NationStates Jolt Archive

(Note: Kreen has a post that dances around this matter, but we have to deal with it full on.)

Atheists, agnostics, evolutionists, and false prophets sure do have some big words against the God of the Bible, the true God. A lot of them come to NS with derogatory remarks which is fine--they know they need Jesus, that's why they keep diving into the arguments. They know hell ain't no fairy tale.

Atheists say, "There is no god," like they know what exists in every speck of the universe. The Bible says, "The FOOL hath said in his heart, 'There is no God'." In actuality, there is no such thing as a "real atheist". Here's an illustration which can be used on any atheist.

1. Ask him if he knows every single fact about every manmade system just on this earth--criminal law, civil law, heart surgery, biology, teaching, being a garbage man, computer programming, ants, engineering, woodcutting, business, every person's social security number by heart, etc. He will have to tell you no, he doesn't know every single fact.

2. Ask him what percentage he knows of all the knowledge to be known in the entire known universe like what is happening in the core of Mars--right now. What is the temperature of that star that hubble is about to approach, etc. He'll have to tell you he knows practically 0% of the knowledge to be known in the entire universe. I then say, "So in other words you know practically nothing." The answer must be yes.

Imagine all the knowledge of the Universe as a chalk board, with a tiny, infinitesmally small speck on it. That can represent how much the atheist knows. Imagine a giant X on that board, representing God who exists in the vast space OUTSIDE the atheists extremely limited knowledge.

There is no such thing as an atheist because no human being knows everything and has all knowledge as we've demonstrated. Neither can any person be everywhere at the same time. For a person to be able to confidently say, "There is no God," he'd have to know EVERYTHING that existed EVERYWHERE--and no human being fits that bill. There is no atheist. At the very BEST a person can say, "I'm agnostic" although this is not true either...

atheism

n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism]
2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

Case closed, thread to be moved to spam.

As my daddy always says,

It takes more faith to believe in nothing than to believe in something.

(Note: Kreen has a post that dances around this matter, but we have to deal with it full on.)

Atheists, agnostics, evolutionists, and false prophets sure do have some big words against the God of the Bible, the true God. A lot of them come to NS with derogatory remarks which is fine--they know they need Jesus, that's why they keep diving into the arguments. They know hell ain't no fairy tale.

Atheists say, "There is no god," like they know what exists in every speck of the universe. The Bible says, "The FOOL hath said in his heart, 'There is no God'." In actuality, there is no such thing as a "real atheist". Here's an illustration which can be used on any atheist.

1. Ask him if he knows every single fact about every manmade system just on this earth--criminal law, civil law, heart surgery, biology, teaching, being a garbage man, computer programming, ants, engineering, woodcutting, business, every person's social security number by heart, etc. He will have to tell you no, he doesn't know every single fact.

2. Ask him what percentage he knows of all the knowledge to be known in the entire known universe like what is happening in the core of Mars--right now. What is the temperature of that star that hubble is about to approach, etc. He'll have to tell you he knows practically 0% of the knowledge to be known in the entire universe. I then say, "So in other words you know practically nothing." The answer must be yes.

Imagine all the knowledge of the Universe as a chalk board, with a tiny, infinitesmally small speck on it. That can represent how much the atheist knows. Imagine a giant X on that board, representing God who exists in the vast space OUTSIDE the atheists extremely limited knowledge.

There is no such thing as an atheist because no human being knows everything and has all knowledge as we've demonstrated. Neither can any person be everywhere at the same time. For a person to be able to confidently say, "There is no God," he'd have to know EVERYTHING that existed EVERYWHERE--and no human being fits that bill. There is no atheist. At the very BEST a person can say, "I'm agnostic" although this is not true either...your argument contradicts your stance. If the atheist can't know, neither can you.

How can Christians know any more than Aethiests do?

I know a Christian friend who once used this on her brother. The most funny thing about it was that, when she described it to me, she said he said "no" to the first question, and when she asked "how much do you know of the Universe's knowledge" he said:

"About 5%."

Yes, he was/is very full of himself.

Since when does not knowing everything mean God exists? And, for that matter, when was it established that the Biblical God was the true one?

Why do you think we pursue scientific research? So we can know about the Universe! Science doesn't rule out God, so that's not legitimate either.

<snip demonstration>There is no such thing as an atheist because no human being knows everything and has all knowledge as we've demonstrated.
What the hell does that have to do with whether someone does or doesn't believe in a god? Of course they don't know, but that has nothing to do with whether they believe or not.
Neither can any person be everywhere at the same time. For a person to be able to confidently say, "There is no God," he'd have to know EVERYTHING that existed EVERYWHERE--and no human being fits that bill.
You seem to equate people believing that there isn't a god with there being total factual evidence that there is no god, which is totally and absolutely irrelevant.
There is no atheist. At the very BEST a person can say, "I'm agnostic" although this is not true either...
Wait, so you're now saying that not only does nobody not believe in God because we can't be sure, but that we shouldn't say we're not sure? Huh.

your argument contradicts your stance. If the atheist can't know, neither can you.

I think this is also a false ignorance fallacy.

It depends how you define atheism. It is a pretty broad philosophy. For example, the existentialist atheism to which I subscribe, holds that the question of the existence of god is in itself meaningless.

Yes, he was/is very full of himself.

Well - ask a stupid a question...

I think I'm being a bit generous, but I'm going to give you a 3.
http://jupiter.walagata.com/w/reubenm/TrollScale.jpg

Here is a bit I've written about this very topic (I was talking to an atheist, in case you can't tell)

The religious angle (or at least, my religious angle) is that someone said it, and I am not going to disbelieve it just because I don't see proof of it. What I will do, since proof is inaccessible, is search for disproof.

I have been searching for disproof for quite a long time, and I have found nothing. The longer I search and find no disproof, the more I am inclined to believe, especially since I believe that God, like energy itself, cannot be observed firsthand, but you can view its effects. Of course, as a religious person, I see these effects in many things, and it is equally as obvious that you, as a non-religious person, see none of these effects.

We both (in fact, not just us, but everyone) started with a guess, a hunch, and we are all looking for ways to disprove that hunch. It seems no one has found anything. Who is right? I don't know, but I will continue researching.

Here is a bit I've written about this very topic (I was talking to an atheist, in case you can't tell)

The religious angle (or at least, my religious angle) is that someone said it, and I am not going to disbelieve it just because I don't see proof of it. What I will do, since proof is inaccessible, is search for disproof.

I have been searching for disproof for quite a long time, and I have found nothing. The longer I search and find no disproof, the more I am inclined to believe, especially since I believe that God, like energy itself, cannot be observed firsthand, but you can view its effects. Of course, as a religious person, I see these effects in many things, and it is equally as obvious that you, as a non-religious person, see none of these effects.

We both (in fact, not just us, but everyone) started with a guess, a hunch, and we are all looking for ways to disprove that hunch. It seems no one has found anything. Who is right? I don't know, but I will continue researching.


Theoretical Physicists, I'd give him a 2. The title isn't offensive enough for a good trolling.

:o

The Invisible Pink Unicorn!

I am an atheist, and I know everything, except what day it is.

cool, a new troll.

who's puppet is it?

cool, a new troll.

who's puppet is it?

What's a troll and puppet?

:o

The Invisible Pink Unicorn!

Atheists are also making a total shot in the dark, based on no firm evidence whatsoever.

Here is a bit I've written about this very topic (I was talking to an atheist, in case you can't tell)

The religious angle (or at least, my religious angle) is that someone said it, and I am not going to disbelieve it just because I don't see proof of it. What I will do, since proof is inaccessible, is search for disproof.

I have been searching for disproof for quite a long time, and I have found nothing. The longer I search and find no disproof, the more I am inclined to believe, especially since I believe that God, like energy itself, cannot be observed firsthand, but you can view its effects. Of course, as a religious person, I see these effects in many things, and it is equally as obvious that you, as a non-religious person, see none of these effects.

We both (in fact, not just us, but everyone) started with a guess, a hunch, and we are all looking for ways to disprove that hunch. It seems no one has found anything. Who is right? I don't know, but I will continue researching.

Just out of curiosity, what effects have you seen?

Atheists are also making a total shot in the dark, based on no firm evidence whatsoever.
Of course. But, so is everybody else.

Atheists are also making a total shot in the dark, based on no firm evidence whatsoever.

In that case, Christians are as well. I mean, is an archaic written text really substantial?

What's a troll and puppet?

A troll is something that is basically designed to offend as many people as possible. A puppet, I assume, is a forum specifically account made to foster such trolling, by some other known forumgoer, to hide his/her own identity.

You confuse the meaning of atheism. Read up on it.

Link (http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Atheism)

In that case, Christians are as well. I mean, is an archaic written text really substantial?

Yes, they are also making a total blind shot. That's what I said in my first post on this thread.

Of course. But, so is everybody else.

I know, that is what I said in my first post on this thread. I was merely correcting an atheist who didn't seem to think that atheists are guessing along with everyone else.

(Note: Kreen has a post that dances around this matter, but we have to deal with it full on.)

Atheists, agnostics, evolutionists, and false prophets sure do have some big words against the God of the Bible, the true God. A lot of them come to NS with derogatory remarks which is fine--they know they need Jesus, that's why they keep diving into the arguments. They know hell ain't no fairy tale.

Atheists say, "There is no god," like they know what exists in every speck of the universe. The Bible says, "The FOOL hath said in his heart, 'There is no God'." In actuality, there is no such thing as a "real atheist". Here's an illustration which can be used on any atheist.

1. Ask him if he knows every single fact about every manmade system just on this earth--criminal law, civil law, heart surgery, biology, teaching, being a garbage man, computer programming, ants, engineering, woodcutting, business, every person's social security number by heart, etc. He will have to tell you no, he doesn't know every single fact.

2. Ask him what percentage he knows of all the knowledge to be known in the entire known universe like what is happening in the core of Mars--right now. What is the temperature of that star that hubble is about to approach, etc. He'll have to tell you he knows practically 0% of the knowledge to be known in the entire universe. I then say, "So in other words you know practically nothing." The answer must be yes.

Imagine all the knowledge of the Universe as a chalk board, with a tiny, infinitesmally small speck on it. That can represent how much the atheist knows. Imagine a giant X on that board, representing God who exists in the vast space OUTSIDE the atheists extremely limited knowledge.

There is no such thing as an atheist because no human being knows everything and has all knowledge as we've demonstrated. Neither can any person be everywhere at the same time. For a person to be able to confidently say, "There is no God," he'd have to know EVERYTHING that existed EVERYWHERE--and no human being fits that bill. There is no atheist. At the very BEST a person can say, "I'm agnostic" although this is not true either...

You are only addressing Explicit Atheism.

Most Atheists seem to be 'Implicit Atheists'... they do not 'deny' god... they just do not believe in a god.

Also called Rational Atheists... most would believe in an instant, if they ever encountered a realistic evidence.

Incidentally - why are you not ALSO asking why those 'godless' Christians disbelieve the obvious supremacy of Islam??? Or, why Hindus ignore the overwhelming 'logic' of Wicca?

I know, that is what I said in my first post on this thread. I was merely correcting an atheist who didn't seem to think that atheists are guessing along with everyone else.

Actually, I'd say aethiests are making a shot in a gymnasium lit by two or three candles. I mean, evolution is all but prooven, and that should count for something.

Just out of curiosity, what effects have you seen?

Corny religious type stuff. Comfort when I need it most, answers to prayers which could also be interpreted either as conincidences or merely byproducts of an imagination that sincerely wants to believe and therefore does, stuff like that.

I figure if I can't convince people that God exists, I might as well skip that step and teach them about how His way is the best way to live, regardless of whether you believe or not.

Atheists are also making a total shot in the dark, based on no firm evidence whatsoever.

I was merely correcting an atheist who didn't seem to think that atheists are guessing along with everyone else.

Nope, not at all.

I just think your reasoning is silly.

snip

Amusing...whose puppet are you then? TG it if you don't want to spoil the role.

Actually, I'd say aethiests are making a shot in a gymnasium lit by two or three candles. I mean, evolution is all but prooven, and that should count for something.

You know nothing of my beliefs, and yet you assume much.

I firmly believe in evolution. But, evolution doesn't really have to do with the existence of God, does it?

I firmly believe in evolution. But, evolution doesn't really have to do with the existence of God, does it?

I don't believe it does.

Nope, not at all.

I just think your reasoning is silly.

You are entitled to have that belief just as much as I am entitled to have my belief :)

Trust me, "silly" is one of the nicer things my reasoning has been called.

So atheists are making everything up and aren't right; whereas Christians use an imaginary man to explain everything?

Christians think they know everything. In all actuality, the majority of them are uncultured rednecks who don't care.

This thread is proof.

Corny religious type stuff. Comfort when I need it most, answers to prayers which could also be interpreted either as conincidences or merely byproducts of an imagination that sincerely wants to believe and therefore does, stuff like that.

I figure if I can't convince people that God exists, I might as well skip that step and teach them about how His way is the best way to live, regardless of whether you believe or not.

If I don't believe in God, how can living his way be best for me?

A troll is something that is basically designed to offend as many people as possible. A puppet, I assume, is a forum specifically account made to foster such trolling, by some other known forumgoer, to hide his/her own identity.

A puppet isn't necessarily designed to foster trolling, many are simply parodies. Such is likely the case with this one.

So atheists are making everything up and aren't right; whereas Christians use an imaginary man to explain everything?

Christians think they know everything. In all actuality, the majority of them are uncultured rednecks who don't care.

This thread is proof.

Am i an "uncultured redneck" for believing in God?

I am an atheist, and I know everything, except what day it is.

Like "hello?", Its today, duh.

Atheists are also making a total shot in the dark, based on no firm evidence whatsoever.

Not at all.

Atheists are making no 'shots'... they are simply distancing themselves from the 'shooting in the dark' that others do.

You know nothing of my beliefs, and yet you assume much.

I firmly believe in evolution. But, evolution doesn't really have to do with the existence of God, does it?

Hey, I didn't say it disproved the entirity of traditional Christianity. But it does disprove one facet of the bible, and when the bible is seen to contain majors errors, it will no longer be a realiable source of information. In addition, the theory of evolution actually lessens our natural need for a God to believe in. If we have a scientific origin, why should we search for a mythical purpose?

Not at all.

Atheists are making no 'shots'... they are simply distancing themselves from the 'shooting in the dark' that others do.

That would be agnostics, not atheists my friend :)

Am i an "uncultured redneck" for believing in God?

No. Nor did I state you, or anyone else, would be.

I don't know you, so anything I say would be very vague, but the premise i'm going on is you'd believe in god because you're an "uncultured redneck." Again, that's nothing personal towards YOU, just what i'd mean if I were saying that.

And to be honest, i'm not saying all Christians are. I'm talking of the Christians who declare homosexuals satan and attack abortion clinics with shotguns.

Hey, I didn't say it disproved the entirity of traditional Christianity. But it does disprove one facet of the bible,

That's open to interpretation, just like everything else.

If we have a scientific origin, why should we search for a mythical purpose?

Evolution isn't a scientific origion, evolution is a scientific few-steps-towards-an-origin.

I suspect that we will still be searching for a "mythical purpose" thousands of years from now...

No. Nor did I state you, or anyone else, would be.

