NationStates Jolt Archive

Every example you give from black holes to big bang to quantum theory are things or theories that can tested through observation, re-tested, tweaked, rejected then modified, re-tweaked, tested, re-tested and so on forever. We can continually make progress on these things because they are directly or indirectly observable.(this is my last post before my battery dies)
Right there you are demonstrating what i am saying about faith in other things. We actually cannot test for the validity of black holes, quantam theory, or any of that. (I've read enough books on this matter that trust me, this is the case). We simply cannot observe in such a way that adds more credence to these ideas. M point is that we believe in these ideas with no more valid evidence than there is for God, yet belief in God is deemed more irrational. You believe that black holes and stuff are true, and therefore must be evidenced more than God, which is not true, but this is not the case. You have formed your beliefs and then tried to verify. Case in point.

Present your evidence for God, then.

No, not Pascal's Wager again, I already refuted that.
What you going to try? The Ontological argument? The argument from design?

You misunderstood what i was refering to/meant by evidence for everything. Sorry i don't have time to clarify

NO

The leap of faith is to believe that an all powerful being exists and is the great creator. There is no leap of faith to not make a leap of faith. That assertion is positively absurd.

It's not faith, but hope. If there is a God, ( and I believe there is ) then there would be consequences for your actions, and we know most of you don't want that. :eek:

Language is shaped by culture - the greeks believed in gods so the words we have inherited reflect this. Such semantic arguments are not evidence of anything other than the history of language.

You are missing the whole philosophical context behind the words. The words symbolize the concepts, the concepts don't symbolize the words. You need the words to frame the arguments and without the words and what they symbolize, there is no argument. You cannot conceive of the non-existence of deity without first conceiving of the existence of deity.

No, no it is an inncorrect label to call faith in a deity a leap of faith as opposed to anything else. Indeed, we believe in many things that we can't prove, black holes for instance. The Big Bang theory, Evolution. We believe in the various theories describing how social masses work. Different political theories and their validity on life.
We believe in things we don't understand. the stock market. The theory of relativity. Quantom theory. I could go on, but i don't feel we need to. Whats more, we believe in these things even though most of them are not observable through our senses. (big bang, black holes)
In fact, most thngs we believe in are unable to be proven. If you grew up in an enclosed society void of any environmental influence, you would be far behind where our present society is, because you base most things on faith, no less than a leap than of a god.
There is evidence for all of it, adding credence to a theory, but same with god. Filtering through a certain mindset does not mean the evidence is wrong (see logical fallacies), so faith in god is no different than other faith in lifes things

I find the fact that people will kill and die for their religious belief system to be a difference. I find the fact that scientific ideas converge over time and religious ideas diverge over time to be a difference. I find the level of power and/or profitability by the promoters of religious ideas to be starkly contrasting to scientific ideas. I find that the tendency to fall back to a position dictated by authority to be characteristic of religious ideas not generally of scientific ideas.

The fact is belief in god is rooted in people's capacity for fantasy/magical thinking. Scientific ideas ultimately are rooted in careful analysis.

Another way to put it. Scientific ideas and philosophical ideas are designed to bear scrutiny. Religious ideas do not bear scrutiny well and ultimately a religious person has to resort to some version of "my minister told me so" or "the bible tells us so" or "I know it in my heart" or some other cop out.

Fail. The possible consequences of who is right or wrong has nothing to do with the truth value of the statements. Rationality is all about the truth value, not possible consequences if you are wrong.

Furthermore, how do you know that there isn't a God who, for whatever reason, rewards unbelievers (maybe he's really modest)? It's just as likely as one who rewards believers.

Or say there's some third God, whose attitude is "if you're not against me, then you're with me." He therefore rewards all believers in his faith, and all unbelievers, but punishes believers in all other faiths.

Basically, there are so many possibilities for Gods and reward/punishment schemes that no one belief comes out ahead.

Please, use a brain cell or two for your next argument.

Pure rubbish. not only are your variables highly unlikely, but the fact that you have to insult someone, to punctuate a weak argument, makes me think that the lack of brain cell usage, is a trait exclusively your own. ;)

It's not faith, but hope. If there is a God, ( and I believe there is ) then there would be consequences for your actions, and we know most of you don't want that. :eek:

If there is an afterlife and God judges me for my actions on Earth, I will stand on the record of my life as presented. If God sends me to "hell" for it, he's a sick, evil tyrant and I do want to be in the one place where he is not. Meanwhile, you can spend the rest of eternity worshiping this psychopathic deity.

Your god and the implications of your religion do not scare me.

Teacup Syndrome.

Sam Harris (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3YOIImOoYM)

I find the fact that people will kill and die for their religious belief system to be a difference. I find the fact that scientific ideas converge over time and religious ideas diverge over time to be a difference. I find the level of power and/or profitability by the promoters of religious ideas to be starkly contrasting to scientific ideas. I find that the tendency to fall back to a position dictated by authority to be characteristic of religious ideas not generally of scientific ideas.

The fact is belief in god is rooted in people's capacity for fantasy/magical thinking. Scientific ideas ultimately are rooted in careful analysis.

Another way to put it. Scientific ideas and philosophical ideas are designed to bear scrutiny. Religious ideas do not bear scrutiny well and ultimately a religious person has to resort to some version of "my minister told me so" or "the bible tells us so" or "I know it in my heart" or some other cop out.

So only religeous people kill? Amazing. Then why is it serial killers find Jesus after they go to jail? and through what research did you find all these facts? because it seems to me that I'm hearing a parrot reading a teleprompter, versus the voice of experience.

What difference am I missing here?
The same difference you'd be missing if you believed that the proposition "all dogs are animals' is materially equivalent in meaning to the proposition "all animals are dogs".
Unless I am mistaken you are assuming that because Xs are Ys, all Ys are Xs. As you should be able to deduce from the real-world counter-example above, this is an invalid deduction.

Atheist doesnt mean 'disbelief in X' it refers rather to absence of belief. One can have beliefs of absence in addition to an absence of some belief or other. You are reckoning as though all atheists have beliefs in absence (of deities, etc). You are assuming all atheists share beliefs that characterize only a subset of the group. This is logically equivalent to assuming that because you know all dogs are animals, all animals must then be dogs.

Agnosticism stems from a belief that if there is some greater power it is not knowable to human reckoning. A strict interpretation then means an agnostic is theistic. In fact many who identify with agnosticism now take seem to be applying a looser definition whereby one concedes that there could be a higher power or not, but that it's existence or not and its nature are unknowable to human reckoning. I lack such beliefs so do not consider myself agnostic.

If there is an afterlife and God judges me for my actions on Earth, I will stand on the record of my life as presented. If God sends me to "hell" for it, he's a sick, evil tyrant and I do want to be in the one place where he is not. Meanwhile, you can spend the rest of eternity worshiping this psychopathic deity.

Your god and the implications of your religion do not scare me.

