it's nice because they could have kept walking, or pointed and laughed. It's not nice if someone laughs, but the next time when someone picks you up instead of laughing, you'll really appreciate it.

Free will. You say you could go out and muder someone. Sure, you have free will. If you're actually capable of murdering them, and actually want to, then you're doing a good thing by not murdering them. If you were incapable of murdering them (either because you don't have those thoughts, or because you can't act on them) then you're not doing anything good.
That's like saying "I'm a good person because I don't pollute the moon". It's meaningless, I'm not able to pollute the moon.
If God makes me unable to do anything bad, then I'm not able to be a good person anymore.


Well then if suffering is such an important thing for us to learn from then shouldnt we increase it instead of trying to limit it?
Suffering isn't so important. What I was trying to say is that no matter how much or little suffering we have in our life, we will still think that we are suffering (at times) or think that we are happy (at times).
REGARDLESS of whether God makes the world nicer or not.

Having said that, we should still try to reduce suffering as much as possible. The child who thinks they are suffering because their toy broke really isn't suffering nearly as much as the child who has witnessed their family killed in a warzone.


And once again I point out that people are always going to ask a all powerful being to remove all pain and suffering from the world. I mean wouldnt you want to make everyone happy and have them not feel pain if you could?
No, actually I wouldn't.
I'd want people to be sometimes happy, and to make them suffer as little as possible. I don't want to run their lives for them.

Part of what made me who I am today is that my parents took me to boring parties, where I was bored, but had to behave. That's made me appreciate that sometimes we do things we don't want to for social reasons. It's also made me appreciate the really fun parties I go to.
I've fallen off my bike. That's made me appreciate that it's a dangerous world, and there won't always be someone to catch you. I check both ways before crossing the road. I don't ride my bike faster than I can control it.
I *enjoy* skiing fast, knowing that if I fall I could break a bone, or kill myself. I don't *want* to break a bone or kill myself, but knowing that there isn't someone there to catch me is part of the fun, it's part of what gets my adrenalin going.

These are things that would be lost in your "perfect" world. Sure, none of the things that I've listed go anywhere near to balancing the loss of just one innocent child, bleeding to death through no fault of its own. I'm just saying that there may be more factors that we are unable to see.


This is one thing we can definatly agree on. Its okay for people to believe that premarital sex is a bad thing. Its a whole other thing for the leader of a group to discourage the use of contraceptives in the fight against aids because it doesnt agree with their viewpoint.
Exactly. This really really annoys me.

Ah, I see. You want a god who is "magic." A lot of people do.
SO removing human suffering is wanting a god who is magic?


We never impede each other's free will--we cannot. We all have the capacity to make choices at any moment in our lives, even if the choice is acceptance of circumstances (what we commonly refer to as "I had no choice").
So when we sedate people, and restrain them what exactly are we doing? I said we can limit free will I never said we can completely remove it. And if we can limit a persons free will why cant god?

I accept that you have a different image of god than I do. So be it.

Or, the "one" presented is not the only one presented. Shop around a bit--I'm sure you can find a god to your liking. I did.
I'm not shopping around just suspending my judgement. I'd rather make no decision then make one on speculation and guesses. But thats just me. Go ahead and enjoy your god I hope that you picked the right one.

I am not a Christian; right.
What are your religious beliefs again?

No, because Christianity is the only one that can truly satisfy. Why do some Muslims think that fanaticism is the way to Heaven? Maybe because Islam cannot fulfill the inner self?

Then again, I'm sure that they would claim they are so secure and fulfilled with Islam that they are happy to die for it.
Christianity suits you, but then agian, a psychotic evil religion would "suit" a psychotic evil person. I'm sure that your personal view of christianity is tailored to suit your personality.

If Christianity is the only religion that can truly satisfy, why haven't other religions died out over time? Why do some Christians loose faith?


Partly. God can forgive your sins, Buddha cannot.

Again, that assumes that I believe in God. It's always going to be more comforting to believe in a God that can and will forgive my sins. That doesn't (to me) make the more comforting idea any more credible.
Buddha may not forgive my sins, but he will give me the chance to atone for them, whether I'm Buddhist or not.


Everything you believe is "valid", or else you wouldn't believe it, will you. Don't worry, when we grow we all have different "valid" beliefs. They will change, and I hope for you they will change for the better.
Nonsense. I've had many invalid beliefs throughout my lifetime. I've revised them and come up with a (hopefully) more valid belief set. My beliefs do change.

My question, on this line of thought, is...why has our concept of who and what God is changed over time? Why has our concept of what is acceptable behaviour as a Christian changed over time?
Why is there even a new and old testament?
Surely God isn't changing this quickly.

Free will. You say you could go out and muder someone. Sure, you have free will. If you're actually capable of murdering them, and actually want to, then you're doing a good thing by not murdering them. If you were incapable of murdering them (either because you don't have those thoughts, or because you can't act on them) then you're not doing anything good.
That's like saying "I'm a good person because I don't pollute the moon". It's meaningless, I'm not able to pollute the moon.
If God makes me unable to do anything bad, then I'm not able to be a good person anymore.
What?!?!

First off, god doesn't "make" me do (or unable to do) anything. Secondly, even if "god made me unable to do anything bad" were valid, I would still be able to be a "bad person" by someone's standard; there's always someone who will object to anything I do, even if everything I do is right by me. This is a rule: humans are individuals.

Free will is not the ability to choose badly; it is the capability to choose.

What?!?!

First off, god doesn't "make" me do (or unable to do) anything. Secondly, even if "god made me unable to do anything bad" were valid, I would still be able to be a "bad person" by someone's standard; there's always someone who will object to anything I do, even if everything I do is right by me. This is a rule: humans are individuals.

Free will is not the ability to choose badly; it is the capability to choose.

I think that was my point, actually.
God doesn't "make" me do anything. If God *did* make me unable to do bad things, then there would still be someone objecting, and they'd always be able to say "why doesn't God stop this happening".

Free will is not the ability to choose badly, true. But if you remove the choices that have better or worse options, then you're reducing my free will down to the level of asking a child "would you prefer orange or apple juice".
I *like* having the ability to choose badly, and I feel *good* when I choose well.

SO removing human suffering is wanting a god who is magic?
Succinctly put, yes. I agree with Buddhists, there.

So when we sedate people, and restrain them what exactly are we doing? I said we can limit free will I never said we can completely remove it. And if we can limit a persons free will why cant god?
We cannot limit a person's "free will". That is impossible. Free will is not the ability to choose, and it is not limited by the capacity to be confined. It is an action of a conscious mind; it is emeplified in the capacity for choice.

All will is free.
I'm not shopping around just suspending my judgement. I'd rather make no decision then make one on speculation and guesses. But thats just me. Go ahead and enjoy your god I hope that you picked the right one.

What are your religious beliefs again?
Hehehe. I don't belong to any organized religion.

I think that was my point, actually.
God doesn't "make" me do anything. If God *did* make me unable to do bad things, then there would still be someone objecting, and they'd always be able to say "why doesn't God stop this happening".
Yes! :fluffle:

Free will is not the ability to choose badly, true. But if you remove the choices that have better or worse options, then you're reducing my free will down to the level of asking a child "would you prefer orange or apple juice".
I *like* having the ability to choose badly, and I feel *good* when I choose well.
No!

!!!!!

The child has free will, whatever juice you offer her.

Yes! :fluffle:


No!

!!!!!

The child has free will, whatever juice you offer her.
Sure. The child has free will.

You can call it that. But it's pretty meaningless, isn't it?
Free will, to make your own choices when no choices are presented. Woo! Let me contain my excitement.

I agree the child has free will. I just don't agree that offering the child a chocie of apple, orange, or not giving the choices at all is on the same level of significance as asking a person whether they are willing to enlist in their army and kill people for their country.

The important of the questions, and the moral issues raised are of a completely different scale. Despite both having free will, only one gets to excercise their free will in a dramatic way that will make a difference to the world they live in.

So perhaps instead of saing "free will" I should say "meaningful use of free will"

The pivotal moment of my disbelief was when I researched the so could Jesus prophesies and found them to be completely illegitimate. I know there are many list of prophesies Jesus is said to have fulfilled I looked many of them up and I never found a legitimate one. Among the many Jesus prophesies the prophesy of a child born of a virgin is illegitimate. The prophecy that he will be born in Bethlehem is illegitimate. The prophesies attributed to the book of Psalms are all illegitimate. In fact not only did the Jesus prophesies fail to prove the truth of Jesus Christ to me, those prophesies made me very confident that much of what is written about Jesus in the Gospels was made up.

:sniper:

Sure. The child has free will.

You can call it that. But it's pretty meaningless, isn't it?
Free will, to make your own choices when no choices are presented. Woo! Let me contain my excitement.
No. Free will is to make your own choices, whatever choices are presented. It is self-determination.

I agree the child has free will. I just don't agree that offering the child a chocie of apple, orange, or not giving the choices at all is on the same level of significance as asking a person whether they are willing to enlist in their army and kill people for their country.
Degree does not matter. Whatever the choices, free will is self-determination. If it is his or her *choice* to enlist, then it is done of their will.

The important of the questions, and the moral issues raised are of a completely different scale. Despite both having free will, only one gets to excercise their free will in a dramatic way that will make a difference to the world they live in.

So perhaps instead of saing "free will" I should say "meaningful use of free will"
Everyone who makes any decision, even "what should I cook for dinner tonight?", is exercising free will, and hence making a decision of equal import (relative to other free will questions) as anyone else exercising free will. If you are comparing import and finding one more significant to another, then that is your own doing.

Meaningful is significance.

No. Free will is to make your own choices, whatever choices are presented. It is self-determination.

Degree does not matter. Whatever the choices, free will is self-determination. If it is his or her *choice* to enlist, then it is done of their will.


Everyone who makes any decision, even "what should I cook for dinner tonight?", is exercising free will, and hence making a decision of equal import (relative to other free will questions) as anyone else exercising free will. If you are comparing import and finding one more significant to another, then that is your own doing.

Meaningful is significance.
*sigh*
Yes, free will is to make your own choices, whatever choices are presented.
That does NOT mean it is meaninful (outside the question of whether we have free will)

You are excercising your free will when you decide what you should cook for dinner. That does NOT mean that it is a meaningful choice. It is NOT meaningful when I decide to watch Farscape in preference to Sliders.

When I compare significance I am looking at the thought that goes into the decision, the expected, and the actual results of the actions.
When I choose apple instead of orange juice there is *not* a great deal of thought involved, the expected and actual results of the decision is a slightly different taste for a short amount of time.
When I decide if I'm going to enlist in the army I am (hopefully) putting a lot of thought into it, the expected result is me helping defend my country, the actual result could be my deaths, me causing the deaths of others, both, any number of other impacts.

Can you honestly say that I'm just inventing the difference in significance between those two choices? One has a great impact on myself and others around me and (hopefully) involved more thought. I therefore consider it a more significant decision.

As it is a more significant decision, I consider it a more significant application of free will.

Which means I consider my choice of which juice to drink an application of free will, just an insignificant application of it.

If you are arguing that free will *by it's very existance* is significant, then fine. I accept that. I still don't accept that every single use the free will is put to is significant.

The pivotal moment of my disbelief was when I researched the so could Jesus prophesies and found them to be completely illegitimate. I know there are many list of prophesies Jesus is said to have fulfilled I looked many of them up and I never found a legitimate one. Among the many Jesus prophesies the prophesy of a child born of a virgin is illegitimate. The prophecy that he will be born in Bethlehem is illegitimate. The prophesies attributed to the book of Psalms are all illegitimate. In fact not only did the Jesus prophesies fail to prove the truth of Jesus Christ to me, those prophesies made me very confident that much of what is written about Jesus in the Gospels was made up.

:sniper:
Interesting. I haven't gone out of my way to look this up from primary sources. All I know about the prophecies come from modern day christians. I'm therefore skeptical of them providing me complete and unbiased information, for obvious reasons.

*sigh*
Yes, free will is to make your own choices, whatever choices are presented.
That does NOT mean it is meaninful (outside the question of whether we have free will)
Um.... yeah! It does. Everything an individual does is significant for himself or herself.

You are excercising your free will when you decide what you should cook for dinner. That does NOT mean that it is a meaningful choice. It is NOT meaningful when I decide to watch Farscape in preference to Sliders.
Meaningful to whom? Sure matters to me (the one cooking dinner). Or to you, the one watching Farscape.

You are actually implying importance ('meaning' that we import from elsewhere). It does have significance, however (which is meaning that we individually assign).
When I compare significance I am looking at the thought that goes into the decision, the expected, and the actual results of the actions.

When I choose apple instead of orange juice there is *not* a great deal of thought involved, the expected and actual results of the decision is a slightly different taste for a short amount of time.
Not for you, I guess.

When I decide if I'm going to enlist in the army I am (hopefully) putting a lot of thought into it, the expected result is me helping defend my country, the actual result could be my deaths, me causing the deaths of others, both, any number of other impacts.
When you choose apple instead of orange juice, it is YOU choosing. When you put country ahead of self, I would certainly hope that it would be equally YOU choosing.

Can you honestly say that I'm just inventing the difference in significance between those two choices? One has a great impact on myself and others around me and (hopefully) involved more thought. I therefore consider it a more significant decision.
No, since its significance is entirely dependant upon YOU. Its significance is what it means to you (or any of us, individually).

As it is a more significant decision, I consider it a more significant application of free will.

Which means I consider my choice of which juice to drink an application of free will, just an insignificant application of it.

If you are arguing that free will *by it's very existance* is significant, then fine. I accept that. I still don't accept that every single use the free will is put to is significant.
An application of free will has no 'degrees'. It simply is.

If it is YOU doing it, then it is free will. If not, then not.

Maybe you should differentiate between free will & freedom of choice. The two seems to confuse you slightly.

Free will is simply the ability to expand (upon, beyond, whichever) or even violate one's own programming.

God does not interfere in world affairs. If you accept that, then things start to make sense; if you advocate it, then you promote nonsense.

That's probably because God doesn't exist. And it didn't use to be nonsense... Back in the good old Old Testament days, God intervened all the time. So where's the nonsense?

contrary to what most christians say, its takes a great deal of faith to be an atheist.

How many licks does it take to get to the firey center of hell?

contrary to what most christians say, its takes a great deal of faith to be an atheist.
Are you thinking atheism or anti-theism (sometimes referred to as “hard” atheists) because there is a night and day difference (at least to us)

Appealing to 'popularity' of a theory neither proves nor disproves it.

I think that "physicists who think our universe will end it gradual expansion" are wrong, plain and simple. I'm sure they are skilled mathematicians... but I think their logic is flawed. The two skills have nothing two do with one another.

As far as I can see, it is painfully obvious that, in the event that the universe really was defined as "just the Earth and a ball", it wouldn't matter what velocity the ball left at.... eventually it MUST return.

And I'm not going to buy into some 'long range repulsion force' just for the sake of convenience, either.

Comes down to the fact that, if all the matter defines ALL the matter, the centre of gravity is within that matter. The RATE of acceleration doesn't affect the fact that (since there is NO outside interference) the whole mass must act around that centre EVENTUALLY.

You misunderstand me. I was not saying the theory of long range repulsion was true, merely that many astronomers have observed that the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate and one idea to explain that is long range repulsion. There may be others but I dont know of them.

Anyhow, that doesnt matter. In the earth and ball case, it has everything to do with maths. Your logic of saying "oh it MUST return, therefore it will" does not apply and you cant just state how obvious it is to you without backing it up. This site should explain it all. 11.1km/s is the escape velocity of the earth and any object propelled upwards faster than this will never return. I would think the same principle applies when talking about the big crunch.

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae158.cfm

Agreed. Suffice to say a healthy amount of your suppositions here have rendered me incapable of responding without being fired as a moderator. Those that have not, I don't really take too much issue with here.

The sum of my argument, essentially, is that Humans > Animals.

I'm not sure what whatshisface was getting at, but then again I have no idea what you're getting at either, as a result of this.

Humans are 'greater than' animals? Or just 'more'?

I'm not going to re-open deabte with you, if you have chosen to retire... but I can pretty much describe what my argument was, if you are interested.

Yes - humans are 'more' than other animals might be... but, at root, they are no 'different'. We aren't nearly as 'unique' as we like to think.

This meant that the Universe was in accelerated expansion due to the effect of a type of energy referred to as "dark energy" present throughout space. Criticism at that time was based on the assumption that this loss of luminosity could be due to the presence of dust in the host galaxies that, in large quantities, absorbs and diffuses light, thus decreasing the apparent luminosity of supernovae. But, if this is the case, this dust must also affect the "color" of the supernovae, causing them to appear "redder" since the absorption and diffusion of light and, as a result, its extinction, preferentially take place in the blue range, a phenomenon that is totally comparable to the reddening of the sky at sunset,, which is even more dramatic on particularly polluted days. These observations could therefore not provide conclusive evidence when made from the ground.

On the other hand, observations made with the Hubble space telescope, far from the influence of the Earth's atmosphere, provide much more precise data. In particular, these data make it possible to quantify the degree of extinction (depending on the wavelength) of the light emitted by a supernova, due to the presence of dust in the host galaxy. The results obtained thus made it possible to do away with any ambiguity: The attenuation of light cannot be attributed only to extinction by the dust of the host galaxy– it must be partially due to the presence of dark energy.


Denial (in this case, saying, it's not happening over and over again) is not a real proposition or a solution to this problem, since galaxy age/red-shift is not the only thing being measured here (as shown above)
http://www.cnrs.fr/cw/en/pres/compress/expansionUnivers.htm

I'm sorry if it forces you to readdress some fundamental understanding of your existence ... that wasn't my intention. I only started by pointing out that collapse is not likely in view that the expansion is gaining speed for a reason we don't yet understand...

I'm not sure quite what your point is... what am I 'denying'?

I still see no good enough reason to believe that 'the expansion is gaining speed'... let alone that it is for some 'reason we don't yet understand'... or that acceleration would, in any way, prevent collapse...

Explain your point, please?

Not the proof that God exists, but that Jesus lived, and that he performed miricles and that he died and rose again. I recomend you read the books I sugested, and also the books of Lee Strobel's series

There is no independent, contemporary proof that Jesus existed.

Just one set of 'stories' written half a century-ish later... and then some word-of-mouth histories (Josephus and Tacitus) written considerably later, by people who were nothing like there.

You see, this is the problem I have with athiests

Often their opposition to faith and spiritualliy stems from their belief that the supernatural and anything like a god is "Illogical" in their terms. It doesnt stem from an actual studying of the historical and philosophical evidence and arguements. If its just that you believe that "god" is impossible then nothing will convince you, not even real logic. For example, an friend of mine at university gave a copy of "evidence that demands a verdict" to a university lecturer there. The lecturer was an ardent athiest but after having read it came back and said "this book contains the most convincing arguements in favour of Christianity I've ever seen" and was not being sarcastic, he was genuinely impressed and saw great logic in what it was saying, but when asked if he would change his opinion, he said no because it didnt agree with his outlook. Athiests on some occations are just athiests because they dont accept that God can exist because of what the nature of "God" means, not because of any actuall logical falicies in the evidence itself.

There is no 'historical evidence' for 'god'.

That's why it's a question of faith.

Free will is simply the ability to expand (upon, beyond, whichever) or even violate one's own programming.
I like that definition very much.

I actually thought I was dealing with someone intellegent

The Gospels, it has been proved, were written and distributed within the lifetime of those who saw Jesus live and what he did. Now that means that those people at the time saw what he did and read the Gospels and agreed, that the Gospels were telling the truth, thats why it suvived in the early church. Saying that the Bible has been translated and retranslated hundruds of times does not discount from the fact that we have several contempary manuscripts, which we translate from. While you may have studied the religions themselves, I doubt you have studied the historical evidence in any depth. I have, and I have left it better believing in Christianity. Read the books I sugested in the first post.

Wow... this is almost entirely untrue.

You claim that you have studied 'the historical evidence' in depth... and yet you are making totally fallacious claims about when and how the Gospels were written.

It doesn't bode very well for the quality of any arguments you might make... when you haven't even done the research you claim.

1. The church didn't exist until AFTER the death of Christ ;)

2. Calling Jesus a pagan is like calling white black.

3. You obviously haven't read the Bible, I'm getting that notion from your claiming He was made a martyr by the people He despised.

4. I'm baaaack :D

2) Jesus WAS a pagan... if, by pagan, you mean the commonly received meaning: 'not Christian'.

Well, big things have small beginnings. If everybody was Christian many of the world's problems would be non-existent, no?

Surely, though... by the same token: If everyone was Atheistic, many of the world's problems would be non-existent, too.

All those problems caused by religious schisms, for a start...

Is your skepticsim primiarly based on your refusal to belive in supernatural as opposed to actual logical falacies.

personally i'd be quite happy to know theres an afterlife, where everyones happy, etc...

The problem is that you have to rely on FAITH. not understanding or empirical knowledge or even theory. But that someone work all this out thousands of years ago and thats it. So of course some shepherds worked out the meaning of life & everything. And scientists today must be wrong to argue the point.

just as i thought nobody ever attempts to answer these questions i had posted earlier why is that? maybe because there is no answer that will prove that god could exist

No, because Christianity is the only one that can truly satisfy. Why do some Muslims think that fanaticism is the way to Heaven? Maybe because Islam cannot fulfill the inner self?


Christianity may satisfy you... but clearly, others are 'truly satisfied' by other things.

I am 'truly satisfied' by a wordview that doesn't require any supernatural interference...

On the other hand, the Christian fellow who placed bombs in the clinic in Alabama, and 3 sites in Atlanta, clearly thinks that 'fanaticism is the way to heaven'.

Most of the Muslims I have known haven't agreed with that principle, any more than any other section of the populace.


Everything you believe is "valid", or else you wouldn't believe it, will you. Don't worry, when we grow we all have different "valid" beliefs. They will change, and I hope for you they will change for the better.

Wouldn't you think it rude if someone said the same thing to you?

Wouldn't you find it slightly insulting if I told you I hoped you would 'grow out of your religious delusions, and become an Atheist like me'?

(I don't feel that way, at all, actually. I am actually quite glad for everyone to believe what they will - SO LONG as they keep it to themselves).

contrary to what most christians say, its takes a great deal of faith to be an atheist.

