>>2
God is love.
Love is blind.
Ray Charles is God.
Makes just as much sense.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-03 1:19 ID:iE/wwL5K
The last "prophet" of God was alive long ago.
Anybody claiming to be a prophet of God, or the second coming of Jesus, is deemed crazy and insane.
The last "accepted" proof of an act of God or proof of a prophet or Jesus being the son of God was in the Bible.
The Bible was written long ago.
Therefore, the Bible is unreliable.
Therefore, God's existence is unreliable.
There has been no visible proof of God in any of our lifetimes.
There has not been any or sufficient proof that God exists to prevent those from disproving the existence of God.
Therefore, God does not exist.
thread over.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-03 1:37 ID:3xd2leNR
Just because God does not necessarily exist (i.e. there is no proof that He exists) does not mean that He certainly doesn't exist.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-03 2:19 ID:kqlJRgtm
>>7
That doesn't make sense.. :/
Anyway, there's no way to find out if God exists or not..
The only reason why we know God exists is because of the Bible.
But does anyone know when Adam and Eve where born?
What about the Aboriginies? They were in Australia since 70,000+ years ago I believe.. Maybe even more..
While I have not personally encountered the Easter Bunny, nor has anyone I have been in contact with, I do not have concrete evidence to support a belief that the Easter Bunny does not exist. Effectively, my belief in the Easter Bunny does not appear to be relevant in my daily life and I see no clear reason to support the claim of existence of the Easter Bunny. I personally make the assumption that the Easter Bunny does not exist. However, this assumption is arbitrary. I have no reason to assert that there is not nor has their ever been an Easter Bunny; it is simply an idea I have assumed in lieu of certainty regarding the issue. I am incapable of making such a judgment with complete accuracy.
>>17
You can't even trust your senses, so really, nothing is certain (except for some vague things like 'I can think'): If you don't form any beliefs at all, you cannot function in the world.
How do you choose what to remain completely agnostic about?
I remain skeptical about whatever I haven't seen proven, I remain agnostic about what feel I won't ever be proven, but that's not really the point. There's a difference between belief and assumption, and a difference between belief and fact. One shouldn't pretend to be certain about things they don't have proof of.
Name:
Annonomys2007-07-04 21:24 ID:bho+OS58
"God Is an Imaginary Friend for Grown-ups"
Best quote ever and hell it explains alot.
I think people are insecure about what to do i.e. what path to lead in life and need somthing to base everything on or its all just a blur. God or Buddah or whoever are there simply to give a sense of security to people in this insane world. Though some people take religion over board and others dont even belive, just like when you were 5 - theres nothing wrong with an imaginary friend but you have to grow up somtime.
>>21
Atheists don't pretend they're certain. They just consider it nearly impossible that any sort of god exists. They don't know he doesn't, but they believe it, either because of their upbringing, or based on their faith in science and reason, or for whatever other reason.
Agnostics, on the other hand, are just a bunch of fags.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-04 23:26 ID:E6kg1R3w
>>23
if you admit you don't know, then youre an agnostic. it's pretty straightforward.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-05 0:42 ID:YIEnCo5q
Can God compute the halting problem on a turing machine?
I think that anyone who thinks they know enough about the universe to say they can tell whether or not a god exists outside of it is full of it. That is, assuming there even is an "outside of the universe."
Those who say they "know" there is no God seem to forget that there are those who say, with equal conviction, that they "know" there is a God. And yet, neither party brings any unambiguous, conclusive evidence to the table.
Atheists have their Easter Bunny analogy whereas theists have their Watchmaker analogy, among other things. These are both valid analogies, and good points, but equally so -- and they are mutually exclusive. Also, they both commit the same logical fallacy -- the argument from ignorance, that is to say that they both assume that what's generally true here on Earth holds true everywhere else as well. But, see, here's the thing, the universe is a pretty darn big place, and Earth is like a speck of dust when you look at the big picture. So I reeeally don't think our Earthly, everyday experiences give us a good enough idea as to what's out there. A deity or a rabbit-like alien who IDs itself as the "Easter Bunny" could bite a naysayer in the arse one day, and he or she wouldn't even know it! That's why it's good to keep an open mind.
P.S.: I am one fat dude who loves the cock, and my bitchtits are so humongous I can squeeze them and make milk totally squirt out. WOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
I'm aware of the difference between "not believing" and "believing not" if that makes sense to you. But for the sake of consistency, I put people who don't believe (are not convinced) in the category of agnostics, and those who do believe (are convinced god does not exist). If you're an atheists who fits the definition of agnostic, then you're an agnostic, imo, and should leave the word atheist for those who are pretending to be knowledgable.
my pet peeve is atheists who tell me that they are right. i ask them, what proof do you have? they either give a logical fallacy (theres no evidence of god), a terrible argument (at most attacking one aspect of one god), or they immediately start interchangably using the words "religion" and "god" (look at all the terrible religious people/wars/etc).
i am certain i do not know whether or not there is a god for sure. my proof is: i have yet to see proof in favor of either conslusion. therefore, i believe it is possible for a god to exist; i also believe it is possible for a god not to exist.
a theist believes it is not possible for a god not to exist.
an atheist believes it is not possible for a god to exist.
my pet peeve is atheists who tell me that they are right. i ask them, what proof do you have?
Of course there are atheists who don't fully understand the philosophical issues.
i have yet to see proof in favor of either conslusion.
It all depends on what kind of proof you want, and how you define the concept of 'god'. Some types of gods cannot logically exist, some are scientifically improbable, etc.
an atheist believes it is not possible for a god to exist.
No, they believe that it's at least unlikely; 'scientifically impossible'. And, again, it depends on what kind of god you're talking about.
At best, agnosticism is a meaningless philosophical observation, at worst, it's intellectually lazy fence-sitting.
>>32
"I put people who don't believe (are not convinced) in the category of agnostics"
Wrong
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-05 16:42 ID:UNbTmp4s
I agree that I am bending definitions, because I think the current definitions provide for unnecessary overlap and lack of clarity. In the context of debate, the definitions being discussed need to be clear and agree upon for any discussion to be meaningful. I have stated how I have used them. If you prefer that I use different words, please suggest which ones with definition so that we might agree upon them for the sake of a sense of purpose to our words. However, I point out again for your consideration that there currently seems to be two meanings to "atheism". If you would like, write "hard atheist" wherever I said "atheist" earlier.
I'm a mathematician; there's only one kind of proof :D I haven't seen anything I could consider scientific evidence for or against the existence of gods, either. Perhaps against certain ideas of what god is or certain interpretations of what god has done, and I agree that it does matter entirely how you define god.
Name:
4tran2007-07-06 3:47 ID:1aaq0Ajd
>>33
Example of God(ess)([e]s) that cannot logically exist, plz?
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-06 4:10 ID:fqcYfuxu
Agnostics piss me off because they're either totally ignorant about the subject, or they're fucking elitist. "You can't KNOW FOR SURE that my cat didn't create the universe yesterday and implant all our memories. You just BELIEVE it didn't, so you're no better than theists."
Congratulations assholes, you've realized that something unfalsifiable is unknowable. The rest of us who, you know, _understand science_, already know this painfully obvious fact. These simply aren't the gods we're talking about when we call ourselves atheists.
Gods that are unfalsifiable have no effect on the universe, so it's nonsense to even wonder whether or not they exist. It's not a knowable thing. I call myself an atheist because I consider the gods of mainstream religions to be not only falsifiable, but already falsified by science.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-06 5:30 ID:c07iauYc
>>37
What do you mean they've been falsified by science?
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-06 7:38 ID:XVFb/ZJy
>>37
Have you considered that some superior being did create the universe, albeit not the one described in the bible?
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-06 9:31 ID:QuPQs60J
The first thing we should always do when debating 'god(s)' is to clearly specify what kind of god we're talking about.
There is always the unspoken assumption in western culture that we're speaking about a theistic god.
I forgot who said it, but there is a much bigger difference between a deist and a theist than there is between an atheist and a deist (or other versions of non-theistic gods)
I find that agnostics are easy enough to just ignore, since without any particular set of beliefs they can't go around making idiotic, political decisions based on what their god told them to do. It's like asparagus pudding: it's illogical and unappetizing, but it won't force you to eat any if you just ignore it.
>>42
no, you simply fail to understand english. I admit the last sentence wasn't worded that well, but I'm pretty sure anyone could understand what i meant.
spoiler: define your terms
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-06 23:46 ID:fqcYfuxu
>>38
I mean many fundamental things about all mainstream monotheistic religions have been shown to be wrong by science. Shit like evolution is the most obvious example, but there are plenty of other things for people who hypocritically pick and choose what parts of the bible they believe.
For example, these Gods are supposed to occasionally respond to prayer. If you're sick, you pray, and if God feels like it he'll help. Take 500 sick people. Have half do no praying whatsoever, and have people pray for the other half. LOTS of people. Have entire congregations organized to pray for them. Guess what will happen? Sorry to spoil the ending, but these studies have been done to death: no effects.
There are lots of things these Gods promise. Like when a priest blesses something, it's looked favorably by God, and makes you healthy/wealthy/happy/whatever. All nonsense, all tested by science.
Science has also shown there's no such thing as the soul. Everything we do is just chemical reactions in the brain. Kind of throws a wrench in the whole free will and afterlife business.
>>39
Wow, my whole post flew completely over your head. You're exactly the type of agnostic I'm talking about.
Of course I've considered that some superior being created the universe, or that we're all living in a big computer, or dozens of other possibilities. The point is that these alternatives are all unfalsifiable; since we're stuck in the universe, these all predict the same physical results, so there's no difference between them. Saying one of the other is correct is nonsense; saying you believe or don't believe one is nonsense; and most importantly, saying you don't know which one is correct is also nonsense, because it's not a knowable thing.
>>10
Why do people say this? It's the fucking opposite.
There's no evidence of the existence of giant pink dragons. That means there is evidence against the existence of giant pink dragons.
That's why people are innocent until proven guilty. If the phrase "The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" is true, then people could be sent to jail purely because they've been accused of a crime, regardless of whether or not there's any evidence to prove that they've committed said crime.
Then you'd have to accept the existance of a god just because there's no evidence to prove that there ISN'T a god, and then you'd have to accept the evidence that my fucking pink dragon exists, just because you can't prove that it doesn't.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-07 1:57 ID:Ys9iQLo0
>>46
You're trying to prove there's a god by posting girls?
There is something called the "argument from ignorance". It has this format: x has not been demonstrated, therefor x is false. This is a logical fallacy. You can look it up. People say "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" because it is correct, and mildly cute. It doesn't mean you have to accept the truth of something that hasn't been demonstrated true; it means you don't have logical justification for denying it simply because there's a lack of evidence. This is unrelated to assumption. In the American judicial system, we assume someone is innocent until proven guilty. Assuming someone is innocent until proven guilty does not mean they actually are innocent. If OJ murdered Nicole, and is never proven guilty, he is assumed innocent by the system, but that doesn't mean he is actually innocent. Courts err (and I use "err" very purposefully) on the side of caution, because we'd rather not imprison innocent people.