I don't know you, so anything I say would be very vague, but the premise i'm going on is you'd believe in god because you're an "uncultured redneck." Again, that's nothing personal towards YOU, just what i'd mean if I were saying that.

And to be honest, i'm not saying all Christians are. I'm talking of the Christians who declare homosexuals satan and attack abortion clinics with shotguns.

Ah ok! :) I hope we can be friends :)

Hey, I didn't say it disproved the entirity of traditional Christianity. But it does disprove one facet of the bible, and when the bible is seen to contain majors errors, it will no longer be a realiable source of information. In addition, the theory of evolution actually lessens are natural need for a God to believe in. If we have a scientific origin, why should we search for a mythical purpose?

Meh. Very few Christians take the bible as literal truth/information, or as an explanation for the way the world works anymore. That's the thing: it's hard to predict people's actual beliefs based on their religion.

No. Nor did I state you, or anyone else, would be.

I don't know you, so anything I say would be very vague, but the premise i'm going on is you'd believe in god because you're an "uncultured redneck." Again, that's nothing personal towards YOU, just what i'd mean if I were saying that.

And to be honest, i'm not saying all Christians are. I'm talking of the Christians who declare homosexuals satan and attack abortion clinics with shotguns.

Those "Christians" need to take a good look at the fundamental teachings of their religion.

That's open to interpretation, just like everything else.



Evolution isn't a scientific origion, evolution is a scientific few-steps-towards-an-origin.

I suspect that we will still be searching for a "mythical purpose" thousands of years from now...

Not if we are able to understand that life has no purpose or meaning.

Meh. Very few Christians take the bible as literal truth/information, or as an explanation for the way the world works anymore. That's the thing: it's hard to predict people's actual beliefs based on their religion.

I agree with this statement.

(Note: Kreen has a post that dances around this matter, but we have to deal with it full on.)

Atheists, agnostics, evolutionists, and false prophets sure do have some big words against the God of the Bible, the true God. A lot of them come to NS with derogatory remarks which is fine--they know they need Jesus, that's why they keep diving into the arguments. They know hell ain't no fairy tale.

Atheists say, "There is no god," like they know what exists in every speck of the universe. The Bible says, "The FOOL hath said in his heart, 'There is no God'." In actuality, there is no such thing as a "real atheist". Here's an illustration which can be used on any atheist.

1. Ask him if he knows every single fact about every manmade system just on this earth--criminal law, civil law, heart surgery, biology, teaching, being a garbage man, computer programming, ants, engineering, woodcutting, business, every person's social security number by heart, etc. He will have to tell you no, he doesn't know every single fact.

2. Ask him what percentage he knows of all the knowledge to be known in the entire known universe like what is happening in the core of Mars--right now. What is the temperature of that star that hubble is about to approach, etc. He'll have to tell you he knows practically 0% of the knowledge to be known in the entire universe. I then say, "So in other words you know practically nothing." The answer must be yes.

Imagine all the knowledge of the Universe as a chalk board, with a tiny, infinitesmally small speck on it. That can represent how much the atheist knows. Imagine a giant X on that board, representing God who exists in the vast space OUTSIDE the atheists extremely limited knowledge.

There is no such thing as an atheist because no human being knows everything and has all knowledge as we've demonstrated. Neither can any person be everywhere at the same time. For a person to be able to confidently say, "There is no God," he'd have to know EVERYTHING that existed EVERYWHERE--and no human being fits that bill. There is no atheist. At the very BEST a person can say, "I'm agnostic" although this is not true either...


You shouldn't be an atheist because you can't know everything? I disagree with this propasition.

A person who is in search of truth will make as few assumptions about the natural world as possible (in accordance with Occam's razor). That person will then attempt to know everything about the universe. This is not possibe. Nor is world peace possible. But just because something isn't possible, doesn't mean that we should strive to reach it.

So this person is in search of truth, assumes as few things as possible, and learns as much as possible about everything. Let's start with the earth. On first glance, the earth is flat. So this person in search of truth will say that the earth is flat. But will not claim it as truth just yet. The person will then go into outer space and take photographs of the earth. Make measurements of the earths dimensions, perform a mathematical analysis of the properties of the earth. The person will then find that it is mathematically impossible for the earth to be flat. The person can then claim that the earth is not flat, that it is in fact round, and can claim it as truth.

This is the method we used to find fact and truth. We start with something that seems right. We analyse it. If we find a contradiction, we change our ideas until we find a theory which can be tested and proven mathematically.

In this scenario the person who goes out into space is either an atheist or a religious person. If one says that the earth is flat and one says that it is square, both are going to try to disprove the others theory. Eventually one or both of them will be proven wrong, and their ideas will be forced to change. There's no shame in being wrong originally, because people don't really care who was right, they care about what was right. If an agnostic were to be put in this scenario, they would say: "There's no way to tell who is right and who is wrong, so lets just forget about it." No one goes into space, nobody finds out the truth. Agnosticism is dangerous because it the lazy mans position. Agnostics aren't motivated to constantly find new and ingenious methods of attacking the problem. Only the Atheists or religious people will end this debate.

Not if we are able to understand that life has no purpose or meaning.

That's just the thing. No matter how much scientific knowledge we acquire, I don't think we will ever come to the conclusion that life has no purpose or meaning. That's not something you can deduce scientifically, my friend ;)

Meh. Very few Christians take the bible as literal truth/information, or as an explanation for the way the world works anymore. That's the thing: it's hard to predict people's actual beliefs based on their religion.

Where can christians draw the line, though? How are they able to seperate fact from allegory in the bible? If creationism is not true, how can they know that God is real?

That would be agnostics, not atheists my friend :)

No - an Agnostic argues it is impossible to KNOW if there is a god. You could be a theistic agnostic OR an atheistic agnostic.

yea....umm..im pretty sure atheists exist, given im one.....

That's just the thing. No matter how much scientific knowledge we acquire, I don't think we will ever come to the conclusion that life has no purpose or meaning. That's not something you can deduce scientifically, my friend ;)

Of course there will always be certain people that continue to believe in God. But if we come as close as possible to disproving God's existence, it should be quite rare for anyone to cling to a flimsy "meaning" for life.

You shouldn't be an atheist because you can't know everything? I disagree with this propasition.

A person who is in search of truth will make as few assumptions about the natural world as possible (in accordance with Occam's razor). That person will then attempt to know everything about the universe. This is not possibe. Nor is world peace possible. But just because something isn't possible, doesn't mean that we should strive to reach it.

So this person is in search of truth, assumes as few things as possible, and learns as much as possible about everything. Let's start with the earth. On first glance, the earth is flat. So this person in search of truth will say that the earth is flat. But will not claim it as truth just yet. The person will then go into outer space and take photographs of the earth. Make measurements of the earths dimensions, perform a mathematical analysis of the properties of the earth. The person will then find that it is mathematically impossible for the earth to be flat. The person can then claim that the earth is not flat, that it is in fact round, and can claim it as truth.

This is the method we used to find fact and truth. We start with something that seems right. We analyse it. If we find a contradiction, we change our ideas until we find a theory which can be tested and proven mathematically.

In this scenario the person who goes out into space is either an atheist or a religious person. If one says that the earth is flat and one says that it is square, both are going to try to disprove the others theory. Eventually one or both of them will be proven wrong, and their ideas will be forced to change. There's no shame in being wrong originally, because people don't really care who was right, they care about what was right. If an agnostic were to be put in this scenario, they would say: "There's no way to tell who is right and who is wrong, so lets just forget about it." No one goes into space, nobody finds out the truth. Agnosticism is dangerous because it the lazy mans position. Agnostics aren't motivated to constantly find new and ingenious methods of attacking the problem. Only the Atheists or religious people will end this debate.

An excellent point that was eloquently put :)

However, I think that some agnostics are motivated to find out. My best friend is an agnostic, and we are constantly debating religion- he is often the one that initiates the conversation. We look together, although we look from different vantage points.

(Note: Kreen has a post that dances around this matter, but we have to deal with it full on.)

Atheists, agnostics, evolutionists, and false prophets sure do have some big words against the God of the Bible, the true God. A lot of them come to NS with derogatory remarks which is fine--they know they need Jesus, that's why they keep diving into the arguments. They know hell ain't no fairy tale.

Atheists say, "There is no god," like they know what exists in every speck of the universe. The Bible says, "The FOOL hath said in his heart, 'There is no God'." In actuality, there is no such thing as a "real atheist". Here's an illustration which can be used on any atheist.

1. Ask him if he knows every single fact about every manmade system just on this earth--criminal law, civil law, heart surgery, biology, teaching, being a garbage man, computer programming, ants, engineering, woodcutting, business, every person's social security number by heart, etc. He will have to tell you no, he doesn't know every single fact.

2. Ask him what percentage he knows of all the knowledge to be known in the entire known universe like what is happening in the core of Mars--right now. What is the temperature of that star that hubble is about to approach, etc. He'll have to tell you he knows practically 0% of the knowledge to be known in the entire universe. I then say, "So in other words you know practically nothing." The answer must be yes.

Imagine all the knowledge of the Universe as a chalk board, with a tiny, infinitesmally small speck on it. That can represent how much the atheist knows. Imagine a giant X on that board, representing God who exists in the vast space OUTSIDE the atheists extremely limited knowledge.

There is no such thing as an atheist because no human being knows everything and has all knowledge as we've demonstrated. Neither can any person be everywhere at the same time. For a person to be able to confidently say, "There is no God," he'd have to know EVERYTHING that existed EVERYWHERE--and no human being fits that bill. There is no atheist. At the very BEST a person can say, "I'm agnostic" although this is not true either...

I know enough to know that god does not exist.
And as far as your concerned you know enough to know that god does exist, but wait, you have to know everthing to know that god exists. Sounds a bit silly now, doesn't it?

they know they need Jesus, that's why they keep diving into the arguments.
What, huh? Are you stupid?
I post in these threads, which is rare, because I just can't believe how stupid some of the crap is that comes out of peoples mouths like yours.

That's just the thing. No matter how much scientific knowledge we acquire, I don't think we will ever come to the conclusion that life has no purpose or meaning. That's not something you can deduce scientifically, my friend ;)

Why not? If we can determin we came about naturally, and aren't some sspcial little (egocentric) pets. then there would be much purpose or maning for us, worth perhaps, but not much more. I'd be okay with that, I don't need to be special to go on living, I don't think so highly of myself.

yea....umm..im pretty sure atheists exist, given im one.....
how do we know you exist? :p

No - an Agnostic argues it is impossible to KNOW if there is a god. You could be a theistic agnostic OR an atheistic agnostic.

Of course, but there are also agnostics that simply declare that they don't yet know that there is a god (but it is possible to know). There are also those who declare that it is both possible and impossible to know god, because it is all in your head.

And finally, by your definition, I am an agnostic, as are most religious people. Have you ever heard someone say that faith is believing without seeing? That fits under your definition of agnostic.

how do we know you exist? :p

We don't, and that's part of life's enormous puzzle.

Amusing...whose puppet are you then? TG it if you don't want to spoil the role.
intriguing, isnt it?

Of course there will always be certain people that continue to believe in God. But if we come as close as possible to disproving God's existence, it should be quite rare for anyone to cling to a flimsy "meaning" for life.

In the same fashion, with the same logic and the same validity, I can write this post:

Of course there will always be certain people that continue to disbelieve in God. But if we come as close as possible to proving God's existence, it should be quite rare for anyone to cling to a flimsy "non-meaning" for life.

Where can christians draw the line, though? How are they able to seperate fact from allegory in the bible? If creationism is not true, how can they know that God is real?

Individuals usually decide what's fact, what's allegory, and what stuff that isn't in the bible is still part of the religion. In the end, the word Christian doesn't mean much.

An excellent point that was eloquently put :)

However, I think that some agnostics are motivated to find out. My best friend is an agnostic, and we are constantly debating religion- he is often the one that initiates the conversation. We look together, although we look from different vantage points.

That is true. Some, many in fact, like to participate in debate. But I think that the agnostics lack the motivation to come up with truely ingenious arguments. The determined atheist or christian will spend many sleepless nights trying to find a new argument that can win the debate. In my experience agnostics just use pre-existing arguments. If your friend is different to the common form of the agnostic, then he's probably a very unique person.

In the same fashion, with the same logic and the same validity, I can write this post:

Of course there will always be certain people that continue to disbelieve in God. But if we come as close as possible to proving God's existence, it should be quite rare for anyone to cling to a flimsy "non-meaning" for life.

Of course you may. There is even a chance that you may be correct. But, currently, it seems as though aethiests a few more proven facts to their name then theists do. But I suppose anything could happen. In fact, the sun could explode tomorrow and put us out of our misery.

Of course you may. In fact, there is even a chance that you may be correct. But, currently, it seems as though aethiests a few more proven facts to their name then theists do. But I suppose anything could happen. In fact, the sun could explode tomorrow and put us out of our misery.

Name a proven fact that directly relates to the existence of God. If one existed, the argument would be over. Not just this argument, but every arguement about God's existence/non-existence.

The fact that I believe there is no such evidence either way could get me labelled as an agnostic, but I assure you I am not ;)

In the same fashion, with the same logic and the same validity, I can write this post:

Of course there will always be certain people that continue to disbelieve in God. But if we come as close as possible to proving God's existence, it should be quite rare for anyone to cling to a flimsy "non-meaning" for life.

Except proving God's existence, or even necessity, doesn't really move forward....at all....Whereas should science keep progressing and continue explain more and more things without some supernatural being.....

Name a proven fact that directly relates to the existence of God. If one existed, the argument would be over. Not just this argument, but every arguement about God's existence/non-existence.

The fact that I believe there is no such evidence either way could get me labelled as an agnostic, but I assure you I am not ;)

Not so much proven fact, but well accepted theories that....reduce the likilihood or necesity of God's existence.

(Note: Kreen has a post that dances around this matter, but we have to deal with it full on.)

Atheists, agnostics, evolutionists, and false prophets sure do have some big words against the God of the Bible, the true God. A lot of them come to NS with derogatory remarks which is fine--they know they need Jesus, that's why they keep diving into the arguments. They know hell ain't no fairy tale.

Atheists say, "There is no god," like they know what exists in every speck of the universe. The Bible says, "The FOOL hath said in his heart, 'There is no God'." In actuality, there is no such thing as a "real atheist". Here's an illustration which can be used on any atheist.

1. Ask him if he knows every single fact about every manmade system just on this earth--criminal law, civil law, heart surgery, biology, teaching, being a garbage man, computer programming, ants, engineering, woodcutting, business, every person's social security number by heart, etc. He will have to tell you no, he doesn't know every single fact.

2. Ask him what percentage he knows of all the knowledge to be known in the entire known universe like what is happening in the core of Mars--right now. What is the temperature of that star that hubble is about to approach, etc. He'll have to tell you he knows practically 0% of the knowledge to be known in the entire universe. I then say, "So in other words you know practically nothing." The answer must be yes.

Imagine all the knowledge of the Universe as a chalk board, with a tiny, infinitesmally small speck on it. That can represent how much the atheist knows. Imagine a giant X on that board, representing God who exists in the vast space OUTSIDE the atheists extremely limited knowledge.