This is ONLY true if you follow the Explicit (or 'hard') definition of Atheist.

An Explicit Atheist believe that there is NO 'god'... that is an article of faith.

The Implicit Atheist (which is the majority of the 'Atheist demographic) simply lacks belief in 'god'... thus - NOT an article of faith. Quite the contrary, in fact.

isnt the lack of belief in god the same thing as believing that there is no god

You misunderstand me. I was not saying the theory of long range repulsion was true, merely that many astronomers have observed that the universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate and one idea to explain that is long range repulsion. There may be others but I dont know of them.

Anyhow, that doesnt matter. In the earth and ball case, it has everything to do with maths. Your logic of saying "oh it MUST return, therefore it will" does not apply and you cant just state how obvious it is to you without backing it up. This site should explain it all. 11.1km/s is the escape velocity of the earth and any object propelled upwards faster than this will never return. I would think the same principle applies when talking about the big crunch.

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae158.cfm

But the math only holds true so long as you assume that there is more 'universe' than just the Earth and the ball.

If, instead, you envision the universe as purely consisting of that ball and that planet... you can see that - with no other gravitational masses to interfere, the earth will continue to exert a decreasing effect... but still, an effect will be exerted, and the ball will continue to very gradually decelerate based on that force.

Since the universe is being defined as PURELY those two bodies, it doesn't matter that the force will be more and more attenuated... still the force will cause the acceleration of the ball to, very gradually, tend towards zero.

Space, in this example, is entirely limited by those two masses... so it doesn't matter how far apart they are when that ball reaches a velocity close enough to zero that it ceases to accelerate away, and begins the gradual acceleration back towards the other mass.

isnt the lack of belief in god the same thing as believing that there is no god

No.

I don't assert that there is no god... I don't know if there is or not... I consider it pretty much beyond possibility to ever be sure (leaning towards agnosticism).

On the other hand... I certainly don't actively believe that there ARE gods.

lack of belief in god =/= belief in lack of god.

my main point is that in youre post you were talking about athiests not agnostics me being an athiest i think the lack of belief and the lack of god or whatever is the same thing whereas agnostics do believe in something they just dont know what it is

But the math only holds true so long as you assume that there is more 'universe' than just the Earth and the ball.

If, instead, you envision the universe as purely consisting of that ball and that planet... you can see that - with no other gravitational masses to interfere, the earth will continue to exert a decreasing effect... but still, an effect will be exerted, and the ball will continue to very gradually decelerate based on that force.

Since the universe is being defined as PURELY those two bodies, it doesn't matter that the force will be more and more attenuated... still the force will cause the acceleration of the ball to, very gradually, tend towards zero.

Space, in this example, is entirely limited by those two masses... so it doesn't matter how far apart they are when that ball reaches a velocity close enough to zero that it ceases to accelerate away, and begins the gradual acceleration back towards the other mass.

Did you not read it all? It assumes no other bodies are present apart from the earth and the object. GMm/R is the energy of the ENTIRE gravitational field exerted on the object (the indefinate integral of the force equation) from its starting point to infinity if thats where it gets to. If a mathematical proof wont convince you I dont know what will.

It seems that most people here agree it comes down to faith.

I am a Christian, but I won't disagree with some of the things that have been said here, because frankly, I don't have the answers to the questions some of you are asking.

Obviously I wish you could all enter into the same experience as I have, but I can see that this debate isn't going to end anytime soon. There are good arguments for both sides, I won't deny that, but in the end for ME, I choose to live as a Christian, because deep down I know it is right, despite what everyone else is saying.

I won't shove my beliefs down your throat, because I can see that some of you don't want to hear them, and that's fine. But as a Christian, I am told to tell others about Jesus, so if you do want to know anything, give me a telegram :)

No.

I don't assert that there is no god... I don't know if there is or not... I consider it pretty much beyond possibility to ever be sure (leaning towards agnosticism).

On the other hand... I certainly don't actively believe that there ARE gods.

lack of belief in god =/= belief in lack of god.
Do you believe in god? If the answer is "yes," or "no," then you have a belief about god, one way or the other.

If the answer is, "I don't know," then that's agnosticism. :)

Do you believe in god? If the answer is "yes," or "no," then you have a belief about god, one way or the other.

If the answer is, "I don't know," then that's agnosticism. :)
Well not really … agnosticism is more about the fact that you don’t think it IS possible to know

You can have agnostic theists deists atheists or just about anything else

“Don’t know” sometimes really falls into general deism or soft atheism rather then a theistic or anti-theistic point of view (anti-theistic being a “hard” atheist)

For example I myself am an agnostic soft atheist

I don’t think it is possible to prove a god … and sense I don’t have faith I tend to fall on the “no unless someone either explains to me an idea that seems more right to me or something in my life changes me”

Well not really … agnosticism is more about the fact that you don’t think it IS possible to know

You can have agnostic theists deists atheists or just about anything else

“Don’t know” sometimes really falls into general deism or soft atheism rather then a theistic or anti-theistic point of view (anti-theistic being a “hard” atheist)

For example I myself am an agnostic soft atheist

I don’t think it is possible to prove a god … and sense I don’t have faith I tend to fall on the “no unless someone either explains to me an idea that seems more right to me or something in my life changes me”

If you look at different sources, the definition for agnostic will vary from "a religious orientation of doubt" or "the belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist". So why don't we just say that there are two forms of agnosticism and leave it at that?

Also, athiesm is the belief in no gods or God so to be unsure is not to be an athiest. An athiest is as sure about their religion as any Christian or Muslim or Jew.

Also, athiesm is the belief in no gods or God so to be unsure is not to be an athiest. An athiest is as sure about their religion as any Christian or Muslim or Jew.
You are thinking anti-theism (or hard atheism) rather then soft atheism

Soft atheism is no belief in god

Hard atheism or anti theism is a belief in no god … there is a big difference

I don't believe my religion sounds ridiculous at all. I just find it funny when kids reach that age where they have this personal vendetta against Christianity and believe they are enlightened and the rest of the world is full of neanderthalic sheep. I give it a year or two before his common sense is restored.

...and he starts believing in faeries and men in the sky who love us and therfore condemn us to eternal hellfire if we do somthing he doesnt like but doesnt have the testicular fortitude to come and tell us to our face?

personnally i dont beleive because of 1) the same reason i dont believe in santa, gnomes, elves, and other childrens stories, that being its a big lie and ive grown out of childish superstition, 2) because it acts like a bacterium, infecting people an making them insanely believe in a "guy in the sky", then the cure of "scientfic evidence" points out that "actually, weve been above the clouds, and their is no god there", but then it mutates to one of the myriad other strains it has turned into, just outside our knowledge, residing there untill we find out something else, at which point it will change into something else and so on, and 3) on a practical note, the act selflessly bit doesnt make sense if theres an afterlife. if your acting selflessly and giving all your possesions to the poor, in christianity youd be doing it to get to heaven, so it isnt selfless, whereas in the real world, it would be selfless, as youd get nothing in return (save maybe a happy feeling inside). the only truly selfless thing you could do would be kidknapp a group of "sinners", torture them until they honestly recanted, then kill them so they cant sin again. that way, they go to heaven, which is allegedly good for them, but you get nothing in return aside from a seat in hell, thereby making it a selfless act.

and all religion is ridiculous, especially scientology (that means YOU tom cruise), and i dont think you can have a "neanderthalic sheep", as dfferent species (such as neaderthalls and sheep) cant interbreed, as much as country folk try... i take that back. sorry countryside folk.

If you look at different sources, the definition for agnostic will vary from "a religious orientation of doubt" or "the belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist". So why don't we just say that there are two forms of agnosticism and leave it at that?
Or we could assign a new word for the doubters... áìöéâïëßáism. ;)

(I have no idea how to pronounce that; it's all Greek to me!)

...and he starts believing in faeries and men in the sky who love us and therfore condemn us to eternal hellfire if we do somthing he doesnt like but doesnt have the testicular fortitude to come and tell us to our face?



You do realize that if you saw God face to face, it would probably annihilate you?

SIN (us) and holiness (God) can not mix.

You do realize that if you saw God face to face, it would probably annihilate you?

SIN (us) and holiness (God) can not mix.


True.

For those of you who say that believing in God is the same as believing in santa and the tooth fairy.... yes, (sorry to break it to you) santa and the tooth fairy aren't real. But if God isn't real, where did the earth come from?

The Big Bang?

Where did the Big Bang come from?

Ermm....

For those of you who say that believing in God is the same as believing in santa and the tooth fairy.... yes, (sorry to break it to you) santa and the tooth fairy aren't real. But if God isn't real, where did the earth come from?
Do you seriously believe (as you imply) that God is the only possible explanation?

Do you believe in god? If the answer is "yes," or "no," then you have a belief about god, one way or the other.

If the answer is, "I don't know," then that's agnosticism. :)

No - if I 'believed' there was NO god, I would have a belief.

If I believed there WAS A god (or gods), I would have a belief.

What I have is a LACK of belief. I don't buy the story that there IS a god... but I don't buy the story that we can be sure there ISN'T a god, either.

As UpwardThrust pointed out, Atheism is about lacking theism...

Some Atheists believe there is no god... they are often called 'hard' or 'explicit' Atheists.

Most Atheists (including new-borns, for example) are 'soft' or Implicit Atheists... because they just don't have any reason or inclination to 'believe'.

Also - 'Agnostic' merely refers to 'knowledge'. Thus, an Agnostic can be Atheistic, or Theistic... the only thing that makes him/her Agnostic, is their approach to the issue of whether it is possible to 'know' for sure.

True.

For those of you who say that believing in God is the same as believing in santa and the tooth fairy.... yes, (sorry to break it to you) santa and the tooth fairy aren't real. But if God isn't real, where did the earth come from?

The Big Bang?

Where did the Big Bang come from?

Ermm....

Maybe the universe has always been here....

You'd use the same excuse to explain your 'god', wouldn't you?

And, if there's no Santa... where do all the presents come from?

By your explanation, the ONLY reason you don't believe in Santa, is because you can see the parents leaving the presents...

The sadist nation]For those of you who say that believing in God is the same as believing in santa and the tooth fairy.... yes, (sorry to break it to you) santa and the tooth fairy aren't real. But if God isn't real, where did the earth come from?

how about this you give me a good answer for my previous questions which nobody has attempted to answer and ill see if i can find a good one for yours

What I have is a LACK of belief. I don't buy the story that there IS a god... but I don't buy the story that we can be sure there ISN'T a god, either.
See, this is a distinction that I don't buy. It doesn't answer the question, "Is there a god?", but simply avoids answering it... and then says, "I didn't answer it, so I have no belief."

The sadist nation]For those of you who say that believing in God is the same as believing in santa and the tooth fairy.... yes, (sorry to break it to you) santa and the tooth fairy aren't real. But if God isn't real, where did the earth come from?
Same question for you as for Tim. Do you seriously think (as your question implies) that god is the only possible explanation for how the earth came to be? Is there no other possibility?

Or were you trying to quote Tim, and messed up your post?

See, this is a distinction that I don't buy. It doesn't answer the question, "Is there a god?", but simply avoids answering it... and then says, "I didn't answer it, so I have no belief."

You are right, though... it DOESN'T answer the question of "Is there a god"?

And, that's kind of the point... it is impossible to conclusively prove the existence or non-existence of an entity that can ONLY be understood through faith... so the question "is there a god?" is actually flawed to begin.

The ONLY question that you CAN answer is "Do you believe in a god"?

Atheists answer "no" to that question. Some just answer it more forcefully than others... since they think it possible to have a DEFINITE answer, just as the 'Theists' do.

very bad job with quoting sorry

you gotta think if the reason that the royal families are dying out was because of inbreeding then how could two people populate a whole world not to mention that they populated a few cities in time for their two eldest son big dispute and if you say that their were others to help the populating of earth then you are saying that your own bible is lying since we were all supposedly born of adam and eve

and another thing when god told these people to write the bible why was it only for an elite few i mean why didnt he say hey once you guys have it written youre going to have to build a boat and bring these words to the asians to the indians ect. ect

these were my questions

You are right, though... it DOESN'T answer the question of "Is there a god"?

And, that's kind of the point... it is impossible to conclusively prove the existence or non-existence of an entity that can ONLY be understood through faith... so the question "is there a god?" is actually flawed to begin.

The ONLY question that you CAN answer is "Do you believe in a god"?

Atheists answer "no" to that question. Some just answer it more forcefully than others... since they think it possible to have a DEFINITE answer, just as the 'Theists' do.
And this is where my thinking differs from the materialist-literalist, which side you (no offense) often take. The question "Do you believe in a god?" is implicit in "Is there a god?", simply because it is a matter of faith, which is a subjective thing, a thing of feeling. Belief is a requirement for understanding its existence.

So the answer to, "Is there a god?" becomes, "Yes, I believe there is."

There is no flaw, just a difference in ways of thinking.

And this is where my thinking differs from the materialist-literalist, which side you (no offense) often take. The question "Do you believe in a god?" is implicit in "Is there a god?", simply because it is a matter of faith, which is a subjective thing, a thing of feeling. Belief is a requirement for understanding its existence.

So the answer to, "Is there a god?" becomes, "Yes, I believe there is."

There is no flaw, just a difference in ways of thinking.

And yet, if you look at the reverse side of that question, there are two different answers.

Is there a god? No - I don't believe there is (Implicit Atheist).

Is there a god? No - I believe there is NOT (Explicit Atheist).

No - I don't believe there is (Implicit Atheist).

No - I believe there is NOT (Explicit Atheist).
Do you realise that linguistically those are identical?

I believe God can never be proven to exist so I'm in a state of limbo. Rejecting the idealogy of organized religion and going off to find my own standards. Like Nietzche told me to, and before anyone calls me a Nazi, if you ever read any of his work, they are usually very anti-Nazi, with praise for the Jews, mixing blood for genetic strength, etc. It was his demented sister that altered his work to support her Nazi friends. Whatever proof you offer about God existing or not existing is flawed because our very reality is flawed.

Which I can prove mathematically.

let a = b

a?= ab Multiply both sides by a
a?+ a?- 2ab = ab + a?- 2ab Add (a?- 2ab) to both sides
2(a?- ab) = a?- ab Factor the left, and collect like terms on the right
2 = 1 Divide both sides by (a?- ab)

2=1? Well therefore Algebra is a lie.

Divide by zero. Done all the time.
a=b
a^2=ab
2a^2-2ab=ab+a^2-2ab
2(a^2-ab)=-ab+a^2
2=1, right?

Wrong.
a=3
3=3
3^2=(3)(3)
(2)3^2-2(3)(3)=(3)(3)+3^2-2(3)(3)
2(3^2-(3)(3))=3^2-(3)(3) See it yet?
2(0)=0
2=0/0
Divide by zero error. Thats why it looks like 2/1. You get some funky answers when you divide by zero.

Here is another one

Theorem: A positive integer n is equal to any positive integer which does not exceed it.

Proof by induction:

Case n = 1. The only positive integer which does not exceed 1 is 1 itself and 1 = 1.

Assume true for n = k. Then k = k-1. Add k to both sides and get

k+1=k.

n=1
k=k-1.

1=1-1.
1=0
1 is not equal to zero.
Ergo, n is not equal to k-1.

Okay, I'm an atheist. But while those 2 phrases may be linguistically identical, I am not sure, they do have a different meaning.
The first one is not believing in a god. They don't have a BELIEF.
The second one is a belief that god is not. They have a belief.

Do you realise that linguistically those are identical?

No. Not only do I not realise it... I also don't accept it.

The negative is one the belief in one, and the object of the belief in the other.

Totally different.... that's the point. And, the reason why there are different 'degrees' of Atheism.

Okay, I'm an atheist. But while those 2 phrases may be linguistically identical, I am not sure, they do have a different meaning.
The first one is not believing in a god. They don't have a BELIEF.
The second one is a belief that god is not. They have a belief.

Exactly... that's the point I've been trying to make.

Oh - and welcome to the NS forum. :)

Is your skepticsim primiarly based on your refusal to belive in supernatural as opposed to actual logical falacies. If thats the case there are several books I recomend you read

"Evidence that demands a verdict" Josh McDowell (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/185078552X/qid=1120832431/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-9079492-1418044)

"The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict" Josh McDowell (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0785243631/qid=1120832431/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl/026-9079492-1418044)

"Jesus who is he" Tim LaHaye (cant find a link for this one, but I'm reading it at the moment and its great)

Tim LaHaye nd Josh McDowell are regarded as jokes by most christians outside the US. I don't know how they are regarded within the US.

No. Not only do I not realise it... I also don't accept it.

The negative is one the belief in one, and the object of the belief in the other.

Totally different.... that's the point. And, the reason why there are different 'degrees' of Atheism.
Semantically they can differ, yes. But this is the reason you have so much problem with it, and having to explain it over and over again: linguisitically, they are the same. People say, "I don't believe" and mean, "I believe it's not," and vice-versa.

Frequently the same... And that's the reason why atheism is just as often thought of as simply disbelief in god.

I guess what I'm getting at is that your battle isn't with people who misunderstand the concept, it's with the common use of the English language. That's a losing battle, my friend, in my opinion. But power to you.

Semantically they can differ, yes. But this is the reason you have so much problem with it, and having to explain it over and over again: linguisitically, they are the same. People say, "I don't believe" and mean, "I believe it's not," and vice-versa.

Frequently the same... And that's the reason why atheism is just as often thought of as simply disbelief in god.

I guess what I'm getting at is that your battle isn't with people who misunderstand the concept, it's with the common use of the English language. That's a losing battle, my friend, in my opinion. But power to you.

the whole problem with this is that one of these describes atheism and the other describes an agnostic

the whole problem with this is that one of these describes atheism and the other describes an agnostic
No one has "no belief". It's not possible.

Belief accompanies knowledge. If there is knowledge of a thing, like god, then there is belief about that knowledge, based on experience and learning.

Who/what is god? God is the creator of all man. (Do you believe it or disbelieve it?)
What are the characteristics of god? God is unknowable, inexplicable, eternal and infinite. (Do you believe it or disbelieve it?)
God exists. (Do you believe it or disbelieve it?)
etc.

Usually, people choose to believe the facts. The atheist is such. If there were any facts presentable about god, then he can say, "Yes, I believe that." But there aren't.

For the theist, faith takes the place of the fact. I prefer to think of it as a trust: trusting in what is believed to be true.

the whole problem with this is that one of these describes atheism and the other describes an agnostic
Closer to one describing an implicit atheist and the other an explicit atheist

No one has "no belief". It's not possible.

Belief accompanies knowledge. If there is knowledge of a thing, like god, then there is belief about that knowledge, based on experience and learning.

Who/what is god? God is the creator of all man. (Do you believe it or disbelieve it?)
What are the characteristics of god? God is unknowable, inexplicable, eternal and infinite. (Do you believe it or disbelieve it?)
God exists. (Do you believe it or disbelieve it?)
etc.

Usually, people choose to believe the facts. The atheist is such. If there were any facts presentable about god, then he can say, "Yes, I believe that." But there aren't.

For the theist, faith takes the place of the fact. I prefer to think of it as a trust: trusting in what is believed to be true.


Then we are dealing more with axioms then conscious beliefs …

Semantically they can differ, yes. But this is the reason you have so much problem with it, and having to explain it over and over again: linguisitically, they are the same. People say, "I don't believe" and mean, "I believe it's not," and vice-versa.

Frequently the same... And that's the reason why atheism is just as often thought of as simply disbelief in god.

I guess what I'm getting at is that your battle isn't with people who misunderstand the concept, it's with the common use of the English language. That's a losing battle, my friend, in my opinion. But power to you.

Actually - I think the reason Atheism is so misunderstood, is because of organised religion.

Two reasons... first being the fact that these institutional religions had such a profound effect on our language, that 'atheism' is dictionary-synonymous with 'wicked'... although that usage is become LESS common. It's a big hurdle to overcome, the fact that your '-ism' is carrying such stigma before it even starts.

Second reason - our society is saturated by monotheistic, organised religion. To the extent that people find it truly hard to accept the idea that there could be someone who KNEW about religion, but DIDN'T embrace it.

People have been taught that there is a god - unquestioned. Therefore, all Atheists are considered to be disbelieving a specific god... almost as an act of rebellion, perhaps.

Add to this - the fact that religion teaches Atheim as the direct rejection of god. How often have you seen it argued that 'atheism is 'as bad' as religion, because it relies on belief'? The aim is to discredit the platform of the atheist by appealing to popularity or ridicule, so that the actual ELEMENTS of belief don't have to be discussed.


But, you are right. The fact that most people will read a passage how they WISH TO, rather than how it is WRITTEN, doesn't help.

Well, in addition to agnosticism, there's also some distinction within atheism, at least according to this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism) on Wikipedia. There's "weak atheism," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_atheism) which is, according to Wikipedia, "an absence of belief in the existence of deities." This is basically a non-assertive disbelief, while "strong atheism" is a belief in the active nonexistence of deities.

Well, in addition to agnosticism, there's also some distinction within atheism, at least according to this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism) on Wikipedia. There's "weak atheism," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_atheism) which is, according to Wikipedia, "an absence of belief in the existence of deities." This is basically a non-assertive disbelief, while "strong atheism" is a belief in the active nonexistence of deities.
Also referred to “soft” and “hard” atheism or implicit or explicit depending on who you talk to … same rough deffinitions

No one has "no belief". It's not possible.


I disagree.

I try to steer clear of such blanket absolutes.

Do you think the links were helpful, though?

Actually - I think the reason Atheism is so misunderstood, is because of organised religion.

Two reasons... first being the fact that these institutional religions had such a profound effect on our language, that 'atheism' is dictionary-synonymous with 'wicked'... although that usage is become LESS common. It's a big hurdle to overcome, the fact that your '-ism' is carrying such stigma before it even starts.

Second reason - our society is saturated by monotheistic, organised religion. To the extent that people find it truly hard to accept the idea that there could be someone who KNEW about religion, but DIDN'T embrace it.

People have been taught that there is a god - unquestioned. Therefore, all Atheists are considered to be disbelieving a specific god... almost as an act of rebellion, perhaps.