>>50
care to elaborate why its retarded to specify what definition of 'god' you are arguing against?
"Some definitions of God's existence are so non-specific that it is certain that something exists that meets the definition; in stark contrast, there are suggestions that other definitions are self-contradictory. " (wikipedia)
i was simply pointing out, that instead of lumping all definitions of god into a single word, it would be better to specify which definition of god you're arguing against. There are far more arguments that can be made against the existence of a theistic god, than say, the concept of 'god' that einstein had or even some forms of god in hinduism.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-07 9:18 ID:BbwHNMUR
>>45
Oh, I agree, absolutely. It's why I strongly suspect that gods don't exist, but can't be certain because the religious have all these annoying little excuses for everything, like "the ways of God are mysterious" and "God is testing our faith". Apologetics, in other words. Of course they sound like total cop-outs, no doubt about it, but they are valid, unfortunately.
I was simply pointing that out when I said, "The first thing we should always do when debating 'god(s)' is to clearly specify what kind of god we're talking about."
You started talking about random shit and rewording what I'd said. I'm saying you're a retard.
>>52 Of course they sound like total cop-outs, no doubt about it, but they are valid, unfortunately.
No, they're not. They are absolutely not.
In our prayer test, there was no difference in the condition of those 500 people who died. Either God doesn't exist, or he chose to let all those people die *just to confound scientists*. Just to keep us on our toes, to leave us without evidence, to require faith from us. Does that sound like the loving, caring biblical God?
At this point in our technological development (or in the very near future), census programs combined with the computerization of medical records will allow trivial state-wide statistical tests on the effects religion has on medical health. In other words, if He wants to stay in the dark, he's going to have to stop answering prayers. ALL prayers.
At some point, "God works in mysterious ways" means "God has no observable effects on the universe", in which case the whole point is moot and the question of whether he exists is nonsense.
You can't respond to the existence of million year old dinosaur fossils with "God planted them to test our faith". You can't respond to your God letting hundreds, thousands of people die just to hinder the advancement of knowledge with "God works in mysterious ways". Sorry, that's not valid; science does not work that way, and reality does not work that way.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-08 6:15 ID:2KeIwwl6
>>57
Well, they say God is far beyond our ability to comprehend, and that we don't understand his motives, how his mind works, and such. It's impossible to argue with that. The tests are only enough to make us strongly suspect that there must be no God.
Of course, it doesn't matter how often they say "the ways of God are mysterious", because we all know that they have no proof that this God character even exists in the first place.
And they can say things like "God planted fossils to test our faith," it just sounds totally conspiracy-theorist-like. But it is valid, nonetheless. I mean, he's omnipotent, so it is within his capacity.
I agree, you can hide anything behind omnipotence. There's no argueing it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-09 2:09 ID:pbTzKAFE
>>58 And they can say things like "God planted fossils to test our faith," it just sounds totally conspiracy-theorist-like. But it is valid, nonetheless. I mean, he's omnipotent, so it is within his capacity.
Yes, it is within his capacity. No, it is not a valid argument for the existence of the Christian God. You still don't understand my argument.
If all the evidence *is* planted just to test our faith, then God is not falsifiable and has no observable effect on our universe. This means it is nonsense to wonder whether he exists, and it is nonsense to say that you don't know whether he exists.
The most fundamental requirement to behaving rationally is the assumption that what we observe is in fact objective reality. We have to assume this because if this is not reality, we wouldn't know the difference. We can't know whether our brains are in jars in the Matrix, or whether a God created the universe yesterday and planted our memories, or whether this is indeed all real, because they all predict the same physical results. We're trapped in our universe, so we can't say any of the above is true.
But the gods of mainstream religions DO affect us. They're falsifiable. That's why it's not a valid argument.
I sound like a broken record here, because YES, I AGREE you can hide anything behind omnipotence. I've said it a dozen times in this thread, stop fucking telling me this, I AGREE with you. The point is that saying whether these Gods actually exist is nonsense in the first place. Calling yourself 'agnostic' simply because you realize this is a pointless use of the term, and it's elitist; you imply that atheists don't understand this, when in fact it's quite the opposite.
The 'possibility' of unfalsifiable Gods is not a matter of opinion; it is a fact, just as sure as 2+2=4. Terms such as 'atheist' and 'agnostic' refer to the possibility of gods who recognize humans as a species and meddle in our affairs. That's why I'm an atheist; science has shown that there are no such gods.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-09 14:01 ID:pz6nFqei
>>60
I agree that it's nonsense to say whether gods exist. Absolutely. But I still think it's better to take an agnostic approach to theists and their claims, that way they can't accuse us of arrogance, or say things like "it takes more faith to be an atheist..." all the while ignoring our points.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-09 15:01 ID:15PrrSnI
We're anonymous, we are god
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-09 16:46 ID:pz6nFqei
>>61
Alright, I don't know why I worded that the way I did; I sound like I'm no longer an agnostic, when in actual fact I still am.
What I meant when I said that statements like "God works in mysterious ways" are valid is that they are valid responses -- or excuses, if you prefer. Not arguments for the existence of God. Obviously they aren't.
But remember, we're talking about a being that knows everything. We don't understand why he does what he does, but then again we don't know everything. We couldn't hope to be able to wrap our minds around the supreme thoughts of an omniscient being any more than an ant could hope to comprehend our motives. God's motives are way beyond us, and as such, if we say that he must not exist just because he doesn't do what we expect him to do, we're just talking out our asses. We don't know how he operates, but then again we're not nearly as smart as him.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-10 3:33 ID:R7m52hiO
>>61 But I still think it's better to take an agnostic approach to theists and their claims
Why? You're compromising science and the advancement of knowledge just to avoid offending religious zealots.
Look at it this way. Do you take an agnostic approach to evolution? There is a mountain of evidence against creation and for evolution; it's downright ignorant to believe it at this point. Are you one of those people who still says "we can't know for sure that evolution is true"?
If not, where do you draw the line? Why is there enough evidence against creation to declare it to be untrue, but not enough evidence against the biblical God? There doesn't appear to ever be a threshold to satisfy you.
If you do remain agnostic about evolution, by your logic, we can't know for sure whether *anything* is true. You've completely trivialized the concepts of truth and knowledge.
The fact of the matter is we're trapped in our universe, so if some being is changing the rules outside our universe, we can't know the difference because it doesn't affect us. What we see is what is true, end of story.
God's motives are way beyond us, and as such, if we say that he must not exist just because he doesn't do what we expect him to do, we're just talking out our asses.
Wrong. As far as the biblical God goes, He TOLD us what to expect Him to do. We should be able to see it in our everyday lives, but we don't.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: If God operates behind the scenes, then he has no effect on our universe, so whether or not he exists is not something that can be true or false. Can we stop talking about this kind of God already?
Bottom line: Are you agnostic about the biblical God? Are you sure about whether or not the Christian God exists?
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-10 18:04 ID:BcxmXyLf
>>64
I do believe in evolution, but not because I've seen the evidence for myself or anything, but rather because I know how science works, and I trust it. So I have no problem taking scientists' word for it.
And yeah, I am agnostic about the Christian God. But who cares? Now I don't even know why we're arguing. Neither of us believe in gods, theists are the real problem, so can we just give it a rest? I've always approached theists' claims with as the same degree of scrutiny and scepticism as any other far-fetched, ridiculous idea. Isn't that enough? Why must you atheists shit on us in addition to the theists? The theists I can undstand, but we don't believe in an invisible Superman like they do. So who cares? Leave us alone.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-10 18:21 ID:3D6X0Yqg
According to Science, anything that can happen, will happen, even if it's in a parallel universe. Every scientists who actually graduated (ie: all of them) agrees that there is a chance, small though it may be, that god exists. Therefore God does exist, but just maybe not in this universe.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-10 18:52 ID:Y9AkMDbn
>>66
even if the many-worlds interpretation is true, shouldn't god be the god the whole multiverse? Otherwise he wouldn't be very omnipotent or omnipresent.
Are there 2 or 3 primary debaters? I'm having difficulty keeping track. If you're not willing to be namefags like myself, it would be helpful to at least label yourselves as A, B, C, or something. Thanks.
>>64
You yourself said that these gods have no physical effect on our world. Hence, there can be no hindrance on science/technology. Science does not care if a god exists or not.
You seem to take a rather strong stance of throwing out everything that is not knowable as "nonsense". It seems you're not very fond of philosophical wankery. However, isn't the whole point of religion/its imitation products to ponder about what is out there/why we exist? We might never answer these questions, but we can still wonder and put meaning (even if artificial) into our pathetic existances. If you really want, we can just give up, not care, and chug a couple of bottles of vodka.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-12 6:12 ID:OQ3Rg1jV
>>69 And yeah, I am agnostic about the Christian God. But who cares? Now I don't even know why we're arguing. Neither of us believe in gods, theists are the real problem, so can we just give it a rest?
Now that's awfully hypocritical. You say theists are the real problem, but you tolerate them by assuring them of the feasibility and rationality of their beliefs.
In any case, as I said before, if you're agnostic about the biblical God, you're just ignorant. There is a mountain of evidence against His existence, and as I explained time and time again, "God works in mysterious ways" is not a refutation of this. Nowhere does the Bible mention God's intention to remain hidden, and everywhere does he have humans praise him for his wondrous (falsifiable!) accomplishments.
We might never answer these questions, but we can still wonder and put meaning (even if artificial) into our pathetic existances.
When you're wondering about unfalsifiable things, you're wasting your time. We're trapped in our reality, so pondering about two different causes for reality is meaningless; we end up with the same reality, so what's the point? These things make for great fiction, but it's foolish to take it seriously or to talk about believing one or the other. A rose is a rose is a rose.
However, isn't the whole point of religion/its imitation products to ponder about what is out there/why we exist?
No. The point of religion is most certainly not to ponder about what is out there or why we exist; religious people already know these things. The point of small-scale religion is to polarize humans into tribal warfare; it's to create a feeling of belonging to a group to the extent that you're willing to slaughter everyone who doesn't agree with you. This is a huge evolutionary benefit. We can see this in the beginnings of all religions; take a read through Genesis sometime and read about the endless stories of villages slaughtering each other and raping their women, all condoned by God.
The point of large-scale religion is simply to enslave the masses. You've got your billions of people brainwashed by your teachings; now you can do whatever you want with them. For a thousand years, the entire world was run by the Christian clergy (and they didn't call it the Dark Ages because it was dark). Even today, for over a billion people, what the Pope says goes unconditionally.
One aspect of philosophy is to wonder about what is out there and why we exist. As I said above, this is pointless; these people should be called authors and writers, not philosophers. Philosophy is a much stronger field of study when it leans towards anthropology.
If you really want, we can just give up, not care, and chug a couple of bottles of vodka.