There is no such thing as an atheist because no human being knows everything and has all knowledge as we've demonstrated. Neither can any person be everywhere at the same time. For a person to be able to confidently say, "There is no God," he'd have to know EVERYTHING that existed EVERYWHERE--and no human being fits that bill. There is no atheist. At the very BEST a person can say, "I'm agnostic" although this is not true either...


Ok there probably is not a god... your entire argument debunked just like that.

That is true. Some, many in fact, like to participate in debate. But I think that the agnostics lack the motivation to come up with truely ingenious arguments. The determined atheist or christian will spend many sleepless nights trying to find a new argument that can win the debate. In my experience agnostics just use pre-existing arguments. If your friend is different to the common form of the agnostic, then he's probably a very unique person.

In my experience, I have found that uncertainty is often a wonderful motivator if you think it is important that the truth is known. I have been working harder than I have ever worked in my life lately, because I am uncertain of what I am called to do with my life. If I knew what I should be doing, I would have no such motivation.

Yes, my friend is a very unique person, but I don't think he is as unique as you seem to think (although I admit that the numbers of people who are lazy regarding theology are depressingly staggering among all the groups, atheists agnostics and theists alike).

Not so much proven fact, but well accepted theories that....reduce the likilihood or necesity of God's existence.

Exactly my point. It's terribly difficult to prove that God doesn't exist, just as it is terribly difficult to prove that a banana could never change spontaneously to a chair. What we can do is prove that God doesn't need to exist, and that there is a lack of evidence that he does exist. We can then logically infer that God is not existent. And if we're wrong, I bet He'll drop down and fill us in.

Not so much proven fact, but well accepted theories that....reduce the likilihood or necesity of God's existence.

Nothing that we know changes whether God exists or not. We can't reduce or increase the liklihood of his existence by having theories one way or another. He doesn't pop into and out of existence as we debate it, reality is objective.

And the necessity? What does necessity have to do with anything? A great argument could be made that it is not necessary that humans exist and in fact the world would be much better off without them, but we still exist.

(Note: Kreen has a post that dances around this matter, but we have to deal with it full on.)

Atheists, agnostics, evolutionists, and false prophets sure do have some big words against the God of the Bible, the true God. A lot of them come to NS with derogatory remarks which is fine--they know they need Jesus, that's why they keep diving into the arguments. They know hell ain't no fairy tale.

Is it possible that we'll have this idiotic argument for a thousand more years? Listen here, you simpleton, I study the very foundations of REALITY. Do you think God is something we can even imagine, let alone understand, even less put into words? Worse, you actually believe these words weren't distorted and misinterpreted, or even simply lost in translation? And in TIME? Evolution isn't a prophecy, it's science. If you don't like it, too bad, you also evolved. Do you actually believe that an omnipotent being is petty enough to care wether or not we worship him/her? I shouldn't be here lecturing you, because I take for granted concepts your excuse for a mind isn't even able to fathom, but I will keep on, simply because you're either a redneck or a troll and I enjoy humiliating both. A god that sends to Hell people whose only "crime" is not believing Him is incurring in Pride. There, your God just became flawed, with one of the seven sins, so, it's off to Hell he goes. Your insecurity makes you wish for those different from you to go to Hell. Why? Because you feel difference might harm you or take you away from your womb of a world, from your shelter of ignorance - because it's pretty comfortable to be ignorant and assume that, regardless of actions, you'll be saved because you believe in the "right guy". It won't strike you as odd because your family is, likely, made up of idiots just like yourself, that would gladly be in the 1690's burning those that proposed science, different views or anything that made you feel insecure. Become God, then! Picture it, God as yourself. A god that would destroy everything different from him so he could keep feeling secure and sheltered. This is your God. You made your god to your image. And your image is that of a baby that won't leave the mother's womb so he can still feel secure. Growing, feeding off whatever crap your group feeds you, feeling oh-so-safe-and-cozy, but unable to grow. You're a simpleton, for whom I am torn between feeling pity or hatred.

although I admit that the numbers of people who are lazy regarding theology are depressingly staggering among all the groups, atheists agnostics and theists alike.

I know what you mean. There's a person at my school who when asked "Are you a Christian?", replies: "No. I'm a Catholic."

wow its feeding day at the bridge

Exactly my point. It's terribly difficult to prove that God doesn't exist, just as it is terribly difficult to prove that a banana could never change spontaneously to a chair. What we can do is prove that God doesn't need to exist, and that there is a lack of evidence that he does exist. We can then logically infer that God is not existent. And if we're wrong, I bet He'll drop down and fill us in.

But atheism just as blind of a guess. Atheists also believe what they believe with no evidence that I can see (unless you would like to reveal the identities of those "theories" that support it?)

And I already made my point about necessity.

Exactly my point. It's terribly difficult to prove that God doesn't exist, just as it is terribly difficult to prove that a banana could never change spontaneously to a chair. What we can do is prove that God doesn't need to exist, and that there is a lack of evidence that he does exist. We can then logically infer that God is not existent. And if we're wrong, I bet He'll drop down and fill us in.

Aye, considering we can only truly prove something in mathmatics, and even if we disproved god, someone would say "He's outside logic, so that doesn't matter" And if he really cared if we believe in him, he could say so, not in some archaic text full of contradictions that shifts back and forth between truth and allegory based on conveinience.

There's one small flaw in your argument:

The atheist doesn't assume knowledge of the non existence of God (he could not assume that, since he is not omniscient), he instead does not answer to god, irrespective of the reality of such a deity. He does not allow the concept to corrupt him, forcing him to capitulate to the insidious arguments and schemes of Evangelical practitioners. See Richard Dawkins at www.wikipedia.org

(Note: Kreen has a post that dances around this matter, but we have to deal with it full on.)

Atheists, agnostics, evolutionists, and false prophets sure do have some big words against the God of the Bible, the true God. A lot of them come to NS with derogatory remarks which is fine--they know they need Jesus, that's why they keep diving into the arguments. They know hell ain't no fairy tale.

Atheists say, "There is no god," like they know what exists in every speck of the universe. The Bible says, "The FOOL hath said in his heart, 'There is no God'." In actuality, there is no such thing as a "real atheist". Here's an illustration which can be used on any atheist.

1. Ask him if he knows every single fact about every manmade system just on this earth--criminal law, civil law, heart surgery, biology, teaching, being a garbage man, computer programming, ants, engineering, woodcutting, business, every person's social security number by heart, etc. He will have to tell you no, he doesn't know every single fact.

2. Ask him what percentage he knows of all the knowledge to be known in the entire known universe like what is happening in the core of Mars--right now. What is the temperature of that star that hubble is about to approach, etc. He'll have to tell you he knows practically 0% of the knowledge to be known in the entire universe. I then say, "So in other words you know practically nothing." The answer must be yes.

Imagine all the knowledge of the Universe as a chalk board, with a tiny, infinitesmally small speck on it. That can represent how much the atheist knows. Imagine a giant X on that board, representing God who exists in the vast space OUTSIDE the atheists extremely limited knowledge.

There is no such thing as an atheist because no human being knows everything and has all knowledge as we've demonstrated. Neither can any person be everywhere at the same time. For a person to be able to confidently say, "There is no God," he'd have to know EVERYTHING that existed EVERYWHERE--and no human being fits that bill. There is no atheist. At the very BEST a person can say, "I'm agnostic" although this is not true either...

wow its feeding day at the bridge

Actually, most of us are simply ignoring the troll and are having an actual debate ;)

But atheism just as blind of a guess. Atheists also believe what they believe with no evidence that I can see (unless you would like to reveal the identities of those "theories" that support it?)

And I already made my point about necessity.

Have you even been listening to me? I have never once claimed that there is direct proof of God's nonexistence! I've simply suggested that theories such as evolution (and possibly Occman's razor, though I'm not completely sure if I understand it) make the existence of God less probable and less nessacary.

Aye, considering we can only truly prove something in mathmatics, and even if we disproved god, someone would say "He's outside logic, so that doesn't matter" And if he really cared if we believe in him, he could say so, not in some archaic text full of contradictions that shifts back and forth between truth and allegory based on conveinience.

It seems like it is time for me to offer my explanation for why God doesn't proove himself...

God gave us free will, because it is truly a greater expression of love to allow people to do as they please rather than bend them to your will. But God's gift of choice to us means that people can make bad choices, resulting in pain, suffering, and grief. God doesn't allow these things to happen because he wants to see us suffer, he allows these things to happen because if he didn't, we would not have free will.

On the same token, God doensn't proove His own existence because to do so would be to take away our ability to sincerely not believe in him (our free will in that matter).

Of course, but there are also agnostics that simply declare that they don't yet know that there is a god (but it is possible to know). There are also those who declare that it is both possible and impossible to know god, because it is all in your head.

And finally, by your definition, I am an agnostic, as are most religious people. Have you ever heard someone say that faith is believing without seeing? That fits under your definition of agnostic.

Actually - most of the people I've met in 'religion'... seem to do a good line in 'professing with their lips', and much less brisk trade in 'believing in their hearts'...

One can 'believe without seeing' and STILL 'know'... if you believe you can know by discernment...

But - ultimately... I don't see the problem in the last paragraph... don't you think MOST theists and atheists are (at least) close to the avowed territory of the Agnostic?

Aye, considering we can only truly prove something in mathmatics, and even if we disproved god, someone would say "He's outside logic, so that doesn't matter" And if he really cared if we believe in him, he could say so, not in some archaic text full of contradictions that shifts back and forth between truth and allegory based on conveinience.

This has got me thinking: wouldn't an indirect proof be best? If we assume God exists, then make inferences based upon that, we could probably come across some sort of contradiction, and thereby disprove one God. But we'd probably have to do that several times, taking into account every version of God ever created.

But atheism just as blind of a guess. Atheists also believe what they believe with no evidence that I can see (unless you would like to reveal the identities of those "theories" that support it?)

And I already made my point about necessity.

What do we believe with no evidence? I'll be guessing here but.....Big Bang, don't need God to start the universe, Abiogenesis, don't need God to start life, Evolution, don't need God to start us.

For necessity, yeah, we don't need to exist either, the universe doesn't need to exist, but we have evidence these things do, regardless. Also, there are things that we don't have specific evidence for, but do need to exist to explain things about the universe (say....back when we came up with the concept of Dark Energy/Matter [I forget which]). Then there's God, which doesn't need to exist AND doesn't have any evidence for it's existence.

Have you even been listening to me? I have never once claimed that there is direct proof of God's nonexistence! I've simply suggested that theories such as evolution (and possibly Occman's razor, though I'm not completely sure if I understand it) make the existence of God less probable and less nessacary.

And I already pointed out that Evolution has nothing to do with God's existence, it has to do with how life may have gone from primordial soup to billions of species, but nothing about God, and I have also pointed out how irrelevant necessity is when it comes to existance, because humans are unnecessary but they still exist.

It seems like it is time for me to offer my explanation for why God doesn't proove himself...

God gave us free will, because it is truly a greater expression of love to allow people to do as they please rather than bend them to your will. But God's gift of choice to us means that people can make bad choices, resulting in pain, suffering, and grief. God doesn't allow these things to happen because he wants to see us suffer, he allows these things to happen because if he didn't, we would not have free will.

On the same token, God doensn't proove His own existence because to do so would be to take away our ability to sincerely not believe in him (our free will in that matter).

You're rationalizing.
I frequently express my disagreement with such a theory. Perhaps if pain was a result of sin, the people in pain would be more deserving of it. I mean, what did all those millions of African children orphaned by AIDS ever do to God? Surely one does not have free will at such a young age.

What do we believe with no evidence? I'll be guessing here but.....Big Bang, don't need God to start the universe, Abiogenesis, don't need God to start life, Evolution, don't need God to start us.

But the Big Bang requires a starting force to catabolize the reaction known as existence. It is not an explanation of how it all started, it is an explanation of how things were like from a fraction of a second after it all started until now.

You're rationalizing.
I frequently express my disagreement with such a theory. Perhaps if pain was a result of sin, the people in pain would be more deserving of it. I mean, what did all those millions of African children orphaned by AIDS ever do to God? Surely one does not have free will at such a young age.

You act as if I stated that pain was punishment for sin, but I made no such statement. Pain is an effect of sin, and it doesn't necessarily go to the sinner.

Actually, most of us are simply ignoring the troll and are having an actual debate ;)
:D It has the same effect though

You're rationalizing.
I frequently express my disagreement with such a theory. Perhaps if pain was a result of sin, the people in pain would be more deserving of it. I mean, what did all those millions of African children orphaned by AIDS ever do to God? Surely one does not have free will at such a young age.

In the Judeo-Christian and Islamic traditions, the theodicy question has never been properly explained (in my opinion). The best answer is really that we don't know what the motives of God are, and therefore can't definitely explain it.

Of course, in the Hindu tradition the concept of karma/dharma factors in to it, so that might provide a better explanation. Or Buddhism, perhaps, with whole "suffering is caused by desire" concept.

I don't know, since I don't follow any of these beliefs at all. A person better versed in them would probably provide a better answer.

It seems like it is time for me to offer my explanation for why God doesn't proove himself...

God gave us free will, because it is truly a greater expression of love to allow people to do as they please rather than bend them to your will. But God's gift of choice to us means that people can make bad choices, resulting in pain, suffering, and grief. God doesn't allow these things to happen because he wants to see us suffer, he allows these things to happen because if he didn't, we would not have free will.

On the same token, God doensn't proove His own existence because to do so would be to take away our ability to sincerely not believe in him (our free will in that matter).


So....He wants to give us the choice of eternal damnation? Ah, yes, rather than, you know, making our afterlives better, we get to CHOOSE if we suffer or not.


So he doesn't reveal himself because he doesn't want to. FInd a way to disprove this arguement, and it's "Becuase he wants to" or " God works in mysterious ways

Basically, we're his playthings, and he wants to see if we'll believe when the only peice of "evidence" is the bible...And.....I don't think anyone made a bad choice resulting in Katrina...besides maybe living in city below sea level, that's not very smart.

Regarding Ockham's Razor:

It merely states that God's existence is not something that needs to be known in order for us to understand the universe. It does not mean that God does or does not exist.

And I already pointed out that Evolution has nothing to do with God's existence, it has to do with how life may have gone from primordial soup to billions of species, but nothing about God, and I have also pointed out how irrelevant necessity is when it comes to existance, because humans are unnecessary but they still exist.

Now we're just running in circles. Evolution does not disprove God. It weakens the Christian theory of God by destroying one of it's facets.
As for the matter of nessacity, God was created out of a lack of scientific knowledge. We now have many scientific reasons for things that have disproved past mythological theories. EG: Now that we know what stars are, we know longer need to believe that a God covers our earth with a moth-eaten blanket each night.

You act as if I stated that pain was punishment for sin, but I made no such statement. Pain is an effect of sin, and it doesn't necessarily go to the sinner.

That's unjust.
"But God is just!"
But he can't help it.
"But he's omnipotent!"
Uhh... LOOK! SOMETHING SHINY!

But the Big Bang requires a starting force to catabolize the reaction known as existence. It is not an explanation of how it all started, it is an explanation of how things were like from a fraction of a second after it all started until now.

So we need something to start the universe, why is this inherently God?

So....He wants to give us the choice of eternal damnation? Ah, yes, rather than, you know, making our afterlives better, we get to CHOOSE if we suffer or not.