Add to this - the fact that religion teaches Atheim as the direct rejection of god. How often have you seen it argued that 'atheism is 'as bad' as religion, because it relies on belief'? The aim is to discredit the platform of the atheist by appealing to popularity or ridicule, so that the actual ELEMENTS of belief don't have to be discussed.


But, you are right. The fact that most people will read a passage how they WISH TO, rather than how it is WRITTEN, doesn't help.
I can't argue with that, especially as I've recently become aware of negative influences on our language that the Greek philosophers had, by shaping their world (and so ours) around certain concepts, like fate.

all i am saying is that an atheist by definition is the disbelief in god or deities and agnosics arent sure whether to believe or not therefore if you dont disbelieve that there is a higher power than you cannot be an athiest
and i honestly dont believe in different levels of atheism either you are or you arent i mean i could just as easily say that the only true christian died on the cross

and it still seems as if people are avoiding my questions

the whole problem with this is that one of these describes atheism and the other describes an agnostic

Not at all, I'm afraid.

Agnostics get something of a lazy definition, generally... they are seen as being undecided.

On the contrary, an Agnostic CAN be an Atheist, or a Christian, or any other 'religious' orientation.

Agnosticism doesn't refer to belief in god, at all... it refers purely to whether you believe you can ever KNOW that there is/isn't a god.

Thus - the Christian that 'believes' in god, but doesn't think he/she will ever TRULY be able to prove it... is Agnostic.

Similar with the Atheist who doesn't believe, but thinks it hard to be sure if there CAN be proof.


Regarding Atheism - ALL Atheists are Implicit Atheists at core - they do not believe in the gods they are 'sold'.

Some take that 'logic' further... to the extent that they believe they can 'know' that there are NO GODS. Those are Explicit (or Hard) Atheists.

Regarding Atheism - ALL Atheists are Implicit Atheists at core - they do not believe in the gods they are 'sold'.

maybe i take things too literally but no matter what anybody says i just cannot consider these people atheists since they obviously believe in something and i cant be sold i mean i live in the bible belt if they cant sell me no one can

Well, in addition to agnosticism, there's also some distinction within atheism, at least according to this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism) on Wikipedia. There's "weak atheism," (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_atheism) which is, according to Wikipedia, "an absence of belief in the existence of deities." This is basically a non-assertive disbelief, while "strong atheism" is a belief in the active nonexistence of deities.
So what they call "an absence of belief" is actually disbelief. I agree. Disbelief is a refusal to believe, which is effectively saying, "No, I do not believe," which is linguistically identical to, "I believe it is not true."

Originally Posted by Willamena
No one has "no belief". It's not possible.
I disagree.

I try to steer clear of such blanket absolutes.
You're right, it needs to be qualified a bit. No one has "no belief" about something they know; they have either belief or disbelief.

ok i guess we will cut down the confusion by changing the terminology here a bit

Some take that 'logic' further... to the extent that they believe they can 'know' that there are NO GODS. Those are Explicit (or Hard) Atheists.

these guys myself included will now be known as true atheists

Regarding Atheism - ALL Atheists are Implicit Atheists at core - they do not believe in the gods they are 'sold'.

these guys on the otherhand shall be known as micheal jackson since they are trying to be something other than what they really are and that is agnostic

maybe i take things too literally but no matter what anybody says i just cannot consider these people atheists since they obviously believe in something and i cant be sold i mean i live in the bible belt if they cant sell me no one can

I don't understand what you mean... I also live in the Bible Belt... but the herd-instincts around me have no influence on what I PERSONALLY believe... or don't believe.

I was a Christian... but I found that I believed the Christian story less and less... to the point where, if I were asked if I believed in God, my answer would be "no".

I don't believe in any of the other 'gods' I've been offered, either... but that doesn't mean that I think that any of them COULD exist... I just don't believe that they do.

I don't believe in any of their gods.

But - I ALSO don't have any reason to believe there could be NO gods.

these guys on the otherhand shall be known as micheal jackson since they are trying to be something other than what they really are and that is agnostic
Wrong ... read back gravy gave a great explination of what agnostic means

therefore you are an agnostic not an atheist but anyways ive got to go to work now hopefully someone will answer my few pending questions by the time im off ive been trying to get answers for these nearly my whole life and still nothing

ag·nos·tic Audio pronunciation of "agnostic" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nstk)
n.

1.
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

i know what it means and yet their saying soft atheist i dont think that would do if a christian call himself a soft christian because of his love for satan

ok i guess we will cut down the confusion by changing the terminology here a bit ... (etc...)

You're being dismisive (and frankly quite offensive - Michael Jackson?!) by generalising like this. An "atheist" by definition, is someone who does not believe in any god -"theist" meaning "to do with a God" and "a" meaning "without" (also inluded in "monotheist" - one who believes in one god, and "polytheist" - someone who believes in many gods. but i digress)

Your definition of a true atheist, i.e. KNOWING there is no god, is an invalid one in my opinion for one very good reason - no-one can "know" anything of such a nature, because not being able to disprove it is the only reason religeon has survived as long as it has.

As for "these guys on the other hand", they aren't atheists or agnostics, they are undefined mono- or poly- theists, or at least this is inferred from the definition.

"do not believe in the gods they are 'sold'"

If you read between the lines, this suggests that they do believe in a god or gods, just not any mainstream ones. Hence they are not atheists at all.

As for my personal persuasion, i fall into this latter category. I believe there is a force holding the universe together, although that may be a god or just something else, i dont know what.

therefore you are an agnostic not an atheist but anyways ive got to go to work now hopefully someone will answer my few pending questions by the time im off ive been trying to get answers for these nearly my whole life and still nothing

ag·nos·tic Audio pronunciation of "agnostic" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nstk)
n.

1.
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

i know what it means and yet their saying soft atheist i dont think that would do if a christian call himself a soft christian because of his love for satan

1 Is the more common definition


And your Christian example is completely off … it would be more akin to the separate sects of Christianity then a love for Satan

But if you don’t see how wrong that analogy is …

My absolute favorite case I've heard for creationism has to be: "Something had to have created matter. But er- nothing created god. he's so awsome,he didn't even need to be created". Cracks me up every time.

Maybe the universe has always been here....

You'd use the same excuse to explain your 'god', wouldn't you?

And, if there's no Santa... where do all the presents come from?

By your explanation, the ONLY reason you don't believe in Santa, is because you can see the parents leaving the presents...



The reason I don't believe in Santa is because he blatently isn't real. No-one has proved God doesn't exist. No-one has clearly proved He does exist, although there is a LOT of evidence for the latter. So what is so wrong with believing He does exist when there is no evidence to the contrary?

The reason I don't believe in Santa is because he blatently isn't real. No-one has proved God doesn't exist. No-one has clearly proved He does exist, although there is a LOT of evidence for the latter. So what is so wrong with believing He does exist when there is no evidence to the contrary?
You cant prove a negative sorry
If you think you can ... prove santa is not real

You cant prove a negative sorry
If you think you can ... prove santa is not real


Obviously you cannot disprove anything because anything could happen. I won't deny that.


Do you think all the religious wars that have occurred are the fault of the actual religions though? (this question is aimed at everyone). Surely what it comes down to is human nature. I mean, some people in this discussion are getting quite agitated (on both sides), so in the end I don't think it has anything to do with religion, it's all about principals.

Take the situation in Ireland for example. How many of those who claim to be fighting for the Protestants and Catholics are actually members of their respective religions?

Tim LaHaye and Josh McDowell are regarded as jokes by most christians outside the US. I don't know how they are regarded within the US.


Don't forget that Jesus was regarded as a joke by many of the religious people at the time.

I'm not saying they are like Jesus, but they both have some pretty radical ideas. Now many millions of people worldwide believe what Jesus said.

Obviously you cannot disprove anything because anything could happen. I won't deny that.


Do you think all the religious wars that have occurred are the fault of the actual religions though? (this question is aimed at everyone). Surely what it comes down to is human nature. I mean, some people in this discussion are getting quite agitated (on both sides), so in the end I don't think it has anything to do with religion, it's all about principals.

Take the situation in Ireland for example. How many of those who claim to be fighting for the Protestants and Catholics are actually members of their respective religions?
I think religion is a powerful tool that’s it

A means to zealously organize people … like a tool it can be used for good or for bad

I just don’t find any reasoning to think the tool is divinely inspired rather then created by humans

The reason I don't believe in Santa is because he blatently isn't real. No-one has proved God doesn't exist. No-one has clearly proved He does exist, although there is a LOT of evidence for the latter.
What evidence?

Don't forget that Jesus was regarded as a joke by many of the religious people at the time.

I'm not saying they are like Jesus, but they both have some pretty radical ideas. Now many millions of people worldwide believe what Jesus said.
Them being radical like Jesus does not necessarily make them right … it may just make them radical

I think religion is a powerful tool that’s it

A means to zealously organize people … like a tool it can be used for good or for bad

I just don’t find any reasoning to think the tool is divinely inspired rather then created by humans
I think people organize themselves around things (community, PTAs, social clubs, church, bulletin boards, etc). If that makes what they organize around a tool, fine; but that's not what the organizing is about.

Organizing is not the end goal.

What evidence?

I, for one, like to think that the world was created by God (and actually still is being created). Obviously most of you will disagree with that, but that's your opinion.

I don't see how the beautiful world we live in could be the result of an explosion millions of years ago. That does sound ridiculous to me.

I think people organize themselves around things (community, PTAs, social clubs, church, bulletin boards, etc). If that makes what they organize around a tool, fine; but that's not what the organizing is about.
I meant organization itself is a tool religion is just a powerful form or center point for the development of that tool

I, for one, like to think that the world was created by God (and actually still is being created). Obviously most of you will disagree with that, but that's your opinion.

I don't see how the beautiful world we live in could be the result of an explosion millions of years ago. That does sound ridiculous to me.
That is evidence of an appreciative observer of the universe, nothing more.

I meant organization itself is a tool religion is just a powerful form or center point for the development of that tool
Organizing is not an end unto itself, just a process to achieve an end.

I, for one, like to think that the world was created by God (and actually still is being created). Obviously most of you will disagree with that, but that's your opinion.

I don't see how the beautiful world we live in could be the result of an explosion millions of years ago. That does sound ridiculous to me.
That’s not evidence she asked for the EVIDENCE for a god … what you listed was merely the statement of our existence that really does not prove it one way or another it is neutral information not really supporting or detracting from your proposition that there is a god

Organizing is not an end unto itself, just a process to achieve an end.
Exactly organization is a means or a tool to achieve a goal … that is what I was trying to get at

I think religion is a tool dispite its use as a means of organization. I guess that's what I was picking at.

That’s not evidence she asked for the EVIDENCE for a god … what you listed was merely the statement of our existence that really does not prove it one way or another it is neutral information not really supporting or detracting from your proposition that there is a god


Fair point, well made :)

But I believe that it is actually evidence though. Because to you, what I said might be a statement, but to me it shows that this world has a creator.

Fair point, well made :)

But I believe that it is actually evidence though. Because to you, what I said might be a statement, but to me it shows that this world has a creator.
And that’s your interpretation and you are welcome to it but its not really objective proof so hardly can be considered in a scientific theory (well anything involving god by definition cant be)

I think religion is a tool dispite its use as a means of organization. I guess that's what I was picking at.
Ahhh that it could be … even could be considered a tool for making tool’s

And that’s your interpretation and you are welcome to it but its not really objective proof so hardly can be considered in a scientific theory (well anything involving god by definition cant be)
Evidence is not proof of anything, it is simply a clue that points to the truth. (*loves CSI*)

Evidence is not proof of anything, it is simply a clue that points to the truth. (*loves CSI*)
Fair enough :)

I get so mad at people using “proof” incorrect and here I do it myself … I should insert evidence rather then proof in my previous statement

maybe i take things too literally but no matter what anybody says i just cannot consider these people atheists since they obviously believe in something and i cant be sold i mean i live in the bible belt if they cant sell me no one can

How do you mean they "obviously believe in something"?

You feel that you can say, with confidence, that YOU know better than I, what I believe?

So what they call "an absence of belief" is actually disbelief. I agree. Disbelief is a refusal to believe, which is effectively saying, "No, I do not believe," which is linguistically identical to, "I believe it is not true."

Still, "I do not believe" is NOT the same as "I believe 'it' is not"... and simply repeating the same belief is neither evidence, nor any more likely to make it 'true'?

And, regarding what the other poster and you are agreeing about, remember that Wiki is (firstly) not any kind of canonical or truly regulated, source... and that the part you are AGREEING about, is the other poster's ASSESSMENT of that site... not the actual content of the site, at all.

You're right, it needs to be qualified a bit. No one has "no belief" about something they know; they have either belief or disbelief.

Again, I disagree over your use of terminology. The way I see it, 'disbelief' has two components, an Active disbelief and a Passive disbelief.

To Actively disbelieve something, you have to 'negate' it, whereas to 'Passively' disbelieve something, you simply have to not 'agree' (in belief) with what is believed.

So - the African child that has never encountered Santa, Passively disbelieves.

The American child who is dubious about the existence of Santa, but hasn't yet enough 'certainty' that Santa MUST be untrue (i.e. has seen no 'evidence'), Passively disbelieves.

The American child who has seen mommy and daddy placing presents under the tree, Actively disbelieves.

To my thinking, 'no belief' is much the same as 'Passive disbelief'. The Passive disbeliever doesn't imagine Santa definitely IS real - far from it - but also doesn't imagine that Santa MUST be unreal. There is no 'defining' belief, either way.

ok i guess we will cut down the confusion by changing the terminology here a bit

these guys myself included will now be known as true atheists

these guys on the otherhand shall be known as micheal jackson since they are trying to be something other than what they really are and that is agnostic

Why are you trying to change the terminology?

I could understand if you were trying to EXPAND the terminology... but to try to reduce established terminology, PURELY so that your 'narrow' definition might be allowed to hold - in ther face of evidence to the contrary - just seems illogical to me.

If you honestly believe that there ARE NO GODS - then you, my friend, are one of the small minority of 'atheists' who would care to assert such a definite assumption.

I wonder if you realise how 'illogical' it is to make a CONCRETE assertion about the non-existence of an entity that cannot be verified? THAT kind of assumption requires much the same leap of faith that asserting there definitely IS a god, would require.

Most Atheists lack any concrete belief in god/gods... but wouldn't go so far as to try to assert there CANNOT be any such things as gods. In fact, if they ever encountered a truly convincing proof, the average Atheist would be perfectly happy to change their 'alleigance'.

Regardless of your assertions to the contrary - Agnostic has nothing to do with whether or not you believe in god... it's primary definition is ALL about the possibility of knowing if God CAN be proved.

Some dictionaries may happily list secondary meanings for the word - but those are only as valid as the secondary definitions of any OTHER word... for example, that "Atheist" means "wicked".

therefore you are an agnostic not an atheist but anyways ive got to go to work now hopefully someone will answer my few pending questions by the time im off ive been trying to get answers for these nearly my whole life and still nothing

ag·nos·tic Audio pronunciation of "agnostic" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (g-nstk)
n.

1.
1. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
2. One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

i know what it means and yet their saying soft atheist i dont think that would do if a christian call himself a soft christian because of his love for satan

Entirely irrelevent.

The 'soft' Christian - if such a thing exists - would have the same belief in Satan that he/she had in God... i.e. the soft christian would feel that a lack of evidence was not good enough reason NOT to believe in 'god'.

The 'Soft Christian' would simply be someone who BASICALLY follows the same logic as the Soft Atheist, but defaults to belief, rather than lack-of-belief, in the face of uncertainty.

"do not believe in the gods they are 'sold'"

If you read between the lines, this suggests that they do believe in a god or gods, just not any mainstream ones. Hence they are not atheists at all.

As for my personal persuasion, i fall into this latter category. I believe there is a force holding the universe together, although that may be a god or just something else, i dont know what.

Actually - no - I do not believe in any non-mainstream gods, either... but, I might not have been exposed to ALL of the gods that could be, so I can't categorically say that I don't believe in them, with any conviction.

Effectively, I haven't seen ALL the evidence claimed for ALL the gods - so I can't honestly say I don't accept their argument

But - for every 'god' I HAVE been shown (all the 'gods I have been sold'), I have no belief that the story is true.

Conversely - as an Implicit Atheist, I'm not trying to say that ANY of the principles are DEFINITELY fallacious, either.

The reason I don't believe in Santa is because he blatently isn't real. No-one has proved God doesn't exist. No-one has clearly proved He does exist, although there is a LOT of evidence for the latter. So what is so wrong with believing He does exist when there is no evidence to the contrary?

There is no evidence that proves Santa is not real.

On the contrary, there is considerable evidence that the Saint Nicholas story has several marks of truth... and may have been very true (in some ways) at ONE time.

Basically... the same sort of evidence that Christianity has, no?

I think people organize themselves around things (community, PTAs, social clubs, church, bulletin boards, etc). If that makes what they organize around a tool, fine; but that's not what the organizing is about.

Organizing is not the end goal.

Orgainising IS the end result of 'religion'... just not necessarily of 'faith'.

screw christainity, live and let be you eye-gouging assholes, that goes for all other religions as well. Hopefully human intelligence will surpass it eventually ...

screw christainity, live and let be you eye-gouging assholes, that goes for all other religions as well. Hopefully human intelligence will surpass it eventually ...

Ah, the voice of the moderates....

There is no evidence that proves Santa is not real.

On the contrary, there is considerable evidence that the Saint Nicholas story has several marks of truth... and may have been very true (in some ways) at ONE time.

Basically... the same sort of evidence that Christianity has, no?
Except for the fact that you well know that what people have in mind when they talk about Santa is not some Dutch priest who walked around and gave poor children presents in a kind of charity, but a big fat jolly guy who flies around the world on Christmas Eve delivering presents to all the good (possibly Christian) children.

It's more productive to argue on the internal consistency of people's beliefs and their consistency with observation.

screw christainity, live and let be you eye-gouging assholes, that goes for all other religions as well. Hopefully human intelligence will surpass it eventually ...

Yes...5000 years of human intelligence and we're still running around in circles at the most basic issues. Intelligence, we have? Yes. Intelligence that surpasses religion and the truth? I don't think so.

And did those feet in ancient times trod on America's pastures of green?
And did that anthropocentric god wane with their thoughts and beliefs all unseen?
I don't think so, he's up there with the others laying low,
vying with those who you traded your life to bless your soul.
And have they told you how to think, cleansed your mind of sepsis and autonomy?
Or have you escaped from scrutiny, and regaled yourself with depravity?
Now we all see, religion is just synthetic frippery - unnecessary in our expanding global cultural efficiency.
Now we all fear this impasse we have built to our future,
ever so near, and oh, so austere.

:confused:

Yes...5000 years of human intelligence and we're still running around in circles at the most basic issues. Intelligence, we have? Yes. Intelligence that surpasses religion and the truth? I don't think so.

My intelligence surpasses relgion and guides me to the truth.

GOD = BILLIONS OF PEOPLE WORLDWIDE SHARING ONE IMAGINARY FREIND

you see I wouldn't be as harsh on relgion (esp. christianity and islam) if these people stopped sticking their nose in other peoples business, I dont go ramming brains down their throat, I'd prefer if they didnt go shoving the bible (and its ideals) down mine ...

My intelligence surpasses relgion and guides me to the truth.

GOD = BILLIONS OF PEOPLE WORLDWIDE SHARING ONE IMAGINARY FREIND

you see I wouldn't be as harsh on relgion (esp. christianity and islam) if these people stopped sticking their nose in other peoples business, I dont go ramming brains down their throat, I'd prefer if they didnt go shoving the bible (and its ideals) down mine ...

Your intelligence...is so meagre. All our intelligences are meagre. Puny. So small compared to the size of Knowledge and Wisdom.

Okay....so "be nice to your neighbour", "do not murder", "do not steal", "love your parents" are all ideals "rammed down your throat". Don't follow them, then.

Your intelligence...is so meagre. All our intelligences are meagre. Puny. So small compared to the size of Knowledge and Wisdom.

Okay....so "be nice to your neighbour", "do not murder", "do not steal", "love your parents" are all ideals "rammed down your throat". Don't follow them, then.

I dont need a stupid book to tell what basic human morality should already dictate to all, if you need a guideline book to tell you that "killing people is bad" then you really have issues. More often than not, its christians who end up not following their own "holier than thou" guidelines ...

I dont need a stupid book to tell what basic human morality should already dictate to all, if you need a guideline book to tell you that "killing people is bad" then you really have issues. More often than not, its christians who end up not following their own "holier than thou" guidelines ...

Well, somebody had to teach you your morals. Is that somebody as issue-laden as I am? You came on Earth possessing all your knowledge?

Christians do not, or should not, claim superiority over others. We are all human beings and we are all sinners.

can a thiest answer me,

how many times has god answered your prayers, with proof of it e.g. a piano appeared seconds after i prayed for one.

can a thiest answer me,

how many times has god answered your prayers, with proof of it e.g. a piano appeared seconds after i prayed for one.

Christians are servants of God. It doesnt work the other way around. They can only ask for his help, not demand it

Christians are servants of God. It doesnt work the other way around. They can only ask for his help, not demand it
whats god asking them then, and so whats the deal with praying

whats god asking them then, and so whats the deal with praying

You pray to god and ASK Him for his help to change events. You cant expect Him to give you something if you ask out of greed, you cant ask for something that would go against the Bibles teachings obviously. Just because he may say no to your prayers doesnt mean He hasnt heard

ok sorry bad example, but has he ever chanegd the future for any chirstians then

Well, somebody had to teach you your morals. Is that somebody as issue-laden as I am? You came on Earth possessing all your knowledge?

Christians do not, or should not, claim superiority over others. We are all human beings and we are all sinners.

School taught me morales, my parents taught me morales, I taught myself morales, these ideas were present in the form of law in Ancient Greece and Babylon hundreds or even thousands of years before the birth of christ, and they are so basic that you cant possibly claim that the bible teaches that to people, infact more blood has been spilt in the name of the bible than has been saved.