Of course he doesn't. That's why you spend so much time reminding us:p:p he doesn't exist. It's funny...this reminds me of this one kid I knew, who would always say he wasn't afraid of the boogie man. Yet when it got dark, and he was alone he was scared shitless.:p

I think that not believing in magical creatures is the default position any rational mind would take. To stray from that would be where you take the initial "leap of faith."

This seems so obvious to me, I really can't see how you could argue against it. Did anyone have to make a leap of faith when they found out Santa wasn't real? Did that cause a meltdown of your reality?

Shouldn't a sane person's initial position be based in visible reality and not some crazy stories about fantastic heroes and angry gods?

:rolleyes: That's a stupid argument if I ever heard one. Because if that's the case, then that would mean if you said you love someone, it would be a lie because I couldn't visibly see it.

That whole "no other god before me" and "no graven images" thing seems to contradict that.

Not really, God goes by many names. Most likely because of the dialect, and region of his followers. not everyone says god, but the translation comes out to be the equivalent. Now wearing a crucifix, believing in the trinity, that's different.

It's not faith, but hope. If there is a God, ( and I believe there is ) then there would be consequences for your actions, and we know most of you don't want that. :eek:

You're going to be pretty bummed if the Norse were right.

Doesn't make them right, though.

Not really, God goes by many names. Most likely because of the dialect, and region of his followers. not everyone says god, but the translation comes out to be the equivalent. Now wearing a crucifix, believing in the trinity, that's different.

What a load.

How does that nonsense fit in with Hinduism or Shintoism? Or Wiccans? Or Norse, Classical Greek, or Roman, or...

the difference between not believing in god and believing there is not god is far more important to you than it is to me.

having no evidence of something IS evidence that it doesnt exist. especially if all possible tests have been done to test for its existence. that it is not ulitmate "proof" is no more important to me than that there is no ultimate "proof" for evolution.

By all means, please enlighten me. What tests did they perform to validate, or disprove the existence of God :confused:

What a load.

How does that nonsense fit in with Hinduism or Shintoism? Or Wiccans? Or Norse, Classical Greek, or Roman, or...

Nonsense?? lol Look who's talking. You just pull these names out of your ass, when the question clearly answers itself. If you want to tap dance, try out for America's got talent. :p

Nonsense?? lol Look who's talking. You just pull these names out of your ass, when the question clearly answers itself. If you want to tap dance, try out for America's got talent. :p

Fail.

You're going to be pretty bummed if the Norse were right.

Doesn't make them right, though.

That's highly unlikely, and laughable. Consider this, there are three major religions. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This is the only real trinity. All three are one. Once a couple of these religious extremists figure this out, they will be able to peel away all the differences, and get to the grass roots, that God sent messengers, on several occasions, not to divide us but to make sure his message was not lost.... unfortunately, there are people that believe as you do, and wish to demonize our faith at all cost. Why? At the end of the day what do you hope to accomplish? Contrary to popular belief, nothing will change in the way of death and destruction. All you will have done is, remove faith as one of your many petty excuses, as to why you aren't doing anything to make the world a better place yourself.


Once religion is stamped out, ( and I believe it will be,) you will find out how much of a disservice you truly did for yourself. I come from a pretty rough neighborhood, and believe it or not, belief in god is probably the only thing keeping the young people from going over the edge. Why? because that's all most black people have, that until now, we thought no one would take from us. And amazingly enough, even some of those, don't value human life. Imagine what you will have to look forward to, when the people that hang on to faith to maintain sanity, because they don't want to believe they suffer for nothing find out that's just what it is...FOR NOTHING. I'll bet you'll be happier than a punk on dick street huh. Your Life will have no value in their eyes, because there's no higher power to answer to.

Be careful what you wish for.:(

That's highly unlikely, and laughable. Consider this, there are three major religions. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This is the only real trinity. All three are one. Once a couple of these religious extremists figure this out, they will be able to peel away all the differences, and get to the grass roots, that God sent messengers, on several occasions, not to divide us but to make sure his message was not lost.... unfortunately, there are people that believe as you do, and wish to demonize our faith at all cost. Why? At the end of the day what do you hope to accomplish? Contrary to popular belief, nothing will change in the way of death and destruction. All you will have done is, remove faith as one of your many petty excuses, as to why you aren't doing anything to make the world a better place yourself.


Once religion is stamped out, ( and I believe it will be,) you will find out how much of a disservice you truly did for yourself. I come from a pretty rough neighborhood, and believe it or not, belief in god is probably the only thing keeping the young people from going over the edge. Why? because that's all most black people have, that until now, we thought no one would take from us. And amazingly enough, even some of those, don't value human life. Imagine what you will have to look forward to, when the people that hang on to faith to maintain sanity, because they don't want to believe they suffer for nothing find out that's just what it is...FOR NOTHING. I'll bet you'll be happier than a punk on dick street huh. Your Life will have no value in their eyes, because there's no higher power to answer to.

Be careful what you wish for.:(

About 837 million Hindus (http://www.religioustolerance.org/hinduism.htm) would like to take issue with you.

And this doesn't even get into the fact that Thor is no more or less unlikely than your Abrahamic god.

Once religion is stamped out, ( and I believe it will be,) you will find out how much of a disservice you truly did for yourself. I come from a pretty rough neighborhood, and believe it or not, belief in god is probably the only thing keeping the young people from going over the edge. Why? because that's all most black people have, that until now, we thought no one would take from us. And amazingly enough, even some of those, don't value human life. Imagine what you will have to look forward to, when the people that hang on to faith to maintain sanity, because they don't want to believe they suffer for nothing find out that's just what it is...FOR NOTHING. I'll bet you'll be happier than a punk on dick street huh. Your Life will have no value in their eyes, because there's no higher power to answer to.

Be careful what you wish for.:(
I find that absolutely odd. I agree many who believe in some god or other lack respect for human life and note that many who lack such beliefs do not lack respect for human life.

What I find most odd is that somehow it would be less obvious to someone that they must act to better their lot and the lot of others if they know that any suffering they fail to prevent is for nothing. No victim-hood will end, no suffering will serve any purpose, no vindication will occur, no good will come of anything, unless people all do their bit to make good. Seems rather more compelling reason to act for the betterment of oneself and others than a belief that some deity or other is keeping tabs, has a plan, will vindicate suffering, avenge wrongs, and see all comes out right in the wash, no matter what any individual chooses to do.

I'm NOT going through 15 pages and issuing individual responses as that would constitute a flood and I'm fairly sure the Mods would be unhappy.

So, from all that I have gathered:

'Weak' Atheists are those who claim that due to lack of evidence to the contrary, they do not have a belief in (a) god(s). However, they hold the option open for reevaluation. This does seem to force them more into the Agnostic camp of "I'm not sure", but with tendencies towards no.