Yes. When you look at it that way, the choice seems obvious, doesn't it? But that's just my view.

Basically, we're his playthings, and he wants to see if we'll believe when the only peice of "evidence" is the bible...And.....I don't think anyone made a bad choice resulting in Katrina...besides maybe living in city below sea level, that's not very smart.

No offense meant to the people harmed by Katrina, but I think the bad choice made in that case was building a city at sea level where a year without a hurricane is a rarity...

That's unjust.
"But God is just!"
But he can't help it.
"But he's omnipotent!"
Uhh... LOOK! SOMETHING SHINY!

Our suffering is temporary, the reward is eternal. It is just.

So we need something to start the universe, why is this inherently God?

I never said it was. I am arguing that it isn't necessarily not God, not that it is God.

My point is, no one really knows, and not even the big bang theory offers good evidence one way or another.

ok ... how can christians say that they know that god exists and stuff when they are basing they beliefs on a book written thousands of years ago and was not even written down . for a majority of time , the stories about god and watever were passed down through oral tradition ( unfortunately i went to a catholic middle school for a couple of years ) so u can obviously infer that because these stories were passed down orally , facts and even stories were either twisted or evfen oomitted . so how can u read the bible ( wat a forsaken book . im never touchin it again ) when u cannot truthfully say that this is everything that the bible has and that nothing was forgotten through the centuries ?

Regarding Ockham's Razor:

It merely states that God's existence is not something that needs to be known in order for us to understand the universe. It does not mean that God does or does not exist.

Actually, as far as I've discovered, it means that one should not make more assumptions than nessacary.

"In the philosophy of religion Occam's Razor is sometimes used to challenge arguments for the existence of God: if there doesn't seem to be a need for God (to explain the universe), then God most likely doesn't exist."
(source: wikipedia).

Meh. Very few Christians take the bible as literal truth/information, or as an explanation for the way the world works anymore. That's the thing: it's hard to predict people's actual beliefs based on their religion.

Ummm...

http://abcnews.go.com/images/pdf/947a1ViewsoftheBible.pdf

64% Moses parting the Red Sea is literally true
61% Creation story is literally true
60% Noah story is literally true

(Note: Kreen has a post that dances around this matter, but we have to deal with it full on.)

Atheists, agnostics, evolutionists, and false prophets sure do have some big words against the God of the Bible, the true God. A lot of them come to NS with derogatory remarks which is fine--they know they need Jesus, that's why they keep diving into the arguments. They know hell ain't no fairy tale.

Atheists say, "There is no god," like they know what exists in every speck of the universe. The Bible says, "The FOOL hath said in his heart, 'There is no God'." In actuality, there is no such thing as a "real atheist". Here's an illustration which can be used on any atheist.

1. Ask him if he knows every single fact about every manmade system just on this earth--criminal law, civil law, heart surgery, biology, teaching, being a garbage man, computer programming, ants, engineering, woodcutting, business, every person's social security number by heart, etc. He will have to tell you no, he doesn't know every single fact.

2. Ask him what percentage he knows of all the knowledge to be known in the entire known universe like what is happening in the core of Mars--right now. What is the temperature of that star that hubble is about to approach, etc. He'll have to tell you he knows practically 0% of the knowledge to be known in the entire universe. I then say, "So in other words you know practically nothing." The answer must be yes.

Imagine all the knowledge of the Universe as a chalk board, with a tiny, infinitesmally small speck on it. That can represent how much the atheist knows. Imagine a giant X on that board, representing God who exists in the vast space OUTSIDE the atheists extremely limited knowledge.

There is no such thing as an atheist because no human being knows everything and has all knowledge as we've demonstrated. Neither can any person be everywhere at the same time. For a person to be able to confidently say, "There is no God," he'd have to know EVERYTHING that existed EVERYWHERE--and no human being fits that bill. There is no atheist. At the very BEST a person can say, "I'm agnostic" although this is not true either...


ok first off the Christan god is not the only one and the way you say this suggests that he is and as for where you say no human knows everything that includes you so really you are in no position to say anything about it

Our suffering is temporary, the reward is eternal. It is just.

Right, but are the AIDS-orphaned kids getting a BETTER reward than the non-AIDS-orphaned kids?

Yes. When you look at it that way, the choice seems obvious, doesn't it? But that's just my view.


Well, sure, but if I tell you to believe the world was created from the cut toenails of the great lord Shane, and if you didn't you suffer an eternity with clothspins on your genitals, the choice is again obvious, yes?


No offense meant to the people harmed by Katrina, but I think the bad choice made in that case was building a city at sea level where a year without a hurricane is a rarity...

I'll concede that, not a very good idea, but the matter brought up about AIDS remains....

Our suffering is temporary, the reward is eternal. It is just.



I never said it was. I am arguing that it isn't necessarily not God, not that it is God.

My point is, no one really knows, and not even the big bang theory offers good evidence one way or another.

Yeah, dying of AIDS at the age of 2 is definately worth it.

It seems like it is time for me to offer my explanation for why God doesn't proove himself...

God gave us free will, because it is truly a greater expression of love to allow people to do as they please rather than bend them to your will. But God's gift of choice to us means that people can make bad choices, resulting in pain, suffering, and grief. God doesn't allow these things to happen because he wants to see us suffer, he allows these things to happen because if he didn't, we would not have free will.

On the same token, God doensn't proove His own existence because to do so would be to take away our ability to sincerely not believe in him (our free will in that matter).

<pithy> That's a specious argument, if ever I saw one. </pithy>

You act as if I stated that pain was punishment for sin, but I made no such statement. Pain is an effect of sin, and it doesn't necessarily go to the sinner.

That's not just. It's cruel.

Actually, as far as I've discovered, it means that one should not make more assumptions than nessacary.

"In the philosophy of religion Occam's Razor is sometimes used to challenge arguments for the existence of God: if there doesn't seem to be a need for God (to explain the universe), then God most likely doesn't exist."
(source: wikipedia).

The not making assumptions philosophy includes not assuming that God doesn't exist. Since God's existence isn't important knowledge, according to Occam's Razor, it doesn't matter.

Right, but are the AIDS-orphaned kids getting a BETTER reward than the non-AIDS-orphaned kids?

The reward is infinite, and since the kids suffer finitely, the reward is proportionally equal. You can't have more than infinite reward, so literally, "who could ask for anything more?"

That's not just. It's cruel.

Reward=infinite=fair=not cruel

Yes. When you look at it that way, the choice seems obvious, doesn't it? But that's just my view.



No offense meant to the people harmed by Katrina, but I think the bad choice made in that case was building a city at sea level where a year without a hurricane is a rarity...


That's got nothing to do with God.

Our suffering is temporary, the reward is eternal. It is just.



I never said it was. I am arguing that it isn't necessarily not God, not that it is God.

My point is, no one really knows, and not even the big bang theory offers good evidence one way or another.

But, it not being god is more likely, and more fitting with what we know about the universe as of now. We don't know for sure, but probablity....You've got a bag with 100 marbles, 99 blue, 1 red. I'd feel more comfortable hazarding a geuss that if I pick out a marble at random it'll be blue, than I would guessing it'd be red.

I'm an atheist who does not know everything but is absolutely sure that there is no God as represented by the Bible. I'm exactly as sure that there isn't one as you are that there is. The reason why I am sure is because the only evidence of his existence is a book. I have read that book cover to back twice and, while interesting, is clearly wrong on so many levels and about so many things that there is no reason to take any of what it says seriously for any reason other than that religious people do and if you want to understand them you need to understand their beliefs. In that regard I equate understanding the bible with understanding any religious belief system such as modern voodoo or ancient animism. :)

*sigh* not this christian religious shit again. :headbang:

(Note: Kreen has a post that dances around this matter, but we have to deal with it full on.)

Atheists, agnostics, evolutionists, and false prophets sure do have some big words against the God of the Bible, the true God. A lot of them come to NS with derogatory remarks which is fine--they know they need Jesus, that's why they keep diving into the arguments. They know hell ain't no fairy tale.So what you're saying is atheists, agnostics, evolutionists, and false prophets are Christians too? Does Buddha count as a false prophets?

Atheists say, "There is no god," like they know what exists in every speck of the universe. The Bible says, "The FOOL hath said in his heart, 'There is no God'." In actuality, there is no such thing as a "real atheist". Here's an illustration which can be used on any atheist.
Imagine all the knowledge of the Universe as a chalk board, with a tiny, infinitesmally small speck on it. That can represent how much the atheist knows. Imagine a giant X on that board, representing God who exists in the vast space OUTSIDE the atheists extremely limited knowledge.Dude, the universe is not Jesusland.

The reward is infinite, and since the kids suffer finitely, the reward is proportionally equal. Reward=infinite=fair=not cruel

Yeah, but, see, both the kids orphaned by AIDS and the non-orphaned by AIDS get the same reward. Since one suffered and the other didn't, and the result was the same for them, it's still unjust...

The not making assumptions philosophy includes not assuming that God doesn't exist. Since God's existence isn't important knowledge, according to Occam's Razor, it doesn't matter.



The reward is infinite, and since the kids suffer finitely, the reward is proportionally equal.



Reward=infinite=fair=not cruel

Do you ever think of this: No matter how lovely heavan is, nobody should have to suffer from AIDS. It's like saying that I'm going to kick you now, but it's okay, because then I'll bake you a nice cake, and make it up to you.

The not making assumptions philosophy includes not assuming that God doesn't exist. Since God's existence isn't important knowledge, according to Occam's Razor, it doesn't matter.



The reward is infinite, and since the kids suffer finitely, the reward is proportionally equal.



Reward=infinite=fair=not cruel

And they must suffer for the reward because? You also said all suffering was the result of bad choices.

Do you ever think of this: No matter how lovely heavan is, nobody should have to suffer from AIDS. It's like saying that I'm going to kick you now, but it's okay, because then I'll bake you a nice cake, and make it up to you.

*Beats the crap out of you*
*Fixes you some nice sushi*

There! Worship me! ^_^

<pithy> That's a specious argument, if ever I saw one. </pithy>

If it is specious, please refute it instead of merely commenting.

But, it not being god is more likely, and more fitting with what we know about the universe as of now. We don't know for sure, but probablity....You've got a bag with 100 marbles, 99 blue, 1 red. I'd feel more comfortable hazarding a geuss that if I pick out a marble at random it'll be blue, than I would guessing it'd be red.

I fail to see how that logic applies. No one knows how many marbles of either color are in the metaphorical bag, all we know is that there are two colors, either God really exists or he doesn't.

Yeah, but, see, both the kids orphaned by AIDS and the non-orphaned by AIDS get the same reward. Since one suffered and the other didn't, and the result was the same for them, it's still unjust...

What, do you want them to have something more than infinite reward :p ?

Do you ever think of this: No matter how lovely heavan is, nobody should have to suffer from AIDS. It's like saying that I'm going to kick you now, but it's okay, because then I'll bake you a nice cake, and make it up to you.

Actually, it's more like saying I'm going to kick you now, but it's ok, because you will be in total happiness literally forever after that.

And they must suffer for the reward because? You also said all suffering was the result of bad choices.

They must suffer because of the bad choices of others. Which is why I consider it my duty to convince the "others" to stop making bad choices so innocents do not suffer.

*Beats the crap out of you*
*Fixes you some nice sushi*

There! Worship me! ^_^

That'd be awesome if we could do that, I've got people I wanna punch in the face with much force reapeatedly, all I need are a whole lotta cupcakes! Whoooo!

What, do you want them to have something more than infinite reward?

They suffered MORE than the other guys, right? Then they should get MORE of a reward, yes. God is omnipotent, he can create concepts beyong infinity. Or he can't?

What, do you want them to have something more than infinite reward :p ?



Yes. How about, parents, peace, a healthy body, food, etc. I have heard many times that it is more joy to be a mortal than an immortal. Life in flesh and blood is the most important time, and it is unjust to suggest that some must sacrifice it because other people sinned.

I fail to see how that logic applies. No one knows how many marbles of either color are in the metaphorical bag, all we know is that there are two colors, either God really exists or he doesn't.

We also know there's significatly less marbles of the "God" color


Actually, it's more like saying I'm going to kick you now, but it's ok, because you will be in total happiness literally forever after that.

Eh, proportionally, more like kill you now, eternal happiness.



They must suffer because of the bad choices of others. Which is why I consider it my duty to convince the "others" to stop making bad choices so innocents do not suffer.

Ah yes, the bad choice of the SIV virus to mutate into a form form humans.

Trolllllll.

http://tyler.warrensphere.com:8080/user/tylerwarren/trollyellow.jpg

Drunk commies deleted, is this you again?

Yes. How about, parents, peace, a healthy body, food, etc. I have heard many times that it is more joy to be a mortal than an immortal. Life in flesh and blood is most important time, and it is unjust to suggest that some must sacrifice it because other people sinned.

Aye, certainly God could make their lives bettter here, heck, he can make a universe, he can cure a wimpy little virus.

(Note: Kreen has a post that dances around this matter, but we have to deal with it full on.)

Atheists, agnostics, evolutionists, and false prophets sure do have some big words against the God of the Bible, the true God. A lot of them come to NS with derogatory remarks which is fine--they know they need Jesus, that's why they keep diving into the arguments. They know hell ain't no fairy tale.

Atheists say, "There is no god," like they know what exists in every speck of the universe. The Bible says, "The FOOL hath said in his heart, 'There is no God'." In actuality, there is no such thing as a "real atheist". Here's an illustration which can be used on any atheist...

This is a really tiresome post, and a classic example of why patriachal religion is still so immensely popular today - personal empowerment and hope. By borrowing the power of God to crush perceived enemies and heretics, which throughout history tend to be the innocent. And by borrowing the power of God for healing purposes, and then using heaven as an escape clause if it doesn't work.

To AtheistsRsinners, I level you this challenge: will you believe in a god that you cannot control? That no amount of praying and begging will change his opinion on anything? Bear in mind that the bible has shown that god need not listen to any mortal. It is conceivable that god no longer listens to any mortal in the new covenant, which is why miracles no longer exist.

To other fellow debaters: I would like to state unequivocally that Gods definitely exist - as long as their respective believers do. God is a socio-emergent property, fueled by the power and desires of his supporters. He is a figurehead for humankind's need (should I say lust) for power, for knowledge, for predictability and for comfort - taken to an overwhelming extreme.

Let me emphasize that God is not an illusion, just as the human mind (a systems-emergent property) is not an illusion. God is a process, and his effects on physical reality is very real indeed. Think of the magnificent cathedrals and works of art. Think of the millions massacred in his name.

They suffered MORE than the other guys, right? Then they should get MORE of a reward, yes. God is omnipotent, he can create concepts beyong infinity. Or he can't?

Sure, I suppose he can. We'll find out in the end. Either way, my prespective is that the reward will be enough to totally and completely satisfy us for all time.

Yes. How about, parents, peace, a healthy body, food, etc. I have heard many times that it is more joy to be a mortal than an immortal. Life in flesh and blood is the most important time, and it is unjust to suggest that some must sacrifice it because other people sinned.

I am not talking about justice, I am talking about truth. Besides, as I pointed out, it is just, nothing is better than an infinite reward. If you are worried that some people deserve the infinite reward more than others, take that up with God, not with me.