I'm not a christian, I'm not a sinner. I'm human who thinks for himself, thats it.

ok sorry bad example, but has he ever chanegd the future for any chirstians then

No-one can know for sure if He has done anything of the sort. Its just a matter of faith. What an atheist calls chance, a christian, etc may call an act of Gods will

ok, but say, a christian said,

dear lord, our holy father...................bread................wine............... I pray i do not die tommorow............ thank you


but then they died

ok, but say, a christian said,

dear lord, our holy father...................bread................wine............... I pray i do not die tommorow............ thank you


but then they died

In that case to the Christian it is just God declining their request

School taught me morales, my parents taught me morales, I taught myself morales, these ideas were present in the form of law in Ancient Greece and Babylon hundreds or even thousands of years before the birth of christ, and they are so basic that you cant possibly claim that the bible teaches that to people, infact more blood has been spilt in the name of the bible than has been saved.

I'm not a christian, I'm not a sinner. I'm human who thinks for himself, thats it.

You and I, we have our sources of morals. But the ultimate source of morals is from God. Feel free to disagree, but if it's a fact your disagreement won't affect anything.

In morals, nothing is "basic".

How many deaths were caused from Christianity as a belief, I don't know. But most deaths were caused by humans, a.k.a. sinners who manipulated their beliefs.

Except for the fact that you well know that what people have in mind when they talk about Santa is not some Dutch priest who walked around and gave poor children presents in a kind of charity, but a big fat jolly guy who flies around the world on Christmas Eve delivering presents to all the good (possibly Christian) children.

It's more productive to argue on the internal consistency of people's beliefs and their consistency with observation.

Dutch priest? Lycian bishop, surely. But in any case, when Christians talk about Jesus they don't tend to have in mind a Jewish rabbi who caused a bit of a fuss in Palestine; they tend to mean the Alpha and Omega, the Saviour, the Light of the World, the Word Made Flesh and so on and so forth.

Grave_n_idle is right: there is no evidence that proves Santa isn't real, just as there's no evidence that proves God isn't real. Equally, there's no evidence to prove that either God or Santa is real, either. In the absense of any evidence either way I feel it's best to go with Ockham's razor and not multiply entities needlessly. Are there any verifiable facts which cannot be explained without invoking the existence of Santa? If not, then -- in the absense of any direct evidence -- I don't see the need to believe in Santa.

The same applies to God, as well. I do not take religious writings as 'verifiable facts', since I think it's self-evident that they are not. However, some other attempts have been made to find a reason to postulate the existence of some kind of god. The existence of the universe at all is often cited as one, but that collapses when you realise that 'the universe' is the same as 'the set of all things'. It is a logical fallacy to say that 'the set of all things' owes its existence to an outside agency. The complexity of life is another -- but to me that seems merely an example of pointing at an area of ignorance and saying 'we must postulate God to explain this.' People used to do the same thing with earthquakes, with lightning, with the existence of marine fossils on top of mountains. It's just a God-of-the-gaps, and the gaps tend to get filled in. The apparent complexity of life is, to me, more plausibly explained by an as-yet-unfathomed deeper simplicity. The absense of a current non-supernatural explanation does not mean that such an explanation will never be found.

Which is not to deny the possibility of a God or Gods, whatever the term is taken to mean. I think that an appreciation of both science and history rules out accepting the Bible, or the Koran, or indeed any other Holy Book as absolute revealed truth, but I admit the possibility that they may have been inspired by some more-than-human agency. On a spectrum of probability, though, I'd personally put my money on the inspiration stemming from unusual (but not supernatural) electrochemical interactions in the brains of their various authors, possibly caused by activities like a) fasting, b) sitting out in the hot desert sun for hours staring at a blank horizon, c) ingesting ergot purpurea, or any combinations of the above and/or other similar events. It just seems more likely.

You cant prove a negative sorry
If you think you can ... prove santa is not real I can't prove it either, but I can provide some pointers.
When I was younger, my parents didn't admit that "they" were Santa, but did hint at it in a fashion. And now they almost fully admit it. Therefore either Santa didn't come to me because I was a naughty boy, or Santa is nonexistent. I think I was a good boy, so either Santa is nonexistent or I reject him and his false teachings. :)

You and I, we have our sources of morals. But the ultimate source of morals is from God. Feel free to disagree, but if it's a fact your disagreement won't affect anything.

In morals, nothing is "basic".

How many deaths were caused from Christianity as a belief, I don't know. But most deaths were caused by humans, a.k.a. sinners who manipulated their beliefs.

I strongly disagree, but I respect your opinion.

The problem is not the beliefs themselves, but the people abusing those beliefs for their own selfish desires.

I strongly disagree, but I respect your opinion.
Lol. I do too. But it's 15 minutes past midnight, so I'm sorry if I sounded impolite...

Lol. I do too. But it's 15 minutes past midnight, so I'm sorry if I sounded impolite...

As am I, its 2:25am here in Australia and I need sleep ...

Have you even read the Bible? Your opinion of it couldn't be farther from the truth!
I was christian, a rather hard core one until I turned about 17 or so. Yes, I have read the bible, many times. I also discussed it within groups at church... so yes, please, tell me I'm ignorant and that your interpretation can be the only right one again.

I have a book for you that deals with that question: The Case for Faith.
Are these authors too lazy to think of different names for their books or something?

There IS no plausible theory for universal origins, we cannot explain how the matter present in the big bang originated. Every theory so far posited has been shot down.
There is no theory because nothing can be observed outside of our universe. Since time was formed in the big bang as well as space, we can't see past the big bang to any "before" that may have been. The only thing we can do is form hypotheses. Also, such hypotheses are rather hard to shoot down positively, as there is no way of testing them.

Again, I disagree over your use of terminology. The way I see it, 'disbelief' has two components, an Active disbelief and a Passive disbelief.

To Actively disbelieve something, you have to 'negate' it, whereas to 'Passively' disbelieve something, you simply have to not 'agree' (in belief) with what is believed.

So - the African child that has never encountered Santa, Passively disbelieves.

The American child who is dubious about the existence of Santa, but hasn't yet enough 'certainty' that Santa MUST be untrue (i.e. has seen no 'evidence'), Passively disbelieves.

The American child who has seen mommy and daddy placing presents under the tree, Actively disbelieves.
I don't get the distinction you are making. Belief in something is, by default, in its being true; if we do not believe the truth of it, we call that disbelief, but it is still a belief, belief that something is rightly false.

The African child that has never encountered Santa yet will, in our scenario, disbelieve in him, is not disbelieving until he learns of Santa, until he has knowledge of Santa. Until then, he as nothing regarding Santa to believe in. So belief is dependent on knowledge. When he learns that Santa is "a big fat white guy who flies around the world giving out presents," he will disbelieve based on his knowledge that flying around the world is impossible, or that white guys don't give presents for free, or whatever... but his disbelief will be based on some knowledge of what is true, or believed to be true.

The American child who has seen mom and dad "being Santa" has knowledge that Santa is false. Therefore, similarly, he believes that Santa is false based on his knowledge. There is no real difference between the "types" of disbelief.

Disbelief is a type of belief, namely belief that something is false. "True" and "false" are absolute; they do not occur in degrees. Same with knowledge, and since belief is depedent upon it, same with belief. It really is a "yes, no, or I don't know" situation.

To my thinking, 'no belief' is much the same as 'Passive disbelief'. The Passive disbeliever doesn't imagine Santa definitely IS real - far from it - but also doesn't imagine that Santa MUST be unreal. There is no 'defining' belief, either way.
Then that's an "I don't know." I think I see the distinction with this line, though; not being able to make up your mind. That indecision is not disbelief.

Whether or not that individual who doesn't know wants to be labelled agnostic, though, I will leave to them to determine.

To all the atheists and agnostics out there, can I just ask you something.

In the age we live in, with many of lifes mysteries being explained by technology, and with the world becoming more rationalised, surely this rules out religion? Doesn't it? Or maybe not. Why are so many millions of people religious, when you claim they have all they need elsewhere? Maybe there is something else?
Your series of questions are badly phrased.

Other people may feel that they need something elsewhere, but that doesn't mean that there is something elsewhere (I'm assuming that you mean spritually by elsewhere) nor does that mean that everyone needs such a thing.

My opinion is that there is simply no solid facts that support the existence of a god. I am a man of science, not religion, I admit.

Grave_n_idle is right: there is no evidence that proves Santa isn't real, just as there's no evidence that proves God isn't real. Equally, there's no evidence to prove that either God or Santa is real, either. In the absense of any evidence either way I feel it's best to go with Ockham's razor and not multiply entities needlessly. Are there any verifiable facts which cannot be explained without invoking the existence of Santa? If not, then -- in the absense of any direct evidence -- I don't see the need to believe in Santa. .Well, I'm not getting into the god debate, but Santa is definitely falsifiable. First of all, you can observe that he doesn't visit good children like he's supposed to. Secondly, his alleged ability to visit all these children in one night goes against observation: reindeer don't fly, and even if they could, how could they survive the kind of forces involved in getting him around fast enough? And thirdly, people have been to the north pole and none have reported a workshop there.

Now, you can dismiss all of these, of course, by changing the nature of Santa (his reindeer are mechanical, he's an alien, he has inertial dampers, or some sort of science fiction stuff, he doesnt' visit all good children, etc.) but then I'd argue it's not really Santa we're talking about anymore, but something like Santa.

Now, even though I said I wouldn't get into the debate, I guess you could expand this reasoning to someone's conception of God. Some conceptualisatios God are false. For example, I could claim there were gods that walk the Earth now and fight, and that they're about 100 meters tall and look like men in loincloths and helmets. Of course, you could point out I'm full of crap because you can't see any. I might claim that they're invisible, but then I'm clearly just equivocating (if I thought they were invisible before, how could I have known what they looked like?). That's probably why biblical literalists are so few and far between, there are things in the Bible that simply are not true (taken literally) given observation of the world around us.

Anyway, my point is it's sometimes a cop-out to let certain people off the hook when they hold false beliefs simply because of some confusion over what is meant and they might potentially mean something that is truly unfalsifiable. The argument someone made about it being unable to disprove Santa doesn't exist mostly relies on equivocation and willful moving of the (figurative) semantic goal posts.

Yes...5000 years of human intelligence and we're still running around in circles at the most basic issues. Intelligence, we have? Yes. Intelligence that surpasses religion and the truth? I don't think so.
And that proves what? Could make the case that we have just not expanded enough ...

There is no theory because nothing can be observed outside of our universe. Since time was formed in the big bang as well as space, we can't see past the big bang to any "before" that may have been. The only thing we can do is form hypotheses. Also, such hypotheses are rather hard to shoot down positively, as there is no way of testing them.
That's a fascinating concept; that time was "formed" or "fashioned," rather than it being a property of space.

Smacks of belief in a manipulative God.

Dutch priest? Lycian bishop, surely. But in any case, when Christians talk about Jesus they don't tend to have in mind a Jewish rabbi who caused a bit of a fuss in Palestine; they tend to mean the Alpha and Omega, the Saviour, the Light of the World, the Word Made Flesh and so on and so forth.

Grave_n_idle is right: there is no evidence that proves Santa isn't real, just as there's no evidence that proves God isn't real. Equally, there's no evidence to prove that either God or Santa is real, either. In the absense of any evidence either way I feel it's best to go with Ockham's razor and not multiply entities needlessly. Are there any verifiable facts which cannot be explained without invoking the existence of Santa? If not, then -- in the absense of any direct evidence -- I don't see the need to believe in Santa.

The same applies to God, as well. I do not take religious writings as 'verifiable facts', since I think it's self-evident that they are not. However, some other attempts have been made to find a reason to postulate the existence of some kind of god. The existence of the universe at all is often cited as one, but that collapses when you realise that 'the universe' is the same as 'the set of all things'. It is a logical fallacy to say that 'the set of all things' owes its existence to an outside agency. The complexity of life is another -- but to me that seems merely an example of pointing at an area of ignorance and saying 'we must postulate God to explain this.' People used to do the same thing with earthquakes, with lightning, with the existence of marine fossils on top of mountains. It's just a God-of-the-gaps, and the gaps tend to get filled in. The apparent complexity of life is, to me, more plausibly explained by an as-yet-unfathomed deeper simplicity. The absense of a current non-supernatural explanation does not mean that such an explanation will never be found.

Which is not to deny the possibility of a God or Gods, whatever the term is taken to mean. I think that an appreciation of both science and history rules out accepting the Bible, or the Koran, or indeed any other Holy Book as absolute revealed truth, but I admit the possibility that they may have been inspired by some more-than-human agency. On a spectrum of probability, though, I'd personally put my money on the inspiration stemming from unusual (but not supernatural) electrochemical interactions in the brains of their various authors, possibly caused by activities like a) fasting, b) sitting out in the hot desert sun for hours staring at a blank horizon, c) ingesting ergot purpurea, or any combinations of the above and/or other similar events. It just seems more likely.
I strongly disagree, but I respect your opinion.

And that proves what? Could make the case that we have just not expanded enough ...

But we're running around and around in circles at the most basic issues. We've expanded in scientific knowledge, but at the same time our morals and our compassions have declined considerably.

Reading these faith-threads is fun. And a bit unsettling.
I'd like to say I don't have a problem with believers. I'd like to say I think they're normal humans, who just has a hyperactive imagination. I'd like to say they don't scare me, and I'd very much like being able to say I don't consider them mentally ill.
But I keep changing my mind about these things. When I see people like Willamena & Cabra West post their beliefs, religion just seems to be another way to get peace of mind. Like meditation or something, with an added father figure.
But when I see people claiming all morals stem from (their idea of) god, when I see people write that atheists & agnostics will burn in hell and live their lives in despair, when I see people sidelining lack of faith with evil & amoral behaviour, I can't help thinking religion is dangerous.

Do not get me wrong, religion per se doesn't scare me. People's faith and their subsequent opinions of other humans is what scares me. I don't understand how believers can observe the societies they live in, and still make the claims they do. Where is the need for god? What does god actually do? What couldn't be happening without god? What exactly makes believers think gays are any different from themselves (let alone worse)? What makes believers think unbelievers (or the wrong kind of believers) are amoral or live in despair?

And what makes believers think they are different from schizophrenics?

I don't really care for arguments for/against organised religion. Sure, organised religion is almost synonymous with oppression, terror and genocide. But those same organised religions have been the stabilising forces of civilization. They've been our fountains of knowledge (secular knowledge; science & math), and the primary tool for establishing societies. The entire western world's culture is founded on Christianity. Without it, the world wouldn't be what it is and chances are, our technology & science would be stuck in the dark ages.
I'm not saying the ends justify the means or anything like that, I'm saying noone can claim organised religion has been a force for good or evil. The only slightly valid claim about I think anyone can make, is saying organised religion is it's own worst enemy. It's largely responsible for our current level of technology and science, and ironically, modern sophisticated education is the primary reason for the rise in atheists. No, I'm not trying to say religious people are a bunch of uneducated bums.

Whatever... I can't help thinking religion is the same as nationalism. All too often it's the same selfrightious authoritarian bullshit, hating and/or threatning all who are different. And I don't think that rhymes well with morals at all.

People who try to convert others through reason & science are strange. I mean it. How can anyone believe rational thinking, factuality or science can build a case for god?
A rational human will look for the proof. But there isn't any.
Then the rational human will examine if god seems to be apparent in the world. But again, there really isn't any indication either way.
So a rational human will try to put god in (or remove god) from their world veiw, and see if it makes any difference. But it doesn't.
So a rational human will come to the conclusion, that while it's remotely possible there is something divine, it's not plausible.

It's the same when people hear of UFO's, alien invasions, crop circles, flying pigs and monsters living under childrens beds. Sure, supernatural explanations can't be disproved, but that doesn't make them plausible in the least. People don't really believe they live inside The Matrix either, even if it is possible.

So if you're out to convert people, appeal to emotions instead of knowledge. The appeal to knowledge, reason or science doesn't help your case. God is an abstract. Keep it that way, else you shouldn't be suprised when people point at you and laugh.

The monotheistic gods are authority figures. They give rewards, punish people and have rules. They beyond questioning and confrontation. To people who don't believe in authorities, they come off as dictators. Some might veiw them as benevolent dictators. I don't personally.
Anyway, I mention this, because a lot of their followers seem to have trouble understanding why anti authoritarian people consider them slave drivers for a divine oppressor.
In my own case, even if I possitively knew the Christian God to be real, I wouldn't bow down to it. As long as I cannot question an authority, I refuse to submit. I have a feeling a lot of Christians have trouble relating, thus I'm trying to explain.
I know a lot of people instantly cower when they meet a police officer. Most people feel instantly guilty. I don't. I feel I stand before someone just like myself, only that someone thinks s/he has the right to treat me against my will. Sometimes I will respect the authority of the officer, if I can understand it's motivation & justify it's actions. But I will not respect an officer's authority just because it wears a uniform. Uniforms doesn't grant magical powers and infallability. I've actually been arrested for calling the cops on a cop. The case was later dismissed in court and I was payed compensation.

But such a thing isn't possible with god. I can't bring god to justice if it's abusing it's powers. I can't even kick it's ass. If anything, that makes god the anti of absolute morality to me.

Before I start forgive me if I repeat anything that’s been said as i've only read the 1st 7 pages.

I am an atheist because I don’t believe in Christianity, I have read the bible (well bits of) and I don’t find it compelling to put my faith in. It’s full of metaphors, that don’t explain rather than guide, so I choose to live my life by guides of goodness avoiding to do what I think is wrong not what an ancient book written hundreds of years ago. The second huge problem with it is it goes against my morals by condemning women, it was a women(Eve) who took the apple and there are other bits but I am tired and can't think right now(compelling argument aye) a quick google on this though and a quote from the bible 1 Timothy 2:12, "But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet." and other stuff at this place

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/bileffr.htm

I cant comment on any other religion as I don’t know much about them, but have no desire to as I don’t think there is anything wrong with the way I live. But do ask of 1 thing please do not force your religions upon me as I do not force anyone into my life style.

Personally I don’t like extremists, as they force me into what I want, do not make me question my beliefs or I will make you question yours, for example have you tried reading:


http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/141162520X/qid=1122103801/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_8_3/026-2859930-4121247
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1413434819/qid=1122103874/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_11_1/026-2859930-4121247
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/087975124X/ref=pd_bxgy_img_2_cp/026-2859930-4121247

and the list can go on.

My absolute favorite case I've heard for creationism has to be: "Something had to have created matter. But er- nothing created god. he's so awsome,he didn't even need to be created". Cracks me up every time.

:D :D lol.... the world HAS to have a creator. but the creator... doesn't have to have a creator? instead of just guessing about supernatural father figures, let's just admit we don't know what the heck happened all those billions of years ago.

and as for God being the source of morality, those of us who receive Discover magazine may remember an article many months ago about the evolutionary model for morality. I can't find a suitable link, but the point is that what we call morality is simply an evolutionary tool for individual and species survival. Don't kill, don't breed with relatives, etc... everything we know as morality can be traced back to the need for survival. The guy doing the research also attempts to provide more evidence for this theory by interviewing people about their morals. he poses two situations:

1. you're the conductor of a train. You are riding along and see that there are 5 people tied to the track ahead. you can't stop the train and you are going to kill them. BUT, you can flip the switch and the train will switch tracks and on the second track there is only one person tied to the track.

do you flip the switch?

2. you are on a cliff. with you is a very large person. below you see a train that is heading towards 5 people who are tied to the tracks, the train cannot stop. you know that if you push this obese person off the cliff they will land on the track (and die) and be able to slow the train to a stop before it gets to the five (assumedly skinnier) people who are tied down.

do you push this person off the cliff?

(ok, i know situation 2 is farfetched, but bear with me) the researcher notices that almost everyone would flip the switch in situation 1 and almost no one would push the person in situation 2. the outcomes are the same, but in our hearts we know that one is acceptable and the other clearly wrong. he suggests that our ancestors who evolved morality didn't deal with technological instruments, thus, flipping the switch isn't as morally offensive as pushing someone off a cliff to their death.

This certainly seems to explain why all these "different" religions have the same underlying principles.


As a Christian, it is sorta sad to be reading this thread and sympathize more with the atheists. for those who gave up on god because of 'logical flaws' lemme appeal to your logical side for a moment.

We assume that if god exists, believers will go to heaven and non believers will not. If god does not exist, no one goes to heaven. if god does exist, only believers will go to heaven. Logically, the option producing the most favorable outcome would be believing.

you've got nothin to lose except eternal paradise. ;)

We assume that if god exists, believers will go to heaven and non believers will not. If god does not exist, no one goes to heaven. if god does exist, only believers will go to heaven. Logically, the option producing the most favorable outcome would be believing.

well ok, but lets say for a second that god does exist. And his existance is based on that whole you can only come to heaven if you believed in me, but i will forgive you all anyway. So i choose to live my life not beliving but living it right, trying to make the morally right choices, so if god does exist i think he would forgive me (he forgives every one the way i understand it) and say "hey your not a bad person come into heaven".

He also forgets that there are thousands of different religions and to say that you're right and they're not makes him look like a total prick.

The very idea that morality can only go hand in hand with the concept of God is pure ignorance, and I think all Christians should be ashamed for letting anyone say that, even if they themselves do not.

To suggest that no other culture with other religions, knew nothing of morality, or that if they did, it was through a mistaken belief wich was really an aspect of your God...

...is one of the most pompous things I tend to hear.


Ghandi was an immoral person was he?

Do you think the average Shaolin monk from years past was, at heart, an immoral?

The Dahli Lama is an immoral guy, huh?

The ideas in your bible are at heart, decent ones for human behaviour.
Be good to each other, dont steal, dont lie, dont hurt others..make recompense if you do...

Why does it have to be so much more complicated than that?
Why is everything do damn black and white with you people?

Why does it have to be so much more than a few good stories told to be an example of how to conduct yourselves?

Ultimately, I think it boils down to arrogance, greed, and lust for power.

Arrogance in that some believe their outlook on life is the only acceptable one, and that all would be better off thinking the way they do.

Greed, in the actions of the past, present, and future of christianity, that have cuased strife to millions, all for monetary profit.

Lust for power?

Look around you for that one..its everywhere, and in this country, its the bad examples that are speaking for the majority of Christians who are actually decent people.