'Strong' Atheists are indeed making a 'leap of faith' or expressing a belief (Whichever wording offends you the least) when/if they make a concreate statement about the non-existence of god(s) (I.e. God(s) do/does not exist, period, end of statement).

Agnosticism is the only defensible position. It requires no faith or belief of any kind, only the ability to shrug one's shoulders.

This is why all the best people are agnostics, including myself and most scientists.;)

I'm NOT going through 15 pages and issuing individual responses as that would constitute a flood and I'm fairly sure the Mods would be unhappy.

So, from all that I have gathered:

'Weak' Atheists are those who claim that due to lack of evidence to the contrary, they do not have a belief in (a) god(s). However, they hold the option open for reevaluation. This does seem to force them more into the Agnostic camp of "I'm not sure", but with tendencies towards no.

'Strong' Atheists are indeed making a 'leap of faith' or expressing a belief (Whichever wording offends you the least) when/if they make a concreate statement about the non-existence of god(s) (I.e. God(s) do/does not exist, period, end of statement).
It seems to me that the crux of the issue really revolves around your initial insistence on a very strict definition of atheism that excludes many atheists, and a current very loose definition of agnosticism that includes many who strictly speaking are not agnostic.
Agnostic refers to a belief that theistic truths are not obtainable to human reckoning. An atheist who considers it possible that some human somewhere at some time could potentially know some theistic truth is not agnostic, nor are they necessarily someone who believes that there is no theistic truth to be uncovered. They are an atheist, and do not have this belief in absence that you find unreasoning, but they are not agnostic either.

Agnosticism is the only defensible position. It requires no faith or belief of any kind, only the ability to shrug one's shoulders.

I think you'll find that any position is defensible, its just that some positions are more difficult to defend than others.
In response the the topic of this thread, what I believe is that there is no more point considering a god than any of the other infinite possibilities that we have no proof against. In this way we athiests arent making the same leap of faith that the religious are. (I know not all religious people don't believe in god, so dont call me out on that one).

It seems to me that the crux of the issue really revolves around your initial insistence on a very strict definition of atheism that excludes many atheists, and a current very loose definition of agnosticism that includes many who strictly speaking are not agnostic.
Agnostic refers to a belief that theistic truths are not obtainable to human reckoning. An atheist who considers it possible that some human somewhere at some time could potentially know some theistic truth is not agnostic, nor are they necessarily someone who believes that there is no theistic truth to be uncovered. They are an atheist, and do not have this belief in absence that you find unreasoning, but they are not agnostic either.
Sorry, but the agnostics in this thread have disagreed with you about your definition of their position.

As for the second part, no one has yet to actually show making a concrete statement like above, is somehow reasoning. Everyone has talked around the issue, and tossed up a lot of dust on the issue, but never actually addressed said issue.

Except to pretty much confirm it.

But my point is that trying to figure out if somebody loves you is precisely NOT based on faith.
Through experience, we see the sorts of ways that people behave towards loved ones. We then compare the way that a given person is acting towards us, and determine whether or not they love us. We do this all subconsciously, barely even realizing it, but we do it nonetheless!

Now, yes, we all do act on some degree of irrationality in our lives. I'm not contending that we don't. I do think that rationality is better (in the sense of finding out truth) than irrationality, but that irrationality has its uses as a shortcut, so to speak. We often don't have time to rationalize and think everything out. But if you do have time to think and reflect about your beliefs, I assert that rationalism is far better than faith in finding things out.

But remember what the thread is about: it's asserting that atheism requires the same leap of faith as theism. I contend (as do others) that atheism does not require a comparable leap of faith.


Ahhhhh but then there is always the chance that the other could be lying by words and deeds. Hands up how many men out there when buying their wifes or girlfreinds flowers will be greeted with the words, 'what are you after' or 'what have you done'.

There is no objective evidance that you are loved, only subjective. And you are right we act in these ways automaticlay, uthinking, unrationaly, by default.

Nowhere in the OP's OP did I see the word complete, or comparable, and really the use of such words is nitpickick, by using them you confirm my arguement, you do belive there is an element of faith in being atheist.

I'm not really interested in degrees of faith or types of faith, it all detracts from the OP's original point.

love is an abstract concept, an emotion.

any time you see a person acting against their own best interest in their dealing with a loved one, you are seeing love.

same as when you see a person telling the truth when it is against their own best interest, you are seeing honesty.

same as when you see a man beating the crap out of another man who tried to pick up his girl, you are seeing jealousy.

Or what if the act is a falsehood. The man buying the girl gifts to get into her pants is surly an act of lust and entrirly in his best interest.

The husband that entraps the wife by false shows of love, so that he can get her home and beat her.

All of this does happen, all shows of love have a chance of being false, so when you act upon it as a truth you are placing your faith in that person.

as an abstract concept there can be differring definitions of love.

wanting to have sex with an attractive female is not evidence of love.

taking that female into your life, providing her with more than she needs to survive and breed, keeping her after that rush of conquest has passed, staying with her when she is sick and unlikely to provide sex, children or domestic chores, passing up "free" sex with other attractive females, all ARE evidence of love.

And can also be evidance of a dominating will, a person that likes to hold power over others.

Atheism does not require a leap of faith. For religion, belief is a strong component of worship. Atheism can be seen then to be a refusal to believe and thus worship even if God was proven to exist. Which as an athiest I do not think is possible.

Secondly, atheism does not require a leap of faith as the idea of God is logically contradictory (the omnipotence paradox, the omnibenevolence dilemma and the omniscience dilemma) which means (at least for we atheists) that asserting that God does exist is the same as believing in square circles which is just ridiculous.

You mean the Christian concept of God here surly? What about other concepts, what about the Hindu concept of God?

obligation doesnt do a good job. it does the minimum.


now that i have demonstrated that there is EVIDENCE of love even if you might dispute the evidence, it would be my contention that should god exist (who is after all NOT an abstract concept but an actual supposed being) there should be some evidence of GOD that can be discussed.

Heh but then the same can be said of the evidance of God that does exist, you will undoubtedly dispute it.

I realise it is not a "God vs No God" debate. What I am arguing is that a person does not believe that a square circle doesn't exist, they simply know its non-existetence to be true. This is the same for atheists, thus requiring no belief.

Ummm so because you can't concive of a square circle, you KNOW that such a thing does not exist, and so there is no question of belife? It is about knowldege then?

Yet when you claim such knowledge as truth without evidance, that is faith.

On a side note if I can show you a square circle then that proves your knowldge both false and shows it to be faith.

Regardless, there is no pay-off matrix that shows athiesm is better, since the merits of athiesm are faith exempt and can be achieved by people with faith as well. So, faith still remains the logical choice.
I just say this not to convince people to convert (this would be a dishonest, and probably ineffective way) but to combat the statement that FAITH is the irrational stance.

Faith is irrational, by the very defintion of the word.

I think that not believing in magical creatures is the default position any rational mind would take. To stray from that would be where you take the initial "leap of faith."