This fucking pisses me off. It's downright insulting. It's one of the most elitist arguments against atheism: the notion that atheists just want to sit around and get drunk, and not care about anything.
There is so much to learn that CAN be tested, and that IS falsifiable and knowable. We shouldn't waste our time with philosophical bullshit when we can perform real science and learn the real physical laws of our universe. Way to trivialize science, dickhead.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-12 6:39 ID:cbHCAwfT
I have a hypothetical, prove that greek g-ds do not exist. Cite specifics. Thanks for delivering in advance anno
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-12 9:06 ID:ANb0WwDY
>>70
I meant theists are the real problem because of things like the 26 million dollars spent on a Creationism museum, the attempt to get Creationism taught as science in schools in the U.S., gay couples being denied the right to adopt from certain orphanages on the basis of nothing more than "it's against our religion," and so on.
The thing is, I was just thinking about those problems (I guess I was forgetting about them before) and they made me wonder why we are two non-theists arguing amongst each other when there's all that theistic BS going on in the world today. I mean, really, what's the point? It's not like I believe in gods any more than you or any other atheist. I mean it; I'm no theist. But, what does it matter if I don't take that extra step and say, "there is no God"? The mere fact that the theists haven't got a shred of evidence backing their assertions should alone be enough for us to be able to say to them, "Hey, now just you hold on a minute..." if you know what I mean. Don't you think?
Name:
meowmeow2007-07-12 10:01 ID:4qWGwnTQ
Crazy zealots are the problem. It's much less the bible, and more the misinterpretation of the bible that causes so many of the world's problems. One of the ten commandments even states that you should not create an image of God. And yet, the stereotypical Christians imagine God as man-like, against the wishes of the bible.
There is no philosophical proof for God's existence. However, non-existence of God also can't be proved.
It is unlikely that God serves and reponds to human desires - that's a very human-centric view.
However,science does not, and cannot, explain everything. Many scientists believe in a higher power. Einstein's views are particularly interesting and often cited. Although he didn't believe in judeochristian religion necessarily, he felt that belief in God was a direct result of being a scientist. He was also repelled by atheists who rebelled against religion because of earlier bad experiences.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-12 12:11 ID:JGePlZyV
first im gonna slice your balls
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-12 14:23 ID:qvshxmPZ
"There is so much to learn that CAN be tested, and that IS falsifiable and knowable. We shouldn't waste our time with philosophical bullshit when we can perform real science and learn the real physical laws of our universe. Way to trivialize science, dickhead"
Why bother if there's no afterlife and in a century you're gone and none of it matters.
>>75
To satisfy our curiosity, and to increase our odds of perpetuating the species are two reasons I can think of.
But if you're a theist who intends to play the "Why? Why? Why?" game, I would ask you, "Why bother even if there *is* a god and an afterlife? To worship this god? What for? Because he said so? So what?" Eventually you'll come to a point where you'll say, "Well, that's good enough for me." And, well, satisfying my curiosity and increasing the odds of perpetuating the species are good enough for me. :)
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-12 16:32 ID:ANb0WwDY
By the way, does anyone here go on atheism forums like atheistnetwork.com?
>>77
why would you want to perpetuate a species? its a hopeless goal, eventually everything will die anyway, why prolong its death? why is life better than death? what point is there in any of that? do you just do pointless things because you like them?
i don't get the "why bother worshipping god just because he said so" thing. if there is a supreme being with the power to eternally torment or eternally grace you with bliss, i'd want probably want to be on the bliss side. i mean, i guess you don't have to (even if he exists) but if he would punish you, why? people rebel against an oppressive government because they feel its wrong and they hope for change one day even if its far after their death; why would you rebel against an omnipotent god?
>>79
I'm going to bet you failed high school English.
A good portion of the world's population - the intelligent portion - lives for the present and short-term future (short-term meaning within our lifespan, or the lifespan of our children). You, on the other hand, would apparently shit your pants and commit suicide if you did not have some eternal goal to reach for. Yet the fact that you are posting here indicates that you do not apply this idea to other aspects of your life: this thread will be deleted not too long from now, and you still insist on posting in it. Either quit ranting about the "without god nothing matters!!" bullshit or preach what you practice and stop posting altogether.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-12 20:08 ID:ANb0WwDY
>>79
Eternity would be enough time to get used to torture, and on the flip-side, heaven would get pretty boring after while. Also, think about all the religious nut-jobs and hypocrites like Fred Phelps, Ted Haggard and Jerry Falwell. I don't think heaven would be all that enjoyable in the first place with fundies like them there. Yuck. Give me hell any day of the week. And how much fun could kissing the arse of a megalomaniacal tyrant for eternity be?
Actually, you wouldn't even be able to feel pain without a nervous system, and in hell you'd be without a body, and therefore without nerves, so you wouldn't feel pain from the supposed torture. This is a fact that the authors of the Bible were obviously unaware of.
Anyway, to answer your first question, personally I like experiencing pleasure, and if I'm dead I may not get to anymore. I never chose to have life, but I have it now, and it's the only one I'm guaranteed, so I might as well just accept it and make the most of it. Personally I choose to have fun with it -- within reason, of course. And, actually, there's no way to truly know what criteria by which God would let us into heaven. He may reward skepticism, and punish blind faith -- think about it, he gives each of us a brain capable of such great intelligence... maybe he is real, and is testing us to see if we use his gift to us properly. Believing he exists just on blind faith is not really using it at all, as it requires no thought. That may hurt his feelings. :P
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-13 0:24 ID:U7DDAoqC
>>80
i'm asking questions to explore the topic. i've yet to express any of my beliefs. you can go on making shit up though.
>>81
i'd think eternal torture and eternal bliss would account for a developed tolerance and adapt to keep you on your toes, else neither would actually be eternal. also, if god hooks you up with some complete utter bliss, i don't think you'd care who your neighbors were. i mean, if heaven and hell really exist, i'm sure you'd care which you were in.
on the body thing... if there's a god and a hell, i'm sure god could arrange for you to feel tortured without a body, if you didn't have one, or if that torture even involves physical pain. if you'll assume for a second that these supernatural reward and punishment realms exist: do you really think you could be relaxing in hell saying "hey, its alright, i dont have a physical body."
i agree with your entire last paragraph. i'm just pushing you to say whether or not you think your life is ultimately meaningless. and yeah, you seem to have a preference for life, but why? is it just instinctive? just because youre human? i don't think youre 100% sure that what you do doesn't matter from what you say.
>>82
Regardless of what you believe, your questions are what I would expect from a middle school student who is "totally deep." Not believing them makes you less of an idiot, but you are an idiot of some note either way.
Name:
4tran2007-07-13 1:11 ID:qRDSeFyo
>>70
Sorry for offending you. The "drinking vodka" was totally unnecessary, but somehow seemed to fit with the sentence. Alcohol is not relevant to the discussion at hand. Apologies.
Just because there are more important things to learn/test than philosophy doesn't make it completely baseless. Given your sentiments, it won't be possible to convince you otherwise, so this is a moot point. Btw, I did not trivialize science in any way. Science is critical to our understanding of physical reality (though string theory rides the line of what you would consider bullshit).
I obviously didn't word my question regarding religion correctly. It is obvious that for those high in the religious hierarchy, religion is a way to impose and maintain their power. Such people are probably smart enough to understand that this is all unfalsifiable. The commoner isn't so smart. They are willing to believe in religion because they are not smart enough to imagine any other alternative, yet at the same time, wonder about their existance. Why/how are we here? Religion offers a crappy, unfalsifiable answer. You have no answer, other than "it just is".
>>81
You mention a good point: most religious nuts haven't thought about what living in heaven for eternity will really be like. I think most of humanity will not like heaven too much.
If God exists, I think he'd want us to use our heads.
>>82
Can it really adapt infinitely, or does it reach some sort of limit like a logistic curve?
>>83
Why would you expect his questions to come from a middle schooler? Just because he neglects to capitalize words?
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-13 1:57 ID:U7DDAoqC
>>84
82 here. i don't personally know if heaven or hell exists, or what they're like if they do. i mean, who knows if theyre actually eternally anything anyway. i just think it's a bit odd to say you'd "get used to it" if you're talking about an eternally bad or eternally good thing. if after a while it just didn't matter, then eh, really its not that eternal.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-13 3:16 ID:dPQxUAHm
>>84
I expect his questions to come from a middle schooler because it is exactly the rubbish spouted by middle schoolers (and high schoolers sometimes, to be fair) who want to sound deep. Arguing - or "questioning," since the middle schooler is apparently unwilling to state his actual beliefs/opinions - that someone who does not believe in an afterlife should kill themselves (or has no reason to live, to put it less bluntly) is naive in the extreme. At its basis is the assumption that anything impermanent is irrelevant, but few people in the world - if any - can make an argument based on such an assumption without being hypocritical. As I pointed out in >>80, why eat good tasting food when the taste is going to be gone soon after you finish the meal? Why post on this forum espousing your ideas, when the thread will be deleted eventually? Why pay money for an air conditioner? Eventually you will die, either going to an afterlife or ceasing to exist. In either case, the comfort or discomfort you experienced due to inclement weather during your life is quite insignificant.
Name:
4tran2007-07-13 6:15 ID:qRDSeFyo
>>86
I haven't had recent contact with middle/high schoolers, so I'll assume you provide an accurate portrayal of such children.
Soo... atheism wins?
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-13 6:28 ID:hpmRgf9+
>>82
Certainly it is partly instinctual, but also, like I said before this is the only life I'm guaranteed, and although I never asked to be born, I'm here now, so I might as well make the best of it. That's good enough for me. I'm not going to waste the only life I have going to church, praying to a god who probably doesn't exist, reading the Bible or the Koran, or whatever, and restricting myself from so many things that I would enjoy "just in case." Religious claims are pretty far-fetched, and I find that what sounds too good to be true generally is. I'm not worried.
Besides, you'd think that the amazing, all-powerful God would be capable of simply changing homosexuals to heterosexuals, and non-believers to believers all by merely thinking it, you know, since he supposedly doesn't approve of gays or non-theists. Yet, there are gays and non-theists. With an omnipotent being running the show, who doesn't approve of these things, what the heck are they doing here? Would you stand for that if you were him? Yeah, yeah, "God works in mysterious ways, I'm not God so I can't say, yadda yadda," but... what would be difference between there being a mysterious, evasive God working behind the scenes, and no such thing at all?
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-13 9:34 ID:tQo3U4/L
People are being annoyingly christian in this thread.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-13 10:18 ID:Las9oxOL
>>75 >>70 here. The other guy in the thread is doing a decent job of tearing you up, but I want to add that it goes far beyond personal gain.
For atheists, this life is all we have. Once we die, that's it, so we make the most of our lives here on Earth. The point of life for us is very simple: to be happy. Your "why don't you just kill yourself" attitude is incredibly naive, and shows that you haven't even considered the other side of the argument.