<Snip>
(ok, i know situation 2 is farfetched, but bear with me) the researcher notices that almost everyone would flip the switch in situation 1 and almost no one would push the person in situation 2. the outcomes are the same, but in our hearts we know that one is acceptable and the other clearly wrong. he suggests that our ancestors who evolved morality didn't deal with technological instruments, thus, flipping the switch isn't as morally offensive as pushing someone off a cliff to their death.

Uhm... That's not just highly simplistic, it's silly as well.

In another thread I made an argument from a similar premise. One that's a bit more relevant to your example.
Several of the social mammals we know have 'ethics' of a sort. Basically they don't cause harm to their social group, they have rules regarding ranks and property and they have clear social structures. They even form sub groups based equally on social status, family and 'friendship'.
All that can't go on if the individuals don't have a sense of ethics. Check up how some monkeys act.

Also, perhaps we wouldn't shove the fatso off the cliff, because we instinctly feel that immediate relations or society is more important that 5 strangers. I mean, regardless of how we look at it, we must have determined that the fat guy isn't a threat to us. Otherwise we either wouldn't be there, or we would push the fat guy regardless of trains & tied up people.

This certainly seems to explain why all these "different" religions have the same underlying principles.
<Snip>
We assume that if god exists, believers will go to heaven and non believers will not. If god does not exist, no one goes to heaven. if god does exist, only believers will go to heaven. Logically, the option producing the most favorable outcome would be believing.

you've got nothin to lose except eternal paradise. ;)

And thus Pascals Wager rears it's ugly head again.
1. Pretending to believe in the Christian god is a sin. And only true believers can go to heaven.
2. Numerous other religions exists. Many of them also excludes worthshippers of false gods (like the bible does). Which one is the right one?
3. Google Pascal's Wager for more reasons why it's inane.

In that case to the Christian it is just God declining their request
then he isnt to fatherly and loving, also check out psalms - 58 and 120

Well, I'm not getting into the god debate, but Santa is definitely falsifiable. First of all, you can observe that he doesn't visit good children like he's supposed to. Secondly, his alleged ability to visit all these children in one night goes against observation: reindeer don't fly, and even if they could, how could they survive the kind of forces involved in getting him around fast enough? And thirdly, people have been to the north pole and none have reported a workshop there.

Now, you can dismiss all of these, of course, by changing the nature of Santa (his reindeer are mechanical, he's an alien, he has inertial dampers, or some sort of science fiction stuff, he doesnt' visit all good children, etc.) but then I'd argue it's not really Santa we're talking about anymore, but something like Santa.

That's a good point: the difference between the claims made by Santa-belief and those made by most religions is that Santa is supposed to operate in the physical world and provides physical rewards (presents) as opposed to generally post-mortem rewards which can't be verified one way or the other. On a religious level I suppose a Santa-believer could say that the common conception of "good children" is mistaken and that he delivers real present to only a very small elect few, or that it is a mistake to believe in physical presents and that he delivers spiritual gifts only. Cue a long, long series of merry persecutions and wars of Santa :). An appeal to the supernatural would overcome any objections to flying superfast reindeer, though. But you're right: common Santa-belief is falsifiable.

Now, even though I said I wouldn't get into the debate, I guess you could expand this reasoning to someone's conception of God. Some conceptualisatios God are false. For example, I could claim there were gods that walk the Earth now and fight, and that they're about 100 meters tall and look like men in loincloths and helmets. Of course, you could point out I'm full of crap because you can't see any. I might claim that they're invisible, but then I'm clearly just equivocating (if I thought they were invisible before, how could I have known what they looked like?). That's probably why biblical literalists are so few and far between, there are things in the Bible that simply are not true (taken literally) given observation of the world around us.

Anyway, my point is it's sometimes a cop-out to let certain people off the hook when they hold false beliefs simply because of some confusion over what is meant and they might potentially mean something that is truly unfalsifiable. The argument someone made about it being unable to disprove Santa doesn't exist mostly relies on equivocation and willful moving of the (figurative) semantic goal posts.

The problem here is that there are central tenets of Christianity which are obviously not literally true, given observations of the world around us: specifically, the Resurrection -- without which Christianity, in anything like its commonly accepted form, is meaningless except as a source of (generally laudable) moral guidance. People do not come back from the dead. Christianity gets round this by an appeal to the supernatural, and -- although I agree this is a cop-out -- it's not something that can be disproved.

Equally, claims about the nature of things which cannot be seen or verified are circumvented by yet more appeals to the supernatural. How do you know that there are 100-metre tall invisible gods walking the earth wearing loincloths and helmets? Divine revelation. Next!

I feel that such answers are cop-outs. To me they appear irrational, argumentative and evidence of firmly closed minds. But then, I've never experienced divine revelation. I suspect that 'divine revelation' is probably a product of unusual activity in the brain. Such things do happen and it avoids an appeal to the supernatural, which must always be an end to any enquiry: but it can't be proved in all cases.

Because of this, religious questions must always be philosophical, and not scientific. My objections to many religions is that I find their philosophical roots to be sadly unsatisfactory when compared to what we know about the universe at large. Most orthodox forms of Christianity (and Islam, and Judaism, and other scripturally-based religions) seem to me to depend on a God that is all too human, too obviously a judgemental extended father-figure with human concerns, opinions and motivations, to say nothing of being sadly lacking in the morals department Himself. Given the scale and age of the universe, and the obviously arbitrary nature of existence, this seems to me to be intellectually offensive. It's fine if you think 'the universe' is a toy earth under a dome of heaven, operated by a whimsical-to-psychotic deity: it's frankly stupid given what we now know about the actual nature of the cosmos. There is of course another cop-out here that all these things are illusions placed here to 'test our faith', but this creates a vision of God that's so petty and banal it defies any hope of my belief.

Back to what you said about Santa: I suppose what I'm saying is that I'm prepared to admit the possibility of a God which is merely 'something like' the Gods of most mainstream religions. There could be a force or an intelligence inhabiting the universe, there could even be some form of afterlife. There is no evidence either for or against. However, I don't see the need for such an hypothesis.

Jeldred, your post was good and cogent, and I more or less agree with it.,

But we're running around and around in circles at the most basic issues. We've expanded in scientific knowledge, but at the same time our morals and our compassions have declined considerably.
So you say ... prove that in any sort of objective mannor ... (and to do such you have to prove absolute morals ... objectivly)

And then prove that there is a general decline through human history in relation to the proven objective morals

So you say ... prove that in any sort of objective mannor ... (and to do such you have to prove absolute morals ... objectivly)

And then prove that there is a general decline through human history in relation to the proven objective morals

You're right. I can't. Because human morals have always been bad.

EDIT: Can you provide me with objective evidence that you love your wife.

Dutch priest? Lycian bishop, surely. But in any case, when Christians talk about Jesus they don't tend to have in mind a Jewish rabbi who caused a bit of a fuss in Palestine; they tend to mean the Alpha and Omega, the Saviour, the Light of the World, the Word Made Flesh and so on and so forth.

Grave_n_idle is right: there is no evidence that proves Santa isn't real, just as there's no evidence that proves God isn't real. Equally, there's no evidence to prove that either God or Santa is real, either. In the absense of any evidence either way I feel it's best to go with Ockham's razor and not multiply entities needlessly. Are there any verifiable facts which cannot be explained without invoking the existence of Santa? If not, then -- in the absense of any direct evidence -- I don't see the need to believe in Santa.

The same applies to God, as well. I do not take religious writings as 'verifiable facts', since I think it's self-evident that they are not. However, some other attempts have been made to find a reason to postulate the existence of some kind of god. The existence of the universe at all is often cited as one, but that collapses when you realise that 'the universe' is the same as 'the set of all things'. It is a logical fallacy to say that 'the set of all things' owes its existence to an outside agency. The complexity of life is another -- but to me that seems merely an example of pointing at an area of ignorance and saying 'we must postulate God to explain this.' People used to do the same thing with earthquakes, with lightning, with the existence of marine fossils on top of mountains. It's just a God-of-the-gaps, and the gaps tend to get filled in. The apparent complexity of life is, to me, more plausibly explained by an as-yet-unfathomed deeper simplicity. The absense of a current non-supernatural explanation does not mean that such an explanation will never be found.

Which is not to deny the possibility of a God or Gods, whatever the term is taken to mean. I think that an appreciation of both science and history rules out accepting the Bible, or the Koran, or indeed any other Holy Book as absolute revealed truth, but I admit the possibility that they may have been inspired by some more-than-human agency. On a spectrum of probability, though, I'd personally put my money on the inspiration stemming from unusual (but not supernatural) electrochemical interactions in the brains of their various authors, possibly caused by activities like a) fasting, b) sitting out in the hot desert sun for hours staring at a blank horizon, c) ingesting ergot purpurea, or any combinations of the above and/or other similar events. It just seems more likely.

Excellent post.

I don't get the distinction you are making. Belief in something is, by default, in its being true; if we do not believe the truth of it, we call that disbelief, but it is still a belief, belief that something is rightly false.

The African child that has never encountered Santa yet will, in our scenario, disbelieve in him, is not disbelieving until he learns of Santa, until he has knowledge of Santa. Until then, he as nothing regarding Santa to believe in. So belief is dependent on knowledge. When he learns that Santa is "a big fat white guy who flies around the world giving out presents," he will disbelieve based on his knowledge that flying around the world is impossible, or that white guys don't give presents for free, or whatever... but his disbelief will be based on some knowledge of what is true, or believed to be true.

The American child who has seen mom and dad "being Santa" has knowledge that Santa is false. Therefore, similarly, he believes that Santa is false based on his knowledge. There is no real difference between the "types" of disbelief.

Disbelief is a type of belief, namely belief that something is false. "True" and "false" are absolute; they do not occur in degrees. Same with knowledge, and since belief is depedent upon it, same with belief. It really is a "yes, no, or I don't know" situation.


Then that's an "I don't know." I think I see the distinction with this line, though; not being able to make up your mind. That indecision is not disbelief.

Whether or not that individual who doesn't know wants to be labelled agnostic, though, I will leave to them to determine.

Agnostic has nothing to do with belief, Willamena... it is all about whether it is possible to KNOW (hence a-gnostic). There are Christian Agnostics, Muslim Agnostics, Atheist Agnostics... etc.. The only 'common' thread among Agnostics is that they believe you cannot KNOW... you cannot PROVE the existence (or non-existence) of God.

I have no beliefs about gods, either way. I don't actively believe, and I don't actively disbelieve. I don't accept any of the stories I have encountered, but I also don't reject the 'concept' of 'god' as untrue.

Thus - I am an Atheist... specifically, an Implicit Atheist.

I am also not sure that it can EVER be possible to truly KNOW for sure... so I am an Implicit Atheist leaning towards Agnosticism.

Whether you can comprehend that structure or not, that IS my belief structure... so your failure to comprehend it 'in theory' makes no difference, overall, since it exists 'in practice'.

Do you realise that the mind is supernatural?

What the (don't know if this is permitted here) fuck??

Nice one, it also turns out the operations your CPU performs is supernatural too. Therefore your post doesn't exist :rolleyes:

Facts as I see them: Something created the universe (i.e. set off the "Big Bang")

If the principle of Cause and Effect applied at the time of the "Big Bang", then there must be a "God" (an entity, object, persona, spirit, energy or however it may be perceived or defined).

Alternatively, since it is believed time didn't exist prior to a certain point during the "Big Bang", then it could be possible that during this time, Cause and Effect were the same.

Therefore the universe itself could be defined as "God"

Well, I'm not getting into the god debate, but Santa is definitely falsifiable. First of all, you can observe that he doesn't visit good children like he's supposed to. Secondly, his alleged ability to visit all these children in one night goes against observation: reindeer don't fly, and even if they could, how could they survive the kind of forces involved in getting him around fast enough? And thirdly, people have been to the north pole and none have reported a workshop there.

First: Maybe he does visit good children, and the fact that he doesn't seem to obviously visit many people is because most of the children are actually 'bad'?

Second: Stealth fighters and supersonic jets also go against the commonly observed rules of air travel... and yet they are true. Maybe COMMON reindeer don't fly, but we don't know the specifics of the reindeer on Santa's team... apart from their names.

(Elephants and mammoths. Very similar - yet one is adapted to conditions in which the other couldn't survive...)

Thirdly: People have been to my local town, and yet not seen my house. Lack of proof, is NOT THE SAME as proof of lack.

Ultimately - Santa may not fit your vision of what is 'real'... but he is no more falsifiable than God... and neither can be scientifically proved/disproved (obviously).

First: Maybe he does visit good children, and the fact that he doesn't seem to obviously visit many people is because most of the children are actually 'bad'?

Second: Stealth fighters and supersonic jets also go against the commonly observed rules of air travel... and yet they are true. Maybe COMMON reindeer don't fly, but we don't know the specifics of the reindeer on Santa's team... apart from their names.

(Elephants and mammoths. Very similar - yet one is adapted to conditions in which the other couldn't survive...)

Thirdly: People have been to my local town, and yet not seen my house. Lack of proof, is NOT THE SAME as proof of lack.

Ultimately - Santa may not fit your vision of what is 'real'... but he is no more falsifiable than God... and neither can be scientifically proved/disproved (obviously).

Where were you when they made Miracle on 34th Street? :eek:

The very idea that morality can only go hand in hand with the concept of God is pure ignorance


I dont think you understand what people mean when they say this

When it is said that morality is dependent on God, what is not meant is that you yourself cannot be moral unless you are religious. What is meant is that the existance of God is the guidence for all human morality. Kant explained this well, and here is a website explaining what Kant said, and a few extracts.

1. It appears to human beings that moral normativity exists.
2. The best explanation of moral normativity is that it is grounded in God.
3. Therefore God exists.


1. Moral normativity is best explained through the existence of authoritative moral rules.
2. Authoritative moral rules must be promulgated and enforced by an appropriate moral authority.
3. The only appropriate moral authority is God.
4. Thus, given that there is moral normativity, there is a God.


1. Moral facts exist.
2. Moral facts have the properties of being objective and non-natural.
3. The best explanation of there being objective and non-natural moral facts is provided by theism.
4. Therefore the existence of moral facts provides good grounds for thinking theism is true.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/

Thats the web site I got this from

i do not believe in a god, or intelligent design or any of that, i am technically an absurdist, and believe we are here as a result of an accident, however, i have many friends who are christian or muslim, and they find solace, and happiness in their faith. I find solace and happiness in the belief that the pain and suffering in the world is not deliberately maintained by some omniscient being. I dont know about you, but i would find it incredibly disheartening to think that so many horrific things that occur are the machinations of a super-intelligent being. A thing that could create the holocaust, massacres, war, rape, domestic violence, torture and mutilation, disease, famine, natural disaster. Do you people really think that there is a purpose to these things, that there is a supreme being that knows better than us and inflicts these horrible things on us?
However, i am aware that many people on this earth find great comfort in the belief that something is looking out for them, and while i might believe this is naive, ignorant, and self destructive, i can also understand that there is something in that. Who am i to tell people what to believe? who is anybody to inflict their opinions upon the rest of us? I can only give my opinion, one that i have spent a lot of time contemplating, and that i believe is quite balanced and fair. i do not ask people to agree with me, but only to attempt to understand my stance, and a lot of atheists and religious people are narrow minded, human beings are essentially narrow minded creatures, who seek comfort in organisations, we are essentially pack animals, and we find comfort in sharing ideas. So open your minds to the possiblilty and the uncertainty that perhaps, just maybe, no one in this world is totally right, im sure it isnt me, or anyone at this forum.

I dont think you understand what people mean when they say this

When it is said that morality is dependent on God, what is not meant is that you yourself cannot be moral unless you are religious. What is meant is that the existance of God is the guidence for all human morality. Kant explained this well, and here is a website explaining what Kant said, and a few extracts.







http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-arguments-god/

Thats the web site I got this from

Its too bad thats it comprised of crap.
Nice vocabulary, though, I'll give it that.

Let's see..off the top of my head, why thats crap...

Oh yes..

Buddism.
Lots of very moral lessons on how to conduct ones self.

...No god....

Hmm....


Oh, another....Taoism.

No God...

According to Christians..since thier god is the only "True" God, that means we can include many other historical figures that werent Christian, but somehow were also extremely moral people.

Except that Ghandi fellow...he was a heathen bastard!

Its too bad thats it comprised of crap.
Nice vocabulary, though, I'll give it that.

Let's see..off the top of my head, why thats crap...

Oh yes..

Buddism.
Lots of very moral lessons on how to conduct ones self.

...No god....

Hmm....


Oh, another....Taoism.

No God...

According to Christians..since thier god is the only "True" God, that means we can include many other historical figures that werent Christian, but somehow were also extremely moral people.

Except that Ghandi fellow...he was a heathen bastard!

Well done, you completely missed the point of what I said. Lets look again shall we


When it is said that morality is dependent on God, what is not meant is that you yourself cannot be moral unless you are religious. What is meant is that the existance of God is the guidence for all human morality

In other words, its obvious that you dont have to be a Christian or even believe in a God to be moral and good. But the fact that the concepts of morals and good and evil exist are indicators of God's existance. Now actually read the website and you will see that providing examples of systems without Gods but still have morals does not disprove what the website says.

Well done, you completely missed the point of what I said. Lets look again shall we



In other words, its obvious that you dont have to be a Christian or even believe in a God to be moral and good. But the fact that the concepts of morals and good and evil exist are indicators of God's existance. Now actually read the website and you will see that providing examples of systems without Gods but still have morals does not disprove what the website says.


Sorry, I dont have time to web surf at the moment, so your going to have to use your own arguments, instead of anothers.

So let me get this straight...

Youre implying, that the fact that humans do have morals at all...regardless of their particular faith, is proof that YOUR God exists.

You dont find that just a wee bit arrogant?

So, religion then, has nothing to do with morality, but as a side effect..it proves yours?

Do you actually listen to that crap?

Youre implying, that the fact that humans do have morals at all...regardless of their particular faith, is proof that YOUR God exists.

You dont find that just a wee bit arrogant?

I didn't say "my" God, I said God. It proves that there is an entity which creates the moral laws. As for it being my God well theres more other evidence for that. I can go into that if you want me to. Here's Kant's arguement summerised

1. Moral normativity is best explained through the existence of authoritative moral rules.
2. Authoritative moral rules must be promulgated and enforced by an appropriate moral authority.
3. The only appropriate moral authority is God.
4. Thus, given that there is moral normativity, there is a God.

1. Moral norms have authority.
2. If they have authority, there must be a reliable motive for human beings to be moral.
3. No such motive could exist, unless there was an omniscient, omnipresent, wholly just agent to attach sanctions to behavior under moral norms.
4. There is a God.

1. Moral facts exist.
2. Moral facts have the properties of being objective and non-natural.
3. The best explanation of there being objective and non-natural moral facts is provided by theism.
4. Therefore the existence of moral facts provides good grounds for thinking theism is true.

1. Morality is a rational enterprise.
2. Morality would not be a rational enterprise if there were no moral order in the world.
3. Only the existence of God traditionally conceived could support the hypothesis that there is a moral order in the world.
4. Therefore, there is a God.


So, religion then, has nothing to do with morality, but as a side effect..it proves yours?


Of course religion has to do with morality. Please stop twisting things. I never said religion has nothing to do with morality, what I said was that morality existing prives the existance of a God. I didnt say my God, just a God. However I can explain to you how other evidence can suport Christianity's claims over others. If you would like to here them I am only too willing.

bump? jolt? I forget

I completely agree with Sanx on this one.

If there isn't a God, then what is the point of trying to be good??

Oh, and Motellab, a very good post :) Wish other people were so reasoning as you are.

The point of trying to be "good" has nothing to do with any sort of god, at least not any more. The values of todays world are based highly upon the influence that christianity had upon nearly everyone in the western world until, probably, the early 1800's. Therefore people beleive that certain things are "right", such as donating to charity, or "wrong", such as killing a person. However these values have become atheistic. If you kill simeone- they are gone, period. Therefore it is wrong to kill someone. It is the smae idea with donating to charity. If you help someone, you expand their life expectancy, therefore it is good to help people.

I completely agree with Sanx on this one.

If there isn't a God, then what is the point of trying to be good??

Oh, and Motellab, a very good post :) Wish other people were so reasoning as you are.
Who said there is a point ?

I think we could argue like this forever, and never be closer to any answer. Perhaps it is best to let each person decide there personal beliefs and leave it be. Nobody will dismiss religion or be converted by this thread, so the fact that you are arguing over this will change nothing. Spiritual stance is a very personal matter (although how this is expressed can vary) and you just have to concede that you, none of you, know answer to what you discuss. Therefore, the matter of belief is a leap of faith, whether it is religious or atheist, and relies soley on the the evidence you have seen portrayed to you during your life, and is central to your understanding of who you are. The fact that you so strongly believe either way, and see other opinions as erroneous, does not mean that all others are wrong or stupid. Spritual belief is almost part of our make-up, DNA almost (although it can change) and it is as pointless to make someone repent their belief than to make someone repent their biological make-up.

I think we could argue like this forever, and never be closer to any answer. Perhaps it is best to let each person decide there personal beliefs and leave it be. Nobody will dismiss religion or be converted by this thread, so the fact that you are arguing over this will change nothing. Spiritual stance is a very personal matter (although how this is expressed can vary) and you just have to concede that you, none of you, know answer to what you discuss. Therefore, the matter of belief is a leap of faith, whether it is religious or atheist, and relies soley on the the evidence you have seen portrayed to you during your life, and is central to your understanding of who you are. The fact that you so strongly believe either way, and see other opinions as erroneous, does not mean that all others are wrong or stupid. Spritual belief is almost part of our make-up, DNA almost (although it can change) and it is as pointless to make someone repent their belief than to make someone repent their biological make-up.
Maybe the point of discussion is not to work towards an answer necessarily but expand our minds and learn

[...] spirituality is important and a natural human instinct. But religion as a concept is a thinly-veiled example of social control, and I always wonder why people just can't seem to realise that. To me it seems glaringly obvious.


I do agree with almost everything El Porro said.
But this point is what I most agree with.
I'm not an athiest or an agnostic, I'm heithen. I use the old Icelandic pantheon as a spiritual foundation for my religious practises, since it's where my roots are. I have nothing against christians or muslims, jews or budists. I think we all believe the same thing, we just dress it up in different costumes and customs.