This seems so obvious to me, I really can't see how you could argue against it. Did anyone have to make a leap of faith when they found out Santa wasn't real? Did that cause a meltdown of your reality?

Shouldn't a sane person's initial position be based in visible reality and not some crazy stories about fantastic heroes and angry gods?

Shouldn't, couldn't, wouldn't.

Subjectivity all over the place, it may seem obvious to you, not to me though, so who's right you because you say so or me for the very same reason? Any objective facts to back your stance up?

And how is credulous irrationality a virtue? Why would one want faith? Suspension of disbelief is fine whilst enjoying fiction, but to shape your life around magical deities seems pretty irrational to me.

Again seems to you huh! Where do you get this idea, have you got the evidance that irratiinality is not a virtue, or that it is a bad way to live. I mean other than you highly subjective, irrational, belife that is?

It's not absolute, merely extremely likely. There's a >99.99% chance that earth has no dancing purple unicorns balanced on the back left hoof. There's a >99.99% chance the sun will rise tommorrow. There's a >99.99% chance that there's no christian god. We can't be 100% sure unless we somehow become omniscient, so we have to make that tiny "leap of faith".

State the source of the numbers you used in your statistical analysis, please.

What you actually meant to say is there is an indeterminate chance. You have no idea what the % is because you lack data.

Something above "I say so" or "I have this book and a guy with a fabulous hat that says so"...

If you witnessed something strange and wonderful yourself would the evidance of your own eyes be enough?

If you witnessed something strange and wonderful yourself would the evidance of your own eyes be enough?

To whom?

If you witnessed something strange and wonderful yourself would the evidance of your own eyes be enough?
I have witnessed many strange and wonderful things. I've never leaped to the conclusion that they must be the result of supernatural forces, or assumed that the phenomena I observed must be the work of a supernatural being.

Sorry, but the agnostics in this thread have disagreed with you about your definition of their position.
Nervun, I'm not really sure what you mean. The meaning of your words is a statement that every person in this thread who is agnostic has personally disagreed with me about my definition of their position. That's so obviously and absurdly untrue, I find it difficult to believe that's actually what you mean to say.

I do know that from the first page, people have pointed out the flaw in your apparent characterizing of all atheists as people who have the theistic belief 'there is no deity/higher power of any kind'.

Since whatever definition of agnosticism that is the 'one definition to rule them all', is absent from my highly respected Oxford dictionary, I can only speculate as to what the one true definition (as defined by the highly credible group of experts known as 'any NSGer who both self-identifies as agnostic and can be arsed posting as much in this one particular thread') is.

Perhaps it is your position (and therefore the one true definition to rule them all) that agnosticism entails acquiring the awe inspiring power to re-define words that pertain to beliefs of a theistic nature (or the lack thereof for that matter).

While all those silly unreasoning religious people insist that only they have true knowledge of a theistic kind, agnostics make the far more reasonable claim that only they have true knowledge of the meaning of words pertaining to beliefs of a theistic kind. While those 'leap of faith' religious types try to evangelize by proving the truth of their theistic beliefs, and those equally faith leaping atheists try to increase their numbers by disproving G/god/s, the non-leaping agnostics quietly increase their numbers by re-defining all words pertaining to theistic beliefs, even as we speak and/or type them. Crafty!



As for the second part, no one has yet to actually show making a concrete statement like above, is somehow reasoning.
Again, I'm confused about what you mean. Which statement is a concrete statement that cannot be shown to be reasoning, and how does the failure of anyone to prove it is somehow reasoning, demonstrate that we should re-define whatever words necessary to make your original argument right?

Everyone has talked around the issue, and tossed up a lot of dust on the issue, but never actually addressed said issue.

Except to pretty much confirm it.
Again, I'm not following you. Posters have pointed out that at least one aspect of your understanding of the position of all atheists, necessary to the truth of your argument, was in fact limited to only some atheists (so already your original argument was proved wrong).

Plenty of posters have pointed out how one can reason that there is no G/god/s. It is not as though deductive reasoning is the only kind of reasoning available, nor as though any form of reasoning that is non-deductive is what people usually mean and/or understood to be meant by 'leap of faith'.

Now if you get to redefine whatever word/phrase stands in the way of the truth of your argument, then without doubt, you can construe that you are right.....no matter what you argue. The point is by the time you finish redefining atheism, agnosticism, and the phrase 'leap of faith', your argument is not the same as it began. It started as 'atheists, and any other non-agnostics, make a leap of faith in their theistic beliefs', to 'those atheists who make a leap of faith in their theistic beliefs, make a leap in their theistic beliefs'. You're right by joves! How astute of you.

Agnosticism is the only defensible position. It requires no faith or belief of any kind, only the ability to shrug one's shoulders.

This is why all the best people are agnostics, including myself and most scientists.;)

That does seem to be the most logical choice a non theist can make. But meh who died and declared logic the king of thought?

To whom?

To your self?

I have witnessed many strange and wonderful things. I've never leaped to the conclusion that they must be the result of supernatural forces, or assumed that the phenomena I observed must be the work of a supernatural being.

Then you have found other reasons?

Then you have found other reasons?

Not necessarily. I can't speak for Bottle but if I see something amazing that I can't understand I don't jump to the conclusion that there are supernatural reasons for this. I simply recognise that I don't understand how they came about

*Shrug* if there is no evidence that you can point to that demonstrates god--and remember that with somethings like the big bang they are only best-guess-inferences based on observation--then there is no reason for me to suppose that he exists.

Not literally point to, no, but metaphorically point, yes. Looking 'literally' equates to looking in the wrong place. God is to be found in the metaphors of mythology.

Then you have found other reasons?
In some cases, yes.

The other cases are why I love my job! :D

In some cases, yes.

The other cases are why I love my job! :D

Ahhhhh then I wonder if you would agree that there may well be a brain chemicaly thing responsible for the differance in the ways in which theist and non theists think?

Speaking personaly, I don't know wether the above or the fact that I am dyslexic makes my brain work in such a way so that I can descern patterns easyer that a lot of people I know.

No nor I as a matter of course, but some things do not seem to have any other explanation than 'God did it' to me.

Do you assume you have all the information necessary to rule out any other explanation?

Not necessarily. I can't speak for Bottle but if I see something amazing that I can't understand I don't jump to the conclusion that there are supernatural reasons for this. I simply recognise that I don't understand how they came about

No nor I as a matter of course, but some things do not seem to have any other explanation than 'God did it' to me.

Ahhhhh then I wonder if you would agree that there may well be a brain chemicaly thing responsible for the differance in the ways in which theist and non theists think?

Given that theists may become atheist, and vice versa, I tend to think that it's not so simple.


Speaking personaly, I don't know wether the above or the fact that I am dyslexic makes my brain work in such a way so that I can descern patterns easyer that a lot of people I know.
The human brain is wired to find patterns. This is an amazingly useful trait, but it also can lead us to a lot of incorrect assumptions and mistaken conclusions. Our brains are particularly prone to mistaking correlation for causation.