With science and technology, we can improve the standard of living for everyone on Earth. We have the potential to make everyone happy; to end world hunger, to end poverty, to end suffering. This is why science is so important.
Your posts make you sound like a tremendously selfish person, doing everything simply to gain grace with your God to earn an afterlife of bliss. You don't seem to care a hoot about anyone else.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-13 10:41 ID:rAeeO4CO
Who am I? I don't believe in God because he doesn't come down and do magic tricks for me. I'm all you atheists.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-13 12:20 ID:Z5tRaqMI
Mother Teresa hung a copy of this poem on a wall of the orphanage she founded in Calcutta. Its source is unknown.
People are often unreasonable,
illogical and self-centered;
Forgive them anyway.
If you are kind,
People may accuse you
of selfish, ulterior motives;
Be Kind anyway.
If you are successful,
you will win some false friends and
some true enemies;
Succeed anyway.
If you are honest and frank,
people may cheat you;
Be honest and frank anyway.
What you spend years building,
someone could destroy overnight;
Build anyway
If you find serenity and happiness,
they may be jealous;
Be happy anyway.
The good you do today,
people will often forget tomorrow;
Do good anyway.
Give the world the best you have,
and it may never be enough;
Give the world the best you've got anyway.
You see, in the final analysis.
it is between you and God;
It is never between you and them anyway.
--------
as an atheist, (or a weak atheist if you prefer), I love this poem. It shows exactly how I feel about the world.
Well except that last part which shows what selfish jerks Christians really are. Fascinating, truly, fascinating.
i have considered the "other side of the argument" quite a bit. i'm agnostic, and i think morals, meaning of life, etc can all be derived in the absence of god or an afterlife, or if god/afterlife exists then you have morals and meaning trivially.
i didn't want to state my beliefs because i'm asking questions "from the other side"; i'm interested in the responses, and i don't want people to just say "we agree anyway, why bother." we might not agree perfectly either, because i think what you could derive in the absence of god would have to be something much lesser because of its ephemeral nature. the best you've got, though.
i don't think people who don't believe in an afterlife should kill themselves. however, in my opinion to not question your own beliefs is naive.
"At its basis is the assumption that anything impermanent is irrelevant, but few people in the world - if any - can make an argument based on such an assumption without being hypocritical."
human action doesn't necessarily have to coincide with a logical conclusion. i'm not sure that's the assumption that was shining in those questions anyway. if, for instance, your temporary earthly life mattered in affecting your eternal afterlife, then it would be very relevant. what i'm asking is more like, "if there's no afterlife, does what happens in your life matter". does it matter whether you choose things randomly or after careful consideration? does it matter whether you steal or kill or commit suicide? if you died today, would anything matter tomorrow? essentially, i'm not even asking if you can have morals in the absence of god, but if those morals actually matter. do you have a reason not to do bad things?
i'd say no, if there's no afterlife, it wouldn't matter, apart from what you physically experience and your reputation if thats important (why). there would be no real meaning to it. eventually you wouldn't be around to care. maybe it would upset the people you left behind. so? they'll get over it or die sooner or later. now, personally, i'm not going to go do that, because i think it's unfair and mean. i don't know if i have any reason not to do unfair and mean things though, especially if i won't be around for their outcomes.
apart from that, while you accuse me of being a middle schooler, you haven't argued any of your points, nor answered any questions. you've just made claims both about me and about life and dismissed questions as naive. apparently you also think you can argue against a question, rather than a statement, by asking similar questions, like that's some clever trick.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-13 14:25 ID:U7DDAoqC
here's my beliefs if you want them so badly btw:
i've been wondering about this because atheists generally tend to get pissed off when religious people say that an atheist can't have morals because they don't believe in god. as an agnostic, i've tried to think of why i should have any adherence to some morality, you know, in case there's no god. so first i need a basis of morality, and second i need a reason to follow it.
if i assume there is no god, i don't want to permit some supernatural laws of good and evil here, because imo thats not much different from the idea of god. stuff like karma might as well be an automated vending machine god that judges you and deals your rewards and punishments. in the euthyphro, plato tries to establish that good and evil are above the gods, but imo again if it matters whether you adhere to these supernatural laws (if doing good or evil has an actual effect on you at some point during or after life), i think that's pretty close to the idea of god in a different, less personalized form.
so the only place i could think to look to is human nature. as in, maybe morality is derived from survival of the individual and communities. maybe its evolutionary. i mean, it makes sense that murder would be bad, because it doesn't help the community survive. you can explore all of that and wonder why certain things should be bad or good in consideration of this, but eventually you have to address part two of this problem.
why should i adhere to this morality? as a human, am i obligated to increase the survivability of humanity? why? nothing really adverse happens to me if i don't always do that. sometimes, i could benefit more from "bad" things. this might be a shortsighted view, i mean, i don't know the exact implications economically of stealing sunglasses. but in this model, if you know youre not going to get caught, and maybe you know they won't even notice, why not do it? you've got some moral code, but there are scenarios where theres no negative effects for breaking it.
Morality is relative; there is no good nor bad, just perspective.
Through evolution, we have gained a degree of altruism, which can and is labeled as the source of our morality. This altruism is the reason why we help people and why we are nice to people- so that the help and niceness is reciprocated when we need it. The Golden Rule, basically. However, this is not to say that we have an ingrained sense of right and wrong, a conscience, as we like to call it. Rather we are equipped with these basic principles of altruism so that community and cooperation fostered. Such qualities were crucial back in ancient times when our ancestors fought for survival in their little groups.
Realizing this, no, murder is not bad. Simply, it is just harmful to the group, and anything that is harmful to the group is shunned in place of more productive actions.
To answer some more of your questions (you had quite a few), no, you do not have to adhere to this morality or any other form of morality. Problem is, government and laws and asinine old/dying/dead farts in suits get to decide what you can be punished for.
You are also not obligated to increase the survivability of humanity. We have evolved beyond the point were instinct completely dominates our actions.
I like how you asked so many questions. Don't stop. Question authority. Question everything, and that includes what I have just told you.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-16 6:12 ID:GM1laemd
Here's what I like to think about: if no one ever told you about god, religion, whatever... then would you even come up with the idea of god on your own? I would say no.
But some people say yes. Then what? Would you be able to know what this god wanted from you? No. You'd have to just think, there's some power that created everything/looking over us/whatever and that's all that you can believe.
But then other people fucked everything up. They invented all these rules and traditions and bullshit... spoiled everything.
Believe whatever you want, but stop letting it run your lives... sheep.
Man #1: A giant alien space monster made us all!
Man #2: Yes, and he has all sorts of rules for us to follow!
Man #3: Well, is there any proof for the existence of this giant alien space monster and his rules?
Man #4: None of that sounds like the details of my OWN giant alien space monster, anyway. I disagree.
{Man #1 and #2 bomb the hell out of Man #3 and #4.}
Man #1 and #2: Our giant alien space monster is superior and will bless us for this great victory!
*THE*END*
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-16 13:28 ID:b8rQhwJO
protip: god is not religion
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-16 14:27 ID:O5TVModY
>>98 To answer some more of your questions (you had quite a few), no, you do not have to adhere to this morality or any other form of morality. Problem is, government and laws and asinine old/dying/dead farts in suits get to decide what you can be punished for.
So if some greasy pedo gets ahold of a little girl and molests her, he shouldn't be punished for that? What if it was YOUR little girl? Would you still be calling these people "asinine" for deciding that the child molester should be punished?
Religion relies upon the existence of this "god" character.
Therefore:
No god = no religion.
Thanks for playing, Sparky. Note well that no matter how much I deride the "holy rollers", there is STILL no evidence for their silly god whatsoever. Key point, Chum. {snaps fingers} Just seeing if you're awake, you unwarrantedly arrogant prick.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-16 16:38 ID:O5TVModY
Tooth decay, arthritis, bad knees, bad backs, birth defects, Spina Bifida, diabeetis, Cystic Fibrosis, Muscular Dystrophy, cancer...
Intelligent Design indeed!
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-16 18:31 ID:pB1i7WXe
Why does everyone assume that "God" has to be the Christian God?
Name:
32007-07-16 18:36 ID:gQHhnZ4A
You can not prove that God exists or doesn't exist. Its all a matter of opinion. But its better to be safe than sorry! SO DON'T FUCK UP!
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-16 18:55 ID:O5TVModY
>>107
Because that's how the word "God" (with a capital "G") is commonly used.
I'm sick of people making God out to be like a hundred different things. Might as well say God is their friggin' bed sheets, for cryin' out loud. Honestly. "God" (note the capital "G") refers to the [alleged] omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent creator of the universe. If people want to refer to a god other than the Christian one, they ought to use a different name.
Sorry, I didn't mean to instigate an ad hominem attack with some of my harsher comments (the /b/ in me kicking in). It is, however, still a logical fallacy and I will it ignore because so.
#108 went all stupid on us: «You can not prove that God exists or doesn't exist. Its all a matter of opinion.»
No, it's not just 'a matter of opinion'. The assertion of a universe-spanning being who has allegedly dipped into Human affairs readily and frequently is at the very least an INVITATION FOR PROOF.
The final fact of the issue is that when you make any such assertion, you have to prove it. The more outrageous the assertion, the stronger the need for proof. The assertions of the existence of this 'god' continue to go 100% unproved. Hence, they are WRONG.
After all, if you assert that some sort of deity exists, you must have detected it somehow, right? Either that, or you're deranged and you should stop speaking in public forums and instead obtain profession help. It's what happens when people experience hallucinations and other mental afflictions.
#110 wept at the slaughter of his inane sacred cows: «Religion does NOT necessitate a God or some other higher power. Ever heard of Buddhism or Satanism?»
Religion by definition defines itself from something divine. That divinity can be iconic or just some sort of force. Regardless, the assertion of the existence of anything like that REQUIRES the demonstration of proof. If the divinity is an icon, then that icon must be shown via photographs, etc. If the divinity is a force, then other instruments should record it.
AFTER ALL ... when people (usually very, very stupid ones) assert that their godhead exists, they must have detected it somehow. I mean, it's either that, or they're mentally addled and should be locked up for their own protection. People with "imaginary friends" (among other delusions) are dangerous to society.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-17 0:51 ID:IgLeFJxC
redcream, go the fuck home. you're an idiot who adds either obvious or retarded incorrect points to any argument, and you're an arrogant jackass. i'd thank you for using a name as a warning, but i can't seem to help but waste my time reading your mental train wrecks when i see it.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-17 0:53 ID:IgLeFJxC
>>113
just adding that i'm an atheist, so don't try to write me off as some whacky christian, as it seems you're wont to do.
#113, it may be arrogant to be right, but we should try to be right instead of just joining the "Crusade of the Wrong".
At any rate, I'm never going away. Get used to my postings. I may as well just continue repeating my points since you fail to address them (since they're right, so perhaps I shouldn't blame you for being too cowardly to even debate).