This is a really tiresome post, and a classic example of why patriachal religion is still so immensely popular today - personal empowerment and hope. By borrowing the power of God to crush perceived enemies and heretics, which throughout history tend to be the innocent. And by borrowing the power of God for healing purposes, and then using heaven as an escape clause if it doesn't work.

To AtheistsRsinners, I level you this challenge: will you believe in a god that you cannot control? That no amount of praying and begging will change his opinion on anything? Bear in mind that the bible has shown that god need not listen to any mortal. It is conceivable that god no longer listens to any mortal in the new covenant, which is why miracles no longer exist.

To other fellow debaters: I would like to state unequivocally that Gods definitely exist - as long as their respective believers do. God is a socio-emergent property, fueled by the power and desires of his supporters. He is a figurehead for humankind's need (should I say lust) for power, for knowledge, for predictability and for comfort - taken to an overwhelming extreme.

Let me emphasize that God is not an illusion, just as the human mind (a systems-emergent property) is not an illusion. God is a process, and his effects on physical reality is very real indeed. Think of the magnificent cathedrals and works of art. Think of the millions massacred in his name.

Wow. You just made all the rest of us seem like babbling children. I'm impressed!

Another thing I'm sure of is that if there is some intelligence behind teh universe than there is not one single person in this universe that knows anything more about that intelligence or what it's motives are than I do. Anyone who claims to is WAY off. What this means is that trying to understand that intelligence using any method other than science is futile and science lacks the ability to test and find answers for concepts outside the physical universe. :)

We also know there's significatly less marbles of the "God"

Really? What evidence do we have that suggests that? Seriously, apparently everyone but me has seen this evidence... i feel left out :(

Eh, proportionally, more like kill you now, eternal happiness.

Sure, that works. If you had a gaurantee that eternal happiness awaited you after death, wouldn't you look forward to dying?

Sure, I suppose he can. We'll find out in the end. Either way, my prespective is that the reward will be enough to totally and completely satisfy us for all time.



I am not talking about justice, I am talking about truth. Besides, as I pointed out, it is just, nothing is better than an infinite reward. If you are worried that some people deserve the infinite reward more than others, take that up with God, not with me.

Is it really an infinite reward if at least some years are spent in the closest thing to hell?

Another thing I'm sure of is that if there is some intelligence behind teh universe than there is not one single person in this universe that knows anything more about that intelligence or what it's motives are than I do. Anyone who claims to is WAY off. What this means is that trying to understand that intelligence using any method other than science is futile and science lacks the ability to test and find answers for concepts outside the physical universe. :)

EXACTLY! :D

Really? What evidence do we have that suggests that? Seriously, apparently everyone but me has seen this evidence... i feel left out :(



Sure, that works. If you had a gaurantee that eternal happiness awaited you after death, wouldn't you look forward to dying?

Umm, not really. Seriously, there are some things that only work on earth, when we have bodies. Like eating and sex. I want to fully explore all pleasures that the earth can offer me before attempting to move on. It's really pathetic to write-off this life for the chance at something better.

Sure, I suppose he can. We'll find out in the end. Either way, my prespective is that the reward will be enough to totally and completely satisfy us for all time.


Why is that?


I am not talking about justice, I am talking about truth. Besides, as I pointed out, it is just, nothing is better than an infinite reward. If you are worried that some people deserve the infinite reward more than others, take that up with God, not with me.

Ah yes, now it's truth. Or, perhaps there's no God to take it up with, that's possible, yes? It would also explain suffering, without such complicated dodges like you example on wy God doesn't prove himself.

Sure, I suppose he can. We'll find out in the end. Either way, my prespective is that the reward will be enough to totally and completely satisfy us for all time. *Snip* I am not talking about justice, I am talking about truth.

Yes, well, then you'll see lots of people in the afterlife complaining that they didn't get the "raped by my abusive foster family after my parents died of AIDS" package. After all, all rewards are infinite, but some are more infinite than others.

On the second note. God is just, right? If it's true that God exists AND is just, then you need to talk about justice.

Is it really an infinite reward if at least some years are spent in the closest thing to hell?

Ok, let me put it to you this way. I give you $1, then, I give you infinity dollars. How much money do you have? Infinity.

If I give Dinaverg $1,000,000, and then give him infinity dollars, how much money does he have? Infinity.

Heikoku, if you think that some infinity can be more than other infinity, I recommend you talk with a math teacher. He/she can probably explain it better than I can.

With that said, I'm going to bed, I'll see you all in the morning.

EXACTLY! :D
So you agree that trying to understand wether or not there is a God and what that God wants with his creation is futile. Why do you waste your time? :confused:

If you trust that no person in the world can possibly understand more about God than you, why do you listen to them or trust what they write? :confused:

Ok, let me put it to you this way. I give you $1, then, I give you infinity dollars. How much money do you have? Infinity.

If I give Dinaverg $1,000,000, and then give him infinity dollars, how much money does he have? Infinity.

Heikoku, if you think that some infinity can be more than other infinity, I recommend you talk with a math teacher. He/she can probably explain it better than I can.

With that said, I'm going to bed, I'll see you all in the morning.

Wrong example, it'd be with "taking" $1 or $1,000,000. Plus it's STILL unjust. If God is omnipotent, he should be able to be COMPLETELY just...

Ah yes, now it's truth. Or, perhaps there's no God to take it up with, that's possible, yes? It would also explain suffering, without such complicated dodges like you example on wy God doesn't prove himself.

The fact that people call my reasoning a complicated dodge doesn't bother me at all.

What bothers me is that people call my reasoning a complicated dodge and then offer no explanation for that statement. They might as well just say "you're wrong because I said so"

:headbang:

Really? What evidence do we have that suggests that? Seriously, apparently everyone but me has seen this evidence... i feel left out :(

Well, pt it as though, you know there's a certain amount of one color, and no reason to think there isn't, but there's no evidence to back up the fact that there's even any marbles of the "God" color in there, besides some scrap of paper someone found under their shoe that says they are.


Sure, that works. If you had a gaurantee that eternal happiness awaited you after death, wouldn't you look forward to dying?

But, it's not a gaurantee is it? it's in fact very imporbable to be followed through on, so I'd raher not live my life banking on it.

So you agree that trying to understand wether or not there is a God and what that God wants with his creation is futile. Why do you waste your time? :confused:

If you trust that no person in the world can possibly understand more about God than you, why do you listen to them or trust what they write? :confused:

Because, although I cannot be fully certain, I can strive to achieve a level of comfortable certainty, in which, while I am not absolutely certain, I am sure enough that I will stake my life on it.

I think I'm being a bit generous, but I'm going to give you a 3.
http://jupiter.walagata.com/w/reubenm/TrollScale.jpg

theoretical physicists unite! i'll give a 3 if the thread is for real, but are we certain it isn't a joke? i mean, the logic is pretty damn funny...

Wrong example, it'd be with "taking" $1 or $1,000,000. Plus it's STILL unjust. If God is omnipotent, he should be able to be COMPLETELY just...

you make the mistake of thinking just because "god" is all powerful, all knowing and all seeing he's necessarily a nice person...

Well, pt it as though, you know there's a certain amount of one color, and no reason to think there isn't, but there's no evidence to back up the fact that there's even any marbles of the "God" color in there, besides some scrap of paper someone found under their shoe that says they are.


But you don't really that there is any chance that god doesn't exist. Open your mind, please.

But, it's not a gaurantee is it? it's in fact very imporbable to be followed through on, so I'd raher not live my life banking on it.

You continuously insist that it is improbable, but give no solid justification for why it is improbable.


Heikoku. Math. Teacher. It is completely just.


All right, I'm going to bed, for real this time ;)

Here's my question: why do the religious care? Why was this posted in the first place? I'm not religious, but spiritual, refusing to believe in the christian god, and I keep seeing christians try to get me to rejoin their ranks. Why? Why do I matter to them? It annoys me that they think it their duty to save me.

Save yourselves first, save your families, save those who want it. When I ask someone to stop bothering me, I expect them to do so. Especially the jerk in the first post on this thread: What do you think you're doing visiting my intentions like that? Why do you think I want Jesus? Who do you think you are telling me what I want, thinking you're a master of theological psychology?

Live and let live guys.

TRH

Because, although I cannot be fully certain, I can strive to achieve a level of comfortable certainty, in which, while I am not absolutely certain, I am sure enough that I will stake my life on it.
That's kind of akin to spending all yoru money on the lottery, something your less likely to win than you are to get killed by a falling airplane part, because you are certain you will win eventually. The existence of the Judeo-Christian God is no more certain than the existence of deities from any other religion every conceived, not yet conceived or never to be conceived. That's a lot of religions. You're not just throwing darts. You're throwing darts at a completely unknown target.

Show me your god and I will show you the manifestation of your imagination.

Atheists, agnostics, evolutionists, and false prophets sure do have some big words against the God of the Bible, the true God.

I respect you and I respect God, greatly. However, you are not selling us on the idea at all. And if you're trying to convince people that God exists, tell them to take an Anatomy/Physiology class, or cell biology. :p

That's kind of akin to spending all yoru money on the lottery, something your less likely to win than you are to get killed by a falling airplane part, because you are certain you will win eventually. The existence of the Judeo-Christian God is no more certain than the existence of deities from any other religion every conceived, not yet conceived or never to be conceived. That's a lot of religions. You're not just throwing darts. You're throwing darts at a completely unknown target.

(I suck at going to bed)


If there is a God, then I suspect He will find me worthy for dedicating my life to finding out what He wants me to do, and trying to do it.

If there isn't a God, then my life was a total waste, but hey, I did what I wanted to do, I don't see why that is such a bad thing.

But you don't really that there is any chance that god doesn't exist. Open your mind, please.


Leprechauns have more eye witnesses than God does. So does Bigfoot, and aliens, and the chupacabra. Maybe you should believe in all of these things too, with your amazing open mind and all.

Or perhaps you should actually understand occams razor, and realize that making extreme assumptions is foolish.

The fact that people call my reasoning a complicated dodge doesn't bother me at all.

What bothers me is that people call my reasoning a complicated dodge and then offer no explanation for that statement. They might as well just say "you're wrong because I said so"

:headbang:

Okay, perpahps that true, let's try again. I think it's a complicated dodge because it uses a premise I see often, "God can do, think, or be, anything, so I can say he does/thinks/is x to explain any problems you point out" Eventually, there's no straight arguement you can put up against this premise that you can't "slip-slide" out of. Why does God allow suffering? Well, we've heard that one. Let's try another. Why doesn't God prove himself? Nope, got that. A new one maybe? How does God flood the entire planet, there's not enough water, it'd likely go against the laws of conservation. But, wait, there's another one for that. "Everything that doesn't make sense in the Bible is a metaphor, so there's nothing illogical about God"


Eh, I could go on about it, but I'm already ranting...

you make the mistake of thinking just because "god" is all powerful, all knowing and all seeing he's necessarily a nice person...

Ah, but, you see, they also say he's JUST...

(I suck at going to bed)


If there is a God, then I suspect He will find me worthy for dedicating my life to finding out what He wants me to do, and trying to do it.

If there isn't a God, then my life was a total waste, but hey, I did what I wanted to do, I don't see why that is such a bad thing.
It's not a bad thing at all. You seem reasonably tolerant. I have no qualm with you having your religion, I just see no reason to accept its authenticity. There is no authority backing it up that there is any reason to listen to. There's no reason to believe that the God you worship is any more real than Zeus. Maybe he is Zeus in which case, being that Greek Gods were subject to human frailties like jealousy and anger, your premise is wrong. You may devote your entire life to him and he may still send you to Hades if it will help him score with some hot Playboy model. ;)

But you don't really that there is any chance that god doesn't exist. Open your mind, please.


Umm....Sorry, maybe my reading comprehension going out for the night, but.....What?


You continuously insist that it is improbable, but give no solid justification for why it is improbable.


1. No nececsity
2. No evidence

Other things with these credentials? Santa, Easter Bunny, FSM, IPU, IGD, My third arm, etc.

Leprechauns have more eye witnesses than God does. So does Bigfoot, and aliens, and the chupacabra. Maybe you should believe in all of these things too, with your amazing open mind and all.

Or perhaps you should actually understand occams razor, and realize that making extreme assumptions is foolish. All things being equal the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one. I love that.

It's not a bad thing at all. You seem reasonably tolerant. I have no qualm with you having your religion, I just see no reason to accept its authenticity. There is no authority backing it up that there is any reason to listen to. There's no reason to believe that the God you worship is any more real than Zeus. Maybe he is Zeus in which case, being that Greek Gods were subject to human frailties like jealousy and anger, your premise is wrong. You may devote your entire life to him and he may still send you to Hades if it will help him score with some hot Playboy model. ;)

You fail to fathom the full powers of the GODS, mere mortal...

I mean, come on, Zeus can MAKE hot playboy models to lay. :P

Ah, but, you see, they also say he's JUST...

Just isn't necessarily "nice"...

One could say beating Hitler to death with one of those Jewish candelabra things is "Just"...

But i wouldn't say it was "nice"

im an atheist there nothing wrong with it

im an atheist there nothing wrong with it

You fail to fathom the full powers of the GODS, mere mortal...

I mean, come on, Zeus can MAKE hot playboy models to lay. :P

And we know how Zeus is. http://67.18.37.17/2107/60/emo/goumoticon0bk.gif

Just isn't necessarily "nice"...

One could say beating Hitler to death with one of those Jewish candelabra things is "Just"...

But i wouldn't say it was "nice"

Yes, but giving more reward to those that - being nice the same way - suffered more is JUST.

(Edit)

Think of it as if you owed two shopkeepers us$ 100. You give to one, first, 1 and then, 99. To the other, you give first 50, and then 99. That's nice, yet unjust, and God is just, yet he's depicted as doing precisely this.

There is no such thing as an atheist because no human being knows everything and has all knowledge as we've demonstrated. Neither can any person be everywhere at the same time. For a person to be able to confidently say, "There is no God," he'd have to know EVERYTHING that existed EVERYWHERE--and no human being fits that bill. There is no atheist. At the very BEST a person can say, "I'm agnostic" although this is not true either...

Crikey! Looks like we've got ourselves a Cross-Crested Biblethumper! These are a dangerous lot, thanks to their scary natural weaponry and armor - threats of damnation and complete denial, respectively. Their closest natural relations are the Cross-Crested Godfollowers, a much more intellectual breed capable of admitting that their faith requires a degree of belief.

A favorite tactic of the Cross-Crested Biblethumper is to try to ambush its natural opponents, the Proof-Demanding Scientifican. Fortunately, as seen here, most Cross-Crested Biblethumpers are woefully ignorant of the principles of logic and debate: examine the argument above and you'll spot the pratfall. That's right, staring you right in the face! This poor fellow never took the time to learn about the scientific method and logical fallacies, so he couldn't tell that he was demanding that someone prove a negative.

As we all know, proving a negative is logically impossible, so this silly attack on reason is doomed to failure. Furthermore, though he doesn't realize it, our Cross-Crested Biblethumper has laid out the reasons why it's not possible to ever prove *his* position: the only way to prove the existence of a completely omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent figure would be to be able to verify those categories - which would require the verifier to be likewise all-powerful! So aside from the simple tautology (I am deity, therefore there is deity), this argument cannot be absolutely without-a-doubt proven.