No nor I as a matter of course, but some things do not seem to have any other explanation than 'God did it' to me.
Such as?

Do you assume you have all the information necessary to rule out any other explanation?

As posted several (10 or so) pages back I have for myself proved satifactory the existance of all sorts of things we label 'supernatural', admitedly I then took a leap of faith and logic, and assumed if X exists then so does God.

I'll not quibble that my thinking here was anything other than irrational, it certianly was, but I can live with that, it has done me no harm.

Given that theists may become atheist, and vice versa, I tend to think that it's not so simple.

Heh yeah nothing ever is that simple, but you do not rule it out as a factor? Escpecily given that we can produce change in the brain via meditation etc..


The human brain is wired to find patterns. This is an amazingly useful trait, but it also can lead us to a lot of incorrect assumptions and mistaken conclusions. Our brains are particularly prone to mistaking correlation for causation.

Yeah I belive I read that somewhere my self at some point. Which is I guess why I ask.

Such as?

Like I have just replyied to Dundee, check out my post about this 10 or so pages back.

Heh yeah nothing ever is that simple, but you do not rule it out as a factor? Escpecily given that we can produce change in the brain via meditation etc..

Well, this is the correlation-causation thing again.

Our thoughts and feelings about everything arise from neurochemical and neuroelectric activity in the brain. This includes thoughts and feelings about religion and faith.

If we find, for instance, that the brain of a very religious person has a different cocktail of neurotransmitters than the brain of a very non-religious person, how do we know what leads to what?

Were they neurochemically different to begin with, and that's what lead them down their different paths of thought?

Or did their differing religiosity lead to neurochemical changes in their brains?

The very, very, very, VERY simplistic answer to this (so far) is that it probably is a little of both.

Like I have just replyied to Dundee, check out my post about this 10 or so pages back.
I'm not finding anything.

Unless you mean when you were talking about love? I don't really see how that would work, though.

Naaa where I talk about being an ex pagan and magic etc...
So what would be an example of something you have experienced that you feel can only be explained by the exitance of God?

I'm not finding anything.

Unless you mean when you were talking about love? I don't really see how that would work, though.

Naaa where I talk about being an ex pagan and magic etc...

Naaa where I talk about being an ex pagan and magic etc...

Too many mushrooms.

Too many mushrooms.

Heh no not at all, I'm a recent convert to them.

Pure rubbish. not only are your variables highly unlikely, but the fact that you have to insult someone, to punctuate a weak argument, makes me think that the lack of brain cell usage, is a trait exclusively your own. ;)
Why are the hypothetical Gods I proposed any less likely than the Christian or Muslim God?
Answer: They aren't.
I was insulting because, honestly, Pascal's Wager is the sign of extreme foolishness, though I probably could have not let that come across.

I'm NOT going through 15 pages and issuing individual responses as that would constitute a flood and I'm fairly sure the Mods would be unhappy.

So, from all that I have gathered:

'Weak' Atheists are those who claim that due to lack of evidence to the contrary, they do not have a belief in (a) god(s). However, they hold the option open for reevaluation. This does seem to force them more into the Agnostic camp of "I'm not sure", but with tendencies towards no.

'Strong' Atheists are indeed making a 'leap of faith' or expressing a belief (Whichever wording offends you the least) when/if they make a concreate statement about the non-existence of god(s) (I.e. God(s) do/does not exist, period, end of statement).
Well, I've already stated that I don't like this binary definition of strong and weak atheism. It's not either-or, its a wide range of ideas.

Ahhhhh but then there is always the chance that the other could be lying by words and deeds. Hands up how many men out there when buying their wifes or girlfreinds flowers will be greeted with the words, 'what are you after' or 'what have you done'.

There is no objective evidance that you are loved, only subjective. And you are right we act in these ways automaticlay, uthinking, unrationaly, by default.

Sure there is evidence. It's just possible that, with the incomplete evidence you do have, you are wrong. Evidence != absolute proof.

Nowhere in the OP's OP did I see the word complete, or comparable, and really the use of such words is nitpickick, by using them you confirm my arguement, you do belive there is an element of faith in being atheist.

Nah, as an atheist, I just say "I find these specific Gods improbable, and see no evidence to believe in the rest." However, that's much more prone to change than faith, should new evidence arise. Even if faith can change, to a degree, it's much, much more resistant than rationality to change.

I'm not really interested in degrees of faith or types of faith, it all detracts from the OP's original point.

But you should be. There's no binary "Either you are a person of faith or a person of rationality." Ignoring the degrees oversimplifies the issue.

I think that not believing in magical creatures is the default position any rational mind would take. To stray from that would be where you take the initial "leap of faith."

This seems so obvious to me, I really can't see how you could argue against it. Did anyone have to make a leap of faith when they found out Santa wasn't real? Did that cause a meltdown of your reality?

Shouldn't a sane person's initial position be based in visible reality and not some crazy stories about fantastic heroes and angry gods?

The World the Way I See It:

'X' is what unities atheists and people of faith. 'X' is what divides us. 'X' unites us because it is our leap of faith. We both have it. 'X' divides us because it is the difference between atheists and people of faith.

Let's go back millions of years ago. The Big Bang happened, and then evolution, right?

Now let's look at blackboard. For now, I am going to assume that all Christians (Jews, Muslims, etc...) believe in evolution and the Big Bang.

Anway, here's what's written on the board:

'Evolution -> The Big Bang -> X'

Now, as you've probably guessed, this is showing how the world was created. Evolution happened because of the Big Bang, the Big Bang happened because of 'X'.

So, Christians (representing all faiths) step up to the board, erase 'X', and put 'God'. So, for them, X = God.

Now it's the atheists turn. What is 'X', in your opinion? If you just leave 'X' as 'X' then you are taking a leap of faith. Faith of the unknown. So what does X equal?

are[/I] taking a leap of faith. Faith of the unknown. So what does X equal?

Oh man, the arguments are getting stupider.

This one is so convoluted it's hard to know where to begin.

Lets start with, what the fuck would be the difference between an atheist and an agnostic in this ridiculous scenario?

Never mind the lack of explanation of this 'faith in the unknown.' At this point the word faith has been stretched and bent more than fucking taffy.

But you should be. There's no binary "Either you are a person of faith or a person of rationality." Ignoring the degrees oversimplifies the issue.

What? You say there is no binary yet here you offer one up? I think that we are all people of faith and ratinality.

As for the second part, no one has yet to actually show making a concrete statement like above, is somehow reasoning. Everyone has talked around the issue, and tossed up a lot of dust on the issue, but never actually addressed said issue.

Except to pretty much confirm it.

That's because it's not simply a matter of a few paragraphs. It would take a lot of time and coming to terms.

Oh man, the arguments are getting stupider.