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-17 13:32 ID:IgLeFJxC
>>115
i'll take the time to quickly address them, but i sincerely doubt you'd give what i say any critical consideration, because you've come off as someone with either an agenda or a large set of preconceived unwavering beliefs.
1) you've intentionally misrepresented the notion of the abrahamic God as a fabricated giant space monster. regardless of the validity of your misrepresentation, our discussion was about the existence of a god, with emphasis on the current christian notion, or at least something with omnipotence, omniscience, and omnibenevolence.
2) i don't know where you got your ideas on what proof is and what requires proof. you can make any assertion you want and you don't have to prove shit. you can claim youre the spaceking ixxkeput of nebulon 48-r and you don't have to prove it. i just won't believe you until i see proof. if you want to convince me, then there has to be proof. you yourself don't even have to provide it. i just have to see it at some point, then i'll be convinced.
3) for some reason, regarding the one possibly sarcastic guy who claimed that god is unprovable, you called him stupid. i'm not sure why, since i doubt you have proof that god is provable, and you certainly didn't provide it if you do. so, until we know that god is provable or disprovable, and you have a proof for or against god, you can only have an opinion on it.
4) "The assertions of the existence of this 'god' continue to go 100% unproved. Hence, they are WRONG."
this thread and others like it have already addressed several times why this is a retarded thing to say. i'll invite you to read through the thread, and as a bonus, i'll tell you to inspect a list of logical fallacies.
5) "After all, if you assert that some sort of deity exists, you must have detected it somehow, right?"
The following are two possibilities, there are more:
It's been detected by means of the human body not readily repeatable in a scientific setting with a body or other instruments.
Someone made it up.
In any case, it doesn't follow from an assertion that there was any good reason for that assertion other than an imagination and what caused that person to write/speak. Now, you personally have made up some retarded arguments, so I guess by your own logic, you should be strapped to a table in a padded room for having an imagination.
6) many definitions of religion do not necessitate a higher power of any form, though many emphasize it, and some require it. go look it up in a couple different sources, such as the ones that don't conform to your convenience.
7)you're not right. you're just an arrogant jackass. if you were arrogant and right, i wouldn't care. even if you were arrogant and wrong but you justified what you said, i wouldn't mind much. the same things that allow people to be wrong: a lack of critical examination, belief without proof, etc, are things you seem to be familiar with yourself. i just happen to think you're guessing in favor of a better side. unfortunately, i think you're a terrible representative of this side in any sort of argument, because you're an idiot, and you argue like an idiot.
8) i didn't expect you to leave. i just wanted to express my disapproval of you. though i doubt that means anything to you either. for all i know, you could have some sort of social disorder where the views of others are completely meaningless to you as far as determining your own behavior.
9) you've already repeated your points, which i guess you've already acknowledged, since you said "continue repeating" rather than just "repeating".
Wow, #116. WOW! You're actually trying to GET AROUND THE HARD REQUIREMENT OF PROOF. Jesus, you're demented!
The truth is, your "Abrahamic God" doesn't seem to be around when people bring out the cameras, microphones and plaster casts. Generally we call things that don't leave valid evidence to be "imaginary" -- hence the phrase "your imaginary friend" when we speak derisively of your mental affliction.
You can utterly destroy my arguments by quite simply producing EVIDENCE. Show us a photograph of this space monster, or whatever the hell it is. Got any audio of 'He That Is Him' giving out commandments? Do you have any REAL EVIDENCE?
I really don't have to do ANYTHING more to prove my point. It's YOU religitards who have made the outrageous assertion that this space monster exists. When you assert the existence of something, it's surely not up to ME to somehow disprove it, and that goes DOUBLE for making such a farcical assertion (as is the case for any giant alien space monster or whatever the heck such an exotic creature is). Roll it on out here, guy!
JUST PROVE IT. After all, YOU somehow detected it, didn't you? I mean, if it's not a MENTAL AFFLICTION, then you can demonstrate the existence that you apparently sensed.
... and by "sense" I can ONLY mean: sight, sound, touch. Just having a "feeling" is invalid evidence, since "feelings" are never evidence of anything concrete. Humans are great composers of fiction, so feelings don't constitute evidence.
I eagerly await your proof. (Of course, YOU DON'T FUCKING HAVE ANY, but from the Human mind hope doth spring eternal!)
P.S. I have a giant alien space monster that comes out of my ass when nobody is looking. Hey, you can't disprove it; if you say it doesn't exist, that's only your opinion, fella! Believe me, when a giant alien space monster comes out of your anus, you get this "feeling", and that's more than enough evidence ... well, that, and huge bills from my proctologist. Har!
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-17 16:06 ID:QVCFZQI+
>>116
I take it you're not in Canada or the U.S., or you are but you've been living under a rock this whole time. Anyway, American Christians are imposing their beliefs upon others' lives, making it so that they, regardless of THEIR beliefs or lack thereof, have to live by the Christians' rules. In some states, people who don't believe in old Goddie-boy aren't allowed to hold public office or be in boy scouts. Many orphanages don't allow gay couples to adopt, on the basis of, "homosexuality is against our religion," and gays aren't allowed in the Army, again because Christians believe homosexuality is "wrong". You have non-theists being fired from their jobs and dumped by their girlfriends because these Christians don't want someone who doesn't share their "love of God". And in some states, you can't buy alcohol on Sundays, because it's "God's day of rest."
Then there's Ken Ham and his Creationism museum, which over 20 million dollars went into, and Creationism is silly; it says just because we create complex things, we too must have been created because we are even more complex than our creations. I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way; that's speculation; it's no different than if one were to say, "Dog poop is brown, and, hey! Chocolate is brown, too! So this dog poop here should taste like chocolate! Nom nom nom." That's right, Creationists, eat up! If this is the sort of thing that passes for "sound reasoning", then what are you waiting for? Go get your hot, fresh dog shit!
And they tried to push for Creationism to be taught as science. Such audacity. Oh, and we can't forget the mandatory Lord's Prayer in certain schools. Hellooo, not everyone is Chrisssssstian. How about some respect for the non-religious people and people of other religions.
And in many places, non-believers are shunned and ridiculed simply for lacking belief.
Now, the situation isn't quite as bad here in Canada, however it is still bad. We have both a public and Catholic school board, and Creationism is taught in the Catholic schools. So, our tax dollars are being wasted on this nonsense.
So it's high time the religious prove their beliefs true, or kindly keep it the fuck out of government and education, because it doesn't belong there. That's what your churches are for.
also, as i've stated several times now, it's not my god. again, you've resorted to ostricizing me and calling me out as some whacky believer in imaginary things, when i've specifically pointed out that i am not a theist. now i think you're just making yourself look stupid on purpose.
i'm not saying there's evidence. i'm just saying you're a stupid person who makes poor arguments. i am not currently arguing for god, i am arguing against the idea that you are an intelligent person. as such, we are very much in the same boat, both awaiting proof contrary to our ideas. except i'm not an idiot about it.
in conclusion, i agree, i don't have any proof of god. coincidentally, this is a large part of why i am an atheist. however, i now have substantially more evidence that you are, in fact, a complete retard. please continue to read everything incorrectly, and insert your own assumptions into other people's words. i can only hope that you realize how much you are currently embarassing yourself.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-17 16:33 ID:IgLeFJxC
>>118
i'm an american, and i'm not pretending i don't see religious influence in my daily life. however, that is distinct from the question of whether or not god actually exists. this would have to do with human rights, what freedom actually is, the legal system, the validity of a particular religion, and our system of government in general. yes, it might be related, but it's not the same discussion. as a side note though, i agree, government and religion should be strictly seperated. however, if government continues to rule on the legality of certain practices which have implications related to morality/values, there will necessarily be an influence on government by religion, and so on the population at large. also, as long as you have a representative government in which a majority or significant power can influence elected officials, i think you're likely to see a strong mix of religion and state.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-17 16:39 ID:QVCFZQI+
And it wouldn't take much to prove that God is real. We could have believers pray that God regenerate the limbs of all amputees, cure all cancer patients, and end poverty, and actually see it all happen before our eyes. Though, surely that has already been attempted (I mean, who wouldn't want that?), and yet, there are still amputees and all that, and believers won't pull their heads out of their asses long enough to think that this might mean their God is nothing but a myth. Heh... and they call us non-theists "closed-minded". Oh, the irony...
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-17 17:10 ID:IgLeFJxC
>>121
see, i look at this, and i say "well, that would show that prayer doesn't seem to be a reliable way of getting this particular arbitrary thing done." i consider this both a rational and a scientific conclusion, and consider any further conclusions to be an unjustified leap and insult to the scientific method.
you know, unless that god necessarily had the feature that it reacted to prayer in a way contradictory to our findings. then you can say that there is not a god who necessarily has that feature, since that feature doesn't seem to coincide with our findings.
but then you'd have to know that god necessarily has that feature, ***and it would be a bit hypocritical of you to get that information from the bible or christian teachings, since you've apparently just rejected other aspects of it yourself.***
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-17 17:23 ID:QVCFZQI+
>>120 >>120
Point is, they can't prove their beliefs true, so they have no business letting those beliefs dictate everyone else's lives. It's not fair to us, and you can bet they would be up in arms too if it was the other way around. If I wanted to go out and buy beer on a Sunday, I should damn well be able to. If they want to stop me and say, "God doesn't approve of that!" I'll say, "Tell ya what. You prove God exists, and I'll turn around and go home. But if you can't, then get out of my way. It's that simple." And if my gay friend wants to adopt, but they tell him he can't because "God doesn't like fags," I'll say, "Okay, prove God exists, then you can deny him service. Can't? Then that's discrimination, and I will not stand for it."
Religious assholes have no business whatsoever dictating our lives with their stupid beliefs. And you want to speak in their defense; to play Devil's Advocate? What for? What's the matter with you?
"... and by "sense" I can ONLY mean: sight, sound, touch." You want someone to prove that God exists by using his or her senses? Do you know how ridiculous that sounds? It is tantamount to saying that one must provide evidence of electrons by use of sight, sound, or touch. You simply can't.
P.S. I'm an atheist and you seem to be one as well, but try not to make a complete ass out of yourself. Some theistic sterotypers might see your attitude as an indication of all of our attitudes.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-18 0:27 ID:p0gHr5L/
>>123
the point is, you're voicing political theory. you can move this to another thread if you want. there we can discuss individual liberties related to toxic substances, qualifications for adopting a child, the government's ability to regulate business, any civil rights you'd like really, the role of religion in government, the role of government in cultural values, and the pros and cons of a representative republic or similar form of government. you'd better bring some good arguments or evidence for whether things are beneficial or detrimental though, because otherwise there's no good reason to change from anything we've got now, regardless of how shitty you perceive it to be.
i have a habit of playing devil's advocate because i try to remain objective when discussing topics of interest to me. or might you prefer i blindly cast off their views because i disagree with them? i would find that unforgivably ignorant. what's the matter with you?