Spirituality is different for each person and everybody has a right to their own views. We can take a whole lot of things from people, but we can never take away the right to have your own opinions.

I was raised christian, but after reading the bible, the whole bible, not just the new testament, I saw it was against my fundamental believe, the right to do as you will.
So, I drifted away from christianity over 14 years ago and found my path. It lies in the wake of my forfathers, the vikings, and I'm a happy, balanced person with strong faith in my gods and godesses.

That said, I have to add that I also believe in science. I don't believe in the story of how the world began as presented by my forfathers.
Because, just like the story of Eden in the bible, the Eddas present a world view before the time of science and logic.
We can never take religion too literaly, it's meant as a bases for us to work with.

I think religious intolerance is one of the things that most plagues the world today. Forced conversions do more harm than good and trying to make everybody worship the same god tends to leave people unsatisfied with themselves and their spirutual believes.
Respecting everyones opinions is hard, and I'll never say that I respect all the viewes out there.
But at least I try.

I agree, but my point is that the fact that you are convinced of your own beliefs (you have made a leap of faith) does not mean you are right or that anyone else is wrong or stupid. And even though I agree totally with you that this sort of debate can expand the mind and learning of an individual, it can not be used to 'prove' your belief or disprove any other as none of us are any more enlightened than each other about these matters. The only thing we can create is more questions. Therefore any person on this forum believing they are more enlightened than any other may do so, but just because you do believe you are correct does not mean that you are and definately does not make your belief more valuable and correct than another persons, because none of us has any evidence to prove either way. The only evidence we have is our own personal beliefs, which can be definate in our own minds and hearts, but erroneous in terms of proof.

Maybe the fact that we do not have proof of God existance or non-existance was planned by God, as it makes our belief either way more pure and true.

Where were you when they made Miracle on 34th Street? :eek:

The original? Or the remake? (Each with a different 'santa'.... the plot thickens...)

In other words, its obvious that you dont have to be a Christian or even believe in a God to be moral and good. But the fact that the concepts of morals and good and evil exist are indicators of God's existance. Now actually read the website and you will see that providing examples of systems without Gods but still have morals does not disprove what the website says.

Concepts of 'good' and 'evil' do nothing to 'prove' the existence of any gods, let alone the 'god' of desert prophets.

The concepts of 'good' and 'evil' can just as easily be ascribed to social pressures... i.e. for example, taking MY food is bad, because I will die... therefore, theft of food is 'evil'.

On the other hand, if you have lots of food, and you give me some... I won't die... so that action is 'good'.

No god required.

...the right to have your own opinions.

...the right to do as you will.
Those aren't rights, they are abilities. ;)

1. Moral normativity is best explained through the existence of authoritative moral rules.
2. Authoritative moral rules must be promulgated and enforced by an appropriate moral authority.
3. The only appropriate moral authority is God.
4. Thus, given that there is moral normativity, there is a God.


The opening point is flawed. It assumes that there is some truth to the idea that 'authoritative moral rules' provide the best explanation for moral normativity.

It assumes that, with no 'evidence'...

It continues with the logical fallacies... point 3 is ENTIRELY assumptive, with still no evidence... WHY? Why should anyone accept that 'god' is the "only appropriate' authority? It is nonsensical... and ONLY works if you assume that 'god' exists, and is as Kant believes.


1. Moral norms have authority.
2. If they have authority, there must be a reliable motive for human beings to be moral.
3. No such motive could exist, unless there was an omniscient, omnipresent, wholly just agent to attach sanctions to behavior under moral norms.
4. There is a God.


Again - the original assumption has no basis, and the third point hinges on the reader making the same set of (non-contained) assumptions.

Again, therefore, fatally flawed, since it lacks 'logic'.


1. Moral facts exist.
2. Moral facts have the properties of being objective and non-natural.
3. The best explanation of there being objective and non-natural moral facts is provided by theism.
4. Therefore the existence of moral facts provides good grounds for thinking theism is true.


Third strike. Third assumption, still no reason for the assumption, or evidence to support how it might be true. Again - we fall down on the silly assumptions of the third point.


1. Morality is a rational enterprise.
2. Morality would not be a rational enterprise if there were no moral order in the world.
3. Only the existence of God traditionally conceived could support the hypothesis that there is a moral order in the world.
4. Therefore, there is a God.


More of the same. The opening point assumes that morality MUST BE a rational enterprise - but provides no evidence for how, or reasoning as to why. The second point is speculation, and the third point is just untrue.


Basically, each of the posted 'logical' reasonings you have provided can be summed up as follows:

1) I think something might be true...
2) mumble mumble... an assertion about the thing I thought might be true....
3) Since 'God' is the ONLY explanation (I have decided) for point 2...
4) Therefore, God must exist.

If THESE are the best arguments you can come up with, one has to hope that you do not envision a career in soul-saving.

From what little I have read of Kant, I can assume that these arguments are made in a larger context that is not presented here. As Grave_n_idle said, without that context (evidence) they are nonsensical.

I completely agree with Sanx on this one.

If there isn't a God, then what is the point of trying to be good??
What does God have to do with it?

Seriously, it's like that Tina Turner song, "What's love got to do with it?" It has nothing to do with dating, or sex, or one-night human interactions with strangers. But most people want to force it to be there, anyway, as if it somehow *must* be an issue in everything we do.

I agree with UpwardThrust, there is no point to being good. We don't need a reason to do it, we do it "just because."

What does God have to do with it?

Seriously, it's like that Tina Turner song, "What's love got to do with it?" It has nothing to do with dating, or sex, or one-night human interactions with strangers. But most people want to force it to be there, anyway, as if it somehow *must* be an issue in everything we do.

I agree with UpwardThrust, there is no point to being good. We don't need a reason to do it, we do it "just because."
YAY someone agrees with me :)

And I don’t know how people don’t see it … it is so blatantly obvious when they state it like “what would be the point”

You can SEE that for some reason they NEED a point … some part of them is driven to have a point .

If I needed an idea that badly I would be more alert to the fact that I may indeed be more susceptible to inventing or accepting something out of need rather then correctness or accuracy. (not saying the idea is necessarily incorrect but would be more susceptible to swallowing an incorrect idea if part of me NEEDED it)

YAY someone agrees with me :)

And I don’t know how people don’t see it … it is so blatantly obvious when they state it like “what would be the point”

You can SEE that for some reason they NEED a point … some part of them is driven to have a point .

If I needed an idea that badly I would be more alert to the fact that I may indeed be more susceptible to inventing or accepting something out of need rather then correctness or accuracy. (not saying the idea is necessarily incorrect but would be more susceptible to swallowing an incorrect idea if part of me NEEDED it)
I'm implying a lot in what I say, when I say "just because", but I've thought about this and I agree with it. I honestly think there is no one justification for good, no one generalized cause of it; each act of good is entirely unique-case. "Because it feels good" is not a reason for doing good, but a result of good. "God", too, is a result of good, in the sense of "we see God in this action." It occurs after the fact.

The correctness of a thing/concept is akin to morality (and here I make a distinction between morality and ethics, the latter being our behaviours in regard to the former) but not the same. An ethical act may not always have the authority of correctness behind it. Take, for instance, the case of euthanasia, where causing the death before it happens naturally is both the right and the wrong thing to do: right, in that it ends suffering, and wrong to the very core of our personal feelings, especially if it is someone we love. There, we can "do good" though it feels so wrong.

EDIT: My personal defintion of what is "good" is what is "beneficial to life or the quality of life." This factors into my thinking, because, as we are life, what is good comes naturally to us. I expect that some will not agree with me.

I don't like the way some of you are saying religious people have obviously not realised that religion is, if you like, the 'opium of the masses'.

Well I have studied Sociology, and I have seen what other people say about religion. But I still choose to be a Christian. So please don't say that all religious folk are missing the point, because simply, we aren't.

Thankyou :)

I don't like the way some of you are saying religious people have obviously not realised that religion is, if you like, the 'opium of the masses'.

Well I have studied Sociology, and I have seen what other people say about religion. But I still choose to be a Christian. So please don't say that all religious folk are missing the point, because simply, we aren't.

Thankyou :)
That in no way grantees that you are not missing the point … don’t get me wrong that in no way implies the rest of us are not either

Human beings seem to crave certain things and to the person they may be completely real, but in the realm of ideas their need for it or belief irregardless of external point of views does not grantee that they “got” the point

I don't believe in the "supernatural" simply because it's based on a false dichotomy. If something exists, whether it's a rubber tree or an elf, it's "natural". I'm sure there are lots of things that exist that we don't know about.

I don't by the idea of god for a ton of reasons and I seriously doubt that a couple of books by biblical scholars are going to change my mind. I've heard all of the arguments (I was raised religious) and they all ring false. If there is a god, I have to say that he doesn't care the least about us or what we do and therefore his existence is irrelevant.

Ouch, tough statement there Jah...

I won't go into the deep theoretical debate about how God DOES care about each and every one of us, because I know you wouldn't read it all anyway :P

Ouch, tough statement there Jah...

I won't go into the deep theoretical debate about how God DOES care about each and every one of us, because I know you wouldn't read it all anyway :P
And none of it provable

You can believe whatever you choose to … that does not make whatever we choose to necessarily be correct

The opening point is flawed. It assumes that there is some truth to the idea that 'authoritative moral rules' provide the best explanation for moral normativity.

It assumes that, with no 'evidence'...

It continues with the logical fallacies... point 3 is ENTIRELY assumptive, with still no evidence... WHY? Why should anyone accept that 'god' is the "only appropriate' authority? It is nonsensical... and ONLY works if you assume that 'god' exists, and is as Kant believes.



Again - the original assumption has no basis, and the third point hinges on the reader making the same set of (non-contained) assumptions.

Again, therefore, fatally flawed, since it lacks 'logic'.



Third strike. Third assumption, still no reason for the assumption, or evidence to support how it might be true. Again - we fall down on the silly assumptions of the third point.



More of the same. The opening point assumes that morality MUST BE a rational enterprise - but provides no evidence for how, or reasoning as to why. The second point is speculation, and the third point is just untrue.


Basically, each of the posted 'logical' reasonings you have provided can be summed up as follows:

1) I think something might be true...
2) mumble mumble... an assertion about the thing I thought might be true....
3) Since 'God' is the ONLY explanation (I have decided) for point 2...
4) Therefore, God must exist.

If THESE are the best arguments you can come up with, one has to hope that you do not envision a career in soul-saving.

I have to support you on this one, even though I'm relatively certain we have opposing views on the existence of God.

Substitute the following for point 4 - 4)Therefore we created the concept of a God to attempt to make point 1 a truism.

Of course, I don't think the fact that Sanx can't prove there is a God is evidence there isn't.

1)Sanx believes in God
2)Sanx spends a lot of time searching for proof of the existence of God.
3)Sanx can't find substiated or adequate proof.
4)Therefore, God must not exist.

Same flawed reasoning.

My definition of agnostic is probably different from any that you have previously heard. My (modern) definition is that virtually everyone is an agnostic. That's right, almost everyone is either an agnostic/atheist or they are an agnostic/theist because no one can 'know' god. Atheists probably don't have a problem with this definition, but I'd be willing to bet that many theists who are reading this don't appreciate being labeled an agnostic.

The reason I claim that no one can know god is this. Many who believe in god don't claim any first hand knowledge. They will tell you that there belief comes from feelings, reliance on scripture, or their wanting to believe. Those people are fairly easy to rule out as non-agnostics as they really don't assert knowledge in the first place. They can readily be dubbed agnostics because they are without knowledge of their belief. Their belief is simply a belief and nothing more. The slightly-more-difficult-to-dub agnostic variety of theists are those that claim first hand knowledge. The main problem with these people is this first hand knowledge they assert is always based on personal experience rather than any sort of tangible proof or external evidence. Some claim to converse with, see, or otherwise personally experience god. The issue with these claims, and my reason for still labeling these people as agnostics, is that all of their personal experiences, 1) more or less contradict the personal experiences of others who claim this same 'knowledge' and 2) can't be shown to others (especially skeptics, scientists, or others who want to see proof).

Knowledge in any item isn't something based solely on personal experience. If I have a personal experience that gives me knowledge, I should be able to share that knowledge in a verifiable manner with others so that they too can obtain this knowledge. For instance, if I figure out that the earth is round based on my personal experience of flying in the space shuttle and seeing first hand that it is round, I can share that knowledge with others either by having them also go in the space shuttle and view earth for themselves, or I can take photos or provide some other sort of evidence of my experience to others so that they too can obtain this knowledge. Their knowledge of the earth's shape is then based on reality rather than their own desires to believe or some other "non-proof". Real knowledge should be objective and capable of being tested, demonstrated, and/or experimentally verified. Given these factors, even those that claim 'knowledge' of god are agnostics as their 'knowledge' is really a misuse of the word. What they have isn't knowledge. What they have is a belief in their own experience and nothing more. If they had 'knowledge', they would be able to share it with the doubter, the evidence seeker, and those who don't already believe.

To conclude and summarize, both you and I are agnostics. Almost everyone is an agnostic (in the modern sense of the word) since none of us have any evidence, proof, or other tangible means of giving knowledge regarding any of the various versions of god that the masses currently believe in or have believed in the past. The few people who truly believe that they can prove or disprove the existence of god(s) probably could not be classified as agnostics under this frame of thought (although even this is debatable as one person's "proof" can be pure nonsense to another and would, therefore, leave the non-agnostic status only in the eyes of the person claiming the illogical "proof"). Everyone is either a theist or an atheist. If you answer the question, "Do you believe in god?" with an affirmative, then you are a theist. If your answer is "no" or "I don't know" then you are an atheist due to your lack of an affirmative belief.

Ouch, tough statement there Jah...

I won't go into the deep theoretical debate about how God DOES care about each and every one of us, because I know you wouldn't read it all anyway :P
well, I guess I just can't see how a being that cared so much about us would subject us to pain and death if he had the power to protect us from it. Not to mention punish us with eternal torment for failing to believe in him without offering us any incontrevertible evidence of his existence.

Based on the sum total of human existence, I would have to say that an omipotent, loving god is impossible. Either he doesn't care, or he is not all powerful (in which case you could argue that he isn't actually God.)

My definition of agnostic is probably different from any that you have previously heard. My (modern) definition is that virtually everyone is an agnostic. That's right, almost everyone is either an agnostic/atheist or they are an agnostic/theist because no one can 'know' god. Atheists probably don't have a problem with this definition, but I'd be willing to bet that many theists who are reading this don't appreciate being labeled an agnostic.

The reason I claim that no one can know god is this. Many who believe in god don't claim any first hand knowledge. They will tell you that there belief comes from feelings, reliance on scripture, or their wanting to believe. Those people are fairly easy to rule out as non-agnostics as they really don't assert knowledge in the first place. They can readily be dubbed agnostics because they are without knowledge of their belief. Their belief is simply a belief and nothing more. The slightly-more-difficult-to-dub agnostic variety of theists are those that claim first hand knowledge. The main problem with these people is this first hand knowledge they assert is always based on personal experience rather than any sort of tangible proof or external evidence. Some claim to converse with, see, or otherwise personally experience god. The issue with these claims, and my reason for still labeling these people as agnostics, is that all of their personal experiences, 1) more or less contradict the personal experiences of others who claim this same 'knowledge' and 2) can't be shown to others (especially skeptics, scientists, or others who want to see proof).

Knowledge in any item isn't something based solely on personal experience. If I have a personal experience that gives me knowledge, I should be able to share that knowledge in a verifiable manner with others so that they too can obtain this knowledge. For instance, if I figure out that the earth is round based on my personal experience of flying in the space shuttle and seeing first hand that it is round, I can share that knowledge with others either by having them also go in the space shuttle and view earth for themselves, or I can take photos or provide some other sort of evidence of my experience to others so that they too can obtain this knowledge. Their knowledge of the earth's shape is then based on reality rather than their own desires to believe or some other "non-proof". Real knowledge should be objective and capable of being tested, demonstrated, and/or experimentally verified. Given these factors, even those that claim 'knowledge' of god are agnostics as their 'knowledge' is really a misuse of the word. What they have isn't knowledge. What they have is a belief in their own experience and nothing more. If they had 'knowledge', they would be able to share it with the doubter, the evidence seeker, and those who don't already believe.

To conclude and summarize, both you and I are agnostics. Almost everyone is an agnostic (in the modern sense of the word) since none of us have any evidence, proof, or other tangible means of giving knowledge regarding any of the various versions of god that the masses currently believe in or have believed in the past. The few people who truly believe that they can prove or disprove the existence of god(s) probably could not be classified as agnostics under this frame of thought (although even this is debatable as one person's "proof" can be pure nonsense to another and would, therefore, leave the non-agnostic status only in the eyes of the person claiming the illogical "proof"). Everyone is either a theist or an atheist. If you answer the question, "Do you believe in god?" with an affirmative, then you are a theist. If your answer is "no" or "I don't know" then you are an atheist due to your lack of an affirmative belief.

Modern view of Agnostics

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=agnostic
Agnostic
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Most theists and atheists do not fit this description. Agnosticism is not about proof it's about your conviction. If you believe there is a God(s) or you believe that there are no God, you are not agnostic whether or not you can PROVE you are right.

As far as the rest of what you said, most of it relies a lack of understanding of the definitions of these terms. If I ask you, "Do you believe in God?" and you say, "I don't know" then you are an agnostic, not an atheist. Atheism is not a lack of affirmative belief in God, to be atheist one must believe there are no gods.

well, I guess I just can't see how a being that cared so much about us would subject us to pain and death if he had the power to protect us from it. Not to mention punish us with eternal torment for failing to believe in him without offering us any incontrevertible evidence of his existence.

Based on the sum total of human existence, I would have to say that an omipotent, loving god is impossible. Either he doesn't care, or he is not all powerful (in which case you could argue that he isn't actually God.)

Or there is some factors in the equation you don't know, which is, of course, the most likely scenario.

However, I (and many other Christians) don't believe in eternal damnation for not believing in God or Jesus Christ. Many believe damnation is an explanation of the torment of finding out Heaven exists and then being denied entry. Many believe that damnation is reserved for the antiChrist and his followers from the apocolypse. I agree that damnation for just not figuring it out does not fit with most people's concept of a loving God..

well, I guess I just can't see how a being that cared so much about us would subject us to pain and death if he had the power to protect us from it. Not to mention punish us with eternal torment for failing to believe in him without offering us any incontrevertible evidence of his existence.

Based on the sum total of human existence, I would have to say that an omipotent, loving god is impossible. Either he doesn't care, or he is not all powerful (in which case you could argue that he isn't actually God.)

Or he created a race with free will and they then chose to disobey him?

Or he created a race with free will and they then chose to disobey him?
Touche.

"All-powerful" does not mean "all-meddling."

Touche.

"All-powerful" does not mean "all-meddling."

It doesnt mean make a bunch of people and suddenly cut of contact either.

Is your skepticsim primiarly based on your refusal to belive in supernatural as opposed to actual logical falacies. If thats the case there are several books I recomend you read

"Evidence that demands a verdict" Josh McDowell (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/185078552X/qid=1120832431/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-9079492-1418044)

"The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict" Josh McDowell (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0785243631/qid=1120832431/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl/026-9079492-1418044)

"Jesus who is he" Tim LaHaye (cant find a link for this one, but I'm reading it at the moment and its great)

I don't believe in the supernatural. I believe in phenomena we haven't as yet explained, and our childlike tendency to impute meaning to a meaningless universe.

It doesnt mean make a bunch of people and suddenly cut of contact either.

What do you think the Bible talks about?

What do you think the old testement prophets were doing?

Who do you think Jesus was?

What does God have to do with it?

Seriously, it's like that Tina Turner song, "What's love got to do with it?" It has nothing to do with dating, or sex, or one-night human interactions with strangers. But most people want to force it to be there, anyway, as if it somehow *must* be an issue in everything we do.

I agree with UpwardThrust, there is no point to being good. We don't need a reason to do it, we do it "just because."

I'd go further and say anyone who needs a supernatural being to order them to good, as opposed to someone who chooses to good of their own volition, without a belief in such a being, can't be fully be described as "good"

I'd go further and say anyone who needs a supernatural being to order them to good, as opposed to someone who chooses to good of their own volition, without a belief in such a being, can't be fully be described as "good"

I do understand what Sanx was trying to get across, let me elaborate.

What he/she is saying is not that you need to be told by God to do good, but that you need to have a God to know what good and evil actually are. You see, without some form of external influence to determine it, all human decisions of morality would just be self determining, humans thinking what humans should do. Without any external force, that decision of morality could be canibalisim and it would be no different than now. If humans decided that canibalisim was morraly acceptabele then it would be since without a God, all human decisions about morality are only accountable to humans. Without a God, our morality could be completely diffrent to what it is now and it wouldnt make a scrap of diffrence, it would be no better or worse than it is now.

The fact that there is- even to this day- NO PROOF of any god, gods, etc. is enough.

People believe in religion because of many things. Usually, their parents brainwash them.

Isnt it convidient that this whole Order of God or whatever was created when the first kingdoms were formed? What better way to control mindless idiots then to tell them if you dont do this and that, you will spend eternity in damnation. Oh wait, Hell was invented by the Third Pope.... And people believed it.

There are more then enough things in history to discredit religions.

Modern view of Agnostics

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=agnostic
Agnostic
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Most theists and atheists do not fit this description. Agnosticism is not about proof it's about your conviction. If you believe there is a God(s) or you believe that there are no God, you are not agnostic whether or not you can PROVE you are right.

As far as the rest of what you said, most of it relies a lack of understanding of the definitions of these terms. If I ask you, "Do you believe in God?" and you say, "I don't know" then you are an agnostic, not an atheist. Atheism is not a lack of affirmative belief in God, to be atheist one must believe there are no gods.