This one is so convoluted it's hard to know where to begin.

Lets start with, what the fuck would be the difference between an atheist and an agnostic in this ridiculous scenario?

Never mind the lack of explanation of this 'faith in the unknown.' At this point the word faith has been stretched and bent more than fucking taffy.

I am simply asking you what 'X' is. I am asking you what made the Big Bang happen.

The World the Way I See It:

'X' is what unities atheists and people of faith. 'X' is what divides us. 'X' unites us because it is our leap of faith. We both have it. 'X' divides us because it is the difference between atheists and people of faith.

Let's go back millions of years ago. The Big Bang happened, and then evolution, right?

Now let's look at blackboard. For now, I am going to assume that all Christians (Jews, Muslims, etc...) believe in evolution and the Big Bang.

Anway, here's what's written on the board:

'Evolution -> The Big Bang -> X'

Now, as you've probably guessed, this is showing how the world was created. Evolution happened because of the Big Bang, the Big Bang happened because of 'X'.

So, Christians (representing all faiths) step up to the board, erase 'X', and put 'God'. So, for them, X = God.

Now it's the atheists turn. What is 'X', in your opinion? If you just leave 'X' as 'X' then you are taking a leap of faith. Faith of the unknown. So what does X equal?

I don't know.

No faith at all in that. It's okay, really, not to know something. But so far, every time somebody proposed magic as a solution, they've been wrong. "Why does lightning happen?" "God does his magic and makes it happen." That was wrong.
"Why do floods happen?" "God is mad at us." That was wrong.

To quote CTOAN: Maybe you think magic is due. But I don't.

What? You say there is no binary yet here you offer one up? I think that we are all people of faith and ratinality.

What binary division do I offer?

I am simply asking you what 'X' is. I am asking you what made the Big Bang happen.

No you're not. You're creating unsuccessfully the notion of "faith in the unknown." Which takes the word 'faith' out back and beats it like it stole the cookie jar.

That does seem to be the most logical choice a non theist can make. But meh who died and declared logic the king of thought?

It can also be the best position for a theist to take, as it can affirm his beliefs.

I don't know.

No faith at all in that. It's okay, really, not to know something. But so far, every time somebody proposed magic as a solution, they've been wrong. "Why does lightning happen?" "God does his magic and makes it happen." That was wrong.
"Why do floods happen?" "God is mad at us." That was wrong.

To quote CTOAN: Maybe you think magic is due. But I don't.

I see your point.

I'm not trying to convert anyone or anything, it's really just something that that I've wondered about for a long time. I just don't get atheism, and I was hoping someone would explain it to me.

No you're not. You're creating unsuccessfully the notion of "faith in the unknown." Which takes the word 'faith' out back and beats it like it stole the cookie jar.

*sigh* Then just forget 'leap of faith'. Just explain to me what 'X' is. Please?

I see your point.

I'm not trying to convert anyone or anything, it's really just something that that I've wondered about for a long time. I just don't get atheism, and I was hoping someone would explain it to me.

It's quite simple, really. There is no evidence for God, and we atheists have a faith deficiency(though, I don't think that's a bad thing. Rationality is better than faith, if you ask me). Therefore we don't believe.

The OP stems from a complete misconception of what atheism actually is.

It is not, in and of itself, an unquestioning acceptance of science, or any other baggage you might wish to attach to it.

Atheism, in and of itself, is simply the belief that there is no god. There is no inherent rejection of the validity of faith in something as an epistemology.

Certainly, there are many atheistic ideologies that reject the validity of any sort of faith--but those are a superset of atheism, not atheism itself. Rejection of faith is not an intrinsic quality of atheism, so the supposed "contradiction" mentioned in the original post really is irrelevant.

Very well put:)

Thanks, but I'm still confused.

Perhaps it's just because of my upbringing, but what I am asking is really: Most atheists believe that the equation just stops at 'The Big Bang', and there's nothing before that. There's got to be something before that. What's before that?

Certainly, there are many atheistic ideologies that reject the validity of any sort of faith
Yes, the sensible ones.

*sigh*

Don't sigh at me, it's your dumbass argument.

Then just forget 'leap of faith'. Just explain to me what 'X' is. Please?
To what end? What the fuck are you getting at?

Thanks, but I'm still confused.

Perhaps it's just because of my upbringing, but what I am asking is really: Most atheists believe that the equation just stops at 'The Big Bang', and there's nothing before that. There's got to be something before that. What's before that?
Why does there have to be something before that? And if there was, why can't it be unknowable?

By insisting on an answer to "What's before teh big bang?" you're presupposing both that there was something before the big bang, and that what happened before the big bang is knowable.

Yes, the sensible ones.

To add-

It helps to think of atheism like Missouri, Show Me. Without that, you get nothing.

Don't sigh at me, it's your dumbass argument.


To what end? What the fuck are you getting at?

I do not get how you do not get what I am asking, therefore I am sorry, but I can not explain it to you.

Thanks, but I'm still confused.

Perhaps it's just because of my upbringing, but what I am asking is really: Most atheists believe that the equation just stops at 'The Big Bang', and there's nothing before that. There's got to be something before that. What's before that?

Well, one way I've heard it phrased is "What's before the Big Bang? Well, I'll tell you, but first, you gotta tell me what's North of the North Pole."

But honestly, most atheists, I find, don't know. And we're fine with not knowing if we can't find evidence. Indeed, the scientists among us (which I do not claim to be, I'm just an interested observer) need those "I don't knows" or they wouldn't have a job! But until (if) they find that answer, what's so terrifying about saying "I don't know?"

There's nothing terrifying. There's nothing terrifying in believing in God, either.

Thanks, but I'm still confused.

Perhaps it's just because of my upbringing, but what I am asking is really: Most atheists believe that the equation just stops at 'The Big Bang', and there's nothing before that. There's got to be something before that. What's before that?

This is my point. Atheism is simply the belief that there is no god. That's it. Period. Anything else an atheist may believe, though such belief may in fact be founded on his atheism, is not an intrinsic part of atheism--so a critique of such a belief is not a critique of atheism as such.

It is perfectly consistent for an atheist to believe that the Universe was created when Spot the dog had green shit, or for him to have faith that he will always get an erection whenever he sees a hot naked chick. It is not necessary for these beliefs or faiths to be reasonable or not for him to be an atheist; all he has to do is not believe in a god.

Atheism is one single belief; it is not a complete ideology.

There's nothing terrifying. There's nothing terrifying in believing in God, either.

Then what's all this talk about 'fear of god' then...

Then what's all this talk about 'fear of god' then...

'Fear', in ancient biblical times, meant 'respect'. You have got to remember the time in which it was written when trying to interpret the meaning of a piece of writing. So when we say 'Fear God', we're actually saying 'Respect God'.