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-18 8:43 ID:47wczr1S
>>125
You don't seem to understand *what* I'm saying. What I'm saying is Christian dogma doesn't belong in government (nor in the science classroom, for that matter) because it is not established fact; it's far-fetched and unsubstantiated, so it shouldn't dictate what the rest of us can and cannot do, and should not be taught as fact in schools. Don't you agree? I thought you said you were an agnostic; a non-theist. You're defending theists an awful lot for an a non-theist. These people have imposed their superstitious lifestyle upon you; dictated what you are and aren't allowed to do, based on their irrational beliefs. Are you going to stand for that? Doesn't it bother you? The way I see it, these people do not deserve our support. They are in the wrong, and they need to be reminded of that. By speaking in their defense you only reassure them, in their minds, that they're right, so leave it to them to defend their own faith. If they can't, well then they ought to do the sensible thing and discard their superstitions and get them out of government. I guarantee Christians would not let people of other worldviews get away with the crap they're pulling right now. So why should we let Christians get away with it? Screw "religious tolerance" and all that. They would NOT show us the same courtesy that we are expected to show them, if it was the other way around.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-18 10:06 ID:B2xMGugT
Hi
I'm deeply religious. I have strong faith in my belief. I don't need proof, I trust my belief, this feeling. I love my religion. I'm an atheist.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-18 10:21 ID:hti54nrm
Hi
I am an idiot who doesn't get it. I think probability is not a valid argument. In fact, I didn't even know that was there argument in the first place. Not that I care, because I'll disregard anything they say blindly anyway. I'm an idiot.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-18 10:22 ID:hti54nrm
their
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-18 13:26 ID:p0gHr5L/
>>126
no, i understand what you're saying, and i agree with most of it, but those are political issues. i think it would be wrong to discredit or ignore certain aspects of their position in philosophical discussion specifically for political ends, which is what i feel you are asking me to do.
i don't feel i've really defended them in the sense of arguing from their side either. rather, i've pointed out what i don't find to be a convincing or valid argument against them, which is defense, but my goal was not to protect them, but to look at whether arguments were actually meaningful.
kindly shut the fuck up. agnosticism is not the idea of "not knowing" at all, and i'll personally KILL anyone who says that. it is the belief that there is no evidence either way. saying you're agnostic about god is saying that you believe we can neither prove nor disprove god's existence; it's the belief in non-falsifiability.
at the expense of sitting here and reading the entire thread, i'll simply say this: the scientific method does not provide facts, and it does not provide so-called laws. they are nothing but hypotheses which are subject to change. that is the scientific method. anyone who claims that science has proven anything has not, on any single occasion, looked up the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning.
And you also forgot about implicit and explicit atheism.
Oh and about the scientific method not providing laws, that's false... Through the use of the scientific method, hypotheses and theories are created. "The concept of a scientific law is closely related to the concept of a scientific theory. In practice the terms are often interchanagable, though scientific theory can be a systematically integrated set of related scientific laws that leads to greater insight and further predictions than the laws alone would." -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law
So, in fact, the scientific method can and does provide scientific laws because the theories it generates are laws or are composed of laws.
Do you realise that by quoting that, you just backed up what I said? You demonstrated it was true. A scientific "law" is not a truth. These are very distinct things. To use the classic example, if we see a sheep in a field that is white, we could provide a scientific "fact" that all sheep are therefore white, but it is just a theory, a hypothesis, which is tested against future cases of sheep and whether or not they're white. It was once scientific "fact" that the Earth was flat and that the Sun revolved around it. However, the only true fact that can be said from viewing this one sheep is that there is at least one sheep in a field, one side of which is white.
To quote what you quoted: "In practice the terms are often interchanagable [sic], though scientific theory can be a systematically integrated set of related scientific laws that leads to greater insight and further predictions than the laws alone would."
Cutting out the crap in that sentence, it says that a scientific theory is a set of scientific laws. That doesn't justify the truth of the so-called laws. And what you said about "through the scientific method, hypotheses and theories are created," That's exactly right -- I'm not disputing that -- but these theories are not universally true, they are things to test over and over. That's my point.
It's a very subtle difference. If you said to me, "do you believe that god exists?" and I said "I don't know, I'm not sure. I'm just sitting on the fence, because I'm undecided," then that is very different to saying, "I believe we can't prove it either way." The point is that I can be either theist or atheist and still be agnostic. I can believe that god exists but that we can't PROVE he does or he doesn't from evidence. Similarly, I can believe he doesn't exist but be agnostic.
Hey guys, it's me again. I'm just checking back to see if the religinuts have proffered any proof for the existence of whatever giant alien space monster they prefer. And from what I can see, again, as it has been for centuries, no proof comes forward. So it looks like the giant alien space monster -- the evidence for which should be laying around in great profusion -- doesn't exist and instead we should devolve the explanation to "some people are fucking nuts" and leave it at that.
Of course, if any evidence for giant alien space monsters DOES show up, we'll be receptive to it. My calendar is free for such an event. Let me know.
Until then ... ciao, religifucks! (BTW, please get some serious psychological help.)
Implicit atheism is defined as the absence of belief in God or gods because you aren't aware of such ideas. The opposite, explicit atheism, means you have an absence of belief in God or gods while fully aware of them.
I am one fat dude who loves the cock, and my bitchtits are so big it's like you could squeeze 'em and milk would come out. WOOOOOOOOoooooooOOOOOO!
Name:
4tran2007-07-21 23:53 ID:/hBN6e59
>>138
I see the difference between "undecided" and "can't be proven either way", but don't both imply "not knowing if a divine entity exists"? Just to be sure, are we using the same definition of "knowing"?
>>139
No such proof has been proffered since your last appearance.
When he does show up, we'll be sure to give you a good dose of hallucinogenic chemicals so you will not believe your own senses, and all of us will be a giant conspiracy of lying religitards.
On a moar realistic note, I don't think anyone in this thread is a religi*.
>>141
You have not proffered proof of your existence, and hence I refuse to believe that you exist.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-22 0:37 ID:dM/j5Cch
I exist. I believe in god. Therefore god exists for me and thus god exists.
#143, your "proof" is sophomorically flawed. Just because you assert that something exists to you, doesn't mean that it has universal applicability. In fact, if "god exists" as a result of existing to you, then when you die, this god-thing dies.
Real evidence can be demonstrated to others, and repeatably so. You haven't demonstrated anything except a mental illness. Get help.
"Not knowing if a divine entity exists" is not really the issue here, it's the BELIEF, since there is no proof, no-one can really know. Being undecided and using the phrase "I don't know whether god exists" is a bit of a butchery, and it's actually saying "I don't know where my beliefs lay in relation to god's existence". Saying that you believe we can't prove it is a lot like saying "I believe we'll never ever KNOW, because we'll never be able to get evidence for either side".
Name:
4tran2007-07-22 9:13 ID:UK+JdgGP
>>146
I think I understand you better. You seem to be using a slightly different definition of agnosticism from what I had been expecting; I was making the mistake of equating uncertainty with indeterminability (former a logical consquence of the latter, but not the other way around).
>since there is no proof, no-one can really know
So your claim then, is that no human really knows (now), and the definitions of (a)theist/agnostic completely regard one's belief?
If any human knew, they would have to have proof, which would be splattered all over the news, or at least would have been, long ago.
The definitions of atheism and agnosticism do indeed regard one's belief. Atheism should itself be crystal clear, in terms of it regarding belief. Agnosticism is.. well, at the risk of repeating myself, a dictionary definition:
1. The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
2. The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.
It would appear that there is in fact a strong and weak agnosticism, as with atheism:
Weak agnosticism, or empirical agnosticism (also negative agnosticism), is the belief that the existence or nonexistence of deities is currently unknown, but is not necessarily unknowable, therefore one will withhold judgment until more evidence is available.
Weak agnosticism is in contrast to strong agnosticism, in which the agnostic believes that the existence of any gods is not only unknown, but is also unknowable to humanity.
Learn something new, every day, etc.
Name:
Anonymous2007-07-22 12:16 ID:JfyEEXnl
Whatever the type of agnosticism it is still more logical than atheism.
How is atheism illogical? Are you saying that if someone comes to you and says "I believe that god does not exist?", you call them illogical? That's like saying that "I like orange, not blue" is illogical.
I just pulled Gilgamesh right the fuck out of my ass. Thankfully, due to the examples set by the rest of the world's religions, I don't have to prove that that actually happened. You just have to take my word for it.
Abraham Lincoln was a Human and we have thousands of examples of Humans at hand in case we doubt their existence. There have been ZERO examples of divinities, either in history (per the evidence) or today (again, per the evidence). Other than stories, any claim of the existence of a divinity is patently absurd.
There aren't any Cyclops, Unicorns and Fairies, either. Strange how people seem perfectly accepting that THOSE were fictional, yet when it comes to some giant alien space monster, they have trouble accepting its fictionality!
What Carl Sagan has advised for us is perfectly apt: Claims require evidence, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Gilgamesh and other divinities are patently absurd; those who insist they exist MUST deliver evidence forthwith or MUST retreat in shame for being such mental gayfailers.
Divinities should be leaving evidence all over the fucking place, too. But we have none. Shame on you, you religious gayfailers! How much more OBVIOUS can it be that you twattards believe in something that doesn't exist?
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-02 15:31 ID:eI2AVhVc
The proof of Gilgamesh's existence is that, without Gilgamesh, there would be no proof!
But Gilgamesh is a divinity whose frequent interest in Humans would be leaving evidence all around this fucking place. Where is all that evidence? Where are the burning bushes that are not consumed? Where's the walking on water without using those funny inflatable booties that the kids use? Where are the resurrections? In fact, where are the miraculous happenings that always seem to disappear (again, leaving no evidence) once skeptical observers appear with recording devices?
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-26 0:18 ID:BFBhKBkk
q
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-26 0:33 ID:vWE297Px
There is no definitive proof of the existence of god or the nonexistence of god. Therefore, there's no point in debating it. So stfu.
>>177
No, the existence of this god relies upon past events which haven't re-occurred and in fact don't even seem to occur once the cameras and other recording equipment arrive on the scene. On top of that, the existence of a universe-spanning entity should as be fairly easy to prove as any other astronomical entity is. In extreme contrast, we have ZERO EVIDENCE.
Hence, it's fairly clear: This "god" as popularly envisioned simply doesn't exist. It should be producing a lot of evidence, but we have nothing. Q.E.D. (Of course, the religiqueers can't admit that, and continue to insist that LOGIC GAMES support their case. What a sad bunch of farcical people!)
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-26 0:44 ID:KTf89yWA
>>178
proof of a creator is abundant, every ounce of your being, every galaxy and atom traveling space is proof of creation. what kind of faggot are you to pretend there's no proof?
>>178
"On top of that, the existence of a universe-spanning entity should as be fairly easy to prove as any other astronomical entity is"
Unwarranted assumption.
"It should be producing a lot of evidence"
Unwarranted assumption.