The end result? Anyone can believe that there is or is not a deity, and that's that - anyone taking either of these positions is asserting naked faith, and there's no point in them debating anyone or anyone debating them. More rational types will weigh the evidence for and against deity and take a position consistent with that evidence. Those inclined to believe in deity are more inclined to {accept/make up} (depending on your perspective) evidence of deity. No one in this range can be absolutely certain, but those who feel the evidence one way or the other is overwhelming can believe their position the same way they believe in Newton's Laws - we can't prove, prove, prove them perfectly, but they fit the available observational evidence so neatly that we estimate the probability of their correctness near 1.

And then of course there are those who decline to even consider the debate: a null position on the existence of deity is functionally equivalent to a position that assigns exactly 0.5 probability to the existence of deity; both of these would be considered perfectly agnostic.

Of course there will always be certain people that continue to believe in God. But if we come as close as possible to disproving God's existence, it should be quite rare for anyone to cling to a flimsy "meaning" for life.

I think even atheists like ourselves can find meaning in life, even if it doesn't come from some dude in the sky.

God exists, yet he doesn't exists. < that is what science has proven. That's also a paradox, or dogma

I think even atheists like ourselves can find meaning in life, even if it doesn't come from some dude in the sky.

Why? What for? To feel good about ourselves? Since when is meaning a necessity for life? Sorry, but why are we so fixated on meaning, or intelligence, or sentience? Why does the human race think so much of itself, that their minds exist in another realm, that we're "intelligent" and animals aren't?

Yeeeeeaahhh.....I just sorta used you as a springboard for a rant....don't mind me...

God exists, yet he doesn't exists. < that is what science has proven. That's also a paradox, or dogma


...Huh?

God: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me!"
Believer: "Yes, Lord!"
Thinker: "Until now, I did not know there were other gods."

1. Belief is the result of the psychological desire that something be true, compensating for the fear that it may not be. The greater the necessity for compensation, the more fanatic the belief.
2. The more fanatic the belief, the more hostile the individual becomes towards those who do not believe or believe otherwise.
3. The whole of theistic religion is a belief-system (1) born of the fear of the unknown, and (2) is participated in, and promoted by, the individual equal to the degree of their personal fears.
4. Theistic religion is a tool of mental slavery used on those who are held captive by their fears, by those who seek absolute power and control through the submission of the fearful.
5. Every theistic deity is a myth that is created and used to establish, promote, and glorify the weakness, powerlessness, and fear of the fearful.
6. The greater the personal fear, combined with the perception of personal weakness and powerlessness, the greater the propensity to act out in retaliation to those who do not fear and do not feel powerless.
7. Theistic beliefs become irrelevant and without merit in accordance to the degree of the dissipation of the fear of death, the hallmark of what is unknown.

God exists, yet he doesn't exists. < that is what science has proven. That's also a paradox, or dogma

:confused:

Wow. You just made all the rest of us seem like babbling children. I'm impressed!

Thanks :)

[Blushes]

Why do people like to debate about God? Why does it usually seem to be a tussle between science and religion, instead of a tussle between two religions?

There are many interesting points to be debated here. Let me bring up two.

1. Power. Mankind's lust for power has never waned. Christianity and other patriachal religions promise an absurd amount of power to believers. Of course no amount of praying itself can eliminate their enemies, and religious leaders know that. They seek physical power to do this, and for this they turn to science, which can make nature jump through hoops. While they appreciate the tools that science and technology can make for them, such as nuclear bombs and ballistic missiles, they want to remind scientists that their religion is still really in charge.

2. Science as a worldview. For millenium humans have held mystical worldviews because no better alternative existed. When mechanistic science began to develop over 300 years ago, it was viewed as a technician's art, to figure out tiny details of physical reality, while religions loom large and wide. Unfortunately, one baby step at a time, scientific discoveries slowly cover larger and larger areas until, with the advent of the evolution, cosmology and systems science, the scientific endeavor is ready to take issues of universal proportions. How can a puny human endeavour out-compete an infinite God in terms of explanatory power? Believers of patriachal religions cannot understand how their humble servant has grown so strong now, threatening to become their new master. Hence the belligerence, and this is also why some Fundamentalists will stop at nothing, even shamelessly using the power of science against the scientific endeavor itself.

Yes, but giving more reward to those that - being nice the same way - suffered more is JUST.

(Edit)

Think of it as if you owed two shopkeepers us$ 100. You give to one, first, 1 and then, 99. To the other, you give first 50, and then 99. That's nice, yet unjust, and God is just, yet he's depicted as doing precisely this.

At the end of the day, God is just an excuse. I reckon we made him up to feel better about ourselves. Act like a twat? "god made me that way". Disaster? "Gods will". It's a very very basic psychological tool to explain the unexplainable, to excuse the unexcusable, and to let us feel guilt free so we can cope day to day...

then some idiot invents Catholicism and brings guilt back into the equation ;)

I belive that christianity is just used to make people feel complete by giving random anwsers to inanwserable questions like "What happens to us after we die" and "Where'd kitty go" and also to make people feel like they cant completely screw up there lives.

Take for an example Hittler. Hittler was a Christian but he killed millions of people. If he went to a confession before he died he would be completely forgiven and sent to heaven but if an Athesist like my self does not go to confessional before they die they would be sent to the bowels of hell without a second chance just for saying there spectical of gods existance.

Because I dont know everything I should believe in some fake "god?" well ok...Oh goody, I get to pick the god I believe in ...and as much as I like Bacchus (and I really like Bacchus) I think Ill go with Haephestus...so cool, Im no longer an Atheist, since I now believe in Haephestus.. Thank you for making my life better :)

Thanks :)

[Blushes]

Why do people like to debate about God? Why does it usually seem to be a tussle between science and religion, instead of a tussle between two religions?

There are many interesting points to be debated here. Let me bring up two.

1. Power. Mankind's lust for power has never waned. Christianity and other patriachal religions promise an absurd amount of power to believers. Of course no amount of praying itself can eliminate their enemies, and religious leaders know that. They seek physical power to do this, and for this they turn to science, which can make nature jump through hoops. While they appreciate the tools that science and technology can make for them, such as nuclear bombs and ballistic missiles, they want to remind scientists that their religion is still really in charge.

2. Science as a worldview. For millenium humans have held mystical worldviews because no better alternative existed. When mechanistic science began to develop over 300 years ago, it was viewed as a technician's art, to figure out tiny details of physical reality, while religions loom large and wide. Unfortunately, one baby step at a time, scientific discoveries slowly cover larger and larger areas until, with the advent of the evolution, cosmology and systems science, the scientific endeavor is ready to take issues of universal proportions. How can a puny human endeavour out-compete an infinite God in terms of explanatory power? Believers of patriachal religions cannot understand how their humble servant has grown so strong now, threatening to become their new master. Hence the belligerence, and this is also why some Fundamentalists will stop at nothing, even shamelessly using the power of science against the scientific endeavor itself.

Wow....Are you female by any chance? Very insightful, to say the least.

Because I dont know everything I should believe in some fake "god?" well ok...Oh goody, I get to pick the god I believe in ...and as much as I like Bacchus (and I really like Bacchus) I think Ill go with Haephestus...so cool, Im no longer an Atheist, since I now believe in Haephestus.. Thank you for making my life better :)

Personally, I choose the FSM, beacuse i like pasta so much, and pirate regalia is awesome.

Thanks :)

[Blushes]

Why do people like to debate about God? Why does it usually seem to be a tussle between science and religion, instead of a tussle between two religions?

There are many interesting points to be debated here. Let me bring up two.

1. Power. Mankind's lust for power has never waned. Christianity and other patriachal religions promise an absurd amount of power to believers. Of course no amount of praying itself can eliminate their enemies, and religious leaders know that. They seek physical power to do this, and for this they turn to science, which can make nature jump through hoops. While they appreciate the tools that science and technology can make for them, such as nuclear bombs and ballistic missiles, they want to remind scientists that their religion is still really in charge.

2. Science as a worldview. For millenium humans have held mystical worldviews because no better alternative existed. When mechanistic science began to develop over 300 years ago, it was viewed as a technician's art, to figure out tiny details of physical reality, while religions loom large and wide. Unfortunately, one baby step at a time, scientific discoveries slowly cover larger and larger areas until, with the advent of the evolution, cosmology and systems science, the scientific endeavor is ready to take issues of universal proportions. How can a puny human endeavour out-compete an infinite God in terms of explanatory power? Believers of patriachal religions cannot understand how their humble servant has grown so strong now, threatening to become their new master. Hence the belligerence, and this is also why some Fundamentalists will stop at nothing, even shamelessly using the power of science against the scientific endeavor itself.


I personally believe there is some sort of a creator force, but I dare not try to describe it. For that matter, you posted really well both times.

God: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me!"
Believer: "Yes, Lord!"
Thinker: "Until now, I did not know there were other gods."

1. Belief is the result of the psychological desire that something be true, compensating for the fear that it may not be. The greater the necessity for compensation, the more fanatic the belief.
2. The more fanatic the belief, the more hostile the individual becomes towards those who do not believe or believe otherwise.
3. The whole of theistic religion is a belief-system (1) born of the fear of the unknown, and (2) is participated in, and promoted by, the individual equal to the degree of their personal fears.
4. Theistic religion is a tool of mental slavery used on those who are held captive by their fears, by those who seek absolute power and control through the submission of the fearful.
5. Every theistic deity is a myth that is created and used to establish, promote, and glorify the weakness, powerlessness, and fear of the fearful.
6. The greater the personal fear, combined with the perception of personal weakness and powerlessness, the greater the propensity to act out in retaliation to those who do not fear and do not feel powerless.
7. Theistic beliefs become irrelevant and without merit in accordance to the degree of the dissipation of the fear of death, the hallmark of what is unknown.

Right on the money. Power and Fear. ;)

God exists, yet he doesn't exists. < that is what science has proven. That's also a paradox, or dogma
So you're saying that the cosmic conjunction of reality is really a reflection of carnality in the schism of our abysmal self-halucinated perceptual time continuums?

That's intertesting, but don't forget that theories about the conjunctual benevolence of theist spacial realisms are not constrained to perceptual quantum reality.

Ok, let me put it to you this way. I give you $1, then, I give you infinity dollars. How much money do you have? Infinity.

If I give Dinaverg $1,000,000, and then give him infinity dollars, how much money does he have? Infinity.

Heikoku, if you think that some infinity can be more than other infinity, I recommend you talk with a math teacher. He/she can probably explain it better than I can.

With that said, I'm going to bed, I'll see you all in the morning.

Will a math minor do? Yes, one infinity can in fact be greater than another infinity, mathematically. Set theory makes this stuff easy. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity#Infinity_in_set_theory - good ol' Wiki! There are in fact an infinite number of continua of infinite numbers, of which integers are but aleph-null and the set of real numbers aleph-one.

Will a math minor do? Yes, one infinity can in fact be greater than another infinity, mathematically. Set theory makes this stuff easy. Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinity#Infinity_in_set_theory - good ol' Wiki! There are in fact an infinite number of continua of infinite numbers, of which integers are but aleph-null and the set of real numbers aleph-one.

That reminds me, I heard about this book called "0" or something all about fancy math stuff, I meant to check that out....

Saying that athiests aren't omniscient doesn't prove that they don't exist, that's the most retarded argument I have ever heard in my entire life, and I am being completely honest.








In other words, your thread fails.

Saying that athiests aren't omniscient doesn't prove that they don't exist, that's the most retarded argument I have ever heard in my entire life, and I am being completely honest.








In other words, your thread fails.

Nah, there are worse... Then again we're not omniscient, so there may not be anything more stupid than what he said... o_O

Saying that athiests aren't omniscient doesn't prove that they don't exist, that's the most retarded argument I have ever heard in my entire life, and I am being completely honest.








In other words, your thread fails.

Then you havent heard a lot of arguements...trust me , I've heard worse....not HERE mind you, but in the world....

Saying that athiests aren't omniscient doesn't prove that they don't exist, that's the most retarded argument I have ever heard in my entire life, and I am being completely honest.








In other words, your thread fails.

You know, what always gets me about Christians is when discussing existence and/or non existence of their diety, they always put the onus on the non-believer to prove god doesn't exist...

it's like saying "there's an invisible chair in the corner of the room. You can't see it or feel it or sit on it or have any interaction with you but at the same time, all of your life must be coloured by that invisible chair. If you doubt the invisible chair, prove it's not there"

i don't have to prove it's NOT there. People have to prove ITS THERE.

Surely? Or am i missing something?

You know, what always gets me about Christians is when discussing existence and/or non existence of their diety, they always put the onus on the non-believer to prove god doesn't exist...

it's like saying "there's an invisible chair in the corner of the room. You can't see it or feel it or sit on it or have any interaction with you but at the same time, all of your life must be coloured by that invisible chair. If you doubt the invisible chair, prove it's not there"

i don't have to prove it's NOT there. People have to prove ITS THERE.

Surely? Or am i missing something?

No, you're right. However, we can't disprove either, cuz absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So it STILL matters zero. And, quite frankly, if there's a God (I'm not calling either way here), would he/she/it be all that interested in what we have to say about him/her/it?

why is this even being argued? no one cares about this guys (thread writers) opinions about athiests, or at least i dont. im proud to be an athiest, and see religions as an answer for people who fear too many things. i, on the other hand, fear nothing but spiders...

Not one single Christian can prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster did not, in fact, create their God from a piece of the Mighty Meatball, and that FSM died for the sins of Jesus Christ on the Plate of Gluttony.

Surely? Or am i missing something?

You're not missing anything, it's just plain bad logic. (It's funny when theists think that the FSM is just silly and can't understand why people think the same about their beliefs)

Then you havent heard a lot of arguements...trust me , I've heard worse....not HERE mind you, but in the world....

Well, on other subjects I've heard worse arguments, this thread was just started with the worst argument I've heard on this subject. (For example, Kid does something wrong. Kid says "But I wasn't the only one!" I respond "... *sigh*... so what?")

Nah, there are worse... Then again we're not omniscient, so there may not be anything more stupid than what he said... o_O

True. Or not. As you said, we don't really know, lol.

i don't have to prove it's NOT there. People have to prove ITS THERE.

Surely? Or am i missing something?

Nope, you've hit the nail quite squarely on the head. It being logically impossible to prove a negative, the onus is on the proponent of a hypothesis to provide proof. As is used in proof by contradiction, it's perfectly possible to disprove a negative - simply assume the negative of your hypothesis and then demonstrate a means by which that assumption forces a contradiction. So if a theist wants to prove deity, they can assume that there is none and prove that that position fails - and a whole lot of people have spent a whole lot of time trying very hard to do just that, with a remarkable lack of success.

Not one single Christian can prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster did not, in fact, create their God from a piece of the Mighty Meatball, and that FSM died for the sins of Jesus Christ on the Plate of Gluttony.


Therefore Christians don't exist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Poor reasoning is common to Christian apologetics.

No, you're right. However, we can't disprove either, cuz absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. So it STILL matters zero. And, quite frankly, if there's a God (I'm not calling either way here), would he/she/it be all that interested in what we have to say about him/her/it?