:rolleyes: I always hear the same poop about "proof". Define proof, and tell me what it would take in the name of "proof " to convince you, God exists.

well, if it were some version of the christian god, i would need him to show up in person and tell everyone just what the fuck he expects of them. he could send a prophet (or several) i suppose but they would have to all have the same "story" and be united in what god wants (without all having gone to the same seminary).

some demonstration of powers beyond those of the naturl world might be helpful. scientific knowlege beyond our understanding that would be proven in the coming years, predictions of things to come that arent vague yet really do come true 100% of the time, raising of the dead, healing of the sick (100% success rate)

if it were the greek gods, i would expect them to be able to demonstrate that they can affect the outcome of my life and other people's lives with 100% accuracy (or less if another god is fighting for a different outcome)

otherwise i guess it depends on what kind of god they are claiming to be. some are kinda low on supernatural powers eh? some should be able to start a whole new universe before our very eyes. i dont expect someone claiming to be thor to be able to create a rock so big that he cant move it but a little lightning might be impressive...

This is my point. Atheism is simply the belief that there is no god. That's it. Period.
I would dispute that. Athiesm is the lack of the belief there is a god. Holding that belief constitutes theism. Not holding that belief constitutes its negation: atheism.

In fact, you say as much in your own post:
all he has to do is not believe in a god.
That's not the same as believing there is no god. Your second description is a correct description of atheism.

The lack of a belief that there is a god is not a faith-based position.

The belief that there is no god IS a faith-based position.

'Fear', in ancient biblical times, meant 'respect'. You have got to remember the time in which it was written when trying to interpret the meaning of a piece of writing. So when we say 'Fear God', we're actually saying 'Respect God'.

...or he'll fuck up your town, turn your wife into salt, and flood your neighbors...

I do not get how you do not get what I am asking, therefore I am sorry, but I can not explain it to you.

I'm trying to connect your ill-conceived dots.

By all means, please enlighten me. What tests did they perform to validate, or disprove the existence of God :confused:

well in the case of the christian god, everything we know about him comes from the bible.

when the bible is shown to be false, what is there left to believe?

I have a counter question. Why is necesary to prove the non-existance of God?

shouldnt we believe in something once its existance has been proved?

Should I believe in Mighty Thor or Quetzalcoatl because no one can prove they dont exist?


if thats the case youll forgive me I need to go and do some human sacrifices.:mp5:

Or what if the act is a falsehood. The man buying the girl gifts to get into her pants is surly an act of lust and entrirly in his best interest.

The husband that entraps the wife by false shows of love, so that he can get her home and beat her.

All of this does happen, all shows of love have a chance of being false, so when you act upon it as a truth you are placing your faith in that person.

the point is that there is concrete evidence of an abstract emotion--love.

you may find my evidence unconvincing. you may doubt the evidences of love in specific circumstances.

the pont is that there is EVIDENCE.

i have no interest in discussing whether or not love is real. i find the whole discussion tiresome. if you are really interested in the topic, please start a new thread on it. you will be amazed at what scientific stuff some of our members can bring out. biology, anthropology, psychology, and studies of the brain can (and will) be brought out.

you may still end up unconvinced. *shrug* that still does not negate that there is plenty of evidence.

...or he'll fuck up your town, turn your wife into salt, and flood your neighbors...

It also must be taken into consideration that the bible was written by men, not God himself, and things in it, especially in the old testament, probably never happened. Some were truth, some were false, some were parables.

*sigh* Then just forget 'leap of faith'. Just explain to me what 'X' is. Please?

ill answer your question

i dont know.

no one knows.

the big bang is a theory of the origins of the universe. its a problem that we have only been working on for perhaps 100 years. there is some pretty good evidence for the big bang but not everyone agrees on it. it may well happen that new and amazing scientific instruments will be developed that show that many aspects of the big bang are wrong. thats what science DOES eh?

no one has at this time developed a testable hypothesis on what existed before the big bang. it would therefore be silly to say anything but "we dont know". we can guess but it would have no scientific value and only be correct by conincidence.

X=god is one of those guesses that have no value whatsoever. it answers no questions and brings up many new ones like "where was god living in this time before the big bang?", "who made god?", and "who is this god guy anyway?"

It also must be taken into consideration that the bible was written by men, not God himself, and things in it, especially in the old testament, probably never happened. Some were truth, some were false, some were parables.

It's either the word of god or a work of fiction, you can't have it both ways.

Even if fucking up a village and salting some dude's wife is a parable, the moral is still, "Don't fuck with me, I got some wicked wrath."

It also must be taken into consideration that the bible was written by men, not God himself, and things in it, especially in the old testament, probably never happened. Some were truth, some were false, some were parables.

If it is divinely inspired it cant be wrong.

If it is wrong, then it cant be divinely inspired.

Or we have to come with the idea that a divinely inspired text is wrong. THAT really freaks me out.:mp5:

And that's entirely true of theism if theism were falsifiable. But it isn't.

Plus, the Abrahamic deity isn't supposed to be omnibenevolent. And, it hardly refutes theism generally.

Sure about that? The very first line of the Qur'an is:

"In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful."

The entire Christian doctrine of salvation is based on the moral perfection of God, and benevolence is one of the aspects of moral perfection.

Does this mean that you think a claim that can be neither verified nor falsified is not a meaningful claim? Because that's what theism is.

Any statement of fact which evidence cannot even theoretically bear upon is meaningless; a statement can still have emotional or linguistic meaning however.

And how is theism not verifiable? You believe in an omnipotent god, yes? How could it be beyond his power to provide proof of his existence?

Regardless, there is no pay-off matrix that shows athiesm is better, since the merits of athiesm are faith exempt and can be achieved by people with faith as well. So, faith still remains the logical choice.
I just say this not to convince people to convert (this would be a dishonest, and probably ineffective way) but to combat the statement that FAITH is the irrational stance.

If you don't send me £100 by next Thursday then I'll see to it that you're tortured for all eternity. Sure, it's unlikely that I can (or will) dish out infinite torture, but can you rule it out completely? If not then you should send me the (finite) money, because the risks associated with not sending it are infinite.

Of course he doesn't. That's why you spend so much time reminding us he doesn't exist. It's funny...this reminds me of this one kid I knew, who would always say he wasn't afraid of the boogie man. Yet when it got dark, and he was alone he was scared shitless.

A billion muslims believe that you are going to hell, how concerned does this make you?

Ah yes, the brilliant retort from theists: why do atheists spend time discussing atheism/theism/"god"? My favorite.

Since your ideas don't bear scrutiny and you can't win a debate or offer remedial evidence to support your religious ideas, debating/discussion does lack merit unless one likes to debate in what doom players would call "god mode", how ironic. Also, its unlikely I'm going to change any theist's mind.

But this is a public forum, and if I can trounce your ideas in a public forum perhaps one audience member will realize that religious ideas are all nonsense and that all intelligent individuals with their faculties functioning understand this. You and your religious belief are here to be made sport of as an example for others.