And before you follow up with your usual impotent insulting, I'm an atheist. I don't believe in god, but you're a fucking idiot for thinking your "proof" of non-existence is anywhere close to valid. Go back to fucking junior high.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-26 6:54 ID:u/w4SxXX
Im going to quote Bertrand Russell's argument for this, dubbed "Russell's Teapot". (Wikipedia)
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
>>179 FAIL. The existence of the universe is not proof of a PREFERRED creation method. You cannot make such a claim of yours and remain rational, you fucking religifreak.
>>180 FAIL. When you make an outrageous claim, the onus of proof is upon YOU.
>>181 FAIL. We live in a universe where large things produce a lot of evidence, and pervasive things also produce a lot of evidence. Therefore, a large, pervasive thing like a "giant alien space monster" should be producing a LOT of evidence.
Only children and mental incompetents like Christians believe in a invisible, weightless, odorless, incorporeal dragon that tiptoes through their garden at night. The rational man knows that anything ascribed as "invisible, weightless, odorless, incorporeal" is much more likely to simply NOT EXIST. If you don't believe in such a dragon but are quick to point out that there's some sort of chance it exists, then you're just a GAYTHEIST -- you don't have the backbone or balls to stand against the religifucks on what is a clear case for the nonexistence of divinities.
>>182 WIN. Russell is talking REAL SENSE, unlike the gaythiests and religitards who frequent this board.
>>183
"We live in a universe where large things produce a lot of evidence"
Do you actually have a proof of this? Or is it... an unwarranted assumption?
"If you don't believe in such a dragon but are quick to point out that there's some sort of chance it exists"
There's a difference between not thinking there is a chance it exists and abusing a fucking grade school level of logic to "prove" it doesn't exist. Only a moron does the latter.
>>181
i was going to stop you but i'm too late, i tried the, "hey, i'm not theist and you're retarded" route, but despite being incredibly accurate, it fails to break his shield of stupidity.
>>182
any self-respecting agnostic knows that a self-respecting skeptic doesn't know if there is or isn't a teapot in space. also, russel was a philosophical reject when it comes to these things, he was only useful for set theory.
>>183
redcream has previously confessed to agnosticism regarding teapots in space, so i'm going to object to his current endorsement of a man's irrational negation of the existence of space teapots, since he's previously agreed that it can not currently be determined, and no new reasoning has been provided.
Name:
God?2007-08-26 18:38 ID:8ZpWX0Lg
You are God.
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-26 21:25 ID:lSzK5tx7
God is in nature, in the air, the essence of all things, all reality, energy, the cosmos, every atom and electron, God is the universe and reality, and reality exists
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-26 21:57 ID:b72zKIfB
I took a shit on God's chest and he said "MOAR MOAR MOAR!"
>>184
We live in a universe where large things produce a lot of evidence. That you claim not to know proof of that statement means you have read no book past 1st grade. Have you ever heard of geography? Geology? Astronomy? Biology?
My statement stands as self-evident from anyone who has received a sufficiency of primary and secondary education. If you doubt it, you only reveal your insanity, obstinance, or dishonesty. Hence, you're dismissed under one or more of those cases.
There really ISN'T any undetectable dragon tiptoeing through your garden. Similarly, there really ISN'T any undetectable Jewgod tiptoeing through your brain.
>>189
Redcream's Law:
evidence = k * mass where k is a constant.
Name:
Acolyte 3612007-08-27 5:22 ID:LeKtKO90
The Holy One has descended! After waiting for millennia, our holy order is finally graced with your divine presence in the form of RedCream. We support you in your efforts to crush the fallacies of Jesus, Gilgamesh, God, flying teapots, Jewgods, and tiptoeing dragons with your perfect logic. Humiliate those fools who would question the soundness of your logic!
Our main desire is to know your plans for existence. In return, we offer our eternal servitude. Please, enlighten us; show us the truth.
"The rational man knows that anything ascribed as "invisible, weightless, odorless, incorporeal" is much more likely to simply NOT EXIST"
or it hasn't been found yet by science. Moreover if something is not "real" or is "undetectable" it doesn't mean that it does not exist.
You said it yourself: "is much more likely" not "definitively".
That still leaves a small chance for anything "invisible, weightless, odorless, incorporeal" to exist.
Actually there are many new physics theories about objects with more than three or four dimensions (superstrings), so many scientists are trying to found proof of "invisible, weightless, odorless, incorporeal" or almost non-existant-in-our-world matter.
But until the very same moment that we achieve "total knowledge" we could not say what is real and what is not.
"My statement stands as self-evident from anyone who has received a sufficiency of primary and secondary education. If you doubt it, you only reveal your insanity, obstinance, or dishonesty. Hence, you're dismissed under one or more of those cases."
A statement can be self-evident but... it does not mean it's correct to everyone.
That's the same as saying: "If you do not agree with me you're either insane, idiot, or dishonest."
If that's it, I'm happy to be and insane and dishonest idiot.
About the main topic.
To begin with, most of you will hardly believe to a post in a board, but you asked for a proof of God's existence. Sadly I can't find anything to make you believe that God does exists, like I could do with Bush, just by writing about his appearance on your tv or monitor (or in your city if you're that unlucky). Ironically you may believe me if I say that Bush is a trained monkey, but you will not if I say that God does exist.
Of course I could chit-chat for hours about the nature of the soul, the inner spark of existance that's within' everyone.
Or about the "free will" which distinguishes humans from animals, making humans able to choose their own path (when used) without being lead by emotions or instict.
We could also talk about the bible, religions and tons of other things but there's no evidence that it's 100% reliable. That's why faith comes in.
But I'm sure that a small portion of people have heard of demonic possessions.
While the 95% of them are mental illnesses there's a small percentage of them that could not be cured without exorcism. If we do not consider exorcism a "Placebo", which would be crazy since we're talking about patients who aren't aware of their condition.
Moreover some cases are totally crazy, like you see in the movies: patients who vomits iron ( yes, iron with a % of stomach acid...), or are capable of speaking ancient languages unknown to them (impossible, unless our test case is graduated in Ancient Languages, which is difficult to obtain while being in an hospital), and they change their voice to a total different one.
So these kind of patient got cured and healed by exorcists. The "cure" would have been prayers and rituals...and it takes from a mounth to a year.
You can find such medical reports in the Gemini Hospital in Rome. That would make you think: "it's all fake", since Rome is the pope's city, but that's another story, since other european hospitals have the same kind of cases examined, let's assume that they're genuine.
But anyway that leaves a few options left.
If the patients are not ancient language graduated, with the amazing skill of changing his voice (ventriloquist?!), and a stomach who can hold solid iron for days, who set the whole thing up with a guy who calls himself an exorcists, there's a good chance that they may be honest...
You can spend a lifetime looking for a reliable biblic source but you may not find a real proof. Instead you may find a medical report of someone who suffered from a demonic possession, you can find people that will testify that it happend.
So, if it is proved that someone can be healed with these religious rituals, there must be something real in what they say
Well that does not prove that God exist, it just means that demons or whatever causes that disease do exist and exorcists have the "power" to heal it. And they say it comes from God.
Moreover, exorcists and demons are present in almost all religions, in different forms and names. ( You can search for it as a proof).
Isn't it ironic that the proof of demon's existence is among the few "100% proved things" closer to prove that God does exists?
>>193
You can't sanely debate about things yet found by science, since you're just indulging in fiction. On top of that, something as outrageous as the indicated dragon has no precedent. That's a double strike against your musings being considered sane.
You don't need "total knowledge" to dismiss BULLSHIT.
And finally, the correctness of a self-evidency applies to everyone, like it or not. You're just demonstrating your insanity, dishonesty or obstinence. Which is it, fuckcake?
"You don't need "total knowledge" to dismiss BULLSHIT."
That would sound correct but if only you'd read my post you'd find out what I meant. I'll explain it again in simple words. The whole existance is so complex and deep that the "rational man" ( the one you're talking about) is wrong by thinking that he can deny the existance of something "invisible, weightless, odorless, incorporeal" just because he has not experienced it yet.
Again...
"And finally, the correctness of a self-evidency applies to everyone, like it or not."
My statement was a self-evident one... and you did not agree with it. That is why it is correct to me and not to you. Basically you're criticizing my self-evidence while telling me that self-evidence is always correct...
I would have been glad to read someone write: "How can you prove that demonic possession is related to something in-human?" or "The existance of demons does not necessarily means that God does exists", I mean anything that we could debate.
RedCream you're just thinking about showing your english skills
while insulting anyone that does not agree with you.
I wont answer to any of your senseless posts where you'll try to insult me again using your "logic"...
And I'm not provoking you, right now, I'm just feeling really sorry for you.
>>195
Relativity was predicted from a previous set of lesser observations. Science builds up a body of knowledge from observation, then prediction, then investigation, then observation, etc.
OH SHIT YOU'VE BEEN FUCKING PWNED AGAIN.
gb2college, you twentysomething mal-educated fuckwad. You only command enough knowledge to be dangerous, not to be correct.
Name:
Acolyte 3612007-08-28 4:05 ID:3qDmSnoX
RedCream! Answer our prayers! Do not forsake those who have pined for your return.
Reveal to us the mysteries of the world. Why did you make ships disappear in the Bermuda triangle? Why are people hallucinating yetis and other monstrous creatures? Why is Satan complaining about demonic possesssion? Why did you allow the existence of such blasphemous dissenters?
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-28 5:44 ID:A/UKq/eE
FUCK YOU NINTENDO. I PICK FUCKING "MATCH MY RANK" AND YOU PUT ME UP AGAINST A FOUR STAR GOD DAMN IT FUCK YOU! I'M A FUCKING TWO STAR. FOURSTAR DOES NOT MATCH A FUCKING TWO STAR! WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR PROBLEM? YOU GOD DAMN CHINKS?! YOU MADE THE FUCKING WII, NOW MAKE YOUR ONLINE SYSTEM OPTIONS FUCKING WORK. I'M TIRED OF SETTING IT TO MATCH MY RANK ONLY TO FIND IT NOT MATCH MY RANK THEN GO DOWN A RANK BECAUSE OF YOUR FUCKED UP SYSTEM. GOD DAMN IT. FUCK YOU NINTENDO. I'LL NEVER BUY ANOTHER GAME FROM YOU AGAIN. AND I'M GOING TO BOMB JAPAN TOMORROW. HOW ABOUT THAT, NINTENDO?
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-28 8:57 ID:lpMwjpjn
we need a Jesus that does not sing on American Idol.
a real one.
Again, good science is built upon the feedback loops accomplished before. The feedback loops are composed of theory and observation. After many centuries, we're left with a lot of chickens and eggs and it just doesn't matter which came first. The point is that we can use both chickens and eggs to make more chickens or eggs, per our desires.
Instead of lesser observations I should have used the term "precursor science".
Name:
Anonymous2007-08-28 20:49 ID:KRXTmPKo
>>202
so, like, galileo pulled some shit out of his ass and made some assumptions, and then stuff was checked much later, and you say that's somehow different.