Well we disagree again :

Atheism, I think it is the most misunderstood and poorly defined of the three (theism, atheism, agnostic). Atheism is not a system , it says nothing about what is above us, it says nothing about tenderness, and atheists can be just as excited and awed about life as theists. The atheists I know and have read are, on average, more excited and awed by the wonders of life than theists. This statement is not intended to knock theists, but merely to point out that the above definition is a false generalization that has nothing to do with the 'real' definition of atheism.
There are several other false definitions usually put on atheism by theists. Theists frequently claim that atheists "claim to know there is no god", "are merely rebelling against a god that they really believe in", "think they can prove there is no god", "say there is no god so that they can be evil", "don't want to be accountable”, etc.
Although some atheists (and they are in the minority) may claim to know that there is no god, most atheists claim no such thing. Atheism is a "lack of belief in god" and nothing more. Those who claim to "know" there is no god are sometimes referred to as "strong atheists", but their thinking is as faulty as those who claim to know that there is a god. Atheists who don't go as far as claiming knowledge of no god can also be called "strong atheists". For instance, atheists who claim an affirmative belief that there is no god usually are also referred to as "strong atheists" even though they do not claim knowledge of such a thing. For now, let me just state that no one can know there is no god for the same reason that no one can know there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, unicorn, or other such creature. Some may say that we can know that there are none of the above since we can trace through history where these characters were created and that the ideas about them have changed over the centuries. The same can also be said of god (except the history of god goes back a bit farther so it is more difficult to track with certainty) but for this arguments sake, let's say that such creatures, although there is a strong probability that they are fictional, can not be 100% positively proven unreal for the basic reason that the entire universe would need to be explored to positively assert the non-existence of such a hypothetical being. If the theist attempts to define their god however, that specific god can be disproven through the use of logic and reason. In these cases, an atheist can accurately state that they know that the god described does not exist.
To summarize, atheism is a lack of belief in god. Basic atheism (of the non-strong variety) on its own does not positively assert anything regardless of what some atheists may say or think and regardless of what theists frequently define as atheism.

I really want God to exist. 'Cause when I meet him face to face, he's got some 'splaining to do :headbang:

What do you think the Bible talks about?

What do you think the old testement prophets were doing?

Who do you think Jesus was?

Got any proof of his existance outside a book written by people who didnt know him and put together by a group of leaders who were busy arguing amoungst themselves?

Got any proof of his existance outside a book written by people who didnt know him and put together by a group of leaders who were busy arguing amoungst themselves?

Stop moving the goal posts.

You first wanted an explianton as to how God could be both Omni-benevolant and not be involved in elivating the suffering of the world. I gave that to you. Now you move the goal posts to demand proof of God's existance. Stop it. Your not being clever.

Stop moving the goal posts.

You first wanted an explianton as to how God could be both Omni-benevolant and not be involved in elivating the suffering of the world. I gave that to you. Now you move the goal posts to demand proof of God's existance. Stop it. Your not being clever.

I wanted nothing. I merely responded to someones allegation of god giving us free will thereby not being able to interfere. I said well he doesnt have to interefere yet that doesnt mean he cant pop in and say hi to a bunch of people with a divine miracle which plenty of people can see. We get nothing now and yet in the OT god makes numerous appearances to help his chosen people yet gives us jack shit now. You gave me nothing really. You gave me a book thats meaning is disputed by numerous people. You gave me examples which can not be verified from other sources. And you gave me something abouts prophets which seem to be not only lacking in this day and age.

Atheism is not a lack of affirmative belief in God, to be atheist one must believe there are no gods.Absolutely incorrect. Atheism in no way represents an active belief itself. The prefix "a-" negates whatever root word follows it. Amorphic = without form. Atypical = not typical. Asexual = without sex. Asymmetric = lacking symmetry. Atheism = without belief in gods; lacking belief in gods; not holding a belief in gods, etc. There are no other words with the prefix "a-" where people assume some sort of positive concept is established. The prefix refutes the base.

Atheism encompasses all beliefs that theism excludes.

Absolutely incorrect. Atheism in no way represents an active belief itself. The prefix "a-" negates whatever root word follows it. Amorphic = without form. Atypical = not typical. Asexual = without sex. Asymmetric = lacking symmetry. Atheism = without belief in gods; lacking belief in gods; not holding a belief in gods, etc. There are no other words with the prefix "a-" where people assume some sort of positive concept is established. The prefix refutes the base.

Atheism encompasses all beliefs that theism excludes.

False. Atheism does not mean not theism. The root of the word is not theism. Theism is from the greek word theos meaning god and -ism meaning based on or doctrine. Atheism is from the greek word atheos meaning no god. You are using the wrong base. The base is root.

Atheism is the belief in the doctrine there is no god(s). If don't believe or disbelieve in God then you are agnostic. If you don't believe (disbelieve) in god(s), you are atheist.

Well we disagree again :

Atheism, I think it is the most misunderstood and poorly defined of the three (theism, atheism, agnostic). Atheism is not a system , it says nothing about what is above us, it says nothing about tenderness, and atheists can be just as excited and awed about life as theists. The atheists I know and have read are, on average, more excited and awed by the wonders of life than theists. This statement is not intended to knock theists, but merely to point out that the above definition is a false generalization that has nothing to do with the 'real' definition of atheism.
There are several other false definitions usually put on atheism by theists. Theists frequently claim that atheists "claim to know there is no god", "are merely rebelling against a god that they really believe in", "think they can prove there is no god", "say there is no god so that they can be evil", "don't want to be accountable”, etc.
Although some atheists (and they are in the minority) may claim to know that there is no god, most atheists claim no such thing. Atheism is a "lack of belief in god" and nothing more. Those who claim to "know" there is no god are sometimes referred to as "strong atheists", but their thinking is as faulty as those who claim to know that there is a god. Atheists who don't go as far as claiming knowledge of no god can also be called "strong atheists". For instance, atheists who claim an affirmative belief that there is no god usually are also referred to as "strong atheists" even though they do not claim knowledge of such a thing. For now, let me just state that no one can know there is no god for the same reason that no one can know there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, unicorn, or other such creature. Some may say that we can know that there are none of the above since we can trace through history where these characters were created and that the ideas about them have changed over the centuries. The same can also be said of god (except the history of god goes back a bit farther so it is more difficult to track with certainty) but for this arguments sake, let's say that such creatures, although there is a strong probability that they are fictional, can not be 100% positively proven unreal for the basic reason that the entire universe would need to be explored to positively assert the non-existence of such a hypothetical being. If the theist attempts to define their god however, that specific god can be disproven through the use of logic and reason. In these cases, an atheist can accurately state that they know that the god described does not exist.
To summarize, atheism is a lack of belief in god. Basic atheism (of the non-strong variety) on its own does not positively assert anything regardless of what some atheists may say or think and regardless of what theists frequently define as atheism.

No one claims that atheists know. They 'believe' there is no god. Look at the above post. Look at the root, atheos which means no god.

Why is it that so many people don't know the difference between atheist and agnostic?

One doesn't nees an active belief system to discount the existance of deities. For instance, if I were to say that there was a dragon in my garage, one that was invisible and intangible, and there was no way to prove it's existance, you might consider me mad, but you wouldn't need an active beleif to discount it. Fact is, there is no proof there is any gods, in any way, shape or form, so I don't need to put endless energy in disbelieving they exist, because is painfully obvious to anyone who isn't delusional that they don't exist.

One doesn't nees an active belief system to discount the existance of deities. For instance, if I were to say that there was a dragon in my garage, one that was invisible and intangible, and there was no way to prove it's existance, you might consider me mad, but you wouldn't need an active beleif to discount it. Fact is, there is no proof there is any gods, in any way, shape or form, so I don't need to put endless energy in disbelieving they exist, because is painfully obvious to anyone who isn't delusional that they don't exist.

No one is suggesting you are doing anything. However, if you don't know or don't care if there's a dragon in the garage then you are agnostic regarding the dragon. However, if you believe there is in fact no dragon, then you are an adragonist.

Now the difference in your analogy is that if there were dragons in the world it's highly likely that someone would have actually found them and proven their existence by now. However, with gods there is no way for you to say if gods exist you would be able to discover them or prove their existence, thus you have significantly less evidence for denying the existence of god(s) than for denying the existence of dragons. It's far more difficult to plausibly deny the existence of any greater being or reality and that could certainly be described as unobservable rather than to deny the existence of something that would be observable (dragons).

No one is suggesting you are doing anything. However, if you don't know or don't care if there's a dragon in the garage then you are agnostic regarding the dragon. However, if you believe there is in fact no dragon, then you are an adragonist.

Now the difference in your analogy is that if there were dragons in the world it's highly likely that someone would have actually found them and proven their existence by now. However, with gods there is no way for you to say if gods exist you would be able to discover them or prove their existence, thus you have significantly less evidence for denying the existence of god(s) than for denying the existence of dragons. It's far more difficult to plausibly deny the existence of any greater being or reality and that could certainly be described as unobservable rather than to deny the existence of something that would be observable (dragons).

Then prove there is a god. See, Occam's Razor states that with multiple explanations to anything, the simplest one is usually the correct one. The universe works quite well on it's own without the addition of deities, which add a layer of unneeded complexity.

Prove there is a god, because from where I sit, there is no need for a god, nor the slightest shred of proof that one exists.

Then prove there is a god. See, Occam's Razor states that with multiple explanations to anything, the simplest one is usually the correct one. The universe works quite well on it's own without the addition of deities, which add a layer of unneeded complexity.

Prove there is a god, because from where I sit, there is no need for a god, nor the slightest shred of proof that one exists.

Yes, and you can say there is no need for a god. That makes you agnostic. You don't care.

If you say you believe there is no god, you're an atheist.

Much like there is no need for there to be any animals that we have not yet discovered. Nor is there an evidence that there is. However, most people would make no judgement on whether or not undiscovered animals exist. There's no need. They don't care. However, as soon as they say there are no animals that we have not yet discovered or there are animals that have not yet been discovered they cross a line into something else.

More importantly, we're not talking about the logic of believing or not believing in God. We were talking about the use of words. Atheism means the belief there is no god(s). Agnostic means you don't know or don't care. It's simple enough.

Hey, thanks for titling this "question for atheists" and then using it as an opportunity to advertise yet another attempt to prove the invisible. n00b

Or he created a race with free will and they then chose to disobey him?
Not all suffering comes from man's "disobedience". How does that explain a good man who dies from stomach cancer?

False. Atheism does not mean not theism. The root of the word is not theism. Theism is from the greek word theos meaning god and -ism meaning based on or doctrine. Atheism is from the greek word atheos meaning no god. You are using the wrong base. The base is root.

Atheism is the belief in the doctrine there is no god(s). If don't believe or disbelieve in God then you are agnostic. If you don't believe (disbelieve) in god(s), you are atheist.
Theos = god. -ism = doctine. Theism = doctrine of belief in god.

A- = Without. Lacking. Theos = god. Atheos = Without god. Lacking god. Atheism = doctrine without/lacking belief in god.

The only thing you've done above is to represent atheos as the base word. But, of course, it's not. Atheos uses the same prefix ("a-"), which was discussed in my first post. And the prefix negates the base in Greek, just as it does in English. Therefore the base of atheos is still theos. The base of atheism is still theism. Thanks for helping me prove my point.

Any concepts not covered by the base word are covered by the antonym. It is true for every other set of antonyms, just as it's true for theism and atheism.

And since you brought up the Greek origins, gnostos means "to know." Therefore gnosticism and agnosticism answer a completely different question than theism and atheism. The former pair relate to knowledge of gods while the latter pair relate to belief in them. Therefore agnosticism is not a valid answer to the question of belief. This means agnosticism and theism/atheism are not mutually exclusive. Of course this was all discussed by a poster above, but you were too pig-headed to abandon your fallacious argument.

No one is suggesting you are doing anything. However, if you don't know or don't care if there's a dragon in the garage then you are agnostic regarding the dragon. However, if you believe there is in fact no dragon, then you are an adragonist.

Now the difference in your analogy is that if there were dragons in the world it's highly likely that someone would have actually found them and proven their existence by now. However, with gods there is no way for you to say if gods exist you would be able to discover them or prove their existence, thus you have significantly less evidence for denying the existence of god(s) than for denying the existence of dragons. It's far more difficult to plausibly deny the existence of any greater being or reality and that could certainly be described as unobservable rather than to deny the existence of something that would be observable (dragons).

As Judaism(Catholicism, Christianity, Muslim, etc.) describes him, he is able to be proven false. Let me present you with a few parodoxes that help me prove my point.

If he is omnipowerful, then he'd be able to create a rock that he can't lift, making him not omnipowerful. And him being omnipowerful is a big part of Judaism. Therefore, as Judaism described him, he cannot exist for the mere fact that he's not omnipowerful.

Another paradox: if he wrote down the prime morals, then did he observe them(morals) or did he create them? If he created them, then he could tell you anything and it would be moral. So, if he simply created them, you would simply be practicing obedience. But, if he just observed them, they were already there, therefore he is not omnipowerful because he didn't create everything. So he is flawed, and therefore impossible.

Another paradox: the main description of the Judaic God is that he's omnipowerful, omnibenevolent, and all-knowing. If he is omnibenevolent then he can't be omnipowerful because he has to abide to a strict moral code, therefore he can't do everything so he's not omnipowerful. If he's all-knowing, then he can't be omnipowerful because he would know the future, therefore he wouldn't be able to control his own actions, they would be predetermind. So, he is not possible to exist as they described him.

All these paradoxes prove that the Judaic God is flawed, therefore impossible. So, you can observe a greater being by the supposed holy scriptures he left for us puny mortals.

Also, it would have saved me some time to just say this, but he would be observable because he supposedly contacted us on neumerous occasions.

Theos = god. -ism = doctine. Theism = doctrine of belief in god.

A- = Without. Lacking. Theos = god. Atheos = Without god. Lacking god. Atheism = doctrine without/lacking belief in god.

The only thing you've done above is to represent atheos as the base word. But, of course, it's not. Atheos uses the same prefix ("a-"), which was discussed in my first post. And the prefix negates the base in Greek, just as it does in English. Therefore the base of atheos is still theos. The base of atheism is still theism. Thanks for helping me prove my point.

[B]Any concepts not covered by the base word are covered by the antonym. It is true for every other set of antonyms, just as it's true for theism and atheism.[B]

And since you brought up the Greek origins, gnostos means "to know." Therefore gnosticism and agnosticism answer a completely different question than theism and atheism. The former pair relate to knowledge of gods while the latter pair relate to belief in them. Therefore agnosticism is not a valid answer to the question of belief. This means agnosticism and theism/atheism are not mutually exclusive. Of course this was all discussed by a poster above, but you were too pig-headed to abandon your fallacious argument.

Antonyms, huh? Tasteful and tasteless are antonyms. So does that mean that every concept not covered by tasteful must be covered by tasteless, according to you.

Let's see.

Tasteful
1 : TASTY 1a
2 : having, exhibiting, or conforming to good taste

So that means that tasteless, must include anything that is not tasty or exhibiting good taste. Well, the exhibiting good taste part is, in fact, true, but the tasty part isn't.

Tasteless -
1: lacking flavor [ant: tasteful]

Want an example of something not covered by this set of antonyms. Something with an overwhelming bad flavor. It's not testeless and it's not tasteful either. Whoops. Kind of shoots your argument in the foot.

Well, maybe it's just words that begin with a-, hmmmm? Let's see.
Amoral/moral, nope not really. Not even antonyms (as I hold atheism and theism are also not antonyms).

You know a- is for words with certain sounds at the beginning and an- for words beginning in the remaining sounds. Take the word anarchism which means the system or principles of government by none and (we don't use archism alone, we seperate it out) oligarcism means the system or principles of a government by a few and monarchism means the system or principles of government by one. See how that works. Anarchy is the lack of a system or principles of government. It's the sytem or principles of government by none. The prefix amends the word before the suffix -ism. The a-/an- affects the belief before the doctrine on that belief can exist. So you have the doctrine based on the belief the universe has a god(s), and the doctrine based on the belief that the universe is without god(s).

You're theism/atheism argument is a false one.

I love how you try to move the structure around to make YOU right. "Of course this was all discussed by a poster (me) above, but you were too pig-headed to abandon your fallacious argument"

Here. Maybe this will help.
http://www.answers.com/topic/atheism
atheism (ā'thē-ĭz'əm) , denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence, to be distinguished from agnosticism, which holds that the existence cannot be proved. The term atheism has been used as an accusation against all who attack established orthodoxy, as in the trial of Socrates. There were few avowed atheists from classical times until the 19th cent., when popular belief in a conflict between religion and science brought forth preachers of the gospel of atheism, such as Robert G. Ingersoll. There are today many individuals and groups professing atheism. The 20th cent. has seen many individuals and groups professing atheism, including Bertrand Russell and Madalyn Murry O'Hair.

The word has a long history and archaically it was used to apply to people that religious considered godless or immoral, but in terms of how it was used by nearly everyone, until very recently, when relating to what one believes it refers to the belief that there are no god(s).

Here's agnostic by the way

Agnostic -
The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

If you're not certain if there is or isn't a god, you're agnostic. If you believe that there is no God, you're atheist. It's really simple, but not so simple that you can try some kind of lame argument about antonyms. It doesn't even work relating to taste let alone the concept of the absolute nature of the universe.

Not all suffering comes from man's "disobedience". How does that explain a good man who dies from stomach cancer?


Our sin brought suffering into this world. So, yes, all suffering does come from man's disobedience. Regardless of your moral alignment, you will prosper and suffer in this world, for only perfection shall bring about correction:


Matthew 5:43-48 43"You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor[h] and hate your enemy.' 44But I tell you: Love your enemies[i] and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

As Judaism(Catholicism, Christianity, Muslim, etc.) describes him, he is able to be proven false. Let me present you with a few parodoxes that help me prove my point.

If he is omnipowerful, then he'd be able to create a rock that he can't lift, making him not omnipowerful. And him being omnipowerful is a big part of Judaism. Therefore, as Judaism described him, he cannot exist for the mere fact that he's not omnipowerful.

Ha. I really hope you don't think this is actually a valid proof. The word is omnipotent. And if God is omnipotent, he could create a rock that he couldn't lift if he made is so he couldn't lift it. You're applying rules to a being you actually don't understand and can't. Hardly a valid proof.

Another paradox: if he wrote down the prime morals, then did he observe them(morals) or did he create them? If he created them, then he could tell you anything and it would be moral. So, if he simply created them, you would simply be practicing obedience. But, if he just observed them, they were already there, therefore he is not omnipowerful because he didn't create everything. So he is flawed, and therefore impossible.

He created them. How does being obedient somehow negate his existence? Oh, wait, it doesn't.

Another paradox: the main description of the Judaic God is that he's omnipowerful, omnibenevolent, and all-knowing. If he is omnibenevolent then he can't be omnipowerful because he has to abide to a strict moral code, therefore he can't do everything so he's not omnipowerful. If he's all-knowing, then he can't be omnipowerful because he would know the future, therefore he wouldn't be able to control his own actions, they would be predetermind. So, he is not possible to exist as they described him.

You're just making up words. You want to use omnitient and omnipotent. As far as the made-up word omnibenevolent, you are applying the concept of good and evil to the being that created them. He has no obligation to adhere to the moral code we do. Knowledge of the future could also include knowing the results of all possible decisions he makes. You're intentionally simplifying the concept and then suggesting it's impossible. You've heard of a strawman, yes?

All these paradoxes prove that the Judaic God is flawed, therefore impossible. So, you can observe a greater being by the supposed holy scriptures he left for us puny mortals.

Also, it would have saved me some time to just say this, but he would be observable because he supposedly contacted us on neumerous occasions.

You haven't proved anything and the attempts were pretty lame even by the standards of this board. More importantly, atheism isn't about the judeo-christian God. If you believe in Zeus and the pantheon, you are not an atheist. You'd have to deal with all possible deity(ies), god(s) in order to suggest that atheism is provable or that the god(s) are by nature observable. You don't really think that your post actually made sense or was based on sound logic, do you?

Not all suffering comes from man's "disobedience". How does that explain a good man who dies from stomach cancer?

Because all suffer for 'our' disobedience.(I actually don't hold this belief) In the context you're using it there is no such thing as a good man. We all sin. When man became disobedient, death was introduced, i.e. stomach cancer. All men die in one form or another and our suffering on earth is nothing compared to the rewards a 'good' man will recieve on his passing. There are things greater than the individual, even in secular beliefs. For example, genetically it's nearly impossible to justify the existence of homosexuals when looking at a single individual, but when looking how those same genetics could affect other individuals it's not difficult at all to explain. In both cases you're trying to take the secrets of the universe that apply to all creation and apply them to the individual. The suffering of this 'good' man and the strength he exudes in the face of that suffering could allow those that are lost to be found, for example.

You gave me a book thats meaning is disputed by numerous people. You gave me examples which can not be verified from other sources. And you gave me something abouts prophets which seem to be not only lacking in this day and age.

Maybe thats because all that is needed to be said and done has been said and done already, by Jesus?

I think we could argue like this forever, and never be closer to any answer. Perhaps it is best to let each person decide there personal beliefs and leave it be. Nobody will dismiss religion or be converted by this thread, so the fact that you are arguing over this will change nothing. Spiritual stance is a very personal matter (although how this is expressed can vary) and you just have to concede that you, none of you, know answer to what you discuss. Therefore, the matter of belief is a leap of faith, whether it is religious or atheist, and relies soley on the the evidence you have seen portrayed to you during your life, and is central to your understanding of who you are. The fact that you so strongly believe either way, and see other opinions as erroneous, does not mean that all others are wrong or stupid. Spritual belief is almost part of our make-up, DNA almost (although it can change) and it is as pointless to make someone repent their belief than to make someone repent their biological make-up.

My point is that the fact that you are convinced of your own beliefs (you have made a leap of faith) does not mean you are right or that anyone else is wrong or stupid. And even though I agree that this sort of debate can expand the mind and learning of an individual, it can not be used to 'prove' your belief or disprove any other an iota as none of us are any more enlightened than each other about these matters. Perhaps we are like fish staring from a pond at a human city, we are aware of what we see but can not, even though we try of hardest and formulate theories, possibly comprehend what we see. The only thing we can create is more questions. Therefore any person on this forum believing they are more enlightened than any other may do so, but just because you do believe you are correct does not mean that you are and definately does not make your belief more valuable and correct than another persons, because none of us has any evidence to prove either way. The only evidence we have is our own personal beliefs, which can be definate in our own minds and hearts, but erroneous in terms of proof.