Well, to be honest, my entire viewpoint on god has always been "i don't believe such a being, omnipresent or not, exists...but if i did, looking around at the world and the things that are done in his name, or indeed, done at his bidding...i wouldn't particularly like him, and would think he's a bit of a tosser"

"thou shalt have no other god but me", i mean, i'm sorry (i'm equating everything to failed relationships at the moment, sue me) but doesn't that sound like a whiny jealous ex-boyfriend or what?

Nope, you've hit the nail quite squarely on the head. It being logically impossible to prove a negative, the onus is on the proponent of a hypothesis to provide proof. As is used in proof by contradiction, it's perfectly possible to disprove a negative - simply assume the negative of your hypothesis and then demonstrate a means by which that assumption forces a contradiction. So if a theist wants to prove deity, they can assume that there is none and prove that that position fails - and a whole lot of people have spent a whole lot of time trying very hard to do just that, with a remarkable lack of success.

I seem to recall my favourite argument for the existence of God, which was Descartes, and went something like "the idea of God is perfection, there is no such thing as perfection in nature, the concept must therefore have come from somewhere, therefore there must be a God"

erroneous on so many levels, and he's one of the founding fathers of modern philosophy...

Wow....Are you female by any chance? Very insightful, to say the least.

I love women! :D But I am a guy.

Thanks for your compliments. Actually I am posting here partly due to some personal frustrations. I am a graduate student working on evolutionary developmental biology (hence my obsession with systems). Recently our inisititute funding for science has become quite generous and this has attracted a large number of kids to do biology. Strangely, a good number of them are deeply religious Christians. To me this is ridiculous, but most of them believe in the "using science to serve God" angle. Not surprisingly, conversations in the lab can be quite strained :(

Well, to be honest, my entire viewpoint on god has always been "i don't believe such a being, omnipresent or not, exists...but if i did, looking around at the world and the things that are done in his name, or indeed, done at his bidding...i wouldn't particularly like him, and would think he's a bit of a tosser"

"thou shalt have no other god but me", i mean, i'm sorry (i'm equating everything to failed relationships at the moment, sue me) but doesn't that sound like a whiny jealous ex-boyfriend or what?

Yeah, see, I'm not talking about the Christian one. I'm not wiccan, but I know for a fact that the Wiccan deities are seen as more tolerant.

Anyways. Going to bed, see ya all.

I love women! :D But I am a guy.

Thanks for your compliments. Actually I am posting here partly due to some personal frustrations. I am a graduate student working on evolutionary developmental biology (hence my obsession with systems). Recently our inisititute funding for science has become quite generous and this has attracted a large number of kids to do biology. Strangely, a good number of them are deeply religious Christians. To me this is ridiculous, but most of them believe in the "using science to serve God" angle. Not surprisingly, conversations in the lab can be quite strained :(

Darn....but yeah...I see akward situations arising



...what was with the [Blushes] thing?

Darn....but yeah...I see akward situations arising
...what was with the [Blushes] thing?

*HA!* You're hitting on all the chix and guys in this forum! First you hit on me, and now on him. *Blush* j/k

Yeah, see, I'm not talking about the Christian one. I'm not wiccan, but I know for a fact that the Wiccan deities are seen as more tolerant.

Anyways. Going to bed, see ya all.

Ah, well, there are many many facets to the concept "god"...i can't help it if when i discuss it, i tend to associate it with the dominant paradigm in my culture.

Although, to be fair, i think the Jewish and Muslim gods are a bit tosserlike too.

Hinduism, well, there's a fair spread of tosser gods, nice gods, and just neutral gods. Buddhism, well, there is no god. Sikhism, well, i'll be honest, but i don't know what they believe (i think it's a synthesis of all the others...for some reason when i think of Sikhism, i tend to think of the amusing fact that the word "Bhagwan" which many new agey cults use to refer to their leader doesn't just mean "God" but...in the aftermath of the British Raj....it means "Sir God". Not just GOD! But a GOD THAT HAS BEEN KNIGHTED BY THE KING OR QUEEN OF ENGLAND!).

Wiccan...well, i dunno, i used to know a lot of Wiccans who would mock christians for believing in a religion that was formed 2000 years ago, because it wasn't relevant to today, then follow it up with telling them that Wicca was 6000 years old.

When it comes down to it, it's all the same shit. Cavemen staring at the sky and painting deitys on the thunder.

Although i would have liked to meet Odin...

Eh, what can I say? I spend too much time pining after girls at school I can't even talk to, when I find the ability to say something I'm certainly going to say it, even if I can only find such courage on teh interwebs.


I'll find one here eventually though, smart (basically a prerequiste for this forum), sense of humor, and less than 7 years older than me.

Oh, and the God of the Baha'i Religion is fairly unknown, except he seems loving and merciful.

Baha'is pray to their god like CRAZY, so I suppose they think that he is a good person.

Oh, and they pray not out of fear or duty, but sort of as a method of spiritual bonding, or something. It's a mighty spiritual religion.

I personally believe there is some sort of a creator force, but I dare not try to describe it. For that matter, you posted really well both times.

Thanks, I appreciate that :)

Actually, I too have been entertaining some ideas of my own. I call it Di-deism. Perhaps the Creator (who made the Universe) and the Lifegiver (who seeded the first living system) are two separate individuals, kind of like squabbling spouses. They are playing a one-up-manship game in our Universe. A sample of their conversation:

Creator: Ha! I made the Universe on deteministic rules. I can predict everything on starting conditions. Beat that!

Lifegiver: I just seeded Life, using your stupid deterministic rules. But it is a complex system, so you just lost your predictability, loser!

Creator: Fine! But I made oxygen so that all your critters will be poisoned into oblivion! Beat THAT!

Lifegiver: I just invented evolution, which allows my creatures to adapt to using oxygen. Life will find a way!

Creator: Oxidative stress!

Lifegiver: Anti-oxidants!

Creator: Gravity!

Lifegiver: Muscle power!

And so on...

Eh, what can I say? I spend too much time pining after girls at school I can't even talk to, when I find the ability to say something I'm certainly going to say it, even if I can only find such courage on teh interwebs.


I'll find one here eventually though, smart (basically a prerequiste for this forum), sense of humor, and less than 7 years older than me.

Nice idea, i might look for the same myself. Smart, funny, able to take a very bad joke, and if possible, brunette and slightly smutty.

I mean, thats not a huge deal to ask, is it?

Thanks, I appreciate that :)

Actually, I too have been entertaining some ideas of my own. I call it Di-deism. Perhaps the Creator (who made the Universe) and the Lifegiver (who seeded the first living system) are two separate individuals, kind of like squabbling spouses. They are playing a one-up-manship game in our Universe. A sample of their conversation:

Creator: Ha! I made the Universe on deteministic rules. I can predict everything on starting conditions. Beat that!

Lifegiver: I just seeded Life, using your stupid deterministic rules. But it is a complex system, so you just lost your predictability, loser!

Creator: Fine! But I made oxygen so that all your critters will be poisoned into oblivion! Beat THAT!

Lifegiver: I just invented evolution, which allows my creatures to adapt to using oxygen. Life will find a way!

Creator: Oxidative stress!

Lifegiver: Anti-oxidants!

Creator: Gravity!

Lifegiver: Muscle power!

And so on...


XD That's awesome! If I ever need a quick religion, I'm picking that one. makes sense....like there's some kinda bet...

Thanks, I appreciate that :)
Creator: Fine! But I made oxygen so that all your critters will be poisoned into oblivion! Beat THAT!

Lifegiver: I just invented evolution, which allows my creatures to adapt to using oxygen. Life will find a way!

Creator: Oxidative stress!

Lifegiver: Anti-oxidants!

Creator: Gravity!

Lifegiver: Muscle power!

And so on...

Best one I've heard all day. But "Creator" and "Lifegiver" is a little too incense and candleshop, organic food co-oppish for my taste.

Can we call them something else?

Big L and C-Man?

Big L and C-Man?

Great, now when we make pictures of them in the stained glass, they can be holding beers and weed...

Best one I've heard all day. But "Creator" and "Lifegiver" is a little too incense and candleshop, organic food co-oppish for my taste.

Can we call them something else?

"Primordial Slime" and "evolutionary process" perhaps?

Big L and C-Man?

Sounds like a gay porno duo.

Best one I've heard all day. But "Creator" and "Lifegiver" is a little too incense and candleshop, organic food co-oppish for my taste.

Can we call them something else?

Dick and Jane!

See Dick. See Dick create. Create, Dick, create!

See Jane. See Jane complicate. Complicate, Jane, complicate!

[ While(UniverseNotDead) ]
See Dick. See Dick react. React, Dick, react!

See Jane. See Jane react. React, Jane, react!
[ WEnd ]

Great, now when we make pictures of them in the stained glass, they can be holding beers and weed...

Sounds like a gay porno duo.


Dick and Jane!

See Dick. See Dick create. Create, Dick, create!

See Jane. See Jane complicate. Complicate, Jane, complicate!

[ While(UniverseNotDead) ]
See Dick. See Dick react. React, Dick, react!

See Jane. See Jane react. React, Jane, react!
[ WEnd ]

XD *Can't breath....too much laughter....sides hurt*


"See Dick burn Sodom. See Jane quite enjoy her visit to Gomorrah"
XDD *OH the pain*

Dick and Jane!

See Dick. See Dick create. Create, Dick, create!

See Jane. See Jane complicate. Complicate, Jane, complicate!

[ While(UniverseNotDead) ]
See Dick. See Dick react. React, Dick, react!

See Jane. See Jane react. React, Jane, react!
[ WEnd ]

"See Dick burn Sodom. See Jane quite enjoy her visit to Gomorrah"

"See Dick burn Sodom. See Jane quite enjoy her visit to Gomorrah"

Say, did you know that Bethlehem was built atop the ruins of that city? There's even a song about it!
The Son'll come out... Gomorrah! You can bet your bottom dollar...

"Primordial Slime" and "evolutionary process" perhaps?

The first one lacks that celestial splendor, and the second one will be hard to rhyme in the hymnbook...

I was going to enter this thread to take issue with the original poster's "reasoning", but I went through a few pages and he'd already been blasted like a soupcracker on Bikini Island...

Big L and C-Man?

I do see the Creator as an angry man. I imagine the Lifegiver as a snotty hot babe with huge knockers.

[Downs another beer] Knockerrrrsss...

Le Grand Snip

Then according to your argument there can be no such thing as a theist either, and we all have to admit we don't know.

Unless you're going to either
1. Claim you know everything, or
2. Argue that we must believe in anything we can't prove incorrect. And by your demands of proving something incorrect(ie having all the knowledge in the universe) we can't do that to anything.

I give your argument a resounding 'meh.' 3/10 for effort.

Say, did you know that Bethlehem was built atop the ruins of that city? There's even a song about it!
The Son'll come out... Gomorrah! You can bet your bottom dollar...

I absolutely love that pun, on so many levels. If you were female, i'd propose marriage. I'm assuming you are male and i'm hetero, so i'll stop short of proposing civil partnership.

If you ever read Grant Morrissons "The Invisibles", he did a riff on the Marquis De Sade's "100 days of Sodom" called "100 days of Sod-All"

I do see the Creator as an angry man. I imagine the Lifegiver as a snotty hot babe with huge knockers.

[Downs another beer] Knockerrrrsss...

Seconded. Let's vote on ratification.

Something to relate to, something to worship. Everything we need in religion.

So, I guess I'm not an atheist. I pray to a snotty hot babe with huge knockers to be delivered from an angry man.

The first one lacks that celestial splendor, and the second one will be hard to rhyme in the hymnbook...

I was going to enter this thread to take issue with the original poster's "reasoning", but I went through a few pages and he'd already been blasted like a soupcracker on Bikini Island...

"all things bright and beautiful
all creatures great and small
they all evolved from the primordial slime
over the growing passage of time"

done!

all anti-atheist logic gets blasted. Religion is illogical. Doesn't necessarily mean it's untrue (although personally i believe with every iota of my "god, i wish there was eternal life but there isn't so i'm going to cease to exist in 40+ years" body that it is untrue) but it does mean that you can't really use logic to argue pro or con religion.

Now, internal inconstistency, on the other hand....

Where exactly did those women that Adam and Eve's third son Seth married come from?

Seconded. Let's vote on ratification.

Something to relate to, something to worship. Everything we need in religion.

So, I guess I'm not an atheist. I pray to a snotty hot babe with huge knockers to be delivered from an angry man.

If god had huge knockers, surely lower back pain wouldn't exist in similarly blessed females?

If god had huge knockers, surely lower back pain wouldn't exist in similarly blessed females?

Well, heavenly bras? maybe she wouldn't know....or perhaps C-Man meddled with her human designs.

Where exactly did those women that Adam and Eve's third son Seth married come from?

There's a book, "Adiel" by Shlomo DuNour, that gives a narrative of the first ten generations of man (pre-Flood) from the viewpoint of an angel who's supposed to witness it all.

There's a distasteful little part where Cain starts lusting after his mother with "the root" and urge of desire placed in him by God...

Strange, but I enjoy religious fiction, but not religion...

"all things bright and beautiful
all creatures great and small
they all evolved from the primordial slime
over the growing passage of time"


All Things Dull And Ugly - Monty Python

All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.
Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom,
He made their horrid wings.
All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.
Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid,
Who made the spikey urchin,
Who made the sharks, He did.
All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.
AMEN.

Seconded. Let's vote on ratification.

Something to relate to, something to worship. Everything we need in religion.

So, I guess I'm not an atheist. I pray to a snotty hot babe with huge knockers to be delivered from an angry man.

Hurrah!

Me: Oh Jane you hot babe with huge knockers, you were with me all the while! I exalt thee!

Jane: Shut up and get off the hill before Dick hits you with a lightning bolt!

[Crack!]

There's a book, "Adiel" by Shlomo DuNour, that gives a narrative of the first ten generations of man (pre-Flood) from the viewpoint of an angel who's supposed to witness it all.

There's a distasteful little part where Cain starts lusting after his mother with "the root" and urge of desire placed in him by God...

Strange, but I enjoy religious fiction, but not religion...

Oh yeah, and i like religious history as well.

A book i would recommend on so many levels is "Q" by Luther Blissett (for any british people of a certain age still awake, it's not really by Luther Blissett, ex Watford and AC Milan defender, but instead by a group of Italian anarchist professors who have taken his name as an act of defiance of...something or other). Imagine a history of the Reformation, told from the bottom up, the whole thing, from the theses on the door at Wurttemburg to Calvin, to the Counter Reformation, told in the language and experiences of the shit upon, constantly striving for more footsoldiers of the movement. To say i was mildly obsessed by this book for about a year is to understate the case somewhat (basically, over a year, i read this and "days of rice and salt" by Kim Stanley Robinson about seven times each...the last time i had such a visceral "must return and re-experience" reaction to a book was probably 15 years ago, as i just left my teens)

Hurrah!

Me: Oh Jane you hot babe with huge knockers, you were with me all the while! I exalt thee!

Jane: Shut up and get off the hill before Dick hits you with a lightning bolt!

[Crack!]

Personally, i think God is female...

and has PMS.

Personally, i think God is female...

and has PMS.

Constantly.