>>203
No, fuckball, if you'd bother to learn to read, and having read, actually understand, then you'd realize that all science is a mix of theory and observation, and after centuries you can hardly determine which came first. This is in extreme contrast to religion, which uses no observation whatsoever. In other words, science works, regardless of how it got started; religion only works to get people killed and to get priests money, drugs and children to molest.
It's a little late to start doubting things like relativity, biology, and the characteristics of materials. THOSE WORK. Religion just doesn't work. Since the former is at least based on observation, and the latter is based upon ZERO OBSERVATIONS, then the rational man (who is also not turned into a mewling weakling by the clearly correct concept of a dark, cold and godless universe) should reject the latter. Religion is just bullshit. The facts of that are clear.
I don't get how people can believe in a god in this day and age, where we know that gods are mythical just like centaurs, satyrs, Medusa, Hydra, etc., and it's safe to say those things don't exist. I suppose the "true-neutral agnostic", as I like to call them, could explain the lack of evidence by saying maybe they all magically dissolved or some shit. But that's silly. At least one of the countless creatures of myth and legend would have left their skeletons behind like the dinosaurs did, yet not one of them did. That has to say something, and not, "Oh, well, we just haven't found them yet. Huh-huh huh-huh huh-huh." Screw that; dinos predate mythical beings by a longshot, so we should have found them by now.
That said, if by some freak chance "God" was proven real, I'd be mighty surprised. That's why I call myself an atheist instead of an agnostic. I'm with Richard Dawkins on this one; God is statistically improbable so as to be not worth considering.
Plus, arguments for theism have all been refuted. Pascal's Wager, Anselm's Ontological argument, the Cosmological argument, etc., etc. All shown to be flawed. And when all the "proofs" of something don't work, that should speak volumes.
For example: Anselm's Ontological Argument goes, "God is the perfect being, and it's better to exist in reality than in the imagination, therefore God is real." Now, it's not necessarily better for something to be real than imaginary; that's a matter of opinion. Just think of a virus, and you'll see what I mean. And perfection doesn't mean squat. Should the perfect lightsaber exist, then? I think not. Besides, I for one do not think God is perfect, I think he's a tyrant. "Acknowledge and worship me, or I will torture you for all eternity." Real nice, Goddie-boy. You'd think a friggin' all-powerful, all-knowing, benevolent father-figure could create a universe where everyone wins, and something like Hell is not necessary, but nooooo. So, religious people had to account for our current crappy circumstances. In comes "Original Sin" and "Hell". Oh, and damn anyone who dares to question. It's the perfect scheme. And look at all the suckers there still are to this day.
for me...
i think God didn't create man...
i think man created God...
God was created ever since man knew how to socialize (within socializing is making fights and when there's fights, there's war) ... they first relied on God to help them win battles and wars..
God back then was like a lucky charm (not much difference to most Gods believed in today)
People today are so lazy that they rely on God on every little thing they need even though they can get it themselves(For example: "God help me pass my exams." and "God kill that fag.")
If they didn't get what they want...they'd blame it on God(for example: "God! Where were you when i needed you?!" and also "God has forsaken me.")
It's just man's natural behavior to pass their responsibilities to others along with the blame if the responsibilities are not accomplished....
so... no science there... just psychology =P
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-02 5:11 ID:BxzeCGkH
>>207
O RLY? What's so stupid about what I said? I've been looking into the theist vs. atheist issue for a long time, and for a while I would hear a new argument for theism on occasion, but now I've come to a point where it's just the same old crap, recycled and reused, that has been refuted over and over again; there's never anything new. So, I'm quite convinced that I've heard it all.
Sure, I cited only a few examples, leaving out Paley's Watchmaker Analogy a.k.a. the Teleological Argument, among other things. But every other argument just seems to be some version of Pascal's Wager or the Teleological, Cosmological or Ontological arguments which have been refuted.
But, hey, maybe I did miss something after all. I'm willing to admit that possibility. So, what did I miss?
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-02 6:14 ID:BxzeCGkH
>>207
Alright, I just took a look around Wikipedia, and noticed that I indeed forgot a few. Argument from morality, argument from "miracles", and the one that goes, "we and the universe exist, therefore God exists." Yeah, see, I've heard those before, too, and refuted them at some point. Everyone has heard that tripe.
But hey, why didn't you help me out there, O wise sage who is wiser than I? You're a fellow non-theist, right?
Name:
4tran2007-09-02 6:52 ID:e8FVBpCX
>>209
Unknown divine entity(ies) create universe.
Man creates God according to what is optimal for maintaining a stable power structure.
Through rational reasoning, man overcomes God.
Religious fundamentalists retake over the world and all humanity dies.
Divine entity(ies) laugh.
Repeat.
>>207, 210
You can't defeat the theists by poking holes in every possible "proof" they can throw at you. They can throw an infinite number of such things, and disproving them all would not be worth the effort. After all, their blind faith gives them the patience to keep making moar. It is sufficient to note that existence can only proved with evidence.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-02 15:36 ID:BxzeCGkH
Oh, I always ask them for evidence when they preach to me. I'm just saying, the fact that their best proofs don't hold water only adds to the strength of my conviction.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-04 12:13 ID:bdJR+NJD
>>212
There are good chances that the universe is self-generated due to an endless chain of event. If the universe itself collapses into a single point one in the distant future, it will be into a pre-bigbang situation.
>>215
I actually find >>214's scenario quite likely, though some of those who buy into the 2nd law of thermo don't think it works. I say bah to entropy.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-05 5:48 ID:u/Cjlapd
>>There is no definitive proof of the existence of god or the nonexistence of god. Therefore, there's no point in debating it. So stfu.
Why isn't the lack of observeable evidence considered evidence for god not exsisting?
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-05 15:12 ID:UNbTmp4s
>>217
because it is possible that evidence exists and we haven't observed it.
i.e. even with the premises:
(there exists the entity god) if and only if (there is evidence of god)
(evidence of God is observed by humans) implies (there exists evidence of God)
not(evidence of God is observed by humans)
there is not sufficient knowledge to deduce:
not(there exists the entity god)
i.e. if you construct the truth table there are cases where it is both true and false, and so it can not be said with certainty that it is true.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-05 15:37 ID:SohTfE5k
because it is possible that evidence exists and we haven't observed it.
i.e. even with the premises:
(there exists the entity QUETZATCOATL) if and only if (there is evidence of QUETZATCOATL)
(evidence of QUETZATCOATL is observed by humans) implies (there exists evidence of QUETZATCOATL)
not(evidence of QUETZATCOATL is observed by humans)
there is not sufficient knowledge to deduce:
not(there exists the entity QUETZATCOATL)
i.e. if you construct the truth table there are cases where it is both true and false, and so it can not be said with certainty that it is true.
This technique of trolling is only meaningful when the post is referring to a specific god, say the christian god.
It's meant to highlight the fact that an argument for or against the existence of god doesn't imply necessarily that your chosen god is the right one.
It's meaningless when debating the existence of a god in general.
tl;dr UR DOIN IT RONG
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-05 17:03 ID:UNbTmp4s
>>219
yeah i actually had x in some spots and then changed it to god afterwards since that's what he was talking about and i didnt want to add extra FOLshit, hence the randomness of capitalization.
its just the name of a variable, so yeah, pretty much what you said, too. if you prefer that variable name.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-05 17:40 ID:SohTfE5k
ask random people about god and they will almost instant respond or think about the judeo-christian god
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-05 17:51 ID:UNbTmp4s
>>222
fantastic, but that's not the point, since here god is just a variable name. you can replace it with whatever you want, like QUEZTAWwtfever, and everything that you copy pasted is still true. the interpretation of what the name means is something you impose on it, and it's independent of the truth of the statement.
>>223
God most commonly refers to the deity worshipped by followers of monotheistic and monolatrist religions, whom they believe to be the creator and ruler of the universe
A deity is a postulated preternatural or supernatural being, who is always of significant power, worshipped, thought holy, divine, or sacred, held in high regard, or respected by human beings.
listen, retard, you can call it "xnjkasnjb445ms" and it would be the same for the purposes of the post. the assortment of letters you use to represent the variable do not have any impact. its cute that you want to differentiate between what these words mean, but it doesnt have a fucking thing to do with this. if you want to name the variable "deity" instead of "god" or "banana" or "the11thdayoftheweek" it doesnt make a difference. this is why when you reposted what i said and all you did was change each "god" to a different word, you didn't change the argument.
>>228
i did. you're retarded. everything you said is completely irrelevant. it doesn't matter what word you replace it with, or the definitions of that word. it doesn't matter what the definition of "deity" is. go read a fucking logic book, or math book, or maybe even a linguistics book.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-06 1:13 ID:rl5BNCmQ
>>229
first things first
god is one deity
a deity its a conglomerade of supernatural being's
Im going to explain you why you post its a stupidity and it not valid
the same point you just writte can be say to every mythological creature, totem or even fantasy and scifi and that would not make them real
if you really cant comprehend that you are retarded and stupid
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-06 1:35 ID:As+PACe7
>>230
yes, the same point i made can be written to say the same thing about every single mythological creature, in fact, anything, any made up piece of shit you can ever imagine. that was exactly the point in the last few posts. because it was a variable that you can stick anything in for. anything.
relatedly, i didn't say anything was real. if you had half a fucking clue what you were talking about, you'd recognize that. because, you know, you can fucking stick anything in there, and it didn't say anything about whether or not it actually exists. it just had assumed conditionals about what would be the case IF it did or didn't.
i explained why a fallacy was a fallacy. you apparently don't know how to read, and don't understand what a variable is. so, in conclusion, no. go home.
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-06 1:52 ID:rl5BNCmQ
>>231
ok im going to start the cult of ishtar again
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-06 2:08 ID:As+PACe7
>>232
go for it, you can use my argument to respond to people who claim that the fact that we have no evidence of ishtar implies that ishtar does not exist. however, watch out, because there could be other things which actually do imply that ishtar does not exist.
>>234
GILGAMESH IS THAT YOU? DONT MAKE QUETZAELCOATL JEALOUS
Name:
Anonymous2007-09-06 15:30 ID:M25krTVu
God is supposed to be all-powerful. This is impossible in and of itself. Suppose a god were to create an unbreakable wall. The god would disprove himself/herself, as either he/she can't break it because is is unbreakable, or he/she cannot create it. Either way it would prove omnipotence impossible, and thus a god as non-existent.
>>236
You're begging the question by assuming an omnipotent god is not powerful enough to allow a contradiction to exist. Your argument relies on a contradiction implying that the situation is impossible, and therefore omnipotent god can't do it, and that would imply he is not omnipotent. But, if he's omnipotent, he can make something both true and false at the same time (otherwise, he wouldn't be omnipotent, it would be a contradiction :D ). So he can both create a rock he can't lift and lift it, simultaneously. In other words, the existence of an omnipotent god implies the possibility of p and not p for all p. Duh.