This is my point. Atheism is simply the belief that there is no god.

No - it isn't.

Some atheists believe there is no god. Others just don't believe there is one.

A world of difference.

It's either the word of god or a work of fiction, you can't have it both ways.

Even if fucking up a village and salting some dude's wife is a parable, the moral is still, "Don't fuck with me, I got some wicked wrath."

It could also be considered a human account of a divine revelation. Sort of like a diary or a news account. Such accounts are commonly accepted as non-fiction without being considered inerrant, so why not a human account of divine events?

A Christian could then accept the stories as holy teachings without ascribing some sort of divine inerrancy or literalism to it.

It could also be considered a human account of a divine revelation. Sort of like a diary or a news account. Such accounts are commonly accepted as non-fiction without being considered inerrant, so why not a human account of divine events?

A Christian could then accept the stories as holy teachings without ascribing some sort of divine inerrancy or literalism to it.

Still doesn't get around him bitching up a city and salting a wife, though. If you track this particular herring all the way back, it still gives a reason that a 'god' is scary or however it was originally phrased...

No - it isn't.

Some atheists believe there is no god. Others just don't believe there is one.

A world of difference.

An artificial one.

An artificial world?

Is this some kind of secret Matrix reference I'm missing?

Sure, why not.

An artificial one.

An artificial world?

Is this some kind of secret Matrix reference I'm missing?

Still doesn't get around him bitching up a city and salting a wife, though. If you track this particular herring all the way back, it still gives a reason that a 'god' is scary or however it was originally phrased...

This is the interpretation you draw from the story. Other people may draw different considerations. Do you feel your opinion about this tale is more valid than other people's? If so, why?

*sigh* Then just forget 'leap of faith'. Just explain to me what 'X' is. Please?
I think you're missing the entire point.

We don't know what "X" is in your equation. Humans do not possess the answers to all questions. There's no reason why anybody should have to make up an answer to your question.

As an atheist and an agnostic, I am quite comfortable knowing that there are some questions I can't answer (yet!).

What binary division do I offer?

It's a "false dichotomy" or "false dilemma." You offer two options as if they were the only choices.

This is the interpretation you draw from the story. Other people may draw different considerations. Do you feel your opinion about this tale is more valid than other people's? If so, why?

You've minced this into something unrecognizable. Please restart and state what you're trying to get at.

Shouldn't, couldn't, wouldn't.

Subjectivity all over the place, it may seem obvious to you, not to me though, so who's right you because you say so or me for the very same reason? Any objective facts to back your stance up?

It's my opinion, so of course it's subjective. Objective facts? We are talking about philosophy and the unprovable. If you disagree with my opinion, just explain why.

Again seems to you huh! Where do you get this idea, have you got the evidance that irratiinality is not a virtue, or that it is a bad way to live. I mean other than you highly subjective, irrational, belife that is?

No. I don't have evidence that irrationality is not a virtue(although your post may provide a little!). I simply asked the question why people consider it a virtue. If you do think it is a desirable trait, feel free to explain why.

It also must be taken into consideration that the bible was written by men, not God himself, and things in it, especially in the old testament, probably never happened. Some were truth, some were false, some were parables.

It would've been far easier for everyone if they'd been colour coded. :D

You've minced this into something unrecognizable. Please restart and state what you're trying to get at.

Forget about that. Let's go back to your previous assertion that the Bible has to be the Divine Word of God, or a work of fiction. You only give us two options. But in reality, we have more options than that.

One option is the one I mentioned.

(The horribly minced post was my feeble attempt to point out something that would have required several paragraphs to explain.)

It would've been far easier for everyone if they'd been colour coded. :D

Well, they were flavoured, but over time taste buds change.

Well, they were flavoured, but over time taste buds change.

I find some parts unpalatable, to be honest.

It's a "false dichotomy" or "false dilemma." You offer two options as if they were the only choices.

Yes, I understand that. What false dichotomy was I offering? I've been trying to be careful not to present anything as if there were only two choices, hence the question.

Yes, I understand that. What false dichotomy was I offering? I've been trying to be careful not to present anything as if there were only two choices, hence the question.

I don't know. There's a distinct possibility that Peepelonia was kidding, and I was just being semantical, but it's late Friday and hard to be sure of these things.

My apologies.

if god ever existed he was a rotten bastard, and he is dead thanks to Nietzsche.

that among other things, is some of what we can thank him for.

god bless Nietzsche! (for you dimwitted out there, pun intended!)

Atheism IS a leap of faith. It takes a lot more faith to believe that this universe came into being of its own volition, than it does to believe that an intelligent being, whether you call him God or something else, created it.

if god ever existed he was a rotten bastard, and he is dead thanks to Nietzsche.

that among other things, is some of what we can thank him for.

god bless Nietzsche! (for you dimwitted out there, pun intended!)

If nietzsche ever existed he was a rotten bastard, and he is dead thanks to God!

That, among other things, is some of what we can thank Him for.

Atheism IS a leap of faith. It takes a lot more faith to believe that this universe came into being of its own volition, than it does to believe that an intelligent being, whether you call him God or something else, created it.

it takes no faith whatsoever to say that you dont know how the universe came to be for sure and quite a leap to go from "god created the universe" to "jesus christ died for my sins"

If nietzsche ever existed he was a rotten bastard, and he is dead thanks to God!

That, among other things, is some of what we can thank Him for.

Oh dear.

Oh dear.Hehe, love thy neighbour indeed :p

If nietzsche ever existed he was a rotten bastard, and he is dead thanks to God!

That, among other things, is some of what we can thank Him for.

Nietzsche's existence is something we can prove (by birth and\or death certificates)

so, you have proven you can play with word, congratulations, you put the "wit" in Dimwitted, I'm sure.

Hehe, love thy neighbour indeed :p

Did that comment have anything to do with the poster's name?

Did that comment have anything to do with the poster's name?

Perhaps that's an issue of faith.

Atheism IS a leap of faith. It takes a lot more faith to believe that this universe came into being of its own volition, than it does to believe that an intelligent being, whether you call him God or something else, created it.To quote the ST: First Contact ...
You imply disparity where none exists.

Atheism IS a leap of faith. It takes a lot more faith to believe that this universe came into being of its own volition, than it does to believe that an intelligent being, whether you call him God or something else, created it.How so?

How so?

Yeah ... perhaps in the past 41 pages or so, they might have changed their attitude about that just slightly.

Yeah ... perhaps in the past 41 pages or so, they might have changed their attitude about that just slightly.Did the past 41 pages or so prove the necessity of God's existence?

Did the past 41 pages or so prove the necessity of God's existence?

I dunno. Can't say as i'm so interested as to really peruse it.
Perhaps, and more likely, is that there was a lot of browbeating and varying forms of reiteration and adjustment of attitude.

Did that comment have anything to do with the poster's name?No, it was a comment on Three-Way's gloating over the death of a human being.