Constantly.


Which explains why the menstrual cycle was viewed with so much hatred for so much of humanities past.


When the women bled as part of their cycle, they broke the image of their one true Goddess, who never bled, but was always about to.

Personally, i think God is female...

and has PMS.

And, yea, the faithful gathered, and brought offerings of chocolate, and midol, both namebrand and generic...

If god had huge knockers, surely lower back pain wouldn't exist in similarly blessed females?

Conversation continues...

Jane: I just invented huge knockers, a hyperbolic extension of human male desires. Now I will have more human babies to ruin your predictable Universe! Hah hah!

Dick:...which "predictably" leads to lower back pain! And just to remind you who's boss I'll turn you into a babe with huge knockers! Take that you miserable wench!

[Crack!]

Jane: Owww, my back. None for you tonight, Dick!

Dick: Yikes.

[Me downs another beer]

Case closed, thread to be moved to spam.
Ah, if only it were that easy.

Ah, if only it were that easy.

Eh, we got some good debate out of it, not to mention our new religion.

And, yea, the faithful gathered, and brought offerings of chocolate, and midol, both namebrand and generic...

And lo, god did say "can you quit making so much noise, i've got a headache" and lo, god did demand that Adam doth leave the garden whilst she watched "Sex and the City" and ate chocolate.

And lo, Adam was wroth, and did invent sports.

I absolutely love that pun, on so many levels. If you were female, i'd propose marriage. I'm assuming you are male and i'm hetero, so i'll stop short of proposing civil partnership.

If you ever read Grant Morrissons "The Invisibles", he did a riff on the Marquis De Sade's "100 days of Sodom" called "100 days of Sod-All"
You're assuming you're hetero? Just checking. :D

(That's what I get for being an English teacher--I make grammar jokes.)

You're assuming you're hetero? Just checking. :D

(That's what I get for being an English teacher--I make grammar jokes.)

I assume i'm hetero.

And there's no one quite like Grammar, as the Saint Winifreds School Choir sung in the UK charts in the late 70s.

But i'd never teach my Grammar to suck eggs ;)

And lo, god did say "can you quit making so much noise, i've got a headache" and lo, god did demand that Adam doth leave the garden whilst she watched "Sex and the City" and ate chocolate.

And lo, Adam was wroth, and did invent sports.

Okay...we need apostles, or high preists or something......4 of them maybe, two guys and two gals, two for Dick, two for Jane. and they start writing our holy scriptures.

I assume i'm hetero.

And there's no one quite like Grammar, as the Saint Winifreds School Choir sung in the UK charts in the late 70s.

But i'd never teach my Grammar to suck eggs ;)
Ooooh, and you pun too. :D

Also, our official political party http://www.gunsanddope.com/ (Thank you to LG, for the link to the picture on this domain) FOR THE OSCTRICHES, THE HOLY ANIMAL!



Aaaaanyhoo. there's sleeping to be done, so I must take my leave...Zzzzzz....

God: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me!"
Believer: "Yes, Lord!"
Thinker: "Until now, I did not know there were other gods."

1. Belief is the result of the psychological desire that something be true, compensating for the fear that it may not be. The greater the necessity for compensation, the more fanatic the belief.
2. The more fanatic the belief, the more hostile the individual becomes towards those who do not believe or believe otherwise.
3. The whole of theistic religion is a belief-system (1) born of the fear of the unknown, and (2) is participated in, and promoted by, the individual equal to the degree of their personal fears.
4. Theistic religion is a tool of mental slavery used on those who are held captive by their fears, by those who seek absolute power and control through the submission of the fearful.
5. Every theistic deity is a myth that is created and used to establish, promote, and glorify the weakness, powerlessness, and fear of the fearful.
6. The greater the personal fear, combined with the perception of personal weakness and powerlessness, the greater the propensity to act out in retaliation to those who do not fear and do not feel powerless.
7. Theistic beliefs become irrelevant and without merit in accordance to the degree of the dissipation of the fear of death, the hallmark of what is unknown.


Very nice ! I'm tempted to send this out during the Christmas holidays to everyone that sends me a religious card.

Okay...we need apostles, or high preists or something......4 of them maybe, two guys and two gals, two for Dick, two for Jane. and they start writing our holy scriptures.

The apostles Trevor, Mike, Sandra and Sharon.

Hymns written by Fiddy Cent.

surplices designed by Jean Paul Gaultier.

"thought for the day" delivered by the reverend Marshall "eminem" mathers.

atheism

n 1: the doctrine or belief that there is no God [syn: godlessness] [ant: theism]
2: a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

Case closed, thread to be moved to spam.

Atheists like using this definition a lot, but to believe in something because you think it's false, is a contradiction. Belief in the absence of something, is still a belief regardless of how you want to twist it. So from a philosophical standpoint, atheists are not off the hook. The case is not closed.

What the heck are you talking about?

I'm far too high on hashish to quote anything directly, so I'm just going to jump about addressing things at random before proceding to go on a tangent.

We are all ignorant, whether we realize/admit it or not, as to whether or not there is a "God(s)" (though of course what properties and characteristics this being(s), if it exists, has is anyone's guess); but I can say with supreme confidence that the God of the Abrahamic religions is entirely false considering that the evolution of the belief can be, and has been, easily charted. Mixed with the numerous inconsistencies between what the bible teaches and observable reality (now usually explained away with claims of metaphors or attempts at bastardized science), the inconsistencies within the holy texts, and the general absurdity of an anthropomorphic deity it can be safely said that anyone who presently believes in such a God, or any of the gods of the pagan religions and anything similar, is doing so for reasons entirely unconnected to reason. However, this should not lead to the conclusion that the belief is always held out of fear or desire for power; the dominant motivation for believers (and the founding) of Christianity and Islam seems to be resentment of the material world leading to a hope for a better other world (in which infinite pleasure will compensate for the finite amount of pain they feel for interpreting this world negatively).

A desire to understand the world was of course a central motivation to the founding of religion and its dominance before the ascension of science and materialism. Which is where we stand today, though there are some (ranging from obnoxious Christians to "cute" new agers) who try to bring back and cling the conception of a universe and causes outside of the appearent one, with a fierce belief that science built on a foundation that stemmed from a thiestic worldview can lend us understanding of the universal and bring us to the absolute objective truth that religion attempted to provide before. Though science has obvious advantages over religion in that the increased knowledge of the world gives us an increased ability to make predicitions and exercise power over it and does need to lead to a disdain for this life; lets not hold any delusions that we are truly moving closer to any realization of truth since the reality of evolution, and the corresponding fact that we were not created (before it was believe that since God was truthful and benevolent that he provided humans with the ability to understand the truth since if he didn't he would be a deceiver), undermines sciences assumption that the human mind is capable of truly understanding reality. Following the theory of evolution (denying this theory would be as absurd as denying atomic theory) it can be concluded that we, like all animals, possess senses great enough to allow us to survive (or which benefited our ancestors) and enough intelligence to make sense of the material world and allow our ancestors to be prolific; all of the facets of the human mind and intellect that lead to abstract, spiritual, philosophic thought or high technology is incidental and the result of pecularities of our brain. There is no reason to believe that the corner we peer from is more priveleged than that of dogs or turtles any further than our mastery of the observable world indicates it. The reality of science being used in the same way as religion can be seen in one poster's comment of dark matter existing not because of evidence but because it is necessary to understand the universe, followed by the comment that God is no longer necessary; the need to understand the universe led us to postulate God and now is leading us to postulate dark matter and similar things.

But without God (or at least a God interested in human affairs), and the associated objective values, "truth" is no longer to inherently important. The unattainability of absolute truth causes it to be irrelevent. Scientific truth, its approximation of "objective" reality, is valuable so far as the capabilities granted by this knowledge is judged valuable (without a supreme judge we are all free to judge). It no longer matters who believes the closest approximation of truth or who believes foolish superstition, but only the effects of the beliefs. If someone's beliefs are different from yours that matters only so far as their beliefs, or rather the actions stemming from those beliefs, affect you; leaving all arguments over these things as nothing more than ways to practice debate skills and/or excuses to go off on drug fueled rants that never seem to have a clear point.

I'm far too high on hashish to quote anything directly, so I'm just going to jump about addressing things at random before proceding to go on a tangent.

We are all ignorant, whether we realize/admit it or not, as to whether or not there is a "God(s)" (though of course what properties and characteristics this being(s), if it exists, has is anyone's guess); but I can say with supreme confidence that the God of the Abrahamic religions is entirely false considering that the evolution of the belief can be, and has been, easily charted. Mixed with the numerous inconsistencies between what the bible teaches and observable reality (now usually explained away with claims of metaphors or attempts at bastardized science), the inconsistencies within the holy texts, and the general absurdity of an anthropomorphic deity it can be safely said that anyone who presently believes in such a God, or any of the gods of the pagan religions and anything similar, is doing so for reasons entirely unconnected to reason. However, this should not lead to the conclusion that the belief is always held out of fear or desire for power; the dominant motivation for believers (and the founding) of Christianity and Islam seems to be resentment of the material world leading to a hope for a better other world (in which infinite pleasure will compensate for the finite amount of pain they feel for interpreting this world negatively).

A desire to understand the world was of course a central motivation to the founding of religion and its dominance before the ascension of science and materialism. Which is where we stand today, though there are some (ranging from obnoxious Christians to "cute" new agers) who try to bring back and cling the conception of a universe and causes outside of the appearent one, with a fierce belief that science built on a foundation that stemmed from a thiestic worldview can lend us understanding of the universal and bring us to the absolute objective truth that religion attempted to provide before. Though science has obvious advantages over religion in that the increased knowledge of the world gives us an increased ability to make predicitions and exercise power over it and does need to lead to a disdain for this life; lets not hold any delusions that we are truly moving closer to any realization of truth since the reality of evolution, and the corresponding fact that we were not created (before it was believe that since God was truthful and benevolent that he provided humans with the ability to understand the truth since if he didn't he would be a deceiver), undermines sciences assumption that the human mind is capable of truly understanding reality. Following the theory of evolution (denying this theory would be as absurd as denying atomic theory) it can be concluded that we, like all animals, possess senses great enough to allow us to survive (or which benefited our ancestors) and enough intelligence to make sense of the material world and allow our ancestors to be prolific; all of the facets of the human mind and intellect that lead to abstract, spiritual, philosophic thought or high technology is incidental and the result of pecularities of our brain. There is no reason to believe that the corner we peer from is more priveleged than that of dogs or turtles any further than our mastery of the observable world indicates it. The reality of science being used in the same way as religion can be seen in one poster's comment of dark matter existing not because of evidence but because it is necessary to understand the universe, followed by the comment that God is no longer necessary; the need to understand the universe led us to postulate God and now is leading us to postulate dark matter and similar things.

But without God (or at least a God interested in human affairs), and the associated objective values, "truth" is no longer to inherently important. The unattainability of absolute truth causes it to be irrelevent. Scientific truth, its approximation of "objective" reality, is valuable so far as the capabilities granted by this knowledge is judged valuable (without a supreme judge we are all free to judge). It no longer matters who believes the closest approximation of truth or who believes foolish superstition, but only the effects of the beliefs. If someone's beliefs are different from yours that matters only so far as their beliefs, or rather the actions stemming from those beliefs, affect you; leaving all arguments over these things as nothing more than ways to practice debate skills and/or excuses to go off on drug fueled rants that never seem to have a clear point.


Yeah, but you didn't answer the really groovy questions like...

was Jesus ginger?

What the heck are you talking about?
If you're talking about the post directly above yours, I'd like to know as well. I've seen some pretty effed up attempts at explanations before, but that's about as convoluted as they come.

Yeah, but you didn't answer the really groovy questions like...

was Jesus ginger?


No.


He was an ostrich.

If you're talking about the post directly above yours, I'd like to know as well. I've seen some pretty effed up attempts at explanations before, but that's about as convoluted as they come.

If you guys are talking about what Arbisea said, I'm with you. They either phrased some idea badly, or don't have a cogent premise to begin with.

Atheists like using this definition a lot, but to believe in something because you think it's false, is a contradiction. Belief in the absence of something, is still a belief regardless of how you want to twist it. So from a philosophical standpoint, atheists are not off the hook. The case is not closed.

You are confusing language and logic with reality. Your objection is meaningless.

No.


He was an ostrich.

*Mushroom

Atheists like using this definition a lot, but to believe in something because you think it's false, is a contradiction. Belief in the absence of something, is still a belief regardless of how you want to twist it. So from a philosophical standpoint, atheists are not off the hook. The case is not closed.

That is complete and utter nonsense, I hope you realize. Did you even read the definition? It did not say "Belief in the nonexistence of God or gods", it said "lack of belief in the existence of God or gods."

Belief in the nonexistence of God itself requires a degree of belief, because it is logically impossible to prove a negative. You refer to this. The degree of that belief can be very small, if the person involved accepts a large body of evidence supporting that hypothesis, but an honest atheist either must take that last step on faith or admit that it is no more 'provable' than such unsteady theses as the law of gravity.

The 'case closed' definition you don't want to acknowledge is the definition involving lack of belief. Anyone with no opinion on the matter, who doesn't care at all about it and doesn't want to waste any brain cells thinking about it, meets that definition - as, for that matter, does anything incapable of belief. Every computer on the planet is an atheist by that definition, because its belief status is null. Null is not 'I believe it is" or "I believe it isn't". "I have no opinion" is a valid position.

Religious types tend to hate the null-belief position most of all or deny that it's even possible, because it's the most thorough negation of their goals: if no one thinks about a religion at all, then the question of belief becomes moot, and religion ultimately is all about belief. No questions about belief, no possibility of religion; therefore, religion has to keep the question alive even if only in negatory terms, while atheism would do just fine (if go unnoticed) if nobody ever thought about it. Religion is a viral meme that way.

Absentia, well said.

I was thinking more about Pascal's wager myself. That notion of using religion as "fire insurance" instead of thinking rationally. Many religious types ar afraid to question for fear of hellfire and brimstone.

Absentia, well said.

I was thinking more about Pascal's wager myself. That notion of using religion as "fire insurance" instead of thinking rationally. Many religious types ar afraid to question for fear of hellfire and brimstone.

I always thought Pascals wager was a bit of a pussy way out. I much prefer Tolstoys response when they tried to bring in a Russian Orthodox priest to his death bed:-

"no. Even in the valley of the shadow of death, two and two do not equal five"

I always thought Pascals wager was a bit of a pussy way out. I much prefer Tolstoys response when they tried to bring in a Russian Orthodox priest to his death bed:-

"no. Even in the valley of the shadow of death, two and two do not equal five"
I agree. I figure if I'm wrong, so be it and I burn. I'd rather burn than worship the kind of god who would do that to people anyway.

I agree. I figure if I'm wrong, so be it and I burn. I'd rather burn than worship the kind of god who would do that to people anyway.

Quite.

Although i also liked Voltaires response on his deathbed. The priest said "messir Voltaire, do you now renounce the devil and all his works?" and he replied "father, i think now is no time for me to be making enemies"

:)

I prefer this one:

"Better to be a ruler of hell than a servant of heaven."

Or even this one: "Question boldly even the existence of a God, for if thou art wrong, he shall surely approve more of reason over blindfold fear." ---Thomas Jefferson