Maybe the fact that we do not have proof of God existance or non-existance was planned by God, as it makes our belief either way more pure and true.

Is your skepticsim primiarly based on your refusal to belive in supernatural as opposed to actual logical falacies. If thats the case there are several books I recomend you read

"Evidence that demands a verdict" Josh McDowell (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/185078552X/qid=1120832431/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl/026-9079492-1418044)

"The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict" Josh McDowell (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0785243631/qid=1120832431/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl/026-9079492-1418044)

"Jesus who is he" Tim LaHaye (cant find a link for this one, but I'm reading it at the moment and its great)

We are not refusing to believe anything. We have the courange and intelligence to over-come fear and ignorance, thus recognizing the truth of the physical universe.

P.S. Tim LaHaye is the one who cowrote the Left Behind series, and despite his claiming the Rapture will come somewhere within the the next ten to twenty years, has yet to donate his entire fortune to charity:). With the Rapture will supposedly come the antichrist and all 5 billion people who refuse to accept the divinity of Christ will persish and be banished to eternal torment in hell. NICE....

One doesn't nees an active belief system to discount the existance of deities. For instance, if I were to say that there was a dragon in my garage, one that was invisible and intangible, and there was no way to prove it's existance, you might consider me mad, but you wouldn't need an active beleif to discount it. Fact is, there is no proof there is any gods, in any way, shape or form, so I don't need to put endless energy in disbelieving they exist, because is painfully obvious to anyone who isn't delusional that they don't exist.
You would need an active disbelief to discount its existence, and disbelief is a type of belief, the belief that something is false. (In this case, that its existence is false.)

Hey, I,m a Christian, but it dosn't mean that i can't believe in the supernatural as well. I think that it all fits together quite well actually, religion, science and the supernatural.
Science has so many rules and theorems which all seem to work in the oddest of curcumstances, it can't just be luck, sombody must be controlling it all. As for the supernatural, that is just the science that we do not understand yet, someday we will.
By the way, I think that what El Porro wrote is brilliant, even if it is a load of bull*. :D

Our sin brought suffering into this world. So, yes, all suffering does come from man's disobedience. Regardless of your moral alignment, you will prosper and suffer in this world, for only perfection shall bring about correction:

perfect.

But that is still inconsistent with an all powerful loving god. Think about the people you care about. If you had the power, would you allow them to suffer excruciating pain and death? (btw, I've worked in a hospice, even the true believers are terrified of death). Would you require perfect obedience to every aspect of your will to save them from a horrible fate?

An additional point is that it seems pretty disingenuous to let god off the hook for all the bad stuff when he is supposed to be the creator of everything. If he created our bodies he created them with all of the imperfections that cause our suffering, like a tendency towards cancer or lower back problems. (even if you can pawn these off on satan or disobedience, he also created flesh eating bacteria and cobras). Not only that, but he created our moral "imperfections" as well. We have a tendency towards violence, an overpowering sex drive that doesn't distinguish between who we are married to and who we aren't married to.

Those aren't the only problems either. As other people have alluded to, if our eternal salvation or damnation is based on whether or not we believe in Jesus, why couldn't Jesus make regular appearances to show us that he exists. I don't buy the "he wants us to have faith" argument as it reduces all existence to a sick guessing game on his part. Lots of other gods want us to believe too so if he cared about us he wouldn't put us through that.

Antonyms, huh? Tasteful and tasteless are antonyms. So does that mean that every concept not covered by tasteful must be covered by tasteless, according to you.

Let's see.

Tasteful
1 : TASTY 1a
2 : having, exhibiting, or conforming to good taste

So that means that tasteless, must include anything that is not tasty or exhibiting good taste. Well, the exhibiting good taste part is, in fact, true, but the tasty part isn't.

Tasteless -
1: lacking flavor [ant: tasteful]

Want an example of something not covered by this set of antonyms. Something with an overwhelming bad flavor. It's not testeless and it's not tasteful either. Whoops. Kind of shoots your argument in the foot.

Well, maybe it's just words that begin with a-, hmmmm? Let's see.
Amoral/moral, nope not really. Not even antonyms (as I hold atheism and theism are also not antonyms).

You know a- is for words with certain sounds at the beginning and an- for words beginning in the remaining sounds. Take the word anarchism which means the system or principles of government by none and (we don't use archism alone, we seperate it out) oligarcism means the system or principles of a government by a few and monarchism means the system or principles of government by one. See how that works. Anarchy is the lack of a system or principles of government. It's the sytem or principles of government by none. The prefix amends the word before the suffix -ism. The a-/an- affects the belief before the doctrine on that belief can exist. So you have the doctrine based on the belief the universe has a god(s), and the doctrine based on the belief that the universe is without god(s).

You're theism/atheism argument is a false one.

I love how you try to move the structure around to make YOU right. "Of course this was all discussed by a poster (me) above, but you were too pig-headed to abandon your fallacious argument"

Here. Maybe this will help.
http://www.answers.com/topic/atheism
atheism (ā'thē-ĭz'əm) , denial of the existence of God or gods and of any supernatural existence, to be distinguished from agnosticism, which holds that the existence cannot be proved. The term atheism has been used as an accusation against all who attack established orthodoxy, as in the trial of Socrates. There were few avowed atheists from classical times until the 19th cent., when popular belief in a conflict between religion and science brought forth preachers of the gospel of atheism, such as Robert G. Ingersoll. There are today many individuals and groups professing atheism. The 20th cent. has seen many individuals and groups professing atheism, including Bertrand Russell and Madalyn Murry O'Hair.

The word has a long history and archaically it was used to apply to people that religious considered godless or immoral, but in terms of how it was used by nearly everyone, until very recently, when relating to what one believes it refers to the belief that there are no god(s).

Here's agnostic by the way

Agnostic -
The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

If you're not certain if there is or isn't a god, you're agnostic. If you believe that there is no God, you're atheist. It's really simple, but not so simple that you can try some kind of lame argument about antonyms. It doesn't even work relating to taste let alone the concept of the absolute nature of the universe.
I see you've abandoned your arguments using the Greek origins. Good for you. Perhaps you are willing to learn.

As for the antonym argument, my argument holds. To answer your questions the antonym pair would not, of course, not be tasteful and tasteless, but rather simply taste and tasteless. The less suffix negates the base word (taste, not tasteful). Therefore any food that does not fall under the category of taste falls under the category of tasteless. Tasteful is a subcategory in the category of taste. The antonyms taste and tasteless can be used to describe any food.

As for anarchy, you answered your own question. We don't use the root word of "archy" to describe any system of government. Therefore we don't have common understanding of the root word or concept that anarchy negates. To tease out what "archy" means we go back to the word's origings. If you search for the origins of anarchy, you will find that it's based on the Greek anarchos. An- = without. Archos = ruler. Therefore anarchos describes systems of government who have no ruler. And archos (and hence, "archy") describes systems of governement which have rulers. These systems would include monarchies, oligarchies, polygarchies, etc. Therefore the true antonym pair (Archy and Anarchy) are sufficient to describe all systems of government.

Thanks again for the talking points. Tell me if your shovel breaks.

But that is still inconsistent with an all powerful loving god. Think about the people you care about. If you had the power, would you allow them to suffer excruciating pain and death? (btw, I've worked in a hospice, even the true believers are terrified of death). Would you require perfect obedience to every aspect of your will to save them from a horrible fate?
Obedience is not a requirement for salvation. It is the method of salvation. No one knows God's Will.

Would you require perfect obedience to every aspect of your will to save them from a horrible fate?

Its not obdience that is requried to save you, its accepting salvation. In other words, accepting that your flawed (have sinned) and that Jesus saved you via his death. Thus accepting that he is God incarnate and that the life he designed for us to live is the one we should try to live. We dont have to match up to Jesus to be saved.

I have to support you on this one, even though I'm relatively certain we have opposing views on the existence of God.


I seem to recall you are a 'believer'... and I am very much NOT one myself.. so, yes, we hold opposing views on the EXISTENCE of God... but I think we both hold similar views on the MECHANISMS of faith.

I have no issue with believers... but I can have problems with the types of belief some people have. You seem to be of a similar school of thought to Dempublicents... what I think of as 'rational' Christians... and I respect that.


Substitute the following for point 4 - 4)Therefore we created the concept of a God to attempt to make point 1 a truism.

Of course, I don't think the fact that Sanx can't prove there is a God is evidence there isn't.

1)Sanx believes in God
2)Sanx spends a lot of time searching for proof of the existence of God.
3)Sanx can't find substiated or adequate proof.
4)Therefore, God must not exist.

Same flawed reasoning.

I wouldn't dare to claim that any god or gods MUST NOT exist. I just don't, personally, accept any that do exist. Maybe, given 'evidence' that works for me, I would. That's pretty much the definition of the Implicit Atheist.

Well we disagree again :

Atheism, I think it is the most misunderstood and poorly defined of the three (theism, atheism, agnostic). Atheism is not a system , it says nothing about what is above us, it says nothing about tenderness, and atheists can be just as excited and awed about life as theists. The atheists I know and have read are, on average, more excited and awed by the wonders of life than theists. This statement is not intended to knock theists, but merely to point out that the above definition is a false generalization that has nothing to do with the 'real' definition of atheism.
There are several other false definitions usually put on atheism by theists. Theists frequently claim that atheists "claim to know there is no god", "are merely rebelling against a god that they really believe in", "think they can prove there is no god", "say there is no god so that they can be evil", "don't want to be accountable”, etc.
Although some atheists (and they are in the minority) may claim to know that there is no god, most atheists claim no such thing. Atheism is a "lack of belief in god" and nothing more. Those who claim to "know" there is no god are sometimes referred to as "strong atheists", but their thinking is as faulty as those who claim to know that there is a god. Atheists who don't go as far as claiming knowledge of no god can also be called "strong atheists". For instance, atheists who claim an affirmative belief that there is no god usually are also referred to as "strong atheists" even though they do not claim knowledge of such a thing. For now, let me just state that no one can know there is no god for the same reason that no one can know there is no Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, unicorn, or other such creature. Some may say that we can know that there are none of the above since we can trace through history where these characters were created and that the ideas about them have changed over the centuries. The same can also be said of god (except the history of god goes back a bit farther so it is more difficult to track with certainty) but for this arguments sake, let's say that such creatures, although there is a strong probability that they are fictional, can not be 100% positively proven unreal for the basic reason that the entire universe would need to be explored to positively assert the non-existence of such a hypothetical being. If the theist attempts to define their god however, that specific god can be disproven through the use of logic and reason. In these cases, an atheist can accurately state that they know that the god described does not exist.
To summarize, atheism is a lack of belief in god. Basic atheism (of the non-strong variety) on its own does not positively assert anything regardless of what some atheists may say or think and regardless of what theists frequently define as atheism.

In the circles in which I circulate, we refer to those who claim there are NO gods as "Explicit Atheists"... and those that simply do not believe in any gods as "Implicit Atheists". Note: MOST Atheists would refuse to go as far as claiming there are definitely NO gods... most Atheists are 'Implicit' Atheists.

Excellent post. You are right... there is a general misunderstanding about what Atheism 'means'.

Its not obdience that is requried to save you, its accepting salvation. In other words, accepting that your flawed (have sinned) and that Jesus saved you via his death. Thus accepting that he is God incarnate and that the life he designed for us to live is the one we should try to live. We dont have to match up to Jesus to be saved.

I'm talking about life on this earth though. You say that because of disobedience we all suffer, and I say that is evidence that god is extremely cruel, exacting, and petty.

The "accepting salvation" issue is another one that I could go off on (I have already to some extent) but really, this argument is becoming circular and I don't see any point in continuing it as you and I are both bound to continue making the same points over and over again. So I say we shake hands and congratulate each other on not getting nasty about it.

False. Atheism does not mean not theism. The root of the word is not theism. Theism is from the greek word theos meaning god and -ism meaning based on or doctrine. Atheism is from the greek word atheos meaning no god. You are using the wrong base. The base is root.

Atheism is the belief in the doctrine there is no god(s). If don't believe or disbelieve in God then you are agnostic. If you don't believe (disbelieve) in god(s), you are atheist.

The most important 'meaning' in any word, could certainly be argued as the 'received' usage.

Thus - we use the word 'cupboard', even when no cups are contained within the space so described.

Atheism, as used BY Atheists, serves two distinct purposes... divided into two separate camps, depending on the 'conviction'.

If you actively DENY the existence of any 'Gods' - you are an Explicit Atheist (also known as 'Hard' or 'Strong' Atheists).

If you simply do not believe in any gods, you are an Implicit Atheist (also known as 'Soft' or 'Weak' Atheists).


Last point - Agnosticism has NOTHING to do with believing in God. An Agnostic can be an Atheistic Agnostic (a term which largely descibes the Implicit Atheistic population), or a Theistic Agnostic... the 'orientation' is irrelevent.

The only thing that really defines the Agnostic, is the belief that it is impossible to KNOW (hence a-gnostic) for sure. The Agnostic basically believes it impossible to ever know one way or the other... although, they can still BELIEVE either way.

I see you've abandoned your arguments using the Greek origins. Good for you. Perhaps you are willing to learn.

Wow, so reading's not your strong suit. I continued with the greek argument (what part of anarchy was not discussing greek roots). I just have more arguments than you do so I offered more up instead of just saying, nuh-uh like you did.

As for the antonym argument, my argument holds. To answer your questions the antonym pair would not, of course, not be tasteful and tasteless, but rather simply taste and tasteless. The less suffix negates the base word (taste, not tasteful). Therefore any food that does not fall under the category of taste falls under the category of tasteless. Tasteful is a subcategory in the category of taste. The antonyms taste and tasteless can be used to describe any food.

Ha, now you redefine antonym pairs to fit your argument. Tasteful is listed as an antonym of tasteless. Your lack of logic knows no bounds. Antonyms very often describe the opposing ends of a spectrum without ever meeting in the middle. That still makes them antonyms. Theist describes one end of the spectrum, atheist describes the other and agnostic describes the middle.

As for anarchy, you answered your own question. We don't use the root word of "archy" to describe any system of government. Therefore we don't have common understanding of the root word or concept that anarchy negates. To tease out what "archy" means we go back to the word's origings. If you search for the origins of anarchy, you will find that it's based on the Greek anarchos. An- = without. Archos = ruler. Therefore anarchos describes systems of government who have no ruler. And archos (and hence, "archy") describes systems of governement which have rulers. These systems would include monarchies, oligarchies, polygarchies, etc. Therefore the true antonym pair (Archy and Anarchy) are sufficient to describe all systems of government.

Notice how you had to change the form of the word to make your argument. Because with -ism you can't make your specious argument. Thanks for proving my point.

Thanks again for the talking points. Tell me if your shovel breaks.

I love this argument, because we all know why you're making it. You wish to be able to argue from a position of superiority on the subject so you don't want to admit that your position of atheism is no more logical than my position of theism. The only group that argue from a position of superiority is agnostics and we both know it, only my group isn't trying to incorporate their beliefs into ours to make ourselves seem superior. Admit, you believe there is no God. You believe us theists are illogical beings that can't see the TRUE nature of reality.

I'll make more arguments when you actually refute mine without just making stuff up.

I seem to recall you are a 'believer'... and I am very much NOT one myself.. so, yes, we hold opposing views on the EXISTENCE of God... but I think we both hold similar views on the MECHANISMS of faith.

I have no issue with believers... but I can have problems with the types of belief some people have. You seem to be of a similar school of thought to Dempublicents... what I think of as 'rational' Christians... and I respect that.

Yes, I believe there is a God, but I hold that I can't prove it to you or anybody else. Not today ;) I also hold that just because the sun has risen every day since I was born doesn't mean that it will tomorrow. I accept that I may hold a different position on that day as well.

More importantly, how can one believe that we were created by a God and given reason by same God and we're not expected to use it? Thus, if I person A says God told them that turnips taste like chicken and I try one and they don't, it's not evidence there is no God, but it's certainly evidence that person A is full of crap.

I wouldn't dare to claim that any god or gods MUST NOT exist. I just don't, personally, accept any that do exist. Maybe, given 'evidence' that works for me, I would. That's pretty much the definition of the Implicit Atheist.

I wasn't suggesting you would. I was showing that the same fallacious reasoning would allow one to show there is no God as well. That is quite simply why it's fallacious.

Yes, I believe there is a God, but I hold that I can't prove it to you or anybody else. Not today ;) I also hold that just because the sun has risen every day since I was born doesn't mean that it will tomorrow. I accept that I may hold a different position on that day as well.

More importantly, how can one believe that we were created by a God and given reason by same God and we're not expected to use it? Thus, if I person A says God told them that turnips taste like chicken and I try one and they don't, it's not evidence there is no God, but it's certainly evidence that person A is full of crap.


We may differ on faith, but we agree exactly on this. :)


I wasn't suggesting you would. I was showing that the same fallacious reasoning would allow one to show there is no God as well. That is quite simply why it's fallacious.

Okay, gotcha. Again - agreed.

Better watch it, we'll have peace between Theists and Atheists if we carry on like this... ;)

The most important 'meaning' in any word, could certainly be argued as the 'received' usage.

Thus - we use the word 'cupboard', even when no cups are contained within the space so described.

Atheism, as used BY Atheists, serves two distinct purposes... divided into two separate camps, depending on the 'conviction'.

If you actively DENY the existence of any 'Gods' - you are an Explicit Atheist (also known as 'Hard' or 'Strong' Atheists).

If you simply do not believe in any gods, you are an Implicit Atheist (also known as 'Soft' or 'Weak' Atheists).


Last point - Agnosticism has NOTHING to do with believing in God. An Agnostic can be an Atheistic Agnostic (a term which largely descibes the Implicit Atheistic population), or a Theistic Agnostic... the 'orientation' is irrelevent.

The only thing that really defines the Agnostic, is the belief that it is impossible to KNOW (hence a-gnostic) for sure. The Agnostic basically believes it impossible to ever know one way or the other... although, they can still BELIEVE either way.

I accept that you can be an atheistic agnositic, or a theistic agnostic or you can be an agnostic with atheistic or theistic leanings, but until very recently that was how you had to describe it. Strong atheist and weak atheist or the less insulting implicit atheist and explicit atheist are new terms that have become necessary because of the expansion of the term atheist. There were already terms that included everyone on the spectrum. Yes, I accept the received usage is changing, but I disagree with the change. Most 'implicit' atheists don't actually just deny the belief in God. Most of them actually believe there is no god(s) (used here like I believe Article IV of the constitution is very important), but like me and you they accept that it's an unprovable assumption. However, many of those same people don't like using the word believe because it takes them from their position of superiority, so they say they deny the theistic view.

Look around many atheists are claiming to just not believe rather than espouse that there is NO god(s) (Implicit Atheist) while simultaneous suggesting that the only responsible belief is to deny the existence of God. Do they get to define the terms? Can I claim that I'm an atheist and then that atheism includes the belief in Christ as the savior? If enough of us do it will atheism mean that?

The point is that there is no need to identify yourself as atheist unless you believe there is no God(s). Theist - there is a god. Atheist - there is no God. If you're not either one of those then you're not either one.

We may differ on faith, but we agree exactly on this. :)



Okay, gotcha. Again - agreed.

Better watch it, we'll have peace between Theists and Atheists if we carry on like this... ;)

Yeah, that's okay. I corrected that with post replying to how you define atheism.

I accept that you can be an atheistic agnositic, or a theistic agnostic or you can be an agnostic with atheistic or theistic leanings, but until very recently that was how you had to describe it. Strong atheist and weak atheist or the less insulting implicit atheist and explicit atheist are new terms that have become necessary because of the expansion of the term atheist. There were already terms that included everyone on the spectrum. Yes, I accept the received usage is changing, but I disagree with the change. Most 'implicit' atheists don't actually just deny the belief in God. Most of them actually believe there is no god(s) (used here like I believe Article IV of the constitution is very important), but like me and you they accept that it's an unprovable assumption. However, many of those same people don't like using the word believe because it takes them from their position of superiority, so they say they deny the theistic view.


Well, agnosticism is a fairly 'new' invention... so it's hard to argue that there have ALWAYS been terms to describe the many degrees of belief.

I have been an Atheist for several years - and I think I would originally have been closer to an Explicit Atheist, when I first 'lost my faith'... until I realised that the ABSOLUTE negation of the possibility for god, was just as flawed as I had come to believe the conviction FOR god had been.

I don't really think that most Atheists assume the position of Implicit Atheism because of a "position of superiority", any more than you might claim to be Christian because you think that title makes you a 'superior' person... I certainly didn't adopt MY belief structure for the debatable strength of the position - just because I decided BOTH extremes were insupportable.

Also - in my experience, very few Atheists ACTUALLY claim there are NO gods... more usual is a simple lack of belief in any of the established 'god' concepts. (Example: ALL children are born Implicit Atheists).

Most Explicit Atheists SEEM to be 'new' Atheists... and usually relent on their 'hardline', eventually.


Look around many atheists are claiming to just not believe rather than espouse that there is NO god(s) (Implicit Atheist) while simultaneous suggesting that the only responsible belief is to deny the existence of God. Do they get to define the terms? Can I claim that I'm an atheist and then that atheism includes the belief in Christ as the savior? If enough of us do it will atheism mean that?


As 'unfair' as it may seem, yes... to a certain extent those who USE a term DO get to define it... especially those who use it to self-describe. If most Atheists believed that Jesus was a saviour, and that God was acceptable as a premise, then, yes - the term would slowly change.

Just as 'Anarchy' has taken on a different persona to it's true etymological 'meaning'.

It would be something of an extreme change to assume a complete reversal, though... and not all that likely... more likely is the constant shift WITHIN such a spectrum as Atheism.


The point is that there is no need to identify yourself as atheist unless you believe there is no God(s). Theist - there is a god. Atheist - there is no God. If you're not either one of those then you're not either one.

There IS a need to be identified as 'Atheist' in as much as there is a need to be defined as anything... If someone asks me my religious perspective - what should I say? That I lack belief in a god, but that I don't completely rule out the POSSIBILITY that there could be a god/gods?

It is much 'easier' to identify myself as an Implicit Atheist.

Do you not identify yourself as 'Christian'?